Mubi Monday: The End (2024)

The first narrative feature directed by Joshua Oppenheimer, who has been praised and celebrated for two confrontational documentaries that he helmed over a decade ago (The Act Of Killing and The Look Of Silence), The End is a strange and unsatisfying experience that has made me sure of only one thing: I will finally watch those aforementioned documentaries before I will rush to watch any other standard feature films from Oppenheimer.

A family live alone in a shelter that has allowed them to stay safe in a post-apocalyptic world. They are simply identified as Mother (Tilda Swinton), Father (Michael Shannon), and Son (George MacKay). A few others are staying with them. They are Friend (Bronagh Gallagher), Doctor (Lennie James), and Butler (Tim McInnerny). Things seem to be going okay, but the situation is complicated by the sudden addition of a stranger from the outside world, Girl (Moses Ingram). Boy takes a liking to Girl, of course, which puts Mother and Father on very shaky ground.

I might have enjoyed this more if it wasn't so pre-occupied with being some kind of artistic (anti-)musical. Having said that, if the music and lyrics had been better then that would have helped immensely. In fact, the biggest problem here, despite the distracting choices made in the production side of things, is a lack of any real insight. Oppenheimer, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Rasmus Heisterberg, doesn't seem to have much of a point, aside from the standard growing pains that we've seen many times before. Although I didn't love it, even Annette (a film I believe has a number of artistic touchstones connecting to this) felt as if everything in it had a point. This does not. Oppenheimer has nothing interesting to say, and he fails to compensate for that by at least leaning in to something that could have made the 148-minute runtime worth investing in. Be bolder in the designs and vision, lean into some comedy or horror, or just make more of the musical element, instead of having every character simply stop occasionally to deliver one of many tuneless dirges.

The cast can't be faulted. MacKay is particularly good in his role, while both Swinton and Shannon feel as if they've decided to be a part of this project because it's just the kind of sandbox they like to play around in every couple of years. Gallagher gets at least one great moment, as does McInnerny, although James is disappointingly sidelined for most of the film. As for Ingram, her character certainly changes the dynamic of the film, but she's not really responsible for much more than just being a reminder of an outside world, a difficult past, and harsh decisions made that allowed these survivors to be in the position that we first found them in.

I have no doubt that quite a few people will have loved this when they saw it. It certainly has enough names on both sides of the camera to give it an in-built cachet for those seeking their next arthouse hit. I had hoped to enjoy it. If that wasn't to be then I had hoped to appreciate it, at the very least. I could do neither. There's some nice shot composition, but that's really not enough to make me feel that this was worth my time. All of my generous rating is down to the consistent quality of a cast unable to break out of the restraints put upon them by the material.

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 

The Bikeriders (2024)

Based on a photo-book by Danny Lyon, The Bikeriders is the latest feature directed by Jeff Nichols, and it was a film that I was tentatively looking forward to seeing for months. I tend to like the films of Nichols, and I have enjoyed the acting work of stars Jodie Comer, Tom Hardy, and Austin Butler, to varying degrees. With the likes of Mike Faist, Michael Shannon, Boyd Holbrook, and Norman Reedus in the supporting cast, I felt quite confident that there would be enough here for me to enjoy.

That confidence was a bit misplaced.

There's a storyline here, but it's a very slim one. Comer plays Kathy, a woman telling her story to Lyon (played in the film by Faist). She explains how she ended up meeting Benny (Butler), and how she often felt that he was torn between herself and the leader of a motorcycle club (Johnny, played by Hardy). The club goes through a number of changes, the world starts to change even faster around them, and the people do their best to pretty much stay the same. And that's it.

A lot of men are stuck in various stages of arrested development. I get that. I AM that. Hey, I like to act mature and wise sometimes, but you have no idea how often I have clicked on the adverts for some awesome LEGO sets and wistfully sighed as I eventually backed away from them. I'm a middle-aged man who can be very childish. I don't want anyone to make a movie about me though, and I would expect that movie, if made, would show me up for the occasional idiot I am. A lot of people also need to be part of something bigger than themselves, which doesn't always align with a position that society thinks you should have. I also get that. I am happy, via the upside of the internet and social media, to be connected to many film fans and collectors worldwide. Again, however, I'm not sure any film showing that would make me look anything other than a bit silly and super-geeky (not that I would be bothered, I have fully embraced my geekiness for a good 10+ years now).

The Bikeriders has cool people being very uncool. The men shown act more like children a lot of the time, and they are all connected by their love of motorbikes, and a subsequent loyalty to one another that stems from the bike-riding outings. There's a way to make that story, but Nichols doesn't find the right approach.

Both Hardy and Butler do fine with what they're given, and neither feel as if they are being stretched, but it's Comer who ends up being the highlight, mainly due to her character being able to see both the allure and the major downsides of the lifestyle being recorded by Lyon. Shannon is as great as ever, and both Holbrook and Reedus do enough with their limited screentime to make a surprising impact, considering the stars overshadowing them. 

Everyone looks the part, the period feels nicely recreated, there are some treats on the soundtrack, and the pacing is just right, thanks to the various main incidents plotted out on the way to a fairly inevitable conclusion. Sadly, none of this can overcome the inherent problems in the material, especially without the best way to take viewers into the onscreen world. Considering how many others seemed to really like this though, maybe the "problem" lies more with me than the film.

5/10

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

The Flash (2023)

If there is a more redundant blockbuster that has been released in cinemas in the past few years then I am struggling to think of it. Even the underwhelming Black Adam at least felt as if it was trying to move pieces into place for the flailing DC cinematic universe. The Flash, on the other hand, changes almost nothing, one groan-inducing punchline aside, and feels like what it is: a placeholder spinning while everyone around it tries to scramble together a plan. The more time that passes with us being presented crap like this while Batgirl remains consigned to movie oblivion, the more resentful I become of WB and DC.

Here’s the plot summary. Please note, I will be mentioning details shown in the trailer, but don’t read further if you want to enjoy any of the best surprises that this contains. Barry Allen (Ezra Miller) is The Flash, often called into action for his superhero abilities when nobody else is available. He doesn’t mind helping Batman (Ben Affleck), but it feels as if he is just used to clean up any big mess. Barry also still spends a fair bit of time missing his dead mother (Maribel Verdú) and is tortured by the fact that his imprisoned father (Ron Livingston) cannot show proof that he wasn’t the murderer, even though they both know he didn’t do it. Realising he can run fast enough to go back in time, however, Barry heads back to try and fix the past. Teaming up with another incarnation of himself (also played by Miller), he aims to make one very small change. Before you know it, Zod (Michael Shannon) is back, there’s a Supergirl (Sasha Calle) where Superman might once have been, and Bruce Wayne/Batman now looks a lot like Michael Keaton.

Written by Christina Hodson (with input from a few other helping hands) and directed by Andy Muschietti, this is a horrible mess from start to finish. Considering how problematic the production was (just look up any news on Ezra Miller), the fact that it was even completed and released may seem miraculous to some, but it’s hard to think of anyone being pleased or satisfied by the end result. Yes, there are a number of fan-service moments here and there, but a film needs to do more than that. And this doesn’t. It REALLY doesn’t. 

The special effects are wildly varying in quality, the depiction of the multiverse is an eye-watering mess, and there’s no consistency in the timing of how things work between our normality and superspeed (e.g. the opening sequence which has Barry waiting for a sandwich order, then being called to a falling hospital in Gotham, speeding there, taking to Batman and Alfred while rescuing people and babies, and getting back in time for his sandwich order being completed).

And don’t get me started on Hodson’s script, which is her weakest work by far (and I have enjoyed most of her other stuff). This is a script based around three things - the central paradox, a load of nostalgia, and one Back To The Future gag that is overused as soon as it is mentioned a second time). Only one of those things works well enough, the nostalgia, and that is more to do with the timeless greatness of Keaton than it is to do with the writing. Whether coincidental or deliberate, it's also worth mentioning that one or two lines are so on the nose that it occasionally feels a bit distasteful. The most egregious moment has Ezra Miller saying: "I understand that these events can be psychologically scarring! You should seek the services of a mental health professional, the Justice League is... not very good at that part yet. Trust me."Sheesh!

Miller is perfectly fine in their dual roles, certainly as enjoyable and fun as they were in their previous main outing as this character. They’re not good enough to be irreplaceable though, and it’s strange that they were kept on, especially when you consider the “escape clause” afforded by this premise. Keaton is the highlight of the film, still showing that twinkle in his eye that has kept him as my favourite Batman since he first started in the Tim Burton blockbuster, but Calle certainly makes a strong impression as Supergirl. I would give Shannon equal praise, but he is sorely underused, and that is a shame. Someone else sorely underused is Kiersey Clemons, involved in a few scenes that effectively frame the main storyline, but made to feel as if she was put in front of the camera after donating enough to a crowdfunding campaign that was offering a “featured role” as a reward. Clemons deserves better, but the same can be said for most of the cast members, as well as the viewers.

This needs to be the final nail in the coffin of the previous, constantly shifting, attempt to create a DC cinematic universe. In fact, it works best if thought of as a headstone, the shadow looming over a grave where creativity, intelligence, and dignity have been buried. We know about multiverses though, which means those things live on elsewhere, and you can see them in other blockbuster movies released this year. It remains to be seen whether or not they will reappear in the upcoming slate of DC movies.

I have added one extra point for some relatively fun cameos elsewhere in the movie, moments I won’t spoil here, but I almost immediately removed it when I remembered a multiverse sequence in the final act that almost made me throw up in my mouth. Some may like this a bit more than I did (even with the horrible score from Benjamin Wallfisch), but I can imagine only the most die-hard comic book fans will manage to love it.

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

Amsterdam (2022)

Writer-director David O. Russell seems to be coasting along lately, to put it nicely. His films have become an excuse for an ensemble cast to put on some glad rags and have some fun together, but without saying anything of substance. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, not every film needs to be substantial, but it’s odd that they are still being presented as praiseworthy and interesting when they, sadly, are not. 

Maybe I am part of the problem, considering I gave American Hustle a pass and genuinely enjoyed Joy, neither of which were on a par with his better films. So this disappointment was probably inevitable, and I suspect many others will have felt the same way when they finally watched Amsterdam, a pretty, but ultimately hollow, distraction.

The plot is more convoluted than it needs to be, which is why I am not going to properly summarize it here. Let’s just say that a suspicious death alerts one or two people to the idea that certain individuals may be plotting to overthrow the US government. This puts the people (played by Christian Bale, John David Washington, and Margot Robbie) in a lot of potential danger.

This material could have been done any number of ways, from tense thriller to farce, from straightforward historical drama to action movie, but Russell, in all his wisdom, decides to do just what he’s done before. You get some humour, you get a lot of drama, and you get a cast allowed to indulge themselves as long as the director is also happy with their work.

As for the cast, it’s more of a mixed bag than you might think. Bale doesn’t feel enjoyable in his main role, his character defined by the false glass eye he wears, but both Washington and Robbie improve every scene they are in, both avoiding that sensation of just repeating tics and tricks from their own back catalogue that Bale conveys. Zoe Saldaña is good in her small role, Robert De Niro is fun without being funny, and Timothy Olyphant brings the added bonus of, well, being Timothy Olyphant. If there is ever a film in which I don’t welcome the appearance of Olyphant then I want to be slapped repeatedly around the face until I see sense again. There are also supporting turns from Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Taylor Swift (just a cameo, really, but she’s decent), Alessandro Nivola, Matthias Schoenaerts, Anya Taylor-Joy, Michael Shannon, and Mike Myers.

The production design is very good, as are the wardrobe choices and the musical score, but this is a film that needed more than just the visual distractions and a couple of key performances to make it worthwhile. It needed a better-written, and better-performed, lead, and it needed a much better approach to the story, which is an interesting and intriguing tale. Instead, we get to once again look on as Russell and his cast appear to be enjoying some in-jokes that nobody else is privy to. To sum up . . . disappointing, but pretty.

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

Bullet Train (2022)

A comedy action movie, emphasis on the comedy, starring Brad Pitt as a professional criminal who wants nothing in his life but good vibes, Bullet Train has a lot going for it. On paper. Directed by David Leitch, starring Pitt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Brian Tyree Henry, Joey King, Michael Shannon, and Hiroyuki Sanada, and mixing action and comedy on the titular bullet train, what’s not to love?

Pitt is on a simple mission. He is given the codename “Ladybug” and tasked with retrieving a briefcase from the bullet train. Ideally, he should get on, grab the case, and then get off at the next stop. Meanwhile, Lemon (Henry) and Tangerine (Taylor-Johnson) are looking after someone they are supposed to keep safe, in exchange for a decent payday. Meanwhile, Prince (King) wants to get revenge on a number of people, as does Wolf (played by Bad Bunny. MEANWHILE, others start to board the train with their own deadly agendas. Ladybug shouldn’t even be there, as he is filling in for an agent named Carver, and it isn’t long until he wishes he hadn’t taken the job.

Based on a book by Kôtarô Isaka, turned into a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz, this is a bizarre throwback to a time when every other film was trying to rip off Tarantino or Guy Ritchie. I am not sure if the problem lies with the source material, having not read the book, but there’s a smugness throughout that isn’t matched by the dialogue or plotting. Everything feels far too much like a Rube Goldberg machine, an excessive amount of moving parts and complications leading to a very underwhelming final result, and the eclectic cast isn’t good enough, overall, to help it all along.

Leitch, who has spent the last five years directing films that mix action and comedy better than this one, fails to find the right way through the dense plotting. There aren’t enough moments of impressive action, the comedy always feels like a separate component, rather than an intertwining strand, and any sense of entertaining spectacle is undermined by the overuse of CGI. This is a busy movie in so many ways, often painfully so, and I only felt that working in its favour during an enjoyable finale that somehow managed to tie up every strand and provide a punchline for every running gag (so fair play to Olkewicz for saving his best work until the end of the movie).

Pitt is fine in the lead role, playing a character we have seen a version of in a number of different movies now. The main thing that allows him to stand out is what he views as a constant string of bad luck, something that allows the script to keep getting bigger and wilder, but there’s a moderately interesting idea tucked away here about perspective, and how bad luck in one way may be good luck in the long run. Taylor-Johnson is bad, I just didn’t like him in this role (and I can only imagine how much this movie could have been improved with someone else there), but Henry does a bit better, helping to make their scenes together more bearable. I don’t want to rate every single main player, especially when I can spend some time highlighting just how good both Shannon and Sanada are. Both get in on the action for the third act, and both take this movie up an entire notch or two. King is okay, Bad Bunny is . . . okay, Zazie Beetz is great, but sadly underused, and there are a few cameos that properly amused me.

It certainly tries to keep the momentum going for most of the 2+ hour runtime, I will give it that, and the soundtrack has some great choices, although I wanted even more. I MIGHT revisit and reappraise this at some point, to see if I enjoy it more while spending less time trying to unpick the various plot threads, but for now I have to tell people that it’s not recommended. It’s tonally very messy, it’s comedically very hit and miss (but one hit, a sequence showing two men tallying up the numbers killed in their most recent job, is superb), and it spends a lot of time going off the rails before sorting itself out just in time for that enjoyable finale.

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

Shudder Saturday: Night's End (2022)

I like to take every film as I find it. Whether working with a small or large budget, whether it's a minute long or a 7-hour+ bum-numbing experience, whether filmed with other main restrictions in place or not. If I learn information about the making of a film that can affect my opinion of it then I'll try to pass that along. If I am missing out on something because I should have previously read a complete comic or book series that everyone else says is essential to getting the most out of the film, well, I'll also try to pass that along (although I greatly dislike that idea). But taking a film as I find it doesn't JUST mean what's there on the screen. It's all about the talent and conviction of those making it, and sometimes it's about recognising the potential in something that doesn't quite achieve what it was setting out to achieve.

Night's End is a film full of great potential, but it's hampered by an inability to get anything spot on. There is some good, spooky, atmosphere in the first half, but it's undercut by the casual attitude of the person finding themselves in the middle of what could be a haunted apartment. There's a wild and fun finale, but it's undercut by the fact that director Jennifer Reeder can't effectively show what she might like us to see developing onscreen.

It also doesn't do enough to distract viewers from the fact that every character is largely shown on computer screens, which feels like it was either a workaround during lockdown times, or just a way to save a bit more money. This format can work, especially in horror movies, but it is a bigger obstacle to overcome when the focus of the movie, for the most part, isn't really the technology itself (even if it does prove crucial to the plot).

Geno Walker plays Ken Barber, a man who is trying to grow his identity on YouTube, or any other generic video-sharing platform standing in for it. Terry (Felonious Munk) is his most loyal viewer, and it's Terry who points out to Ken that something seems to be moving in the background of one of his videos. This leads to Ken changing starting to explore the potential haunting in his home, looking to also get more traffic on his videos by connecting with others, from the host of Dark Corners (Daniel Kyri) to an alleged exorcist, Colin (Lawrence Grimm).

Writer Brett Neveu doesn’t have much work out there so far, which may go some way to explaining why Night’s End has that “mix plenty in for a first, and maybe only, film” feeling. Reeder finds plenty of ways to complement the script, but she is ultimately hampered by the muddled state of the whole thing. It is easy to view this as a much better movie often tripped up by itself.

Walker is a good lead, very good, and his scenes with Munk are excellent, both actors having a good rapport with one another. There are also some good little scenes for Kate Arrington and Michael Shannon, the former playing the ex of Ken, the latter her new partner who is very sweet and supportive in a way that is pleasantly surprising, considering how often that character would be made mean and antagonistic. Sadly, the other cast members aren’t as good. Grimm delivers his performance in a way that feels as if he belongs in a movie, and Kyri is stuck being one of your typically annoying “internet personalities” (the same goes for the character played by Theo Germaine).

Bringing to mind a few other films from recent years (most obviously Host and The Cleansing Hour), Night’s End at least tries to give you familiar scares within slightly different packaging. It is unfortunate that it doesn’t really succeed, but there are certainly a few good moments along the way, in the scare department and in the performances, which is why I feel a bit more goodwill towards it than I would towards any similar film that didn’t even try.

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: Dead Birds (2004)

Set in the time of the American Civil War, this is the tale of a group of people, led by William (Henry Thomas), who rob a bank and then lay low in a house located, effectively, in the middle of nowhere. While they are all on edge, and with some trying to figure out how to increase their own share of the ill-gotten gains, things start to get a bit creepy. The house has a history, and that history is not staying locked in the past.

There are two great American horror movies that I was pleased to discover in the past twenty years, two that still stand out from so many others that I have enjoyed over the years. Session 9 is one of them, Dead Birds is the other. The former may hold up slightly better, but this one still deserves to be found and loved by horror fans.

The first feature written by Simon Barrett (who started his run of movies with this film and the fun of Frankenfish), Dead Birds is an impressively atmospheric piece that also delivers some impressive moments of gore and decent jump scares. Unfortunately, as decent as they are, it is the jump scares that now hold this back from being closer to a modern classic, with the CGI used and the snap of movement now all too familiar to genre fans who have seen it overdone in the years since this was released.

Director Alex Turner doesn't have too many other movies to his credit (his only other feature so far is Red Sands from 2009 - it's been a decade, Alex, get your finger out) and that's a great shame. Although helped massively by the casting, Turner does a fantastic job behind the camera here. Guided by Barrett's script, Turner takes plenty of time during the first half of the movie to set up the characters and their motivations, allowing the standard mistrust and unease of co-operating criminals to weave through various interactions until more supernatural happenings start to affect everyone. There's also an injured party to be looked after and the memory of an innocent bystander who was killed during the robbery, both of these things, and more, feeding in to the atmosphere and the heady brew of bloodshed and betrayal that has brought these people to where they are, and perhaps where they deserve to be.

Thomas is good in the nominal lead role, although he is matched by excellent performances from Isaiah Washington and Nicki Aycox, both playing characters who seem to cause friction amongst the group just by being accepted as important members. Patrick Fugit is slightly weak, although he works okay while his character physically weakens from injury, but that is compensated for by typically fine performances from Michael Shannon, Mark Boone Junior, and Muse Watson.

Although it stumbles in a few places, Dead Birds generally remains a satisfying, rich, experience. If you somehow haven't heard of it before now, be sure to check it out now. You won't be disappointed.*

*does not apply to anyone who is disappointed

8/10

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

Mubi Monday: Mud (2012)

Written and directed by Jeff Nichols, Mud is a film that takes some obvious influences and then fails to shake them up and turn them into something fresh and exciting. Not to say that it's a bad film. There's enough here to enjoy, mainly the central performances, and Nichols proves a dab hand at taking plenty of small moments and putting them together to create something that feels appropriately bigger than the sum of its parts.

Tye Sheridan is Ellis and Jacob Lofland plays Neckbone, two young boys who encounter a hiding fugitive named Mud (Matthew McConaughey). He wants to get back together with his alleged true love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), but are his motivations pure, and does Juniper want to be with him?

Mud looks good throughout, with Nichols finding a perfect balance between the daily grime and the sun-baked freedom that the two child stars seem to have through most of their days. These kids are able to have their adventure, but it's an adventure that isn't necessarily as safe and innocent as other tales that might spring to mind. Fortunately (or maybe not), they already have enough experience to be on the look out for other dangers, even as they take a risk by befriending Mud and trying to help him out of his current predicament.

The cast are the main strength here. Sheridan and Lofland give the kind of performances that surely signal bright futures ahead for both (although it's Sheridan that seems to have more easily moved onwards and upwards). McConaughey is great, once again using his charm to soften the edges of a character who might not be as friendly and trustworthy as he tries to appear. Witherspoon does well in a smaller role, although it's hard to say that she stands out in a supporting cast that also includes talent like Bonnie Sturdivant, Joe Don Baker, Ray McKinnon, Sarah Paulson, Sam Shepard, and Michael Shannon.

The fact that this film feels more lightweight than expected isn't an unforgivable crime against cinema. It is just enough to drag the film down from great to very good. The script has a few real gems in the dialogue and exchanges but they're too few and far between, which is a real shame. Instead of having this cast deliver gold from one scene to the next we instead watch them carry a lot of the film in between the fleeting moments of greatness. But we can at least be thankful that Nichols can always spot the best talent when it comes to casting his movies.

7/10

You can buy it here.
Americans can get it here.

The Shape Of Water (2017)

Guillermo del Toro has made a career out of trying to convince everyone to view monsters and ghosts the same way that he does. They're just the same as us, but different. In fact, sometimes the very things that make them monstrous or scary are the things that make them a little bit better than your average Joe. The Shape Of Water may very well be his most overt guide to loving monsters yet, taking it quite literally.

Sally Hawkins plays Elisa, a mute woman who works as a janitor at a secret research facility. She spends her workdays alongside her friend Zelda (Octavia Spencer) and when at home she sometimes enjoys the company of Giles (Richard Jenkins), an elderly, lonely gay man. There's excitement in the workplace when a bipedal amphibious humanoid specimen (Doug Jones) is brought in, under the watchful eyes of Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon), and Elisa finds herself forming a strong connection with the creature. Some people might be happy to see that development, Strickland isn't one of them.

While it's certainly a very derivative film in many ways (from the obvious "gillman" movies to the tone and visual palate of Jean-Pierre Jeunet), The Shape Of Water takes the familiar and mixes it into something that feels quite unique. I would say that those looking to hammer the film for the range of influences on display aren't considering how well Del Toro has placed everything. Never one to skimp on the detailing of the worlds he wants to let viewers into, the director, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Vanessa Taylor from his own story, somehow manages to fill every scene with little touches and thematic strands without having it all feel too busy and overdone.

Dan Laustsen, the Director of Photography, deserves a special mention, because there are a number of scenes here that stand out as some of the most beautiful from last year (and I know I am terrible for not often singling out the DPs in my reviews), and Alexandre Desplat has come up with an appropriately beautiful score to accompany those visuals, with everything coming together to make a film that feels very much like a Del Toro film in content and theme, while moving away from his standard visual palette.

Hawkins gives a wonderful central performance, as does the prosthetically-covered Doug Jones. The two manage to say so much without actually speaking. Spencer and Jenkins both give great supporting turns, and chatter away to Hawkins throughout the film, and Shannon is the villain of the piece that the film requires (allowing him to have a lot of fun with some over the top moments). Michael Stuhlbarg is another good presence, but it's easy to forget the other people involved during the moments that show Hawkins and Jones wordlessly connecting with one another.

The biggest problem with The Shape Of Water stems from the biggest plus point. This feels very much like a film Del Toro has had in his mind for years, something he was just waiting to finally be allowed to do. Now, having been given permission, he loads it up with no small amount of self-indulgence. That is fine when it comes to the detailing and style of the film, but it also means that the runtime feels just a bit too long, there are one or two extra plot points that didn't really need to be in there, and some of the quirkier moments don't work.

Those minor mis-steps, however, are nowhere near irritating enough to detract from the gorgeous and uplifting experience that the film provides. It's not up there with the very best films we've already had from Guillermo del Toro, but it's leagues ahead of many other films that you'll see this year.

8/10

There's a lovely book available here.
Americans can order the film here.

Groundhog Day (1993)

I remember when Groundhog Day first came out and at least one of the many reviews said the following: "how you feel about this film will really depend on how you feel about Bill Murray." That remains as true today as it was then. Of course, back then I didn't realise that there were people who DISLIKED Bill Murray.

The story is known by most people nowadays, but I'll cover the basics nonetheless. Murray plays Phil Connors, a weatherman sent out to cover Groundhog Day, with a producer (Rita, played by Andie MacDowell) and cameraman (Chris Elliott), in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Groundhog Day is when the residents wake up a groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, and claim to receive an answer from him regarding whether or not he sees his shadow. If he sees his shadow then they're due for six more weeks of winter. Once he has filmed his bit, Phil just wants to get out of Punxsutawney. But it turns out that heavy snowfall stops him from leaving. Even worse, when he wakes up the next day . . . . . . . . . . . . it's Groundhog Day all over again. Stuck in a time loop, Phil tries to figure out how to escape his fate.

The only problem I have with Groundhog Day is Andie MacDowell. I'm sorry to any of her fans that might read this, but whenever she appears in a movie I always end up wishing that the director had instead held out for someone who could actually act. To call MacDowell wooden is an insult to a versatile building material. But that's it, that's my only negative comment out of the way.

Murray is fantastic in the central role, giving a performance that people are sick of me going on about as one of the most overlooked of all time. It is. Just because it takes place in a comedy film, that doesn't mean that people should forget what a brilliant, nuanced turn it is. Often broad, admittedly, there are great laughs in almost every scene derived from how Murray reacts to his situation, depending on how he's trying to make his day turn out. Elliott is fun as the cameraman who seems to deserve his assignment alongside Phil, as the two of them are as bad as one another, albeit in different ways. Stephen Tobolowsky steals his scenes, playing an old school associate named Ned Ryerson (bing!), and Brian Doyle-Murray once again gets a decent role alongside his brother, playing the mayor of Punxsutawney.

Harold Ramis does a near-perfect job in the director's chair (this remains his best film, for me) and he's helped by a sharp script, co-written by himself and the man who came up with the whole premise, Danny Rudin. There's also a great score by George Fenton, sharp editing by Pembroke J. Herring, perfect performances from every supporting player (including Michael Shannon in his cinematic debut), and memorable use of I Got You Babe, sung by Sonny & Cher.

Everything works so well that I am even able to overlook the mis-casting of MacDowell in the female lead role. This is, to me, a perfect film. Even if I have just mentioned one main imperfection. I'm not sure if that will make any sense to anyone except me. I hope so. Let me just end with something obvious, although no less true - this is a modern comedy classic that I can watch again and again and again.

10/10

http://www.amazon.com/Groundhog-15th-Anniversary-Special-Blu-ray/dp/B001KEHAI0/ref=sr_1_2_twi_2_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421090645&sr=8-2&keywords=groundhog+day

April Fools: Cecil B. DeMented (2000)

John Waters is a fun guy. His career spans decades and he remains defiantly subversive and independent. In fact, Waters himself might agree that the fact that he HAS such a lengthy career defies the odds. He doesn't make movies for the mainstream, but instead aims squarely for the awkward, the odd, the unbalanced, the outsiders, and the fiercely individual. AKA the cool people. Bizarrely, the mainstream sometimes picks up what he lays down. I'm thinking mainly of the stage show and movie remake that stemmed from Hairspray. There was also no small amount of love shown for Serial Mom when it came out, but maybe I was just finding more friends who appreciated Waters at that point.

Anyway, I should really start talking about Cecil B. DeMented. It's a film that, in some ways, seems perfectly designed to appeal to the mainstream, hence my opening ramble, but in every other way it's quintessentially Waters (who has Hollywood squarely in his sights).

Stephen Dorff is Cecil, a young artist frustrated with the entertainment world around him. Blockbusters rub shoulders with lame remakes and lame sequels, and that needs to change. Which is why he kidnaps the famous Honey Whitlock (Melanie Griffith). Forcing her to act in his movie, Cecil explains his aim and Honey eventually starts to come around to his way of thinking. But will anyone else, aside from his small group of loyal followers?

With a lot of great, albeit easy, gags and a cast that mixes a couple of well-known names with some relative "unknowns" such as Jack Noseworthy, Adrian Grenier, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Michael Shannon, Cecil B. DeMented is unlikely to be anyone's favourite John Waters movie, but it's one that I can happily revisit and never tire of. The slim runtime helps - it barely edges over the 80 minute mark - and the rest of the cast, including Alicia Witt and Lawrence Gilliard Jr, also do their bit, with plenty of enthusiasm making up for any failings in actual acting expertise. Dorff is great in the lead role, but Griffith also deserves some credit for putting herself in the midst of such madness.

Despite the thin layer of polish on everything, this is still a biting, anarchic, and interesting work from a writer-director who rarely, if ever, lets me down. The fact that he's only given us one more movie since this one in the last fifteen years is a great shame, and I hope that he's not finished warping our minds just yet.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cecil-Demented-DVD-Melanie-Griffith/dp/B006C0TX8M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397077920&sr=8-1&keywords=cecil+b+demented

Vanilla Sky (2001)

A remake of a Spanish film that I have still, sadly, not yet seen (Abre Los Ojos by Alejandro Amenabar), Vanilla Sky couldn't really be any further removed from the last movie that paired director Cameron Crowe up with star Tom Cruise - Jerry Maguire. Then again, there are more similarities between the two when looked at in a bit more detail. For now, to keep things simple, I'll be keeping everything quite shallow. That's my level, and I'm comfortable there.

Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a very rich and successful young man who gets himself in a fair bit of trouble when he fools around with the gorgeous and successful Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz) before falling instantly and absolutely in love with the spirited Sophia (Penelope Cruz, reprising her role from original version). David goes from a dizzying high to an unbelievable low as his face is disfigured and his spirit crushed. He starts to push people away with his behaviour, including his best friend, Brian Shelby (Jason Lee), and ends up forced to speak to a psychiatrist (Kurt Russell) in an attempt to make sense of events that he doesn't understand. Reality and fiction intertwine, making David fear for his sanity.

Crowe is credited with writing the screenplay as well as directing this movie. As already mentioned, I've not seen the original, but I'd imagine that his screenplay work is more in line with an adaptation than any wholly original work. Regardless, he does a good job. As well as the dialogue, there are so many fantastic little touches in every scene, both front and centre and just noticeable in the background. The detritus of these characters' lives is something that rewards repeat viewings, and the film may veer too unevenly between the highs and lows - especially after such a good opening 20 minutes - but it ultimately makes it all worthwhile for the audience by the time the credits roll.

The cast are a bit of a mixed bag. Cruise does okay in his role, and perhaps enjoyed performing half the movie with his face either covered up or disfigured, while Jason Lee and Penelope Cruz are both very good at portraying . . . . . . . very good people. Cameron Diaz doesn't do quite so well, but then she never really does (bless her). Kurt Russell is enjoyable in his role, and other roles are filled by people such as Timothy Spall, Tilda Swinton, Noah Taylor, Michael Shannon and Johnny Galecki.

It may be a bit self-indulgent in places (the excess of pop culture references, the Spielberg blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo, the sense of smugness during the final third), but it also has so many great moments and dark, albeit glossed over, ideas in the mix that I still like it a lot. And, typically from Cameron Crowe, there's a cracking soundtrack accompanying the visuals.

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

Dead Birds (2004)

Modern horrors come in all shapes and sizes, but many people keep trying to insist that they're all unscary and not worth your time. There are many, many fine horror movies still being made and released each year, it's just that the better movies aren't always as easy to hear about and get hold of. Most people will know this already, I'm not saying anything new, but it's always worth remembering every now and again. Especially when you come across a movie like Dead Birds (recommended to me many years ago by the fine folks who used to populate the IMDb Horror board).

Henry Thomas, Patrick Fugit, Michael Shannon, Isaiah Washington, Nicki Aycox and Mark Boone Junior star as a bunch of outlaws who rob a bank in 1860s America. They then hide out at an abandoned plantation before their next stage of the plan - getting to Mexico and splitting the gold. But it's not long until mistrust starts to take hold, as well as a sense of unease about just where they're holed up for the night.

With great acting from all involved, Dead Birds is a horror movie that feels a bit different while hitting a number of familiar genre beats. Henry Thomas is a decent lead, but the real treats come from the supporting cast (especially Michael Shannon before his name was so well known and Isaiah Washington). Nicki Aycox could easily, in a lesser film, be sidelined as nothing more than a token female character in the group, but she's given some decent moments and she does well with them.

The script by Simon Barrett does a great job of making each bit of character motivation clear and also allowing for some flashbacks that provide imagery to feed into the fear-filled present. The main characters may not realise how the fear is building until the second half of the movie, but it is. All around them.

Director Alex Turner also deserves praise for his handling of the material. There are a few jump scares here and there, with some decent CGI helping one or two of them, but he also keeps ladling on the atmosphere like golden honey. The film may blend Western elements with the horror, but it's not trying to be a horror Western, specifically. Oh no, it's just a horror movie that happens to take place in years gone by when there was a shorter life expectancy and bigger divisions amongst men (namely race and allegiance to certain flags). It's a real shame that Turner doesn't have much more to his credit yet.

Do check it out when you get the chance and I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Dead Birds is showing today at The Filmhouse - buy your ticket here - as part of the 20th anniversary celebrations on the run up to Dead By Dawn.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Birds-Nicki-Lynn-Aycox/dp/B0007RUSUS/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1359152412&sr=1-1