Netflix And Chill: The Passion Of The Christ (2004)

It's all well and good to dismiss Mel Gibson nowadays, and I certainly wouldn't force anyone to check out any of his movies if they have been disgusted by some of his rants and behaviour over the past couple of decades, but it's also interesting to revisit some of his major features, now that we know even more about what wildfires have occasionally raged across the surface of his brain.

I watched The Passion Of The Christ many years ago, back when it was first available for home viewing, and my one takeaway from that experience was how bored it made me. It shows us the last few hours in the life of Jesus Christ (played by Jim Caviezel), which makes it an experience filled with pain and bloodshed. I think I remember people complaining about it being a Jesus-centric slice of torture porn, but I was unimpressed by the choices made when it came to what we saw onscreen.

This revisit left me similarly cold on the thing, especially when you consider how many people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus would be the ones denying his power and turning to some flashy false idol instead. Personal faith is a wonderful thing, as I have said many times before, but organised religion seems to be used more as a baton to hurt and keep down others. Just look at . . . well, almost everyone in America today who claims to be Christian. Having also worked with Benedict Fitzgerald on the screenplay, director Gibson clearly equates this religious tale/lesson with the idea of pain and penance being as important to the heart of things as love and kindness. The entire film is a shock tactic, a reminder of what was sacrificed, and it's admirable that he made something that somehow managed to appeal to a great number of people who would be disgusted by this kind of content in any non-religious film. Despite being both R-rated and subtitled, this was massively successful at the box office, proving how well Gibson knew how to sell his vision to like-minded fans.

The cast don't get much wiggle room though, of course, and Caviezel is an actor I have come to like less and less throughout the years. He has always seemed far too self-serious and limited in his abilities, an image that this role does nothing to dispel. Most of the performance is felt through the special effects, and the many moments that Caviezel cries out in pain. Maia Morgenstern is okay in the role of Mary, and Monica Bellucci doesn't get enough to do as Magdalen, but there are good moments for both Mattia Sbragia and Hristo Naumov Shopov, as, respectively, Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. Rosalinda Celentano also makes a strong impression as Satan. Maybe it's a point of interest that Satan still gets some of the best moments in a film about Jesus.

It's hard to fault the film, technically, with Gibson making great use of a relatively low budget to tell the story (one or two flashbacks allow us to see a pre-persecuted Jesus doing some good deeds) and a lush score from John Debney accompanying the visuals, but it's hard to think of this as something that people will choose to revisit. Other religious films may not be as faithful, and they may not be as graphic in their depiction of what Jesus went through, but not every church-goer wants to spend a couple of hours being presented with so much torture and pain (not outwith a passionate sermon anyway). Sometimes they just want to enjoy a stellar cast holding your attention for over 4 hours in The Greatest Story Ever Told. I think I might also prefer that. So I already know what I am lining up to watch next Easter.

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 

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)

Although I wasn't sure of what to really expect with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, I was comforted by the fact that a number of key players were returning. Tim Burton was in the director's chair, and the central cast was anchored by the essential trio of Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Catherine O'Hara. It's a shame that they weren't given something a bit better to work with after such a long wait.

The story may seem complicated, but it's all ultimately just an excuse for various scenes that feel disconnected from one another. Lydia Deetz (Ryder) is now a TV/internet personality, hosting a show in which she investigates hauntings. She is also in a relationship with her manager, Rory (Justin Theroux). Things have to be put on hold, however, when her mother (Delia, played by O'Hara) gives her news about the death of her father. The ladies then travel to pass the message along to Lydia's daughter, Astrid (Jenna Ortega), before heading back to the family home. Things get even messier as a funeral provides the setting for a marriage proposal, Astrid grows close to a young man named Jeremy (Arthur Conti), and Beetlejuice (Keaton) becomes the target of a vengeful ex (Delores, played by Monica Bellucci). 

It's hard to put a finger on what feels so wrong in this sequel. It just feels a bit overstuffed and disjointed, and there's an unfocused randomness to the different plot strands. The original also had some of that going on, but that somehow felt fun and anarchic, whereas this feels more slapdash and tiresome.

There are definite highlights though. Keaton is fantastic in his role, reprising an iconic character with an ease that belies his age, and the many decades since he last played him. Ryder and O'Hara are also both wonderful together, although there's an attempt to slightly rewrite their past that the film only gets away with because of how easy it is to believe that O'Hara's character would reframe their lives together. Ortega is a good addition to the core group, there are a number of scenes outright stolen by a character named Bob, and the finale has some choreographed insanity set to a brilliantly bonkers song that I've always had a soft spot for. 

There is, as expected, some lovely production design, it's impressive for the continuity of the visual style between the two films, and it's nice to hear Danny Elfman's score running through everything. The practical effects are also very enjoyable.

That's about it though. The script, written by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (who have worked together for decades, and most notably, for this part of their career journey, played pivotal roles in the new Wednesday series) is a mess. Some of the dialogue works, but it's often more to do with the delivery than the words, while the messy plot keeps being tangled around too many characters and too many moments that many viewers probably won't care about, including Charles Deetz, who is initially used in a fun way that allows him to be there without re-using disgraced actor Jeffrey Jones, but then keeps popping up throughout the film in a way that feels egregiously unnecessary.

Aside from those already praised above, Theroux is a lot of fun as the poseur of the film this time around, Bellucci does well with her limited screentime, and Willem Dafoe is enjoyable as a deceased actor who played a cop so often that he basically believes that he is one nowadays. Conti is okay, and Burn Gorman is the local priest presiding over things, but they end up, much like Dafoe, being completely superfluous. The same can be said of Santiago Cabrera, who plays someone supposedly important to our leading ladies, until his scenes are finished with and he seems to be easily forgotten about. 

Did I hate this? No. It was very close though. The good aspects of it often come close to being great, but the negatives just keep dragging it down. Considering how great they are when onscreen together, Keaton, Ryder, and O'Hara deserved something a bit better. On the plus side, there has been a load of new Beetlejuice merchandise released lately that has allowed me to add some more movie-related items to my wardrobe. And I would still give everyone a chance to entertain me again if they make a third one.

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

Prime Time: Mafia Mamma (2023)

Most days, if given a choice, I enjoy sitting down with a good horror movie. Well, let’s be completely honest, I just as often sit down with a bad horror movie, but you have to keep digging through the stinky stuff to find the nuggets of gold. Some days, however, I go out of my way to check out a movie that seems far removed from anything I would normally choose to watch. I will watch anything and everything, but some movies seem destined to stay lingering at the bottom of the “to watch” pile. That was the case with Mafia Mamma, a film that looked, quite frankly, absolutely dire. It seemed to come and go without anyone noticing, or caring about it, and the main premise (an American woman visits family after the death of her grandfather, then gets herself in the midst of a mafia turf war) is ridiculous.

Toni Collette is the lead here, Kristin, and we soon get to know how selfless and soft her character is. Which makes her even less likely to become a (temporary?) mafia don, although she is encouraged to take on her inherited role by Bianca (Monica Bellucci). It isn’t a world for the weak, and it isn’t often a world for women to lead the way. But after the difficult period of adjustment, realising how many people around her can die at any given moment, Kristin starts to do some good work, and might just be right for her new role. Some remain very unhappy about that, and those people are armed and dangerous.

I am not going to tell anyone that this is essential viewing. I am not going to say that it should be watched ahead of a good 50-100 better movies from the last couple of years. I had some fun with it though. Sometimes you are just in the mood for something light and silly, and this certainly fits the bill, aside from a few inconvenient deaths sprinkled throughout.

Written by J. Michael Feldman (who tends to be billed nowadays as Michael J. Feldman) and Debbie Jhoon, based on a story by Amanda Sthers, this is a pleasing comedy that presents itself honestly from the earliest scenes and allows you to decide whether or not you want to go along for the ride. I recommend people wanting to smile and enjoy a few chuckles just go with it. The repeated refrain of “eat, pray, f**k” alone was enough to amuse me.

Director Catherine Hardwicke is no stranger to silliness, having helmed a certain vampire werewolf love triangle blockbuster some time ago, but this is a very different type of silliness, and she does a perfectly good job of keeping everything as light and optimistic as the main character, even as the situation around her starts to become darker and more dangerous.

It helps a lot that Collette is such a delight in the lead role, playing the kind of character she seems to get so rarely nowadays (aka someone without a horrendous amount of pain and angst to deal with). She is allowed to be shown finding her light again as she moves away from just thinking about the needs of others and finally thinking about her own needs, and it is a joy to watch. Bellucci is also good fun, although she is a bit more one-note in her dedication to maintaining order and running the family business as directed. Sophia Nomvete is an enjoyable addition, as a supportive friend, Tim Daish is also good in his few scenes, as an unsupportive husband, and there are key roles played well by Eduardo Scarpetta, Giulio Corso, Francesco Mastroianni, and Alfonso Perugini.

While I am unlikely to revisit this, and I am just as unlikely to think of it first whenever someone asks me for a movie recommendation, I cannot deny that I enjoyed it while it was on. It was pleasant, a number of little moments surprised me into an extra big laugh (usually down to the fantastic work of Collette), and I would watch a similarly ridiculous sequel. Not sure how many will agree with me though.

6/10

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

Prime Time: Memory (2022)

Another week, another Liam Neeson action thriller. I like Neeson. He's an enjoyable actor, he has a good screen presence, and he often looks like he can actually do some of the stuff that his characters are supposed to be able to do. His filmography is really starting to become a chore though, with the duds easily outweighing the good stuff by now. Memory may well be his worst film in some time, although I say that as someone who has got into the habit of ignoring many of his recent releases.

Neeson plays Alex Lewis, a skilled assassin who wants to retire. We all know that usually doesn't work out well for skilled assassins, but Alex knows that he won't be able to do his job for much longer anyway. He is suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's disease, his condition sometimes kept in check by some medicine, but the clock is definitely running out on his time as a feared killer. When Alex refuses to kill one of the targets assigned to him, he finds himself in the frame for the killing anyway. It's all tied to some horrible crimes that have been committed by people who are protected by someone VERY rich and powerful. That wealth and power has stopped the police from being able to conduct any decent investigation, but Alex might be able to do things more effectively than the police.

All you really need to know about Memory is that Neeson plays a character who sometimes has to write pieces of information on his body in order to remember them. And there's a character played by Guy Pearce, who is given the thankless task of starring in this to seemingly remind viewers that Memento exists, and is a much better film than this piece of garbage. It's not just Neeson and Pearce who should be indignant about their casting in this. There's also a small role for Monica Bellucci, as well as Ray Stevenson. None of these familiar faces are doing anything close to their best work. Taj Atwal, Harold Torres, Ray Fearon, and Lee Boardman are also ill-served by the film, but they don't have quite so far to fall from grace.

The screenplay, by Dario Scardapane, is based on a previous screenplay, by Carl Joos, that was based on a book, by Jef Geeraerts (titled De zaak Alzheimer/The Memory Of A Killer). There may have been a time when the material worked, when it may have even felt fresh (the book was published almost 20 years ago), but now it's beyond saving. It's a horrible, limp, lazy, waste of the time and talents of everyone involved.

It's especially saddening that this is directed by Martin Campbell. Campbell has, one or two dips aside, often provided me with the kind of films that I can easily enjoy. Some are better than others, of course, but he can deliver some great action thrillers that use many familiar tropes and moments without feeling stale and worthless. You wouldn't know it from this film though. I really thought this was a film from some first-time director who had been lucky enough to be given a chance on a pet project for some studio producer, there's so little here to signify that it is in an experienced pair of hands.

I have racked my brain to think of one good thing to mention here, from the score to any of the action sequences. There's nothing. The acting from everyone is pretty bad, the plotting is painful, and it's genuinely disheartening to see the likes of Neeson, Pearce, and Bellucci slumming it in something so obviously unworthy of their talents. I am already wishing that I could completely forget it.

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

Prime Time: Nekrotronic (2018)

Having made a great impression on horror fans with the hugely enjoyable Wyrmwood, the Roache-Turner brothers then went a bit quiet, although they have delivered some enjoyable shorts over the past few years. Thankfully, they returned to feature projects with this horror comedy, a film that feels like a demon-infested mix of Ghostbusters and The Frighteners, with a hint of Big Trouble In Little China also in there. The end result is one of my favourite first watches in a long time.

Ben O'Toole plays Howard North, an average guy who one day finds out that he's really not that average. He's actually a powerful demon slayer. He just needs to be shown how to use his power. And the people hoping to show him are Luther (David Wenham), and his daughters, Molly (Caroline Ford) and Torquel (Tess Haubrich). He'll also get some assistance from his friend, Rangi (Epine Bob Savea), although Rangi kickstarts the whole chain of events by accidentally unleashing some demons through a mobile phone app. There are plans afoot to make the world a very bad place indeed, and those plans are being overseen by Finnegan (Monical Bellucci). This makes things a bit more complicated when Howard finds out that Finnegan is also his mother.

It's hard to write this review because, on the one hand, I want to convey to everyone just how much I enjoyed this movie, but, on the other hand, I don't want this to give everyone high expectations that the film then doesn't live up to. Director Kiah Roache-Turner, who co-wrote the screenplay with brother Tristan, has gone all out to give horror fans something bloody and fun. There's a bit of exposition at the very beginning to set everything up, and then it's non-stop fun with demons, apparitions, and the kind of splattery kills that deliver some bloodshed while still somehow keeping a sense of fun (hey, multiple deaths don't always have to be a downer, don't you know).

Everything is helped along by the cast, all giving performances that shrug off the silliness of it all, even as the third act careers from one wild idea to the next. O'Toole is the kind of hero who is largely useless until that moment of self-belief that has to happen, while Ford and Haubrich are entertainingly badass, and Savea is the most overtly comedic of the performers, his character helping to keep things light as he also asks questions that can lead to some more helpful exposition. Bellucci makes a great impression in her first scenes, thanks to the imagery of her beauty and grace juxtaposed with some crazy "sorcery", but she's not served as well by the script when the time comes for her to deliver typical dialogue expected from a main villain. Wenham is very good, but fans of the actor will want to be warned that he has less screentime than the others mentioned here.

I finished watching Nekrotronic and immediately shared my love for it, convinced that everyone I know would feel the same way. That wasn't the case, and it would seem to be more divisive than I would have thought. But that won't stop me from heartily recommending it, and I can only hope that those with the same good taste* as myself will enjoy it as much as I did.

*not guaranteed to actually BE good.


9/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Is Spectre a Bond film that completely misunderstands Bond?

Unfortunately, what has set me back to the keyboard is a movie that has disappointed me. Well, not just disappointed me. Perhaps saying that it angered me would be closer to the truth. You see, many have decided to come out again in favour of James Bond, and many are heaping some great praise upon Spectre. And I, for the life of me, can't see how this is possible. From the perspective of a Bond fan, Spectre is a bad movie. It is, in my eyes, the worst instalment in the entire official series. And I've endured The Man With The Golden Gun.

For anyone interested, I have previously written about Bond movies here (Connery, with a hint of Lazenby), here (Moore), here (Dalton), here (Brosnan), here (Craig), and here (a couple of interesting movies that are never really considered "canon"). And I reviewed Skyfall here. I'm not linking to those reviews and articles to claim to be any kind of expert. I simply think that if you browse through those and share any of my taste then the following may be a bit easier to stomach. Otherwise, feel free to think of me as someone talking out of his posterior.

Now, although this won't be a full, standard movie review, I'd like to try to pinpoint a few aspects of Spectre that make it such a bad Bond movie. Let me try to highlight everything in, hmmmmmmm, 7 main points.

1) That opening. The opening sequence of Spectre has some great moments. In fact, up until a building collapses and Bond (Daniel Craig, once again totally at ease in the role) has to get to ground level, I was very happy. But then it simply reprises the opening minutes of Casino Royale. We've seen Bond do this before, keeping pace with a target through a busy, exotic locale. We've seen him do many things before, of course, but the familiarity of his drinking, his seduction of women and his one-liners are part of the appeal. Watching repetitive scenes, as opposed to repeated character traits, isn't the same thing. Then we have some great helicopter stunt work. Seriously . . . kudos to all involved. But was I the only person noticing one or two moments of green screen that were all-too-obvious? The 21st century equivalent of Roger Moore's stunt double taking up most of the screentime in his latter outings? The visuals were decidedly so-so, and a bit irritating in their incessant reminder of the events from the previous movies that have SHAPED our hero (don't you know), but I could have accepted them if they'd been accompanied by a decent song. Oh no. The worst Bond movie in the Bond-verse also has the worst Bond song. I don't think Sam Smith should ever be allowed to write jingles for breakfast cereals after his godawful slice of drabness put forward here.

2) The ladies. Bond has always been about the Bond girls as well as the man himself. And there was much talk about Monica Bellucci being a leading Bond girl. She is *gasp* 50. I love Monica Bellucci, and was looking forward to seeing her role in the movie. If anyone had told me that she was in it for about all of five minutes then the poor treatment she receives at the hands of the scriptwriters might have been easier to stomach. The other main Bond girl here is played by Lea Seydoux, who easily fares better than Bellucci. Sadly, the makers of the movie use her as a way to show a Bond developing a heart and feelings. You know, like he did in Casino Royale . . . . . . . . before events changed him into the figure we knew he had to become.

3) This is not a Mission: Impossible movie, but nobody told the writers that. Okay, Q (Ben Whishaw) is a younger man here than he ever was in the older movies, but we don't need an unnecessary scene putting him in some danger out in the field. We can watch Simon Pegg try to keep up with Tom Cruise for that kind of fish-out-of-water fun in an action spy franchise. And I know that the new M (Ralph Fiennes, who looks more and more like Leonard Rossiter with every performance he gives) has seen action in the field, but that doesn't make me want to watch him join in the battle either.

4) Stunt set-pieces are for the stunts and the gadgets. This is pretty much why every Bond movie exists. So it's weird to see a car chase occur in which Bond spends a large amount of the time speaking on the phone to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Or a fight sequence in which Bond faces off against a physically superior opponent (Dave Bautista) for no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you're supposed to think that there's always a reason for Bond and co. to be in physical danger, but the last 30-40 minutes contradict that, as it contradicts so many things.

5) Bond, as he is displayed onscreen, isn't the introspective type (bar occasional moments of brilliance, such as THAT final scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Whether by choice or necessity, he acts and he moves on. Sometimes the consequences aren't as good as expected, but the alternatives are often a hell of a lot worse. Not here, however. Oh no. This is a thoughtful Bond. A Bond who looks as if he wants a bit of a holiday. Which isn't what you really want from your number one international secret agent.

6) The villain(s). A good Bond movie can be made or broken by the villain. Christoph Waltz is on hand here, another reason to rejoice. Until you realise that he's given a character who is completely mishandled. The big speeches never feel powerful enough, the threat only gets specific in a strange, and ill-fitting, torture sequence, and his development from the start of the movie to the end is as laughable as it is predictable.

7) Can I fit my problems into only seven main points? Oh, oh, I think I can. The biggest problem with Spectre is one that almost occured in Skyfall. Director Sam Mendes and co. seem unable to decide on just what to do with their lead character. One minute they're tearing down his established world, allowing him to rise again from the ashes like some kind of 00-phoenix. The next they're trying to shoehorn in familiar elements that they either want to reinvent for the modern era or they're adding unwanted touches from other movies that were themselves influenced by Bond (the shadow of Christopher Nolan seems to be a problem here, yet again).

Bond CAN be serious (Licence To Kill remains one of the best in the series, and it's also one of the darkest). He CAN be silly (look at most of those Moore outings). He can be an entertaining mixture of the two (as has been the case with most of the Brosnan and Craig films). But he always has to ultimately be Bond, and everything else should stem from that. Don't try to make a movie that you then use to shape James Bond. Let James Bond shape the movie that you're making.

 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