Netflix And Chill: Prisoners (2013)

Another day, another film that I delayed watching for over a decade, despite strongly suspecting that I would love it. Prisoners is written by Aaron Guzikowski, directed by Denis Villeneuve, and stars Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, Viola Davis, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, and David Dastmalchian in a number of main roles. That's a hell of a cast, and Prisoners is a hell of a film.

A dark and downbeat crime thriller, this is the story of two girls (Anna, played by Erin Gerasimovich, and Joy, played by Kyla-Drew Simmons) who disappear. Their parents obviously fear the worst, but there may be a chance for a good result with Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) on the case. It doesn't take long for the police to haul in a prime suspect (Alex, played by Paul Dano), but things are complicated by the fact that he has the mental age of a small child. He's clearly guilty though, at least according to Anna's father, Keller (Hugh Jackman). Which leads to him coming up with his own plan to get information when the police have no choice but to release Alex back into the care of his guardian (Holly, played by Melissa Leo). Keller has an empty building available to him, a hankering for some violent retribution, and a variety of ideas that he think will force Alex to tell him where his young victims are.

The first thing worth noting here is that this isn't quite as great as it could have been. Guzikowski's screenplay leaves characters repeating themselves too many times, and it feels heavily indebted to a couple of crime thrillers helmed by David Fincher. Mind you, if you're going to be influenced by other art then you may as well be influenced by some of the best, and that is certainly the case here.

Villeneuve is happy to go along with the same mindset. This is a dark world, with almost every scene accompanied by a heavy downpour once the young girls have gone missing. Making important decisions about what to show and what to heavily imply, Villeneuve keeps things riveting for those who can handle the subject matter, helped by the fact that the direction and screenplay seem to keep a tiny portion of hope dangling in front of our faces like a carrot to help us avoid being beaten with the stick.

In terms of the acting, it's hard to be critical of those doing fantastic work with what they're given. It's just a shame that some of what they're given isn't the best material for them. This applies especially to Gyllenhaal, who is made to repeat one or two playbook lines in a way that I know is supposed to show him just wanting to de-escalate situations and get him away from emotional victims as quickly as possible, but is then shown so committed to his job that it feels at odds with that robotic "auto-pilot" mode we've seen elsewhere. Jackman is allowed to go to level ten righteous anger and stay there for the duration, Bello starts to medicate, and both Davis and Howard are used well to show the complex emotions of loving parents wanting answers about their child, no matter what it might take. Dano is absolutely fantastic, even if he doesn't say much, and Leo ends up stealing one or two scenes, while Dastmalchian comes along later in the movie to deliver another reframing of the whole narrative (this happens two or three times throughout the film, with Villeneuve and Guzikowski as interested in making viewers question themselves as they are in the journey of the characters onscreen).

It falls short of greatness in a couple of small ways, but Prisoners is very good stuff indeed. It's basically what you'd expect from a director as good as Villeneuve working with a cast of this calibre on a story about grief, pain, well-honed detective skills, and revenge.

8/10

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

Netflix And Chill: Spaceman (2024)

A sci-fi drama that makes good use of Adam Sandler in another of his impressive dramatic turns, Spaceman is an American film that feels like an ill-judged remake. It isn't an ill-judged remake, actually being based on the book, "Spaceman Of Bohemia", written by Jaroslav Kalfař, but it's very interesting to find elements here that weren't changed to keep the whole thing feeling more obviously American in origin.

Sandler plays Commander Jakub Procházka, a cosmonaut who is due to investigate a large dust cloud just beyond Jupiter. He is far from home, all alone, and suddenly not receiving any messages from his estranged wife, Lenka (Carey Mulligan). There has been a message sent to him, one telling him that Lenka is leaving, but Jakub's commanding officer, Commissioner Tuma (Isabella Rossellini) decides to hold it back, figuring out what is best for Jakub's mental health and wellbeing. Maybe it's too late for Jakub though, considering that he starts to wonder if he's hallucinating when he encounters a telepathic spider-like creature that ends up being named Hanuš (voiced by Paul Dano). This encounter leads to a number of conversations that force Jakub to face the reality of his decisions and emotions.

The second feature written by Colby Day, Spaceman is a deep well of ideas and potential that is sadly never as good as it should be, and a lot of that feels down to the writing. Day doesn't do anything wrong by the characters, but the one idea being focused on is a bit too slight without adding more to it, making the 107-minute runtime feel overlong as a number of the main moments between Jakub and Hanuš feel repetitive and unconstructive, especially while the former fights against his own regret and sorrow.

Director Johan Renck has no other features in his extensive filmography so far, but one look at the many music videos and TV shows he has worked on shows someone who should have been given a film project many years ago (he's worked with Chris Cornell, Madonna, Kylie, and David Bowie, as well as being at the helm of episodes of The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Bates Motel, Bloodline, and all 5 episodes of the absolutely astounding Chernobyl). He assembles a solid cast here, gets some lovely cinematography from Jakob Ihre, and a fine score from Max Richter, so it's a shame that the material is lacking that special something.

Sandler is very good in the lead role, no surprise to anyone who has been appreciating his dramatic work throughout the past couple of decades, and Dano is an excellent foil for him, enquiring and commenting with a fairly flat and monotone voice highlighting their position as an impartial viewer keen to explore the loneliness of a fellow traveller. While Mulligan is also very good, she's stuck playing a woman who is often shown in memories and visions filtered through the eyes of the main character, making her feel like someone who is never fully real. Kunal Nayyar is also very good, playing a technician named Peter, and both Rossellini and Lena Olin are given just enough screentime to remind you that other people are trying to support both Jakub and Lena, and there is a wider world beyond our stranded cosmonaut and his, in a way, stranded wife.

Spaceman is good. It's worth one watch. But it's not one that I can see many people revisiting, and I don't think many people will love it. There's too much wasted potential, and it brings to mind one or two superior sci-fi tales, at the very least, that you could say cover very familiar territory. I know many people, like myself, who won't mind wandering through that kind of landscape though.

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 Fabelmans (2022)

A Steven Spielberg film, directed and co-written by him (with Tony Kushner, his regular collaborator over the past few years), and based on his life. The Fabelmans is, unsurprisingly, a film about falling in love with cinema, about how movies can reveal uncomfortable truths, and how people can be manipulated by the magic of movies. The surprising thing is that the film itself stops far short of greatness.

Gabriel LaBelle plays Sammy Fabelman (after Mateo Zoryan has depicted him as an even younger child), a young man who turns his passion for movies into a life-changing hobby that we all know will turn into a hugely successful career. His parents are played by Michelle Williams and Paul Dano, and there’s a friendly “uncle” (not actually related, just named as such as a term of endearment) played by Seth Rogen. There are other family members, but they’re background players, especially throughout a second half that shows Sammy being bullied by Logan Hall (Sam Rechner) and Chad Thomas (Oakes Fegley).

Very traditional in the way it all plays out, The Fabelmans is a nice film. Even the darker plot points (family issues, the antisemitism/bullying) are handled with great care, every main sequence more about appreciating the power of movies than it is about anything else. That’s to be expected, I guess, but it leaves you with a film that somehow feels less insightful than the excellent documentary on Spielberg from a few years ago. As Sammy immerses himself into movies and movie-making, viewers may find it far too easy to keep in mind that Spielberg is keeping himself well within his comfort zone. Even things that surely caused him pain in his life are made safer, more palatable, by his ability to put them in a movie, and that observation is spoken aloud within the film.

The cast all do a good job, with Dano and Williams real standouts. The former gives one of his typically restrained and controlled turns, in line with his good-hearted, but somewhat dull, character, and the latter gets to shine like the brightest star in the sky, her light casting a glow on the loving faces of the men in her life. LaBelle is a perfect stand-in for young Spielberg, Rechner is pretty good, and Fegley is a worryingly effective Chad, if you know what I mean. Chad’s gonna Chad. Chloe East and Isabelle Kusman have fun as two teenage girls who befriend our lead after a particularly rough encounter with his bullies, but their relative insignificance, compared to the affirmation he ends up getting from those who watch his films, feels as depressing as it is (probably) accurate.

The very end scene will leave many people smiling, but it’s the only moment that hints at how much better the whole thing could have been. It’s harder to join in with a celebration when some people are sobbing, and there’s only so much work that a John Williams score can do.

Slightly misjudged, slightly self-indulgent, slightly too . . . well, slight, The Fabelmans is still a good film, and Spielberg absolutely deserves to treat himself with this cinematic retelling of his youth, but it’s kind of like knowing how a magic trick works. You can still appreciate the skill, but you’ll never be as impressed and entertained as you were before you knew the mechanics of it.

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

Mubi Monday: Wildlife (2018)

Paul Dano is not just a good actor. He is a great actor. So great that I will always watch anything he is a part of. So I was looking forward to Wildlife, even if it didn’t feature him in front of the camera. This is his directorial debut, from a script co-written with Zoe Kazan, adapted from the book by Richard Ford, and it is certainly a film in line with other choices he has made throughout his career.

Ed Oxenbould is Joe, the son of Jerry (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Jeanette (Carey Mulligan). The family live in Montana, it is the 1950s, and there is a big wildfire raging nearby that Jerry decides to head off and help tackle once he finds himself out of work. This leaves Jeanette alone, which leads to her looking for employment. And occasional company.

With each scene shot in a very controlled and precise, and fairly muted, manner, Wildlife is a film that feels almost as if it could have been made in the time it is set. Although not as polite and repressed as a Douglas Sirk movie, and certainly not as vibrant with the colours, this is a familiar portrait of people trying to keep up appearances with everyone around them while emotions beneath the surface start to bubble up and threaten to explode in a spectacularly messy display.

The three leads help, despite the fact that Gyllenhaal ends up offscreen for most of the runtime. Oxenbould is fantastic, perfectly portraying his character as a teenager being protected by his parents while he starts to become more aware of their problems. He is wide-eyes at times, strong and determined at other times, depending on how he is moved to react to events unfolding around him. Mulligan gives the kind of performance that she has given so effectively before, that of a young woman trying to do what is seen as right while also allowing herself some moments of happiness, and she's a delight in her role, whether strained by her interactions with Gyllenhaal or drinking her way into the mentality she needs for an extra-marital close encounter that will give her something she cannot find at home.

Dano directs everything with a very delicate touch, not feeling a need to punctuate the proceedings with any major cataclysms. That's probably in line with the book, I would assume (although I haven't read it), but it also allows Dano to focus on doing his best by a cast that will deliver exactly what he wants from them. The barbs in the script, the moments of awkwardness, the compartmentalisation of people according to classist labels, these elements add up to something surprisingly compelling. Oxenbould is the observer, the person that viewers are often placed alongside, but neither Mulligan nor Gyllenhaal are painted as angels or demons. They're just human. And that is nicely highlighted by the very final scene in the film, which feels both honest and melancholic. 

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

The Batman (2022)

Here are some things that Matt Reeves seems to really like, based on what he presents to viewers in The Batman. "Something In The Way", by Nirvana, Seven, putting a camera as close to someone as possible so you can be right beside them as they grapple hook up to a roof/BASE jump off a building/crash a car/etc, Seven, Zodiac, and . . . Seven. Oh, and shots of people riding motorbikes. If you took out every moments of someone riding a motorbike here than you might have a film that would clock in at a much more reasonable runtime, instead of the hefty three hours we get.

Here's the story, boiled down to essential elements. Batman (Robert Pattinson) is being given the runaround by Riddler (Paul Dano), a criminal determined to expose the secrets of Gotham City. As he tries to get information from the underworld that essentially rules Gotham, Batman deals with Penguin (Colin Farrell), Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and is helped in his investigative work by James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) and Catwoman (Zoë Kravitz). People are placed in deathtraps, forced to admit to their weaknesses and crimes, and a whole master plan is in place, with the Riddler moving pieces around the city, perhaps including the Batman himself.

There's a lot to like here, a lot that is easy to enjoy if you're a fan of Batman (and so many people are). Despite the darkness of the colour scheme, it's often a visually impressive film. The score is decent, although hampered by those that have come before it, and Reeves and Peter Craig have crafted a screenplay that attempts to provide a perfect mix of the cerebral and the visceral. The biggest problem is how often it defers to past movies, be they other Batman movies, Seven/Fight Club/Zodiac, or Taxi Driver (you could say that the entire finale of this film shows a real rain coming along to wash away the scum).

The pacing of the film is helped by the action set-pieces. They're generally of a high standard, although that close-up camera trick spoils a number of moments, and it's good to see consistency in the way Batman uses skill, strength, and confusion to take on groups of henchmen. There’s nothing new here, and it would be nice to have a Batman/Bruce Wayne who isn’t wrestling with his own guilt and self-doubt for a while, but it is given, for the most part, a decent makeover. I didn’t personally like the reinterpretation of the Riddler, nor do I think a tiresomely inevitable cameo bodes well, but it all works within the film that Reeves set out to deliver.

The cast are, by and large, almost perfect. Pattinson has to be a bit too dour as Wayne, although he doesn’t spend a lot of screentime without the mask and cape on, but he really suits the Bat attire, and has a good voice that doesn’t wander too far towards Bale-growl territory. Dano is disappointingly underused, seen largely through phone screens and computer monitors, but his performance is excellent, and he is allowed to believably posit himself as someone much smarter than everyone around him. I have seen people say that Farrell is also underused, but I think his character is crucially involved in a number of moments that help him make an indelible impression. Wright is a perfect choice for Jim Gordon, and Kravitz stands out as the best Catwoman since Michelle Pfeiffer played the role so memorably back in Batman Returns (I like Anne Hathaway, I just don’t think she was as good when asked to portray this particular character in The Dark Knight Rises). Strong, athletic, smart, sexy, and believing she has extra lives to make use of, Catwoman is once again a very believable and viable yin to Batman’s yang (get your mind out of the gutter), and Kravitz is perfect for the role. Turturro makes a great Falcone, the criminal kingpin who controls so much of the city, and the famous Alfred is played this time around by Andy Serkis. As good as he is in the role, Serkis has to play a character who is basically forgotten, aside from a few small scenes, which feels strange in a film with so much runtime to fill.

The good far outweighs the bad, and a lot of that is thanks to the canny casting, but it’s sometimes hard to view this favourably when it constantly indulges in such obvious plundering and cannibalism. The ending feels especially dull, and familiar, considering how it basically turns a great villain into a sad totem for . . . well, just wait and see for yourself what you think of the “grand finale” and big reveals.

This is a good way to reconfigure the character (although it would have been nice to not keep referring to dead parents as a main plot point again), and I was surprised by how much I didn’t care for the runtime as things moved from one impressive sequence to the next, but it still doesn’t quite equal the best of the Bat-flicks. It’s very good though, despite the flaws.

8/10

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

Mubi Monday: Meek's Cutoff (2010)

Bruce Greenwood is not Ethan Hawke. I wouldn't normally start a review by saying that, but I wouldn't normally watch a movie thinking that one character has been played by Ethan Hawke, only to find they were played by Bruce Greenwood. 

Greenwood plays Stephen Meek, a frontier guide who leads a wagon train through some arid countryside, taking everyone perilously close to a sticky end, due to the ongoing scarcity of food and water. Tensions grow when a Native American (Ron Rondeaux) is captured, with different members of the group trying different ways to get him to reveal information to them about the surrounding desert environment.

Directed by Kelly Reichardt, and written by her regular collaborator, Jonathan Raymond, Meek's Cutoff is an attempt to tell a very strange story from history in a way that allows for a different kind of Western. The end result is a mixed bag, a film that strives to avoid all of the moments that you’re used to seeing in the genre. That is no bad thing, not in and of itself, but the fact that it so defiantly gives viewers nothing recognisable also works against it. There’s no playfulness here, no major subversion, despite the exploration of the shifting power dynamic between Meek, the Native Smerican, and others in the group.

The cast all do good work, even if I thought Greenwood was Hawke (which is a compliment for this role, honest). Michelle Williams and Will Patton are the main couple who don’t immediately dance to the tune that Meek wants to play, which is probably well-advised as it becomes clear that he may not know as much as he claims to know. Shirley Henderson, Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, and everyone else in the group does solid work, and Rondeaux is superbly stoic and ambiguous in his way of interacting with the others.

Do seek this out if you don’t mind a slow-paced film that features some top-notch actors giving superb, but unshowy, performances. But it is worth warning people who decide to check this out if they are after a revisionist Western. You could label it that way, but it is more simply classed as a historical drama that happens to take place in a location more commonly seen in Western movies, with people who sometimes look to settle disagreements with their guns. Sort of like a Western.

7/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

Where The Wild Things Are is, as most of you probably already know, a film based on the beloved book by Maurice Sendak. I never read the book, neither in childhood nor at a later stage, so I can't comment on the adaptation of the source material but I have seen some of the artwork and must say that the film certainly seems to brilliantly realise the creations of Sendak. Directed by the enjoyably offbeat Spike Jonze, who co-wrote the screenplay with Dave Eggers, there's a lot to enjoy here but also a few choices and moments that I just can't help thinking spoiled what could have been a really great film.

Young Max (Max Records) is an energetic and moody young man. He also seems to be quite a lonely boy, as seen in the opening sequence of the film in which he tries to get his sister to play with him, attacks her friends with snowballs and then gets upset when the whole thing backfires and his freshly-made igloo is brought crashing down around him. His mother (Catherine Keener) eventually comes along to make things better but she's a very, very busy woman. The time with his mother is clearly Max's favourite time but he doesn't have a very good way of showing this. In fact, he simply ruins an entire evening when he's jealous of the fact that she has male company round and then runs off . . . . . . . . and this is when the film finally hits its stride. After jumping into a boat and sailing as far as he can, Max ends up on an island populated by strange, wild creatures. At first they are tempted to eat him but he convinces them that he is a king and will lead them to a happier future. Of course, that's easier said than done and as things don't go according to plan Max starts to realise just how his behaviour impacts on others. Maybe.

With some absolutely wonderful creature creations - voiced by a great selection of people including James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Lauren Ambrose, Paul Dano, Forest Whittaker, Chris Cooper and Michael Berry Jr - and a magical way of replicating that childhood sense of freedom, imagination, rulebreaking and entitlement, Where The Wild Things Are is a superb film for reminding you of just what it is/was to be a child. It's not a children's film though, not really. Some moments are a bit too dark, not enough is spelled out in more obvious terms for kids to learn lessons from and the emotions and various relationships shown are slightly too open and honest in a way that befits the behaviour of children looked at studiously by adults. It's a hard thing to describe, and I don't really want to pigeonhole the movie, but I'd say that the whole thing certainly aims to prompt feelings and memories of childhood rather than appeal directly to children.

The acting is great from everyone involved, whether they're visibly onscreen or just being heard or even being one of the hardy physical performers wearing the wonderful creature suits.

What spoils the movie, for me, are the bookends. The time spent with Max on the island dealing with the creatures is fantastic stuff, it's funny and thrilling and uplifting and saddening and all over the place like the typical rollercoaster of emotions a child can go through on any given day. Sadly, there's nothing to like at the start or end of the movie. I don't require it in every movie I see but there's no real resolution here and it's a film that cries out for one, whether it occurred in the original story or not.

Spike Jonze has yet to create anything that I have seen and disliked (from his music video work to his wonderfully unique movies) but this is the one that proves to be the least satisfying so far. The fact that I still rate it so highly is just testament to how truly great the main middle section is.

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