Prime Time: Over Your Dead Body (2026)

I was hoping to make time for this after finally watching the film that it was based on (The Trip, directed by Tommy Wirkola), but sometimes things aren't meant to be. Which means I saw this was now on Amazon Prime and it seemed like the best way to spend some of my time this past weekend.

Dan (Jason Segel) and Lisa (Samara Weaving) are a married couple who don't love each other any more. Maybe a weekend break will help them. It will certainly help Dan once he's drugged and killed Lisa, then disposed of her body in the nearby lake. Dan isn't too smart though, which allows Lisa to soon cotton on to what he's planning. And she has her own plan. Both of them may try to kill one another, but they might also both be shown exactly how they should do things by three dangerous fugitives (played by Timothy Olyphant, Juliette Lewis, and Keith Jardine).

Written by Nick Kocher and Brian McElhaney, working from the screenplay co-written by Wirkola, Nick Ball, and John Niven, Over Your Dead Body is the kind of film best described as a deliciously dark comedy. It's just a shame that all of the real deliciousness and darkness appears in the third act, and doesn't quite do enough to make up for the disappointments elsewhere in the runtime.

Segel and Weaving are both great performers, but neither of them are doing their best work here. It would have been nice to have more scenes letting them be more vicious to each other, but we instead just get standard griping and poor communication underlining where they both are in their marriage (the end, they're both at the end of it). Everything picks up when a strange trio gatecrash the planned violence, thanks mainly to a typically brilliant turn from Olyphant, although he's almost matched by a lovestruck Lewis. Jardine has to play a strong idiot, which he does fine, but his character is the least interesting of the core selection. The other person to mention is Paul Guilfoyle, playing a grumpy and critical father who believes that a war would be the best thing for his son. Guilfoyle is casually dismissive and careless without seeming loathsome, and he gets a couple of great moments when he comes back into the picture after his earliest scenes.

I've enjoyed some other work from director Jorma Taccone (especially the brilliant Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping), but I believe he works better with light and silly fare. Whether it's the source material or the very wobbly tonal tightrope here, he's not able to do as well here. Mind you, I am not sure many people would be able to spin gold from a sequence in which someone is threatened with anal rape if they don't promise to hand over enough money to help some desperate criminals finalise their escape plan.

If you like the stars then you'll get something from this, and there are some fantastic gore gags in the last 15-20 minutes, but it's just a shame that there wasn't more energy running through this. From the dialogue to the score, nothing really works in the first hour that helps it to get anywhere close to being as entertaining as the finale. I'll be interested to see if the original does it any better. 

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

Noir-vember: The Mark Of The Whistler (1944)

The good thing about The Whistler movies is that they all tend to be pretty short, this one is 62 minutes, they lack any pretension, and you could easily marathon the movie series in a day. The bad thing about them, or maybe I should just refer to it as a weakness, is The Whistler himself, a presence who doesn't really seem to be necessary to guide us through the storyline. Mind you, I enjoyed his narration here more than I enjoyed it in the first film.

The story is enjoyably simple. Richard Dix plays Lee Selfridge Nugent, a man who sees an opportunity to change his life when he reads a newspaper notice about  a large sum of money being left for a different, and unrelated, Mr. Lee Nugent. Taking the time to work on his backstory, Nugent then gets himself along to the bank and presents himself as the recipient of the money. He is nervous as he considers his chances of being successful. But he is unaware that other people may want to catch up with Mr. Lee Nugent.

Based on a story by Cornell Woolrich, it's George Bricker who gets the writing credit for this second movie in The Whistler series. Bricker does a good job of packing a lot of exposition and character development into each scene, leaving director William Castle free to just focus on keeping everything clear and enjoyably fast-paced as the story zips from scene to scene. Castle doesn't have to use all of the extra tricks that he used in the previous instalment, now having the luxury of a more dense screenplay and an "established brand" (with the first film proving to be a successful transition from an audio to a visual medium).

It's fun to see Dix take on a lead role that feels so far removed from his lead role in the last movie, and he seems to enjoy having a lot more to work with this time. Porter Hall is amusing as someone who might be able to help our lead, but only if he can make a decent profit for himself, Paul Guilfoyle is enjoyable in the role of a street vendor named 'Limpy' Smith, and Janis Carter lights up a few scenes as a determined reporter named Patricia Henley. There are also a couple of menacing performances from John Calvert and Matt Willis, both working better when trying to observe Mr. Nugent before their motivation is made clear.

I've yet to be convinced by the need for The Whistler himself, but the rest of the film makes this an easy one to recommend. It's a great blend of fun and danger, as well as being another classic noir premise (someone pretending to be someone that they're not in order to collect a large sum of money) given that ever-so-slight twist by having it presented to us by The Whistler. I don't expect the rest of the series to keep entertaining me as much as this, but I was pleasantly surprised that this was a step up from the first movie. And I'll be pleasantly surprised if another one or two subsequent instalments match 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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: A Couch In New York (1996)

A rom-com so strange that I am not entirely sure whether or not it is actually working as both a traditional type of film within the sub-genre and also some kind of knowing satire of the form, A Couch In New York nevertheless works any way you decide to take it.

Written and directed by Chantal Akerman, who developed the main story with Jean-Louis Benoît, what you have here is an apartment swap between a psychoanalyst (Henry Harriston, played by William Hurt) and a Parisian dancer (Béatrice Saulnier, played by Juliette Binoche). Both are seeking an escape, and both find themselves fascinated by the alternate lives the vicariously step into. Harriston struggles to deal with the messy chaos he discovers, but Ms Saulnier finds herself quickly growing to enjoy the role of substitute psychoanalyst when people turn up for appointments that they won't let her cancel.

Absolutely ridiculous once things start to play out, with both of the leads barely having time to adjust before the mistaken identity antics begin, there's something wonderful about just how this juxtaposes attempts at real with and intelligence with tropes that were already well-worn by this point. Hurt and Binoche bring a certain class to the proceedings, in a manner of speaking, and they have a good connection between them, but they have to work through scenes that have misinterpretations of cross-over talk, prolonged fakery stemming from an inexplicable inability to simply tell the truth and clear up any misunderstandings, and even a dash to catch a flight in the final act.

You could also check off some other very familiar rom-com elements throughout the course of the film. There's a cute pet, supporting characters who provide either help or obstacles (Anne, played by Stephanie Buttle, is a friend to Béatrice, while Dennis, played by Paul Guilfoyle, tries to advise Henry), some other people who pop in and out of the story long enough to help the main characters consider how they are acting, and that airport run.

I'm not meaning to sound like I am disparaging the rom-com at all when I say that Hurt and Binoche bring a certain class to the proceedings. I am just giving my own view of both leads. The rom-com is a type of film easily looked down on, and dismissed, by far too many people, but a terrible one will remind you of how much work it takes to make the great ones . . . great. Just watch Leap Year to see what I mean. No, don't watch that. Anyway, back to the cast here. The leads are great, although Hurt seems more ill-at-ease in his part than Binoche seems with what she has to do, and Guilfoyle adds some fun. Buttle has very little to do, which is fine when it allows for an extra minute or two of Richard Jenkins doing his stuff (he's a patient who comes to lie on the couch and discuss his problems).

Akerman knows what she's doing, as does everyone in front of the camera, but the end result somehow manages to feel both comfortably familiar and yet also slightly skewed. However you end up feeling about the film, it's an interesting viewing experience.

7/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Session 9 (2001)

I'm not going to draw this out, Session 9 remains one of my favourite horror movies released in the past two decades, and one of my favourite horror movies of all time. Making the most of one main location, the Danvers State Mental Hospital, it is an impressive psychological horror that just keeps diving darker and darker, all the way to one of the most disturbing endings of all time.

Gordon Fleming (Peter Mullan) is the boss of a crew who have been hired to remove asbestos from an abandoned hospital. He needed the gig badly, and so made sure to match any other one while promising to get the job finished in a week. This puts extra pressure on him and his crew, but there's a massive bonus in it for them if all goes well. Phil (David Caruso) is his second-in-command, basically, there's Mike (Stephen Gevedon) and Hank (Josh Lucas), the latter individual now in a relationship with Phil's ex, and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), Gordon's nephew. Tensions build as the work is carried out, and you get to hear spooky tapes being played by Mike, who spends some of his break times listening to the psychiatric sessions he discovered in one of the many abandoned rooms. Gordon also has domestic problems on his mind, but maybe all will be well if they can get the job done in one week.

The more I think about it, the less I can think to criticise about Session 9. Director Brad Anderson (and I'd argue that this film, despite not making a massive impact when first released, helped him step up a level, in terms of exposure, after it was embraced by genre fans) puts everything together with an expert touch, working from a great script co-written by himself and Gevedon. It may be making use of a location, but a) it doesn't feel like that is all it has going for it, and b) it's a damn fine location for a horror movie.

Mullan is as great as he always is in the lead role, and he can convey a real mix of emotions underlining all of the building horror as everything becomes clearer during the final moments. Caruso has rarely been better, doing a great job as a blue-collar worker trying to earn a good payday while helping a friend through a tough time. Lucas puts in another turn that allows him to be a bit of a douchebag, and Brendan Sexton III walks a fine line between annoying youngster and vulnerable kid, particularly as his severe nyctophobia plays into the plot. I'm not too familiar with Gevedon, but he does just fine, although his strength seems to lie in the writing side of things.

Despite the moments that feel like standard horror tropes (when people start to go missing, when everyone splits up to search for someone, etc), this is, like the central location itself, an atmospheric and dark building that creaks and groans while sitting on some very solid foundations. All of the exposition, and it is a film that threads a LOT of exposition throughout, feels natural as it is conveyed between different characters, the geography of the site is clear enough to follow everything, and the character development is never warped for the sake of the scares.

Do yourself a favour and watch this one ASAP. You won't regret it. If you do, well, I can't help it if you have bad taste.

10/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews