The Amateur (2025)

There's a fairly decent idea at the heart of The Amateur, I guess, but it's weakened by some casting and the pacing of the whole thing. At least one character turn doesn't seem to make any sense, there are a few too many coincidences for something revolving around someone trying to out-think others, and you're likely to forget all about it within a week or two.

Rami Malek plays Heller, an employee of the CIA who seeks revenge after the death of his wife (Sarah, played by Rachel Brosnahan). There are some problems with his plan though. One, he's a tech guy, and not really any use out in the field. Two, the people responsible for the death of his wife are people that the CIA don't necessarily want taken out of action immediately. Three, putting himself in the field might be a very easy way for the CIA to ensure that he isn't able to bother them again.

Based on a novel by Robert Littell, The Amateur has been turned into a movie by writers Ken Nolan and Gary Spinelli. Those two writers don't have many real highlights in their pasts, which would explain the flat end result here, and director James Hawes, while a very competent film-maker, doesn't have the imagination or flair to liven things up. I will happily give Hawes a pass, considering the fact that he sat in the director's chair for the first season of the superb Slow Horses, but it soon becomes clear that this is an action thriller made by people who aren't quite attuned to the rhythms and requirements of blockbuster entertainment.

And, as much as I enjoyed his fine work in Mr. Robot, one of the main requirements of blockbuster entertainment would seem to be avoiding the casting of Rami Malek in a central role. He was the weakest part of the excellent No Time To Die, he was outshone by a cast of more memorable supporting players in the Night At The Museum movies, he's attached his name to Need For Speed, Battleship, and Dolittle, and I'll only give him credit for Bohemian Rhapsody because that felt like the one role he was actually perfect for. It's all well and good to have him supported by people like Rachel Brosnahan, Jon Bernthal, Adrian Martinez, Laurence Fishburne, Holt McCallany, Julianne Nicholson, and Michael Stuhlbarg, but not very satisfying when almost all of them are sorely underused. 

It's easy to see the appeal of this. Make an action thriller hero who has to keep using his brain instead of brawn and/or firepower. It needed something else though. Either some shinier star power, some more inventive set-pieces, or a plot with many more interesting twists and turns. It's decent, staying pretty easily watchable for most of the runtime (which clocks in at about the 2 hour mark), but you may get to the end credits and decide that you could have picked a far better viewing option. I know I did. 

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 

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

Dolittle (2020)

Here is a perfect example of a film that, while not necessarily as bad as the very worst of them, stands out in the way it saps some fun out of the central concept and makes everything worse by over-reliance on CGI to make everything possible.

Robert Downey Jr. plays the man who can talk to the animals, and he has decided that his Dolittle should have a strong Welsh accent. He also doesn't want to deal with people any more, spending many years locked away after the loss of his adventuring wife. He is forced to change, however, when young Tommy Stubbins (Harry Collett) sneaks in to his home, carrying with him a squirrel that he accidentally shot. Dolittle is also forced to accept a request to help save the life of Queen Victoria, who has been struck down by a mysterious malady that can only be cured by the fruit of a tree that nobody has ever managed to reach. It's time for an adventure, and Dolittle has plenty of animals to help him on his quest. He also has at least one person, Dr. Blair Müdfly (Michael Sheen ), trying to stop him from succeeding.

After a slightly unsteady start, scenes giving viewers a quick summary of the life of Dr. Dolittle and then showing him talking to animals IN animal noises before we then get to the more enjoyable format of Dolittle and the animals all talking in English, Dolittle becomes a decidedly okay bit of family entertainment. The animals are enjoyably exotic (with three of the main characters being a parrot, voiced by Emma Thompson, a gorilla, voiced by Rami Malek, and a polar bear, voiced by John Cena),  things look bright and lively enough, and there's a sense that the whole adventure could be a lot of fun.

It's a shame that the script, written by Doug Mand, Dan Gregor, and director Stephen Gaghan, seems to have been written with the idea that the visuals and lead performances will carry everything along. The lead performances, voice acting aside, don't feel as strong as they could be. Downey Jr. may be having fun, I guess, but he doesn't feel right for the role, as much as I often like his onscreen presence. Sheen is more enjoyable, a proper pantomime villain, and Antonio Banderas is a welcome addition, although not involved for long enough. The same can be said for Jim Broadbent. Young Collett does fine, but he's really there to be caught up in the middle of the animal shenanigans. And while it is a bit of a coup to rope in such a variety of big names, including Ralph Fiennes, Tom Holland, and Selena Gomez, for the animals, few of them really add to their roles, unlike the standout, an ostrich voiced by Kumail Nanjiani.

It's also a shame that the makers of the film have decided to let the visuals carry so much of it when the visuals are, despite the fact that some may find me overly critical here, a bloody mess. So many scenes lose any sense of magic because it feels like CGI interacting with CGI, against a CGI background, with some more CGI being used to add flourishes here and there. I wouldn't mind if it was better, and some of the scenes have to contain what I assume is a lot of seamless CGI complementing the action, but some moments are jarring in how obviously fake they look. There's one scene in which Tommy is being taken on the back of a giraffe to catch a departing ship that looks, well, it looks as if it could have been lifted directly from some high-quality BBC programme from the early 2000s.

Younger viewers should find enough to enjoy, and there's an amusing fart gag during the finale that will prompt giggles, but this is a horrible attempt to reinvigorate a property that was handled better back in the late '90s. Maybe we'll get something better next time, when someone more suitable is put in the lead role.

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

No Time To Die (2021)

I have to admit to being a bit Bond-fatigued by the time No Time To Die was released. It was a culmination of various factors. I was greatly disappointed by Spectre. I was as fed up as most people were by the seemingly constant whinging from Daniel Craig in between every instalment in the franchise. And, of course, the global pandemic meant that the release date was pushed back for quite some time. I decided that I would remain hopeful, but be prepared for disappointment.

Disappointment was certainly not forthcoming.

No Time To Die is immediately up there with the very best of the Bond films, vying for a top spot alongside On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and a couple of other superior 007 adventures, and it allows Craig to end his tenure on a real high note. It’s a film that gets so much right that it almost makes up for the stumbling steps that got us to this point.

The plot is simple. Bond is retired, he wants to get on with his life with Madeleine (Léa Seydoux). Retirement is interrupted by the pesky Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) being a sneaky schemer once again, and Bond eventually ends up looking to return to his old role when he learns of a deadly bioweapon that can be used to target not just individuals, but entire races. Bond being involved doesn’t make everyone happy. There’s a new agent using the 007 tag (Lashana Lynch) and M is under a lot of stress with the situation. Blofeld, still imprisoned, may actually welcome the chance to see Bond once more, especially as they both seem to have a common enemy, Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek).

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, who also helped on the screenplay with Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge, this is a near-perfect Bond film that packs enough into every main sequence to distract you from the aspects that aren’t present. You don’t get Bond the womaniser, you don’t get a whole load of gadgets, and you don’t get gunfights and explosions without a lot of consideration and attempts at diplomatic diversions by those giving the orders.

You do get just enough of everything though. There are glamorous women around Bond. There are a couple of decent gadgets used in the midst of the action. And it’s interesting to think that, for all the growth of the character we have seen over the last couple of decades, Bond is shown as essentially the same blunt tool used when needed. The world may have moved on, but new and different problems can be solved with the same old solution.

Craig does well once again in the main role, all blue-eyed piercing stares and pouting. Waltz is underused once again, but also once again superb in his limited amount of screentime. Seydoux does well with what she's given, and she is able to play her part with some ambiguity as others try to figure out whether or not they can trust her. Lynch is a badass, and quickly shows why she was assigned the 007 number, so I wouldn't be averse to a spin-off with her character in it (or seeing her have a similarly strong presence in whatever we get next in the series). I also wouldn't be averse to seeing another main role for Ana de Armas, playing an agent named Paloma in a fantastic set-piece that takes place in Cuba. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear are as good as ever in the respective roles of M, Moneypenny, Q, and Tanner. But what of the main villains? Dali Benssalah is a good henchman, and has a memorable look thanks to his character having one electronic eye alongside one normal eye, and David Dencik is enjoyably cowardly and selfish as the scientist who has created a scarily effective weapon. Malek is really the only weak link, sadly as Safin, a character who isn't written well played in a way that is far too quiet and lacking any real sense of showmanship (which all of the best Bond villains have). Can Malek do anything other than the soft-spoken and kind of awkward character he has made his specialty over the last few years? I'm not seeing anything to prove otherwise, and I don't think he was the best person to put in this role.

Transplant a better villain into this and you could have had the greatest Bond film of all time. As it is, well, it remains a strong contender. Fukunaga directs like someone who simply knows how to run a well-oiled machine, from the sound design to the sets, from the wardrobe to the lighting, and on and on. It's also well worth mentioning the music by Hans Zimmer, providing a score that pieces together various motifs while always complementing the visuals (as any great score should). The stuntwork is superb, the pacing means that the hefty 163-minute runtime goes by briskly enough, and there's at least one moment that feels like one of the most unexpected and iconic moments in modern action cinema. 

By the time the end credits roll . . . you may very well be slightly shaken. 

9/10

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

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

Okay, I cannot really formulate my thoughts on this film in a way that makes sense, but I'm going to try my best to explain myself. A lot of Bohemian Rhapsody is quite rubbish. It is laughable that the film won an Academy Award for best editing, especially when you can highlight some key sequences that wouldn't look out of place in a Paul W. S. Anderson movie. It is a "greatest hits" version of the history of Queen, and the life of charismatic frontman Freddie Mercury. It's a family-friendly rock opera, in a way, with the mix of humour, tragedy, and elation you can expect from such a thing. And yet . . . that doesn't stop it from being a bloody good time. The highlights are absolutely goosebump-inducing, and easily impressive enough to make up for the weaker aspects.

Rami Malek is Freddie, in a performance absolutely deserving of all the praise heaped upon him, as well as his win at the 2019 Oscars. He becomes the lynchpin of Queen, with the talent of Brian May (Gwilym Lee), Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), and John Deacon (Joe Mazzello). He also develops a life-long relationship with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), constantly astounds the band manager (Aidan Gillen) with his vision, and his ability to make that vision into a fan-pleasing reality, and enjoys gently mocking the lawyer that they have in their corner, Jim 'Miami' Beach (Tom Hollander). And, as the start of the film makes abundantly clear (as does the advertising imagery and any trailers you may have seen), it all leads to a legendary live performance at Live Aid in 1985.

Directed by Bryan Singer (but with the whole thing finished in the last few weeks by Dexter Fletcher after Singer had gone AWOL for a while), Bohemian Rhapsody is almost exactly what you want it to be. As long as you want it to be a fun time in the company of Queen. The screenplay, written by Anthony McCarten, is more concerned with keeping viewers entertained and in high spirits than it is with providing a story that feels grounded in the truth. Even the moments that really happened just feel so unreal, so apocryphal, that it never allows the film to feel like anything more than a rocking fairytale.

It's a good job that Malek is uncannily good in the main role, and that you have Gillen and Hollander to look out for, because none of the other main cast members do anything worthwhile. Well, none of the cast members portraying members of Queen anyway. Lee, Hardy, and Mazzello are poorly treated in a storyline that serves as nothing more than a testament to someone they obviously loved. The sad thing is that you get the feeling that everyone deserved something a bit better, even if that meant showing more of the low points and exploring just what would drive the band, individually and together. Boynton is the other person who actually manages to make an impact, thanks to both her performance and the fact that she is the only character in the film given any hint of depth.

Please believe me when I say that I am not being snobbish (and people who know the wide variety of films I watch will know I am no film snob) by saying that this is quite rubbish, and quite rubbish in oh so many ways. Yet, despite the myriad flaws, it's easy to see why it's a crowd-pleaser. You get all of those familiar Queen songs, you get a number of great moments, and you get a finale that is up there with the best I can think of, in terms of making you want to stamp your feet, throw your fist in the air, and vicariously join in with one of the greatest live performances of all time.

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