Netflix And Chill: The Untouchables (1987)

Perhaps enough time has passed now, perhaps I was just being a bit too harsh and/or swayed by the opinions of others years ago, but I have finally reached a certain level of acceptance when it comes to The Untouchables. I always enjoyed the movie itself, and it's another great example of just how great director Brian De Palma can be when able to put considerable resources alongside his not-inconsiderable talent, but it's time to finally admit that I think, yes, Sean Connery actually deserved his Oscar for his performance here. Is that admitting that he's great in it? Is he giving the best performance of his career? No. There are a number of other roles to look at in that regard. But he's the absolute highlight in a film that is stuffed full of treats, and he's the one you remember for a long time after the film is over and done. It also helps that he gets most of the best lines of dialogue from writer David Mamet.

Kevin Costner is the legendary Eliot Ness, a Treasury agent looking to battle against those breaking the prohibition laws, and someone unafraid to go up against the ruthless Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Not knowing who he can trust, especially after being burnt during what should have been his first major operation, Ness assembles a small and capable squad that includes beat cop Jim Malone (Connery), an agent who also does accountancy (Oscar, played by Charles Martin Smith), and a hot shot youngster from the Police Academy (George, played by Andy Garcia). They intend to disrupt Capone's operations until they can bust him, but that gets them a lot of unwanted attention. As well as a number of anonymous threatening individuals, a dangerous man named Nitti (Billy Drago) aims to get rid of Ness and his colleagues, and aims to show that they're most certainly not "untouchable".

It's hard to think of where to start when praising The Untouchables, almost every individual element is as good as you'd expect. Mamet's script is snappy and entertaining, the camerawork and visuals are as wonderfully lush and stylish as they always are in any De Palma movie, and the score from Ennio Morricone feels like some kind of collage of the wonderful work he did over the years with director Sergio Leone. Production design is gorgeous throughout, and there are a couple of fantastic set-pieces that I am sure people have thought about way before getting to this part of my review.

The casting is spot on, for the most part, although I have never been completely convinced by De Niro in the role of Capone. He's fine, but it feels too close to a number of other roles he's already closely identified with. If he'd managed to nail the accent, Hoskins (the second one signed on when De Niro initially couldn't play the part) could have perhaps given us a more interesting portrayal. Hey, at least Hoskins got to enjoy a large paycheck for not doing anything. Costner is a good solid figure at the heart of everything, the kind of thing he has excelled at in a number of features, and he's somehow able to get the focus back on himself after spending time sidelined by more interesting supporting characters. Connery is brilliant, as I've already said, and both Smith and Garcia liven up scenes by bringing very different energies into their performances. Drago is entertainingly villainous, and I'll also mention how much I enjoyed seeing Patricia Clarkson, despite the fact that she's given little more than a token role of "worried wife of the hero".

(Re)watching a great Brian De Palma film always reminds me that I should make the time to watch his entire filmography. They're not all absolute greats, and not all as good as this one, but his best work is enough for me to never begrudge giving some time to the films that didn't work half as well. And I can always come back to something like this if I end up disappointed by too many others.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: The Carrier (2014)

There may be some people out there who like the sound of The Carrier AKA The Bag Man, a neo-noir crime flick that features a cast of familiar names - John Cusack, Robert De Niro, Crispin Glover, Dominic Purcell, Rebecca Da Costa, Martin Klebba, and Sticky Fingaz. I advise you now to push that positivity aside. This is a horrible mess of a film, and it's clear that most of the people in front of the camera turned up for a paycheck that they knew wouldn't require them to break a sweat.

As much as it pains me to do so, I'll give a very brief plot summary here. Cusack plays Jack, the carrier of the title. He's transporting and taking care of something on behalf of Dragna (De Niro). The only rule is that he cannot look to see what's inside the package. Hiding out at a remote motel, manned by a curious man named Ned (Glover), Jack soon gets himself mixed up with some trouble swirling around Rivka (Da Costa).

Apparently written by James Russo, and then worked on by Paul Conway and director David Grovic, this is about as painfully lazy and irrelevant as it's possible for a movie to be. It feels as if it would have been easier to slightly enjoy back in the mid-1990s, but this was released two decades later. None of the cast are on top form, with one or two acting as if they're trying to give a career-worst performance, the dialogue could have been written by someone who was handed a variety of soundbites snipped from a variety of much better crime movies, and the 108-minute runtime is at least 20 minutes too long.

Few people have squandered their talent in the latter part of their career more than Cusack, who has given many performances by now that convey his complete disdain for his main career. This performance belongs in that category, although I don't blame him for being unable to work up any enthusiasm for the material. Da Costa has to look lovely, and occasionally be in danger, which she does. I'm not any big fan of her, but she does okay with what she's given. The best person, and someone who brings some fun to the proceedings, is Glover though, and the film is good whenever he's around. Purcell also does pretty good, it's a shame that he's not in the movie more, and both Klebba and Mr. Fingaz are perfectly fine. De Niro, sadly, is not. He doesn't seem to loathe the thing as much as Cusack, but he certainly doesn't do more than the bare minimum. 

It's odd to think of how much work had to be done here to make this as bad as it is. The screenplay is dire, but it could have been saved by a charismatic lead performance. The charisma isn't here. Cusack actually inverts any charisma he once had, creating some kind of monochromatic negative photo version of himself. And I'll eat my own hair if I encounter anyone who feels invested in this long enough to care about how the third act plays out.

The only good thing I have to say about this is that I at least hope to never have to rewatch 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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Killers Of The Flower Moon (2023)

Sometimes you allow your expectations to dictate your viewing experience, which is how I set time aside to start 2024 with a viewing of Killers Of The Flower Moon, a film I was very much hoping to really enjoy. I ended up loving it. I'd even go as far as calling it another masterpiece in the extensive filmography of Martin Scorsese.

What you have here is a story of greed and white privilege, all stemming from the oil that was discovered under Osage Nation land in 1920s Oklahoma. Not necessarily trusted to manage their new wealth on their own, the government created a system that would allow the Osage people to spend their money while safeguarding the potential for white men to infiltrate, and benefit from, the community. William Hale (Robert De Niro) is a man who claims to be a friend of the Osage people, but he's trying to feather his nest while viewing himself as some kind of criminal mastermind. A grand plan is set in motion when his nephew, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns from WWI, leading to Ernest eventually courting Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), with the intention of marrying her and getting himself in line for a very nice inheritance. Things inevitably don't go to plan.

Based on the non-fiction book by David Grann, Killers Of The Flower Moon was crafted into a brilliant and brilliantly intelligent screenplay by Scorsese and Eric Roth. Not only does it tell the story that deserves to be told, Scorsese also acknowledges the problematic nature of the material. It's an important travesty/tragedy packaged for entertainment, to some degree, and it's being told via the perspective of a privileged white man, which is almost a constant issue being explored throughout the hefty runtime. Scorsese actually makes an appearance in front of the camera at one point, and he comes very close to just outright apologising for sharing this tawdry slice of American history in the only way he can.

If you watch the film and don't consider how important, and how unfair, the perspective is, it's worth remembering that many of the characters onscreen are idiots. Some are more obviously idiotic than others (DiCaprio's character being the simplest, but De Niro undermines almost all of his serious and scary moments with ridiculous attempts to maintain a sense of self-importance and a facade that so many around him can already see through), but you could throw a ball of paper at this assembled cast of characters and have a 98% chance of hitting a moron.

It feels like I don't even have to say how good the main cast are. Aside from DiCaprio giving another performance up there with his very best, and De Niro doing what he has done so well for Scorsese over the years, Gladstone is just sublime. She's helped by the fact that she gets to be smarter than so many of the people around her, and there's a sad desperation sighing in her soul as she views a "coyote" as a better option than many other men in the community, thinking that an open admission of greed and laziness will make her situation safer than it could be. Scott Shepherd is also very good, playing Ernest's brother, and also someone even more brazen about his criminality and abuse of others. There are many others who step on screen to steal a scene or two, including Jesse Plemons, Brendan Fraser, and John Lithgow, but the other real stars are Cara Jade Myers (playing the beautifully spirited and unrelenting Anna) and Ty Mitchell (who seems acutely aware of the idiocy of the criminals he ends up working with, but is unable to avoid them).

Every element here is as carefully considered as it needs to be, from the bursts of violence to the score and soundtrack, from the moments that make the bittersweet humour more obvious to the growing and stifling air of tragedy and horror, and I personally felt the three and a half hour runtime fly by (although others have seen this as a major failing). As I said at the start of this review, this is another Scorsese masterpiece.

10/10

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: The Intern (2015)

I am happy to admit it. When I saw that The Intern was written and directed by Nancy Meyers, and when I saw the poster that had Robert De Niro looking slightly awkward standing alongside Anne Hathaway,  I wasn’t ever in a rush to see it. But it became a film that I kept being reminded of over the past few years, with many people commenting that it is better than you might think.

I have to agree. The Intern is better than you might think. It’s predictable and fairly safe throughout, although that helps the most risqué gag to become even more hilarious when it happens, but it’s sweet and funny, and there are a couple of good points made throughout (about the tougher treatment of successful women and the unfair dismissal of elderly citizens with a lot of life experience to share with others).

De Niro plays Ben, a widower who is a bit bored while trying to fill his days. He sees an advert for a “senior intern” vacancy with an online clothing retailer company, applies, and soon finds himself in the midst of a whole new world. Although, as becomes clear, it isn’t actually THAT new to Ben, considering his work history and the values he holds dear. It may not be the experience he hoped for though, considering the fact that company owner, Jules (Anne Hathaway), isn’t convinced that she needs an intern.

If you think you know how The Intern is going to play out from start to finish then you would be correct. Ben wants to find more from his life, although the satisfaction of doing a good job well remains high on his list of priorities. He also has to learn some new skills to be more effective in the modern workplace. Jules has to accept help from others when she needs it, and has to find a way to strengthen her resolve when others start to doubt her capabilities. There are a couple of fun surprises though, whether they take the shape of the aforementioned risqué gag or an unwelcome character development that will have you hissing at a certain someone as if they were a panto villain.

Meyers may not make movies to suit everyone, especially if you’re not into movies that seem designed more for the entertainment and amusement of women, but there’s no denying that she does what she does damn well. She knows what she is doing, and the final result is always polished and balanced between moments of fun and moments of obvious emotional manipulation. In line with her other directorial features, this is a sweet and optimistic film that feels like a good viewing choice to make during more cynical and dark times.

De Niro is great in his main role here, not having to overdo any comedy as viewers get to see his character being sharper and more capable than people assume. He’s fastidious, he presents some old-fashioned values in a way that manages to convince others of their worth, and he convinces as a valuable asset to the company. Hathaway is very good, although slightly hindered by the trials and tribulations thrown at her character throughout the second half of the film. The two leads make a great team though, complementing one another without immediately realising how well they fit. Adam Devine, Zach Pearlman, and Christina Scherer are other work colleagues (Scherer a standout as a swamped assistant who rarely gets the recognition she deserves), Rene Russo adds some romantic potential, and is always welcome in any movie role, and Anders Holm plays Matt, the “house husband” supporting his very busy wife and looking after their young daughter (a winning performance from JoJo Kushner) for most of every day.

I’ve already written far more about this than required, but this was one of the biggest surprises from my viewing choices last week. Sweet, fun, funny, and maybe even a little inspiring, I would recommend people watch The Intern if they want to spend a couple of hours in the company of a mixed bag of characters all able to make you smile for a little while.

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

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

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

A tale of an intelligent and powerful man unable to heed the warnings of people who want him to reconsider just how far he wants to push things in the pursuit of his main obsession, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an interesting and entertaining movie, not least because of how the main storyline seems to run so nicely illustrate the unchecked ego (at that time) of director-star Kenneth Branagh. In fact, considering the lessons he may have learned along the way, I'd love to see what Branagh would do with this material today. Would he keep it much the same, albeit elevated with some superb CGI, or would we end up with a very different beast? I suspect the latter, but I'm not displeased to realise that Branagh could easily make all the same mistakes. Or even some all new ones.

I don't even need to summarise the story here, do I? No. Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter is his beloved, Elizabeth. Robert De Niro is the Creature. And you have supporting turns from Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, Richard Briers, John Cleese, Robert Hardy, and many others. Victor Frankenstein wants to conquer death, he wants to create new life, and the end result of his experimentation leads to a great deal of unpleasantness. That's all you need to be reminded of.

With Branagh having made such a big deal at the time of telling everyone that this was going to be a more faithful telling of the Frankenstein story, a film that would get closer to the source than any others that had come before it, it's easy to forget that the script is by Steph Lady (his first and only one, to date) and Frank Darabont. Structuring the whole thing to frame the main, more familiar tale, with bookends that have Victor Frankenstein explaining his woes to an Arctic explorer (Walton, played by Quinn), Lady and Darabont try their best to freshen up the well-worn formula. They're sadly fighting an uphill battle. Having the Creature be intelligent and able to speak, for example, may show us something closer to how things were in Shelley's novel, but it doesn't feel right here. There are over eighty years of Frankenstein on film to be pushing back on, and that's a hell of a lot of cinematic weight. Fortunately, Branagh is ready to take his shirt off and flex some muscles as he attempts to hold his movie as high as he can.

Jokes about his willingness to get shirtless as often as Matthew McConaughey aside, Branagh simply never feels as suited to the lead role as he should be. He's too interested in showing off the production design and making some nice speeches whenever possible, making it harder for viewers to see the gleam in his eyes and the overwhelming obsession that pushes every sane thought out of his mind. It would be silly to call Branagh a bad actor, in my opinion, but he should have, as director, given the lead role to someone else. There's a similar sense while watching De Niro, although he's hampered by the fact that he's depicting the Creature in a way so alien to film viewers. De Niro does quite well in the role, but it doesn't help that he always feels like what he IS - a version of Robert De Niro overlaid with a variety of prosthetic make up. Carter does well enough, and really sells her final moments in the film brilliantly, and Hulce is an enjoyable presence as a friend, ally, and someone hoping to save Frankenstein from himself once the full madness and terror is revealed. Quinn certainly has presence in his relatively minor role, Briers is sweet and likeable as a blind man, and everyone else does well with what they're given, including Celia Imrie, Trevyn McDowell, and a disappointingly underused Cherie Lunghi (as well as those already named above).

Quality emanates from every frame, from the practical production design to the CGI work, from the wonderful matte paintings to the sharp and impressive music from Patrick Doyle. It is, for the time, a remarkable achievement, in film-making terms. Where it falls down, sadly, is in the casting of the most important roles. Perhaps Frankenstein and his Creature need to be played by people who can fully immerse themselves in the roles. This is a very handsome adaptation of a classic tale, but it's not one that really shows Frankenstein and his Creature. It shows Branagh and De Niro in the middle of a wonderful playground. Which is all well and good . . . as long as you like Branagh and De Niro. And I do.

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

Mubi Monday: This Boy's Life (1993)

A fairly standard coming-of-age/memoir tale, This Boy's Life is a film you may have heard of before, mainly because of the celebrated performances from Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio. And it's highly recommended to fans of any of the leads (Ellen Barkin being the third central character).

DiCaprio is Toby, who often likes to be called Jack, a young boy who is used to tagging around with his mother, Caroline (Ellen Barkin), as she tries to make a good life for them both. Caroline meets Dwight (Robert De Niro), a man who initially seems pleasant, if a bit uncool. It doesn't take long to see that Dwight is happy to lie and manipulate to keep himself in a good light, while also keeping everything in his favour, and he and Toby start to clash in increasingly violent confrontations. Toby seems to be a good kid, at heart, but often runs with some of the wrong crowd, but Dwight is not necessarily the good man he keeps trying to make himself out as.

Based on the book by Tobias Wolff, the Toby of the main story (this is his life), and adapted into screenplay form by Robert Getchell, this is a consistently solid drama that is elevated by an absolutely fantastic cast. Michael Caton-Jones directs well, dropping a number of pop hits from the era throughout the soundtrack, allowing the dialogue to reveal so much about all of the characters, and framing many of the confrontations in a way that focuses on the imbalance of power and the physical threat posed by Dwight.

But it's all about this superb cast. DiCaprio makes one hell of a large move away from the daffy fun of Critters 3, easily holding his own alongside the adults, and shows the talent that would put him on the radar of so many other directors. De Niro gives another fantastic turn, unafraid to play a character who is so jealous and petty that he will go to any lengths to make himself look like "the big man". Barkin may have less to do, but she's an essential layer in between the two main men in her life. Jonah Blechman is also wonderful, playing a young man named Arthur Gayle, and you have the cast list filled out by the likes of Eliza Dushku, Chris Cooper, Tobey Maguire, and Gerrit Graham (many of them onscreen for just a few minutes).

The focus throughout stays on Toby and Dwight. The story belongs to the latter, but is so clearly moulded and overshadowed by the former. It's almost like coming up for air when you are reminded that Toby obviously did something to eventually get his story told, and it's extremely satisfying to watch Dwight devolve, little by little, from angry man to whining baby. It is, essentially, the way that so many men like him really are. And not everyone is lucky enough to escape their pleas and clutches.

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

Ronin (1998)

An action thriller loved by a lot of people, thanks in no small part to a car chase in the second half that ranks very highly in the echelons on great automotive set-pieces, Ronin is a film I didn't love when I first saw it, but I picked up a shiny disc release of it anyway, and I have now revisited it for the first time in decades. It turns out that I still don't love it.

The overly-convoluted plot can be boiled down to one main description, a team being put together to get hold of a valuable suitcase. The most talented member of the team seems to be Sam (Robert De Niro), a man who used to be a top agent in the CIA. Natasha McElhone plays Deirdre, an Irish woman who is working for employers who want the job done without having to give out more information than necessary.

Although De Niro is the star of the show, essentially, Ronin benefits from a top-notch ensemble cast that also includes Jean Reno, not in his best role but used better here than he has been in many other English-language movies, Sean Bean, Stellan Skarsgård, Jonathan Pryce, and Michael Lonsdale. Not that everyone is as well utilised as De Niro. Bean is disappointingly wasted in his small role, and both Pryce and McElhone are saddled with accents that they don't really manage that well. They're far from the worst I have ever heard (Justin Theroux still sits high on that tree for his atrocious accent mangling in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle), but they're off enough to be slightly distracting, which may well just be down to me being used to Pryce and McElhone speaking in their native accents for most of their roles.

Written by J. D. Zeik, his first feature script, it's unsurprising that the muddled plotting sags around some great character moments. This seems to focus on dialogue first, set-pieces second, and then the logic of the plotting last. The great David Mamet also helped to polish things up, but there aren't any lines here that feel up to his usual high standard.

Director John Frankenheimer has a filmography full of very missable, but equally worth seeking out, titles. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is arguably his best film, released in the same year as his other top contender, Birdman Of Alcatraz. Considering his filmography, Ronin is pretty much what you might expect from him. It's good, and I cannot praise the car chase in the second half of the film highly enough, but it's strange to think back to when this was released and remember the amount of love it seemed to get from everyone. I suspect everyone was just relieved in the late '90s to watch an action movie that wasn't yet another slickly packaged, and hyperactive, Simpson/Bruckheimer joint.

If you're a fan of the cast members, if you're a fan of slick action thrillers, or if you just want to see something that feels like a bridge between one mainstream stylistic choice for action sequences and what would become more prevalent in the 21st century (e.g. this feels like a very clear dividing line between the bombastic excess of many previous films and the likes of The Bourne Identity and the next incarnation of James Bond that would come along in the years preceding it), then this is still worth a watch. It's just a hard one to love.

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 

Little Fockers (2010)

The third, and final (and I assume it is going to stay that way), instalment in what we can now refer to as the Fockers trilogy, Little Fockers is a perfect example of something perfectly competent, yet also perfectly in line with the law of diminishing returns.

All of the main cast members return. Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and Pam (Teri Polo), his wife, now have some children of their own, and father/grandfather Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) visits to discuss the potential of making Greg the next family patriarch. This comes about after Jack has had a "mild" heart attack, the timing is as bad as it can be, making things more stressful for Greg as he tries to juggle a number of different responsibilities.

Paul Weitz takes over the directing duties, a talented director in the field of comedy who I wish would recapture the touch he had when dealing with 3/4 of his first four movies, and he seems to be happy enough to go through the motions set out by the script, written by a returning John Hamburg, and Larry Stuckey (who was an associate producer on the previous instalment). That wouldn't be so bad if the script had any life to it, but it's almost as if everyone knows they used up all of the gags in the first two movies. All that is required is to get everyone into place, to set up a couple of comic misunderstandings, and to let the actors all do their thing. And that's what happens. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. It's just dull. Really dull. It's even worse when it sets up obvious strands that don't play out to anywhere near their full comic potential (such as potential chemistry between the lead and a character played by Jessica Alba).

What saves it from being completely unwatchable is the cast. Although the leads look like they could sleepwalk through the whole film, and some might say they do, there's still some fun to be had from just watching De Niro and Stiller play off one another. Polo and Danner are sidelined even more here than they were in the previous films, Hoffman and Streisand are also underused, and the same can be said for a returning Owen Wilson, as well as newcomer Alba. The second instalment in the series added more characters in the mix, but at least it had things for them to do. This one just hopes that having enough names in the cast list will distract from the . . . redundancy of it all.

Everybody knows how easily pleased I am, it's clear from most of my reviews, as well as the fact that I repeat that statement often enough, and I know that I enjoyed both Meet The Parents and Meet The Fockers more than most people. So you should probably bear that in mind when deciding whether or not to give your time to this, a relatively innocuous mainstream comedy that somehow made me determined not to seem too generous with my rating of it. It's the epitome of Hollywood laziness from start to finish.

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Meet The Fockers (2004)

Having taken the lead characters on a full journey in the first movie, what would be the best way to craft another tale around Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his humourless new father-in-law (Robert De Niro)? Well, it's time to meet the other parents. Greg's parents, both of whom are about as far removed from his in-laws as it is possible to be. Of course.

That's the whole plot right there, basically. Greg and Pam (Teri Polo) travel with Jack (De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner) to meet Greg's parents. Bernie Focker (Dustin Hoffman) is a very open and caring male, and Rozalin Focker (Barbara Streisand) is a lively and sensuous woman who is used to batting embarrassment aside as she helps people in her role as a sex therapist. When these two worlds collide, hilarity is set to ensue.

Following an established formula for any successful sequel (take what people enjoyed the first time around, then try to add some more of it), Meet The Fockers is a lot of fun for anyone who is a fan of most of the cast members. And how can you not be a fan of most of the cast members? Stiller and De Niro work as well opposite one another as they did in the first movie, while both Hoffman and Streisand have an absolute blast with their effervescent characters. You also get some time for Owen Wilson, albeit little more than a cameo role this time around, Alanna Ubach as a housemaid who may or may not have given birth to a Focker child, and a running strand about the way Jack is trying to look after his grandson (who is also along for the journey, because it was necessary to add more disagreements and gags).

As well as those returning in front of the cameras, everyone also returns to their main roles behind the cameras. Director Jay Roach stays well within his comfort zone, working well enough with the script by Jim Herzfeld and John Hamburg to create more laughs and add a new, but familiar, set of obstacles on the path to enduring happiness. While there's not as much subterfuge this time around, people are still trying to hide their true natures, with the Fockers being begged by their son just to rein things in slightly as their newest family members become accustomed to them.

If you liked the first film then you're probably going to like this. It's not setting out to push any boundaries or reinvent comedy. It's just trying to entertain viewers, and it succeeds in that regard. While that may be more down to the exuberance of the cast than the actual script, the end result is the same. You even get a similar end credit sequence, showing Jack reviewing some of his "secret" camera footage.

Successful enough to lead to a third instalment a few years further down the line, Meet The Fockers is easygoing mainstream entertainment. If that's not your thing, you can easily ignore it forever. But those who don't mind it, and I include myself there, will find this a suitable viewing choice when looking for some simplistic fun.

7/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Meet The Parents (2000)

Before he became just as easy to dislike as many of his peers, and I am not entirely sure when that happened (I'm still a fan anyway), Ben Stiller scored a big hit with this enjoyable comedy of errors that harvested comedy gold from the fertile territory of that most potentially nerve-wracking of experiences, the meeting of people you want to be your future in-laws.

Stiller is Greg Focker, a nurse planning to propose to his partner, Pam Byrnes (Teri Polo). His plans have to change when Pam tells him that her sister has just agreed to get married, which then leads to the pair heading to Pam's home for the big family event. Pam's mother, Dina (played by Blythe Danner) is lovely enough, but her father, Jack (Robert De Niro), has a past that makes it impossible for him to trust those he doesn't know. And all he knows about Greg is that the man has designs on his daughter.

Based on a little-known 1992 comedy with the same premise, and title, Meet The Parents is a fantastic combination of a great cast working with an excellent script, helmed by an experienced comedy director who knows exactly how to make the most of every moment, be it big or small. Jay Roach is the person in the big chair, coming off the great success of the first two Austin Powers movies (and he'd also made Mystery, Alaska just before this, but I haven't seen that one yet), and he has enough experience to let things build progressively towards a finale that throws the characters into a perfect thunderstorm.

Jim Herzfeld and John Hamburg wrote the script, taking the main premise and ensuring that everything is more finely-tuned to make the most of the central cast, especially any moments featuring De Niro.

Stiller is perfect in the central role, focusing on being an unfortunate guy trying to do his best, with less of the angry outbursts that is such a firm part of his schtick in many other roles. Polo works well alongside him, with the two having enough natural rapport to make it believable enough that they might be able to maintain a serious relationship. Although not the focus of many scenes, Danner does well, but it's De Niro who gets most of the best moments, either on his own or directly opposite Stiller. His no-nonsense demeanour and lack of humour makes the comedic beats even funnier. You also get supporting turns from the likes of Jon Abrahams (a younger brother who causes trouble for our hero by hiding his weed in an unfortunate place), James Rebhorn, and Owen Wilson, great value as an ex-boyfriend who had nothing more than a very sexual and physical connection with Pam, as opposed to the stronger bond that she shares with Greg.

You also have a cat trained to use the toilet, a spycam or two dotted around to catch out liars, and a running joke about Greg not wanting to do a job more respectable than "just" being a nurse. It's all very safe and predictable, but that doesn't make it any less entertaining and funny.

8/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Irishman (2019)

It's the film that everyone was desperate to see, and just as many were as keen to dismiss as yet another example of Martin Scorsese doing yet another gangster film. If you think that then a) you're unfamiliar with Scorcese's eclectic filmography, and b) you are dismissing the fact that every Scorsese gangster movie tends to say something very different. Goodfellas was about how the mob made a man into a monster, Casino was about how the mob built Las Vegas, Gangs Of New York tells of the growing pains there, of course, and now The Irishman comes along, a tale looking back at people who did things they thought needed done, putting themselves into a lifestyle not exactly known for the lengthy lifespan.

Robert De Niro is Frank Sheeran, the alleged Irishman of the title. He becomes a dependable guy who can do jobs for Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci), and everything gets more complicated with the forceful personality of Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino) in the mix. Some houses are going to need painted ("I Heard You Paint Houses" is the original title, from the book by Charles Brandt - the phrase is a euphemism for the work done by mafia hitmen), but who's going to be helping to decorate the walls?

Making use of some imperfect de-aging technology, The Irishman feels every bit like what it most probably is, a drawing of the curtain on the lives that Scorsese has taken interest in over the years. Almost every supporting character is given a quick subtitle that details the age and cause of death. There's a clear statement here. Although the main character is elderly, perhaps living with some regrets, he's in a much more privileged position than many who went into the same line of work.

Clocking in with a hefty runtime of three and a half hours, this is fertile ground for Scorsese to explore, helped along by Steven Zaillian's screenplay. Unfortunately, neither party feels quite at ease with this middle ground. It feels very much like this should have either been pared down by an hour or expanded to create a major TV limited series. You get the usual style and energy from Scorsese, including a nicely varied soundtrack, but he doesn't seem as focused as usual.

While their bodies cannot match the smoothing CGI making them appear younger in certain scenes, De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci all do their usual sterling work, with Pesci a particular highlight. There are also good roles for Ray Romano, Bobby Cannavale, and a super (as usual) Stephen Graham. Much has been made of the fact that there are no main female roles, and Anna Paquin has been singled out for her lack of dialogue, but don't let that take away from the fact that Paquin says a hell of a lot more with some of her expressions than some of the male characters say in their ongoing attempts to keep looking tough and stay on the trigger end of the guns.

If you're a fan of everyone involved then it's hard to see you hating this, even if there are a number of moments that can't help but feel similar, and maybe less impactful, when compared to other classic Scorsese moments. If you assume it's going to be a greatest hits selection of everything that they've done before, and you roll your eyes at the thought of that, then this probably isn't going to change your mind, despite the different heartbeat working throughout every scene.

8/10

Joker (2019)

Director Todd Phillips, who also co-wrote the screenplay for Joker with Scott Silver, isn't really someone you might associate with gritty and compelling psychological dramas. He sets out to change that here, and many people view it as an absolute success. I really like Joker, but there are two main points (maybe three) that drag it down slightly, which I will get to in due course.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Arthur Fleck, a man with some serious mental health issues, and a pretty poor quality of life. He wants to be a comedian, but he's not good at making people laugh. He may, however, be good at laughing while he plans to get revenge on people around him. But his fortunes may change if he gets the chance to appear on the chat show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro).

Okay, first of all, a lot of people have criticised Joker for being little more than a diluted mash-up/reworking of Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy. I'm not going to wield those reference points as weapons in any criticism of the film, because I feel that other great films can come from directors hewing close to past classics. This does go VERY close to both of those films, but there are so many worse films that Phillips could have had in his sights.

What works here, and works so well, is the performance from Phoenix. His portrayal of a man pushed further and further into the black pit of a complete mental breakdown is absolutely compelling. He's a superb Arthur Fleck. What he isn't, to me, is a superb Joker. I just don't see enough of that character in this interpretation, which is entirely to do with my own experience of the character through the years, from the comics to the TV show to the various movies. I am all for all of the praise being heaped upon Phoenix for his performance here. I just can't agree with anyone who labels him as the new gold standard for interpretations of the Joker (although nobody will ever be worse than Leto, I think that low point is safe).

There's also a good world created onscreen, a Gotham that is teeming with people who are struggling to get through their everyday lives. This is a pre-Batman Gotham. Not so much dark and full of convenient shadows, it's more like an interconnected set of glass cubes, each one oppressive and reeking of nicotine and potentially-contagious diseases.

The rest of the cast also do a great job. I'd be tempted to call them flawless if the casting of De Niro in his pivotal role didn't seem so much like an obvious stunt. He is good though, and has fun in his small amount of screentime, as is Zazie Beetz, the third point in the central triangle that the film creates. Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Shea Whigham, Marc Maron, and Douglas Hodge are on par with one another, portraying a mix of new characters and some you may be familiar with, albeit in a different guise.

These positives are enough to make this a very good movie, and it remains a very good movie, despite my three main problems with it. So bear that in mind, and let's move on to the negatives.

First up is the script. It's not terrible, by any means, but Phillips and Silver rely on the cast to elevate their words. Which the cast manage to do, seriously limiting the damage that could have been caused here.

My second and third main issues stem from the same thing so I'll just bundle them together here. This film has been hailed as an interesting departure from standard comic-book movies, it has been described as a scathing commentary on some major problems in the current climate in America. It's not. It's neither of those things, and that stems from Phillips giving himself an easier option when the opportunities arose. He made much of the fact that this was a standalone film, this Joker was different from what you'd seen before, and it didn't necessarily have to tie in to any DC movie universe. So why, WHY, even bring in the characters who make up the Wayne household? Those scenes feel like fan-service, they feel out of place, and they feel totally unearned (I know that doesn't seem like the right word, but it is, somehow). And as for the scathing commentary, I don't deny that Phillips works some very good points into the movie, and even has them at the heart of the whole thing, but he gives himself an "out" by setting it in the early 1980s. That allows him to shrug, it gives him plausible deniability, it really dulls what could have been a sharp, relevant message for people who may squirm when forced to look at the mirror being held up to modern society. Phillips decides not to commit to holding up the mirror, instead settling for a kaleidoscope. And everything looks a little better through a kaleidoscope.

There's plenty to like here, even plenty to admire, and it does feel like a more interesting film from Phillips than anything else he has done, to date. It's far from perfect though, and I think people have forgiven some mis-steps because they were impressed by the kaleidoscope.

8/10

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

Ani-MAY-tion: Shark Tale (2004)

An animated film that mixes elements of the classic "Jack The Giant Killer" tale and numerous aquatic puns and gags, Shark Tale doesn't reach greatness in any individual aspect, but the silly jokes and excellent voice cast make it a fun way to pass some time.

Will Smith is the voice of Oscar, a small fish that dreams of big things. He works in a whale washing business, employed by a puffer fish named Sykes (Martin Scorsese). So preoccupied is Oscar with his dreams, he is oblivious to the fact that another employee, Angie (Renée Zellweger), seems quite smitten with him. Meanwhile, a mob boss shark (voiced by Robert De Niro) is struggling to get his youngest son, Lenny (Jack Black), to think and act like a proper shark. All of these characters are about to collide as Oscar turns his fortunes around after a major incident involving his close proximity to a dangerous shark that ends up dead.

It's hard not to see a couple films from this time as cynical attempts to grab some of that Finding Nemo money. You had this film and you had The Reef AKA Shark Bait (2006), and neither of them managed to be as good as the Pixar film that seemed to birth them. Thankfully, however, this is closer to the first movie than it is to the later one, which is just cheap (at least it certainly looks cheap), lazy and visually ugly.

That's not to say that directors Vicky Jenson, Bibo Bergeron, and Rob Letterman do much to garner praise here. The visuals are fine throughout, although sometimes it can be easy to forget that things are set under the sea (despite all of the main characters being fish), and the script, co-written by Letterman and Michael J. Wilson, is simple and amusing, keeping everything bright and lively for the intended younger viewers.

But the cast is where the movie shines. Smith is in fine form, all smiles and cockiness even as he looks to move further and further out of his depth, no pun intended. Zellweger is a sweet friend/potential romance, even if her character doesn't get to do much beyond helping Oscar and making heart-eyes at him. Scorsese and De Niro are both wonderful, their voices fitting their very different characters nicely, and their every interaction a treat for film fans. Black is a bit weak in his role, as is Angelina Jolie, also suffering from the fact that her character is shallow and only interested in someone with plenty of money, but the other people lending their voices to the proceedings include Michael Imperioli, Peter Falk, Ziggy Marley, Doug E. Doug, Vincent Pastore, and one or two others you should enjoy.

You'll probably never prioritise this in your viewing schedule unless you have little ones to entertain but you could do a lot worse. It has a decent soundtrack, plenty of colour, and one silly little gag involving a hammerhead shark and a piece of cutlery that makes me laugh heartily every time I see it.

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 

Mubi Monday: The Family (2013)

A fairly low-key film from writer-director Luc Besson (who worked on the script with Michael Caleo, adapting the source material by Tonino Benacquista), The Family works surprisingly well, especially when you think of some of the other choices Robert De Niro has made in the field of comedy, and even more so when you think of those roles he has taken that spoof his own image. The bonus here is that things aren't played for laughs, it's just funny to see these people so quickly resort to the only way they know how to deal with things, despite having to lay low and not bring any attention to themselves.

De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer are the parents, and Dianna Agron and John D'Leo are their teenage children. They've just moved into a new home in France, a move that we find out is yet another in a long succession of attempts to successfully relocate them. The man overseeing their new life is Robert Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones), exasperated by the fact that these people can't seem to appreciate what has been done for them in ongoing attempts to stop them from being killed. After an initial day of getting used to things, everyone soon starts to make the new situation work to their benefit, which isn't necessarily the best way to blend in and keep a low profile.

What The Family does so well is to take a little bit of time to see the main characters start to put their plans in place. There's always the threat of anger and violence, from the very beginning, but the comedy comes from seeing these people forced into biding their time, until they know they have all of the pieces in place to make whatever move they have had in mind since the start. There's also a plot strand about certain dangerous types finding out where their enemies are now living, of course, and things lead to a predictable finale, but the fun here is in the journey.

Besson and Caleo have put together a decent script, taking the time to show the main strength and weakness of each member of the family, which helps the pacing and really draws you in as it all heads towards a perilous third act. There are also plenty of nods, with Pfeiffer and De Niro respectfully drawing on some of their most famous roles, and one sequence concerning a local film screening is a brilliant meta highlight.

The cast are fantastic, across the board. Because nobody plays it for laughs, the material plays to their strengths. As well as the big names in the lead roles, who don't just give great performances but also work brilliantly alongside one another, both Agron and D'Leo are superb and believable as the teens who have their own ways of dealing with the standard pitfalls of high school life. Jones may only be in a handful of scenes, but he's as good as ever in a role that suits that air of blatant exasperation he can do better than so many others.

Okay, there's no film made on this subject yet that has topped My Blue Heaven (yeah, don't believe me, just go and rewatch it), but this is a pleasant surprise that I haven't heard too many other people recommend over the past few years. So I am recommending it now.

7/10

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

Red Lights (2012)

Written and directed by Rodrigo Cortes (who previously stepped behind the camera to helm the excellent Buried), Red Lights may not be quite as clever as it thinks it is, but that doesn't stop it from being a fine slice of entertainment while it's on.

Cillian Murphy plays Tom Buckley, a loyal assistant to Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver). The two of them work, predominantly, on debunking paranormal activity. They also teach students about the many tricks of the trade, from table lifting to psychic readings and more. The only big name in psychic phenomena who seems to be "the real thing" is Simon Silver (Robert De Niro), a major celebrity who announces his comeback after many years out of the limelight. Buckley starts to get frustrated when Matheson refuses to pursue Silver more aggressively, but the latter warns her assistant that chasing a man who has kept his hands clean for so long could prove to be more dangerous than it's worth. But Buckley can't let it go, he knows that Silver is faking it and just needs to figure out how the scheme works.

Anyone who has read Attack Of The Unsinkable Rubber Ducks, and/or anything by Derren Brown (such as this fine work), should know where Red Lights is going. Thankfully, that doesn't make the journey any less enjoyable.

Cortes does a more than competent job in the scripting and directing department, but he's also helped enormously by the great cast. This isn't a sprawling ensemble picture, but to have Murphy, Weaver and De Niro in lead roles is a major plus, especially when the latter star is coaxed into giving one of his better performances in recent years. Toby Jones and Joely Richardson both do fantastic work in their smaller roles, and Elizabeth Olsen is just fine, although a little bit redundant (she is, essentially, just there to allow the audience to receive information).

Always interesting and entertaining, Red Lights may stumble in the last 10-15 minutes, but it does so with such gusto that it kind of gets away with its trickery. The fact that it maintains its own movie-world logic is also a major factor in sugar-coating the pill that the third act delivers.

I enjoyed this movie, as you can tell, but as I wrote this review I realised that I was growing to like it more and more. It's one that I look forward to purchasing and revisiting in the near future. I recommend giving it a go.

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 

Angel Heart (1987)

A blend of horror and noir, Angel Heart is a highly regarded movie, and with good reason. If you haven't seen it yet then get to it. If you have seen it, give it a rewatch and find out just how rewarding it is on repeat viewings.

The story sees detective Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) hired by Louis Cyphre (Robert De Niro) to find a missing singer named Johnny Favorite. As Angel starts to make progress, tracking down those who knew Favorite and trying to find out more about his past in order to lead him to Favorite's whereabouts in the present, people start to turn up dead. The finger points to Angel in each instance, but with the growing danger comes a chance to spend some time with the gorgeous Epiphany Proudfoot (Lisa Bonet).

Directed by Alan Parker, who also adapted the book by William Hjortsberg into screenplay form, this is a film dripping with atmosphere and full of wonderful details throughout, both in the visual style and design, and also in much of the dialogue. It's a hot and sweaty movie, taking place mostly in New Orleans, a film that can almost make you smell the surroundings. It also builds and builds towards a third act full of real, impressive, horror and nastiness.

Rourke has, in my opinion, never been better (but I have yet to explore more of his movies from this time, so that opinion is subject to change). He's a permanently rumpled, doggedly determined, figure. A man who starts to suspect that he's being played for a schmuck, even as he keeps digging for answers. De Niro is a lot of fun in the role of Cyphre, charming and quietly menacing in almost all of his scenes. Lisa Bonet is sexy as hell in a role that couldn't be further removed from her sweet, wholesome turn in The Cosby Show. Charlotte Rampling is also very good, playing almost the polar opposite of Bonet's character. And there are also small, enjoyable turns from Brownie McGhee, Michael Higgins, Elizabeth Whitcraft and Pruitt Taylor Vince.

As shocking, at times, as it is entertaining, I rate Angel Heart as a near-perfect movie experience and a bit of a modern classic. There's nothing to fault in terms of the construction and technical side of things, and it's all topped off by a central performance that ranks as one of the very best.

9/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Angel-Heart-DVD-Mickey-Rourke/dp/B001AOHPYY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384155750&sr=8-1&keywords=angel+heart

Backdraft (1991)

As a tribute to firefighters everywhere, Backdraft works. As a piece of fluff that will appeal to any youngster who always wanted to be a firefighter, Backdraft works. As an entertaining and involving movie, Backdraft just doesn't cut it. After a decent run at the box office, this movie exploded (no pun intended) on home video. Well, I can't tell you if it was popular everywhere, but it certainly quickly became the must-see movie at my high school. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, that this may have been due in no small part to the reduction (removal?) of the rental windows that I remember being brought about by Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves. I am only going by personal recollection here so may be completely incorrect. What is definitely correct is that this particular movie was very popular on video at Liberton High School (which, ironically, still hasn't burned to the ground, despite my fervent prayers).

The plot is standard melodrama, directed by Ron Howard and written by an ex-firefighter named Gregory Widen (who witnessed someone killed by the titular occurrence). William Baldwin (one of the many lesser talents in the Baldwin brood) plays Brian McCaffrey, a young man who finally passes the test to become a firefighter and ends up stationed alongside his big brother, Stephen 'Bull' McCaffrey (Kurt Russell). Big brother wants to look after him and he does that by working him harder than anybody else. Scott Glenn is another one of the old hands while Jason Gedrick plays the other new recruit, a young man lucky enough to not have any older brother on HIS case. On top of the tension between the two brothers there are also a worrying number of fires that seem to have been engineered, possibly, to kill certain people. Robert De Niro plays the investigator trying to find out how the fires started.

Apparently, when she read the script Jennifer Jason Leigh (who plays Jennifer Vaitkus, Brian's old flame who may be reignited) said that she wished she could play the fire because it's the best part and that really tells you all that you need to know about the movie. The fire IS the best part. When the flames are billowing around the screen the movie gets interesting. At all other times it's just a messy mix of horrible, super-cheesy lines and completely uninteresting personal drama that is all underlined by a manipulative score from Hans Zimmer.

Kurt Russell is always good to watch, as far as I'm concerned, and there's also a lot of fun to be had when De Niro is onscreen. There's also a lot of fun to be had in the moments featuring Donald Sutherland, as an imprisoned arsonist, and the always-great J. T. Walsh plays a slippery politician and is . . . . . . . . . . . . great, as always. Scott Glenn is alright, Clint Howard has a tiny, but enjoyable, role and Jennifer Jason Leigh and Rebecca De Mornay both do okay with what they're given. Jason Gedrick may not be great, but the weakest link in the cast is bland, talentless William Baldwin who drags the film down with his weak "talent". A better leading man MIGHT have improved the movie ever so slightly, but it's hard to say. As the saying goes: "you can't polish a turd".

Ron Howard isn't a consistently great director, but he has made many very good movies (personally, I love Apollo 13, Parenthood and Frost/Nixon, among others) and I haven't seen a movie from him that I have completely hated. Having said that, this one is the worst I've seen from him so far.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backdraft-Blu-ray-Kurt-Russell/dp/B004GCK6W0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361296523&sr=8-2

Machete (2010)

Well, ummm, I actually saw and reviewed Machete ages ago for Flickfeast.

That review is here - http://flickfeast.co.uk/reviews/film-reviews/machete-2010-2/

An easy 8/10 and great fun. But the best news, at this moment in time, is that it can now count as my weekly Seagal and saves my poor, aching eyes from any more punishment this week.

As the end of my Seagal quest approaches (and I've seen every movie that he's made so far with the exception of Clementine, a movie I couldn't get a hold of for love nor money) I have one thought looming large in my mind - the next quest subject is going to be someone or something much more enjoyable.

Does Seagal have some great movies to choose from? Yes he does. Does he have any actual star power? I'd be generous and say that there was a time when he did. Should he have made half of the movies in his filmography? Hell no!

Considering that it's supposed to be an old-school grindhouse flick, and also considering the fact that the Bluray doesn't have any extra features worth shelling out wads of cash for, I recommend picking up Machete on DVD and having a good time.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Machete-DVD-Danny-Trejo/dp/B0049EO130