Prime Time: Thirteen Lives (2022)

If you try to keep up with major news events then you will know the story that Thirteen Lives is based on. In fact, even being tangentially aware of major headlines should have you knowing enough about this before it starts to play out. This was a huge story in 2018, with many people gripped by the plight of those involved, a group of young male footballers and their coach stranded in a water-filled cave system in Thailand. You might even think that there’s no point in dramatizing there story and presenting it to people who may have those headlines still relatively fresh in their minds. I’d politely say that you would be wrong.

At approximately two and a half hours in length, this is a film that takes just the right time needed to set up the main premise, bring in the main characters (the rescue mission ended up being headed up by two British cave divers, Rick Stanton and John Volanthen), and show the many people who came together during this time. From the Navy Seals who may underestimate the conditions they need to work through to the person hoping to divert rainfall away from the openings that lead to the cave system, from the distraught parents to the farmers who agree to have their crops flooded.

Director Ron Howard, working with writer William Nicholson (a dab hand at this kind of thing, and helped with the story development by Don Macpherson), makes this an incredible viewing experience, crafting a film that presents plenty of data, context, and tension while giving equal time to the main characters. The boys needing rescued don’t have too much screentime, understandable as they simply had to wait while others struggled to figure out a workable plan, but Stanton and Volanthen go through a real variety of emotions, as do the people working with them, and the local governor who is kept in place to take the blame when the expected, “unavoidable”, deaths occur.

With Viggo Mortensen and Colin Farrell playing Stanton and Volanthen, respectively, and their main team being filled out by Tom Bateman, Paul Gleeson, and Joel Edgerton, it would be all too easy to make this a film about a rescue mission in Thailand that focuses purely on the white men who were brought in because of their niche expertise. So it’s a good job that Howard allows time to show the work of the local Navy Seals, and the ultimate responsibility placed on Sahajak Boonthanakit (playing Governor Narongsak). Vithaya Pansringarm is also a formidable presence, as General Anupong, and it would be remiss of me to not highlight the optimism and energy delivered by Nitipoom Khachatphai, aiming to help divert as much water away from the cave system as possible.

Everyone gives a very good performance, but hats off to both Mortensen and Farrell for also putting on decent English accents. The two men apparently took their roles very seriously, often performing their own diving for most of the shots, and they slip into their characters so well that you very easily forget that it IS actually Viggo Mortensen and Colin Farrell you’re watching. Bateman and Edgerton are the other actors to single out, both bringing different elements to the story, and both seeming very much out of their comfort zone in different ways. 

A good documentary could give you all of the information presented here, and there is at least one good documentary already made about this incident, but a good drama can somehow deliver the same information to you in a more effective way, when it is done as well as this anyway. Distances, timings, the co-ordination between so many different groups of people, the weight of every decision, the technical details that are discussed, everything is here, and it is all improved by viewing it from “behind the scenes”, warts and all, and being reminded of the rollercoaster journey that everyone went through while the tick of the clock grew louder and louder.

Thirteen Lives is a fantastic telling of a story that deserves to be told in full. The hefty runtime flies by, and by the time it all ends you feel as if you have watched something great, but also something that succeeds in properly honoring the amazing achievements of everyone involved.

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

Inferno (2016)

Despite knowing how they are generally viewed by many other people, I am a BIG fan of the previous movies featuring the character of Robert Langdon. Having read most of the books written by Dan Brown, I knew the way he created the contrivances and characters, and the movies managed to move along at a brisk enough pace to make me forget the increasing incredulity of the set-pieces (almost). I was looking forward to Inferno, remembering the high stakes and the tense final act.

Sadly, this is the weakest of the cinematic trilogy, and it's easy to see why. The source material just isn't as easy to translate into cinematic entertainment, and there's also the small problem of each subsequent film highlighting just how many times Brown reaches for the same bag of tricks. Director Ron Howard cannot do much while tied to the novel, and writer David Koepp doesn't want to take any risks in his adaptation of the work.

Hanks returns once again to play the hero, who this time starts things by waking up in an Italian hospital with what seems to be a very bad case of amnesia. He barely has time to try and remember who he is before Dr. Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) is helping him to evade a deadly assassin. The two of them then race against the clock to hopefully stop a madman from releasing a virus that will cut the population of the entire planet in half.

It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for Inferno, it's such a mediocre and disappointing movie, especially coming after two much better films. Things start promisingly enough (there's the suicide of the madman who has already put his plan in motion, there's Langdon having a nightmarish vision of people burning to death around him), but that is all soon forgotten as the plot starts to trudge along from one weak set-piece to the next. Even the travelogue aspect isn't all that enjoyable, with the camerawork and visuals surprisingly dull throughout. How the hell do you make Venice look anything less than eye-poppingly gorgeous??

Hanks is yet again a comfortable fit in the role, and Felicity Jones is an enjoyable co-star for him, hampered by the material, but buoyed by the fact that she's Felicity Jones. Omar Sy is okay, but equally hampered by the material, and there are unmemorable supporting turns from Irrfan Khan, Sidse Babett Knudsen, and Ana Ularu. Ben Foster stands out, despite his limited screentime, thanks to his role in one or two of the most intriguing scenes.

Others might end up enjoying this more than I did. If you haven't read the books, or seen the other movies, then you may have a better viewing experience. I found it a big disappointment, especially following on from the two movies that preceded it.

4/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Angels & Demons (2009)

The pope must die . . . in order to kickstart the proceedings of this, the second cinematic adaptation of the implausible adventures of Robert Langdon. It’s a rip-roaring “treasure hunt” through Vatican City, and holds up as an equal to the first film.

Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to Vatican City after a plan is put in motion that involves killing potential new Popes (I cannot recall the name of the ceremony, they really should just call it Pope Idol by now) in a manner tied to the four elements, branding bodies with special writing that may signify the work of the Illuminati, and having everyone do their damnedest to track down a vial of anti-matter that has been set to explode in mere hours.

With Hanks back in the lead role, Howard back in the big chair, and Akiva Goldsman back on writing duties (this time alongside David Koepp), Angels & Demons is very much a happy reunion for people who clearly enjoyed doing such a great job of things the first time around. While you could continue to complain about to the disparity between popular entertainment and great art (and the common ground), the source material from Dan Brown certainly stands high in the former camp, and both Howard and Hanks are used to delivering to people what they want.

The only downside of this film is the female thrown alongside Langdon for this particular escapade. Ayelet Zurer plays Dr. Vittoria Vetra, but she’s really not given much to do. Compared to the other onscreen allies that Langdon has been paired with, this woman is sorely undeveloped and redundant, for the most part (which is really saying something, considering how consistently weak Brown is when it comes to visiting the same well over and over for his stock of supporting characters).

Hanks is comfortable reprising the famous symbologist, Ewan McGregor is a treat, playing someone who was close to the previous Pope, and believes the church should attempt to be even more progressive, and Stellan Skarsgård is as dependable as ever, here playing a stubborn, no-nonsense, head of the Swiss Guard.

The end may become a bit too ridiculous (which you could arguably say about all Dan Brown tales), but this feels a bit more intense than The Da Vinci Code, and makes absolutely fantastic use of the gorgeous environment of Vatican City. For slick mainstream thrills, I think this is top-notch stuff.

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 

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Dan Brown is not Charles Dickens. He's no Brontë. No Stephen King. Even when it comes to thrillers, he's not as good as the likes of Patricia Cornwell, Lee Child, or even (when he's on form) Dean Koontz. But that's not to say that his writing is terrible. He has amassed a huge fanbase over the years, and a lot of that stems from the success of The Da Vinci Code, a thriller that blended some fact with a whole lot of fiction in a way that intrigued readers and made them feel as if they were becoming a bit smarter while the plot became dumber and dumber. That kind of success is very easy to turn your nose up at (especially when you recognise the formula that Brown has used in almost every one of his books, and I have read, and enjoyed,  Deception Point, Digital Fortress, and three of his Langdon adventures, the ones that have so far been adapted into movies), but it also happens for a reason.  Brown knows how to thread together ludicrous plot points into something that is entertaining and thrilling.

You could say the same of director Ron Howard, who has been at the helm of numerous hit movies throughout his career. It's also easy to turn your nose up at many of his works, but they're often hugely popular for similar reasons. Howard is a pro when it comes to the technical side of things, and when it comes to crafting moments of cinematic emotional manipulation. Has he made any absolute classics? You can be the judge of that, but if he's not made one movie that you would always enjoy if you caught it randomly on the TV then I'd be very surprised.

So Howard directing the cinematic adaptation of the book that really made Dan Brown a household name was surely always a guarantee of a blockbuster hit. Put Tom Hanks in the role of Robert Langdon and what could possibly go wrong? Not much, actually, not much at all.

It's a simple enough premise, a straightforward journey complicated by numerous obstacles and twists. Langdon is called to a murder scene inside the Louvre, and that sets him on a quest to both clear his name and find the Holy Grail, which seems to have had its location hidden away in a number of coded messages over the years. Langdon is accompanied by Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), and hopes to enlist the help of and old friend, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), as he tries to continue evading Captain Fache (Jean Reno), a self-flagellating albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), and others who are in hot pursuit.

Although Howard is in the big chair for this, a lot of the credit should be shared by everyone involved. This is a film that makes it clear just how much care and attention has gone into every department, from the props and design to the casting, and it's also got a gorgeous score by Hans Zimmer. Brown came up with the source material, but Akiva Goldsman does a superb job of making things more cinematic. The twists and turns are nicely handled, the exposition delivered in ways that don't let the film feel as if it has come grinding to a halt, and Hanks and Tautou are a winning pairing in the lead roles.

The supporting cast aren't half bad either. Reno works with an ambiguous character who may have an agenda of his own while he tracks our hero, McKellen has fun with a character who is oh-so-English that it's positively precious, and Bettany is an intriguing presence. Alfred Molina and Jürgen Prochnow also have good parts to play, with the latter involved in a set-piece that emphasises how silly some of the plotting can be, which doesn't necessarily make things any less fun.

It's very easy to mock and dismiss the Dan Brown books. It's also very easy to mock and dismiss the movies based on his books (and I know many complained at the time that Tautou seemed a bit wasted in her role, I think she remains a plus, thanks to her sheer screen presence). Maybe try to see how many positives there are, and simply accept the fact that being a crowd-pleasing work of art is almost always far removed from being the best work of art, but isn't any less worthy when it comes to having made people feel happy and entertained.

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 

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

Here it is. The Star Wars spin-off/prequel that we were all excited about when Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (the masters of making unlikely hits) were attached. That excitement started to fade when they parted ways from the project, the safe "creative differences" was the excuse given. And then there were expensive reshoots. And then the film was released, going on to achieve some fairly disappointing numbers at the box office.

I didn't rush to see it, and I didn't hear from too many people who did. It felt like something lacking the spectacle and magic of the main movie series (which even includes those much-criticised prequels, I hasten to add). It felt a bit, dare I say it, pointless.

The mess that led to this film underperforming and being viewed as a big mistake in the ongoing development of the Star Wars cinematic universe is a bit of a shame, because the film itself is a fun sci-fi adventure that benefits from some great lead performances and an enjoyable backstory for a beloved cinematic icon. Okay, we never needed that backstory, I agree, but the writers here - Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan - at least make it a fun one.

I'm not going to cover the plot details here. It's enough to say that the film follows young Han (played by Alden Ehrenreich) as he sets out to make a name for himself, gets involved with someone who taches him a valuable lesson or two, befriends a large Wookie, meets Lando Calrissian (owner of the Millennium Falcon), and ends up flying through the Kessel Run.

I can't emphasise enough how much this film is lifted by the casting of Ehrenreich in the main role. Some may disagree, and my wife numbers among them, but I think he has just the perfect mix of what young Han should be, in terms of both looks and attitude. I first enjoyed Ehrenreich's acting, like so many other viewers, when I caught him in Hail, Caesar! and I hope that he just keeps going on to bigger and better things (and I would have liked to see him in another Solo movie, but that seems unlikely now). The other three people who easily hold the screen alongside Ehrenreich are Woody Harrelson (as Beckett, a criminal type who becomes a bit of a mentor), Joonas Suotamo playing Chewbacca, and Donald Glover as Lando. All of them are fantastic, but it's Glover who would steal the movie if it wasn't full of so many great little moments for everyone. Emilia Clarke, playing the woman who inavdvertently set Han on his path through life, is better here than she has been in some other movie roles, Paul Bettany gives a fine performance as a crime boss that you should never cross, and Thandie Newton, Jon Favreau (his voice anyway), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (also a vocal performance) all do solid work. Waller-Bridge has the most fun, which makes it a shame that her character wasn't onscreen for a bit longer.

Ron Howard is the man who ended up in the director's chair. He does the perfectly competent job that you would expect him to do. It's not up there with his best work, and it's not up there with the best of the Star Wars movies, but it's a genuinely good time for viewers wanting to sit back, relax, and spend a couple of hours in the company of a reluctant hero they can find out a little bit more about. The script drops a number of lovely little details throughout, fleshing out a few of the main characters in scenes that entertain without ever betraying their essence (although it's quite easy when you keep things so simple - e.g. Lando is a charming rogue).

There are some touches that feel a bit forced, especially in the third act, but the pleasant surprise is just how much the film feels like Han at every turn. The music by John Powell aside (it never hits the heights that viewers might expect), this feels effortless and charming. It's one that I can see myself revisiting often, which is all down to how much I enjoyed spending time with these characters.

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

Parenthood (1989)

Featuring Keanu Reeves before he was best known from Bill and Ted and years before he was Neo, Joaquin Phoenix while he was still known as Leaf and Martha Plimpton . . . . . . when she was known, Parenthood is a fun '80s movie that holds up today just as well as it did when it was first released. It may run slightly overlong, but it's well paced with some big laughs in between all of the wry observations on the joys and perils of parenthood.

Steve Martin and Mary Steenburgen are the main characters, Gil and Karen Buckman, but the narrative also spends plenty of time with Dianne Wiest (playing Helen Buckman, single mother and Gil's sister), Harley Kozak and Rick Moranis (Gil's other sister and her partner), Tom Hulce (Gil's brother) and Jason Robards (Gil's father). The aforementioned Keanu Reeves and Martha Plimpton are a tempestuous, teenage couple (with Plimpton also being Weist's daughter in the film) and Phoenix is Wiest's sullen young son.

Directed by Ron Howard, the film benefits from both the ensemble cast and a fun script written by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel. The drama and comedy is nicely mixed together in perfect amounts, with a real little bonus for Steve Martin fans as he gets to reference his past live material in a scene that has him creating some balloon animals (yeah, maybe not worth singling out, but I've always loved that sequence more than any other part of the movie).

Everyone gets to have at least one great moment, even the wonderful Helen Shaw (playing the grandma) in the last role of her brief film career. Martin gets to have lots of fun and Steenburgen is superb, but Wiest, Plimpton, Reeves and Phoenix really end up stealing the movie by the time the end credits roll. Moranis and Kozak are both very funny as rather pushy parents, Jason Robards is as good as ever and Tom Hulce does a good job at being a bit of a selfish ass. And then there are the kids, running around and causing problems. I'm not going to say that they all give wonderful, flawless performances but they're all very good at being, well, kids. Job done.

This will definitely appeal more to those who can identify with the many unique situations that come from being a parent, but there's also plenty here to appeal to everyone else. Because we all have some kind of family, which is equally what the film is looking at for most of the runtime.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Steve-Martin-Collection-DVD/dp/B000QJMSFA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374525282&sr=8-1&keywords=steve+martin

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

Corman's World: Exploits Of A Hollywood Rebel (2011)

It's hard to think of anyone more influential on the current creme de la creme of Hollywood than Roger Corman. He gave a helping hand to youngsters such as Joe Dante, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, John Sayles, Jonathan Demme, Jack Nicholson and many, many more and most of his older b-movies are still viewed by fans with great affection today.

This documentary doesn't really tell you anything new but it does clarify just how great and important in the grand scheme of things the unassuming Mr. Corman really is. It's arguably the case that without this man we wouldn't have half of the movies that we now consider modern classics.

A simple format that works well, this mixes in talking head moments from the past and the present with a number of great clips from the extensive filmography attached to Corman's name, this reminds all movie fans of the radical ideas and movements that have sprung up to push cinema forward. The documentary is, as you would expect, most appealing to fans of exploitation cinema but others should check it out to remind themselves of the humble roots many acclaimed artists grew from.

Director Alex Stapleton moves nice and smoothly through Corman's life, from his very first movies through to his current ongoing relationship with the Syfy Channel, and there are a wealth of soundbites and anecdotes to both entertain and also reveal the warm and giving nature of the man at the centre of the attention.

This may not be quite as much fun as some other recent documentaries focusing on b-movies and exploitation fare (I'm thinking, mainly, of the two superb outings from Mark Hartley that we've had - Not Quite Hollywood and Machete Maidens Unleashed) but it's still essential viewing for those, like myself, who have grown up with a love for the movies of AIP and New World Pictures. A love that tends to grow exponentially in relation to the output of colour-by-numbers mainstream blockbuster movies we get year on year.

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