Showing posts with label zazie beetz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zazie beetz. Show all posts

Thursday, 7 May 2026

They Will Kill You (2026)

As anyone who has been keeping track of my movie viewings will know, this is the reason I recently revisited Why Don't You Just Die! I had enjoyed the trailer for this movie, and wanted to see how director Kirill Sokolov would do with macabre fare that seemed to be aimed at a more mainstream audience (aka his English-language debut). The verdict? He doesn't do a bad job. I wouldn't call They Will Kill You great, but it certainly has one or two moments of greatness in it.

It's a familiar tale, at least on the surface. A group of rich and powerful people need to kill someone in order to retain their status. They're all inhabitants of one large building, and Asia Reaves (Zazie Beetz) is the new housekeeper who ends up being their new target. Asia has a hidden agenda though, and she's also very good at staying alive while dealing savagely with anyone silly enough to attack her.

Co-written by Sokolov and Alex Litvak, this may have underperformed at the box office, perhaps due to how close it was released to what seemed a very similar film (Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come), but I hope people will give it their time at home. There are a couple of twists and turns that make it much more fun than expected, and the violence on display is often as entertaining and inventive as it is savage and bloody.

Beetz is a very good lead, easy to root for and easy to believe as someone capable and deadly. It helps that the ensemble cast also includes Patricia Arquette (dubious accent choice and all), Paterson Joseph, Heather Graham, Tom Felton, Angus Sampson, and the voice of James Remar. There are many others too, including Myha'la, playing a character who provides the main motivation for the leading lady. Not everyone is at the same standard when it comes to the performances being delivered, but those who add to the fun far outweigh the few who don't.

I admit to not being won over by this from the very beginning. It seemed like it was a half-baked idea that would barely hold my interest for half an hour, let alone a full 94 minutes. The first couple of twists and turns were executed well enough to perk me up though, and then I was delighted by some superb gore gags and wonderfully-choreographed fight scenes until the curtain was pulled back for a final act that keeps delivering more of the same, but also adds even more insanity to the mix.

Sokolov proves himself as someone to absolutely keep an eye on. He has a great sense of the cinematic, is able to create stylish mayhem on a relatively low budget, and accompanies his visuals with some appropriately driving soundtrack choices. I may have been keen to see this, but I'm just as keen to see whatever he ends up doing next. And I wouldn't be disappointed if it was some contrived sequel to this. Maybe titled They Will Still Kill You. 

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

Friday, 10 April 2026

Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die (2026)

There's no way that this should have been as bad as it was, considering the talent involved. I have enjoyed a couple of other recent movies from writer Matthew Robinson, and I've also been a fan of Gore Verbinski. A cast that includes Sam Rockwell, Juno Temple, and Zazie Beetz? Sign me up. Alas, this is a half-developed decent idea in search of a much better movie.

Rockwell plays a man who bursts into a diner, reveals that he's wired up to explode, and claims to be from the future. Everything has gone horribly wrong in the future, but Rockwell just needs to find the right group of people to help him save them all from a powerful AI overlord. That group of people ends up including Susan (Temple), Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), Mark (Peña), Janet (Beetz), Scott (Asim Chaudhry), Marie (Georgia Goodman), and Bob (Daniel Barnett). Each one of these individuals has something to make them an essential part of the plan, hopefully.

There are so many interesting ways this could have gone. You have potential timeloops, you have evil tech that might be able to tap into unlimited power, and you have Sam bloody Rockwell in a starring role. Unfortunately, the only one of those three things to work here is Rockwell, who gives another performance so enjoyable that I wish he would get more star vehicles worthy of his considerable talent.

Robinson does very little with the screenplay, apparently ensuring that the whole thing can be made with a reasonably low budget. I understand his thinking there, especially when the premise is so bonkers that you know it's not going to be breaking any box office records, but limited resources is no excuse for limiting creativity. Just look at any great sci-fi or horror movie made by people who often had a lot less to work with.

Verbinski doesn't seem to know what to do. It's been a while since he's had to show some self-restraint, perhaps he's forgotten how to do it. Perhaps he was never able to do it in the first place. There are certainly some moments in the second half of the film that show him making some horrible decisions that highlight failings in the screenplay. Robinson may have handed in a weak framework, but Verbinski moves it all around and ensures that it will collapse under the weight of his directorial additions.

Aside from Rockwell's winning turn at the centre of the madness, Temple, Richardson, Peña, and Beetz all do very well with what they're given, as do Chaudhry, Goodman, and Barnett, although they are given a bit less. Tom Taylor is also good, and given the chance to show a fair bit of range with the events that befall his character, while many others fill out the supporting cast without being given any chance to make a strong impression amidst numerous scenes that are often too busy and chaotic.

The 134-minute runtime is overlong, especially with a final sequence that proves to be so unsatisfying, and I struggle to think of anything to recommend here, the cast notwithstanding. I guess the title applies just as much to viewers as it does to the film, but it's only the last two words that I suspect most people will be able to follow as instructions.

3/10

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

Thursday, 4 September 2025

The Bad Guys 2 (2025)

It's always a good sign when everyone returns for a sequel, and I cannot spot anyone major missing, either behind or "in front" of the camera, from The Bad Guys 2. Considering I enjoyed the first movie enough, thanks in no small part to the style and the voice cast, I was optimistic about this. That optimism was not misplaced.

Some time has passed, of course, and the bad guys are spending their time trying to be good guys. That's hard when you have earned the kind of reputation that they have earned though. It's even harder when someone is pulling off the kind of robberies that would seem to be very much in line with the M. O. of the bad guys. Hoping to crack the case and change the opinions of people who won't let them move away from their past, Wolf (Sam Rockwell), Shark (Craig Robinson), Tarantula (Awkwafina), Piranha (Anthony Ramos), and Snake (Marc Maron) quickly put themselves in a situation that makes them look even more guilty than ever, much to the frustration of Diane Foxington (Zazie Beetz).

Just as fun and lively as the first movie, The Bad Guys 2 is a pretty perfect sequel. It may not surpass the first film, but it's a very close call. And it made me laugh hard with a couple of perfectly-executed fart gags I assume will go down equally well with younger viewers. Pierre Perifel is now happy to share directing duties with JP Sans (who worked in the animation department for the first film), and Etan Cohen is now happy to collaborate with Yoni Brenner on a screenplay once again born from the books by Aaron Blabey.

The central cast remain perfect in their roles (as well as those mentioned, Richard Ayoade and Alex Borstein also reprise roles from the first film) and there are equally entertaining performances from Omid Djalili, Colin Jost, Natasha Lyonne, Maria Bakalova, and a few others. Is the plot a bit obvious and predictable? Yes. It's also easy enough to let wash over you as each sequence packs in a fantastic selection of action and gags. 

Perfect for kids (and those as childish as me), The Bad Guys 2 once again nicely reworks the standard  heist movie tropes, adds even more peril, as happens in many sequels, and provides a very nice excuse to spend some more time with some very entertaining and cool characters.

And look, just in case anyone misunderstands how old or mature I actually am . . . let me just emphasise that it was a VERY good fart gag. Otherwise I wouldn't have felt the need to mention it here. Honest. 

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 

Thursday, 2 January 2025

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

I was one of many people who ended up enjoying Joker when it was released back in 2019. It was a divisive movie though, and many hated it. Surprising as it may seem, one of the people who seems to have hated it more than most is . . . director Todd Phillips. Well, to be more accurate, he seems to hate the character, and seems to hate how he has been held up as some icon of cool. And the people who use images of Joker and Harley Quinn to state "couple goals"? Yeah, Phillips hates you just as much, if not more so.

It's time for Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix reprising the role) to be put on trial. Having been imprisoned since the events of the last movie, Fleck has become a lightning rod for an uneasy population thinking they may have an anarchic hero to support and push forward like a giant wrecking ball. Arthur gets the attention of Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga), the two sharing a love of daydreaming their way through some song and dance numbers, but this doesn't sit well with his lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener). None of this growing unrest, nor the celebrity prisoner's growing popularity, sits well with prison officer Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson), which essentially paints a large target on Arthur's back.

EVERYTHING that was good about Joker is destroyed here. Everything. And when I say destroyed I mean fully torn apart, shredded, pulped, shredded again, set on fire, and the ashes packed into a small rocket that is fired directly into the sun. Did you like the visual style? It's here again, but somehow feels like the lazy choice this time around, especially when it invaded even the scenes that should make use of some colour and light. Did you like the nihilism and misanthropy? It's here, but it's so constantly in your face that it feels like an angry toddler pulling on your ears as it screams Nietzsche quotes at you. Did you like the central character? You shouldn't, not according to Phillips anyway. Joker is a weak and pathetic victim, unexpectedly elevated to a position of power that he is absolutely unprepared for.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Phillips tries hard to make his disdain palpable in every scene. There are very few moments here that actually work in movie terms, and one of those atypical treats happens at the very beginning of the film (a bit of animation that hints at an anarchy and energy the rest of the film stubbornly refuses to revisit), and even the much-discussed musical numbers fall flat because a) Phillips refuses to commit to them, and b) they feel as if they're just present to deliberately repel anyone who enjoyed the first film. There's something slightly admirable about Phillips making use of the money and resources available to create such a huge Joker-topped pyre, but it also feels, well, just a bit rude.

At least there's a decent cast, and I don't really have any complaints about Gaga, Gleeson, Keener, Zazie Beetz, Steve Coogan, Harry Lawtey (as a rather bland Harvey Dent), and Leigh Gill. I do have complaints about Phoenix though, and the fact that he is still the main star means that his awful performance helps to damage the film in a way that I am sure Phillips actively encouraged. Phoenix is limp and lifeless throughout, except for the moments in which he deliberately chooses to overact and fool around. Everything he did so well in the first movie is alchemically transformed from gold to lead this time around.

Phillips, co-writing the screenplay once again with Scott Silver, does everything to ensure that this second film puts a handful of nails in the coffin of the main character. Both he and his leading man should be embarrassed by how bad this is, but I suspect they're already on to other projects without giving this a second thought. It's just fans who will be affected by it, fans of the Joker and/or fans of cinema. And Phillips couldn't be clearer about what he thinks of those people. Remember that the next time he works on something that he actually cares about.

3/10

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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

Friday, 30 September 2022

Bullet Train (2022)

A comedy action movie, emphasis on the comedy, starring Brad Pitt as a professional criminal who wants nothing in his life but good vibes, Bullet Train has a lot going for it. On paper. Directed by David Leitch, starring Pitt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Brian Tyree Henry, Joey King, Michael Shannon, and Hiroyuki Sanada, and mixing action and comedy on the titular bullet train, what’s not to love?

Pitt is on a simple mission. He is given the codename “Ladybug” and tasked with retrieving a briefcase from the bullet train. Ideally, he should get on, grab the case, and then get off at the next stop. Meanwhile, Lemon (Henry) and Tangerine (Taylor-Johnson) are looking after someone they are supposed to keep safe, in exchange for a decent payday. Meanwhile, Prince (King) wants to get revenge on a number of people, as does Wolf (played by Bad Bunny. MEANWHILE, others start to board the train with their own deadly agendas. Ladybug shouldn’t even be there, as he is filling in for an agent named Carver, and it isn’t long until he wishes he hadn’t taken the job.

Based on a book by Kôtarô Isaka, turned into a screenplay by Zak Olkewicz, this is a bizarre throwback to a time when every other film was trying to rip off Tarantino or Guy Ritchie. I am not sure if the problem lies with the source material, having not read the book, but there’s a smugness throughout that isn’t matched by the dialogue or plotting. Everything feels far too much like a Rube Goldberg machine, an excessive amount of moving parts and complications leading to a very underwhelming final result, and the eclectic cast isn’t good enough, overall, to help it all along.

Leitch, who has spent the last five years directing films that mix action and comedy better than this one, fails to find the right way through the dense plotting. There aren’t enough moments of impressive action, the comedy always feels like a separate component, rather than an intertwining strand, and any sense of entertaining spectacle is undermined by the overuse of CGI. This is a busy movie in so many ways, often painfully so, and I only felt that working in its favour during an enjoyable finale that somehow managed to tie up every strand and provide a punchline for every running gag (so fair play to Olkewicz for saving his best work until the end of the movie).

Pitt is fine in the lead role, playing a character we have seen a version of in a number of different movies now. The main thing that allows him to stand out is what he views as a constant string of bad luck, something that allows the script to keep getting bigger and wilder, but there’s a moderately interesting idea tucked away here about perspective, and how bad luck in one way may be good luck in the long run. Taylor-Johnson is bad, I just didn’t like him in this role (and I can only imagine how much this movie could have been improved with someone else there), but Henry does a bit better, helping to make their scenes together more bearable. I don’t want to rate every single main player, especially when I can spend some time highlighting just how good both Shannon and Sanada are. Both get in on the action for the third act, and both take this movie up an entire notch or two. King is okay, Bad Bunny is . . . okay, Zazie Beetz is great, but sadly underused, and there are a few cameos that properly amused me.

It certainly tries to keep the momentum going for most of the 2+ hour runtime, I will give it that, and the soundtrack has some great choices, although I wanted even more. I MIGHT revisit and reappraise this at some point, to see if I enjoy it more while spending less time trying to unpick the various plot threads, but for now I have to tell people that it’s not recommended. It’s tonally very messy, it’s comedically very hit and miss (but one hit, a sequence showing two men tallying up the numbers killed in their most recent job, is superb), and it spends a lot of time going off the rails before sorting itself out just in time for that enjoyable finale.

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

Friday, 20 May 2022

The Bad Guys (2022)

If there is one problem I have with The Bad Guys it’s the fact that a film featuring Sam Rockwell as a smooth and conniving thief should also be available in live-action form. But here we are, and this animated comedy crime caper should do enough to entertain most viewers.

Rockwell is Wolf, the head honcho of a crew that also includes Snake (Marc Maron), Tarantula (Awkwafina), Shark (Craig Robinson), and Piranha (Anthony Ramos). Busted during a big robbery, this group of baddies is allowed to escape jail time if they opt to place themselves in the care of the benevolent Professor Marmalade (Richard Ayoade). The Professor wants to show that baddies can change their ways, but a lot of other people are very doubtful, including Diane Foxington (Zazie Beetz) and Police Chief Misty Luggins (Alex Borstein). There might also be someone looking to frame our main characters for one big job. Or maybe they will trip themselves up, especially as they took the Professor’s deal to simply avoid jail time while they planned their next big score.

Based on books by Aaron Blabey, The Bad Guys has a lot going for it. First of all is that voice cast, but I will get back to them in a moment. The script, written by Etan Cohen, with additional material from Yoni Brenner and Hilary Winston, is a great mix of cool and funny. Wolf is very much a charming gentleman thief, in the vein of Cary Grant or George Clooney, and he enjoys the thrill of each job, especially when it can lead to a long car chase. Each main character has an identifying prime trait, and many have a secret or two to be revealed by the finale. And if you have kids who don’t enjoy the energy or wit of the film, don’t worry, they will be amused by the upset tummy of Piranha leading to a couple of amusing fart gags.

Director Pierre Perifel has a nice body of work already, working as an animator on films such as the Kung Fu Panda movies and The Illusionist (to name just a couple of highlights). He certainly knows what he is doing. Every main sequence has just the right energy running through it, including a very enjoyable dance number, and there are lots of gags that make the most of the medium.

Let’s get back to that cast though. Rockwell has been a magnificent star for some years now and his voice is a perfect fit for the charming and fast-thinking lead. Maron, Awkwafina, Robinson, and Ramos all fit well with their characters, and they each make their scenes funnier in different ways. Ayoade, likewise, has a voice that fits his role perfectly, and both Beetz and Borstein are excellent as two authority figures who view Wolf and his gang very differently, the former hoping they can change their ways while the latter just really wants to lock them up.

Some people have commented on the little nods to Tarantino here and there, which is worth pointing out to film fans who may otherwise overlook this, but The Bad Guys is more interested in being an animal-centric riff on the “Ocean’s [Insert Number Here]” movies. And it completely works in that regard, with the stealthy thievery, action sequences, and gags all accompanied by a fantastic score from Daniel Pemberton (who has slowly become an absolute standout musical talent over the length of his career, and I hope we get plenty more from him).

Entertaining for all ages, especially if you can stay in touch with your inner child as easily as I can, this is recommended. It isn’t top-tier animated fare, but it is well put together and . . . well, it’s just a good bit of fun from start to finish. 

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

Sunday, 26 July 2020

Netflix And Chill: Wounds (2019)

It seems as if I have been hearing about Wounds for a long time, and very little of it was good. Written and directed by Babak Anvari, who previously delivered the great Under The Shadow, his feature debut, it's a horror film that seems to have left many viewers underwhelmed and unsatisfied. I really don't know why, and I personally put it on par with Anvari's first film.

Armie Hammer is Will, a bartender with a bit of a messy life situation. He lives with his partner, Carrie (Dakota Johnson), may have a thing for regular patron, Alicia (Zazie Beetz), and has to put up with crap during his shifts like fights started by Eric (Brad William Henke). And then he finds a mobile phone that contains some disturbing photos and video clips, and makes him a target for who, or what, is at the other end of the line.

Based on a novella - 'The Visible Filth' - by Nathan Ballingrud, Wounds is a slight film that chooses to focus on a fracturing psyche and small moments that hint at a disturbing bigger picture. Moving from the subtle spookiness of his debut feature, Anvari continues to show how good he is at building atmosphere, but this time it's an atmosphere of immediate dread and confusion, once people see certain images that are impossible to perceive as being based in our established reality.

As strange a comparison point as this may seem, and maybe not a positive one for many people, Wounds feels very much like a film running in tandem with Unfriended: Dark Web. It's someone discovering a hitherto-unknown world, one in which those running things seem scarily knowledgeable and powerful, and where the most twisted acts are committed just, well, just because someone thought something up. There may not be any obvious price list, but there's never any doubt that people are paying something, even if it's not with cash.

The only downside of the film comes from the casting. I quite like Hammer in the right role. This isn't the right role. He seems too cocky for a bartender who also seems too old to be at that place in his life (trust me, I picked up some bar work in my early thirties, and felt far too old for it then). Johnson is an actress I have liked in a few other movies, and she can deliver when asked to stretch herself, but she's completely wasted here. Beetz is allowed to shine, albeit momentarily, but she's alone. Henke isn't a good character, he's a plot point, used effectively on the way to an interesting final scene. And you have Karl Glusman as Jeffrey, the young man in a relationship with Beetz's character. He's also not used well, and is actually given one of the worst scenes in the whole film.

I'll forgive the problems in the casting/acting department though. Wounds is a film of ideas, it's one that puts together a number of unsettling moments as things spiral further and further towards the kind of cosmic horror and insanity that Lovecraft fans should enjoy. And it solidifies Anvari's reputation as a very talented director. I hope he gives us some more horror genre work in the future.

8/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews


Monday, 10 February 2020

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.


Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Deadpool 2 (2018)

It's a running joke with people who know enough of my general movie opinions that I tend to be Mr 7/10. I can't really deny this, and yet I don't see anything too wrong with it either. Because, despite trying to see every movie that I can fit into my busy schedule, I will always tend to a) prioritise movies I think I am going to enjoy, and b) look for the good in any film I am watching. What the hell does this have to do with Deadpool 2, you may be wondering, apart from the obvious foreshadowing of exactly what my rating might be. Well, I rated the first Deadpool movie a 7/10 and felt the need to mention it here. It is, in a number of ways, a better film than this sequel, but it also had enough drawbacks to knock it down a few points. Not least among them was the fact that I'd seen the best sequence of the film in a rough version that was used to get the project support and traction, which it very much did.

Basically, you will know a lot of people who rate Deadpool higher than I did, but don't think that I disliked it. I laughed quite a lot. And I laughed quite a lot while watching Deadpool 2 (the biggest laughs involving some brilliant cameos and a mid-credit sequence that may well be the best superhero sting yet). It's a very good sequel . . . but it also has enough drawbacks to knock it down a few points.

Assuming you know the merc with the mouth, what's the story this time around? Well, DP (Ryan Reynolds again, of course) ends up trying to protect a young lad named Russell (Julian Dennison) from a time-travelling badass named Cable (Josh Brolin). There are still only a few X-Men allowed to join our (anti-)hero, budget allowing, but it's obvious that the success of the first film has made it possible to have even more fun this time around.

A lot of the main names return, with the notable exception of director Tim Miller, and that shows in the final product. This is a film that tells an interestingly different story from the first movie while maintaining a consistent tone and style, a "same but different" approach that is exemplified by the hilarious opening credit sequence. David Leitch is no stranger to the character, having directed the wonderful short film "No Good Deed" that showed Deadpool taking far too long to change costume while his help was needed, and he seems comfortable directing what we all know is essentially the chance for Ryan Reynolds to act like a kid in a candy store. If the kid was foul-mouthed and fast-talking and the candy store was full of dismembered limbs, drugs, and objects that could be used as improvised sex toys.

It goes without saying that Reynolds is superb again in the lead role, bagging all the best lines from the script (which he had a hand in, alongside Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick). Dennison gives another fantastic performance that has a number of nods to his previous star turn (in Hunt For The Wilderpeople) and Josh Brolin gives a "supervillain" performance that only comes second to the other main antagonist that he has portrayed recently. Karan Soni returns as taxi-driving Dopinder, Morena Baccarin is the love of Deadpool's life, Brianna Hildebrand still isn't allowed to smile much as Negasonic Teenage Warhead, and T. J. Miller manages to bag some of the better lines not being kept for Reynolds. Zazie Beetz is very enjoyable as a newcomer, Domino, with luck as her superpower, Eddie Marsan is enjoyably horrid, and there are some other people I won't mention because spoiler-free is the way to be.

You get the witty dialogue, another lively soundtrack, and some excellent action set-pieces, but it's interesting that Deadpool 2 falters when it slows things right down and attempts to show some proper emotional depth. It's interesting because it doesn't need to do that. There are some moments that work, judged perfectly between the comedic and the dark and the potentially cheesy, and some that really don't (the finale features a couple of them), but the fact is that the movie was doing a bloody good job before it started to show just how hard it was trying. Throughout most of the runtime, Deadpool 2 is an interesting look at personal responsibility and consequences, whether the actions are good or bad. It looks at cycles of violence and how the abused may damage themselves as they set out to damage their abusers, and there are times when it effortlessly does this better than any of the other superhero movies we have had over the past couple of decades (with the exception of Logan perhaps, ironically enough). But it doesn't do it in a way that interferes with the action or comedy . . . unlike some of the other emotional beats that are crammed in there.

Deadpool 2 - go along for the laughs, stay for the sheer entertainment, and leave while thinking about what they managed to slide inside you while you weren't even noticing (oo-er). Things may not feel as fresh this time around, inevitably, and there's a lack of REAL villainy, but I'm already looking forward to a third film. And everyone should try to see this one before some idiot blurts out some of the best gags.

Can you guess my rating?

7/10

Get it, when available, here.
Americans will be able to get it here.
Seriously, if you use either of those links, even to buy other stuff on Amazon, I get the pennies. Give me the pennies. All the pennies.