The Demons Of Ludlow (1983)

Ludlow is a small town, but it has been plagued with mysterious deaths and tragedies over the years. Celebrations are happening though, and the town has been gifted a piano. Yayyyyy. But it's a haunted piano. Booooo. It's the kind of piano that can tinkle its own keys when wanting to create some extra spookiness, and that seems to spur on spirits who want to do things like . . . move fireside pokers around behind people. The spirits also kill, when the budget and plotting allows it. Debra (Stephanie Cushna) is a reporter digging around for a story on the town, as she used to live there until moving away at the age of 9, and Paul Bentzen is a local preacher who seems to sense that something is turning rotten in the middle of the planned festivities.

Directed by (the notorious) Bill Rebane, a man who certainly never let things like a lack of funds, or decent actors, stop him from getting a film made, The Demons Of Ludlow is, much like one of his other movies, The Giant Spider Invasion, a terrible horror movie that I cannot stop having a soft spot for. I recognise both as being genuinely terrible films, and the rose-tinted glasses don't filter out the sheer awfulness of them, but they also make me smile, both for what is onscreen and how I fell for them when I was a young boy. The Giant Spider Invasion is a film I enjoyed on a small TV screen, being impressed by the terrible special effects and scared by the spiders, and The Demons Of Ludlow was one of the first videotapes I bought for myself after being lured in by a lurid cover that promised so much more than the film delivered. 

Rebane is working from a poor script, written by William Arthur (with Alan Ross credited for additional dialogue), but he does nothing to help himself, or any of his actors. Viewers get to see people with bad make-up on their faces portraying spirits, they get to see wires on any household objects being moved about by invisible entities, and they get to see a lot of bad acting. The special effects aren't very special, the piano keys play ominously when things are about to get spookier (well . . . supposedly spookier), and a number of scenes feel very sluggish, making this feel like it runs for much longer than the 90-ish-minute runtime.

Cushna isn't too bad in her role, and C. Dave Davis is certainly decent value as the Mayor, but the other cast members range from the average to the godawful. Bentzen is at the latter end of that scale, his particular style harder to overlook when he is in so many scenes.

I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone, unless you're looking to torture someone for an evening. Yet I have now watched it myself three times. Why? There are so many other movies I have still to watch for the first time. But I owned this on VHS, and gave up on it the first time I tried to watch it as a teenager, then owned it in a cheap DVD pack. Now, because of the strange and interesting times we live in, I now own this on Blu-ray. I'll probably watch it again one day, and I'll definitely look forward to diving into the special features. Meanwhile, I advise most sane people to stay far away from it.

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

Escape Room: Tournament Of Champions (2021)

I enjoyed Escape Room. I also enjoyed Escape Room. And I will enjoy any number of films that feature escape rooms at the heart of their plot, as I have said before. It’s a cool concept, and the films often allow you to expect some gory death moments while “playing along” with the main characters.

The plot to this is very simple. After the events of the first film, Zoey (Taylor Russell) and Ben (Logan Miller) set out to find the creators of the dangerous game they were caught up in. They want justice to be served. That ends up with them dragged into more escape rooms, this time alongside other survivors (hence the title). An underground train, a bank, a seaside shack, and even a scene that looks like any number of NYC streets are all scenes full of puzzles they have to solve before the timer runs out.

There are a lot of people who worked together this time around to get the screenplay done, so I will just mention the returning Maria Melnik. While it may seem like far more bodies than necessary, every individual scenario is enjoyably intricate in the slotting together of the puzzle pieces so I cannot complain about more brainpower being used to focus on the fun extended set-pieces.

Director Adam Robitel is back in the big chair, and he sticks with the approach that served him well enough in the first film. Show the room, let the camera pick up small details, hone in on different clues as the players agonise over their next move. You get secret switches, deadly lasers, electric shocks, “quicksand”, acid raining down, and much more, and Robitel almost always shows a small effect of these elements before preparing for at least one major death.

Although the focus is always on the rooms themselves, both Russell and Miller acquit themselves admirably enough in their roles. Holland Roden, Indya Moore, Thomas Cocquerel, and Carlito Olivero also do fine, although it’s Roden standing out from the other players. Then you have scenes featuring Isabelle Fuhrman and James Frain that attempt to frame the whole story in a way that is pretty unnecessary. Look, I appreciate trying to show that there actually is someone creating these puzzles, but the logic of the movie has already asked me to switch off my brain and not overthink it, considering just how much money and resources would be needed for each scenario, so shoehorning in some backstory at this point does more harm than good.

As expected, this wasn’t quite as good as the first film. It’s not bad though, and certainly not bad enough to dissuade me from watching any other movies that use the idea, or even the same title. They may not be amazing, or stuffed with surprises, but they are enjoyably unpretentious and entertaining.

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

Prime Time: The Curse Of Halloween Jack (2019)

Here's that rare beast, a film so irritatingly lazy and awful that I don't even want to waste time by trying to summarise the plot. So allow me to share with you how it is detailed on IMDb - "Notorious cult The Lords of Samhain resurrect long dead serial killer Halloween Jack and all hell breaks loose in the town of Dunwich." Trust me when I tell you that the film isn't as good as that summary may suggest.

Written and directed by the prolific Andrew Jones (who also gave us Robert and Cabin 28, to name the two other films from him that I have inadvertently endured), this is one of many cheap horror movies that seem to be cropping up with tiresome regularity nowadays. Arguably in line with the kind of stuff that would go straight to video about 15-20 years ago, although that's quite insulting to some of the fine movies I have discovered in that format, this is something that feels designed simply to sucker people in. The clues were there as soon as, if not before, I pressed play.

First of all, the title is clearly tempting to those seeking a horror movie when they want to cram in some more genre fare throughout the month of October. Anything with Halloween in the title will get people mildly interested. Halloween Jack? Jack-o-lanterns may be involved, or there may be references to Jack Skellington. Not at all. It's simply a name based on familiar terms that will fool casual browsers.

Second, the town of Dunwich seems to be based in the UK. Which would make the events of the film set in the UK. But there are a number of little touches, and wobbly accents, that make you think that Jones wanted to have the film set in America. Maybe that was in the early stages of the script, before the budget ensured that there wouldn't be money to dress and detail everything to make it convincingly American. Maybe Jones couldn't make up his mind. Or maybe he just didn't care about anything like continuity or in-world logic, or the possibility of helping viewers to enjoy their viewing experience.

Third, there are many scenes without any real sense of location. Shots are either tight and keeping focus away from anything in the background that shouldn't be there or they are able to show off a more general and nondescript bigger space when the lighting is kept low and no recognisable landmarks are looming over the actors. This happens often in low-budget/independent movies, but there are ways to make it a lot less noticeable. 

As for the actors, it would be too easy, and a bit rude, to single out those who don't do a very good job. I'm only going to mention two people here. Tiffany Ceri was okay, despite the horribly weak script (and it is HORRIBLY weak, but full of dialogue exchanges that Jones either thinks highly of or assumes will further pad out the runtime). Peter Cosgrove is also worth mentioning, playing Duke Tanner. Unfortunately, his character is one of the most annoying I can think of in the horror genre. He's supposed to be the grizzled veteran who knows the danger that everyone is in, and he has an awful fake American accent throughout, but he's asked to deliver every line in a stilted and breathy manner. That wouldn't have been quite so bad if we weren't stuck listening to him for almost a full ten minutes in the final act of the film, a stretch of time that brings everything to an absolute halt while Cosgrove's character delivers all of the exposition that could have been drip-fed elsewhere throughout the slim runtime.

I don't like to review movies without offering some constructive criticism, but there are a few occasions when there isn't anything to say that can sweeten the bitter pill being administered. The score is sometimes alright, I guess, and that is genuinely the only positive I can remember from a film I am already trying to wipe from my memory. Oh, the main character design wasn't actually that bad, to be fair. Nothing else worked, from the dialogue to the performances, from the camerawork to the disappointing death scenes.

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

Uncanny Annie (2019)

The easiest way to describe Uncanny Annie is as a horror riff on Jumanji, an idea that has been used a few times now, with varying results. 

A group of friends get together to play some board games during the spooky season, one year on from the death of one of their number. They find a game called Uncanny Annie and start to play, thinking it will be very easy. It won’t be easy though. Not at all. Because the game features a mischievous and deadly spirit, Annie, who always wants to win.

Although feature length, and screened a couple of years ago at a horror film festival (maybe more than one, I’m not sure), Uncanny Annie is actually the first episode of the second season of Into The Dark, a horror anthology TV show. This explains why the opportunity to direct is given to Paul Davis, while the writing is handed over to Alan Blake Bachelor and James Bachelor. These people have very limited experience in the movie world, going by their filmographies, but this format allows them to stretch their legs and work within a premise that may well provide the best mix of restrictions and freedom.

Adelaide Kane, Georgie Flores, and Paige McGhee play the three main female leads, and all of them do just fine with what they’re given, which asks them to quickly react believably to a situation that quickly turns from the slightly unusual to the absolutely insane. There are also some male characters, but the only one standing out is played by Jacques Colimon. The males seem to be set up as the ones destined to be killed off quicker, setting things up for at least one young woman to face off against Annie. And speaking of Annie, that role goes to Karlisha Hurley, who is hampered by the script mishandling her character. Annie actually feels like the most extraneous character, and the film could have been improved by not feeling the need to personify the evil spirit of the game.

Passable enough, even if it lacks any major scares or decent kills, this comes closer to making the most of the central idea than some other movies that have tried it. It still doesn’t do enough though, and is hampered by Annie herself. There are a couple of sequences that stand out from the rest of the film, and it seems like most of the game rules are followed quite well, but the whole thing could have been more fun, or made more tense, by some important tweaks to characters and the group dynamic.

You might end up enjoying this more than I did, although I suspect most people will think I was too generous (as usual). Either way, you could do worse than taking a roll of the dice on this one when lining up a selection of horror movie viewings.

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

Mubi Monday: New Order (2020)

It is hard to know where to start with New Order, even in terms of discussing the plot. It all really starts with a violent attempt by the lower classes to overthrow the upper classes. But it actually all starts at a wedding, a big event where a man is reduced to begging a former employer to help him pay for hospital treatment that his daughter needs. But take a further step back, it all starts with that man being spoken to by a doctor in a busy hospital full of desperate people. Ultimately, it starts where it ends. A Mexico in disarray, with huge disparity between those with power and those without.

Writer-director Michel Franco delivers an impressively challenging work here, one that feels timely while we watch the world around us almost tear apart. There are places where people rely on food banks, and are currently trying to keep hold of a £20 top up benefit payment that has kept them alive for the past year or so. Elsewhere, rich assholes are indulging their fantasies of having a trip into space.

The cast are all good, but there are few characters who actually feel like the focus of the film. Marianne is one, and of most interest because she is one of the few shown to be in a position to help people while also having the mind to do so, and Cristian and Daniel have different attitudes to the unfolding anarchy. These characters are played, respectively, by Naian González Norvind, Fernando Cautle, and Diego Boneta. All three do good work, but Norvind is the real heart of the film, showing the contradictions and hypocrisies of the order as it was and as it changes.

It may take a sharp shock to upset the status quo, but Franco knows that any attempted revolutions can be usurped and twisted by those wanting to wrestle power into their own hands for more than just monetary gain. This is the most important point being made in the film. Radical change is good, but it is vital to make that change without leaving any space for opportunists to work with.

Perhaps unsatisfying in the second half, as it becomes harder to find any one person to root for as things continue to come undone in a society verging closer and closer to irreversible chaos, New Order tries to be as invigorating as it is unsettling. That is how I viewed it anyway, a rallying cry for a new order (obviously) accompanied by a strong word of caution. Maybe not  emphasising “better the devil you know”, but certainly reminding viewers that we’re all often stuck in different sections of Hell and the best we can usually do is turn the thermometer down for a while.

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

Netflix And Chill: The Haunting (1999)

If there's one film that epitomised all of the worst decisions made by people remaking horror movies in the '90s and start of the 21st century, it's The Haunting. This is a film that I remember being bad, but revisiting it showed me just how much I had managed to block out of my memory in the two decades since I last gave it a watch.

Liam Neeson plays Dr. David Marrow, a man wanting to conduct an experiment in the effects of fear. But he doesn't want any of his subjects to know that, which is why he advertises for people to take part in an experiment on sleeping problems. He gains access to a large house, and a trio of characters played by Catherine Zeta-Jones (Theo), Owen Wilson (Luke), and Lili Taylor (Nell). Nell is the most timid of the three, but she also seems to be the one that the house takes the most interest in. Because the house definitely has a heartbeat within it, a spirit, and an agenda. Or is that just how Nell is viewing things?

The first screenplay written by David Self, working from the source material by Shirley Jackson, it's obvious from very early on that this is a film intending to be very different from the original. The focus is on the CGI used here, and the movie plays out as if nobody involved is even aware of the original (with its superb way of creating atmosphere and tension without showing too much, and sometimes not showing anything at all).

Despite Self's wobbly script, however, the blame seems to lie more squarely on the shoulders of director Jan de Bont (a man who went into a serious downward slide after such a great directorial debut, Speed). The Haunting has some nice camerawork, and the production design looks gorgeous when it's not being marred by the CGI, but nothing else to recommend it. Even the central performances are disappointing.

Neeson is at his blandest, Zeta-Jones is almost comically "in heat", or so it seems in some scenes, and Owen Wilson is someone I enjoy seeing onscreen, but fits a couple of other genres much more comfortably than he fits horror. Then we have Taylor, who is often good, yet she also struggles with the fact that her character is tense and hyper-neurotic from almost her very first scene. It's a performance without any real nuance, and again seems to come from the direction of the film.

You should never automatically dismiss a remake. We've had some interesting films over the past few decades that have shown how remakes don't have to be a complete failure, and nor do they have to be slavishly copying the original film. You should dismiss The Haunting though. It's not one of those films that is underserving of its reputation. If anything, it's worse than some people remember. The Jerry Goldsmith score is quite nice, as is a lot of the production design. The rest can be consigned to the wastebin of history.

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

Shudder Saturday: Seance (2021)

This is on me. Totally. I saw the trailer for this and allowed myself to start feeling optimistic. It looked like an enjoyable horror movie with the emphasis on scares and a spooky atmosphere. That ended up not being the case. What we have is something on a par with a few other horror movies from recent years, a bit of a throwback that doesn't do enough to refresh or twist the tired material.

Suki Waterhouse plays Camille Meadows, a young woman who arrives at the Fairfield Academy. Her arrival comes not long after the death of a student, a death apparently caused by a ritual not a million miles away from the whole "Bloody Mary" thing that many people are familiar with. Quickly making enemies with a particular clique, Camille soon discovers that Fairfield Academy may have a ghost or two wandering the rooms, and someone may want her to reveal what really happened to cause their death.

Written and directed by Simon Barrett, who has previously directed a segment or two for the V/H/S series (and has written some great films, such as You're Next and The Guest, and the oft-forgotten Dead Birds), this is a film that very deliberately chooses to go in one particular direction in the third act, and that direction didn't feel like the right choice for me. That's a real shame, particularly when one or two moments in the first 2/3 of the movie are enjoyably spooky and hinting at a much better movie (the same movie that the trailer seemed to be selling).

Waterhouse isn't a very good lead, although she's not helped by the way her character is written, and none of the other main cast members do enough to stand out. Madisen Beaty, Inanna Sarkis, Ella-Rae Smith, Stephanie Sy, Djouliet Amara, Jade MIchael, and Seamus Patterson are all getting name-checked here because of their screentime, but I'd say that only Sy and Smith come close to making a decent impression, portraying two very different characters that at least don't feel as interchangeable as everyone else in the main group.

I suspect a lot of people will like this much more than I did. It's technically very well done, and I appreciate the fact that Barrett isn't afraid to make use of things like flickering lights and ghostly figures glimpsed ever so briefly alongside some of those flickers, but it feels like Barrett started the film with one approach in mind and then began to doubt himself. He should have had a bit more faith in his own ability to use, and revel in, the ghostly aspect of his plot. Somewhat paradoxically, something so old-fashioned and "creaky" feels fresher and more enjoyable than the familiar third act, which basically turns into a bit of a Scooby-Doo ending (without the fun).

It's not a terrible viewing experience, and does enough in between the dull moments to just about make up for those dull moments, but it's disappointing. Very disappointing. Although it would have been less disappointing if it had been released about twenty years ago, when most of the big supernatural films released went for the same kind of ending.

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

Count Yorga, Vampire (1970)

Writer-director Bob Kelljan doesn't have too many movies to his credit. That's a shame, considering how good this one is. He also did the sequel, which I will be checking out soon, and the enjoyable, if inferior to the first, Scream, Blacula, Scream.

Robert Quarry plays Count Yorga, a mysterious and debonaire man who has moved to America from Bulgaria. Ingratiating himself with some locals, the Count also professes to have a talent for mediumship. This makes him interesting to Donna (Donna Anders), a young woman who would like to contact her dead mother. Things don't go according to plan for Donna, but maybe they do for Count Yorga, who starts to munch his way through her friends. He starts with Paul (Michael Murphy) and Erica (Judy Lang), attacking them when they get stuck in some mud after dropping him off back at his home, but looks forward to killing, or feeding off, all of them. Dr. James Hayes (Roger Perry) might be able to save them, or some of them. He's at least willing to eventually acknowledge that the problem could be vampirism.

Although there are one or two mis-steps here, including some narration from George Macready that unnecessarily sets up some of the rules of vampire lore, Count Yorga, Vampire is a bit of a minor classic in the crowded vampire movie sub-genre. It feels very much like a film poised between the traditional cinematic vampires of the past, many of whom were beautiful creatures until the fangs were bared, and the films that were more overtly exploring the sexual and sensual intimacy of mesmerising people and converting them with a bite on the neck. There are moments here that impress with their strange creepiness, be it a woman trying to drain blood from a kitten or a third act that mixes the usual vampire brides with moments of the head vampire toying with his prey.

Quarry is superb in the main role, as smooth and polite as expected when maintaining his air of civility, yet all too able to despatch his victims with all of the cool dispassion of someone prepping a microwavable ready meal. His casting is a major coup for Kelljan, who repays his lead with a script that serves him up a number of individual fantastic scenes, not least of which occurs when a group of people visit the Count at his home, trying to find some clue about the whereabouts of missing people while Yorga plays the perfect host. Perry is decent enough in his role, playing a character with enough courage to make up for the fact that he may be woefully unprepared to tackle the full reality of the situation, and Anders is very good as the woman manipulated by promise of being able to communicate with her dead mother. Edward Walsh is fun to watch as Brudah, a memorable manservant to the Count, and everyone else, from Murphy and Lang to Edward Walsh, Julie Conners, Paul Hansen, Sybil Scotford, and Marsha Jordan, puts in solid work.

HIGHLY recommended, especially to vampire movie fans (obviously), I'd even be tempted to put Count Yorga, Vampire up there with the very best of them. It's a contender for a place on any Top 10 list. Top 20, at the very least. If you have also been sleeping on this one for years, as I did, then change that as soon as possible. You won't regret it.

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 

Monster Hunter (2020)

It's almost as if the way in which some people are easily pleased, and the way in which some people will tolerate any crap that is accessible enough, has created a monster in modern movie-making. And that monster is Paul W. S. Anderson. I'm exaggerating, of course, but not by much. Because Anderson has tended to make films that have allowed him to keep making films, and that has allowed him to assume that he's been doing something right. Which ensures that he has never attempted to correct any of his bad habits, with the two worst being his over-reliance on CGI and his inability to hold a shot for more than five seconds. I can overlook these things easier when I can still find enough to enjoy in his films, as is the case with the Resident Evil movies. It's a lot tougher in a movie like this.

Thankfully, or perhaps not (depending on your view), he keeps casting his wife, Milla Jovovich, in his movies, and that guarantees I will watch them. I like Jovovich. She's not the best actress ever, but she often does very well at being a strong and sexy heroine. Here she plays Artemis, a strong and sexy heroine. So the movie has that going for it.

Artemis is with a group of fellow soldiers when the group is transported to another world, one in which giant monsters can pop up out of the earth and pick off humans like scampering ants. There's also a character named Hunter (Tony Jaa) in this world, and it's not long until Artemis and Hunter start to work together in order to survive against the dangerous creatures around them.

That's really all there is to Monster Hunter, a film so light on plot that I am amazed it has a runtime of just over an hour and forty minutes. Although I am unfamiliar with the videogame source material, and others can judge for themselves if this is a good adaptation or not, Monster Hunter seems to have nothing else really going for it, cinematically. As usual, Anderson wants to provide some slo-mo action overstuffed with CGI (to be fair, the actual creature design here is very good) and wants to allow Jovovich to kick ass. He does that. He just does nothing else, and that includes creating a world that feels as if it expands beyond the perimeters of any screen edges.

Jovovich is sadly disappointing in the lead role, less convincing than usual and hindered by a weak script. Jaa fares slightly better, developing nicely as he and Jovovich learn from one another. There are some other people onscreen, but the only one of note is Ron Perlman, who is wasted in his small role.

A real waste of time, for both viewers and the people involved, this is infuriatingly horrible for almost every minute. Characters are thinner than rice paper, the plotting is lazy and careless (one of those scripts that you can easily imagine was written by an impatient child), and it fails to do what Anderson has sometimes managed with his other movies, which is to provide mindless and enjoyable entertainment that is best accompanied by popcorn and fizzy drinks. 

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

Prime Time: Rat Race (2001)

With Jerry Zucker in the director's chair and a whole load of talented comedic performers in front of the camera, Rat Race certainly sets itself up as a film that wants to be in the top tier of modern comedies. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it fails by such a large margin, is as surprising as it is disappointing.

The main premise is very simple, and very similar to another whacky comedy from decades ago, one that made use of an all-star cast. A group of people are selected to participate in a race to a locker some distance away. The first person to get there will get to keep the contents of the locker. $2M. It's that simple. Yes, this is basically a reworking of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

There are moments that work in Rat Race, and some of those moments provide some hearty laughs. Jon Lovitz and Kathy Najimy bundling their two kids into a car that once belonged to Adolf Hitler pans out pretty much as you think it would, and is a real highlight, and there's a fun cameo from Kathy Bates, playing a woman obsessively trying to get people to buy one of her squirrels. A bus full of Lucille Ball fans also provides some fun. But there are so many other moments that either don't work as well as they should or just don't work entirely. The characters played by Seth Green and Vince Vieluf don't work, and neither do those played by Whoopi Goldberg and Lanei Chapman. Breckin Meyer and Amy Smart are helped by the script, although hindered by the fact that they're, well, Breckin Meyer and Amy Smart (to be fair, Meyer isn't as bad as Smart . . . but few actors are). Cuba Gooding Jr. is just fine, as is Rowan Atkinson, and John Cleese is helped along by super-white, larger, teeth to define his character.

Perhaps hampered by the script from Andy Breckman, Zucker feels like he could have been replaced by anyone in the director's chair. There's no sign of someone monitoring quality control, there's no sign of anyone taking on the responsibility to make the best of every comedy moment. All you get is a star vehicle without any big enough stars, but it's also very much a time capsule from 2001. From the cast to the plotting, despite it hewing so close to that 1963 movie mentioned above, and to the inclusion of Smash Mouth in the finale (not just a song, they get to make a cameo appearance and interact with all of the main players).

While it's not a film I'd recommend to anyone in the mood for a modern comedy, it IS a film I'd recommend to anyone looking for some easy entertainment that keeps throwing enough at the wall that one or two bits should stick. You can find a multitude of better comedies out there, but this is for people who want some recognisable faces and a general sense of familiarity (Atkinson, for example, is doing little more than a Mr. Bean act with an accent on top of his usual schtick). Passable enough. Just not often very good.

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

Revenge Of The Nerds (1984)

A 1980s comedy viewed as a bit of a classic from the decade, for what it aims to do, Revenge Of The Nerds holds up quite well nowadays if you can overlook some of the more problematic elements. Be warned, however, that at least one of the problematic elements is quite difficult to just shrug off, but I still think it is worth trying to compartmentalise the issues away from the essence of the plot and comedy.

Gilbert (Anthony Edwards) and Lewis (Robert Carradine) are the main nerds here, off to Adam’s College to continue their studies. Once there, it’s not long until awful alpha male types see them as another target. Because it is tradition to mock and abuse the nerds. Losing their main residence, which is given over to “the jocks”, and being pushed to, and beyond, breaking point, the nerds come up with a plan to try fighting back. They will compete against the jocks in a variety of disciplines, and hope that their smarts outweigh the muscles.

Written by Steve Zacharias and Jeff Buhai, this is chock full of stereotypes and situations that we’ve now seen in hundreds of other movies. But this was one of the earliest to do it all in a film focusing on “the losers”, and that is worth remembering. The characters are generally a fun mix, the challenges are enjoyable, and the third act is a fun up and down journey to a finale that could go either way.

It is a good job that Edwards and Carradine are just about likeable enough, although the former is more likeable than the latter, but they are helped by the fact that they are battling against some major assholes. Both of the leads really play up every potential ounce of nerdiness, probably advised to do so for the sake of the comedy. Curtis Hanson is fun as “Booger”, Ted McGinley is a suitably loathsome villain, Donald Gibb is hilariously overrun by his testosterone, Julie Montgomery and Michelle Meyrink are two very different young women who get involved with our leads (although that wording is far too polite to the way in which Montgomery is treated), and there’s a wonderful turn from John Goodman as a typical coach who will think there is nothing wrong with the “antics” of the young men who are part of his team. 

Director Jeff Kanew doesn’t have to do anything fancy here, therefore he doesn’t. It’s all a case of simply setting up the main premise and introducing more characters who can be used in various set-pieces on the way to the final act, with another highlight being Bernie Casey as U. N. Jefferson, leader of an all-black fraternity that finds itself gradually supporting the nerds. 

If you caught this back in the 1980s then you will probably still be a fan. Discovering it nowadays is a very different experience, but you can still enjoy the jokes that works, enjoy a lot of the characters, and spend time in the company of the entertaining clichés and stereotypes while cringing at the casual racism, casual sexual assault, and casual approach to anything that can be used as the butt of a joke.

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

Mubi Monday: The Unbelievable Truth (1989)

The second film I have seen from writer-director Hal Hartley (with the first being Amateur), I am starting to think that his work may not be for me. I will keep giving him a chance, and two movies from an entire filmography isn’t exactly a massive sample size, but he has a style that never seems to sit comfortably within the boundaries of cinema. Perhaps he’s more of a playwright, which is a great thing to be, but sometimes I watch films that should be plays and resent people involved for trying to force the material to be a film.

Let me clear something up before I go any further though. I did like The Unbelievable Truth. There were some great performances, a brilliant idea at the heart of it (a man returning home after spending time in prison for homicide, being judged by people who don’t actually know what happened), and some individual scenes that are strange, and sometimes fun. It’s just a shame that the more serious moments remain too quirky and almost confrontationally detached from any real emotion. This is the debut from Hartley, and maybe he just wanted to indulge himself, in case it was his only movie. Or maybe, as I suspect could be the case, it is just his style.

Young Audry may want to head off and do well in studies, which will cost her dad plenty, but also has her head turned by the idea of becoming a model. She also has her head turned by a stranger who has come back into town, one with a dark and macabre past. Characters wrestle with their feelings, be they for love or social standing, or both, and viewers are guided along a winding path towards a hopefully satisfying ending.

Robert John Burke is Josh, the man who comes back into town, and he is very good in that role, somehow emanating a sense of both calm and danger at the same time. His character isn’t necessarily a bad person, viewers can only go by what others think, but he is often treated like one. The star, however, is Adrienne Shelly, who plays Audry, a young woman in love with literature and the idea of getting away from home. She also finds herself drawn to Josh. Julia McNeal is Pearl, a young woman who plays an integral role in the perceived guilt or innocence of Josh, Chris Cooke is Audry’s father, Vic, a man very happy to get to a stage where he can make some money from his daughter after spending so much on her for years. There’s also a very fun turn from Gary Sauer as Emmet, a young man who just wants to start a fight with everyone around him.

Hartley writes well, certainly when it comes to depicting young adults navigating their way into the next stages of their life, dangerous terrain that could lead them to promised lands or energy-draining bogs, but he doesn’t write well for movies. Things here feel as if they are taking place in a vacuum, with the world outwith the main characters simply feeling like it’s “offstage”. And every technical aspect of this film, from the camerawork to shot framing, from the music to the editing, feels the same way. It is all beholden to the writing of Hartley, as I am sure he feels it should be. But perhaps he would do better to hand his words over to someone who might not treat them in such a precious way.

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

Netflix And Chill: Nightbooks (2021)

Although set in modern times, Nightbooks is a very standard fairytale premise of children who have been ensnared by an evil witch. It's a story about stories, and one that celebrates what we like about the classics we are introduced to at a very young age, from the basic moral lessons to the sheer fun of evil beings being simply evil.

There's not much time spent setting things up here. Viewers are introduced to young Alex (Winslow Fegley), a boy who has suddenly stopped writing the scary stories that he used to have so much fun with. Alex enters an apartment, drawn there by a TV screen that has The Lost Boys playing on it, and a moment later he is trapped. His captor is a witch named Natacha (Krysten Ritter), and there's another youngster, Yasmin (Lidya Jewett), being held there against their will.

Based on a book by J. A. White, Nightbooks feels like an easy hit for Netflix, although I am surprised that they didn't hold it back a few weeks, or even a month, to time the release more in line with Halloween. It's a fun horror movie that pitches things almost perfectly for both adults and younger viewers (although every parent will need to carefully judge whether or not their children will enjoy this without being too scared - the final act does ramp things up a bit).

Director David Yarovesky, who previously helmed the enjoyable Brightburn, does well enough, guided along the way by a screenplay co-written by Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis. It's very simply put together, with a few stories within the main story (as Alex is ordered to entertain Natacha with his tales), an exploration of the magical apartment, and an ongoing attempt to figure out a way to escape. The fact that the third act involves an actual "gingerbread house", an even more dangerous enemy, and a big oven underlines the simplicity of it all. It's Hansel & Gretel wandering through Tales From The Darkside: The Movie.

The production design is generally pretty good, although a middle section overuses CGI for one extended set-piece that I can't help feel would have been better with some practical effects, and there are some great uses of makeup and lighting to keep things feeling magical, spooky, and off-kilter. The music may not be great, but fans of Cry Little Sister will enjoy how that is used and covered.

As for the cast, both Fegley and Jewett are fine in their roles. They are believable and likeable enough. It's Ritter who is allowed to have the most fun though, making a strong impression from the very beginning with her mistreatment of the children she has caught. That covers the main cast, aside from a memorable cat named Lenore, although you get a few people popping up to lend support occasionally, usually in flashback scenes.

Obviously primed to kickstart a potential film series, Nightbooks is enjoyable and undemanding fun. I'm not sure if I would rush to watch a second one, but I certainly wouldn't be strongly opposed to the idea, especially if a bit more thought was given to showcasing the stories being told to keep the witch entertained.

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 

Shudder Saturday: Follow (2015)

The feature film debut from writer-director Owen Egerton (who followed this up with the more enjoyable, but not necessarily better, Blood Fest), Follow is a small-scale thriller that uses that enjoyable trope of someone waking up next to a dead body without remembering how the fatality happened. It definitely won't be for everyone, basically mixing some elements of American Psycho with Les Diaboliques, but it's certainly worth watching. I'd like to think that more people end up enjoying it than not.

Noah Segan plays Quinn, a young man who appears to be very much in love with his girlfriend, Thana (Olivia Grace Applegate). But Quinn is set to move to a big city, something Thana isn’t comfortable with. She gets Quinn a very unusual Christmas gift, strangely trying to illustrate the solidity and trust in their relationship. It’s a gun. And she wants Quinn to put it in his mouth and pull the trigger. Is it loaded? It certainly seems that way when Quinn wakes up alongside Thana’s corpse. Will Quinn remember what happened? Will he sort things out? Will people stop visiting the house?

Although I cannot tell if it is intentional or not, Egerton seems to be having a lot of fun with a literal manifestation of your partner asking a loaded question. The two main characters here seem to have spent some time ignoring cracks that should have been dealt with sooner, particularly when it comes to the upcoming relocation of Quinn. And then there's his close friendship with Viv (Haley Lu Richardson), a young woman who works alongside him at his bar job. Those things don't always lead to the insanity that we see unfold here, but I think that Egerton liked the idea of taking very relatable moments from relationships and using them to take his characters to a place that none of us would want to visit. Setting it at Christmas, although it's not a focus of the film, also underlines a key concept being played with, the couples who plaster a grin on their faces and act as if everything is just fine and dandy while getting through major family events (such as . . . Christmas).

I like Segan as an actor, and he excels at somehow managing to keep you on board even while playing some repugnant characters. He's fantastic here, the role feeling quite tailor-made to play to his strengths and give him a bit of a showcase. Applegate and Richardson are also cast very well, with both given some interesting moments throughout. Although there's a very small cast, most of the main players earn their screentime. And it was a pleasure to see Don Most in a very small role.

Not only does this film do a great job with fairly limited resources, it's one that would reveal more with one or two rewatches. There's a lot to take in here, from the sly humour and metaphors running throughout it to the ambiguous development of scenes that show Segan's character trying desperately to keep a grasp on a reality that is becoming increasingly slippy. I liked this, certainly enough to recommend it to others, but I suspect I could grow to like it even more if I make room in my busy viewing schedule to watch it again.

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

Body Cam (2020)

Horror films can, and often do, throw a bright light on parts of society that we don’t always want to look at, whether that is a major problem we don’t know how to improve or the worst aspects of human nature. So Body Cam deserves a point or two for using the genre to look at a problem that has been in and out of the news over the past few decades, with good reason. It’s all about police officers, and eventually turns into an exploration of certain individuals who can get away with murder because they’re wearing a badge.

Mary J. Blige is Renee Lomito-Smith, an officer just starting back to her duties after an incident that involved her hitting a member of the public. That incident was, of course, caught on camera. Keen to get back to work, Officer Lomito-Smith is also battling to stop herself from becoming consumed by the grief stemming from the sudden death of her young son. Out on patrol with Officer Danny Holledge (Nat Wolff), it soon becomes clear that someone is out to take out a number of police officers in a night of killing. That someone has some strange powers, or so it would seem, and they might just have a very strong motive for their actions.

Writers Nicholas McCarthy and Richmond Riedel have one or two decent ideas at the heart of their script, and maybe if they had worked with a strong third writer then this could have been something really good. Unfortunately, the whole thing ends up being a half-baked mess, completely I helped by the direction from Malik Vitthal. None of the characters are developed well enough, the plotting is careless and illogical, and it all builds to a final act that would be laughable if it wasn’t so confusing in how earnestly it seems to undermine some really . . . misguided decisions.

Blige does well enough in the lead role, and she's certainly the one person trying their best in this mess. She shows someone striving to do right, even after a major mistake, and she also conveys her worry and stress without horribly overdoing things. Wolff isn't too bad, but that's mainly because most of his scenes have him alongside Blige. David Zayas, someone I normally like seeing onscreen, is given a pretty thankless role, there are a lot of other people who make little to zero impression at all, and Anika Noni Rose is given the role of sympathetic protagonist.

I can see why some people might enjoy this as simple, lightweight, horror fare. It attempts to tell a decent story, provide some social commentary, and deliver a few jump scares here and there. Unfortunately, the apparent lack of care made it a miserable viewing experience for me, and other people may feel the same way. Because it's crap.

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

The Last Seduction II (1999)

There are few sequels more likely to disappoint than a sequel to any erotic thriller/drama that has developed a huge fanbase. The second Basic Instinct, Showgirls, and 9 1/2 Weeks attest to this. As does this film. This rule generally works if there have only been two films, but don’t let that dissuade you from checking out the likes of the Poison Ivy and Wild Things movies (films with about three sequels each, providing a more positive rule about erotic films that try to stay classy being followed by instalments that are happy to get down and roll around in the trash).

Anyway, I can only delay it so long, let’s get to this film. Joan Severance plays Bridget Gregory, the femme fatale we last saw playing out a very devious scheme in The Last Seduction. She heads off to Spain, connecting with a businessman/crook named Troy (Con O’Neill). She is also being pursued by a detective (Murphy, played by Beth Goddard), hired by the father of the man she turned into her main patsy in the first film.

The last film to date directed by Terry Marcel (and thank heavens for small mercies), The Last Seduction II is a bad film, often amusingly so, but it’s a hell of a lot worse if you have very recently revisited the superb The Last Seduction. Nothing here has the intelligence, wit, or style of the first movie. The script, written by Dave Cummings, is a real mess. It takes some simplistic plotting, tries to cover it up with a mix of characters and random scenes, and fumbles absolutely every aspect. There’s no tension, no sexual chemistry between any of the characters, and no actual entertainment factor here, leaving it a flaccid mess that makes you feel sorry for Severance.

Feeling sorry for Severance is better, I guess, than feeling nothing at all. I have had a crush on Severance since seeing her as one of the main baddies in See No Evil, Hear No Evil (playing someone memorably held “at gunpoint” by Gene Wilder’s erection), but she exudes nothing here that makes her feel like a worthwhile successor to Linda Fiorentino. She is better than O’Neill, but a balloon animal could have been better than O’Neill (he’s just terrible in almost every scene), although he does get an amazing scene that leads to him punching a pregnant woman in the face, displayed in a weird slow-mo way that wouldn’t look out of place in a cheap Turkish rip-off movie. Goddard comes out of this best, simply thanks to her character often appearing to be smarter than everyone else around her, but I would assume this is still unlikely to be a film she parks at the top of her C.V.

Filmed in the exotic climes of Spain and, errr, Wales, The Last Seduction II feels exactly like a film that would use some minimal location shooting and hastily-redressed sets to make you think it is taking place in a hot and sunny environment. It’s a soap opera special, sadly lacking any special guest star or plot bombshell to make it worth your time.

The best thing to remember as the end credits roll? There has so far not been a third The Last Seduction. The fact that there was a second film that didn’t even attempt to rejig the title wording tells you all you need to know before you even press play and attempt to endure this.

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

Prime Time: Black Box (2020)

There’s the germ of a good idea in Black Box, but the biggest problem it has is that you could easily imagine it being handled so much better in an episode of Black Mirror, and at half the runtime.

Directed by Emmanuel Osei-Kuffour (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Stephen Herman), I will state clearly now that nothing here made me eager to seek out other films from him. This film is pedestrian, at best, and shows how to mishandle a concept so badly that it wrings every drop of potential interest out of it before serving it up to audiences. It’s like a plate full of chicken and veg that has had all flavour boiled out of it.

Mamoudou Athie plays Nolan, a pained man trying to carry on with his life after an accident that affected his memory and led to the death of his wife. He is supported by his young daughter, Ava (Amanda Christine), with the two of them digging deep into reserves of strength to keep muddling forward. One doctor (played by Phylicia Rashad) has a new procedure that may help Nolan tap into all of his memories. But it soon becomes clear that it is bringing out a very different side of him.

If a director and writer work with a team of talented people to create a film that is their finished work of art then Black Box is a canvas lazily covered in magnolia matt paint. It is that dull, despite having the potential to go in a number of different directions. Don’t get me wrong, there are a few decent moments here and there, and one or two intriguing ideas, but the film seems determined to leave them just hanging there, like laundry on a washing line that has been forgotten about for days.

Athie does well enough with what he’s given, and Rashad is a fairly standard “obsessive scientist” type, but they are seriously hampered by the ways in which the script has to make them deliberately dumb to keep the plot moving along. Christine comes out of this best, her character being smart, strong, and sweet, a real highlight in a film with too few of them.

It’s all competently constructed, and technically fine, and the third act really drags you into a situation that quickly becomes more intense and uncomfortable. But this is a thriller that fails to thrill, fails to make you think enough about the elements being moved around in the plot, and simply fails to properly do anything that it should have easily managed.

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

Screwed (2000)

The only film both written AND directed by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, Screwed is an enjoyably silly comedy starring Norm MacDonald in the lead role. The acting isn’t amazing, the plotting is unbelievably stupid, but fans of the star will have a great time with it.

MacDonald plays Willard Fillmore, a man who has spent most of his adult life as a butler/chauffeur/cleaner for the thrifty Miss Crock (Elaine Stritch). She is so mean to him that she won’t even buy him a new suit, making him wear the same one that she had removed from his father’s dead body. Hatching a plan that involves kidnapping her beloved dog, Willard and his friend, Rusty (Dave Chappelle), end up committing to a life of crime, which ends in disaster. The dog escapes, which means Miss Crock is left with the impression that Willard is the one kidnapped. And why would she pay ransom money for Willard?

If you only see one Norm MacDonald movie then you should definitely see Dirty Work, which is his best actual movie, thanks to the gags and supporting cast. But if you see two then you should easily make room for this one, which is a lot of fun. Highlights include a battle with the small dog, the main characters making a video of Willard “pleading for his freedom”, and a meeting with a gross and inappropriate morgue attendant (Danny DeVito).

Even if you were unaware, it’s clear that Alexander and Karaszewski are much more comfortable as writers than directors. There’s no real style or finesse here, from the shot choices to the soundtrack, and the focus is always on simply moving from one gag to the next. That isn’t necessarily the worst thing ever though, especially in a comedy that you don’t expect great cinema from. This isn’t great cinema. It’s just great fun.

MacDonald was never a great leading man, which I am sure he would agree with, but he was used a couple of times in films that managed to use his style without trying to change him. That works well, probably because he seemed to never change for the sake of others anyway. Love or hate him, Norm was unique. Chappelle is a fun co-star here, his nervous energy working well alongside the laconic and dry style of MacDonald. Stritch is good as the tight-fisted employer who mistreats her staff, Sherman Hemsley has a few scenes as another member of staff, Daniel Benzali is a tough detective who doesn’t like loose ends (which is obviously problematic for our leads), and Sarah Silverman has a small role as an ex-girlfriend who might be able to help MacDonald’s character, if she is filled in on the details of the scheme. And DeVito steals a couple of scenes as that aforementioned morgue attendant.

The more I think about it now, the more I can recall that made me heartily chuckle. It may never appear on many “favourite movie” lists, and it won’t ever be discussed in the context of cinema that made an impact on psyches and pop culture, but it is a comedy that delivers a steady stream of good gags. Which makes it worth your time when you just want to laugh.

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

Mubi Monday: Sweat (2020)

Magdalena Kolesnik plays Sylwia, a young woman who works as a fitness instructor, which involves putting herself out there online, building up a fanbase and building up an inspirational image. But it isn’t all smiles and fitness. Sylwia is going through a very rough time, feeling lonely and having to deal with a stalker who has parked up outside her home.

What’s interesting nowadays is how perception of celebrity has changed in the arts, as celebrity itself has changed. We used to see movies about famous actors and musicians, films that explored their persistence, and often their need to feel love emanating from a receptive audience of fans. Now we see different journeys, and different levels of effort made, as it has become so much easier to attain a certain level of fame. If you want fame then you can have it. If you don’t figure out how to become famous, you can become notorious. And all of this usually happens with a filter that keeps the truth hidden away.

Writer-director Magnus von Horn wants to look at the fairly common modern phenomenon of living your life with consideration for your public image, and he takes things in a couple of interesting directions. Unfortunately, the best of the points being made end up buried by a lot of familiar moments that pad the runtime out far beyond what was needed. It’s actually hard not to imagine Sweat working better as a short film, but Von Horn tries to justify his feature runtime with a number of varied plot beats, some that work much better than others.

Although there are a number of solid supporting players here, from the stalker to Sylwia’s relatives, this film relies on the attention of viewers being held by Kolesnik, and she is more than up to the task. Finding ways to increase her energy levels, and often put on her best smile, Kolesnik managed to convey the enthusiasm and dedication of her character without coming across as vapid and fake. The script helps her out a lot, especially when presenting conversations about one piece of content that people view as “off brand”.

Admirable for not going in the most obvious direction, Sweat is also a film that ultimately cannot provide viewers with a truly satisfying experience. It shows someone struggling to be the best they can be on a stage they have built for themselves, and some of the more interesting points to be made about that life are lost, arguably much like the central character. This is a nice character study, intriguing for choosing to reveal more about someone who alternated between being as transparent as possible and being a marketable commodity, but it never feels like essential viewing. 

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

Netflix And Chill: Kate (2021)

When will movie assassins learn? You cannot live that life and then be allowed to retire to a happy life. It just rarely happens, and is more often the case that the last job leads to a potential victim who the assassin perceives as a way to get a small amount of redemption. Kate is happy to follow this template.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays the main character, an assassin wanting to retire after one last job. Her handler, Varrick (Woody Harrelson), will be sad to see her go. But, wouldn’t you know it, things go wrong with her very last hit, a powerful target named Kijima (Jun Kunimura). It turns out that Kate has been poisoned, which puts her on a race against the clock to finish her last job, something she might be able to do by grabbing Kijima’s niece, Ani (Miku Patricia Martineau). 

As I have said so many times before now, if every other film was either an Escape Room movie or a John Wick riff then I would be easily pleased. Kate is a John Wick riff, with the main character being one of the very best at what she does, which happens to be killing people.

Directed by Cedric Nicolas-Troyan (only his second directorial feature after The Huntsman: Winter’s War), this is a fairly simple film that relies on action set-pieces to help viewers forgive the mass of clichés. And it works. The set-pieces are pretty great, especially an extended firefight/chase sequence that showcases the physical skills of everyone at about the halfway mark. The fact that this comes along soon after a sequence that shows Winstead as a formidable force tearing through a building full of gangsters who might have information she needs means you never feel that the main character is incapable of getting her revenge. She may be hurt, and weakened, but her intelligence and tactics help her to maintain an edge, even against overwhelming odds.

Writer Umair Aleem (who previously did Extraction . . . not that one) does a great job of sketching out the main characters, positioning the lead perfectly between wounded woman seeking that oft-sought redemption and superwoman, and uses a lot of familiar elements in a way that feeds nicely into the satisfying, and bloody, final act.

Winstead is excellent as Kate, compensating for her slight build with moves and viciousness that make her a very believable killer. Harrelson has fun in his supporting role, even if he is barely present for most of the middle section. Kumimura is strong and noble, Tadanobu Asano is his second in command, which makes him a potential threat to everyone around him, and Martineau grows nicely into her role as the film drags her along on a journey that features some touchstones recognised by Winstead’s character.

The soundtrack is very energetic, there are a lot of neon-lit action sequences (Japan makes a great backdrop for the main sequences), and the stunt team do a fantastic job of taking the hits and co-ordinating fights that should easily please every action movie fan. 

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