Lightyear (2022)

I am quite behind on my Pixar viewings nowadays, sadly. With one or two notable exceptions (mainly the Cars movies), I was happy to see every one of them as soon as I could. But two things have now combined to take the shine off them. One is a more varying level of quality, and the other is the fact that having them release directly on to a streaming service allows me to think “oh well, it is there when I want to eventually get to it” for a few of their main titles.

Lightyear was not high on my list of priorities, but the fact that it landed so early on a streaming service meant that I actually decided I would check it out right away. I like the main voice cast, I like the franchise it is side-stepping from, and I like some fun sci-fi shenanigans. So I expected to enjoy an evening planned with this as my main event.

It was okay. It was odd, and a step below the quality of the main Toy Story movies, but okay, hampered by one major detail that I will get to soon enough.

This is not necessarily the tale of a character named Buzz Lightyear (voices here by Chris Evans). I mean . . . it IS, but it is also supposed to be, most importantly, the film that Andy saw in the mid-1990s that made him want a Buzz Lightyear action figure. Buzz is not real. He is a film character. Remember that.

While exploring some strange new worlds, Buzz ends up crashing the spaceship while attempting a desperate escape from hostile life-forms. He really thought he could do it alone, and he also thinks he can be the person responsible for testing the necessary fuel crystals that can take his vehicle to the right speeds needed to get everyone home again. Unfortunately, every time Buzz makes a space trip, minutes for him, years pass by on the planet below. People age, have full lives, and pass away while Buzz keeps trying his best to complete his mission, his only constant being a robo-cat, SOX, that was gifted to him for companionship. As the years pass, disaster strikes, the planet is besieged by the dastardly Zurg (James Brolin) and his many robot warriors. Buzz finds a ragtag group of non-professionals who think they can help him put things right, but can they overcome the biggest obstacle, which is Buzz trying to do everything on his own?

Other characters worth noting here are Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba), a good friend to Buzz who we see at various stages in her life, and the group of amateurs who end up helping our hero: Izzy Hawthorne (the daughter of Alisha, voiced by Keke Palmer), Darby Steel (an elderly woman on parole, and very handy with explosives, voiced by Dale Soules), and Mo Morrison (someone who seems to be constantly out of his depth in any situation requiring some combat skill, voiced by Taika Waititi).

The first feature to be solely directed by Andrew MacLane, there’s nothing technical here that deserves too much criticism. Although aiming for a slightly different style to a number of other Pixar movies, this looks and sounds about as good as you would expect. MacLane does a perfectly decent job, but he is stifled by the script, which he helped to co-write with about four other people (Andrew Stanton, Matthew Aldrich, Jason Headley, and Lauren Gunderson), which generally lacks the charm and heart that viewers have, rightly, come to expect from Pixar. It also comes perilously close to replicating Lost In Space (1998) at times, and I don’t think anyone was asking for an animated reworking of the Lost In Space movie.

Evans is a good choice for the lead, and he has the confident tone in his voice that Buzz needs, as well as investing his character with some sadness and regret in time for the “insurmountable” obstacles to be overcome in the finale, hopefully. Palmer is delightful, Soules and Waititi are both good fun, and Brolin is a suitably weighty villain (in terms of his vocal delivery). Aduba does well with her relatively small amount of screentime, and Peter Sohn is a real highlight while voicing SOX.

Taken as an animated sci-if film without any other context, this is perfectly fine, if disappointingly unmemorable, entertainment. The biggest thing that works against this is the way it is framed. Thinking of the age Andy should have been when he saw it, and of how impactful it is supposed to have been, it just never feels authentic or more than a cynical attempt to wring more money from a franchise that should now probably be left alone. I know it may seem really silly, but I couldn’t watch this without constantly thinking that it was sub-par. And not just sub-par for me, I just couldn’t imagine a kid being so impressed by it that they had to get the action figure (an action figure that, as we see, was missing a number of potentially exciting accessories).

Maybe I have just forgotten how strongly we can react to the widest range of entertainment when we are kids. Or maybe this just isn’t quite good enough. Not good enough for viewers today, nor good enough for fictional viewers who would have seen this back in the first half of the 1990s.

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

The Deep House (2021)

I like a good haunted house movie. I also like the films of Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury, who wrote and directed this. And underwater terror can often easily entertain me. That’s why I retained a healthy sense of optimism when I decided to finally check out The Deep House, despite the many negative reviews that it has garnered since more and more genre fans were able to check it out.

The heart of the story is very simple. Camille Rowe and  James Jagger are a couple who have decided to holiday in France and treat themselves to a unique diving experience, exploring a house that sits at the bottom of a lake. Unfortunately, the house isn’t as still and empty as expected, which makes the creepy underwater exploration even creepier.

I was on board with The Deep House a long time ago. As soon as I heard the wonderfully simple main selling point, I knew it was something I would be interested in. There are scenes that work. It’s just a shame that they become outnumbered by all of the scenes that don’t.

Bustillo and Maury certainly like to make their horror as beautiful as it is scary and/or disturbing, which is why I have, and will, always been interested in whatever they do, even if it feels like a huge step down for them (a la Leatherface). This feels like it should have been an easy “win” for them, a return to form after some stumbles. Sadly, the underwater environment proves to be a bit too constrictive when it comes to setting up, and delivering, the scares.

Everything is set up well enough in the opening 10-15 minutes. Viewers are told about the plan, and characters discuss how much time they have in relation to how much oxygen they will be carrying. Simple. You then get some shots of the divers finding the titular building, and those are as gorgeous as they are unique. Moving in to the house itself, standard living environments are rendered spooky and unnatural by their underwater setting, and I started to think that everyone who disliked this movie was wrong. I would love it, and I would try to convince others of just how good it was.

That didn’t last long though. A few nice details aside, the rest of the film becomes a collage of murky shots, tension ruined by the frame being filled with too many bubbles as people are panicked, and a very poor sense of the geography of the area being explored. There are still a few decent moments here and there, but most viewers will wish the film-makers could somehow find a clearer way to present their concept (which is paradoxically the main strength and weakness of the film).

Rowe and Jagger do just fine, but their characters feel as if anyone could have taken on the roles. Most of us look very similar when wearing a full set of scuba-diving equipment, and the dialogue is delivered more with a focus on relaying information than conveying any deep character development (no pun intended). The main character, the one making the biggest impression, is the house, which proves to be a winner when showcased properly. It’s just a shame that so few scenes really showcase it properly.

Not an unwatchable disaster, the strength of that core idea and the occasional visually stunning moments guarantee that, The Deep House is just sadly disappointing, and isn’t helped at all by an underwhelming and unsatisfying finale. I still have plenty of goodwill left for both Bustillo and Maury, but it isn’t as much as it once was.

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

MTOS: Summertime Sunshine

  #MTOS is Movie Talk On Sunday, something we try to have happen every week on Twitter, at 2000 BST.

Feel free to join in, always great to see people there. And this week I decided to be influenced by the seemingly never-ending heatwave we have been enduring here in the UK (guaranteeing that it ends either by today, or even before these questions go live on Sunday).

Q1) What is your favourite movie with the word "summer" or "sun/sunshine" in the title?

Q2) What is your favourite movie beach scene (nb, in case we all agree on one main title to mention, I am going to exclude the mighty Jaws from this).

Q3) Please share your favourite "hot streak", be it from a director or an actor/actress.

Q4) It burns, it burns. Fire stunts are notoriously dangerous, but do you have a favourite? If in doubt, feel free to mention Backdraft.

Q5) Dante's Peak and Volcano faced off, cinematically, some years ago. What was your favourite of the two, and why?

Q6) Summer is, of course, blockbuster season. We'd love to hear your absolute favourite blockbuster movie viewing experience. Doesn't have to be a favourite film, but something made it truly memorable.

Q7) More word association. Your favourite movie with the word "heat" or "hot" in the title. Yes, I expect many people may just say Heat. So feel free to include some honourable mentions.

Q8) The desert is always very hot and very dry, obviously (it's why they're deserts). So let us have your favourite desert-set sequences. Points removed if your answer autocorrects to dessert.

Q9) How could I almost forget . . . please recommend a favourite film that takes place during a summer holiday.

Q10) You are allowed to plan a summer evening outdoor cinema triple-bill. What films do your show?

I hope to speak to a lot of people again this week, especially as there aren't any football questions here. And don't forget . . . newcomers are as welcome as weekly regulars. Sunday, 2000 BST, be there or be a squished rectangle.

Prime Time: Thirteen Lives (2022)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prey (2022)

Here we are then, with the latest film in the Predator series and the latest film that everyone and their cousin seemed to prioritise as a viewing over the weekend. It is also the latest film to come along on a wave of hyperbole from people who saw it first and seemingly wanted their reaction to be the most positive one that helps promote it. Because this isn’t as good as either the first or second movie, despite what many were saying, but it’s very good, and easily takes the third spot in my personal ranking of the main Predator movies.

It’s 1719 and Naru (Amber Midthunder) is a young Comanche woman who wants to pass a trial that will allow her to be recognised as a great hunter, just like her brother (Taabe, played by Dakota Beavers). With a great skillset, but also a few major tricks to learn, Naru, and her dog (Sarii), soon finds that she is the one about to be hunted. But can she turn the tables on the predator?

There’s plenty to enjoy here, not least of which is the gorgeous visual style throughout (with a number of scenes slowing the camera to pull back and show the full beauty of certain moments). Director Dan Trachtenberg, who also worked on the story with writer Patrick Aison, does a great job of establishing a strong main character, an interesting environment, and a number of situations that feel different to what we have seen previously, yet boil down to some very similar key points.

The special effects are generally of a high standard (although some poorly-executed animals were a bit off-putting, especially when it felt unnecessary to dwell on some of them for so long), the kills are decent, and there are a good few nods to other films in the series. Just be willing to forgive the dire delivery of the iconic “if it bleeds, we can kill it” line.

What works against it? Well, a lack of originality for one thing. The time period and setting are well-used, but this once again boils down to a predator hunting humans in a jungle, which is the main premise for the majority of the films in this series. It also feels strangely neutered at times, with the gore and bloodshed often just cut away from in a way that feels a bit clumsy, and gives me the impression that there is a stronger cut out there somewhere. And then we have Chekhov’s assortment of plot accessories, all just a bit too obvious, which leaves viewers one or two steps ahead of the main character for most of the runtime. Most movies do this, it’s not the biggest cinematic sin, but two main features here had me rolling my eyes and counting the minutes until they made a significant reappearance. And I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer to why the Predator would stumble across a group of armed men who could have very easily been perceived as a threat . . . but he chooses to just leave that encounter without them even knowing he was there. Answers on a postcard please, and you cannot just say “plotting”.

Bonus points for the cast though, with the Native American people (I BELIEVE the majority of the cast were Comanche) represented in a way that showcases their community and strength. Beavers may not be the best secondary player, but this movie belongs to Midthunder anyway, and she holds your attention for every minute that she’s onscreen. There are other people doing decent work, including Dane DiLiegro as the Predator, but the other star of the show in the dog. If this film featured only Midthunder, the Predator, and that talented doggo then I probably would have enjoyed it just as much. In fact, it might have been a better film, because there are a bunch of French Trappers introduced into the plot in a way that feels like an obvious route to increasing the bodycount.

I have only gone out of my way to list some of the negatives here to show some balance. The fact is that none of these things were bad enough to ruin the film for me. They were there though, small things to nitpick over once I started to mull over what I had just watched. Overall, however, what I had just watched was a superior entry in a movie series that hasn’t ever really let me down. Some are a bit worse than others, I think we can all agree that The Predator was a weak entry (although a rewatch might be in order), but this easily belongs alongside the better instalments.

P.S. be sure to watch all of the end credits, which are a nice treat.

P. P. S. The “Comanche cut” is available on Disney+ if you press the button that takes you to Extras before pressing play on the movie.

P. P. P. S. I may as well link to my review of Predators here (ignore any spelling or grammar errors I can no longer edit).

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

Mubi Monday: Bergman Island (2021)

A strange and playful drama that mixes in some warped rom-com elements, Bergman Island has writer-director Mia Hansen-Løve on good form, and assisted by a great core cast that she uses well. It’s not her best work though, but it’s as good a starting point as anywhere else for those who may want to start exploring her filmography.

Tim Roth and Vicky Krieps are Tony and Chris, a couple who decide to visit an island that influenced the great Ingmar Bergman (hence the title). They hope to soak up some cinematic history and get some inspiration for their own work, with Chris particularly using the location to directly feed into the vibe of the screenplay she is writing. Wandering around together, and spending time apart, viewers get to see how the leads connect to their surroundings in different ways, and there’s also the “film within the film” that gives roles to Anders Danielsen Lie and Mia Wasikowska.

Deceptively slight for a lot of the runtime, Bergman Island is a fun interconnection of wit, exploration of human nature, and the complex relationship between art and artists, whether that is from the point of view of the artists themselves or from those looking on from outside that world. This obviously creates an interesting layer of meta-fuelled introspection, with both the “film within the film” asking more questions, as well as our own viewing of this whole feature.

Roth and Krieps are both wonderful in their roles, seeming to enjoy material that is a bit lighter, in comparison to what they have done elsewhere over the past few years, but no less worthy of their talent. I was particularly pleased to see Krieps back on good form, considering how Shyamalan managed to wring an awful performance from her in Old. Wasikowska is someone I haven’t seen in a while (which may just be down to the movies I have been watching recently), but she is as good as ever, and Danielsen Lie works well alongside her. The other main character is played by Hampus Nordensen, and he does decent work, although his character is more of a signalman, simply there to allow the character played by Krieps to start viewing some different paths on her creative journey. 

Easy to like, but a film I found surprisingly hard to love, Bergman Island needs the structure that Hansen-Løve uses to make it such a fun and layered experience, yet the structure also provides a barrier or two to becoming fully immersed in the onscreen world. Perhaps having the scenes from the film within the film interspersed throughout the main narrative would have worked a bit better, but perhaps I am just a lot less creative and thoughtful than the woman who made this. The latter is a lot more likely, and I am sure that many others will like this even more than I did.

A knowledge of Bergman’s work isn’t essential, but it will allow you to enjoy more references and gags. Although in terms of more general film viewing habits . . . I would say that a knowledge of Bergman’s work IS essential. And a knowledge of Hansen-Love’s work is recommended, because she has put together an interesting, thought-provoking, filmography that means I will always be interested in whatever she does next.

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

Netflix And Chill: Carter (2022)

A wild and crazy action movie from writer-director Jung Byung-gil (who co-wrote the screenplay with Jung Byeong-sik), the person who helmed the wild and crazy action of The Villainess, which I really enjoyed, Carter is certainly . . . an experience. Whether or not it's an experience that you will want to endure is another thing altogether.

Joo Won stars as Carter, the titular character who wakes up to find his memory gone and a load of armed agents surrounding him. Thankfully, there's also someone able to talk to him via a device implanted in his ear. He is able to get away from the armed agents, crashing through windows to end up in a nearby building, and that is the start of an extended chase sequences that pits him against ever-increasing numbers of aggressive enemies.

Carter starts strong. It's a solid premise, the action is impressive and the energetic style of the cinematography is breathtaking. Injuries have a way of making you wince (especially when our lead is in a bathhouse full of fairly naked men he opts to tackle with a weapon that resembles a gardening sickle) and it all gets the adrenalin pumping. 

But then it keeps going. From a foot chase to another foot chase, from some motorbike mayhem to another foot chase, from more motorbike mayhem to a fight on the back of a truck that is moving farm animals, and on and on and on it goes. Which wouldn't be so bad if it hadn't peaked in the first 20 minutes. There's no escalation here, just a constant attempt to keep things as ridiculously over the top and frenetic as possible, which becomes way more tiring than entertaining, especially when you've not even got to the halfway mark of the 2+ hour runtime.

Byung-gil and Byeong-sik also decided that their action needed some strange "zombiefying virus" story strand supporting it, which really adds nothing of interest to the proceedings. There are many better zombie/virus movies out there, maybe just focusing on the action beats would have been a better option. 

Won is fine in his role, and there are a number of people who do perfectly okay alongside, or opposite, him, but this is a film that really belongs to the stunt team, a group of people who do everything they can to ensure that this film, whether you love or hate it, delivers some unforgettable moments. It is hard to imagine people putting on these kinds of displays without someone actually getting hurt, but that also makes it even more disappointing when the physical prowess of the performers is constantly overshadowed by the cgi required to keep everything crashing through the glass ceiling of what is possible when it comes to choreographed fight sequences.

If you see the trailer for Carter and think, as I did, that it looks like a ridiculously entertaining piece of work then you should at least check it out. But do be warned, the trailer is bearable because it is about two minutes long. The feature could have easily been split into two movies, with a bit more breathing space here and there, and there could also have been a bit of time spent on crafting a worthwhile ending. 

Impressive, undoubtedly, but this quickly outstays its welcome. Although I hope people still give The Villainess a chance after checking this out.

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

Shudder Saturday: What Josiah Saw (2021)

An enjoyably dark slice of Southern gothic, What Josiah Saw is a well-acted and nicely constructed piece of work that leaves you with a lot to mull over by the time the end credits roll. It may be telling that I almost forgot to tag this review with the word "horror", and there's certainly a number of elements that allow it to sit comfortably within that genre, but I'm not being negative about it when I say that it's full of moments of heavy drama.

Robert Patrick is Josiah Graham, the patriarch of a family that we soon see as being deeply troubled. Whether or not that trouble is caused by Josiah himself is hard to say, but it certainly seems that way. Josiah stays at home with one son, Thomas (Scott Haze). His other son (Eli, played by Nick Stahl) has got himself in some trouble, giving him a criminal record and a bad debt that hangs over him. He has a chance to put things right, but it may come at a terrible cost. Then there's Mary (Kelli Garner), a young woman desperate to have a baby with her partner, Ross (Tony Hale). Mary had a procedure to make her sterile when she was a younger woman, but now is desperate to adopt and have her own family. A financial offer made for the family home leads to Eli and Mary heading back there, reluctantly. Maybe this can mean a fresh start. If they can all escape the past.

Written by Robert Alan Dilts,  his feature debut no less, this seems to be a natural progression from the 2009 short, Eliki, that he also worked on with director Vincent Grashaw, also making his feature debut here. Having not seen that film, unfortunately, I don't know if this is a full expansion of that or if it is just connected by the collaborative work of Dilts and Grashaw. Whatever the level of progression, it's clear that both men work very well together. Within both the script and the direction, patience is key. The pacing allows for some impressive moments dotted throughout each main sequence (the structure basically provides a main chapter for each of the three Graham children), and there's a satisfying, if disturbing, ending that answers all of your questions, albeit in a way that may seem open to interpretation to many viewers.

Grashaw helms himself immensely by assembling a superb cast. Patrick may not be in too many scenes, when you add up the runtime, but his presence casts an impressive shadow over everything. That's what his character does, but it helps that Patrick himself can add his unnerving presence to it. Stahl is also excellent here, although I don't want to accidentally insult him by calling him a great fit for his role. It's true though, and he has that perfect mix of desperation, the desire to please those above him in the pecking order, and a strong core of self-preservation. Garner is equally good, and her character is equally troubled in ways different from her brothers. I would say that Haze is the weakest of the bunch, but his performance isn't actually bad. It's just the way he has to play things in the third act, hampered by a script that forces him into a position that feels much more generic than anything seen in the rest of the movie. Hale does well in his supporting role, and there are a couple of scenes that make good use of Jake Weber, but the focus always moves back to the members of the Graham family, ensuring that it's Patrick, Stahl, Garner, or Haze who carry the majority of the scenes.

I don't want to spoil anything for viewers going into this blind, but it's worth warning people that the heart of What Josiah Saw contains subject matter that could upset some viewers. I wouldn't normally mention this, not when it comes to horror content in a horror movie, but the fact that this so often feels like a straightforward drama gives everything a bit more of an impact. It's a film that spends a lot of time delivering light punches, and then winding up to deliver some absolute hammer blows in the third act. You may be left reeling by the end of things, but you should also begrudgingly admire such a skilled and confident display of strength.

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

The Tax Collector (2020)

I get it, I really do, and I may have even been guilty of it myself sometimes. If a director is doing stuff we enjoy then we enthuse over their choices, their style, and their consistency. But if we don’t enjoy their work, that consistency is seen as a major flaw, and can often be the defining element used to underline exactly how they keep making movies we don’t enjoy. 

The Tax Collector is a David Ayer movie, which means you get a lot of what David Ayer usually puts into his movies. Gritty crime happenings in a male-dominated world, people who don’t work within societal norms, but do have their own code that they live and work by, and an ending that pulls from some major incident that happened much earlier in the film.

You might not like David Ayer movies, I have had a hot and cold relationship with his filmography, but he keeps working in areas that he believes plays to his strengths. And his fans would probably agree. Here’s the kicker though, The Tax Collector is really quite good.

The story revolves around David (Bobby Soto) and Creeper (Shia LaBeouf), two men who collect money for a crime boss. They are tough, they have to be, but they also know the rules of the business, David recognises when diplomacy is better than brute force, and they work within their own code of conduct. Sadly, all of their good work looks set to come undone when a violent enemy (Conejo, played by Jose Conejo Martin) determines that he will make a major grab for power.

There isn’t anyone to help truly sell this movie, Ayer hasn’t bagged himself a MAJOR name to put in a central role, but that’s okay when you have two great lead performances from Soto and LaBeouf. And I am just going to say it, LaBeouf is absolutely superb in his role here, something I didn’t expect. He is often putting on an act, whether it is the inflection of his speech or his ability to stare down anyone who might not realise how much trouble they could be in, and it is all based on a number of strong choices that could have gone disastrously wrong. Thankfully, those choices work. Martin is an intense and intimidating villain, Cinthya Carmona and Cheyenne Rae Hernandez are both excellent as two very different female characters, and Cle Sloan is convincing in the role of a gang leader who respects the ways in which Soto’s character works hard to avoid any scenarios that could lead to mutually assured destruction.

You get the usual profanity throughout the script, the attempts to humanise criminals that you will either accept or loathe, and it’s hard to think of someone who has so consistently recycled their third act tricks of the trade more than Ayer, but the big plus here is a defining thematic strand that makes it much more effective than some of his other films.

Without spoiling things, as it becomes clear very early on, this is a film all about the power of family and friendship, but it shows it in both a positive and negative light. Family and friends can save you, support you, and inspire you, but they can also drag you down, expecting you to either follow their patterns of behaviour or just silently put up with their nonsense. Many Ayer movies have made good use of the “no loyalty among thieves” or “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mottos. This also has a bit of that, but is much more interested in exploring those family ties, whether that is a blood tie or people in a unit that you have made part of your family. 

You will already have some idea about this film, and whether you want to watch it or not, but I think it is one of Ayer’s best, and certainly his best from the last decade or so.

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

Chuck Steel: Night Of The Trampires (2021)

If you have a fondness for the excess of ‘80s action movies, if you spent all your years since seeing Cobra dying to one day use a pair of scissors to cut up your pizza, if you think character development is best shown through varying degrees of stubble, then have I got a treat for you. Chuck Steel: Night Of The Trampires is a stop-motion animated feature that throws around bucketloads of gore, a lot of fun character designs, and pretty much every action movie cliché you could think of. And I loved it.

Unable to keep a partner alive for more than a day, or often just a few hours, Chuck Steel is your typical tough cop who gets results. It all comes at a price though. The nightmares, the lost loved one, the destroyed TV sets every time a news item has him reaching for his gun. But worse things than standard criminal scum are out on the streets now. There are vampires who feed on victims they first get as drunk as possible. Given information about these creatures from the elderly Van Rental, Chuck ends up on a mission to put an end to this race of sharp-toothed, bloodsucking denizens of the dark alleyways and dumpsters. After all, he is the chosen one. Isn’t he?

It takes a team of people to make a movie, I know and understand that, but the many hats worn here by writer-director-actor Mike Mort makes me feel very much at ease in giving him most of the credit for this film, an affectionate spoof of movies that will hit the sweet spot for movie fans of a certain generation (born in the ‘70s/early ‘80s and being able to enjoy the excessive testosterone of the big action movie stars of the big screen while also discovering the pleasures of much lower-budget fare that went straight to VHS). I was hoping to enjoy this, but was surprised by just how much I ended up loving it.

There are things to pick at, including a grand finale that feels bit overlong and overdone (and a bit too reminiscent of a classic Peter Jackson splatterfest, but maybe that it just me), as well as the constant barrage of lowbrow gags occasionally striking the wrong note, but what this gets right . . . it gets way more right than you would think possible. Think Brooklyn 99 mixed with every Dirty Harry movie, and then add a dash of Blade, and you’re close.

Part of me just wants to write down my favourite gags here - the partner who has shot himself, the way Chuck calls someone a lesbian after spending a minute having his advances rebuffed, the many wonderful visual gags - but I know that does not a proper review make. So I will start to praise the stellar voice cast instead.

Oh, the voice cast is headed up by Mike Mort, of course. There’s also a prime role for Jennifer Saunders, and Paul Whitehouse has a supporting role, and a few other people who help out, but the best work is done by Mort, voicing Chuck, Chuck’s boss, and Van Rental, as well as a few others. It is testament to the talent of Mort that I didn’t figure out just how many of the main characters he voiced, and I am as sickened by his talent as I am in awe of it.

The soundtrack works, the plotting is wonderfully on point, but with some great twists to main plot points, and I have to emphasise that the level of animation on display here is absolutely gorgeous, from the craftsmanship of every element to the visual gags scattered throughout every main scene. This is near-perfect, and I genuinely have no idea why I haven’t seen more people rave about it since it enjoyed a warm reception on the festival circuit a few years ago.

It should be available digitally to many people by now, and it certainly is here in the UK, although I have also just bought a special edition bluray to support Mort and co. Check here for a further taster of the film. And then go Chuck yourself.

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

MTOS: Apparently . . . It Came Home.

 #MTOS is Movie Talk On Sunday, something we try to have happen every week on Twitter, at 2000 BST.

Feel free to join in, always great to see people there. And there was only one subject on the cards for this week, after that great performance from the Lionesses at the end of last month.

*starting whistle*

Q1) Obvious starter is obvious. What is your favourite film that features football as a key plot element?

Q2) What are your thoughts as football as a cinematic sport? IS it a cinematic sport?

Q3) If you had to spend a match chanting and waving your scarf for one onscreen footballer then who would it be? Some real footballers have made appearances in movies, and there are a few fictional players to choose from.

Q4) There have also been some footie-centric documentaries? Have you seen any, and are there any you recommend to others?

Q5) Hooligans have, sadly, been part and parcel of the game for a few decades now. And they have been shown in a number of movies. Do you have any favourite films of this kind?

HALF TIME - have a rest, have some orange slices. But stay ready for the next half.

*whistle*

Q6) Arguably the other great football story of recent years involves the new owners of Wrexham. Thoughts on this turn of events, and are you interested in the upcoming doc series?

Q7) Football is, of course, different in America. Their ball is pointy. What American Football movies have worked for you? Do you prefer this heathen ruination of the English language?

Q8) The Longest Yard (1974), Mean Machine (2001), and The Longest Yard (2005). Have you seen them? Any of them? All of them? Thoughts on the different versions of the material?

Q9) As in the world around us, we tend to get a focus on the men in sport when it comes to movies. But please share some cinema based around the female of the species.

Q10) Without extra time, recommend one non-sporting film for people who hope to avoid football programming. Which means, yep, it has to have a runtime of approx. 90 minutes.

*final whistle blows*

I hope to speak to a lot of people again this week, especially after having so much fun filling in as "host" last week. And don't forget . . . newcomers are as welcome as weekly regulars. Sunday, 2000 BST, be there or be a squished rectangle.

Prime Time: The Nurse (1997)

If we remember the 1990s for one thing, cinematically, it could well be a number of landmark features that changed what was possible to show onscreen, it may be the emergence of considerable talents who would help to shape the movie and cultural landscape over the e next few decades, or it may well be for the sheer volume of thrillers we got given to us that could be labelled “(insert main noun) From Hell”.

The Nurse is one of those movies. It is, unsurprisingly, about a dangerous nurse (Laura, played by Lisa Zane). Due to an incident that left him ruined, Laura’s father murdered the rest of his family and then shot himself. This obviously leaves her quite upset, you might even say she was traumatised, but she soon hatches a plan when Bob Martin (Michael Fairman) suffers an unexpected health issue that puts him in a kind of waking coma. It’s “locked in syndrome”, which doesn’t sound good at all. And, unfortunately for him, Bob is the man Laura blames for the actions of her father. So she wants to destroy his family in retaliation for her own loss.

There’s a strange blend of talent here, both behind and in front of the camera. Director Robert Malenfant now has a filmography full of films of this kind, but this was a bit earlier in his career, while writer Richard Brandes has much more variety, having written martial arts movies, a horror movie or two, and some family fare that stars cute dogs. The main thing here, however, is that they know the expected beats of the particular sub-genre they are working in. There are no surprises here, although the ending is a bit more abrupt than I would have liked, but there’s a perfect tone throughout, with the building tension intertwined with a gleeful downward slide into further implausibility.

Zane is good fun in the main role. She makes a firm choice very early on, perhaps of her own volition or perhaps encouraged by the writing and direction, and doesn’t waver once as things play out. This is pantomime villain time, with those involved barely restraining themselves from allowing the main character to directly wink at the audience, and it works well. The motivation for the potential killing spree helps, as this is someone who feels so strongly that she deserves justice that viewers spend a lot of time rooting for her to at least pick off one or two of the more annoying family members. Fairman has to stay very still for most of his scenes, but he does his part very well. The rest of the cast includes Janet Gunn, John Stockwell (who I keep failing to recognise in any of his non-1980s roles), Nancy Dussault, and William R. Moses, and all of them do enough to entertain as they are caught up in the web of Laura’s crazed plans.

Look, this is no classic, whether you view it just as a thriller or as an example of a very particular kind of thriller, but it’s a hell of a lot of fun. There are things I would have changed, including Zane (as fun as she is here, she never felt like the best choice for any of her lead roles), but what is here ends up being a very enjoyable way to spend just over 90 minutes. There aren’t enough deaths, it’s a bit tame, and it’s very silly. But silly isn’t the worst thing to be sometimes, and I would definitely have checked out any sequels if they had made any.

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

Cruel Summer (2016)

Based on a true story, inspired by real events, although I suspect that inspiration comes from the fact that people have been killed by people many times over the years, and Bananarama once released a single called "Cruel Summer", this is the kind of film you can watch when you want to be reminded of the fact that many opportunities are still out there in the film industry for those who arguably don't deserve them. Because Cruel Summer is really bad. It wouldn't seem so bad if it was shown as part of some ongoing plot strand in a late-night Hollyoaks special, or even if the nastier moments were cut out to make it something shown in schools, but those involved weren't doing that. They made a feature film. It's mercifully short, but it's still a feature film.

Danny (Richard Pawulski, who I am completely unsurprised to see hasn't had a main acting role since this) is off to spend some time camping in the woods. It will help him to complete whatever checklist is required for his Duke Of Edinburgh award scheme. Danny also has autism. And he's about to become the target of someone with plenty of anger issues. Nicholas (Danny Miller) has recently split up with his girlfriend, and Julia (Natalie Martins) decides to try and help him feel better about the split by lying to him. She says that his ex had slept with Danny. Nicholas immediately goes on the warpath, with Julia in tow, and they also get Calvin (Reece Douglas) on their side, by developing the lie to say that Danny is a dangerous pedophile who needs taught a lesson.

The writing-directing team of Phillip Escott and Craig Newman seem to have found their niche nowadays in making featurettes and documentaries about other movies (both had a history with that subject matter, but , to be more accurate in my generalisation, it's Escott who has gone on to do more and more in that realm). I was not a fan of Escott’s last main doc, The Found Footage Phenomenon, but will happily watch a second instalment if it keeps him away from trying his hand at more fictional fare. The two film-makers don’t show themselves up as incompetent here, by any means, but they spectacularly fail to address fixable flaws in their work, from weak moments in the screenplay to at least one acting choice that feels sorely misjudged, at best. There are also issues with the pacing and tone that more capable people could have easily avoided, although I will admit that the third act generally builds things to an impressively bleak and unflinching finale.

I am not going to spend time here shredding the performance of Pawulski. Maybe, MAYBE, it was based on people he knew, or people he met while preparing for the role. It seems unlikely though, based on my own experiences with those who have had varying degrees of autism. Other people can decide whether to give him the benefit of the doubt or not. Miller plays his character well enough, but there is also something in his performance that had my spidey-sense tingling. Perhaps due to the script, he feels unable to commit to the character, more energetic and impressive when he is allowed to show a lack of self-control. It’s understandable that he wouldn’t spend all of his time unable to keep his violence in check, but the moments of calm don’t even hint at the undercurrent of rage surely held within. Martins does a lot better, giving easily the best and most convincing performance in the film, scheming to get in more tightly with a guy she likes, but never believing that the chain of events she sets in motion will ever go too far. Douglas also does a decent job, being the unwitting accomplice in a scheme that he soon realises is bullshit.

There is no reason to ever pick this as a main viewing choice. Better completely fictional tales have been told about this kind of thing, better documentaries can be found to show similar, and similarly upsetting, crimes. And anything else you might be seeking, whether that’s a good selection of scares or a showcase for some great acting, is available in hundreds, if not thousands, of other movies that are more deserving of your time. This is bad. Not godawful, but bad enough to recommend completely avoiding. You won’t be missing out.

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

Mubi Monday: Happening (2021)

Based on a 2000 novel by Annie Ernaux, and set in 1960s France, this is a film that takes viewers back to a time when women found themselves struggling to access the option of abortion after falling pregnant during the wrong time of their life. Good job that is an old-fashioned and harmful scenario that has been consigned to the dustbin of history, eh. 

I am, of course, being a bit facetious. I decided to watch this film now because of the recent events that have unfolded int he USA, but that country isn’t the only one that seems determined to stop women from having a choice in what happens to their own bodies. There are many other countries that make it difficult, including some that are hypocritically criticising the USA right now.

Anyway, let’s get to the film itself. Anamaria Vartolomei plays Anne, a young woman who finds out that she’s pregnant. That isn’t what she wants, because it could affect her studies, and subsequently affect the rest of her life. But finding anyone to help her proves to be very difficult, especially with the legal penalties that could punish any medical professional for even hinting at abortion as an option.

Directed by Audrey Diwan, who also helped adapt the source material with a few others (including Marcia Romano as her main co-writer), this is a drama with a strong point to make, and it features at least two scenes that will make many viewers wince, especially female viewers. While those scenes feel shocking, they also feel sad and disturbing because of the circumstances surrounding them. Nothing is here JUST for shock value. It’s all showing the desperation and difficulty of a pained young woman seeing people around her close off options that will allow her to reclaim her life as her own.

There are many other people involved in this cast, and all do a good job, but the focus remains firmly on Anne, which rests the entire movie on the young shoulders of Vartolomei. So it’s a good job that Vartolomei is so great as the lead character, being presented as an absolutely normal and “non-special” woman who tries to keep herself balanced while her world whirls and tilts around her. She is, deliberately or not (and I think it is deliberate), almost a blank page for others to project things on to, someone who is defined by one moment that creates a chain reaction that may be impossible to stop. She is one woman, she is all women, although I am very well aware that there are many others who would have an even tougher time if pregnant and aiming to regain bodily autonomy and control over their own destiny. But there are still enough moments of massively depressing familiarity here for anyone who has ever felt their world shrinking around them as they stretched out to find life-saving assistance from anyone nearby.

Maybe more of a lesson than a full movie experience, Happening is no less worthwhile because of how it is presented. In fact, it’s arguably more worthwhile, it’s a film that has standard moments of drama to simply string everything along in between the moments that it’s really designed to showcase.

I’m not sure if this will work for anyone who has a very strong “pro-life” stance, but you should try to get them to watch it anyway. Because we need to keep trying to convince people to care about human lives post-birth as much as they care about fetuses that they somehow imagine wearing little hats and booties.

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: Irresistible (2020)

Along with the downsides of the various streaming services we now have available to us, there are many upsides. Yes, it can be hard to find some classics. Yes, the algorithms often dictate what is put front and centre, as well as what is being made in the never-ending quest to keep making content for people. Yes, digital censorship is something that irks me (those who know me will know how averse I am to any censorship of art). But you have that availability of a wide range of movies and TV shows, you have that convenience of so much being at your fingertips, and you can plan a whole day around an occasional binge without having to move from the sofa (with the exception of toilet breaks and any food requirements, obviously). You can also eventually decide to check out a film that had been released a while ago, without too much notable fanfare, and find yourself very pleasantly surprised by an absolute gem. That's what happened when I watched Irresistible, a film I was drawn to because of the cast, but never drawn to enough to actually seek out until it was sitting there, right in front of my eyes and just one click away from instant watchability.

After suffering a bruising defeat in the 2016 election campaign, spin doctor Gary Zimmer (Steve Carell) doesn't quite know how to recover. He realises how far out of touch the Democrats were, but doesn't know how to create any kind of bridge across the widening social and political divide. That changes when he sees a viral video of Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) speaking up at a small town meeting. Hastings represents something akin to a big second chance, he's a Democrat with a strong sense of what is right, living according to his faith and the values that he held throughout his military career. He seems like a perfect candidate for the position of mayor. Although he agrees to that, and to have his campaign headed up by Zimmer, Hastings perhaps doesn't realise how quickly his small Wisconsin town will become a major political battleground. Zimmer knows how serious things are getting when his major opponent, Faith Brewster (Rose Byrne), arrives to help the current mayor (Brent Sexton), and everyone soon starts to become dizzy from the constant spinning.

Written and directed by Jon Stewart, a smart and funny guy I have been a fan of for some time, Irresistible is a film that plays out for most of the runtime like a very pleasant and comfortable comedy drama. It's a bit Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and a bit Wag The Dog, but the overall message delivered, overtly with the dialogue and more subtly with the various characters and atmosphere created throughout a number of scenes, is one well worth delivering, repeatedly. This is a film that appears to be critical of a certain side of the political divide, and it IS (many times), but it's also a film that pleads for people to agree that fair play, truth, and a desire to clean up the political landscape should all be achievable, and bipartisan, targets. There's also an ending that underlines just how worried we should be about the way modern elections are conducted in the USA, although the same applies to other major countries (including here in the UK).

Carell is excellent in his role, constantly moving between pleasantries and cursewords with the same smile often fixed on his face. The smile grows more and more forced as things look as if they might unravel for him, and Carell just gets funnier and sharper as he aims to keep making progress without anyone seeing how fast he is paddling beneath the surface of the water. Byrne is equal to him, playing someone who is even more determined, and seemingly less scrupulous, in a role that makes great use of her cool demeanour AND her comedy chops. Cooper is wonderfully good-hearted and optimistic about things, and Mackenzie Davis plays his daughter as someone who is, well, very much his daughter. I will keep harping on and on about Davis being long overdue the big breakout role to make her the star that I think she already is, but I'm also happy enough to see her doing great work in a film this good. Topher Grace and Natasha Lyonne are a lot of fun as people who interpret data in different ways, and hope to use that data to help Carell get Hawkins his mayoral role, and the rest of the supporting cast is made up of people who may be less familiar, but are no less suited to their roles.

The more I think about Irresistible, the more I struggle to find anything I would change about it. It does spend some time in an echo chamber, because it is often preaching to the converted, but part of the journey for Carell’s character is noticing that echo chamber, those ideological bubbles, and trying to break out. And it ultimately shows that most of us are united by common problems we could fix if we worked together, as opposed to being pitted against our neighbours by politicians who value winning ahead of effectively serving the needs of their constituents.

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

I also have no idea what they did to Mackenzie Davis for this poster image.

Shudder Saturday: Offseason (2021)

Writer-director Mickey Keating has been delivering interesting horror fare to viewers for just over a decade now. The fact that I have only seen one of his other films so far (the enjoyable Pod) is a reflection of my own tardiness, and not any kind of verdict on Keating's work. And having enjoyed Offseason even more than Pod, I really need to get through more of his filmography.

What you have here is the tale of someone tying up some affairs after the death of their mother. Marie (Jocelin Donahue) and her partner, George (Joe Swanberg), have to travel to a small island town, fulfilling some last wishes that make no sense to Marie. Her mother, Ava (Melora Walters), had often spoken of the place in a way that made clear she never wanted to go back there, and Marie soon starts to see her point of view, with the town being a strange and cold place. Is it her state of mind, or is there something wrong with the place?

This is, in a lot of ways, what you expect it to be. It's a low-budget horror movie that prioritises the cast and quieter interactions ahead of any big scares. Keating does himself a big favour with his casting, but he also paces things nicely, building atmosphere and a sense of dread in between moments that deliver some enjoyably unexpected scares (or spooky strangeness). Although he obviously doesn't have the resources that other film-makers might have available to them, Keating does his best to ensure that everything looks and sounds as it should. The visual style may be a bit flat, but that is easy to forgive when you realise that Keating has held back in a way that allows some third act moments to make a much stronger impact.

Donahue is an excellent lead, someone that viewers can easily stay alongside and root for, and Swanberg gives another good performance in the kind of supporting role he seems to be so good with. Walters has to be a bit more on edge and strained than most of the other people onscreen, but she plays her part well. There are also a number of great little turns from some familiar, and some not so familiar, faces, with Jeremy Gardner being a slight scene-stealer yet again and Richard Brake bringing his inimitable air of quiet menace to the table.

If you're after something that's not tied to some big names, in terms of the property or the way it is marketed, then I highly recommend checking this out. The imperfection of it just adds to the charm, and major bonus points to Keating for also delivering an ending that feels like a proper ending (something that used to be lacking from every indie horror movie I watched for a few years). It's not entirely original, it's not all wrapped up in a neat bow, but it does enough to stand out from the crowd, with cast and crew all doing their bit to make something that feels like a real hidden gem. Do your bit to uncover it, and share the pleasing glimmer of it with others.

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

The Heroin Busters (1977)

I am not going to start this review by giving a full description of poliziotteschi movies, aka Eurocrime flicks from a certain “golden age” of Italian exploitation cinema, but that’s mainly because I have waited far too long to fully explore the movies myself. I have seen two others, I think, and the very enjoyable documentary that celebrates them, but it has long been a blind spot in my cinema knowledge. Once again, there are only so many hours in each day, it can be tough to fit in viewings of everything you want to see. Especially when you want to see everything.

Here are a few things I expected though, and The Heroin Busters delivered. I wanted tough cops who would damn the rule book to hell while pursuing bad guys. I wanted some moments that felt enjoyably random, most probably featuring sex or violence. I wanted stuntwork that puts actors in the kind of peril that would never be covered by insurance in any mainstream movie. And I wanted a ruggedly handsome lead who could be an angel or a bastard, depending on what approach he thought might get the best results. 

In an attempt to get to the top of the drug dealer tree and shake some very bad apples into prison, one determined cop (played by David Hemmings) ends up working an operation that has an undercover agent (Fabio Testi) convincingly portraying someone who wants to start moving up the criminal food chain. That’s all you need to know, and that is all groundwork being laid for a third act that is essentially a 20/30-minute chase sequence.

I have seen other films from director Enzo G. Castellari, who also wrote the script with Massimo De Rita, but nothing in this vein, and I am pleased I made time for this one in my recent viewing schedule. It is exactly what I wanted it to be, and builds from a fairly steady and normal opening act towards a finale stuffed full of great moments, with the stuntwork planned around various locations and vehicles.

Hemmings is gruff and determined, seemingly enjoying himself in a role that gives him less screentime without diminishing his presence, and Testi emanates the kind of cool charisma that assures you of his star status from his earliest scenes. He’s superb in the main role, and ends up involved in some entertainingly danger-filled moments (and I don’t just mean his character, he was definitely asked to take some risks for some of the key sequences). Joshua Sinclair is a fun villain, but there are also a few other supporting players who are very effective when it comes to filling out the “rogue’s gallery” of addicts, henchmen, and drug dealers.

Music from Goblin is another plus, although whether they even bothered about matching the audio to the visuals is something I wouldn’t like to bet money on, and you also have the usual selection of fashions and cool affectations from 1970s Italy, which helps to keep things entertaining throughout the relatively slow first half of the film.

I am just going to assume that this isn’t the best film of this kind, mainly because of the time it takes to get to the most rewarding scenes, but you could do a hell of a lot worse if, like me, you are just starting to dip your toes into those poliziotteschi waters. I had a blast with it, and I already want to give it a rewatch.

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

Hell High (1989)

The only feature film directed by Douglas Grossman, co-written with Leo Evans (who has this listed on IMDb as his only writing credit), Hell High is the kind of mess you get when people try, a bit too late, to cash in on a craze that they don't really view as a challenge. Because, as many of them as we had throughout the 1980s, every slasher movie fan knows that a GOOD slasher movie is a lot harder to deliver than a bad one. Hell High is a pretty bad one, and many people might not view it as a slasher at all, but I am going to class it within that sub-genre because that's the only way to give it credit for some positives.

It starts with a tragic accident. Most slasher movies do. We then move forward by a few decades. Miss Brooke Storm (Maureen Mooney) is the adult version of the young girl we saw just witnessing a majorly traumatic event, and now she works as a teacher. Having embarrassed one of her students, Dickens (Christopher Stryker), in front of the whole class, Miss Storm doesn't realise that she will be the target of some very malicious revenge. One thing leads to another, Miss Storm ends up almost comatose, there's a squirm-inducing scene of sexual assault (some may view it as attempted assault, many will agree with me that it's horribly successful and disturbing), and it all ends with someone apparently dying. That's when the murders properly begin, all crammed into a third act that never truly rewards viewers for making it through the rest of the film. 

The biggest problem with Hell High is that it doesn’t quite know how to best be what it so clearly wants to be. There are some slasher movie touchstones (the opening trauma, the catalyst for a dark revenge plot, the moment when an unhinged character just gives in to murderous impulses), but they are bogged down in a plot that spends far too much time on drama and bickering between numerous actors all trying to pass themselves off as high school students.

Stryker benefits from the fact that he is playing the nasty ringleader of a group, and Millie Prezioso benefits from being the one female member, Queenie, but both Christopher Cousins and Jason Brill barely make any impression, which is really saying something when Cousins proves to be the character that viewers end up spending more time with during some important moments. And then there’s Mooney, who doesn’t do terrible work, despite the script having her more restrained for a fair chunk of the runtime when having her be all-out raging and murderous is clearly the better option.

It’s obvious that the biggest problem here is a misguided script by Evans and Grossman, and I am absolutely not surprised that this was their last feature film (some are destined for greatness, some are destined to give us one or two oddities before finding their calling elsewhere), but the direction from Grossman doesn’t help matters at all. Every major decision seems to forget that a film like benefits from decent pacing, fluctuating levels of energy, a standout death or two, and maybe even some witty homages that show those involved at least know the territory they have decided to make their mark in.

Absolutely forgettable, disappointingly incompetent in a way that doesn’t even prove laughable, as it is just too flat throughout, and full of moments that you can tell we’re just misjudged (in tone and/or execution), Hell High is not one I can recommend to even the most undemanding of slasher movie fans. And we’re generally not a very demanding lot anyway.

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: The Escort (2016)

Michael Doneger plays Mitch, a young man who isn't where he wants to be in life, having just been fired from his job, as well as receiving constant criticism from his best friend, JP (Tommy Dewey), about his slight sex addiction issue. Tasked with presenting a worthwhile piece of journalism to secure a new job, Mitch ends up involved with Natalie, a high-class, well-educated escort who might actually cause Mitch to reflect on his own life as he finds out more and more about her.

What you get here isn’t new, and it is something we will see again and again. The Escort, despite trying to appear much more risqué than other films it could sit alongside, is a standard rom-com that had two seemingly incompatible characters realising just how well they can work together.

Director Will Slocombe tries his best, walking a fine line to portray some of the sexual encounters without it feeling gratuitous or too much like simple titillation, and he also seems to be working hard to make the best end product possible on a relatively low budget. There aren’t really any big names to help things along (although Bruce Campbell is very well used in his small supporting role, playing Mitch’s father) and the tone throughout is never radically altered in favour of an “easier sell”.

As admirable as not taking the easy option is, writer Brandon Cohen (fleshing out the story idea from Doneger) also does everyone a slight disservice by skirting around moments that could have easily increased the comedy quotient of the film. As already mentioned, Campbell is great, but he’s only onscreen for a few scenes. The same could be said for the character played by Dewey, someone who could have added some more friction and laughs, but is instead underused. And a cursing little sister (played by Rachel Resheff)? Yep, underused. The same goes for a landlord at the end of his patience (played by Juan Carlos Cantu). On the one hand, I get it. Keep the focus on Doneger and Fonseca. And try to stop this from feeling too close to a teen sex comedy. On the other hand, a rom-com really needs the rom and the com, and the latter could have really helped the former.

The leads are decent, but there’s a sad lack of chemistry between them. It is the supporting cast who have all the fun though, with everyone I just mentioned above doing generally great work. Dewey is probably the least effective of the main cast members, but that is the fault of a script that does even less with him than it does with the others. There are also a number of actors doing their best “major douchebag” turns while paying for the company of Fonseca’s character, which I guess helps to make her like our leading man more, by default.

Although I personally didn’t think the film needed to miss so many opportunities for laughs, I appreciate the attempt to present some young adults discussing various approaches to sex in a positive and open way. The Escort may not be a film to love, and I doubt I will ever rewatch it, but it certainly provides more talking points than your average rom-com. There just wasn’t quite enough honey coating the underbaked platter of genitalia-shaped cookies at the heart of it. And there’s another sentence I never thought I would write.

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

Monstrous (2022)

Chris Sivertson has been making movies for just over two decades now. Which you might not realise after watching Monstrous (or reading any past reviews of his work from myself, when I would consistently mis-spell his surname). It's not that this is a bad film. It's a film based around an idea, from writer Carol Chrest, that Sivertson obviously thought was strong enough to carry the whole thing. Sadly, that's not the case.

Christina Ricci stars as Laura, mother to young Cody (Santino Barnard). The two have just moved into a new home, rented from Mr. and Mrs. Langtree (played by Don Durrell and Colleen Camp), and it's quite clear from the earliest scenes that things aren't normal and pleasant. Laura seems to have her daily routine interrupted by strange visions that don't make sense, and she likes to take the edge off her stress with alcohol, while Cody seems to be unable to make any new friends, with the possible exception of someone he claims lives in the lake right beside their home.

That's all I'll write to describe the plot. It's all you need, and it's all the film presents for the majority of the runtime. Chrest is credited with two films to her name, as a writer, and her last film, The Prophet's Game, was over twenty years ago. I haven't seen that one, but the gap in between her two main features helps to explain why Monstrous feels like a debut. Aside from Ricci in the main role and some nice touches throughout (from the costume and makeup to the overall production design), there's nothing here to recommend this to anyone who has already seen more than a dozen movies in their lifetime. Sivertson incorrectly puts his faith in the material, but he saves himself from complete embarrassment by also putting his faith in Ricci.

Acting as a woman who is trying to maintain a facade of exemplary parenting while barely keeping her neuroses from piling up and suffocating her, Ricci is superb. Doing her best interpretation of a typical '50s housewife, albeit one trying to stay as far away as possible from an apparently abusive ex-husband, Ricci is constantly ready to act deferential and politely smile at people around her while she attempts to find the time to repeatedly piece her sanity together. Barnard does well enough as the young boy who may be seeing a bigger picture than his mother can make out, but he might have been able to make a stronger impression if he wasn't the main character who suffers most from Chrest's writing. Durrell doesn't have too much to do, but Camp at least gets to portray someone who is very suspicious and unhelpful, to the point of being someone you suspect may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back (and I hope Ricci never accidentally stumbles across this review and resents me for referring to her as anything akin to a camel).

Sivertson is a decent film-maker. I have enjoyed other movies from him, although All Cheerleaders Die is much more fun than I Know Who Killed Me, and I hope to enjoy whatever he delivers in the future. This didn't hit the mark though. The atmosphere doesn't really work, there's a lack of any real tension, and the grand finale doesn't do nearly enough to reward viewers for their patience. Ricci fans will find her performance a big plus. Everyone else should avoid this altogether.

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