Netflix And Chill: The Bad Batch (2016)

The second feature film from writer-director Ana Lily Amirpour (after getting plenty of rave reviews for the excellent A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night), The Bad Batch couldn't be much further removed from that fairly quiet, subtle, and black and white, work. This is bright, brash, and happy to pilfer scenes and ideas from a whole litany of films that wander through similar "post-apocalyptic" terrain. Seeing what Amirpour has done throughout her career, however, it becomes clear that this is a woman who doesn't want to be hemmed in by any expectations or genre boundaries.

Let me begin by saying that I put the words "post-apocalyptic" in quotation marks here because, well, that's not really the case. All we know, as the film begins, is that the USA has created a huge area in a desert outside Texas that it uses to house people it deems undesirable. There are no laws there, and no citizenship. Suki Waterhouse plays Arlen, the latest person to be sent into this dangerous place, and it's not long until she ends up on the wrong end of hungry cannibals. A few meals later, requiring one of her legs and arms as prime ingredients, Arlen plots her escape, and ends up in a much safer, and better, location. A few months go by, and Arlen can't stop thinking about revenge against those who disfigured her for the sake of a sick recipe. Revenge doesn't always pan out the way you expect it to though, and Arlen ends up in the company of the dangerous Miami Man (Jason Momoa), an individual who states that he cares about nothing and nobody, save for a little girl named Honey (Jayda Fink). Arlen might be safe again if she can help the man and child be reunited, but helping one person usually means upsetting one or two others. And that's not advisable in such a dangerous place.

The fact that Amirpour went for this as her sophomore feature is admirable and incredible. While A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night enjoyed playing around with the tropes of the vampire movie, The Bad Batch plays within the sandbox of a specific sub-genre without ever being ironic or winking at the audience. This would only take a few tweaks to turn it into a full-blooded Mad Max movie, and there are moments of grisly violence and nastiness that will test even those with very strong stomachs. One scene in particular made me fear for what would happen, and what had happened, to one character, all thanks to the strength of one performance from a woman brilliantly conveying desperation, pain, and fear in her one minute of screentime. It's a real shame that the lead couldn't show even a quarter of that talent.

Having dismissed her before, but also having tried to keep giving her the benefit of the doubt, I am sorry to say that this lacklustre turn from Suki Waterhouse has proven me right in my readiness to avoid any of her acting. This is a film that deserves someone much better in the lead role, and I'm sorry that Amirpour has to see her vision weakened by such major miscasting. One or two moments aside, Waterhouse is dire in this. If you disagree with me, I'd love to hear you nominate one person onscreen who gives a worse performance than her. Momoa is hampered by the accent chosen for his character, but he still manages to do well, thanks largely to the fact that he has the physique and presence to intimidate anyone within a half-mile radius. Fink does well with her relatively small amount of screentime, and it's interesting to see both Jim Carrey and Keanu Reeves in very atypical roles. Giovanni Ribisi is arguably the other main recognisable cast member, but he generally wanders about without much to do, apart from feeling like an alternate-dimension version of his character from Friends.

There are a number of sights here that you're unlikely to forget any time soon. There are also some great tunes scattered throughout the soundtrack. This is a film that comes close to being great on a number of occasions. What holds it back is the mismatch between the more standard genre moments and the really grisly stuff. And Waterhouse. Waterhouse also holds it back, sitting in the middle of everything like an understudy who didn't expect to ever be called up for her big moment in the spotlight. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: Brooklyn 45 (2023)

Sadly, I have to start this review with a warning, for those who just want to skin. Brooklyn 45 is not a good film, and I'm frankly a bit bewildered by the praise it has received.

Written and directed by Ted Geoghegan, who gave us the excellent We Are Still Here, everything begins with a group made up largely of war veterans all getting together at one house at the end of 1945. The host for the evening is Lt. Col. Clive Hockstatter (Larry Fessenden), and the main attendees are Mjr. Paul DiFranco (Ezra Buzzington), Mjr. Archibald Stanton (Jeremy Holm), Marla Sheridan (Anne Ramsay), and her husband, Bob (Ron E. Rains). Locking the door once everyone is in, Hockstatter eventually convinces everyone that they should try holding a seance. He really misses his recently-deceased wife, and a seance might help him feel a bit less pained and lonely. That doesn't really work out as planned, which leads to a tense situation in which everyone is now effectively trapped in the house, and ready to do a whole lot of bickering.

I guess I can see what Geoghegan was going for here, and the tagline refers to "ghosts of your past", but he ultimately fails to achieve the realisation of his vision. Characters aren't developed enough, the past events never feel as overwhelming and life-altering as they could be, and there are very few proper chills or scares. Everything looks nice enough, which is the least you should expect from a film in which a very small cast is mainly kept in one fairly small room, but the content is lacking.

As for the actors, I wish they had been good enough to help distract me from the failings of the film, but they're often unable to do anything to improve the poor writing. Ramsay is the best, and works well with a sorely-underused Rains, both feeling a bit more nuanced and fleshed-out than anyone else onscreen. Both Holm and Buzzington are disappointing, and neither are helped by the fact that they have to spend most of the movie stubbornly repeating the same sentiments over and over again, because Geoghegan thinks that is enough to define them. Fessenden isn't a main presence for too long, but does okay with what he's given, and Kristina Klebe turns up almost a third of the way into the movie, having to then spend the rest of the screentime repeating herself in a way that's very similar to Holm and Buzzington. 

There are one or two good ideas buried in here, particularly when it comes to the parallels/differences between military life and civilian life, and how some people will always feel inclined to stick with an identifiable chain of command, but they're buried deep by the time the end credits roll. Far too many moments amount to nothing of real substance, with a good majority of the runtime dedicated to the kind of tiresome circular arguments that are reminiscent of the worst conversations I have had on social media.

I like Geoghegan, and he at least deserves props for presenting something that certainly feels different from any other recent horror movies, but this just doesn't work. Not only that, but it pretty much wastes the talent of everyone onscreen. And there were a couple of easy tweaks that could have greatly improved things (Brooklyn 50, with more time elapsed between military life and reintegration into civilian life, for example, would have allowed for more interesting developments and tensions, in my opinion). Maybe Geoghegan the director needs someone helping Geoghegan the writer. Because everything looks good enough, but it's a fancy bit of paper and bow on an empty gift box.

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

Deinfluencer (2022)

A British chiller that also wants to comment on our relationships with social media, the scariest thing about Deinfluencer is the fact that there’s at least one sequel being prepped (although we can always hope that it doesn’t get to the full production stage).

A young woman named Kelly (Marie Luciani-Grimaldi) wakes up in an unknown location, distressed to find that she has been kidnapped by someone who intends to set her a number of challenges. All of those challenges will revolve around her getting certain numbers of likes on her Instagram posts, and all will also aim to teach Kelly a valuable lesson.

Directed by Jamie Bailey, who also worked on the script with actor Simon Phillips (onscreen as the masked kidnapper), Deinfluencer is childishly simple and clumsy in the way it handles the central idea. It’s obvious that someone figured out the end point and decided to retrofit the whole thing from there, and it’s equally obvious that everyone involved would have to compensate for the budgetary limitations with talent and creativity. They aren’t able to do so.

I tend to like seeing Phillips onscreen, a jobbing actor who has been plying his trade for quite a while now, but he’s sadly not often a sign of quality. His acting range feels quite limited, and his reputation feels seriously tarnished by his immersion in the UK film productions that aim for a business model of “keep costs low and turn a profit selling titles before people realise how bad they are”. He has starred in an average of 4 movies a year for the past few years, and I am willing to bet that very few of those, if any, manage to rise up to the level of average. Luciani-Grimaldi isn’t very good here either, although she has the excuse of just being at the start of her onscreen acting career. There are one or two others bulking up the tiny cast, but nobody acquits themselves well enough to warrant a namecheck here.

Every time I see another film like this, one that feels as if it has come off some production line for British movies made without care or passion, I get mad. I get mad at the fact I know I will still watch the damn thing to the end, I get mad at those involved not making enough effort, and I get mad for the people who have been unable to get their own films made while dross like this ends up out there, littering the cinematic landscape like full dog “poo bags” hanging from tree branches.

Maybe everyone went into this with the best intentions. Maybe this is genuinely the best end result they could have achieved. I strongly doubt it though, and I suspect both Bailey and Phillips know they could have done better. But that might have taken a bit more effort.

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Hypnotic (2023)

It doesn’t matter how many times you get to the cinema this year, I doubt you will see a dumber film than Hypnotic. It’s so consistently ridiculous that it sits on the same level as some of the classic stinkers of cinema, and may well go on to become a bit of a cult classic in time.

The plot all begins with cop Danny Rourke (Ben Affleck) talking to a therapist about the day his daughter was snatched away from him. It was a typical day at the park, he let his mind wander for just a moment, and that one lapse has gone on to define his entire character. After his therapy session is over, Rourke is almost immediately sent to check out a potential bank robbery. That’s where he first encounters Dellrayne (William Fichtner), a man who can get people to see and do whatever he plants in their mind. While trying to figure out exactly how he works his magic, Rourke heads along to see Diana Cruz (Alice Braga), a woman who knows all about the power of people like Dellrayne. Rourke needs to stop the guy, but he also suspects that he knows something about the disappearance of his daughter. It is going to be a lot harder to crack this case, however, while Rourke is unable to trust his own senses.

Director Robert Rodriguez isn’t a stranger to messy movies, to put it kindly, but his worst moments have always, up until now, been reserved for the kind of ridiculous kid films that we’re never exactly aimed at cinephiles anyway. Hypnotic feels different. It feels, despite the silliness, as if it is aimed at adult viewers, but it also feels very much like Rodriguez had an idea (he also co-wrote the script with Max Borenstein) and wouldn’t let anyone dissuade him from crafting an entire movie around that idea. And getting Affleck for the main role just goes to show how poor Affleck is at choosing star vehicles for himself.

While I could offer up a selection of lines from the script that would make even the most stone-faced reader laugh out loud, that seems a bit too easy. Especially when the cast do so little to help. Affleck plays his cop in the style of Topper Harley, Braga is disappointingly flat while delivering almost every bit of exposition required, and Fichtner isn’t allowed to just cut loose and have more fun with his bad guy. He should be the absolute highlight of the film, especially when you think of the ridiculous power he has, but he somehow feels like nothing more than a canny henchman. JD Pardo, Dayo Okeniyi, Jackie Earle Haley, and Jeff Fahey also appear, although the latter two only have a mere minute or two of screentime, which helps to spare them too much embarrassment.

There’s one decent set-piece, known to anyone who saw the trailer, but nothing else here. The score is uninteresting, the special effects are okay, at times, but will probably just make you wish you rewatched Inception instead, and the whole thing lacks tension, as well as lacking anyone to really care about.

It IS mesmerising, in a way, but it’s mesmerisingly awful. And shame on Rodriguez for calling back to a joke delivered in the far superior Desperado.

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

Prime Time: Bones And All (2022)

There might be some who would view Bones And All, a romantic drama that shows some people trying to live with a cannibalistic urge, and take the life lessons aspect of it to come up with the pithy alternative title of Hannibal Lecture, but I would be beyond that kind of pathetic attempt at an easy pun, of course.

Director Luca Guadagnino has made great use of a script by David Kajganich, adapting a novel by Camille DeAngelis, to deliver a film that feels impressively grim at times while also feeling very much like a typical Luca Guadagnino film. I find his work very often misses the mark slightly, but this is one of his better outings (although I must note here that I have sadly still to watch the much-praised Call Me By Your Name).

Taylor Russell plays Maren, a girl who has spent her lifetime moving around with, and being protected by, her father (André Holland, offscreen quickly enough, but also delivering some great voiceover work). Her father cannot stick around, however, and he leaves Maren with some advice and information. Traveling alone around the country, Maren meets others just like her, some that seem good (Lee, played by Timothée Chalamet) and some that seem like trouble (including Sully, played by Mark Rylance). Oh, I forgot to mention that Maren is overtaken sometimes by the urge to eat human flesh. Lee, Sully, and others also have the same condition, but not everyone views it as a problem.

The strangest thing about Bones And All, and I am going to assume that this was just me own brain causing problems, was the fact that it kept feeling like a Doctor Sleep offshoot to me. Some plot points are similar, although those same plot points can be found in many other movies, but it was the atmosphere and characters that somehow made me think I was watching something from a world written by Stephen King. I would love to hear from anyone who had a similar reaction, especially if this is a common observation. Otherwise, I will just chalk it up to another example of me being me.

Getting to what the movie is, instead of what my mind kept trying to make it, the cast all work well with the material. Russell is very good in the lead role, believably trying to cope with an unnatural appetite that others have spent time embracing. Chalamet isn’t bad, if less instantly convincing in his role (Chalamet often feels more like Chalamet than a credible new character), and Rylance plays his part so well that he casts a long shadow over most of the film, even without actually being onscreen for more than a handful of scenes. I have already complimented Holland, as the father who discovers his breaking point, and there are a number of effective turns from cast members only given a scene or two in which to make a strong impression. Michael Stuhlberg and David Gordon Green are two highlights, and Chloë Sevigny is another.

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross create another great score, there’s clean and pleasing cinematography courtesy of Arseni Khachaturan, and every decision made allows for the more horrific moments to be presented in a way that shows restraint without complete shying away from the blood and violence (or the bones and all).

Although falling slightly between two stools, despite the best efforts of all involved, Bones And All is a strange and enjoyable drama that just happens to show people with some very peculiar dietary requirements. I liked it, but I am not sure who I would recommend it to.

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

Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse (2023)

I had quite the dilemma when I left the cinema after seeing the visual feast that is Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse. I wasn’t debating whether or not I liked it. I wasn’t bothered by the cliffhanger of an ending. I simply wondered whether or not I could immediately rank this as a superior film to the damn fine Spidey movie that preceded it. After wrestling with my conscience for a short while, I have decided that I can. Others may hold that ending against it. I won’t. In fact, the way the ending promises even more great Spider-Man adventures in this format means that I view it as a bonus. This is a perfect movie.

We’re back in the company of Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), but we only reconnect with Miles after an extended opening sequence that shows us the ongoing adventures of Spider-Gwen (Hailee Steinfeld). Viewers are brought up to speed about, or reminded of, the various incarnations of Spider-characters throughout the multiverse, and it isn’t long until Miles Morales is battling a foe (Spot, voiced by Jason Schwartzman) who puts multiple realities in serious danger. 

That’s all I want to say about the plot of the film, but I could write so much more here and still feel as if I was just scratching the surface. Let me just add that there is still a great energy to this material, a great blending of various animation styles, and characters depicted onscreen that many fans thought they would never see in a major movie.

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are back on writing duties, alongside Dave Callaham, and they bring their patented brand of humour with heart, once again seeming to relish the chance to craft great moments for even the most minor Spider-figures. It also shows how to create a picture of great impending peril while keeping the focus on characters, real emotional turbulence, and natural and rewarding personal developments.

Directors Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson may all be new to their roles in this particular movie series, but they all work in service to material that effortlessly (well . . . seemingly effortlessly) feels livelier, cooler, and more colourful and diverse than any other superhero movie we’ve seen so far. The only other film that comes close is, well, the previous Spider-Verse adventure.

It’s impossible to narrow down the praise for voice performances that are such a good fit for the animation, especially Moore and Steinfeld being so perfect in the lead roles, so I will just reel off the many names of the core figures: Jake Johnson (another welcome returning player), Oscar Isaac, Daniel Kaluuya, Karan Soni, Brian Tyree Henry, Luna Lauren Velez, Shea Whigham, Issa Rae, as well as some live-action incarnations, shown in archive footage very familiar to us Spidey fans. 

As already mentioned, the ending didn’t bother me, but I know some will be frustrated by the idea of another superhero film ending on a note that leads in to whatever the next instalment is due to deliver. I relish the potential ahead, because this movie series keeps delivering on that potential, and far beyond it. Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse crashes on to screens as one of the best ever superhero movies, one of the best ever animated movies, and simply one of the best ever movies, period. And to think . . . I didn’t ever seriously consider that anything would be able to supercede the first film. 

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: The Five Devils (2022)

The second feature from director Léa Mysius, this is a big step up from her last work (Ava), although there's definitely connective tissue between the two works. Both films are about a child dealing with memories, and, to a certain degree, figuring out different ways to make things more ideal within their own environment.

Sally Dramé plays Vicky, a young girl who has a knack for identifying different scents. She tries to bottle different favourites, including scents belonging to her mother (Joanne, played by Adèle Exarchopoulos). Joanne isn't feeling as strongly connected as she once was to her partner/Vicky's father, Jimmy (Moustapha Mbengue), and things become more strained when Jimmy's sister, Julia (Swala Emati) comes to stay at their home after time spent in prison. While trying to figure out why things are changing around her, Vicky keeps working on collecting just the right scents, some powerful enough to help her visit and view the past, where she learns a lot more about the complicated relationship between Joanne, Julia, and Jimmy.

Once again working in collaboration with writer Paul Guilhaume, Mysius helps herself enormously this time around by being willing to take things even further, in cinematic terms, and by putting together an even more memorable cast. I should say now, however, that I have a slight bias towards Exarchopoulos, and consider her to be one of the absolute best actresses of her generation. 

Alongside Exarchopoulos (who is used brilliantly here, and I don't know if you're aware, but . . . . she's one of the absolute best actresses of her generation) you have others who try to hold their own beside her. Some work better than others, and the standout is young Dramé, managing to effectively portray a child with a special power who slides from typically childish play mode into a more determined and focused practitioner of her craft, intrigued by what she glimpses and seeking a way to dig even deeper towards hidden truths that may or may not be best left in the past. Emati does well, Mbengue less so (although he has the more thankless role), and there are good supporting turns from Patrick Bouchitey and Daphne Patakia, both embodying very different people that Joanne might want to get away from.

A deft blend of light and dark, magical realism crashing against depressing realism as a child watches an adult who is starting to seriously regret some of the roads that life has taken her down, The Five Devils is a well-realised study of a certain nexus point between parent and child. It looks at that strange time when any child starts to realise that their parents didn’t just arrive on the planet as fully-formed full-time caregivers, and the use of scent as a trigger/portal makes sense, because we all have those specific smells that can transport us back to a specific time and place. A brand of perfume, a mix of seawater and candy floss, Red Bull and vodka, etc, etc. All of those things, and many more, can cause a strong reaction in your memory muscles, and anyone reading this will have a number of triggers that will take them right back to a specific childhood treat or tribulation. 

While there are moments that I wish were handled a bit better here, particularly the last few scenes, this easily does well enough to deserve your attention. And it’s a substantial next step in what is becoming a very interesting filmography from Léa Mysius.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Netflix And Chill: The Guard (2011)

The directorial feature debut of the very talented John Michael McDonagh, The Guard is also a film that gives Brendan Gleeson one of his best movie roles. In fact, between himself and his brother, Martin McDonagh, Gleeson has spent the better part of the last fifteen years in roles that help to solidify his place in the list of all-time great actors. He was already a strong contender, as evidenced by pretty much any role he's taken on throughout his career, but his work with the McDonagh brothers have elevated him to another level.

Gleeson plays Gerry Boyle, an Irish policeman who spends his time getting through each work day with minimal effort. He's sharp though, no doubt about that, and also rarely bothered about the feelings of others. This causes some friction when FBI Agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) comes to the area, on the trail of some serious drug smugglers. As Boyle and Everett work together on the case, the FBI man starts to realise that Boyle is hiding his talent and instincts behind a well-maintained wall of rudeness and derision.

It can be harder to review a film as good as The Guard, a film which could be discussed in nothing but a cavalcade of pleasant words and deserved compliments. Basically, don't think you're going to get anything here that's particularly eloquent or enlightening. I'll leave that kind of thing to people like the McDonagh brothers, who have given us some perfect scripts throughout their careers.

Although it feels like stating the bleeding obvious at this point, especially after my opening paragraph, Gleeson is great in the main role here. He gets to be at his grouchiest, but also delivers all of his dialogue with a twinkle in his eye, clueing viewers into the mischievous nature of his character that keeps others around him unbalanced. Cheadle works very well alongside him, trying to remain cool and professional while being occasionally flustered by what Gleeson blurts out. He also has some scenes on his own that mine humour from his "fish out of water" status on the isle. The supporting cast includes Liam Cunningham, Mark Strong, David Pearse, Rory Keenan, and quite a few others, and everyone has fun in roles that they feel perfect for.

Maybe not as emotionally resonant (or emotionally devastating) as some of the other movies that have paired Gleeson up with a McDonagh brother, The Guard just serves as a reminder that you don't always need to fill the screen with pain and emotional manipulation to make great cinema. This is great cinema, easily on a par with 100 other films that people would offer up as a peak example of the artform, and it is also great entertainment from start to finish. A lot of that is down to the script, full of so much comedy gold and so many great characters that make it eminently rewatchable, but a big part of it is also down to the stellar work of Gleeson.

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

Shudder Saturday: Darklands (1996)

It's pure coincidence that I have watched two films by director Julian Richards this week, but I can tell you with great confidence that neither of them are his best. Maybe one day I will revisit The Last Horror Movie and give him some positive words here, but I'm not going to bump it up the long list of viewing choices after suffering through this.

Darklands is bad. It's very bad. It's the sort of film that is so bad that you wonder who they convinced to offer up some flattering quotes for the marketing materials. I am going to assume that the person who said this was "Rosemary's Baby meets The Wicker Man" had their words taken out of context, because this comes nowhere near to the chills and greatness of those two genre behemoths.

Craig Fairbrass plays a newspaper reporter named Frazer Truick, the kind of guy who won't let a story go once he has the smallest bit of it between his teeth, even if the end result could land him in hot water. He ends up meeting Rachel Morris (Rowena King), a young woman who gets to spend some time with him while he's working on his latest story. The pair soon get a bit closer, but Truick then starts to realise that the story he's working on is one part of a much bigger picture. And he might be right in the middle of it.

Co-written by Richards and David Mitchell, I will try to be kind and say that Darklands has one or two moments in which it feels like it is trying to break out of the confines of low-budget British horror. It never stops feeling like exactly what it is though, a debut film lucky enough to land a decent star name it doesn't know how to use, and I will offer a small cash reward to anyone who can manage to watch this and keep caring about the plot for more than half the runtime.* There aren't any decent set-pieces, sadly, and that leaves you watching a film that feels made up of the lesser, non-scary, storylines from a story written by someone like James Herbert or Shaun Hutson. The fact that I enjoy both of those authors means that I didn't ever completely hate this, but it came very close at times.

There are a few other key players in the cast, mainly Jon Finch trying to use his limited screentime to overcome the poor script he has to work with, but it's only Fairbrass and King who feel like they're close to being characters worth spending time with. They're not well-developed, both being a walking mess of tropes and cliches, but they gamely power through the film, and it's always good to see Fairbrass try to do something that doesn't have him pigeonholed as someone ready to carry a film like Rise Of The Footsoldier 16: Ahm The Fackin' Drug Daddy Nah (I've tried to write that phonetically to make my point). Fairbrass feels like a good fit for the role, deserving of some better writing, while King feels far too good for her part, especially by the time annoying twists and turns start to come along in the second half.

This isn't one to waste your time with, especially when every aspect of it can be found in much better movies. Just ask me when you're in the mood for certain elements, be it some folk horror, a crime investigation tale, or some dangerous cult plans, and I'll point you towards one or two choices that you will enjoy more.

*I won't, but you will have earned my bemused and begrudged admiration.

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

The Pope's Exorcist (2023)

Like everyone, my mood can decide how I respond to a movie. Catch me on a good day and I may be receptive and kind. Catch me on a bad day and the film may have to work a lot harder to get me to warm to it. The Pope’s Exorcist caught me on a very good day. That is the only way I can explain why I enjoyed it so much.

Russell Crowe, going all out with his Italian accent, plays Father Gabriel Amorth, the titular character. He can battle demons whenever the need arises, but he can also spot other problems, and deal with them accordingly. When a family starts to have a serious problem, in the shape of the youngest member being possessed by a demon who demands an encounter with Father Amorth, the stage is set for the kind of epic battle of wills that can only end when souls are completely saved. Or completely damned.

Directed by Julius Avery (who did the excellent Overlord and the not-so-excellent Samaritan), this is everything you think it is going to be, a slick horror movie with dollops of CGI used to show demon activity, a BIG performance from Crowe, and lots of moments that feel highly derivative.

Writers Michael Petroni, Evan Spiliotopolous, and others who helped form the main story, are aware that their central character comes with a whole load of horror movie baggage (it won’t take anyone long to find out why he is such a notable figure in the horror genre), and they don’t shy away from moments that will feel familiar to anyone with a moderate interest in the genre. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the script leans heavily into the familiar, using a lot of standard horror movie moments as a background that highlights the humour and personality of the central character, and that proves to be a surprisingly good approach.

Crowe is a lot of fun here, keeping a twinkle in his eye and a wry grin on his face right up until the second that things get intense and dangerous. He seems to be having a blast, and his amusement and energy are infectious. Alex Essoe, Peter Desouza-Feighoney, and Laurel Marsden are the family members who end up trying to fend off a demonic onslaught, with both Essoe and Marsden doing great work while Desouza-Feighoney seems to have been picked for his suitability with the practical and digital effects. Daniel Zovatto is your typical inexperienced “assistant”, aka the young priest to fight alongside the old priest, and he’s fine, but bonus points go to whoever decided to cast Franco Nero as his Holiness himself, the Pope. He isn’t onscreen often, but he appears just often enough to raise a smile.

I rolled my eyes when The Pope’s Exorcist began, and I rolled my eyes with every new “revelation”. But I was also smiling as I rolled my eyes. And, maybe because I was in a very good mood, I soon realised that I was rolling my eyes a bit less and smiling a bit more, despite the standard CGI tricks and the hugely predictable third act. I enjoyed this. I would watch it again. I would also definitely watch any sequel based around Crowe’s portrayal of this character.

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

The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)

Look, whether we want to or not, we can all remember the last time that The Super Mario Bros. were presented in movie form. It wasn’t exactly great, and it wasn’t exactly embraced by audiences. So trying again, but this time in animated form, isn’t a bad thing. And my opinion on this is already fairly redundant, considering the amount of money that this has taken at the global box office. But here it is anyway.

The plot is quite simple. Mario (Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day) are two New York plumbers who end up heading down a pipe that takes them through to a whole new world. Luigi lands in the Dark Lands and is almost immediately imprisoned by goons working for the warmongering Bowser (Jack Black). Mario, having landed in a much nicer area, the Mushroom Kingdom, befriends Toad (Keegan-Michael Key), who ends up taking him to Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy), the person who may be best-equipped to help him reunite with his brother. Meanwhile, a major battle is looming. The odds for our heroes might be boosted if they can enlist the help of Donkey Kong (Seth Rogen).

Although there’s only one man responsible for the script here, Matthew Fogel, due credit should go to everyone who has every helped develop any of the multitude of Mario videogames. While squarely aimed at a very young audience, with the animation style, bright colours, and cute characters, a lot of little references are sprinkled throughout every scene to appeal to those well-versed with the history of the most famous adventuring plumber in the world. The plot is simple though, as simple as most of the games, and really just feels like an excuse to put together some moments that feel like sizzle reels or adverts for the latest instalments in the series (watch Mario attempt an obstacle course run, watch Mario jump up various platforms and use pipes to get quickly to the top of a new area, watch vehicles drive along in a Mario Kart section).

It’s surprising that four people are named as directors and co-directors on this. Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic have some fun Teen Titans Go! in their recent past, and Pierre Leduc and Fabien Polack seem to be loyal Illumination staff being rewarded for their work on other projects. All they really have to do is cut and paste things together, or so it would seem, and the real highlights come from the times when the score references some videogame music cues (any time Bowser is at the piano is a real treat).

Pratt and Day are fine in their roles, I guess, but they’re certainly not overflowing with authenticity, from the accents to the shoehorned-in catchphrases. It could have been anyone in these roles, which makes it irritating that Pratt and Day landed them, however you feel about both movie stars. Things are better elsewhere though, with Key and Taylor-Joy feeling much better suited to the characters they are voicing. Black is the star though, so much fun as Bowser, in terms of both the dialogue he gets and how he delivers it, that it’s enough to make up for Seth Rogen playing Donkey Kong as Seth Rogen. You may already have heard the song about Princess Peach, but it’s the best part of the film, and one I could happily watch repeated on a loop without having to revisit anything else here.

I can see why this has done so well, and there are a few wonderful supporting characters that I have failed to mention (including one hilariously nihilistic, but cute, prisoner held in a cage alongside Luigi), but this just felt too bland and uninventive to me. As flawed as the live action movie is, and I would never make a case for it being any kind of misunderstood classic, it at least had people working on it who didn’t just throw together a “greatest hits” selection of gaming moments. And I will remember the weirdness in that film more often than I will remember anything from this.

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

Prime Time: Reborn (2018)

Maybe I would have enjoyed Reborn more if it hadn't seemed so smug about having a couple of well-known stars in the cast. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been so irked by a quote that referred to it as "Carrie for a new generation".  Or maybe, just maybe, I enjoyed it just as much as I could have enjoyed it. I certainly didn't hate it, despite a very silly opening act, but it's not a film that makes me want to note down the names of everyone involved.

The rather distasteful starting point for the plot concerns a stillborn baby brought back to life and cared for by a Frankenstein-like morgue attendant. That baby grows up to be Tess (Kayleigh Gilbert), a young woman with the ability to control electricity around her in a way that can harm others. Tess ends up spending time with actress Lena O'Neill (Barbara Crampton), an actress who doesn't realise that her child has come back into her life. It's not Lena's fault though, considering she was told that her child died during her pregnancy. The bodycount starts to rise, and Tess has to decide when she can tell her mother the truth. Meanwhile, a detective (Michael Paré) is trying to piece things together.

Director Julian Richards might do a decent job with the material here, but it's often very obvious that writer Michael Mahin doesn't have too much experience in his field. This is a very (mercifully?) short film, with a runtime of approximately 77 minutes, but it still feels a bit baggy and disappointingly lacking in the conviction to just keep delivering as many thrills and moments of bloodshed as possible.

I like Crampton in pretty much anything, and her presence here is a big bonus, but that's not to diminish the work of Gilbert, who actually manages to be the best part of the film. Equal parts deadly and sympathetic, Gilbert works hard to sell the sillier aspects of the script and keep her character as a villain that you can spend most of the runtime rooting for. Paré, on the other hand, has one of the least interesting roles in the movie, and he feels sadly wasted. Rae Dawn Chong has a small role, and is as wasted as Paré, but I guess having her name to add to the cast list is a bonus (hey, I would be lying if I said it hadn't helped to lure me in).

Reborn was something I didn't mind watching, for the most part. While not quite good, it certainly didn't feel bad. I could overlook a lot of the minor failings because I was enjoying the chance to watch Gilbert and Crampton shine. If the film had gone for some standard and cheesy ending then I might have been recommending this, with reservations, to like-minded horror fans. Unfortunately, the very last scenes are a huge mis-step, ending the whole thing on a note of backslapping cutesiness that jars with everything that came along beforehand. There's also a cameo that actually caused me to roll my eyes so far to the back of my head that I saw the very rear section of my own brain.

Saved by the cast, almost ruined by the ending, Reborn ends up as something supremely average. It's certainly not a film I can imagine anyone watching more than once.

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

Men In Black II (2002)

Another day, another chance to revisit a film that I think was always given a bit too hard a time when it was first released. Men In Black II is a lot of fun. It’s as well-paced and inventive as the first movie. The returning players are still great in their roles. It just isn’t as good as the hugely successful original.

A new baddie has landed on Earth (Serleena, played by Lara Flynn Boyle), looking to get their hands on something that was hidden away years ago by Agent Kay (Tommy Lee Jones). Unfortunately, Agent Kay had his mind wiped when he chose to retire from the MIB organisation, which makes things tricky when Agent Jay (Will Smith) has to bring him back “into the office”. Can they protect the valuable asset that Serleena is seeking? Can they even find the damn thing in time?

Written by Robert Gordon and Barry Fanaro, in place of Ed Solomon, and with Barry Sonnenfeld back in the director’s chair, Men In Black II doesn’t feel very far removed from its predecessor. There are one or two scenes that spend a bit too much time being too earnest and unfunny, but they are few and far between. Overall, this is a pretty great sequel, full of both new gags and gags that call back to lines and moments in the first film. The visual style is just as cool and slick throughout, and Danny Elfman once again delivers with his music (I think his main theme for this movie series holds up as some of his best work). Sonnenfeld keeps perfect control over everything, or at least makes it seem that way, and every extra detail, in the plot or production design, feels well-considered and relevant.

Although their roles have changed somewhat, Smith and Jones still make a great central pairing. The former remains cocky and ready to deliver witty lines, the latter still retains an air of exasperation around his well-worn face. Boyle is fun in the role of Serleena, an alien dominatrix with their tendrils whipping whoever doesn’t give them the right answers to their questions, and Johnny Knoxville is . . . well, look, I like Johnny Knoxville, but his character is the weak link there, a two-headed creation given too many chances to fool around in a way that isn’t on a par with the rest of the humour in the film. Rosario Dawson is a worthy addition to the cast, playing a murder witness named Laura who somehow avoids having her memory wiped, and there’s a typically great little turn from Patrick Warburton at the start of the movie. Rip Torn, Frank The Pug, and Tony Shalhoub all make welcome returns, as do the odd little “worm guys” (CG creations who all perk up when Dawson is introduced to them), and there are some fun cameos to keep your eyes peeled for.

The first film set a very high bar when it comes to blockbuster sci-fi comedy, and it holds up as a brilliant slice of modern mainstream cinema, but I remain convinced that this is a worthy sequel. It’s smart, it’s funny, it hits similar main beats. It just isn’t the first film, and I think those judging it too harshly on that basis are being a tad unfair. Although you can deduct an extra point or two from my rating if you REALLY can’t stand Frank The Pug. I have somehow grown to enjoy his screentime a bit more than I used to, but I can see how he could hurt the viewing experience.

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

Mubi Monday: Gangs Of New York (2002)

Despite owning Gangs Of New York for at least a decade, I have a strong suspicion that I haven't actually rewatched it since first seeing it on VHS back when it was first released. I believe my opinion was one shared by many other people then. Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant as the main villain (well, sort of the main villain, I'll expand on that soon enough), Leonardo DiCaprio was good, but not great, and Cameron Diaz was the weakest of the stars onscreen. The film was typical Scorsese, forming another chapter in his ongoing series about violent people creating things that then become bigger than them. Goodfellas is about a man making himself into a mobster, and a monster. Casino is about the mob building Las Vegas. Gangs Of New York is all about the thuggery and violence that was used to shape, I'll give you two guesses, yep, New York.

DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, a man we see returning to the bosom of New York many years after watching his father be killed in a huge street battle. The man who killed him is Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Day-Lewis), a figure who basically runs the city. Amsterdam has to bide his time before avenging his father, which allows him to get closer and closer to Bill, but he also gets closer to a young woman named Jenny Everdeane (Diaz). It might take a village to raise a child, but it takes some rough time on the streets to make a man. Or something like that.

It's easy to see why director Martin Scorsese would have been drawn to this story/script, written by Jay Cocks, Steve Zaillian, and Kenneth Lonergan. It shows a bloody chapter in history that did just as much to help some people as it did to destroy many others. What is more surprising, especially when rewatching the film today, is just how it stealthily leads you towards an overview of a whole system that is imbalanced and riddled with injustice. People like Bill are able to hold on to their positions because they help those who are in official positions of power. Respectability is a mask, and often worn by those who can quickly call on others to do their dirty work for them, and for a ridiculously low price. And no matter where you think you are in the pecking order, your position is only there as long as those with much more money and power allow it.

Day-Lewis steals the movie, and rightly so. His character is a perfect blend of great writing matched by a flawless performance, and he's always a believable threat to those around him. While DiCaprio isn't as assured or memorable, he does enough to make his part work, and he just about manages to hold his own when sharing the screen with such a formidable co-star. Diaz isn't terrible, but she struggles to convince anyone that she was one of the best picks for the role, although she's not helped by a script that is much more confident with the many main male roles than it is with the lone woman. Elsewhere, the cast is stacked with great actors giving their best attempts at the accents (mainly Irish American). Brendan Gleeson and Gary Lewis are highlights, but you also get to enjoy John C. Reilly, Stephen Graham, Jim Broadbent, and Henry Thomas in some plum roles.

Where this succeeds is in the way it cuts into the corpses that helped to build a city, and also helped to build America, and then starts to show how even the strongest figures were so often puppeteered by those with limited patience for them. Where is falls down slightly is in the way it feels exactly like a film from the early 2000s. This comes through in the casting, it comes through in a score and soundtrack that is not up there with the best work of either composer Howard Shore or Scorsese himself (who often has a great ear for the best tunes to use), and it is there in a couple of moments that I would argue remain some of the most disappointing work from the usually flawless editor Thelma Schoonmaker. I am not a complete moron though, and there are still plenty of moments here where she shows off her consummate skill, but one or two big battle scenes are marred by editing choices - changes in the speed of the action, a lot of cross-dissolving and overlaid imagery - that feel very much from this time.

Despite these minor criticisms, and they are based on very conscious choices by the director, Gangs Of New York easily holds up as another absolute cracker from a director who has rarely put a foot wrong throughout a long and impressive career. And, despite very stiff competition, it’s quite possibly the best performance that Day-Lewis has ever given.

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: 1922 (2017)

There was a time when I considered Stephen King as the master of the short horror story. In fact, regardless of genre, he was a master of that form. That time has long passed though. He still puts out some great short stories, but they're not as effective, or short, as they used to be. 1922 is one such tale, having started life as a novella in the collection titled Full Dark, No Stars (alongside Big Driver, Fair Extension, and A Good Marriage, with only one of those tales still waiting for the inevitable adaptation from page to screen).

This is the tale of a family set to come apart. Wilfred James is a proud and hard-working farmer, unwilling to accept that his wife, Arlette, wants to sell their land and move elsewhere. With his son, Henry, on his side, Wilfred eventually sets out to do the unthinkable in order to maintain the status quo he wants in his life. Believing he has thought of everything, Wilfred soon starts to encounter a few wrinkles in his plan. Before you can say "tell-tale heart", things start to get increasingly strange and tense on the farm.

Adapted and directed by Zak Hilditch, 1922 is far from the worst of the many Stephen King movies we have had over the years. It just has the same problem that many others do. It's been a while since I read this tale, but I felt that the film added a fair bit of extraneous material that took time and focus away from the enjoyably simple central idea. You also get that sense of familiarity that comes with most King tales.

The cast help though. Thomas Jane is excellent in the role of Wilfred, a weak man who thinks he can sort all of his problems with one deplorable act, and Molly Parker does well in the role of Arlette, a role that obviously requires a lot less screentime. Dylan Schmid is their son, suitably changed by the fateful night that has him assisting his father in a heinous crime, and he also does good work. While the supporting cast features roles for Brian d'Arcy James (a standard friendly sheriff), Bob Frazer, and Kaitlyn Bernard, the only other standout is Neal McDonough. He's not used well, but he's Neal McDonough, able to make a strong impression even in the most minor of roles.

Competently put together, the production design, audio, score and all other technical aspects feel on a par with one another when it comes to a level of quality, it's just a shame that this never feels as if it gets into gear. Letting everything unfold at a languid pace, and with Jane's character rarely giving in to external displays of his internal stress and struggle, Hilditch arguably makes the mistake of treating the whole thing too seriously. I wouldn't want it filled with humour, don't get me wrong, but moving between the real horror of the premise and some more entertaining moments of mania could have allowed for even more full-blooded scares, complementing the growing dread and misery that fills up the second half of the film.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, apart from the kind of people who may want to watch every Stephen King adaptation ever made (aka masochists), but I also wouldn't strongly warn people away from it. Some will end up loving or hating it much more than I did, but I think it's fair to rate this as absolutely average as average can be.

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

Shudder Saturday: Influencer (2022)

AKA The Talented Miss Selfie. Or maybe that's just my pet name for this.

Everyone seems to be focused on how they present themselves online now. Not just themselves, but also their lifestyle, their surroundings, and, of course, their food. I resisted the lure of Instagram for a long time, only caving in when I decided to use it as a daily way to promote the podcast I co-host. Have I photographed a gorgeous meal? Yes. I tend to use it most to share movie images though, whether I am selecting posters or specific movie moments, and I also enjoy showcasing recent additions to my movie collection (without ever sharing a picture of the dents in my credit card balance).

Influencer, as the title suggests, shows us some people who take their time on Instagram much more seriously than I do. It's no surprise to see that director and co-writer Kurtis David Harder was also a producer on the excellent Superhost (a film that this pairs very nicely with), and the script crafted by Harder and Tesh Guttikonda, unashamedly also runs close to the many "*insert noun* from hell" movies that really started to form a solid sub-genre in the late 1980s, after the success of Fatal Attraction.

The excellent Cassandra Naud is a woman known simply as CW. She sees a pretty influencer in a bar (Madison, played by Emily Tennant) and conspires to get close to her, claiming that she could easily take over Madison's social media account and nobody would notice the difference. CW is talented with tech, able to manipulate photos and video footage to make it seem as if someone is still just living their best life, even if they're temporarily incapacitated by a psychopath (hypothetically). CW then meets another influencer (Jessica, played by Sara Canning) and starts to use her same old tricks, but this time her plan is upset by the appearance of Madison's boyfriend, Ryan (Rory J. Saper). 

While Harder and Guttikonda do well with this premise, mixing entertaining tension and obvious commentary in a way that somehow never feels too unbelievable, they have helped themselves enormously in two main ways. First of all, despite the opening credits coming in at just over the 20-minute mark, this has an appropriate runtime of approximately 90 minutes. Second, the cast are all a perfect fit for their roles. Naud is the highlight, but everyone does great work.

As she moves between charm and threat, Naud is constantly enthralling, and figuring out how she might stop things unravelling is just as much fun as watching her pull from the bag of tricks that she uses to hook in potential victims. We get to see most of the other characters trying to figure things out and maintain what they assume is a standard level of civility, but Naud gets to play the person who we see acting most often with "no filter" (and it surely cannot be coincidence that she is known as CW, which is shorthand online for Content Warning). Both Tennant and Canning are believable Insta-people, with the latter having the advantage of being able to witness things that make her more suspicious and defensive than the former. Saper's character is a bit irritating, deliberately so, but his tenacity helps to set up a finale that viewers will look forward to, knowing that there has to be some confrontation with CW that should end in one of two ways.

The more I think about this, the less I find to criticise. Of course it all starts to fall apart if you start to dig deeper into each main component of CW's plan, but it keeps everything entertaining and interesting enough that you don't stop to analyse it all while it's playing out. And, let's whisper it to avoid funny looks, there are also one or two moments here that a number of us may view as wish-fulfilment.

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

Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania (2023)

I have enjoyed the Ant-Man movies, despite them always feeling like lesser Marvel movies. While everything was building towards grand Avengers-based adventures, being taken on tangents with Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) and co. felt refreshingly small-scale (no pun intended) and more simplistically fun. And I own them on 3D Blu-ray, which is the best way to get maximum enjoyment from them, as far as I’m concerned.

Try as I might, however, I could not work up any enthusiasm for this third instalment in the series. Marvel have been wildly inconsistent after achieving an astonishing modern cinematic success with the finale of the Infinity War saga, and I wasn’t thrilled to think of an entire movie set on the quantum realm. We have been there before, very briefly, and it’s visualized as an alien landscape in which people can very easily lose their minds.

But here we are. Things start very quickly. Cassie (Scott’s daughter, now played by Kathryn Newton) has been working on a device to map the quantum realm. It works by beaming a signal down there, which causes a problem when something locks on to that signal and drags Cassie, her dad, Hope Van Dyne AKA The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly), Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), and Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer). The quantum realm is even more dangerous than ever, thanks to the looming presence of Kang The Conqueror (Jonathan Majors).

Peyton Reed may be an experienced pair of hands back in the director’s chair, and he may have his cast happy to work with the usual large amount of invisible environments to be added in later, but writer Jeff Loveness is the one trying to fit everything into the film in a way that mixes humour and tension as it sets up the new main villain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sadly, he isn’t up to the task, leaving the cast floundering and the screen full of garishly overdone CGI that wouldn’t look out of place in some of the Star Wars prequels.

The only thing this gets absolutely right is the build-up for Kang, and that is as much down to the performance of Majors as it is to the script. Jokes are very hit and miss, with way more of the latter than the former, and it’s strange to even think of a whole movie set in the quantum realm when previous movies had delivered such dire warnings about accidentally going there. Then you have the issue of scale, changing scale often being a vital fun factor for these movies. It isn’t as enjoyable to watch someone shrink and supersize, depending on the situation, while they are in a world with less substantial reference points to help underline the rapid changes.

It isn’t necessarily ALL the fault of Loveness, who I am sure will have been given plenty of notes and plot points to hit, but the script here, in every way, keeps this bogged down near the very bottom of the Marvel movie pile.

Rudd is still a great choice for our hero, arguably even better at portraying an reluctant everyman hero than Tom Holland in the Peter/Spider-Man role. Newton is a great addition, playing her socially-conscious teen with an energy and naïveté that stops her from ever becoming too annoying. Douglas, Pfeiffer, and Lilly are all as good as you would hope, and all get involved in some of the action set-pieces, and there is a surprising reappearance in the series for Corey Stoll, although I am still making up my mind on whether I liked or disliked his character. Majors is the other highlight though, as I have already said, and the third act at least does well to give viewers an idea of how this character should so effectively threaten, and could even change, heroes, timelines, and realities.

There are some fun cameos, and one that feels a bit too smug and irritating (for some reason), and an intriguing moment at the end, as expected, and I will admit that some of the third act came close to making up for some of the lacklustre scenes that preceded it. Close, but not quite close enough. Visually, tonally, and even conceptually, this is a mess. It’s a shame that it couldn’t at least manage to be a consistently entertaining mess.

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

Sisu (2022)

Another bit of cinematic escapism from talented writer-director Jalmari Helander, Sisu is a film that embraces a simple concept and a sense of the ridiculous, yet also stays within touching distance of plausibility, to give viewers a blood-soaked thrill ride that almost outshines any other “one man/woman army” from the past year or so. And this year has included the mighty John Wick: Chapter 4.

It is nearing the end of World War II. The dying days, if you will. Keeping himself apart from any of the last battles, one man (Jorma Tommila) spends his time prospecting for gold. And he finds it. A sizable amount. It looks like a happy life ahead for him, but that all changes when he starts transporting the gold and encounters a number of Nazis standing in his way. Nazis are always bad news, but Nazis that know the war is ending and decide that someone else’s gold could help them have a comfortable post-war life are very bad news indeed for our hero. 

Sisu doesn’t take long to get going, and once it does . . . hoooo boy, it doesn’t stop. Aatami (the name of the main character) is a strong and very silent type, almost not speaking at all during the movie, and he knows exactly where to hit people to kill them off as quickly as possible while his body acquires more wounds and scars. Aside from the usual guns and bladed weaponry, Aatami uses mines, vehicles, and a hefty pickaxe to kill off the Nazis dumb enough to pick a fight with him.

Tommila is excellent in the main role, suitably grizzled and looking very capable of causing the carnage that he does, and all of the actors playing his enemies have that air of smugness and, well, Nazi-ism that has you looking forward to every one of them getting their comeuppance. Aksel Hennie plays the big bad, the one person who both embodies the general horribleness of Nazis and also makes things very personal in time for the finale, and he does a great job of being stupidly confident in the face of a gathering storm of fatal violence. As well as our hero and villains, there are also a number of captive women who prove invaluable in helping Aatami to whittle down the numbers of his enemies, and the actresses easily hold their own in a film that could have easily forgotten to include any female characters at all.

There’s a cracking score, courtesy of Juri Seppä and Tuomas Wäinölä, brilliant effects to fill the screen with bloodshed and grim deaths, and chapter breaks that essentially work as links between the memorable set-pieces. The film is inventive, perfectly-paced (the runtime is a very welcome 90 minutes, approximately), and manages to make every scar, on land or skin, look much more visually interesting than expected. Helander has given film fans yet another brilliant killer who can watch enemy faces turn pale when they learn of his name. His reputation precedes him, in the movie world, and I hope we get more opportunities to watch him do what he does best.

What he does best is kill people in a variety of gory ways, in case that wasn’t obvious.

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

Prime Time: Air (2023)

If you are going to make a film about the creation of a superstar shoe then you should probably help yourself in a number of ways. First, make sure you have a good director and write combo. Second, assemble a great cast to keep the story compelling as we wind our way between obstacles on the way to the ending that we already know. Third, try to make it fun. Nobody wants to come away from a film feeling as if they have just watched a 2-hour advert for one product.

Air is all about the deal that got Michael Jordan working with Nike, lending his name to the famous Nike Air Jordan line, and now seems as good a time as any to turn that story into a film. Especially while Adidas are crying into a huge pile of Yeezy trainers, proving how costly it can be when these things go majorly wrong. Knowing that people won’t just want to see a deal, and trainer, being made though, Air is also 1980s: The Movie. If there’s something from the first half of that decade that you have a fond nostalgia for then the chances are good that you will see it onscreen. Some may not like that approach, but I definitely enjoyed it, helped by the fact that the decade was the time of my formative years (well, not counting the decades of emotional arrested development I had to work hard to break through in just the past few years).

Ben Affleck is in the director’s chair, as well as giving himself the role of Nike CEO Phil Knight, and he does a great job with the script from first-timer Alex Convery. There are lots of great dialogue exchanges throughout, and numerous fascinating titbits sprinkled here and there, with everything surrounded by ‘80s ephemera and soundtracked by a cracking selection of hits (from Dire Straits to Harold Faltermeyer, Bruce Springsteen, and many more).

Although Affleck has a decent role, he’s a supporting player. The main character is Sonny Vaccaro, played by Matt Damon. He is the man who sees the potential in Jordan, and the potential in this landmark deal. Well, to be absolutely correct, the main character is Michael Jordan, but, excluding a montage of his major life moments, he is only ever shown in part, played by an actor who is shown from the back or is kept just off frame. His mother and father are played by Viola Davis and Julius Tennon, and Davis gets a couple of great scenes that highlight how her approval was vital to clinching the deal. Jason Bateman, Chris Tucker, Chris Messina, Marlon Wayans, and Matthew Maher also play a variety of people who all end up playing a part, big or small, in making the collaboration happen, and everyone seems to enjoy being part of such a perfectly-cast ensemble.

The cinematic equivalent of “dad rock”, Air also manages to justify its own existence by showing just how important the Nike Air Jordan became to so many people, from the company making profits to the Jordan family, to the entire world of sport, the world of clothing brands, and to the fans who rushed out to buy a shoe they saw not just any shoe, but a genuine piece of their idol. It’s also a lot of fun.

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

Mad Heidi (2022)

While there has been a lot of fun delivered to genre movie fans by the past decade or so of film-makers emulating the grindhouse movie aesthetic, it has also given us some dross. A bad movie is not always improved by excessive gore effects and attempts to make it look old and damaged. 

Mad Heidi is advertised as the first Swissploitation movie, and it was realised with the help of a major crowdfunding campaign. If you know the classic tale of Heidi then you should enjoy it, but it’s also very accessible to those who somehow haven’t ever heard of the character. Sadly, it is also surprisingly boring.

Alice Lucy, an actress with a very small filmography you could check out in the space of an afternoon (not saying that as a criticism, it’s a note for anyone who wants to see her in other work), plays Heidi. Events conspire to make her a very angry Heidi, putting her on a path that will lead her to battle a dictator named President Meili (Casper Van Dien). Heavily-armed, skilled in a variety of combat styles, and with the potential to get oppressed people on her side, Heidi is a force to be reckoned with.

It’s hard to pin down quite why Mad Heidi doesn’t work for me. The tone is fairly amusing throughout, the onscreen world is set up quickly enough, and there are a number of cheese-based puns. In fact, a central part of the plot concerns weaponised cheese, which was ridiculous enough to make me smile. And, hey, a lot of Nazis get decimated. It just feels like there’s not enough in between the gags, gore gags or standard gags, and the film-makers rely on viewed being patient until they pull out the stops for a blood-soaked and gloopy finale, but that then feels like too little too late.

Lucy is fine in the lead role, as cute and light as Heidi should be, and then ready to cut up Nazis with a host of sharp weaponry. She’s a highlight, as is Van Dien, who overacts in a way that makes his character feel exactly as he should, a mad ruler struggling to keep the mask of politeness on his face as minor things start to become a major inconvenience for him. David Schofield is as welcome as ever, but sadly not onscreen for long, and Max Rüdlinger is an entertaining secondary villain. 

Directed by Johannes Hartmann and Sandro Klopfstein, who both also wrote the screenplay with Gregory D. Widmer and Trent Haaga (a man who has written some GREAT little movies), the overwhelming feeling by the time the end credits roll is one of wasted potential. The visuals often work well, the practical effects are enjoyably squishy and wet, and everyone involved gets into the spirit of the thing. It doesn’t come together though, and that is because of the script having too much randomness thrown in there, and all of it given equal weight by the directors. It’s like being cured of your sweet tooth by working in the chocolate factory and being told you can eat as much as you like. Sometimes less is more.

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I started watching Mad Heidi. I certainly didn’t expect to be bored though, and that was my mental state for a good chunk of the middle section. One or two highlights in the finale almost made up for that, but not quite. The game cast gain a lot of goodwill though. Just not enough for me to view it as anything more than just below average.

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