Netflix And Chill: Mrs. Harris Goes To Paris (2022)

You can spend all the time you like working through lists of the greatest movies ever made. You can, and should, check out the worthwhile filmographies of people like Akira Kurosawa, Alfred Hitchcock, Danny Boyle, Lynne Ramsay, and many others. You can even spend as much of your free time as possible exploring your favourite genres and sub-genres, whether they are rom-coms, serial killer movies, or low-budget zombie flicks. It's also important to make time for films like Mrs. Harris Goes To Paris though, another film based on the novel by Paul Gallico. This won't necessarily be named as anyone's favourite film from the year it was released, and it didn't seem to gain any momentum throughout the awards season, but it is a genuine delight from start to finish. I was grinning a LOT, there were times when I laughed aloud, and some moments had me turning my face away slightly so that my partner didn't see the tears creeping out of the corners of my eyes. There are many films vying for your time, and many that will have made a bigger impact on the cinematic landscape, but I doubt there are too many from the recent release schedule that will warm your cockles like this one.

Lesley Manville plays Ada Harris, a cleaning lady in the 1950s who eventually finds out that her husband has been officially declared to have been killed during his military service. Having fallen in love with a Christian Dior dress that she sees in the home of one of her regular clients, Mrs. Harris becomes determined to head over to Paris and treat herself to one. She needs £500. Yes, that should do it. As the title suggests, Mrs. Harris makes her trip, but not without a few setbacks on the way, but she then has to figure out how to deal with the snobbery of those who believe a Dior dress should remain exclusive to the rich (although, as the film notes on a number of occasions, the rich often appear rich while deciding on what bills they can keep defering until a later date). Claudine Colbert (Isabelle Huppert) is one person working at Dior who believes in that principle of exclusivity, but Mrs. Harris finds herself some useful allies in the shame of the Marquid de Chassange (Lambert Wilson), an accountant named André Fauvel (Lucas Bravo), and a lovely model named Natasha (Alba Baptista). And there's also her own forceful and winning personality to help her achieve her goal, which becomes something that a lot of people around her end up rooting for.

With four people working to adapt this from page to screen, including director Anthony Fabian, this could have easily ended up as either a bit of a mess or something a bit too episodic and disjointed to be truly effective. Although I am not familiar with anything else from Fabian, I would say that I've had mixed reactions to other films featuring writing from Carroll Cartwright, Keith Thompson, or Olivia Hetreed. Thankfully, everyone seems to be pulling in the right direction here, almost as if the onscreen struggle to push Mrs. Harris to victory was replicated by those behind the camera (and I mean that compliment for everyone, but must also mention the wonderful, and arguably more vital than ever, costume design by Jenny Beavan).

While Fabian and co. do great work, the cast really do everything they can to put the icing on the cake. Those already mentioned are varying degrees of wonderful, whether being cast as a temporary villain (Huppert) or a welcome helping hand (Bravo), or even someone who seems very pleasant and well-meaning, but ends up causing a great deal of hurt with one ill-considered "compliment" (Wilson). There are also great turns from the cast members who stay in old Blighty while Mrs. Harris flies over to France. Ellen Thomas plays a very good friend, Jason Isaacs is a twinkle-eyed rogue who might be missing a beautiful chance at happiness right under his nose, and both Anna Chancellor and Rose Williams are clients who are both quite horrifying and selfish in different ways. And as for Manville, I truly believe that this is the kind of performance that should have been showered with all kinds of praise and accolades. Equally believable while making herself small or allowing herself to blossom into a new full bloom, her acting here is a masterclass in how you deliver an unforgettable movie character without relying on a bag-full of tricks and quirks. Manville carries herself throughout every scene with a likeability and an honesty, seemingly playing a character that she cares for as much as she wants us to.

Although I was a bit wary as soon as the film started, I soon warmed to it, and I started to fall in love with it very quickly, mainly thanks to Manville's performance. I think it only has one main flaw, and that is the predictability. Even the seemingly unpredictable moments eventually wind around and head back to intersect where you think things were heading, but that just adds to the warmth and comfort of the whole thing.

Everyone should watch this, especially while the world around us feels so stressful and dangerous, to put it mildly. This is a real balm for your soul, it's a cinematic delight, and it should be available to everyone on prescription. If you have any sense of decency and fairness, if you have ever worked hard for something that others have had gifted to them, and if you believe in good things happening to good people, there's a little bit of Mrs. Harris in you already. That's a good thing, and it also means that you should reward yourself with a viewing of this 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

Shudder Saturday: The Coffee Table (2023)

There is a very famous quote from Alfred Hitchcock about the difference between surprising an audience and keeping them in suspense. An explosion can surprise and shock people, but showing them the bomb being placed under a table will have viewers tense while they wait for the inevitable to happen. The Coffee Table has both elements, but it's only the explosion that is mildly effective. The rest of the film seems intent on disproving Hitchcock's theory, especially as you begin to care less and less about how things will play out before the end credits roll.

Jesús (David Pareja) and Maria (Estefanía de los Santos) are two new parents. They may not have a perfect relationship, but they seem determined to try their best now that they have a newborn in their midst. Jesús really wants to purchase a nice coffee table that he sees in a nearby store though, despite it being a bit pricey and impractical. Eventually getting his way, this purchase leads to what can most mildly be described as a bad afternoon for Jesús while María is out shopping for the visitors due at their home later.

I assume that director Caye Casas, who also co-wrote this with frequent collaboratore Cristina Borobia, will be pleased to have made an impression with this film, but I hope he already has better ideas to develop in future projects. Because The Coffee Table is bad, and seems to have garnered a strong reaction from audiences over-reacting to the one main event that the plot revolves around. Frustratingly, there's more hinted at in early scenes that then don't really go anywhere interesting (particularly the strange and uncomfortable atmosphere every time a young neighbour girl, played by Gala Flores, is onscreen), but absolutely everything is sucked down into the whirlpool of what Casas and Borobia mistakenly believe is their crucial "highlight".

Although there's certainly some horror in the concept, a fair bit of it distilled into one moment, the film tries to play out like a strained drama for a lot of the time, with some misjudged pitch-black comedy also thrown in here and there. It's a sustained wallow within the miserable mindset of one character though, for the most part, and that reduces the effectiveness of anything else that is attempted. I doubt many will rush to rewatch this, and I would be very susprised if I didn't find others agreeing with me on how disappointing and tedious it becomes.

Pareja and De Los Santos are both fine, even as they are both asked to give very different kinds of performances, and both Josep Maria Riera and Claudia Riera do well, playing the visitors who unwittingly make the situation much more tense for Jesús, Flores tries to make the most of her screentime, and Eduardo Antuña delivers an ill-fitting bit of extra comedy as the seller of the coffee table.

I heard a lot of good things about this, but then I started to hear from people who hadn't loved it. Some had, in fact, completely hated it. It's made competently enough, from a technical point of view, but I think I have to agree with the latter group. This needed to be much better, and it shows that a film needs more than just one big shock at the heart of it to be worth your time and consideration.

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 Bikeriders (2024)

Based on a photo-book by Danny Lyon, The Bikeriders is the latest feature directed by Jeff Nichols, and it was a film that I was tentatively looking forward to seeing for months. I tend to like the films of Nichols, and I have enjoyed the acting work of stars Jodie Comer, Tom Hardy, and Austin Butler, to varying degrees. With the likes of Mike Faist, Michael Shannon, Boyd Holbrook, and Norman Reedus in the supporting cast, I felt quite confident that there would be enough here for me to enjoy.

That confidence was a bit misplaced.

There's a storyline here, but it's a very slim one. Comer plays Kathy, a woman telling her story to Lyon (played in the film by Faist). She explains how she ended up meeting Benny (Butler), and how she often felt that he was torn between herself and the leader of a motorcycle club (Johnny, played by Hardy). The club goes through a number of changes, the world starts to change even faster around them, and the people do their best to pretty much stay the same. And that's it.

A lot of men are stuck in various stages of arrested development. I get that. I AM that. Hey, I like to act mature and wise sometimes, but you have no idea how often I have clicked on the adverts for some awesome LEGO sets and wistfully sighed as I eventually backed away from them. I'm a middle-aged man who can be very childish. I don't want anyone to make a movie about me though, and I would expect that movie, if made, would show me up for the occasional idiot I am. A lot of people also need to be part of something bigger than themselves, which doesn't always align with a position that society thinks you should have. I also get that. I am happy, via the upside of the internet and social media, to be connected to many film fans and collectors worldwide. Again, however, I'm not sure any film showing that would make me look anything other than a bit silly and super-geeky (not that I would be bothered, I have fully embraced my geekiness for a good 10+ years now).

The Bikeriders has cool people being very uncool. The men shown act more like children a lot of the time, and they are all connected by their love of motorbikes, and a subsequent loyalty to one another that stems from the bike-riding outings. There's a way to make that story, but Nichols doesn't find the right approach.

Both Hardy and Butler do fine with what they're given, and neither feel as if they are being stretched, but it's Comer who ends up being the highlight, mainly due to her character being able to see both the allure and the major downsides of the lifestyle being recorded by Lyon. Shannon is as great as ever, and both Holbrook and Reedus do enough with their limited screentime to make a surprising impact, considering the stars overshadowing them. 

Everyone looks the part, the period feels nicely recreated, there are some treats on the soundtrack, and the pacing is just right, thanks to the various main incidents plotted out on the way to a fairly inevitable conclusion. Sadly, none of this can overcome the inherent problems in the material, especially without the best way to take viewers into the onscreen world. Considering how many others seemed to really like this though, maybe the "problem" lies more with me than the film.

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

Destroy All Monsters (1968)

This is cinema. This is joy. This is a contender for the most deliriously fun kaiju movie of all time, although I am saying this with a number of other great films still to check out. Destroy All Monsters feels like a joyous celebration of a cornucopia of wonderful movie creations. Some may be critical of the fact that it doesn't really feel like a proper movie, but those people are simply not fans of joy.

All of the monsters on Earth have been housed peacefully in a location known as Monster Island. There are various safeguards in place, and the situation is being closely monitored. Everything changes when the monsters manage to overcome the safeguards though, heading off for a stomp and a stamp through some major cities. This is all down to a race of aliens who want to give Earth a major headache, and things will culminate with one other famous monster being brought along to join in with the fighting.

I have known people who are happiest when they are viewing films without having to think about reviewing them, mainly because they can just sit back and enjoy the film without thinking about how they will critique it after. I have never had that problem, but that's mainly due to the fact that sometimes I just put my critical faculties to one side. Some films need a lot of exploration, some need to be discussed in an ongoing conversation that brings up the positive and negative aspects, and some are just an absolute blast that should be viewed as an absolute blast. Destroy All Monsters falls into the latter category.

There are some human actors, of course, but they're even less consequential than usual. They do what they have to do, and move the plot forward, but this is all about Godzilla and co. Whether they are being shown just chilling out on Monster Island, smashing up some cityscapes, or fighting against a common enemy, they are as full of personality and life as they have been in any of their previous movie appearances. Nothing really matters, aside from the chance to spend time in the middle of all of these wonderful creations.

Ishirô Honda is the man at the helm once again, and he also helped to write the screenplay with Takeshi Kimura. You couldn't really ask for safer hands on the wheel, and they know exactly how to make use of all of the monsters without moving them too far away from how they have come to be viewed as the movies have progressed to more lighter and family-friendly fare. If you want fierce beasts then you'll need to look at other eras of these films. This is all about the cuteness, as far as I'm concerned.

I could easily watch this on a loop, and it sits up there with the very best kaiju movies. I am pretty sure that many will agree with me, but for those who don't like their creature features to be quite so wonderful and silly . . . there are dozens more to opt for instead.

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

Prime Time: No Way Up (2023)

As someone who is not good on aeroplanes, and also someone who is terrified of the idea of ever being in the same space as sharks, I have long joked that my biggest fear is to be involved in a plane crash that leaves me floating in the sea, surrounded by sharks. No Way Up takes that idea and tries to add a slight twist, by putting the plane underwater and having the shark able to nose inside. Uh oh.

Things start in the expected way. We meet a variety of people we will then watch try to survive a perilous situation. The three bright young things who seem to be the leads are Ava (Sophie McIntosh), Jed (Jeremias Amoore), and Kyle (Will Attenborough). They are accompanied by Ava's bodyguard, Brandon (Colm Meaney). There are also a pair of grandparents on board with their granddaughter, Rosa (Grace Nettle). Add at least one air steward (Danilo, played by Manuel Pacific), and you may have enough potential snacks for a curious shark. If not, don't worry, a rescue team will soon send down some divers.

If I had recognised the name of director Claudio Fäh before pressing play on this then I may not have taken the chance. Although they have since helmed a number of what may well be enjoyable and entertaining non-theatrical movies, I last experienced their work when I sat through the dire Hollow Man 2. They've definitely improved over the years though, even if this is very standard and predictable stuff.

Writer Andy Mayson only has this screenplay to his credit, so far, but he does enough to show that he knows what kind of formula to work with. None of the characters are particularly great, which is down to the performances not helping the lacklustre writing, but people get their little bit of character development as they start to become more afraid and figure out ways to avoid becoming shark food.

Meaney is the standout, as expected, but the fact that his name looms so large over the others in the cast list means that his storyline feels very obvious. Still, it's a pleasure to have him onscreen. McIntosh also does well, and the film isn't so bad when it focuses on her finding her strength and courage. Phyllis Logan is a sweet grandmother, with Nettle doing okay as the scared little girl, but the rest (Attenborough, Amoore, Pacific, etc) were all just people that I wanted to see turned into chum as soon as possible. Whether that happened or not, and whether any of it was satisfying enough, is something I will leave you to discover for yourself.

This works hard around what I am assuming is a relatively low budget, and it gets more right than wrong. There's a general good sense of the geography of the plane, in terms of the interior layout and where it is perilously placed under the water, the cinematography from Andrew Rodger is clean and clear (aside from the times when shark attacks require some choppy editing), and it's a disaster movie that follows a well-used template, with added fins. It sadly never quite hits the heights it should though, due to the quality and quantity of the potential victims, but it does enough to sit in the mid-tier of modern shark movies.

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

IF (2024)

I don't have anything against John Krasinski. I quite enjoy the work of John Krasinski, especially when he is onscreen in the right roles. But I was as surprised as most people when IF was marketed as being "from the imagination of John Krasinski". I didn't think that John Krasinski was known for his wild imagination. It turns out that I was right, and IF is actually the work of someone disappointingly unimaginative.

Cailey Fleming plays Bea, a young girl who is going through a hard time. Her father (John Krasinski) is in the same hospital where her mother lived her last days, she is back living with her grandmother (Fiona Shaw) for a while, and may well have already left her childhood innocence behind. Until she meets the upstairs neighbour, Cal (Ryan Reynolds), who is busy dealing with a load of personalities that nobody else can see. Well . . . nobody else except Bea. It's time to meet a string of Imaginary Friends (IFs) and figure out a way to reunite them with the adults who have long forgotten them.

The idea of IF isn't bad. It's not original either, of course, but it isn't bad. I saw the trailer months ago and figured it might be the kind of thing to keep me easily amused. That wasn't the case, sadly, and the blame lies squarely with Krasinski, who decides to go for the schmaltziest option at every turn, and plots the story out with a complete lack of that imagination that viewers were told about in the marketing. There were moments here that had me rolling my eyes and wondering how Krasinski could have thought he was filling the screen with great ideas.

Rules are established, but then thrown away as soon as it doesn't suit. Characters are presented with the sole purpose of being bright and weird (based on the idea of kid's creations, which I get, but you need more than that, especially with such an excuse to go as wild and whacky as possible), and nothing feels as if any one scene leads smoothly and naturally on from the one preceding it.

The cast aren't terrible, but some of them aren't half as good as they should be. Fleming is great in her role, and equalled by young Alan Kim, stealing the few scenes that have him portraying a child in the same hospital as Bea's father, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge once again proves to be an excellent pick for a voice role. Fiona Shaw is made to use some kind of accent, but overcomes that with her natural excellence, and Liza Colón-Zayas does well as a caring nurse. Reynolds isn't used well though, and feels very awkward for every minute of his screentime, and I was disappointed by the voice performances from Steve Carell, Awkwafina, Bradley Cooper, and many of the other stars lending their familiar tones to the many IFs. Some work, and Louis Gossett Jr. is a great fit for the kindly Lewis, but very few of them feel like the best fit.

There's enough here for children to enjoy, especially in a scene close to the halfway point that indulges in a musical fantasy sequence that certainly feels like the kind of scenario a child could easily create in their mind, and that may be enough to keep Krasinski happy. That may well have been his aim, and he'll view this as a success. Sadly, many others will feel disappointed. Some nice design work, a lovely score from Michael Giacchino, and the cinematography of Janusz Kaminski are all wasted on a film that suffers from being a self-indulgent doodle that Krasinski seems to want us all to metaphorically hang on our fridge doors.

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

Mubi Monday: La Chimera (2023)

Another film from celebrated writer-director Alice Rohrwacher, La Chimera is best, or most pithily described, as a dour look at the realities of tomb raiding. People seek their fortunes in nefarious ways, but that fortune isn't necessarily the key to happiness.

Josh O'Connor plays Arthur, a young man who has spent some time in prison for his crimes. The thing he remains best at is also the thing that could ruin his life, but that's less of a concern since the disappearance of a woman he loved, Beniamina (Yile Yara Vianello). Can he turn his life around? Will he go back to his old ways? Will viewers care?

This film has received a lot of love, which makes my dissenting opinion fairly irrelevant, but I was not a fan. One part did work for me, a potential relationship between Arthur and a young woman named Italia (Carol Duarte), and it's always good to see Isabella Rossellini in a role, however small, but I spent a lot of the 130-minute runtime wishing it would all be over sooner.

I know that others will get more from it though. It does have things to say - about love, loss, language, and the cost of spending so much time dealing with the dead. I just didn't appreciate the way the message was conveyed. While sold as a slice of magical realism, it feels neither magical nor realistic enough, and it's not helped by the fact that the lead character is almost impossible to warm to.

I have seen O'Connor do good work elsewhere recently, but this is not a role he shines in. The language barrier separates him from everyone else, but so does his apparent urge to stay away from any real connection with the live people around him. Duarte does better, helped by the fact that she seems to have a heart and soul, and there are decent turns from Rossellini, Alba (sister of Alice) Rohrwacher, and Lou Roy-Lecollinet. Few others feel worth watching though, and this is a film that makes use of a fairly large cast in some sequences.

Maybe something has been lost in translation (Rohrwacher had some help on the screenplay from Carmela Covino and Marco Pettenello), particularly when it comes to the attempts to intertwine some lightness through the dark, but while it's easy for me to see how others may like it more than I did . . . it's hard for me to see why it has received so much love. Rohrwacher has done much better with some of her previous work, and I recommend exploring her filmography (particularly The Wonders), but this ended up being disappointingly average, at best. I happily await the many people who can come along to tell me why I am completely wrong.

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

Netflix And Chill: Wicked Little Letters (2023)

Based on a true story, one that scandalised at least parts of the UK, Wicked Little Letters is all about, well, exactly what the title says. It's the 1920s, and people in the Littlehampton start to receive anonymous letters full of choice insults and hatred. Edith Swan (Olivia Colman) is the pious spinster who seems to be targeted by these letters, which makes her foul-mouthed neighbour, Rose Gooding (Jessie Buckley), the number one suspect. The police believe they have their criminal, although one officer (WPC Gladys Moss, played by Anjana Vasan) thinks there may be cause to look elsewhere.

Having been documented in the press of the time, and subsequently in a couple of books on the subject, writer Jonny Sweet has a good central premise to work with. I don't know how close to the truth this gets, it may be as far removed from it as we are from the moon, but there are many moments that certainly play out as you can imagine, reflecting prejudices and behaviours as sadly prevalent today as they were decades ago.

Director Thea Sharrock knows the value of her talent pool, in both the writing and the cast, and everyone involved knows the value of some cracking swear-words sprinkled liberally throughout every scene. I am not saying that swearing is big or clever, but it can be bloody funny, especially when the words are being uttered by people seemingly unable to comprehend the flavour of the language being used.

Both Colman and Buckley are very good, as you would expect. The former gets to act very still and oppressed for the majority of the runtime, the latter is an enviable free spirit looking to enjoy a new life that should make things more comfortable for her daughter (played by the very talented Alisha Weir). Vasan is on par with the two leads, her expressions often showing her true reactions to the prejudice she has to deal with on a daily basis. There are also wonderful performances from Timothy Spall (being entertainingly loathsome), Hugh Skinner and Paul Chahidi (as unimaginative members of the police force), and Eileen Atkins, Lolly Adefope, and Joanna Scanlan, playing women who also want to help uncover the true identity of the letter-writer. Malachi Kirby also does well, and has some surprisingly sweet moments amidst the rudeness, and viewers will spot familiar faces such as Gemma Jones, Tim Key, and Jason Watkins joining in with the profane fun. 

While it is all about letters filled with rude words, this is a film also all about the danger of jumping to conclusions, and just how easily someone can use their position in society to demonize and ostracize someone they view as being a lesser member of the community. It shows how little it takes to turn people against others, while using some truth, some half-truths, and a whole lot of lies. Sound familiar? Because it does to me, especially during a time when the UK has seen such rioting and disruption caused by almost the exact same tactics. Wicked little social media posts, you might say.

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

Shudder Saturday: Rabid Grannies (1988)

Okay, first of all, there's no actual rabies here, nor are there actual grannies (in the literal sense). This is a film about two old dears (Elizabeth and Victoria, played respectively by Danielle Daven and Anne-Marie Fox) who are turned into demonic monstrosities while celebrating a birthday in the company of their family. The fact that most of the family members are just attending to ensure they keep themselves in a favourable position when the time comes for them to get some inheritance money ensures that it's a lot of fun when people start being hunted and killed off by the deadly old ladies.

Written and directed by Emmanuel Kervyn, their only credit for work behind the camera, this is a gloriously gory and gloopy slice of horror comedy. Often incorrectly labelled as a Troma movie (because it was one of the many titles acquired by the company, but not actually made by any of the citizens of Tromaville), Rabid Grannies once had a reputation as a fun little cult movie. That reputation seems to have disappeared, perhaps due to the fact that the film is now a lot less likely to be discovered in some VHS "bargain bin", but I think it is still deserved. Just.

Aside from Daven and Fox in the main roles, the cast is largely made up of people who seem to have been picked more for their availability than their acting aspirations and, not to be too rude about it, that shows. Nobody is helped by the clumsy dubbing, nor the fact that a lot of the dialogue feels so clumsily and crudely inserted to supply character details and exposition, but they at least all go along enthusiastically enough with all of the insanity, and Robert Du Bois is particularly enjoyable as the cowardly and conniving Father Percival.

Considering the youth and relative inexperience of many involved, there's plenty to appreciate here once things start to get going. Decent practical effects deliver generous amounts of blood and slime, the situation is mined for plenty of dark comedy, and Kervyn gave themselves a great head start when coming up with the idea of mixing the supernatural shenanigans with a typically tense family dinner party. It's a bit harder to enjoy all of the lo-fi charm nowadays, considering what more can be achieved with less money nowadays, but that doesn't mean that horror fans can't still find a number of moments to enjoy (and maybe even relish, as I relish the twisted scene in which Elizabeth and Victoria offer Percival a dastardly ultimatum).

Gore, some bad acting, gratuitous nudity, more gore, this isn't a film to try and convert anyone who doesn't usually like horror movies. It's aimed squarely at those who have seen the best and the worst of the genre, and it delivers elements from both of those extremes. I still have a soft spot for it, but I don't think it's one I will revisit again any time soon. I will, however, spend some time convincing others that it's worth at least one viewing.

6/10

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

Civil War (2024)

When I first heard that Alex Garland was delivering a movie titled "Civil War" I had to prepare myself for the inevitable disappointment that it probably wouldn't be a cinematic homage to the great Guns 'n' Roses track from the Use Your Illusion II album. Strangely, I didn't expect to sit through the end credits while wishing that Garland HAD done that. Because that would have been better than this, as far as I'm concerned.

What you have here, unsurprisingly enough, is a tale of a civil war. This particular civil war is happening across the USA though, and it may well end with the capture of the President (Nick Offerman). A number of war correspondents and photo-journalists are travelling across the country as they document the unfolding events, with Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and Joel (Wagner Moura) ultimately shielding and mentoring young Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), and the film shows how these characters try to remain observers only in a war that will be decided by those actively participating.

I like Garland, having been a fan of his since becoming aware of him through his collaboraions with Danny Boyle, but his directorial career seems to show the output of a man who consistently has one great idea or image that he then tries, and fails, to build a movie around. Civil War is most effective in THAT scene, you know it from the trailer, but nothing else comes close to that, despite the fact that the central premise should be ripe with the potential for commentary on where sowing seeds of division and discontent can lead. 

I have more to say about this, but let me mention the cast first. Dunst and Moura feel wasted, they don't have to respond to events around them with anything other than an interest in how it can serve their own purpose, and it's up to Spaeny to make up for their disappointingly flat performances. Thankfully, Spaeny has already proven to me that she can shine in lacklustre material (e.g. see her be fantastic in the not-so-fantastic Priscilla), and she would be the best thing here if it wasn't for one scene being completely stolen by a terrifying Jesse Plemons. Stephen McKinley Henderson also does well with his screentime, but those are very small crumbs on the side of a main dish that is sadly undercooked and unseasoned.

I don’t fault the cast though. This is Garland’s film, and he is responsible for hanging his actors out to dry. Sadly unable to depict any of the politics and behaviours that would lead to such a situation, Garland just decides to make the film about the idea of people allowing bad things to happen by simply doing nothing, or not doing enough, to stop them. He assembles people around him who would have been more than up to the task of delivering something more thought-provoking and challenging, but all we end up getting are a couple of well-shot moments and some very good music from Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury.

Maybe Garland has one more truly great movie in him, but it is becoming more doubtful with every new feature he directs. Maybe he should return to writing, and leave the directing to those who are more capable of taking risks and piecing together individual moments into an end result that is more than the sum of its parts.

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

Son Of Godzilla (1967)

Sometimes, quite often actually, I watch movies that are a lot of fun, but prove to be very difficult to consider reviewing. But part of the reason I watch many movies is to also review them. Son Of Godzilla is one of those movies. I had a blast with it. I'm not sure how much I have to say about it though. Let's give it a go anyway.

Written by the prolific Shin'ichi Sekizawa and less prolific Kazue Shiba (this is the second of only two screenplays that they worked on), what you have here is a kaiju movie that feels even more aimed at children as the last one I recently watched. Some may view that as a bad thing, but it depends on what kind of Godzilla movie you want on any given day. I enjoyed this, and I am glad that I am finally discovering it now, along with the many other kaiju movies I am finally catching up with.

The story concerns a team of scientists who are busy doing weather-related science stuff on an island. Of course, that's not all that happens on the island. There's a mysterious woman (played by Bibari Maeda) living in the jungle, some large praying mantises, a large egg set to hatch a baby Godzilla, and some kind of giant spider that should be avoided. All of these elements come together as a reporter (played by Akira Kubo) finds himself in the middle of a bigger story than anything he could have imagined. Oh, and Godzilla is due to turn up, of course.

Director Jun Fukuda returns to this long-running movie series with an instalment that clearly revels in the variety of creatures and adventures available. The script may be silly, but it's also undeniably fun, and often feels more like a Jules Verne adventure than a Godzilla movie for most of the runtime. I understand why that may displease some, but I loved it.

Both Maeda and Kubo are decent human players in the middle of the madness, and joined by some familiar faces (including Tadao Takashima, Akihiko Hirata,  and Yoshio Tsuchiya), and they react convincingly enough to the parade of wonderful creatures who end up on the island alongside them.

The style here is cute, as opposed to anything approaching fearsome or realism, and I can't say that I mind cute being the aim when a story involves both giant praying mantises and a giant spider. While it's all safe and clearly fake, it's also still easy to appreciate as something put together by people working hard to put a variety of practical effects onscreen in a way that captivates and entertains younger viewers. Very young viewers might still get a bit scared by a couple of scenes, but most should be just fine, and there's no maximum age limit on enjoying this kind of thing, thankfully.

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

Prime Time: The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024)

I believe I have said this before, and probably quite recently, but Guy Ritchie has moved into a phase of his career where he seems quite accomplished at delivering what can be commonly referred to as "dad films". There's often a central mission at the heart of things, a band of talented individuals are thrown together, and The Ministry Of Gentlemanly Warfare also presents things in the setting of WWII, which immediately calls to mind films like The Dirty Dozen and The Wild Geese, two titles it is definitely happy to sit alongside.

Things are tough, with the German forces looking set to retain the upper hand in the war due to their dominance of the sea, thanks to their many U-boats. It would be good if the U-boats could be taken out of the equation, or at least minimalized, but that's unlikely. The big ship that supplies the U-boats, however, could be a viable target, although it's docked in a harbour that cannot be the target of an officially-sanctioned military mission. But if a team could be assembled and convinced to do something that wasn't official . . . that could be a good chance to strike a blow against the Nazis. Which is why we end up spending a lot of time in the company of Henry Cavill, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Eiza González, Babs Olusanmokun, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, and Henry Golding.

Working this time with writers Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, and Arash Amel, and helping to adapt the book by Damien Lewis, Ritchie cannot really be faulted here for taking the bones of a true story and using it as a frame upon which to hang some enjoyable tension and violence. While it's another Ritchie movie that doesn't really feel like it's full of his style, the argument can be made nowadays that he's simply showing one or more strings that he's added to his bow. Not that any of this is a radical departure, especially in the scenes that have the characters engaging in witty banter with one another as bullets and shells fly around them, but the period setting and the tally-ho spirit of the whole thing helps it to feel a step removed from many other Ritchie films.

Cavill is having a whale of a time, portraying the fearless leader of this merry band of killers with a fine swagger and a readiness to often let out a hearty laugh. Ritchson is savage, killing off people with knives, arrows, and, in one memorable sequence, a fire-axe, and he is also always ready to grin and chuckle while turning his foes into corpses. Eiza González and Babs Olusanmokun are eminently watchable as they work on the ongoing intelligence side of the operation, keeping themselves close to the open jaws of the lion (personified by Heinrich Luhr, played brilliantly by Til Schweiger) in a way that nicely builds the tension in between the scenes of fighting and Nazi bloodshed. While Tiffin, Pettyfer, and Golding are slightly sidelined, they each get at least one moment to make a solid impression, and that also leaves room for enjoyable supporting turns from Danny Sapani, Cary Elwes, Freddie Fox, and Rory Kinnear (the latter two portraying Ian Fleming and Winston Churchill, respectively).

The performances are all good, the music by Christopher Benstead has some key pieces that are fantastic, and the overall look and design of the film makes it feel as if a decent budget has been well-used by everyone involved. This aims to entertain, and it succeeds. It's a bit uneven, especially when the third act fully kicks in, and the action becomes less interesting as it grows in scale, but there are enough great individual moments to satisfy viewers who are prepared for a standard "men on a mission" adventure

Considering that we live in a world where you can now get your social media content flagged for being "inappropriate" or "hatespeech" when you remind people that it's always moral and justifiable to punch a Nazi, The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare gains a lot of goodwill for unapologetically keeping us onside with characters who want to do just that. Sometimes you may sigh as you watch the news headlines recently, and this might be just what you need to remind you that good people are still out there, willing to get their hands dirty in any battles they need to win to keep themselves on the right side of history. Of course, I know that "the right side of history" is a very subjective thing, but not so much when you're talking about those who helped defeat Hitler and co. in WWII.

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

Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)

You've got to hand it to Ryan Reynolds. He always knew he could portray the definitive movie version of Deadpool, and he managed to make it happen after some major setbacks (not least of which was his portrayal of a very mishandled Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine). And now we all get to enjoy the benefits of that long and bumpy journey, finally seeing a feature film that allows Deadpool and Wolverine to appear alongside one another.

Deadpool has been struggling. He has, in fact, hung up the suit, unable to find a way to actually matter. There is a way though. He is called to the Time Variance Authority, aka the TVA, by Mr. Paradox (Matthew Macfayden). Deadpool can be part of something bigger, he can matter, or he can stay alongside the people he cares about until his universe is soon destroyed, a necessary measure due to it beginning to die after the loss of Wolverine. Deadpool thinks that jumping into various timelines to find any other Wolverine to bring back into his world may stop the pending destruction of his own universe, but things become even more complicated when our (anti-)heroes end up in The Void, a place full of discarded personalities, basically ruled over by the powerful Cassandra Nova (Emma Corrin).

While writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick return to work on the screenplay with Reynolds, they are also joined this time around by Zeb Wells and director Shawn Levy. Levy has worked with Reynolds on a few different projects I have thoroughly enjoyed (although I know that some others have not enjoyed any non-Deadpool content from Reynolds in years), but his relatively tame and safe style makes him an unusual choice for this. It ultimately doesn't matter much though, because it's still Reynolds seemingly driving this iconoclast-mobile right through the middle of Marvel Main Street. A better director might have improved this, which would have helped, but the many jokes and cameos, the many Deadpool one-liners, and the simple joy of seeing our merc with the mouth finally sharing the screen with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine will keep most comic-book fans very happy. It's still difficult to argue against the Deadpool movies being a series of diminishing returns though. I loved the first, really enjoyed the second, and enjoyed this extra-silly final adventure (well, I assume this is a final adventure . . . because I struggle to think of how you do a better send-off for the character).

That is how this film works best, a send-off to some beloved characters. Aside from our titular leads, there are many others who get some time in the limelight (some arguably more deserved than others). Both Reynolds and Jackman remain perfect in their main roles, particularly when doing what they do best, but it's only the latter who can really work with the fleeting moments of real pathos. Not that Reynolds is incapable, but he's hampered by the nature of the character as showcased in the previous two movies built to fit him. Corrin does well with what they're given, and holds their own in one or two great moments with Jackman, but the film only needs them as a supporting villain in between scenes that point the finger at selfish and inconsiderate suits, headed up by Macfadyen, who bugger things up by meddling with timelines and discarding elements no longer deemed profitable. As for everyone else, Rob Delaney is as enjoyable as he has been in almost everything he's done, but I won't mention anyone else in case that ruins the fun and surprises for other viewers. Rest assured, however, there are some fantastic little turns from some very familiar faces, and a scene-stealing dog.

Deadpool & Wolverine will be a smash hit (it already is, judging from the figures for the opening weekend), and I will certainly revisit it as much as I revisit the other films in the series, or maybe I'll just revisit favourite sequences, but it's an adorable mess. The opening sequence is fantastic, there's a great fight in the middle, and a fairly satisfying . . . climax (*insert wink at reader here*). I'm just not sure how much fun the cameos will be once you know who is due to appear though, and some of the gags start to feel a bit tiresome after they have been repeated so often.

Does this clean things up for Marvel, or does it ultimately make things even messier? Does it really matter at all? I don't think so, and that has always been part of the appeal of the Deadpool movies. It's about enjoying the company of people who relish playing in the particular sandbox that they've been allocated. And, whatever you think of the end result, Reynolds has always put in maximum effort.

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

Mubi Monday: The Beast (2023)

I'll start this review by admitting that it took me a while to get a firm hold of what was being explored here. It's a sci-fi drama that explores humanity and human connection, and it helps that the two leads are played by the excellent Léa Seydoux and the solid George MacKay, but the structure of the narrative is more convoluted and complicated than it needs to be, as far as I'm concerned.

Seydoux plays Gabrielle, a young woman who signs herself up for a process that will purify her DNA. This is done by regressing her to past lives and scrubbing away strong emotions, but that becomes a bit tougher, and Gabrielle may regret her decision, when she keeps meeting a man named Louis (George MacKay). Gabrielle and Louis seem destined to dance around one another in various lives, not entirely unlike two strands winding around one another to form a DNA helix, but the chances of the two of them having a happy ending is drastically reduced by the very process that keeps reminding them of their times together.

Based loosely on a novella, "The Beast In The Jungle", by Henry James, director Bertrand Bonello was clearly drawn to the heart of the material, so much so that he also worked on the screenplay with Guillaume Bréaud and Benjamin Charbit. That makes it easier to hold Bonello accountable for the mishandling of the main ideas, which may leave some other viewers as disappointed as I was.

Seydoux is as good as she always is, but she also has the benefit of playing someone who acts quite consistently throughout the various time persiods shown. MacKay suffers slightly from the fact that the script requires him to play at least one of his personas in a way that is very different to other incarnations, but he does well enough to often hold his own opposite Seydoux. There are a number of supporting characters, but most of them fade into the background like so much wallpaper. The main exception is Guslagie Malanda, quite brilliant as the "caretaker" who looks after Gabrielle in between her purification sessions.

I've seen a lot of love for this elsewhere already, and I have loved the other four films (three features, one short) I have seen from Bonello, but this didn't work for me. I never really felt the strength of the connection between the characters, nor did I feel the weight of what they could be adding or removing from their lives, despite always rooting for Seydoux and MacKay to somehow overcome the material. I'll just have to wait patiently for whatever comes next for any of these three individuals - Bonello, Seydoux, MacKay - but it's a major disappointment that the three of them couldn't work together on something that could stand out as a highlight for all of them.

And don't even get me started on an "end credit sequence" that asks you to scan a QR code. I couldn't have rolled my eyes any further back into my head if I was able to remove them from their optic nerves.

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

Netflix And Chill: The Circle (2017)

I didn't mind The Circle, but I didn't really enjoy it either, and I am going to say that the fault here needs to be shared between the pair of us. The film doesn't quite do enough with the main ideas it is working with, but I may have enjoyed it a bit more if I'd watched it back when it was first made available in 2017. The intervening years have simply shown us more and more reasons to distrust tech-bros and offensively rich and powerful individuals, which makes The Circle much less tense and more predictable than it would have been in a world before people like Bezos and Musk started to act increasingly like parodies of James Bond villains.

Emma Watson plays Mae, a young woman who is helped in to a dream job by her friend, Annie (Karen Gillan). She ends up in the Circle, a tech company that has seemingly unlimited power and resources. It's a bit odd though, considering how people are encouraged to interact online and fully commit to the Circle way of life. The pill is sugar-coated by the big boss, Bailey (Tom Hanks), who can acknowledge how silly some of their practices appear, but continues to present his vision of a tech-reliant utopia in a way that is convincingly benign. Some start to worry about the implications, however, as the Circle starts to reach further and further into the lives people all around the world.

Based on a novel by Dave Eggers, this was adapted from page to screen by a pairing of the writer and director, James Ponsoldt. Eggers has worked on other movies, and Ponsoldt has a mixture of projects in his filmography (with his best work being made for the small screen), but none of them manage to find the best way to handle this material. What should be a standard dream-turns-sour scenario, with the added threat of super-charged tech to make things more complicated, is turned into a disappointingly dull drama in which things go quite well for many of the characters . . . until they stop being so blissfully naïve. The biggest problems stem from the way things are plotted, but it doesn't help that the cast is relatively weak.

As much as I enjoy Emma Watson, she hasn't quite managed to convince in any of her post-Potter main roles, despite trying her hand in an interesting variety of projects. She's not bad here, but she's also not a strong enough screen presence, and is outshone by almost every supporting cast member (including Gillan, Hanks, Patton Oswalt, John Boyega, and Glenne Headly and Bill Paxton, who do wonderful work in the role of her parents). Mind you, few of those people I just mentioned are the best people for their roles either. Gillan has to overdo a heap of nervy paranoia throughout the second half, Hanks seems far too nice to have reached his position in life, and Oswalt isn't given enough screentime to make his character anything more than an obvious schemer who does some hand-wringing and metaphorical wiping of his damp brow as the plot heads toward the final scenes. Boyega does well, but his relatively small role here feels as if it doesn't deserve his talents.

It's ironic that I'll be sharing this review around in the usual places, ensuring that it ends up in certain social media spots, linking to it on IMDb, and potentially making some money from clicks that are generated via Google. Considering what the film posits, maybe I am part of the problem. Okay, I admit it, I am definitely a part of the problem. We all are, but many of us are savvy enough to shape our own corner of the internet to exactly how we want it to be, with the help of ad-blockers, data usage options, and ongoing attempts to balance out the negatives with more positives. There are very few legitimately good options nowadays when it comes to conscientiously maintaining an online presence. But at least I can use this platform to belatedly warn you against wasting your time with The Circle. It's not terrible, but it never manages to become more than harmlessly dull and 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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: The Devil's Bath (2024)

I wasn't that big a fan of Goodnight Mommy. I thought The Lodge was slightly better, but still nothing special. So my level of enthusiasm for The Devil's Bath, the latest film to be co-directed and co-written by Severin Fiala and Veronika Franz, was not exactly high. If I could have found any other option that looked slightly better then I wouldn't have chosen to watch it. That would have been my loss. It turns out that The Devil's Bath is the best film yet from Fiala and Franz, and I might now start being very interested in whatever they decide to do next.

Set in Austria in the 18th century, this period drama focuses on a troubled young woman named Agnes (Anja Plaschg), but it's actually a troubling reminder of how woman have been disproportionately mistreated and turned into pariahs when needing help with their mental health. Anja gets married, but the union doesn't seem to be a very happy one. That doesn't bother Anja's new husband, Wolf (David Scheid), but it bothers Anja. And it also seems to bother Anja's mother-in-law (Maria Hofstätter), who blames Anja for a situation that she isn't well-equipped to handle. Maybe turning to religion can help her.

While it's pretty bleak throughout, with the visuals matching the content, there's something engrossing about the material that stops The Devil's Bath from becoming unbearable or dull. Viewers will have to be patient though, especially when it becomes clear which way things are heading, but the various details of the situation that Anja finds herself in build up in a way that is fascinatingly horrible and still resonant throughout modern relationships and ingrained societal misogyny. Being made aware of the situation as an ongoing problem may not change things, but it's a damn sight better than pretending that we've become a progressive utopia for women throughout the intervening decades.

Both Hofstätter and Scheid do well with what they're asked to do, and both act in a casually heartless way that somehow doesn't feel over the top in the context of the time and place, but Plaschg is the broken heart and soul of the film, convincingly showing viewers a character who becomes more and more lost as she finds no proper help and support during her darkest days. While I was unfamiliar with Plaschg before this, I definitely want to see more of her work (as an actress, as a director, and even the music she has created under the name of Soap&Skin). She's so good here that I am currently battling against an urge to throw around some comparisons that could seem far too hyperbolic in the cold light of day, so to speak.

If telling this one story was the only reason for making this film then I would have still appreciated what Fiala and Franz did here, but it's not. This is a film that touches on much more than just the one story, even if the behaviours displayed here are nowadays often hidden behind closed curtains and mobile phone messages, as opposed to being open secrets in close-knit communities, and it's another reminder that we seem doomed to keep repeating dark parts of our history, whether we remember them or not.

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

King Kong Escapes (1967)

This film is ridiculous, but if you think that's a bad thing then you're someone who hasn't ever watched anything like King Kong Escapes. The winning combination of writer Takeshi Kimura and director Ishirô Honda should be enough to get people excited about this, but there's also the fact that the plot involves both King Kong and a robot duplicate (Mechani-Kong). What more could you want?

This is where I'd usually put a plot summary, but King Kong and Mechani-Kong is really all you need to know. There's a villain named Doctor Who (Hideyo Amamoto), a secondary villain named Madame Piranha (Mie Hama), and something about valuable radioactive material being excavated. Basically . . . the clock just keeps ticking until we get to a finale that promises some worthwhile Kong vs. Kong action.

Although many of these movies look a bit silly and tame nowadays, King Kong Escapes was designed that way to appeal to younger viewers. It's a children's film co-produced by Toho and Rankin/Bass Productions, and you could easily imagine this working even better in traditional animation. The crudity feels even more endearing than it does in other kaiju movies I have watched recently, giving the whole film a feeling of playtime where the imagination is just as important as the actual visuals. Someone watched this at a very young age and thought it was the most magnificent thing they would ever see, which is the best thing about movies (in my view anyway).

Kimura's script is weak, but it at least tries to pace things well enough to keep younger viewers interested. Honda does well enough with the creatures, but there's nothing truly devastating or threatening here, considering the overall tone of the thing. People and places are put in jeopardy, as expected, but not in the full-on way we've seen elsewhere.

Amamoto and Hama are both great fun, and they're enjoyably obvious in their villainy in a way that keeps children able to know who they should be rooting for and against. The main goodies are played by Rhodes Reason and Linda Miller, but the real hero is King Kong, of course, and he is showcased like the star he is.

This pales in comparison to films like King Kong and Mighty Joe Young, it also pales in comparison to most of the other kaiju movies from this period, but it's a cute and entertaining bit of monkey melee madness for younger audiences (and those who can watch films while recapturing that feeling of being young at heart).

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

Twisters (2024)

Despite the recent wave of nostalgic affection for it, Twister was never a movie that I considered great. It wasn't bad, and I have some amount of goodwill for any blockbuster that gives a lead role to Bill Paxton, but it wasn't up there alongside the many other disaster movies that came along after it. So I wasn't very keen to see this sorta-sequel (there's a bit of machinery used that was in the first film, and there are twisters, of course, but that covers all of the main connections). Thankfully, I had a partner very keen to see this, which is how I can now be glad that I saw it on the big screen, because this is blockbuster fun. 

Daisy Edgar-Jones plays Kate, a young woman who retired from the tornado-chasing game after an incident that left her scarred and traumatised while trying to come up with a way to "kill" tornadoes. She now works in meteorology, in an environment that makes use of her intelligence and intuitive ability to read the weather, and hopes to stay far away from lively and huge tornadoes. That plan changes when she is approached by an old friend, Javi (Anthony Ramos), who wants Kate to help him capture some vital tornado data with the help of her natural talent and some cutting-edge technology. That puts them in competition with Tyler (Glen Powell) though. Tyler is a YouTube sensation, a cowboy daredevil, and a minor celebrity with a major ego. He might have a bit more to him though, hidden behind the cowboy hat and super-charged grin. He might even help Kate to finally realise her tornado-killing dream.

Written by Mark L. Smith, a decent enough talent working here to flesh out a story by Joseph Kosinski, Twisters is actually very smart and well-constructed, considering the type of movie it is. It delivers the required exposition via character moments, instead of in one unexciting info-dump, and it makes some interesting points about the need to stop being so passive in a world that has become increasingly hostile to many of the people living in it. It also nicely inverts the formula of the first film in a few different ways, but does so while absolutely sticking to the blockbuster movie formula you expect when you buy your ticket.

Director Lee Isaac Chung may not seem like the obvious fit for the material, considering the previous features he has helmed, but he goes all out here to deliver a slice of undiluted Americana. The scenery, the soundtrack full of lively Country music, the way in which Powell's character continues to deal with the tornadoes as beasts to be wrangled, this is a laid-back Western, in many ways, with a tornado set to be the main villain due in town for a shoot-out scheduled for High Noon. That undersells the film though, because it's also very funny. This is a fun and funny film, one that keeps entertainment front and centre. Like many modern day blockbusters, the runtime clocks in at just over two hours. Unlike many other films, however, this doesn't feel overlong. The pacing is perfect, and part of the reason for that is the timing of Glen Powell's entrance, about 20-30 minutes into the runtime.

There's no need to go on and on about Powell trying to become a star. Powell is a star. He has moments here that solidly underline that fact, and when he does his shimmy swagger at one point I coudln't help thinking of him as a demin-clad, stetson-wearing, male version of Jessica Rabbit. Powell feels like the lead here, to a degree, but it helps that Edgar-Jones is equal to him in their scenes together. She's smart, sassy, and continues to deal with trauma from her past that feels like something anyone would struggle to reconcile with. Ramos is fine as Javi, but neither he nor his main colleague, Scott (David Corensweet), are half as watchable as those who make up Tyler's troupe:Brandon Perea, Sasha Lane, Tunde Adebimpe, Katy O'Brian, and Harry Hadden-Paton (as Ben, a British journalist writing a piece on the star "tornado-wrangler"). Others appearing onscreen include Maura Tierney, David Born, Paul Scheer, Daryl McCormack, Nik Dodani, and Kiernan Shipka, but I won't tell you who gets a decent amount of screentime and who gets to cameo. Is the cast comparable to the group of actors we got in the original movie? No, but it's not too far off.

If you have seen or heard anything about Twisters and already suspect that you will hate it then you may well end up hating it. I would heartily recommend this to anyone after some full-blooded blockbuster fun though. It has human leads sparring with one another to be the brighter star, it has some great special effects also muscling in to be the star of the show, and it has a real eagerness to be absolutely entertaining from start to finish. I think it succeeds  . . . brilliantly.

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

Prime Time: Ghost Crew (2022)

I like to support independent film-makers whenever, and however, I can. But it has to be a two-way relationship. I have to see something there, even if it's hard to see because of limited resources and a very small budget. Ghost Crew is a recent feature flm from Lawrie Brewster, another from his company, Hex Studios (a company co-created with Sarah Daly). Both Hex Studios and Brewster seem to do well when it comes to getting their films actually made, having used crowdfunding platforms on numerous occasions, and building on goodwill afforded to them because of their Owlman creation, featured in films such as Lord Of Tears and The Unkindness Of Ravens. I have an Owlman action figure that was part of one crowdfunding reward, and I own over half of the films released by Hex Studios, but this is the first time I have sat down to watch one of them. I don't own this one, but I was intrigued by the premise. Sadly, I should have started with something else, possibly anything else, from their catalogue.

Ghost Crew is the tale of an amateur TV presenter (Tom Hughes, played by Tom Staunton) who tries to keep viewers intrigued and entertained with his investigations into supernatural incidents. One day, while reporting from near the Harbourmaster's House in the fine kingdom of Fife, Tom meets a young woman named Sandy (Megan Tremethick). Sandy brings an extra mystery to Tom and his cameraman, Michael (Michael Brewster), which is obvious from her first scenes of vague utterances and strange looks. What follows is a disappointingly predictable and lazy chain of events leading to a final act that admittedly does just about enough to gain a bonus point or two.

Ghost Crew is memorable, but for all the wrong reasons. The script, by Staunton, isn't good. Everything is far too clearly signposted, humourous interactions miss the mark, and there's no attempt to pin down the format or style of the film. Rightly or wrongly, I figured this would be some kind of "found footage" film. It is not, but it seems to want to keep trying to work in that way, perhaps as an easy way to lower costs and explain away the lack of any decent visuals (although anyone who has worked hard on a decent "found footage" film will be able to tell you how tough it can be to get things right).

It's hard to really judge the direction from Brewster, the film often feels as amateurish as intended, but I think there were many ways to improve things here. One early scene, for example, has our presenter being hassled by a pesky bystander out to cause mischief and ruin the shot. Even the most amateur cameraman knows to try and zoom in and block out the nuisance on those occasions, as can be seen during many live outdoor news reports, but Michael instead seems intent on moving around to keep this rogue element in frame. Why? Because it's moderately amusing. Brewster should have known to either reframe that sequence, or replace it with something else entirely, but he doesn't, and it's one of many bad decisions that he makes throughout.

I'm not going to spend too much time talking about the cast because I don't want to seem unduly harsh. They're just not very good. Michael fares best, mainly because he only has to jump into frame in one or two scenes, but Staunton has written himself a role that is beyond his acting capabilities, sadly. His performance needs to be full of incompetence, but with something buried beneath the clumsiness that makes him a good person to get involved in the mystery presented. It doesn't have that mix, which leaves us stuck with incompetence upon incompetence. Tremethick over-emotes in a way that makes me think she's spent a long time in drama groups, and maybe in the odd stage play or two, but did't think about the huge difference between stage acting and film acting. There are others who turn up to play supporting characters, but most of them feel as if they've either been roped in to do a favour or won the chance to act in a film for a day.

Ghost Crew isn't good. It's relatively short, which is one plus, but it doesn't feel it. Everything drags, although that may have been more of a problem for a viewer like myself, familiar with some of the filming locations that Brewster and co. decided would make a good background for a horror movie. They're right in that regard, but this is the wrong movie to make use of them. Ah well, next time I'll review one of the Owlman movies and hope to have much kinder words for all of the people who work hard, and often with great passion, to maintain Hex Studios as a viable movie production company based in Scotland.

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 Watched (2024)

AKA The Watchers.

Here is a film in which Dakota Fanning plays someone who spends a large portion of the runtime being watched, hence the title, and it must be said that she's a very watchable presence onscreen.

That doesn't mean that The Watched is one to watch though, sadly. This is a bad, messy, film that starts off weak and then just gets worse and worse, en route to a thoroughly disappointing ending.

Fanning plays Mina, a young woman obviously struggling to get through everyday life while dealing with her emotional/mental health baggage. She ends up in a mysterious forest in Ireland where she encounters a group of trapped individuals, subsequently becoming trapped alongside them. There are rules, there are entities watching them, and Mina might not really mind being caught in such a limbo state that keeps her focused on the here and now.

The feature debut of Ishana Shyamalan, who adapted the story from the novel by A. M. Shine and directed this, that's the most obvious explanation for The Watched feeling like one of the weaker stories presented to audiences by her father, M. Night Shyamalan. That may seem harsh, but it's impossible to spot the familiar surname, watch this film unfold, and not come to the conclusion that this is the work of a child trying, and failing, to emulate/impress a parent. It's a stick figure drawing passed across for the approval of someone who is responsible for some superb oil-on-canvas portraits.

None of the cast are treated very well by the requirements of the script. Fanning languishes, her character fully defined by her unhappiness. Olwen Fouéré plays the nominal leader of the group, Madeline, and she has to deliver exposition and rules that ultimately make no sense. Georgina Campbell, Oliver Finnegan, and Alistair Brammer play the less important characters, and John Lynch appears just in time to test the patience and observation skills of exasperated viewers.

While there are a few nice visual flourishes here and there, nothing is impressive enough to make you forgive the lack of skill in the writing and directing department, which you could also describe as the lack of skill from Shyamalan. Perhaps this would all be more enjoyable if it was a TV episode (maybe one of The X-Files or a 2-part Grimm special), but it's not. It's a full feature film that some people thought would work well enough to enable audiences to suspend their disbelief and enjoy themselves for 102 minutes. 

The attempts to create tension don't work, the attempts to make the lead character sympathetic don't work, the backstory being used to feed into the narrative doesn't work. The Watched just doesn't work. Maybe we'll see Ishana Shyamalan do better with whatever she does next. At least she'll get the luxury of having another bite at the cherry, unlike a number of female film-makers who don't have the same good fortune.

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