28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026)

It's strange to find that every new instalment in what is now a fine horror franchise comes loaded with worry and curiosity about where things are going next. I was relieved when I ended up enjoying 28 Years Later as much as I did, but that wild ending had me wondering about how the next instalment would be handled. And then finding out that it was being directed by Nia DaCosta made me uneasy. I like DaCosta, I always want her to do well since she did such great work with Candyman, but "The Bone Temple" seemed to be moving further into dark territory that was also quintessentially British.  

Whether or not DaCosta knew about every disturbing detail in her own movie, and I would hope that writer Alex Garland gave her a primer on one or two key elements, she proves to be a fantastic choice to helm this middle section of what looks set to be quite a brilliant and intriguing horror trilogy. It's already two for two at this point. Now I have worry and curiosity about how the final part will play out.

For those wanting a very brief plot summary, as long as you've seen the previous film, we rejoin this dangerous world as young Spike (Alfie Williams) is being initiated into the gang of Jimmys that saved him at the end of the last film. The leader is Sir Jimmy Crystal (Jack O'Connell), and they are on a mission to serve Old Nick. Meanwhile, Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) is still tending to his ossuarium, and he's also hoping to find a way to communicate with, and perhaps even cure, the infected alpha known as Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry). Kelson and Crystal have very different ways of dealing with the world around them, but fate may bring them together in a way that might force them to find some common ground.

If you enjoyed both Williams and Fiennes in the previous movie then you're going to find their performances equally enjoyable here, although Fiennes gets to do a bit more than the younger cast member. It's arguably O'Connell who steals the show though, embodying absolute evil with a smile and a winning way with words . . . and a real affinity for the antics of the Teletubbies, but Lewis-Parry continues to cast a hell of a large shadow in the role of Samson, particularly when in numerous scenes that have him interacting with Fiennes. Nobody disappoints, but the others worth highlighting are Emma Laird and Erin Kellyman, both standing out as the two female members of the Jimmy gang (named Jimmima and Jimmy Ink, respectively).

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is two films perfectly intertwined. One is a study of evil, and also a look at how people working together can overcome the greatest obstacles. The other is a full-blooded selection of horror movie moments, with arteries cut, flesh torn, and innocent people dragged into sadistic games. And then it stops to deliver a show-stopping sequence that makes incredible use of a very well-known Iron Maiden song.

I cannot think of anyone being disappointed by this if they made it all the way through the previous film. DaCosta may struggle to put her stamp all over this, but there are choices and flourishes that are more in line with her aesthetic than the standard look of the series. It's commendable that she also maintains a consistency that allows the whole thing to feel like a natural extension of the unfolding storyline though.

I may have an obvious bias here. I enjoy every single entry in this film series. The fact that these new films have gone from being unnecessary titles that nobody seemed to want to important and fresh ways to examine the human spirit and expand the lore of the infected is incredible. And there are now three features that could easily be in contention whenever the time comes to pick an outright best film in the series. I will remain worried and curious until the third/final film is released, but that's just habit at this point. All of the evidence so far assures me that I should be optimistic and excited.

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 

28 Years Later (2025)

With Danny Boyle back in the director's chair and Alex Garland back on writing duties, it's safe to say that 28 Years Later was one of the films I was most looking forward to seeing this year. That level of expectation also brings some anxiety though. What if it just ended up being not very good.

28 Year Later is not very good. It's pretty brilliant. And it's nice to see marketing that, for once, ends up helping to mislead people and tie in to the main themes being explored (perception and misplaced faith being the elements that stood out to me).

It is, as you'd guess from the title, 28 years since the rage virus first took hold of people in the UK, as shown in a wild and horrific opening sequence. Europe managed to fight it back, leaving the UK as an isolated infected zone. Small pockets of people have come up with ways to survive, including one group living on Holy Island, which is separated from the mainland by a causeway only usable when the tide isn't high. This is where young Spike (Alfie Williams) lives. He's about to be taken to the mainland by his father figure, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and he'll go through the ritual of his first kill. Meanwhile, Spike's mother, Isla (Jodie Comer), is very ill. Maybe Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) can help her. But Dr. Kelson seems preoccupied with gathering corpses and burning them. Everything also depends on Spike surviving his "hunting trip".

Although I haven't seen any Danny Boyle film that I've not enjoyed, 28 Years Later feels like a bit of a statement announcing his return to bold and adult content after the sweetness and light of Yesterday (a film I enjoyed way more than most people). The opening sequence alone is more disturbing than many other horror movie moments, and there are more grisly times ahead. That's all front and centre, however, as Boyle and Garland start to guide viewers on a journey that moves from the visceral horror to more emotional moments. Rage remains all around, sometimes visible and sometimes not, but the vacuum it creates is soon filled with memories and sadness. And memories aren't the same for everyone, depending on how you have viewed certain events.

I could spend hours dissecting a number of key scenes here, but let's just say that it's a testament to the power of the work that this proves to be so moving and thought-provoking, after ensuring that the requisitie scares and tension have been delivered. Not everyone will appreciate the directions that the movie goes in, but it's impossible to deny the confidence and boldness of the vision.

Williams is basically the lead of the film, and he's absolutely fantastic in every moment that he's onscreen. Strong when he needs to be, but vulnerable as he's pushed along a very steep learning curve, he's simply a great choice to be the heart of the film, newcomer or not. Taylor-Johnson is fine, and it's certainly easier to appreciate his casting when his character becomes a bit less likeable (I just can't put my finger on it, but Taylor-Johnson would rarely be my first choice for most of his acting roles). Comer works hard around a wobbly accent that wasn't really necessary for her character, but the rest of her performance is as good as you'd expect, and Fiennes gets to enjoy portraying a character who looms large over events even before people actually get to meet him. Most of the other performers play infected individuals, and play them well, although Edvin Ryding has a good couple of moments as a soldier named Erik and Jack O'Connell turns up in a scene that will ensure viewers either love or loathe how this instalment ends.

You get some fun camera tricks (although I couldn't help thinking that one gimmick feels like the same kind of thing that had Uwe Boll being harshly criticised just over 20 years ago), a great selection of music supplied by Young Fathers, and production design and set decoration that consistently help you to view the UK as a place with a very low population and a very high threat level. While I also enjoyed the second movie in this series, this feels like a return to the high of the first film. I'm intrigued to see where things go next.

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 

Conclave (2024)

I never thought that I would rate a movie all about religious figures trying to form a majority vote for the new pope as highly as I have rated Conclave. I don't care for religious institutions, especially not the greedy and notably-prone-to-moral-corruption Roman Catholic Church. I view that particular entity as an appalling blight on the modern world, considering the wealth it has amassed over the years and the abuses that it has covered up. So, before I started hearing good word on this, I initially thought that I would much prefer to watch The Pope Must Die.

Based on a book by the excellent Robert Harris, this is a surprisingly gripping and intense drama that makes great use of a very talented cast, all helped by Peter Straughan's superb screenplay (and a quick look through his filmography shows him to be, while far from infallible, a writer with a selection of features well worth your attention). Playing out like a legal drama, it also manages to comment on the image of the church, and what can be done to improve relations between those who want to best serve their god and the public who may no longer have trust in them.

Ralph Fiennes is Cardinal Lawrence, a man who ends up leading a sombre and vital voting session when the Pope dies of a heart attack. A new successor must be found, and they have to be in a good position to lead the church forward in the modern world. Top contenders are Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci), a liberal choice, Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow), a moderate choice, Cardinal Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), and Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto). There's also a surprise addition in the shape of Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz), someone the Pope seemed to favour, although nobody in attendance was previously aware of his existence.

While it would be almost impossible for director Edward Berger to surpass, or even equal, his previous film, he has at least managed to show that he's a consistently interesting and formidable talent. There's no world war onscreen this time, but we still get a number of important skirmishes between opposing factions. Making great use of some twists and reveals to help the pacing, as well as a sense of the outside world heating up in a way that reminds all of those present of just how important the church figurehead is, Berger allows the talented cast to enjoy Straughan's dialogue without needing to add too many bells and whistles to every scene. There's enough to keep viewers hooked in the performances and the small details of the process.

Fiennes is quite flawless in his lead role, a potentially one-note character turned into a well-rounded and fascinating heart hoping to keep life pumping through the veins of a body in serious need of the right medical treatment. Tucci is equal to him, all the more enjoyable for showing some of the frustration that Fiennes seems to somehow keep harnessed deep within himself. Lithgow livens things up a bit, and has a bit of fun with the development of his character, and Msamati, Castellitto, and Diehz all do well just to share the screen with some of the bigger names. Isabella Rossellini seems to be a bit unnecessary, but only until she isn't, and I'm glad there was room for even the smallest of female roles in this male-dominated space, and Brían F. O'Byrne does great work as the assistant to our leading man.

Quiet and contemplative for most of the runtime, but also punctuated by moments of blustery anger, Conclave is a confident and beautiful chamber piece. There's lovely music from Volker Bertelmann and beautiful cinematography by Stéphane Fontaine, but the whole thing really boils down to a talented cast making the most of a smart and interesting script. Some viewers may not appreciate the very last scenes, but I think it all felt like a wonderful way to illustrate the huge chasm that currently exists between the old ways of the church and the new world all around us. Highly recommended, as long as you know that you're going to be watching a film based around a group of men voting on who will be the next Pope.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Wrath Of The Titans (2012)

I can understand why people got upset when the news broke that we were getting a remake of the beloved Clash Of The Titans. I still ended up watching it, and I didn’t mind it. In fact, I eventually bought the double-pack that included both that film and this film in fun 3D. I have had that set sitting on my shelf for at least five years, and this week I decided that I should finally watch the second movie. There was probably some subconscious reason for that, considering the fact that the film is . . . well, we will get to the full critique shortly.

Perseus (Sam Worthington) is trying to live a peaceful life with his son. That peace is ruined, sadly, when his father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), gets himself in big trouble. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) has seen the writing on the wall - gods losing power, the titans almost set to break back through to their realm - and wants to end up on the winning side. He also has help from Ares (Edgar Ramírez), the son of Poseidon. It is up to Perseus to ensure that humanity survives, and he is soon joined by another demi-god, Agenor (Toby Kebbell), and the fierce warrior queen, Andromeda (Rosamund Pike). They will have to fierce a variety of huge and deadly enemies, including a cyclops or two, a minotaur, and at least one of the intimidating titans.

Written by Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick (billed here as David Leslie Johnson), this should have been a much better, and much easier, film to craft. Moving a step or two away from the beloved original, all it had to do was take a handful of familiar characters and throw them into something spectacular and fun. I guess that is the aim here, but it just doesn’t work, mainly due to the weakness of the villains and the feeling that the structure is just a pale retread of the previous film. 

It doesn’t help that director Jonathan Liebesman is now at the helm. While far from the worst person to take on the role of director, he seems to bring nothing unique to any of his projects. He can sometimes emulate better films informing his own, at best, but he usually just delivers something that lacks any hint of style or proper authorship. If you are asked next week to name the director of this movie then I would put good money on you not being able to remember his name. And the same goes for every other film he has directed.

The cast is quite a mixed bag, but the good far outnumbers the bad. Unfortunately, the bad includes our leading man, Sam Worthington. I don’t mind Worthington, and he’s certainly not awful, but almost every other actor that he shares screentime with does a better job. Except Ramírez, sadly, which makes him a sorely unentertaining villain. Neeson and Fiennes have fun in their godly roles, Danny Huston is welcome for the minute he is onscreen, and both Kebbell and Pike are excellent additions to the ensemble. There’s also a very small role for Bill Nighy, who almost steals the entire movie with his wonderful turn.

There is an over-reliance on CGI once again, as expected, and the cinematography focuses on dirt and flames to the detriment of anything more visually interesting, but the runtime isn’t bloated, the pacing is brisk enough, and it’s always fun to see the creatures featured here that were previously so well-realised in a pre-CGI world by the legendary Ray Harryhausen.

I was still tempted to rate this as ever-so-slightly above average, because I didn’t hate it while it was on, but it’s just too forgettable, too bland, and disappointing for being a waste of such a good opportunity. So I will consider myself generous enough already by rating it as absolutely average.

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

The Menu (2022)

I like to think of myself, sometimes, as a bit of a foodie. I cannot tell you every individual ingredient in a meal, and I don’t need to overpay for one or two on a pile of crumbs that is labelled as “deconstructed beans on toast”, but I am happy to a) try new things, and b) pay more for a quality experience, especially as I head towards the third year anniversary of a sober life. I completely agree with those who laugh at the pretentiousness and snobbery that often accompanies “serious” foodies though, although it isn’t half as ridiculous as the nonsense you get from wine snobs.

The Menu is a film that happily bursts the bubble of the worst food snobbery, as well as poking fun at pretentious criticism, making me slightly wary of reviewing it (although I always strive to avoid pretentious criticism), but happy to share in the joy that so many others have already found in it.

A number of people have been invited to a private dining experience, an intimate restaurant on a small island, and it isn’t long until things start to become dark and sinister. The diners are treated rather contemptuously, but that may be part of the whole theatre experience. Tyler (Nicholas Hoult) is impressed by everything around him, he’s just so delighted to finally experience the work of Chef Slowik (Ralph Fiennes), while his date for the evening (“Margot”, played by Anya Taylor-joy) is completely non-plussed, at least until the starters are out of the way.

Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, and directed by Mark Mylod, it comes as no surprise that these people have, between them, delivered a good deal of work for Succession and The Onion. The Menu has the willingness to ridicule those seeking to attain unearned rewards, a la Succession, while also creeping further and further into the kind of hilarious absurdity of The Onion.

The script is as sharp as any of the kitchen knives, and the visuals and atmosphere throughout are nicely in line with the fine dining setting, crisp and clear, and the orderly manner of every dish serving helps to keep focus in the right areas, all the way to what is arguably the greatest cinematic dessert ever presented in film.

It’s hard to pick out a standout performance, everyone is so good here, but I’ll start by praising Fiennes (who can deliver a performance of subtle and controlled comedy that easily sits alongside anything from any celebrated comedic performer you could mention). Always in control, and always happy to show the diners exactly how he views them, Fiennes is excellent as the pivotal figure in the film. Hoult is an nervy puppy in comparison, and his performance becomes funnier as events around him become much harder to ignore or move on from. Taylor-Joy is cooler than cool throughout, her ability to point out that the emperor may actually be naked making her the most fascinating member of the dining party. As Taylor-Joy is always a fascinating onscreen presence, she’s a perfect fit for her role. Strong support comes from Hong Chau (Elsa, the maitre d’), John Leguizamo (a faded star who claims to know the chef), Janet McTeer (a restaurant critic), Reed Birney and Judith Light (a married couple with a strained relationship), and many more, including some actors who play some eminently douchey “dudebros” so well that I hated them for pretty much every minute they were onscreen.

The patrons in the movie may be taken aback by what is served up to them, but viewers should be satisfied with every delicacy, especially while reading the descriptions of each course. This is equal parts twisted and hilarious, constructed as beautifully as any dish you might see helping someone to win a season of Masterchef. In other words, it is simply . . . “chef’s kiss”.

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: In Bruges (2008)

The first feature written and directed by the hugely talented Martin McDonagh, In Bruges is so good that the only similar films to give it serious competition over the last 10-15 years have been the other films written and directed by Martin McDonagh, or his equally-talented brother, John Michael McDonagh.

Colin Farrell is Ray and Brendan Gleeson is Ken. They are two hitmen who have been ordered to lay low in Bruges for a while, for reasons that become apparent as the film plays out. Ken is happy to take in some of the local sights and culture, but Ray needs a bit more stimulation. Although there is obvious friction between the two, there's also an obvious strong bond of friendship. This makes things very difficult for Ken when his boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), gives him instructions for his next job. It's also becoming difficult for Ray to keep himself out of trouble, especially when he is being distracted by the lovely Chloe (Clémence Poésy) and/or the drug-fuelled antics of the diminutive Jimmy (Jordan Prentice).

Although I have yet to see his most recent film (The Banshees Of Inisherin, which I have very high hopes for), this one currently remains my favourite from McDonagh. It is the film in which he most successfully blends together every element he does so well, from the comedy to the violence, from the superficial moments of purely wonderful cinema to the deep and rewarding layers that examine grief, loyalty, and so much more. It also helps that his small cast is formed around two leads giving performances that rank as career-best turns, or close enough anyway.

Farrell and Gleeson are brilliant. But anyone who knows those actors, and everyone SHOULD know those actors, would already know that. The bonus here is how well they work both separately and together, moving between the lighter moments into the unavoidable darkness with complete ease. The early scenes show the two acting in a way that is like a parent (Gleeson) tolerating a hyperactive child (Farrell), but things very quickly settle down as the two start to realise that there are other things going on around them that they should start taking notice of, whether it's pleasant company and drugs or another planned execution. McDonagh obviously, and rightly, has faith in his script, but he doesn't leave anything to chance. That's why he casts Fiennes in a relatively small, but also relatively major, supporting role. He delivers the kind of great performance you'd expect, Poésy is a believable distraction, Prentice is involved in a number of scenes that have some of the biggest laughs, and there is some great work from Thekla Reuten, Zeljko Ivanek, and Jérémie Rénier.

What has always helped to elevate McDonagh's material is his ability to present his ear-tingling scripts in ways that don't feel too focused on the script at the expense of everything else you want from a film. In Bruges has a great sense of place, as the title would suggest, and presents some lovely visual moments alongside the crackling script. The camera is as close or far away from everything as it needs to be, depending on how many people are being given some time to shine, and how any sequence is playing out, and it's also worth noting that the third act delivers some truly stomach-churning blood and guts, even if it's only seen for the briefest of moments.

This whole review, like so many reviews I write, is utterly pointless. If you have already seen In Bruges then you should already know that it's a modern classic. If you haven't seen In Bruges by now then dozens of other people have probably already told you that it's a modern classic. I encourage everyone to watch/rewatch it ASAP though. Because . . . it's a modern classic.

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

The King's Man (2021)

I am very well aware that I am in the minority for the fact that I enjoyed Kingsman: The Golden Circle a bit more than Kingsman: The Secret Service. But I think I was pretty much in agreement with everyone else when I was seriously underwhelmed by the trailer for The King's Man, a prequel to the other movies that didn't have any of the charismatic leads we'd already enjoyed accompanying on two adventures. It did still have Matthew Vaughn in the director's chair though, and roles for Ralph Fiennes, Djimon Hounsou, Gemma Arterton, Rhys Ifans, Charles Dance, and Matthew Goode, so maybe it would be alright.

It wasn't.

Set during the first half of the 20th century, The King's Man shows events that lead up to the creation of a new kind of British agent. A soldier that can help win wars without all of the bloodshed and death of a full war. In theory. Fiennes plays Orlando Oxford, a man who wants to help the world avoid further conflict while he also keeps his son (Conrad, played by Harris Dickinson) as safe as possible. This proves very difficult. There's a shadowy super-villain moving pawns into place, including a certain individual named Rasputin (Rhys Ifans), and the stormclouds of war start to gather apace.

Co-written by Vaughn and Karl Gajdusek, based once again on the comic books by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons, The King's Man feels like a step back in a film series that should have continued to stride onwards and upwards. What would you rather see, Ralph Fiennes being as good as ever while also being allowed to kick ass, or Eggsy on another ridiculous plot that inevitably leads him into space a la Moonraker? I know which I would prefer.

The cast is too much of a mixed bag to really help. Fiennes plays his part well, but also brings to mind his steely cool and gentlemanly approach to his starring role in The Avengers (which I don’t think anyone really wants brought to mind). Ifans is a real highlight, attacking his larger-than-life character with relish. Artery on and Hounsou are both good, but sadly underused, as is Dance, and the younger cast members are a bit too bland, whether it’s Goode being completely unsubtle or Dickinson being a bit of a wet blanket. I didn’t even mind the dodgy accent from Aaron Taylor-Johnson, considering it was a very small role, because he was a slightly more interesting character than the young man being played by Dickinson.

There are a couple of set-pieces here that are moderately enjoyable, with the best being an lengthy fight with the famously-difficult-to-kill Rasputin, but this is often as disappointing and weak as the trailer implied. The action is rarely impressive, the tone veers all over the place, and the sense of something cool and fun is completely lost.

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

No Time To Die (2021)

I have to admit to being a bit Bond-fatigued by the time No Time To Die was released. It was a culmination of various factors. I was greatly disappointed by Spectre. I was as fed up as most people were by the seemingly constant whinging from Daniel Craig in between every instalment in the franchise. And, of course, the global pandemic meant that the release date was pushed back for quite some time. I decided that I would remain hopeful, but be prepared for disappointment.

Disappointment was certainly not forthcoming.

No Time To Die is immediately up there with the very best of the Bond films, vying for a top spot alongside On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and a couple of other superior 007 adventures, and it allows Craig to end his tenure on a real high note. It’s a film that gets so much right that it almost makes up for the stumbling steps that got us to this point.

The plot is simple. Bond is retired, he wants to get on with his life with Madeleine (Léa Seydoux). Retirement is interrupted by the pesky Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) being a sneaky schemer once again, and Bond eventually ends up looking to return to his old role when he learns of a deadly bioweapon that can be used to target not just individuals, but entire races. Bond being involved doesn’t make everyone happy. There’s a new agent using the 007 tag (Lashana Lynch) and M is under a lot of stress with the situation. Blofeld, still imprisoned, may actually welcome the chance to see Bond once more, especially as they both seem to have a common enemy, Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek).

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, who also helped on the screenplay with Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge, this is a near-perfect Bond film that packs enough into every main sequence to distract you from the aspects that aren’t present. You don’t get Bond the womaniser, you don’t get a whole load of gadgets, and you don’t get gunfights and explosions without a lot of consideration and attempts at diplomatic diversions by those giving the orders.

You do get just enough of everything though. There are glamorous women around Bond. There are a couple of decent gadgets used in the midst of the action. And it’s interesting to think that, for all the growth of the character we have seen over the last couple of decades, Bond is shown as essentially the same blunt tool used when needed. The world may have moved on, but new and different problems can be solved with the same old solution.

Craig does well once again in the main role, all blue-eyed piercing stares and pouting. Waltz is underused once again, but also once again superb in his limited amount of screentime. Seydoux does well with what she's given, and she is able to play her part with some ambiguity as others try to figure out whether or not they can trust her. Lynch is a badass, and quickly shows why she was assigned the 007 number, so I wouldn't be averse to a spin-off with her character in it (or seeing her have a similarly strong presence in whatever we get next in the series). I also wouldn't be averse to seeing another main role for Ana de Armas, playing an agent named Paloma in a fantastic set-piece that takes place in Cuba. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear are as good as ever in the respective roles of M, Moneypenny, Q, and Tanner. But what of the main villains? Dali Benssalah is a good henchman, and has a memorable look thanks to his character having one electronic eye alongside one normal eye, and David Dencik is enjoyably cowardly and selfish as the scientist who has created a scarily effective weapon. Malek is really the only weak link, sadly as Safin, a character who isn't written well played in a way that is far too quiet and lacking any real sense of showmanship (which all of the best Bond villains have). Can Malek do anything other than the soft-spoken and kind of awkward character he has made his specialty over the last few years? I'm not seeing anything to prove otherwise, and I don't think he was the best person to put in this role.

Transplant a better villain into this and you could have had the greatest Bond film of all time. As it is, well, it remains a strong contender. Fukunaga directs like someone who simply knows how to run a well-oiled machine, from the sound design to the sets, from the wardrobe to the lighting, and on and on. It's also well worth mentioning the music by Hans Zimmer, providing a score that pieces together various motifs while always complementing the visuals (as any great score should). The stuntwork is superb, the pacing means that the hefty 163-minute runtime goes by briskly enough, and there's at least one moment that feels like one of the most unexpected and iconic moments in modern action cinema. 

By the time the end credits roll . . . you may very well be slightly shaken. 

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

Holmes & Watson (2018)

How bad is Holmes & Watson? Considering how much is was roundly battered by critics, and anyone brave enough to go and see it at the cinema, could it really be THAT bad? Yes, yes it could. And I can say this with a degree of confidence, having been one of the few people to have now seen it twice.

The first time doesn't really count though. When I first watched this movie I was laughing aloud at a number of moments. I'd also taken an excessive amount of valium before a short flight (I'm just a nervous flyer, and it turns out I wasn't listening to my wife when she reminded me of the recommended dosage of something I wasn't used to). But you can certainly take that as a different view of the film. It will make you laugh if your brain has been suitably altered by some substance that keeps you in a very good mood, be that alcohol, medication, or your favourite Doritos.

So, for the purpose of this review, I am going to focus on my second, most recent, viewing. My brain was not altered in any way (beyond the usual warping), although I definitely wish it had been.

Will Ferrell plays Sherlock Holmes, John C. Reilly is Doctor John Watson, his constant sidekick, and their latest adventure involves the dastardly Moriarty (Ralph Fiennes) and a plot to kill the Queen of England (Pam Ferris). That's about all you need to know, other than the fact that Kelly Macdonald is Mrs. Hudson, and Rebecca Hall and Lauren Lapkus play two women who turn the heads of our detecting duo.

It has been a decade since Guy Ritchie entertained audiences with a Sherlock Holmes that mixed the traditional elements with some fun cinematic updates (the "Holmes-vision"). We have had Sherlock since then, and also Elementary, both shows that have smartly updated the famous detective for modern viewers, while retaining a lot of the little details that make Sherlock so quintessentially Sherlock. So Holmes & Watson feels like too little too late as soon as it begins. That would be fine though, as long as writer-director Etan Cohen had some good enough gags to make it worthwhile. Sadly, that is not the case.

Cohen seems to rely on the chemistry between Ferrell and Reilly (used so effectively in their previous comedy work), but that's not enough on this occasion. Not when the script is full of unfunny jokes transposing modern habits (selfies, drunk text messages) into the period setting, numerous gross-out gags that fall flat, and sequences that make use of that aforementioned "Holmes-vision". The one time I smiled was due to a fun cameo towards the very end. Nothing else really works, one or two very minor chuckles aside.

Ferrell and Reilly are quite irritating in the lead roles, Macdonald is the highlight of the film, and Fiennes at least manages to get paid for a relatively short amount of screentime. Ferris is very game in her royal role, Hall almost comes out of the whole thing with her dignity intact, but Lapkus is undone by the fact that she has to match Ferrell at his juvenile antics. There are also small roles for Rob Brydon (who is actually a good fit for Inspector Lestrade), Steve Coogan, Hugh Laurie, and that great cameo star.

I am going to give this a fairly generous rating, considering how well it amused and distracted me while I was on valium and trying not to think about anything that could send me plunging to my death. But don't let that fool you into giving this a try. Even Sherlock Gnomes was better than this.

3/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy the movie here.

Strange Days (1995)

Although it may seem a bit dated now, with the action thriller cliches piled up and the focus on that Y2K sensation, Strange Days is yet another superior film from director Kathryn Bigelow. And it gets very dark indeed.

Ralph Fiennes plays Lenny Nero, an ex-cop who now makes a living selling experiences. Actual experiences. There's a gadget you can put on your head and Lenny will sell you recordings that will put you in the position of someone who has been through whatever you want to try out - sex with a gorgeous woman, breaking & entering, hardcore revelry, whatever you like. Unfortunately, someone recorded something very dangerous, which leads to people Lenny knows being killed. Lenny has to get to the bottom of things before it's decided that he'll also need taken out of the picture.

With a cast that includes Fiennes in the lead role, strong support from Angela Bassett, Tom Sizemore, Michael Wincott, and Juliette Lewis, and smaller roles for the likes of William Fichtner and Vincent D'Onofrio, Strange Days is a film not shy of talent in front of the camera. The first three mentioned there are the standouts, thanks to their positioning in the plot, but nobody lets the side down.

With Bigelow directing, and a script written by Jay Cocks and James Cameron, it's not shy of talent behind the camera either, and that translates into a slice of very slick entertainment.

The visual style of the film is remarkable, it's dark and gorgeous and cool throughout, and the pacing works well. The runtime is almost two and a half hours, but it doesn't feel as if it is ever outstaying its welcome. Graeme Revell creates an effective soundtrack to accompany the visuals, viewers are kept very much aware of the urgency of the situation, and twists and turns, although a tad easy to spot for afficianados of this kind of film, are interspersed nicely in between the set-pieces.

But what really sets this apart is the main idea being exploited. Some elements may have dated, including the tech on display, but this takes the concept of being able to experience the sensations that someone else is having and gives it an extra, VERY dark, twist. The fact that it manages to do so without making the whole thing seem too grimy and unpalatable is testament to the skills of everyone involved.

It's also worth bearing in mind, not unlike the various episodes of Black Mirror, that Strange Days shows us what can happen to technology when it can indulge the more warped whims of human nature. Something worth bearing in mind every time we try out VR, scour the internet, or just use one of the 160 apps on our smartphones. It doesn't take a huge leap in AI to turn machines against us. It just takes another human being.

8/10

UK people can get this lovely bluray here.
Americans have this DVD, for the moment.

Is Spectre a Bond film that completely misunderstands Bond?

Unfortunately, what has set me back to the keyboard is a movie that has disappointed me. Well, not just disappointed me. Perhaps saying that it angered me would be closer to the truth. You see, many have decided to come out again in favour of James Bond, and many are heaping some great praise upon Spectre. And I, for the life of me, can't see how this is possible. From the perspective of a Bond fan, Spectre is a bad movie. It is, in my eyes, the worst instalment in the entire official series. And I've endured The Man With The Golden Gun.

For anyone interested, I have previously written about Bond movies here (Connery, with a hint of Lazenby), here (Moore), here (Dalton), here (Brosnan), here (Craig), and here (a couple of interesting movies that are never really considered "canon"). And I reviewed Skyfall here. I'm not linking to those reviews and articles to claim to be any kind of expert. I simply think that if you browse through those and share any of my taste then the following may be a bit easier to stomach. Otherwise, feel free to think of me as someone talking out of his posterior.

Now, although this won't be a full, standard movie review, I'd like to try to pinpoint a few aspects of Spectre that make it such a bad Bond movie. Let me try to highlight everything in, hmmmmmmm, 7 main points.

1) That opening. The opening sequence of Spectre has some great moments. In fact, up until a building collapses and Bond (Daniel Craig, once again totally at ease in the role) has to get to ground level, I was very happy. But then it simply reprises the opening minutes of Casino Royale. We've seen Bond do this before, keeping pace with a target through a busy, exotic locale. We've seen him do many things before, of course, but the familiarity of his drinking, his seduction of women and his one-liners are part of the appeal. Watching repetitive scenes, as opposed to repeated character traits, isn't the same thing. Then we have some great helicopter stunt work. Seriously . . . kudos to all involved. But was I the only person noticing one or two moments of green screen that were all-too-obvious? The 21st century equivalent of Roger Moore's stunt double taking up most of the screentime in his latter outings? The visuals were decidedly so-so, and a bit irritating in their incessant reminder of the events from the previous movies that have SHAPED our hero (don't you know), but I could have accepted them if they'd been accompanied by a decent song. Oh no. The worst Bond movie in the Bond-verse also has the worst Bond song. I don't think Sam Smith should ever be allowed to write jingles for breakfast cereals after his godawful slice of drabness put forward here.

2) The ladies. Bond has always been about the Bond girls as well as the man himself. And there was much talk about Monica Bellucci being a leading Bond girl. She is *gasp* 50. I love Monica Bellucci, and was looking forward to seeing her role in the movie. If anyone had told me that she was in it for about all of five minutes then the poor treatment she receives at the hands of the scriptwriters might have been easier to stomach. The other main Bond girl here is played by Lea Seydoux, who easily fares better than Bellucci. Sadly, the makers of the movie use her as a way to show a Bond developing a heart and feelings. You know, like he did in Casino Royale . . . . . . . . before events changed him into the figure we knew he had to become.

3) This is not a Mission: Impossible movie, but nobody told the writers that. Okay, Q (Ben Whishaw) is a younger man here than he ever was in the older movies, but we don't need an unnecessary scene putting him in some danger out in the field. We can watch Simon Pegg try to keep up with Tom Cruise for that kind of fish-out-of-water fun in an action spy franchise. And I know that the new M (Ralph Fiennes, who looks more and more like Leonard Rossiter with every performance he gives) has seen action in the field, but that doesn't make me want to watch him join in the battle either.

4) Stunt set-pieces are for the stunts and the gadgets. This is pretty much why every Bond movie exists. So it's weird to see a car chase occur in which Bond spends a large amount of the time speaking on the phone to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Or a fight sequence in which Bond faces off against a physically superior opponent (Dave Bautista) for no reason whatsoever. Seriously, you're supposed to think that there's always a reason for Bond and co. to be in physical danger, but the last 30-40 minutes contradict that, as it contradicts so many things.

5) Bond, as he is displayed onscreen, isn't the introspective type (bar occasional moments of brilliance, such as THAT final scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Whether by choice or necessity, he acts and he moves on. Sometimes the consequences aren't as good as expected, but the alternatives are often a hell of a lot worse. Not here, however. Oh no. This is a thoughtful Bond. A Bond who looks as if he wants a bit of a holiday. Which isn't what you really want from your number one international secret agent.

6) The villain(s). A good Bond movie can be made or broken by the villain. Christoph Waltz is on hand here, another reason to rejoice. Until you realise that he's given a character who is completely mishandled. The big speeches never feel powerful enough, the threat only gets specific in a strange, and ill-fitting, torture sequence, and his development from the start of the movie to the end is as laughable as it is predictable.

7) Can I fit my problems into only seven main points? Oh, oh, I think I can. The biggest problem with Spectre is one that almost occured in Skyfall. Director Sam Mendes and co. seem unable to decide on just what to do with their lead character. One minute they're tearing down his established world, allowing him to rise again from the ashes like some kind of 00-phoenix. The next they're trying to shoehorn in familiar elements that they either want to reinvent for the modern era or they're adding unwanted touches from other movies that were themselves influenced by Bond (the shadow of Christopher Nolan seems to be a problem here, yet again).

Bond CAN be serious (Licence To Kill remains one of the best in the series, and it's also one of the darkest). He CAN be silly (look at most of those Moore outings). He can be an entertaining mixture of the two (as has been the case with most of the Brosnan and Craig films). But he always has to ultimately be Bond, and everything else should stem from that. Don't try to make a movie that you then use to shape James Bond. Let James Bond shape the movie that you're making.

 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 

Ani-MAY-tion Month: Wallace And Gromit In The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit (2005)

Wallace and Gromit are two British characters, the former a human and the latter his dog, with a great love of cheese, and the two have been entertaining us in numerous short films for years now. Created by Nick Park, the big boss at Aardman Animation, they are, arguably, the best double-act from the UK since The Two Ronnies. Oh yes, they're THAT good, even if they're made of plasticine/clay and only move thanks to stop-motion animation. But not every great duo can make the transition from the small screen to the big screen.

There is, however, nothing to complain about here. This feature movie is a joy from start to finish. The plot sees our two main characters finding themselves a bit perturbed when local villagers have their greenhouses and vegetable plots ransacked. Wallace and Gromit, having offered security with their Anti-Pesto humane pest control service, have a lot of fingers pointed at them for their inability to deal with the situation, but this is a situation that nobody could have envisioned. As the title suggests, this is one veg-munching pest unlike any they have dealt with before.
There's also a potential love interest, in the shape of Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham Carter), and some rivalry from Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes), a man who believes that the best way to deal with pesky rabbits is just to shoot them all.

Directed by Steve Box and Nick Park, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Mark Burton and Bob Baker, Wallace And Gromit In The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit is, for me, practically perfect in every way. Every scene is so jam-packed with jokes and references to other movies that repeat viewings are essential, but nothing ever detracts from the main events that are put front and centre.

Peter Sallis returns to voice Wallace, a wise decision as the character just wouldn't seem the same with anyone else voicing the part, and he simply IS Wallace. Carter and Fiennes are both a lot of fun in very different ways, and Peter Kay gets to raise a smile or two as PC Mackintosh.

I could praise every single member of the voice cast, and I could quote over a hundred great lines from the script, and I could wax lyrical about the detailing and look of each scene, but that still wouldn't necessarily convey just how much I love this film. Because, as immature as it may seem, even just seeing bunnies floating around while caught in a humane piece of kit that sucks them up into a containment unit is enough to put a huge grin on my face.

It might be slightly cheesy at times, but it's always delightfully crackers.

10/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wallace-Gromit-Were-Rabbit-Special-Edition/dp/B000B83YWM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400087838&sr=8-1&keywords=wallace+and+gromit+curse+of+the+were+rabbit

The Prince Of Egypt (1998)

Be warned. I will be starting this review, as I sometimes do, with a bit of a ramble. But I do have a point. I sometimes use this blog to promote my personal views on subjects that I feel strongly about. Sometimes. The reasons I don't do it more often are that a) it's a MOVIE blog and b) I may often think I know what I'm talking about, but am wise enough to remember just how much I also don't know about any given subject. Having said that, one of my personal stances that I am happy to mention, but simply feel little need to go on about, is the fact that I'm an atheist. I have mentioned my lack of religious belief in other movie reviews, especially when the film being watched and reviewed is something with a very spiritual core, but it doesn't happen often because I don't think it really matters all that much if the movie succeeds in whatever it sets out to do. I also try not to offend people with religious beliefs because I love personal freedoms and the power to believe in anything as much as I loathe organised religion and what warped readings of ancient texts can do to certain, misguided, individuals.

Why do I need to say all this at the start of a review of an animated movie about the life of Moses? Do I need to have firm religious beliefs to enjoy this film? No, of course not. Not at all. Although it might help. The strange thing is that I have always loved the better-known biblical tales and the parables that I was taught as a young boy. I think that they're decent stories, often with a good moral to take away and think about them. Decent stories, from any source, should make for decent movies. Sadly, that's not the case here.

The life of Moses (voiced here by Val Kilmer) is an exciting one. It starts with the young boy being sent downriver in his baby basket to save him from slavery and/or death and develops into a tale that includes a burning bush, a bit of strife with Rameses (Ralph Fiennes), ten terrible plagues, the parting of the Red Sea and more.

Exciting stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. Which is why The Prince Of Egypt is so frustrating for most of its runtime. It's just far too dull. The animation is nice enough, and there are plenty of sequences full of great visuals showcasing a nice stylised take on ancient Egypt, and the vocal cast, including Sandra Bullock, Michelle Pfeiffer, Danny Glover, Steve Martin and Jeff Goldblum among many others, certainly doesn't lack star power. Sadly, the film takes these elements and does nothing with them. Songs are drab and unmemorable, and set-pieces never take off in the way that they should. There are moments when things seem about to lift up, then it just crumples once again.

Philip LaZebnik is the man responsible for the lifeless script, with additional material from Nicholas Meyer, and Brenda Chapman, Steve Hickner and Simon Wells are the directors failing to find any other ways to liven up the material. Having sat through this while feeling quite bored throughout, I can't imagine any kids ever being enthralled by it. Knowing how much I enjoyed these tales when I first learned of them as a youngster, that just emphasises what a failed opportunity this is.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Prince-Egypt-DVD-Kilmer/dp/B000059HL2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375655130&sr=8-1&keywords=the+prince+of+egypt

Coriolanus (2011)

Ralph Fiennes makes his directorial debut with this challenging film, an adaptation of one of Shakespeare's lesser-known plays (certainly lesser-known to those of us who only know the Bard's greatest hits, anyway). The fact that he has made such a fantastic end product just shows that he really needs to kick himself up the backside and get some more directorial credits under his belt.

Fiennes also takes on the central role of Caius Martius Coriolanus, a great soldier who doesn't care for the love or respect of the common people. He's a proud man, an honest man and someone not interested in the political game. This all becomes a bit of a problem when others try to get him to run for consul. Mainly to please his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), Caius tries to do his best, but when his disdain for the role becomes abundantly clear he becomes a hated figure, so hated, in fact, that he is banished from Rome. As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and so Caius ends up befriending Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler), his old enemy, and joining with him to march upon Rome.

There is a lot more to the story than what I've briefly outlined. The central trio may be Caius, his mother and his enemy, but there's also some meddling from Menenius (Brian Cox), serious scheming from Tribune Brutus (Paul Jesson) and Tribune Sicinius (James Nesbitt), some loving concern from the wife of Caius (Virgilia, played by Jessica Chastain) and protests from common folk such as those played by Lubna Azabal and Ashraf Barhom. John Kani plays General Cominius, yet another character more swayed by the political machine and opinion of the people than any direct action, and Jon Snow (yes, THAT Jon Snow) pops up as a TV anchorman to discuss the situation with other commentators.

Taking Shakespearean source material and giving it a bit of a modern update is nothing new, of course, but Fiennes decides here to aim for a nice middle ground that suits the text. There are guns, cars, TVs and much more signifying that this is a tale set in the modern age, but that all falls by the wayside when the camera focuses on the characters and what they have to say.

The cast are all very good, and an interesting mix. It's unsurprising to see what gravitas is brought to the table by Fiennes, Butler, Redgrave and Cox, for example, but Chastain holds her own very well indeed and Jesson and Nesbitt have fun with their roles. The dialogue that you expect to hear, adapted into screenplay form by John Logan, is a treat for the ears and the whole presentation tries to keep things fresh and dynamic, an aim in which it largely succeeds.

Sadly, I am not familiar with the source material so cannot comment on how faithful it all is to the original text, but I do think that this is a very worthy drama to be enjoyed by fans of the Bard and fans of quality acting displays. Give it a try to see how you react to it.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Coriolanus-Blu-ray-Ralph-Fiennes/dp/B006H10H2W/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1359127784&sr=1-2