Kinds of Kindness (2024)

I have become a recent fan of Yorgos Lanthimos. Ever since Poor Things, I have been watching whatever Lanthimos film I can find. Normally when a director makes a film, it would be a while before we get their next film. It might be a year or even a few years but with Lanthimos its been four months and apparently Lanthimos made this whilst they were in post production with Poor Things. This film is a trilogy (or triptych if you want to be fancy) of stories which all feature Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons, Willem Dafoe, Margaret Qualley, Hong Chau & Mamoudou Athie in different roles. The set up of the three stories is the same. Someone has something and they then lose it before reaching desperate levels to get it back. That's not a critiscm by the way but just a quick outline of the film because I think that would be the simplest way of putting it.

The first story is called "The Death of R.M.F" (by the way I don't think its explained what R.M.F stands for). This one is more Jesse Plemons than Dafoe and Stone (she doesn't come into it until the final act of the story) and Plemons is really good and as the story progresses Robert's desperation gets more and more obvious and to the point where he purposefully smashes his toe against a wall just to get Emma Stones' Rita to notice him. Dafoe's Raymond is good but is overbearing by deciding what Robert should and shouldn't do. When he is rejected by Robert he isn't angry or upset. He just accepts Robert's decision and moves on. There is something ever so unnerving about the fact that it never feels like its building up to a conclusion but the tension is slowly being increased and that made this story interesting. We don't learn why Raymond wants this guy driven into but I suppose the reason isn't the point. 

The second story is "R.M.F is Flying" and sees Plemons play a police officer called Daniel who at the story of the story is searching for his missing wife Liz (Stone) and after she returns he is convince she is not the real Liz. This is basically the Lanthimos version of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'  and Daniel is more and more convinced that Liz is a fake to the point that he asks her to cut off her thumb and serve it to him. After she does this it doesnt change anything and he then gets her to remove her liver and once she does that then for some reason the real Liz turns up and the story ends. I liked this one as well although the reason for the sudden return is never made clear (again like the previous story). There is a great moment when Daniel wants to watch a video with his friends and it turns out to be a sex video of the four of them in probably one of the most awkward moments I have seen in a film for quite sometime. Despite Stone being in this more than the first story, it is another Plemons led tale and he like the previous story he does a good job driving it. I thought that Emma Stone was very good as Liz who was trying to convince her husband that she is the real Liz (even though she wasn't). Two stories in a so far this very strange film is still maintaining my interest and the initial concern I had about the runtime of nearly three hours was starting to disappear.

The third and final story was "R.M.F. Eats a Sandwich" and see Emily (Stone) and Andrew (Plemons)  trying to find a woman who can bring people back from the dead. They are part of a cult where they don't drink the water and Emily sneaks off to see her estranged husband and daughter. When they go back to the cult its clear that there is some sort of sex thing going on and if you have watched any documentaries about cult, the actions of the leader aren't that far off. This is by far the best performance from everyone. Dafoe is great and this is a great performance from Stone who has sort of been on the sidelines for two-thirds of the movie before taking centre stage in this tale. There is a part of the story where Emily is raped by estranged husband and this leads to her being thrown out of the cult and I don't like watching sexual assault in films or TV so this slightly ruined the film for me. Also the fact that this leads to her being thrown out despite it not being her fault seemed like a forced plot point like they couldn't find a better way to get thrown out the group. After being thrown out of the group, Emily purposefully hurts a stray dog (another minus point for the film) and uses this to meet Rebecca who is the one that can bring back the dead leading to the infamous dance that is in the trailer. 

Overall this was a very good film. Not quite as good as Poor Things but as its a very different film it was always going to be a tough ask to be better. I thought that the performances were all good and each actor gave three very different but very good performances with no weak link. I think this is one of those films that people are either going to love or hate and I think that people need to see this sort of film because otherwise all we are going to get at the cinema are more superhero and franchise films. 

 

Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2 (2024)

The masks were much better than the first, the deaths are more creative (and more gory) and shows what can be achieved with a bigger budget. The characters that get killed off are nowhere near as annoying as they were in the first one and some effort has been made to make them seem somewhat interesting before they meet a grizzly ending.

Do we need another one? Probably not but I would be lying if I said that this is the worst horror film of the year. Its not even in the top 10 worst although sites like WhatCulture will probably include this because its easy to write this off as a terrible film but its not and shows how a sequel can be better than the one that came before it.

Plus whatever they paid Simon Callow, it was clearly only enough to get him for one day as he's not in it enough for my liking and is also the ONLY name that you will recognise.

Freud's Last Session (2023)

 I will be honest that normally I wouldn't have seen this film at the cinema but rather have waited for it to come out on streaming but its been a few weeks since my last visit (Furiosa) and it was just nice to see something and this seemed to be the only thing on that a) I hadn't seen and b) was on at a decent time. Normally early on a Saturday morning is ideal for me. This was one of those rare instances where I was the only one in the screening, that's the first time since 'A Haunting in Venice' back in September 2023. This tells of a possibly true story where Sigmund Freud (played by Anthony Hopkins) has a discussion/debate with C.S. Lewis. We know that this may not be true because the text at the very end says that Freud met up with an 'Oxford Don' but there was no name and it possibly could have been Lewis.

The film largely centres around religion and faith with Lewis being a believer and Freud not. There are some interesting scenes where they discuss the points in each case but after a while it did feel like a lot of talk about things that ultimately didn't really matter. What I was more interested in was the dynamic between Freud and Lewis because its an interesting one but I think that the dialogue could have been made easier to understand and also I think that the a better job could have been done to make the flashbacks seem a bit more obvious as it took a moment or two for me to realise this wasn't happening in 1939.  The fact that Freud had mouth cancer was one that because a recurring point throughout the film and I think that this is where Hopkins does his best work because Freud is clearly a smart person but his willingness to accept his fate is something that doesn't seem to happen too much in stories. Matthew Goode is also very good as C.S. Lewis, the what would now be called PTSD of Lewis' experiences in the First World War are briefly touched upon at various points throughout the film but it never makes Lewis seem like a lesser character but adds the discussion and make him a perfect person to discuss faith and god.

Despite this effectively being a two-hander, Sigmund's daughter Anna is also involved in the story although at a slight distance because there is the subplot about her dependency on her father and what sort of relationship the two of them have and when a friend of Sigmund's wants to date her even though he is 20 years older than her, it suggests that the relationship is at best odd. There is also what would have felt like a tacked on plot point if it weren't true and that Anna had feelings for someone else.

Freud's Last Session isn't a terrible film but an average one at best. This is the second Anthony Hopkins film I have seen at the cinema (One Life) and that is a better film although I do think that Freud is a more interesting character because he is a more complex one and the role in One Life was written to be a much more emotional character but it does show that even at 86 years of age, he is still capable of delivering strong and attention grabbing performances. 

Abigail (2024)

From the directors of ‘Ready or Not’ and ‘Scream 5’ (let’s just pretend the sixth one didn’t happen. The premise seemed to be a lot more like ‘Ready or Not’ so I was intrigued to see what was going to happen.

The film centres around a bunch of kidnappers who snatch a little girl after she has come home from dance class. The kidnappers are led by Lambert (played by Giancarlo Esposito) and also include Kathryn Newton as Sammy and Dan Stevens as Frank so it has a pretty good cast. All the gang seem to have enough to make their characters seem different and less generic. Joey (played by Melissa Barrera) is the one that seems to have something approaching compassion as she forms a motherly connection with Abigail.

After the kidnapping, they are left with Abigail in a massive country mansion with a fully stocked bar and time to kill. It’s at this stage things seems to just going through the motions until the inevitable happens and it comes when Joey and Abigail are bonding and Abigail apologies for what is going to happen. This is when the jump scares start and we are primed to start expecting things to go BANG quite loud. We start seeing camera angles which are supposed to draw our attention and sometimes it leads to something and sometimes it doesn’t.

I do like the house setting. It worked well in ‘Ready or Not’ because it means you have just the one location but many rooms to do scenes in so you don’t feel like you’re stuck in a restricted setting. It is quite sometime before one of them tries to think to leave but realise that they have been locked in. It seems a little odd that with so many in the group that not one of them thought to try the door sooner or question why so many need to stay at the house. From a plot point of view it makes sense because it keeps the characters in the house so they can be picked off later on. When things do start going crazy then that is when the fun starts.

Sadly the twist was spoilt for me because I saw a picture somewhere which showed that she was indeed a vampire. I think that this film would have worked a lot better had I not known the twist although there is a chance that I may have figured it out relatively quickly. What I didn’t or couldn’t have guessed is that Abigail came up with the plan to get them all together because they have all got a connection to Abigail’s family. At first I thought it was a bit of a lame twist but as the scene unfolded I found myself enjoying it and thinking it worked quite well.

The cast is a bit hit and miss. Dan Stevens is always dependable and the last time I saw him was in ‘Godzilla x Kong’ but despite this being a very different role from that film. There is still something likeable about him and that might be because of Stevens’ personality. There is something about Kathryn Newton that means her performances are wildly inconsistent. One minute she is really good in ‘Freaky’ and then she is just bland in ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantamania’. Here she is suppose to be a tattooed covered rebellious tech obsesses woman and I just didn’t buy it. I did think that Alisha Weir was very good as Abigail. The last thing I saw her in was ‘Wicked Little Letters’ earlier in the year and this is a very different performance and she is as impressive in this as she was that film. It can be hit and miss with child actors but Weir is in the good category.

It is hard to not keep referencing ‘Ready or Not’ with this film. Not just cause of the house but also because the gore is the same and there is another scene where a blonde finds herself in a gross pit. This one is arguably more grosser than in ‘Ready or Not’ but it’s still pretty bad and the humour is about the same. There is also the idea of what is happening involving a game. In ‘Ready or Not’ it’s the obvious game and in this it’s all just a game to amuse Abigail. There is also the extreme body explosions which were excellent in both films. They did seem a little cheap in ‘Ready or Not’ but that isn’t something that could be said here. It was gruesome but also seemed like it was done in camera. As the film progressed it did start resembling ‘Ready or Not’ more than it probably should have done.

It’s been a pretty weak year so far for horror with ‘Late Night with the Devil’ being the best so far but I have to admit that this film is much better. Whilst it might have a more straight forward narrative, the gore is pretty good. Not excessive but still nasty and it know what it is and does it well. I am always a fan of isolated settings and apart from the beginning, the house is a character on its own and they make good use of it. Abigail is a very good film and it would have been nice for this film to be released closer to Halloween.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)

I really enjoyed Fury Road when that came out in 2015. The film felt like being shouted at for two hours but not only was it a well directed film but it was well acted, a good plot and felt like a Mad Max film some 20 years after the last Mad Max film. It was strongly hinted in that film that there would be a Furiosa spin off but with each passing year that seemed less likely. Now, 9 years after Fury Road we finally get our Furiosa spin-off except we don’t have Charlize Theron but Anya Taylor-Joy who despite being a big fan, isn’t someone that I have considered for this role. 

This film tells how Furiosa became the Furiosa that we saw in Fury Road and this means that we get to see Immortan Joe again and he was one of the best things about Fury Road. It’s always a danger doing prequel stories because if a character appears and you know they are going to be in the original film then any peril or tension goes out of the window but thankfully they don’t really do that in this film. The main set up of the film is a civil war of sorts between Dementus and Immortan Joe but really is a vehicle to allow Furiosa to get revenge on Dementus. This leads to some really impressive action scenes which this franchise has become known for. I suppose the advantage of filming in Australia is that there are miles and miles of desert roads where you can do this sort of thing and not worry about running out of road.  

I mentioned how I wouldn’t have cast Anya Taylor-Joy as Furiosa and how wrong I would have been. She is amazing despite not having much to say (which before anyone starts typing a response is something I know that is common in Mad Max films). She is one of those people that can say a lot with just her eyes and every time she is on screen she manages to show broodiness and anger at….well mainly at Dementus really. Dementus is a very good character just as good as Immortan Joe was in Fury Road. The only real issue I have with the film is with Chris Hemsworth’s accent. Despite being Australian, he comes across as someone who isn’t Australian trying to do an Aussie accent. It’s what Dick van Dyke would have done if he hadn’t done a cockney accent in Mary Poppins. His performance is really good and when he finally meets his end, then I found myself satisfied with the story and thats because I was engaged with the story and the characters and Hemsworth deserves as much credit as George Miller. 

Speaking of George Miller, can we take a moment to appreciate how someone who is nearly 80 is producing a film to this standard where people half his age are more concerned with making films that have messages that feel like you're being lectured at. Miller knows what works and I honestly don’t know if he will direct any more Mad Max films but if he doesn't then this is a very good way to sign off. 

I really enjoyed Furiosa. I don’t think that its up there with Fury Road but I wasn't expecting it to be and I am fine with that. A film should really only be as good as it can be instead of being made to just be as good or better than what came before it in a particular franchise.

The Warriors (1979)

The Warriors is considered to be a cult classic directed by Walter Hill and sees a group of gangs attend a meeting helmed by Cyrus who is then shot dead and his murdered is falsely accused to be a member of The Warriors and the rest of the film sees the gang try and get back to Coney Island whilst avoiding the gangs and the cops.

Its a simple premise and it’s effectively done. This was made at just the right time. The streets look run down and probably required little to no dressing up in the same way that ‘Escape from New York’ did. The incidental music was excellent and added to the atmosphere of the film. There is something about music from this period that I feel is superb.

The gang’s are a bit cartoonish but I think that its probably an attempt to not make the film feel too gritty and off putting. There are several gangs that are trying to stop the Warriors from getting home and that includes the Orphans who are so far down the L chain of importance they weren’t invited to the meeting. Then there were the Baseball Furies who for some reason had face paint but seemed to be effective up to a point. Then there were Roller skating gang and that leads to what I think is the best fight in the movie which takes place in the toilets and I think that due to the confined nature of the room, its more fun. 

The film’s not perfect and its mainly because of the decisions that the gangs make. I think there are times when they clearly decide to make stupid decisions. Ajax deciding to chat up a woman on a bench in the middle of the night all alone does not ring alarm bells and to add the fact they are supposedly on the run does make him being caught by the police to be the thing he deserves. Also when the sub members come across the Lizzies and go back to their apartment for a party and they seem to have forgotten that they people are on the run and a group of women doesn't ring any alarm bells but mercifully one of them does and they are able to get out alive.

I really liked this film. It was one of those films that people talked about as being a great film and I was always meaning to watch it but when a showing appeared then I had to take advantage of this and I was glad I did. I thought the central performances were really good, the directing was equally as good and the soundtrack was amazing and made me go out and buy it. The Warriors is every bit as good as people say it is.

Transformers: 40th Anniversary Event (2024)

I learnt a valuable lesson with this ‘film’ and that is to make sure I read the title and synopsis to see what I am buying. I bought the ticket thinking that I was watching the 1986 animated movie, having never seen it on the big screen. What I got was the four episode first series that aired in 1984. ‘More Than Meets the Eye Parts 1-3’ and ‘Transport to Oblivion’.

The first episode was different to the rest in that they went to the trouble of bringing back all the surviving original cast members and had them read the script on one side of the screen and showed the episode on the left. It was quite fun seeing the actors read the same lines that they did 40 years ago. Once that episode was over the rest of the story was told and this was slightly distracting because the image isn't the full screen. It was slightly reduced and also there was a constant caption explaining the episode name and title number. 

Once I got over the bitter disappointment of this not being the 1986 movie, I actually enjoyed the experience. There were about a dozen people in the theatre and I would be surprised if I was the only one that made this mistake.