‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ is the second feature film from writer/director Andrew Patterson, and stars Matthew McConaughey as the titular character, with a solid supporting cast featuring Kurt Russell, Jake Horowitz and newcomer Angelina LookingGlass.
I’ve been looking forward to watching this film – ever since it was announced a couple of years back – as I really enjoyed Patterson’s debut movie ‘The Vast of Night’, which was a small budget production that was cleverly-written and masterfully shot. After a lengthy production process hindered by strikes and some creative issues, ‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ was finally given a theatrical release earlier this month, much to my great delight.
But here’s the thing: I suspect that this movie won’t go gangbusters in cinemas, but instead will find most of its audience on a streaming service between now and the end of the year. Therefore I am happy to offer an honest review of this film, but I will keep things short and sweet as I don’t want to give too much of the story away.
I will start by saying that Matthew McConaughey is on top of his game with his portrayal of Amziah King, who is a man best described as the pillar of his rural Oklahoma town. Not long into the film we are introduced to young Kateri – played by Angelina LookingGlass – who by chance stumbles her way back into Amziah’s life, having once been under his foster care when she was a younger girl. Here I will point out that the father-and-daughter chemistry between these two actors is incredible.
Whilst the film places a heavy focus on Amziah and Kateri, it also manages to expand seamlessly to bring the entire community into the fold; and through the townsfolk’s love of bluegrass music and ‘potlucks’ the audience is able to connect with these people and the manner in which they go about their daily lives. From the opening musical jam at the drive-in burger joint, to an outrageously weird accident scene in the honey factory, and then onto Amziah’s mentoring of Kateri and his way of welcoming her into the community – the first half of this movie is truly something special.
But then the main focus of the film shifts dramatically at the halfway mark, and having presented such a feel-good and inspirational story up to that point, it was always going to be difficult to maintain those high standards after turning everything upside-down. To be fair, the movie does play out quite well through to the end, with some eye-catching sequences and a real sense of the community all coming together for the greater good, but there is a feeling of lopsidedness to the story-telling that I just could not shake. Don’t get me wrong: it’s still a great film.
To date, ‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ has received very good reviews, and for the most part I don’t disagree there. It is a very enjoyable movie, but it is not the classic that some people are claiming it to be. However, this film is certainly unique and gives us an amazing snapshot of rural America, and is a real stand out for the way it presents the characters and connects the audience to them.
Again, I apologise for being so vague in this review, but I honestly don’t want to tarnish anyone’s enjoyment of this film by giving spoilers away. I don’t know what else to say other than I am still thinking about this movie a couple of days after watching it – and I can’t get some of the catchy bluegrass tunes out of my head! High praise indeed.
I would certainly recommend ‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ – happily giving it a score of eight out of ten – and I also suggest that you check out Andrew Patterson’s other movie ‘The Vast of Night.’
Screenshots and photos courtesy of Black Bear Pictures, Heyday Films and GED Media
Having previously written a review for the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy – a series of independent horror/documentary films by British actor and director Carl Medland – I was given the opportunity to share my thoughts on his latest supernatural entry: – ‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting.’
‘Hollywood Haunting’ has only just been released on Amazon Prime Video, but at the time of writing is not yet available in the UK, so I will keep this article spoiler-free as best I can – but will put a warning in places where I may delve into plot areas and potential giveaways.
So, let’s get into it…
From the opening shot panning alongside the Hollywood Reservoir with the city skyline in the distance, complemented by haunting theme music – I knew immediately that this was a major step-up in presentation when compared to the previous films.
Medland then wastes little time in setting up the story and introducing us to married couple Arthur and Daniel – who are experiencing some paranormal issues in and around their spacious home, and have reached out to Carl to help them with their otherworldly troubles. Of course, this challenge is accepted and Carl – along with cameraman Taz – fly to Los Angeles to hopefully sort things out.
Side note: I can’t get my head around the fact that Arthur – on the left in the screenshot above – is ninety-two years old! The guy looks great and is both nimble and mentally sharp. What a legend!
One of the things that impressed me about the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy – particularly the first film – was Medland’s talent in making the location come alive and become a real part of the movie. That creepy farm and the way it was captured and presented on screen was a credit to the film-makers, but on this occasion we have almost the opposite as far as the setting is concerned: – a multi-million dollar house in the Hollywood Hills.
So does this dynamic work?
The short answer is ‘yes’ – for this amazing home plays a huge part in the film – but in a very different way to how the farm was used in the previous entries. I will go into this in a little more detail later, as it involves the plot and tone of the movie, but without spoiling anything I would say that this incredible location is embraced and shown-off to its fullest here; immersing the audience into every scene that was filmed within.
The main positive that stood out for me with ‘Hollywood Haunting’ was the writing – in particular the tightness of the script – which to be honest I found surprising, for I was expecting some inconsistencies here and there. A huge effort has been made by Medland to make this film as credible and serious as possible, and this comes across evidently with both the plot and pacing of the movie.
Of course, the downside of this is that a lot of the goofiness and quirkiness of the first three films are gone or have been reduced significantly – as well as the cheap jump scares – all of which I enjoyed personally, but I completely understand the direction in which this film has taken.
It’s not just the storyline and creative elements that have improved so dramatically, for the camerawork has also stepped up a level or two – and perhaps more importantly so too has the editing – for this film looked good and the transitions were slick. What we end up with is a well-paced movie that does not fall into some of the traps that its predecessors did – but in order to explore this a little deeper, there may be mild spoilers ahead…
Here is an example of good pacing: – there is a sequence in the film where Carl is given a tour of Hollywood by his hosts, and they visit the filming locations for ‘Halloween’ and ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’ – which was an interesting and relatable tangent. What impressed me here was that we did not linger for long at these iconic places, and the focus of the film quickly shifted back onto the paranormal investigation at the house. I felt there was a concerted effort when it came to editing the film to not allow these scenes – as good as they were – to drag and take the audience’s attention away from the main plot.
Further to this point, ‘Hollywood Haunting’ has a smooth running time of eighty-five minutes, and pretty much does everything it needs to do within this time frame. I will mention the pacing again here, and say that the plot purred along nicely and there were no moments of lag nor the story being bogged down in dialogue-heavy scenes. In fact, the improvements in these areas are so great that this feels like a standalone film when compared to the farm trilogy.
*** POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD ***
Going by what I have already written, it can be safely ascertained that I enjoyed ‘Hollywood Haunting’, and considered it to be technically superior to the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy. The step-up in quality and execution is evident – and I’m going to give this film a very good score.
But that being said, this is a very different movie to what we experienced with the farm trilogy. Medland has clearly moved away from in-your-face horror and cheesy stunts to instead present a very mature and grounded story where the supernatural elements exist alongside the emotional tale of the main characters – particularly the younger partner Daniel. We still get to see Carl doing his clairvoyant things, and Taz is back behind the camera – and the documentary style of filming is consistent with their previous work, but a drastic change in scenery has no doubt brought about a new approach.
I’ll be honest here and say that I enjoyed the first ‘Paranormal Farm’ movie more. This is of course my own personal view, and I base this solely on the fact that I had a lot more fun with it. However, when I take a step back and compare both projects from a film-making perspective, it is clear that ‘Hollywood Haunting’ is a far more polished product.
As I mentioned earlier, the strength and consistency of the writing is to be commended, and the screenplay managed to avoid plot holes and incoherent narratives – which is a rare feat these days. For instance, the crawlspace in the mansion was mentioned very early in the film as a potential hotspot for the paranormal activity – and the film continued on for some time without referring back to it. However, this creepy part of the house was eventually addressed – and not conveniently forgotten like a J J Abrams plot device – when Carl and Taz returned to check it out later on and didn’t really find anything there. This may sound like a minor or insignificant observation – but I assure you it is not – for how many Hollywood and Netflix movies are riddled with lazy writing when setting up an early hook only to never mention it again?
I also thought the references to the water were a clever touch; forming a connection between the reservoir lake and the house – and it therefore made sense that the most ‘violent’ supernatural attacks took place in the swimming pool. This is logical writing.
But I can’t write a proper review of ‘Hollywood Haunting’ without mentioning the strong LGBTQ themes throughout the movie. Clearly these are talking points that are very near and dear to Carl Medland – and the message he incorporates into his script is both valid and relevant. For what it is worth, these issues and ideas are presented very well in the finished product; it’s just that they don’t always resonate as strongly with some people as they do with others – and if you play your hand too hard you risk isolating part of your audience.
There was only one moment in the film when I thought it came close to doing just that: – during the discussion around the table near the end of the movie – right after the mystery was solved. To me, this exchange felt forced and out of place – with the dialogue a little jarring and it was the only part of the film that struck me this way, but to be fair – just when I thought it was about to get a little preachy and continue for a while longer, the scene did cut and move on.
But this is a film driven by raw human emotions, with the paranormal and spiritual elements serving as a lesser theme – but still an important part of the storytelling. There is a lot of dramatic weight here; from the tragic tale of the restless entity, to the great losses and difficulties suffered over the years by the couple living in the house. This is heavy stuff – a long way from watching a guy being chased by clowns on a farm – which is perhaps the best way of describing just how far Carl Medland has come as a film maker.
Before I give ‘Hollywood Haunting’ a final score, I must take into consideration that Medland and his team were working with a small budget – with very little equipment and no special effects department or a team of writers to fall back on. There are no ‘professional’ actors on show either – but everyone who starred in the film really stepped up to the plate, and this is important to note.
As I’ve already mentioned, the solid writing and sharp editing are two of this film’s greatest strengths – but in some ways it is the location that steals the show. The house on top of the hill overlooking the reservoir was an inspired choice, and the interior scenes were executed so well – particularly the many continuous shots gliding through from one luxurious room to the next. The expensive decor of the home leans in to the serious tones of the movie, and gives the story a grounded base – and the small library where a few scenes were filmed looked amazing.
And I must point out that I loved seeing Bill O’Reilly’s book ‘Confronting The Presidents’ featuring prominently on one of the bookshelves. I bet it belonged to Arthur.
‘Hollywood Haunting’ is a good, solid film – and those who can connect personally with the issues and messages within would definitely say it was a great film. Carl Medland has shelved the outrageous antics of the farm trilogy and deftly shifted the supernatural tones and themes into a more serious and firmly-based presentation. The emotional undercurrents that were crafted into the film – relationships, identity, acceptance, love and loss – will resonate deeply with a lot of people.
But for me personally – being a typical Aussie bloke looking for some crazy action and a few laughs – I did miss some of the mucking about and diabolical storylines seen in the farm movies. However, I watched ‘Hollywood Haunting’ all the way through and enjoyed it – and hopefully this will lead in to future installments of the ‘Paranormal’ series!
‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ gets four stars out of five from me!
‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ is available to rent or buy on Amazon Prime Video.
Photos and screenshots are courtesy of MY Production Limited and MY Spotlight Independent.
This film was an interesting one for me personally, as I fondly recall the boxing career of Prince Naseem Hamed from almost thirty years ago – often buying his fights on pay-per-view and loving his extravagant ring entrances, sharp wit and outrageous antics.
This was always going to be a difficult movie to get right, as Hamed was a larger-than-life character whose one-liners and Ali-like cockiness would be near-impossible to replicate. However, the filmmakers gave it their best shot – but did they pull it off?
But before I answer that question, let’s take a quick look at the real Prince Naseem Hamed…
Hamed hails from Sheffield in the UK and is the son of Yemeni migrants. He took up boxing at a very young age, and as a teenager began plowing his way through the British flyweight ranks before moving up to bantamweight and claiming the European title at the age of twenty.
He won the WBO world featherweight title from Steve Robinson in 1995 – putting on one of the most entertaining displays ever seen in a boxing ring – and would successfully defend the title fifteen times over the next five years. Hamed would also claim both the WBC and IBF belts during this winning run, and by the late nineteen-nineties had well and truly cracked the US market.
So, let’s move on to the film and break down what worked and what did not.
Let’s start with the main premise of ‘Giant’ – that being the relationship between Hamed and his mentor and long-time trainer Brendan Ingle. In the film, Ingle is played by Pierce Brosnan whilst Amir El-Masry is given the difficult job of bringing ‘The Prince’ to the big screen – and both actors do a pretty good job.
For me, there are no complaints about any of the performances throughout the movie; and El-Masry had a lot of Hamed’s quirks and mannerisms spot on – but physically I don’t think he was quite there – he was close, though.
Another great casting choice was Toby Stephens as boxing promoter Frank Warren – and James Bond aficionados like myself had a field day with this one; seeing him and Brosnan together again on-screen more than twenty years after ‘Die Another Day.‘
Pacing-wise, ‘Giant’ does a reasonable job; beginning with Hamed as a seven-year-old joining Ingle’s gym and within a short period taking us to when ‘Naz’ becomes world champion in his early twenties. None of the essential character-building was skimmed over in the earlier parts of the film, but I felt that a lot of great moments throughout Hamed’s career were overlooked as the story progressed. Perhaps a mid-movie montage – like the one at the beginning of ‘Rocky III’ – may have worked better in highlighting just how many good fighters Hamed knocked out on his journey.
For instance, I remember the Tom ‘Boom Boom’ Johnson fight being a huge event but it was not mentioned in the film, and most of Hamed’s later contests – such as Vasquez, McCullough, Ingle and Sanchez – were also passed over. I felt this was a missed opportunity as Hamed was becoming sloppier in these bouts leading up to the infamous defeat to Marco Antonio Barrera, which ultimately ended Naz’s career. Again, could there have been a montage inserted at this point hinting that Hamed’s performances were dropping?
There were moments in this film that I did not like, perhaps because I was such a fan of Hamed back in the day. Whilst I was not privy to what happened behind the scenes in real life, I found the many moments of disrespect and rudeness – even belittlement at times – directed at Ingle by both Naseem and his brother Riath during the film to be hard to swallow. Maybe it’s true – who knows? But from what I remember seeing in dozens of Naz’s fights and watching countless interviews and documentaries involving all parties – I’m happy to write this off as a little creative screenwriting.
I still didn’t like it, as I thought it was overplayed – and this was a major bummer for me.
Despite some good performances and decent fight sequences, ‘Giant’ failed to live up to the great movie it could have been. In saying that – and to be fair – I think that bringing Naseem Hamed’s story to the big screen was always going to be a challenge; and a near-impossible task to impress those who followed Naz’s amazing career all those years ago.
Perhaps this was why the film zeroed in on the relationship between Hamed and Ingle – amplifying the tension and drama – before taking us into the falling out between the pair and Naz’s loss to Barrera. Personally, I think the movie would have worked better focusing more on the highs, with a lot more action inside the ring, than to be as Brendan Ingle-centric as it was; especially toward the end of the film. To be honest, things did get a bit depressing during the final half hour, but the backstage scene between the main characters was a nice touch.
It still should have been a lot more upbeat and fun though.
‘Giant’ has its moments – and there are some really good things happening in the film. But ultimately this movie suffers from taking a true underdog story – that a lot of people my age still have fond memories toward – and dumping a bucket of ice over it.
It’s a decent movie that could have been a classic – and in my view would have worked better as an out-and-out sports comedy rather than a light drama.
‘Giant’ just did enough to get a pass mark from me, so I give it six out of ten.
Photos and screenshots are from various online sources; including Balboa Productions, AGC Studios, Tea Shop Productions and White Star Productions.
‘Die Another Day’ screenshot courtesy of Eon Productions.
An out-of-shape middle-aged leading man takes on sword-wielding Satanic priests, demons, gun-toting villains and more in this 1991 horror/action thriller!
Written, directed by and starring Steve Barkett (who sadly passed away in 2023), this feature has all the hallmarks of a vanity project – re Neil Breen or John De Hart – but turns out to be a pretty solid flick. One simply needs to see beyond the flaws of this ambitious low-budget film to be able to enjoy the spectacle that it truly is.
Barkett stars as Richard Flynn, who while working as a cop, enters through a portal into Hell to rescue his ex-girlfriend’s baby son before he is sacrificed by devil worshippers. The film then skips twenty years to when Flynn is now a private eye, and is forced to battle the evil acolytes of Satan once again!
Barkett clearly considers himself to be an action man, and his screenplay and direction suggests as much, as he is constantly killing bad guys and romancing women way out of his league. However, he delivers a lot of tongue-in-cheek comments and one-liners, hinting that he is aware of his physical shortcomings, and decides to run with it anyway. What this does is bring a lot of charm and character to the film, and you end up really liking the guy and cheering him on.
The soundtrack to this movie – from composer John Morgan – is quite good, from the opening theme to the catchy incidental music featured throughout the film. I have watched bigger – and supposedly better – productions whose musical scores were nowhere near as memorable as this effort.
The special effects were decent in places, especially the modelling of the hellish caves and wooden bridges and platforms within the underground labyrinth. However, the stop-start animation that brought the main demon to life was a bit ‘how ya going’, as we say in Australia. Perhaps ‘questionable’ might be a more widely-recognised term, but you can appreciate what the film-makers were trying to do.
As far as action goes, ‘Empire of the Dark’ delivers the goods. There is an endless supply of hooded evil disciples trying to kill our hero, who fights them all off with either a gun or a sword, while less-than-gracefully executing moves that are awkward and sluggish yet somehow appear on screen as poetry in slow-motion. It’s comedy through and through, and Steve Barkett is right on point here; really hamming things up and breaking the fourth wall on at least one occasion.
‘Empire of the Dark’ has a 4.8 rating out of 10 at IMDB, and I think this is just about right. This is not a great movie, especially with the poor acting and ridiculous plot, but nor is it a complete dud. This film is watchable and quite entertaining, and as mentioned earlier it has a certain charm – or affability – that gets it across the line.
It’s a solid 3 out of 5 from me. Yes, it’s a ‘bad’ movie but it’s one you can laugh along with. I also think it’s a shame we didn’t see Steve Barkett in more mainstream movies over the years.
There was an episode of ‘So Bad It’s Good’ on YouTube a few years back, where they reviewed this movie and seemingly enjoyed it as well. It’s worth watching, so I’ve added the link below.
But if you are feeling a little more adventurous, the entire film is also available on YouTube. I’m not sure if the link will work due to age restrictions, but it is provided below – courtesy of Jacohsc Films YouTube Channel.
Screenshots courtesy of the Nautilus Film Company.
I will put this out there right away; this film was panned by critics and seriously bombed at the box office when it was released in 1998.
Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon, Resident Evil), the movie is based around the genetically modified – but ageing – futuristic soldier Sgt Todd 3465 (played by Russell) who is literally dumped like unwanted garbage onto a distant planet inhabited by scavengers and refugees.
I thought the film was okay when I first watched it around twenty-five years ago. The cast was pretty good – with Gary Busey and Jason Isaacs starring alongside Russell – and the special effects and battle scenes were more-than-passable.
Kurt Russell was in amazing shape for this film, as the requirements of his character dictated. Over his career, he would have been in decent condition for some of his roles – Snake Plissken in ‘Escape From New York’ springs to mind – but his physique in this movie is on another level. Check out the screenshots below.
But perhaps what is most intriguing about ‘Soldier’ are the references to ‘Blade Runner’, posing the question: – Are these two films set in the same cinematic universe?
I know this discussion is old hat for science-fiction aficionados, but I shall continue to present some evidence for those unaware of the possible connection.
The first thing I will point out is that David Peoples – the writer of ‘Soldier’ – also co-wrote the screenplay for ‘Blade Runner’. With that in mind, let’s move on to the film itself and see where the crossovers take place.
If you follow the arrows in the above capture you will note ‘Nexus’, ‘Tannhauser Gate’ and ‘Shoulder of Orion’ – and for most sci-fi fans, there is no explanation required here.
But for those unaware; the term ‘Nexus’ is used in ‘Blade Runner’ to categorise a series of replicants and the two places named are mentioned in Roy Batty’s famous monologue at the end of the film – which is one of the greatest passages in cinema history.
In this screenshot, you can see what looks like a ‘spinner’ from ‘Blade Runner’ among the rest of the garbage on the planet Arcadia 234.
There is also a conversation that takes place between the two settlers Mace and Sandra (played by Sean Pertwee and Connie Nielsen) who shelter Sgt Todd in their home. Once again, ‘Tannhauser Gate’ is mentioned.
However, if you once again look at Todd’s military record and focus on where the arrow is, you will see four references to characters Kurt Russell has played in other movies. In my opinion, this comedic touch all but removes any seriousness with the connections to ‘Blade Runner’.
For the record, and for those who aren’t movie buffs, I will explain exactly where these tongue-in-cheek commendation names originated from: – Russell played Gabriel Cash in ‘Tango and Cash’, Snake Plissken in ‘Escape from New York’ and ‘Escape from LA’, Jack O’Neil in ‘Stargate’, and R. J MacReady in ‘The Thing’ (but spelled incorrectly in the screenshot).
In one last piece of trivia regarding ‘Soldier’ – Kurt Russell’s son Wyatt played the twelve-year-old version of Todd 3465 in the movie.
My understanding is that ‘Soldier’ has become a little more appreciated over the years, which is good to know as it is a fairly solid sci-fi flick – and definitely worth watching.
It’s good value just for Kurt Russell alone, but looking back I have to say that this movie has more of a ‘Pitch Black’ or ‘Riddick’ vibe to it – and not so much ‘Blade Runner’.
As far as the action sequences are concerned, the combat scenes, firefights and explosions are right up there – a lot better than what we see today and less reliant on CGI effects.
I would have given this film a solid pass mark when it first came out, but now I’ve upped the score to a 3.5 out of 5.
See the official trailer below, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailers YouTube Channel.
Screenshots and photos courtesy of Morgan Creek Productions and People.com
Sean Carslake 