‘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
‘The End of Oak Street’ was released in cinemas last week and is a survival horror film written and directed by David Robert Mitchell. It stars Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor as married couple Denise and Greg Platt who, along with their two teenage children Audrey and Brian, are transported back in time to the Jurassic Period after a freak atmospheric event swallows up their entire suburb.
At the time of writing, ‘The End of Oak Street’ has received mostly positive reviews, and box office sales are okay but not knocking it out of the park – perhaps this is understandable as both ‘Spiderman: Brand New Day’ and ‘The Odyssey’ have not yet finished their cinema runs.
I should also point out that this film is co-produced by Bad Robot, and therefore I suspect that J J Abrams would have played a major role in getting this project off the ground. Fifteen years ago, if I saw the Bad Robot brand or J J Abrams’ name attached to a movie or TV show – I would have been all over it! With a CV that included ‘Lost’, ‘Fringe’, ‘Mission: Impossible III’ and ‘Cloverfield’ to name just a few – it was understandable back in those days to get excited over anything produced by these guys. But this is definitely not the case anymore, with Abrams’ work in recent years dropping away considerably – and hitting rock bottom with the diabolical ‘The Rise of Skywalker.’
So, with David Robert Mitchell at the helm having only directed three films previously – the last of which was eight years ago – and with J J Abrams chiming in with some lens flare and ‘mystery boxes’, will ‘The End of Oak Street’ turn out to be alright?
Well, the short answer is yes.
‘The End of Oak Street’ pretty much delivers on what it has set out to achieve: – presenting a family-oriented science-fiction survival adventure, with a solid cast helped along by some crafty cinematography and a suspenseful soundtrack. The film is reasonably well-written, and the character development and background is set up neatly within the first ten minutes, which allows the story to quickly get to where it needs to go.
There are some clever visuals used in the early setup, such as an old Polaroid camera in one of the opening scenes that informs the audience of roughly when the story is set – and this is later confirmed to be nineteen-eighty-two. The timestamp is also further established by the playing of catchy pop songs from this era – which was a nice hit of nostalgia. It is also revealed that there is some marital trouble between Greg and Denise, which remains a constant undertone during the film – yet despite this added drama, the pacing remains smooth and consistent and does not get bogged down to any worrying degree. In fact, ‘The End of Oak Street’ cruises along and is fairly coherent: – giving the audience a solid story that runs its course all the way to a satisfying conclusion.
As far as the action is concerned, the dinosaurs were a constant threat and menace, and attacked anything that moved with ruthless savagery. Feathered velociraptor-type creatures and flying pterodactyls created the most havoc throughout the film, but the biggest villain was a larger spinosaurus monster that was constantly trying to eat the main characters. Not only would the Platt family have to survive against these aggressive foes, but also stay alive long enough to figure out a way back to their own time – and this is the basic premise of the movie.
To that end, ‘The End of Oak Street’ does all this very well.
However, there are a few weaker elements within that hinder what is a fairly good movie, making it fall short of becoming a top-shelf entry into the horror/adventure genre. In saying this, I accept that the film is a bit of escapism and in that sense it works very well, but there are a few scenes that spring up suddenly throughout that are nonsensical, and perhaps didn’t need to be there at all.
The first I will mention is when the neighbourhood bully literally jumps out of nowhere to settle a score with young Brian – deciding to beat him up even though dangerous dinosaurs were running rampant through the streets and tearing people to shreds. Surely the guy would have had more important things on his mind – such as staying alive? The sequence was pointless and illogical, and should have been left on the cutting room floor.
This point leads into another criticism I have of the story, where none of the neighbours even attempted to join forces in an effort to improve their chances of survival. I say this because the opening scene of the film showed the entire street getting together for a barbecue which established that everyone was close friends and got along very well. There was the initial panic with people trying to escape – which is granted – but surely there would have been a moment a day or two into this ordeal when the folks would have tried to reach out to their fellow residents.
Another moment that I found jarring was the dinosaur mating scene. No doubt this was put there to create a little levity, and might have worked as a ‘flash gag’ but it lingered on for a few minutes and showed the brontosaurus’ going at it from multiple angles. There was nothing lewd about it, for it comes across as a joke, but this did not work for me at all.
I have read other reviews that were a little more critical of ‘The End of Oak Street’, and these articles directed most of their angst toward the ‘girl-bossing.’ Look, we see this a lot these days and whilst some of the female bravado on show in this film was a little excessive, this did not bother me too much – and I’ve seen far worse in other movies. Personally, I thought that Ewan McGregor’s fake accent was more ridiculous and out-of-place than chicks kicking dinosaur butt!
I mentioned before that the film reached a satisfying conclusion, but in order to achieve this there was a ‘questionable’ time jump involved that I know many folks would describe as a plot hole. However, I did not see an issue here – and the paradox is consistent with J J Abrams and Bad Robot, as it is similar to the Spock/Kelvin time travel they used in ‘Star Trek‘ – and the co-existence of Spock Prime and the younger version of himself within the same dimension. Regardless of the theories and the science involved, I believe that some leeway can be given if it results in a happy ending and the good guys winning!
On a final note, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on other people’s observations of this film – for it had a ‘Cloverfield Universe’ feel to it, and perhaps there were a few clues within that I failed to notice. All the elements are there: – J J Abrams, time jumps and strange-looking creatures.
‘The End of Oak Street’ is a decent film that I enjoyed watching. Yes, I had a few gripes here and there, but it doesn’t take much away from the entertainment value – and I think most people who would go to watch this film would walk away reasonably satisfied.
I have not yet forgiven J J Abrams for his Star Wars debacle, and I don’t find Anne Hathaway physically intimidating and Ewan McGregor – despite working in Hollywood for decades – really needs to work on his American accent – but other than that, I’m giving this film a solid 7 out of 10!
‘The End of Oak Street’ is showing in cinemas now.
Screenshots and posters are courtesy of Bad Robot, Warner Bros Pictures and Jackson Pictures.
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.
‘The Odyssey’ is arguably the biggest film of 2026 and arrived in theatres last week, propelled by a fan-made tidal wave of speculation and expectation. With questionable casting decisions and using a modern interpretation of Homer’s ancient poem as inspiration, could Christopher Nolan’s most excessive film to date become a critical hit and smash box office records around the world?
Well, I visited the local cinema to find out for myself…
Firstly, I’m going to say that I enjoyed this film. I felt that it was respectful to the original story and it truly was a visual spectacle – like all of Nolan’s movies. Did I agree with the modern tones and interpretations? Not really – and I will touch on some of this later in the article – but nor was I bothered by such tweaks and changes.
Was it better than ‘Tenet?’ – Yes. Was it better than ‘Oppenheimer?’ – No.
Before I get into the review, I will mention the casting choices and the various performances delivered in this film. Whilst Matt Damon plays the lead role of Odysseus, the movie did have more of an ensemble feel to it and as a whole every actor played their part well. There were no standout performances as such; but if I had to choose one I would echo many other critics and say Samantha Morton as Circe.
Note: I have just stated that every actor in this film did a commendable job, so what I am about to write next is my honest opinion about the casting of both Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy and Elliot Page as the Greek soldier Sinon. I disagree with both – purely from a logical and believable point of view – and I question Christopher Nolan’s reasoning here for such odd casting decisions. But having now watched ‘The Odyssey’ where some context and rationale are offered, I can confirm that Nyong’o and Page were solid and not detrimental to the film in any way – but my original opinion still stands.
Now that the main casting issues are out of the way, I will stay on the topic of authenticity and realism as I shift my focus onto other aspects of the film where inconsistencies and the need to present a ‘modern take’ were difficult to ignore.
The word ‘verisimilitude’ has been thrown around a bit this week by those critical of the movie, with their various targets ranging from the Viking ship used in the film to inaccuracies with the armour worn by the soldiers. One could also add the diverse supporting cast, ranging from Asians to Indians and African-Americans seemingly wandering around Ancient Greece as if it were modern day Los Angeles. However, the most common criticism has been the dialogue, and I found that there were moments when the modern phrases came across as jarring and completely out-of-place. The other problem this caused was making every actor feel like they were playing a version of themselves – and I know other critics have pointed this out too – for it is a legitimate gripe, and once again calls into question some of the studio’s artistic directions.
But a film-maker should not be pulled up and criticised for minor things, and instead be allowed some creative leeway in order to setup an iconic payoff. For example, the screenshot below is Nolan through-and-through, and this is the scene where the gates of Troy are opened to reveal the hulking figure of Agamemnon wearing his menacing black armour while dozens of his soldiers rush past him into battle. But look closer and you will see the wafer-thin gates and less-than-imposing walls being hardly ‘impenetrable.’ In fact, there were sections of the wall that stood only around three metres high, and would probably collapse if a few blokes leaned hard enough against it. Yes – it’s not entirely accurate or realistic, but if the end result is what we see below then I’m happy to go with the flow!
It goes without saying that Christopher Nolan’s films are a visual feast, with incredible shots and amazing cinematography, so I don’t need to go into too much detail here – other than to say that ‘The Odyssey’ is an absolute spectacle. Nolan may have outdone himself here with the shooting locations, as some of the most breathtaking coastlines and beaches are a constant backdrop to the action – and there are distinct changes in the scenery whenever Odysseus’ crew land on a new island, for even the beaches are all vastly different from one place to the next. I believe a number of countries were used for filming; from Morocco to Sicily (Italy) – and from Greece to Scotland, and the results are first class.
Simply outstanding!
But there is a lot more to a movie than impressive visuals and mastery of the camera lens.
When a source material is so well-known and revered as Homer’s ‘The Odyssey’, one can choose to play it safe and present a simplistic, adventure-oriented feature and with modern technology be able to deliver a guaranteed cinematic masterpiece. However, you can also choose one of many interpretations of the same classic work and explore some deeper themes in order to create a new and wholesome take on the epic poem. In this case, Nolan has chosen the latter – basing his screenplay on numerous translations, but by all accounts leaning heavily into Emily Wilson’s 2017 version.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe that Nolan has remained true to the story for the most part.
Personally, I would have preferred a version that begins immediately after the fall of Troy, and runs in chronological order – remaining with Odysseus and his crew during their adventures, but also cutting back to Ithaca to show Penelope’s struggle with the suitors and the decline of the court without the King. Nolan’s film does all this, but instead uses ‘time jumps’ – both forward and backward – prompted by lines of dialogue that allow a clever and smooth transition between scenes. It is very well constructed and easy to follow, but this non-linear approach is where a lot of the modern themes and the constant narrative ofZeus’ Law are introduced – and I would suggest that the film was designed this way to accommodate these elements.
My main criticism of placing too much emphasis on these ideals – and they did waste a lot of time on hammering Zeus’ Law (essentially ‘be kind to strangers’) into us over and over again – is that a lot of great scenes from the poem were either omitted from the film or cut down completely. For instance, The Lotus Eaters are left out – but they merge these themes with Odysseus being held captive by Calypso (played by Charlize Theron) who feeds him the flowers to numb his memory. Also, the iconic Sirens encounter is over and done with in about two minutes – which was a shame, but it looked good, though.
Another pitfall with flashbacks and constantly moving away from the linear story line – regardless of how clever and seamless the transitions are – is the potential to create some pacing issues, and this is certainly the case here. It’s not the worst I’ve ever seen, and at no point did I feel bored or as though nothing was happening, but things did lag during the second half of the film – and if anything, some of the action sequences felt rushed through whilst dramatic dialogue-heavy scenes were allowed to run their course.
It’s an interesting dynamic that is the result of editing decisions during post-production, but this also indicates that there is probably a five-hour cut of ‘The Odyssey’ out there somewhere.
Before I give my final assessment and overall score, there are a few scenes that I would like to highlight on their own and share my thoughts on.
Firstly, the encounter with Cyclops takes place around half an hour into the film, and as a standalone sequence it was very well done. In the poem, Odysseus pulls a trick on the monster but this is not used here, and Christopher Nolan has already addressed this – with his logic behind the omission being reasonably sound. Regardless, this is still a great piece of theatre – and the appearance of Cyclops is both disgusting and disturbing. There is a decent amount of time spent in Cyclops’ cave – and the tension is allowed to build for just the right amount of time before the violent and terrifying climax.
The battle with the silver-armoured giants – known as Laestrygonians – was featured in the trailer as well as on a few movie posters, yet was a very short detour for Odysseus and his men that only took up a few minutes of screen time. The scene served little purpose other than to show where our hero lost most of his men, and was no more than an ill-fated side quest – yet the imagery was a large part of the film’s marketing.
Immediately after escaping the giant Laestrygonians, Odysseus and his depleted crew land on another beach which leads into the Circe scene. Most critics agree that this is a major highlight of the movie, with some calling this a genuine horror sequence – which would be a first for Nolan. I have to admit, the way this was put together was brilliant and as mentioned earlier, if there was a top performance in the film then it would have to be Samantha Morton as the cunning (man-hating) witch.
I also thought that the scene where the Trojans dragged the wooden horse from the beach toward the city walls was incredible: – visually superb and yet gritty and gut-wrenching!
So, there are some amazing things happening in ‘The Odyssey’, but it doesn’t quite come together as smoothly or consistently as it should have. It’s a little like a roller coaster ride, travelling at vastly different speeds: – lingering longer than it should in some places and then racing through important action sequences within a minute or two. Amongst these time jumps and transitions are some moments that are perfectly-paced such as the Cyclops cave and the bizarre encounter with Circe – and that makes this film a bit of an enigma and difficult to assess.
‘The Odyssey’ might be all over the place at times, but none of it is bad. There was not a single part of this movie that I didn’t appreciate – but I was disappointed when some important scenes felt rushed and were over quicker than I would have liked.
I have seen a few other reviews where the term ‘flawed masterpiece’ was used, and whilst I don’t want to steal anyone’s headlines – I have to go along with this verdict.
‘The Odyssey’ looked amazing and was very good for the most part. I won’t go as far as to call this film a tour-de-force, but perhaps it should have been. To me, I think the film-makers tried a little too hard to implant various emotional elements along with a little dose of modernity, and it didn’t quite stick the landing. If I was to be a little more critical of Nolan, I would suggest that he has tried to be too clever at times here – as was the case with ‘Tenet.’
Ultimately, I would have preferred a more mainstream, action-and-adventure-based telling of the story.
That being said, I really did enjoy the movie. But for the above reasons I cannot give it top marks – but there was enough craft and cinematic genius on show for me to give it a seven and a half out of ten.
‘The Odyssey’ is now showing at cinemas.
Screenshots are courtesy of Universal Pictures and Syncopy.
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.
To be fair, I went into this film already aware of the poor reviews and was hoping to find some positive aspects to write about, but alas there is very little to report here – but I will try my best. Considering that ‘Supergirl’ has only been out for a few days, I will carefully break down what I liked and disliked without giving any spoilers away.
Let’s start with Milly Alcock who was alright as the main character Supergirl/Kara Zor-El, considering all she could do was work with the script she was given. I suppose Jason Momoa was fine as Lobo – a character who was thrown in for good measure – and was having fun just being himself as he does in almost every film he stars in.
But the negative aspects of this movie far outweigh the positive.
On top of the list by a country mile is the writing. There is no excuse here as the screenplay was supposed to be adapted from an existing work – in this case ‘Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow‘ – so there should be plenty of source material available to play with. But the studio handing the writing responsibilities for a multi-million dollar film to someone (Ana Nogueira) with little to no previous credits is utter lunacy – and the end result is the basic slop that was served up on screen.
I will elaborate a little: – ‘Supergirl’ suffers primarily from bad writing, which is more careless and lazy than anything else. There is a working plot here; enough for the audience to understand what the characters are doing and why – but within the progression of the story you will find short cuts, loose ends and minor plot holes – and anyone who takes pride in their work would not allow such errors to remain in the final screenplay. I’m not sure the writer nor the producers actually know any better – and that in itself is unacceptable.
I will give two examples of plot weaknesses – but note **mild spoilers ahead**.
Point One: – Supergirl’s dog Krypto is shot with a poison dart by the main villain Krem, and given three days to live. As Krypto has the same powers as Supergirl, then surely the best option would be to take him to a yellow sun to be healed – as the story goes on to reveal that such a sun exists only a short bus ride away. This obvious solution is ignored because having to obtain the antidote within three days is what’s driving the main plot.
Point Two: – Supergirl’s colleague Ruthye is captured and locked up, and the prisoner in the adjoining cell is Lobo. How? The only explanation we are given by Lobo is that he was trapped. Again – how? Where and when? The contrived script made it so an all-powerful God-like immortal is somehow imprisoned – which was used as a setup for four-foot-tall Ruthye to beat up a hulking guard and then help Lobo escape. Yay! Mary Sue girl power!
And then there is the dialogue which is terrible! How are these scripts getting passed? They all sound the same: – trash-talking, ‘wannabe edgy and cool’ with adolescent humour and irreverent remarks being churned out through the entire film. I’m sick of it – in fact, you could take conversations or exchanges from any James Gunn production and insert them into another and it would probably match up!
I will also touch on the colours and tones used as an overall aesthetic. Whoever was in charge of the finished product really went over the top with the saturation, and it looked like someone had stuck some yellow or orange cellophane to the camera lens. This was clearly an artistic decision, but some brighter and sharper imagery – and less lens flare – might have helped the visuals a little bit.
With plans for a larger DC Universe, Superman himself pops up in a few scenes – enabling this film to connect into future projects. You know, I thought David Corenswet was pretty good as Superman – but why do they keep belittling him and taking the piss every time he appears on screen? That being said, Superman/Clark Kent was used sparingly – mostly to help set up the Kara backstory from Krypton to Argo City and then to Earth. These sequences actually played out alright – and were about the only thing the writers did reasonably well.
Of course I couldn’t write a ‘Supergirl’ review without adding the now-iconic screenshot above, before wrapping things up with my overall thoughts and final score.
I’m not a big comic book fan, but I enjoy the odd superhero movie – which sadly we have had a saturation of over the past twenty years. ‘Supergirl’ does not suffer from ‘superhero fatigue’, because this is just a poorly-made movie, with very few moments of passable enjoyment to take from the cinema. It’s grimy and unfunny – and some would argue that it is depressing – with no real jeopardy nor uplifting highlights for any of the main characters.
It’s just a boring, flat mess that never gets out of second gear – with tired special effects and a bizarre colour palette that made my eyes go funny. The final battle scene presented in slow-motion and freeze-frames was a total embarrassment – and who thought it was a good idea to show Supergirl sitting on the toilet earlier in the film? Real gnarly stuff, guys!
Honestly, how much longer is this crap going to go on for? Films like this should be bright and inspiring – not a degenerate and abrasive drunken mess. Is there anyone out there who can make a decent superhero movie, and not this recalcitrant slop that hacks like James Gunn keep serving up? If so, hand them the keys to the studio – right now!
I’m giving ‘Supergirl’ a three out of ten – with one of those points going to Milly Alcock because she’s a fellow Aussie. But even then, I’m being generous!
All posters and screenshots are courtesy of DC Studios and Warner Bros Pictures.
What can I say? I enjoyed this movie a lot more than I thought I would, but all the numbers are pointing toward ‘Masters of the Universe’ being a box office disaster – and that’s a real shame! This is not a perfect movie, but it was a ton of fun! In fact, the good far outweighs the bad in this film – so what has happened here?
The 2026 re-imagining of ‘Masters of the Universe’ is better than the 1987 version, but could it be that this is a long-forgotten franchise that either no one has heard of before, or very few people bother to remember? I think these factors played some part in this film’s less-than-favourable reception; not helped by the unexpected hits ‘Obsession’ and ‘Backrooms’ being released at the same time.
Personally, I enjoyed ‘Masters of the Universe’ all the way through – I was glued to the screen and there were many moments when I burst out laughing at some of the wacky scenes, which was in stark contrast to watching ‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ a week or so ago, for I almost nodded off a couple of times during that fizzer of a show.
But the box office doesn’t lie and on a budget of $170-200 million dollars, this He-Man reboot/adventure has crawled its way to only $60 million worldwide! The Mando movie on the other hand has been criticised for its underwhelming performance yet has managed to rake in $300 million – but this is still pretty bad for Star Wars.
I’m not going to do a full review here, but rather share a few thoughts as to why I liked ‘Masters of the Universe’ so much.
I’ll start by saying that this movie ticked a lot of boxes for me; the special effects were bright and sharp, the writing was a lot better than I expected – and above all it was just a rollicking two hours of entertainment. I thought the performances were pretty good too; especially Idris Elba as Man-at-Arms and (I can’t believe I’m about to write this) Jared Leto was awesome as Skeletor.
I do have to touch on some of the jokes and gags, as they constantly hit the mark throughout – some surprisingly so! There were times when the humour pushed the boundaries of a supposed family film; and I laughed aloud whenever the various nicknames Adam/He-Man had given to certain characters were brought up. The Dolph Lundgren cameo was priceless as well!
While I don’t have too many gripes with the movie overall, I do think there was a missed opportunity when the Queen song ‘Princes of the Universe’ was introduced during the final battle – the way it was cut and edited was strange as it omitted the iconic heavy guitar riff that would have been perfect for this pivotal moment.
There are no Oscars on the line here – which is maybe not a bad thing – so one needs to accept this movie for what it is and what it is intended to be: – just a loud, colourful, mindless-at-times thrill ride and charming dose of escapism that people of all ages can enjoy.
I walked out of the cinema with a smile on my face and was satisfied that I had got my money’s worth – which is something I rarely experience these days.
To that end, ‘Masters of the Universe’ exceeded my expectations, and I score it eight out of ten!
Posters and screenshots courtesy of Amazon MGM Studios and Sony Pictures
Disney Star Wars is in a sorry state – with most of their wounds self-inflicted through countless lightweight, woke and lore-breaking releases over the past decade. But it’s not as bad as some pundits constantly make out, as there were times when decent Star Wars moments have shone through within some of their less-than-average shows – such as the Baylan Skoll scenes in ‘Ahsoka’ and extensive parts of ‘Andor.’
I would rate ‘The Mandalorian’ Seasons One and Two as further examples of when Disney managed to get Star Wars just about right, but things would fall away sharply following the spin-off series ‘The Book of Boba Fett’ and this decline would continue into Season Three of ‘The Mandalorian.’
Which brings us around to ‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ – a project that Disney played so safe with, that in Blackjack terms this would be the equivalent of standing on twelve.
This is a film made for kids – almost exclusively so. It is harmless and there is nothing in there that anyone could take offense from – unless weak writing and inconsistent pacing are what grinds your gears.
Personally, I found myself zoning out a lot throughout the movie – particularly during the second half – as it felt like I had seen it all before and was watching a re-run – but again, what I saw wasn’t necessarily ‘bad’ but bored me nonetheless. I am aware of other reviews claiming that this film plays out like three average episodes of what should have been Season Four strung together and repackaged into a theatrical-length release – and I would have to agree with those comments.
But let’s dive a little (spoiler-free) into the movie itself…
‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ opens with a scene that sets the story up, where the New Republic have sent the heroic duo on an assignment to arrest an Imperial Warlord. This sequence is okay; lots of action with some lighter moments thrown in – before the main body of the movie plays out featuring Hutts, Stormtroopers and some characters from other Star Wars shows – as well as Sigourney Weaver.
The plot moves along quickly throughout the first act of the film, where Mando and Grogu set out to return Jabba the Hutt’s son Rotta – who has been enslaved as a gladiator – back to his family in exchange for information critical to the New Republic. I was still engaged with the adventure at this point, although the feeling that I had seen it all before was beginning to creep in…
For me, as an adult viewer and long-time Star Wars fan, I felt that the film dropped away from around the halfway point; grinding to a near halt for a good twenty minutes just before the finale. As for the ending itself – it consisted of little more than huge robots, some fighting and a squadron of X-Wings.
I did say this was going to be an honest review, so I will highlight a few things without writing an essay – trying my best to keep it brief and hopefully avoid any spoilers.
Firstly, the overall plot was serviceable, in that there were few inconsistencies – again, this would be the filmmakers playing it safe. In this current Star Wars climate, I will take that as a small win – remembering how shows like ‘The Acolyte’ and ‘Obi-Wan Kenobi’ were riddled with plot holes so large that you could drive a truck through them.
Secondly, the special effects looked a little off to me – and at times I thought I was watching an episode of ‘The Thunderbirds’ or ‘Space 1999’ with ships and puppets shaking about. I found it to be funny more than anything else – but was this the studio trying to limit production costs?
Also, I do have to touch on some of the finer aspects of the writing. Whilst already saying that the screenplay did its job to a degree; the writers’ refusal to take any risks or unveil any bold new ideas – and instead coat their beloved main characters in plot armour – is precisely why Star Wars fans are tuning out in their thousands. This seems to be a dynamic that Disney are unwilling to shake.
Finally, I must give a special shout out to Dave Filoni and his cameo in the film as a character called Trapper Wolf – yes, that’s what he named himself! Disney Star Wars is in safe hands with this guy, right?
Filoni jokes aside, as I stated earlier, ‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ was not a ‘bad’ film – but rather a ‘nothing’ film. For those who have been Star Wars fans for decades, this offering will be considered by most to be more Disney slop, and I can’t argue with them there – but it’s nowhere near the worst of what’s been served up in recent years.
I can only defend this below par movie on two fronts; the fact that it played it by the numbers and tried not to destroy any more Star Wars lore – and that kids would have loved the end product. Make no mistake; this is a children’s film – whether or not the producers intended it to be – and I will therefore mark it accordingly.
‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ gets five out of ten from me.
‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ is currently in cinemas. All screenshots courtesy of Disney and Lucasfilm.
It’s fair to say that monster movies have been well-represented in recent times, with Warner Bros’ ‘Monsterverse’ leading the way; supported by notable projects such as Apple TV’s ‘Monarch: Legacy of Monsters’ and the Japanese-made ‘Godzilla: Minus One.’
But back in 1976 we were given a blockbuster version of ‘King Kong’ that didn’t quite hit the heights it was expected to, and is rarely mentioned in terms of classic monster flicks. However, the film was remastered and released on Blu-ray a couple of years ago, which is more than enough incentive for me to go back and re-watch it for the first time in over two decades.
There was a lot of money thrown at this project back in the day, with a budget of around $US 24 million – and ‘King Kong’ would at least prove to be a commercial success by grossing just over $US 90 million at the box office. With Dino De Laurentiis producing and ‘The Towering Inferno’ director John Guillermin at the helm, hopes were high for this movie to be well-received critically, but things did not quite work out that way.
The cast was solid without featuring any major drawcards from that era, such as Charlton Heston or Robert Redford, preferring instead to have Charles Grodin, a young Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange (in her film debut) playing the lead characters. Bridges and Lange would go on to become established and award-winning actors over the following decades, so those who made the casting decisions for ‘King Kong’ might have been onto something.
Interestingly, the actor standing behind Jeff Bridges in the photo above is none other than John Lone, who like Jessica Lange was also making his screen debut. Unfortunately, we don’t see a lot of Lone in this film as he plays a small role as the cook on the exploration vessel.
Before getting into the plot and themes of the movie, I should take a moment to mention the musical score composed by the legendary John Barry. This should have been a slam dunk, however Barry’s compositions in this film are little more than serviceable – and well below his usual high standards. Any movie wanting to reach classic status must have a memorable score and powerful theme music – but ‘King Kong’ falls short in these disciplines.
On a positive note, ‘King Kong’ remains fairly true to the storyline of the 1933 original, and is at its best during the scenes on Kong’s Island. In fact, the sets and scale of this spectacle are worthy of high praise, with the native village and defensive wall perhaps at the top of the list. The special effects used for the fog were also of a high standard, and looked quite convincing.
When Kong eventually turns up, some of the effects start to show signs of faltering, but I suppose they would have stood up to scrutiny back in the mid-seventies. Most of the action sequences still look alright though, but I wasn’t entirely sold on the Kong costume during facial close-ups – while the larger mechanical hand prop used to pick up Dwan (Yes – Jessica Lange’s character is named ‘Dwan’ and not ‘Dawn’) looked authentic more often than not.
Of course, there is the infamous scene where Kong gets a little frisky with his female captive…and the look on the big guy’s face says it all!
Two-thirds of the way through the film and it’s shaping up fairly well. The early scenes on the boat setting up the plot are solid, and the movie wastes little time arriving at the uncharted island and the introduction of Kong is neither too soon nor too late. Where the action falls short is not having enough monsters on the island for Kong to fight – except for a giant snake – and these elements were prominent in both the 1933 version and Peter Jackson’s 2005 movie.
Which brings us to the final act: – King Kong in New York City.
Who thought wheeling out Kong inside a petrol bowser was a good idea?
I can understand the argument that the film-makers were highlighting commercialism and corporate greed, but it comes across as a little cheesy and over-the-top for me. However, the humiliation ritual that followed was very well executed – the juxtaposition of Kong wearing a crown whilst imprisoned in a cage is clever and effective.
Of course, we all know what happens next – and I think the final act of the film suffers from the contemporary setting; especially the replacement of the iconic Empire State Building with the World Trade Center – which unfortunately has not aged well.
There was a sequence within this final act that I could not get my head around, when the main characters were on the run from a rampaging Kong and Dwan (Jessica Lange) insists on stopping at a bar for a drink. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for moments of levity – but the timing of this was diabolical!
And the shot of Kong looking through the window when he finds them is just as outrageous! What a shocker! At this point, I was having fits of laughter.
But it’s not all bad, because some of the sequences with miniatures only moments earlier were quite impressive!
The film is struggling to hold it together at this point, but it is still an enjoyable spectacle. Unfortunately, the special effects throughout Kong’s battle with helicopters atop the World Trade Center are pushed well beyond their limits, and the scaling and perspective are terribly askew – see screenshot below.
In the lead-up to the rooftop showdown, there were a number of shots that appear to have been filmed inside one of the World Trade Center buildings, which now come across as sombre and haunting. I am also certain that the plaza where Kong falls to his death was filmed at the now-extinct complex.
Overall, I enjoyed the 1976 version of ‘King Kong’ having watched it through older and more critical eyes. I found it to be well-directed, neatly-paced and above all entertaining – not to mention keeping fairly true to the original story.
On the flip side, I don’t think the modern setting works; especially during the New York finale, but plays out reasonably well throughout most of the film. Some of the special effects shots were a little ordinary – and I’m still giggling over that window shot – but it worked most of the time, and I must keep in mind that the film was made in the nineteen-seventies.
‘King Kong’ certainly aimed high, and delivered on most of its promises, but ultimately fell short of being the classic movie the producers intended it to be. That being said, this film impressed me enough to give it seven out of ten!
All screenshots are courtesy of Dino De Laurentiis Corporation and Paramount Pictures.
‘Paranormal Farm’ is a found footage horror film released back in 2017, and is the brainchild of independent filmmaker Carl Medland. I recall watching this on Amazon Prime Video a few years ago, and finding the show quite entertaining, especially as Medland was using little more than the camera on his mobile phone to bring this story to life.
Having recently learned that there was a trilogy of ‘Paranormal Farm’ movies, I took it upon myself to watch all three films over consecutive nights – and to say I was amazed and enthralled would be an understatement!
Before I continue any further with my glowing appraisal, I should point out that there are a few contentious plot issues – some wide enough to drive a truck through – and I am of the view that these were created deliberately. In fact, I am certain that Carl Medland is taking the mickey out of us – especially throughout both sequels – and the outrageous scenes featuring some truly bizarre behaviour from off-beat secondary characters would ultimately help his films gain cult status.
Therefore, this is not going to be one of my usual reviews and I will not deep-dive too much into the pros and cons of each episode. The simple fact that Medland has gone out and created something unique and original – putting a lot of time, money and effort into it – should be respected and admired.
While I am throwing compliments about, a special mention must go out to the actors who played Lucy and Darren – the farming couple whose property is the setting for the paranormal investigation – as they both have a natural screen presence, with weird mannerisms that keep the audience guessing as to their true intentions. This is countered by the performance of Medland, who spends most of the film recording himself on his phone while attempting to solve the spooky mystery, and doing so in a ‘big city’ manner that often rubs the country folks the wrong way. This is a strong dynamic.
There are a few well-crafted moments where nefarious villains creep up on Medland while he is recording – especially throughout the first film – and these movies are at their strongest during these scenes. However, when the main character’s reaction is to simply squeal and jog away, often turning around and moving back in the direction of where the threat was coming from, it does take away from what was a brilliantly-executed and genuinely frightening encounter.
Is this done on purpose? I think so – and this brings me back to using the term ‘campy’ in the heading, for at times I thought I was watching George Michael running about being chased by monsters and goons. What an absolute masterclass!
As far as the story is concerned, the mystery is solved at the end of the third film where an overly drawn out – and diabolical – scene plays out between the major characters. In many ways, it was a fitting end to the series and I was sitting on my sofa in total bewilderment whilst all was being revealed.
Despite its flaws and shortcomings, I cannot really fault the ‘Paranormal Farm’ series as it delivered an entertaining and eye-opening experience across all three films. The rural location featured was an inspired choice, with the clever use of disturbing mannequins and quirky storage sheds filled with junk adding to the eerie vibes and complementing Medland’s sharp direction.
I must say, for a guy who put an entire project together using only his mobile phone and editing software, Carl Medland has proven himself to be a talented filmmaker. Although Medland brought his colleague Mumtaz into the second and third films, along with a larger camera, I would say the original ‘Paranormal Farm’ is by far the superior product.
The ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy is available to watch on YouTube, but note that age restrictions apply in some countries. In any case, I have attached the link below.
Screenshots and posters are courtesy of Myspotlight Independent and MY Production Ltd.
Sean Carslake 