Wednesday, 30 July 2025

OUT NOW: F1 (Joseph Kosinski, 2025)

With his star racer (Damson Idris) and his team in trouble, a flailing owner (Javier Bardem) recruits a veteran ex-racer (Brad Pitt) to give them the edge they need…



There is a part of me that wants to love F1. This feels like the kind of movie I would go watch in the nineties with my parents.


Right from the first shot, a sweeping wide descending from the heavens toward a racing track, I was in. 


The moment the title card hit, bolstered by Hans Zimmer’s title theme, I was in love.


I do not know anything about Formula One. I never cared about cars.


As sheer spectacle, this movie hooked me.


Kind of like Kosinski’s Top Gun: Maverick, this movie makes physical human endeavour and incredibly dangerous machines the site of spectacle.


While there are probably a lot of computer-generated or enhanced elements, F1 feels tactile. 


If this movie was just about showing the races, it would still be watchable. I almost wish it was just that.


It is impossible not to treat this movie as another step in Brad Pitt’s rehabilitation campaign after the domestic violence allegations against him.


There is a chill to Pitt here, a distance that both works for the character’s disenchantment, and against the story’s attempts to humanise him.


He is also just too old.


The story is familiar - a veteran racer is brought in to help a young tyro and they join forces to overcome. But for where the story goes, he is just way, way too old.


There is an old-fashioned quality to the story that I have seen a lot of people criticise.


I felt the other way.


By the end of the movie, it becomes clear that the character has already experienced that growth offscreen - once his work is done, he leaves ala the title character in Shane, to race another day.


That kind of main character, one who does not change, but instead changes those around him, is something we do not see a lot of in contemporary blockbusters - there is more of a compulsion to centre the main character’s growth.


There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not the only way of telling a story. 


That main character-as-catalyst makes the latter parts of the movie kind of interesting, but it also feels like a metaphor for the lack of new movie stars to anchor new movies - and because of Pitt's casting, it also feels like a lead weight. 


The lack of new movie stars means people like Pitt continue to take up space.


The movie has been a relative success (relative the massive $300m budget), and I am hoping it’s success will give Kosinski and the studios encouragement to pursue this kind of large-scale four-quad entertainment more often.


Sadly that success means Pitt gets to endure as a star.



If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

OUT NOW: The Count of Monte Cristo (Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière, 2024)

After escaping wrongful imprisonment, Edmund Dantes (Pierre Niney) re-emerges as the mysterious Count, with a plan to destroy the men who took his life away.



When I was going through my love affair with swashbucklers last year, I was wondering if these movies would ever experience a renaissance.


Enter the Count.


Written and directed by Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière, this latest version of Alexandre Dumas’ tale has been a massive success overseas, both critically and commercially.


My experience with the story is a version for kids, and the 2002 American film directed by Kevin Costner’s full-time part-time friend Kevin Reynolds.


I liked the film - I did not love it.


The actors are well-cast.


Pierre Niney as Dantes handles the transition from facile youth to hardened mastermind, while all of the characters’ foes are gloriously contemptible: 


Bastien Bouillon as deceitful friend Fernand, Patrick Mille as Dantes’ callous captain Danglars and my personal favourite Laurent Lafitte, who plays the craven prosecutor Gérard de Villefort.

 

Filled with great locations, the movie looks great. I was a little weary of the photography early on - it appeared to suffer from that drained quality that affects a lot of movies shot on digital, but that might have just been the lighting of the initial scenes.


The film is at its best in showing Dantes’ schemes come to fruition, as his foes destroy themselves, with a welcome dollop of dark humour.


The film is less powerful when it wants to highlight the ultimate hypocrisy of Dantes’ quest, and the cost on other peoples’ lives.


 That nuance is interesting, and works for the film’s epic runtime, but it means the finale is more understated and not as cathartic.


This might be an issue of the film’s length. For the most part, I did not notice the film’s pacing - until we were intro eh final stretch.


I am starting to think this might be a personal thing - I had the same problem watching The Brutalist, and that had an intermission.  


Still, it is worth a watch.


Related




If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

The James Bond Cocktail Hour: First light on Bond 26

On the latest episode of The James Bond Cocktail Hour podcast, I and my co-host Graeme discuss the latest news in the world of Bond.




Check out the episode at the link below:



























Edge of Darkness: Compassionate Leave

Edge of Darkness: Into the Shadows

Edge of Darkness: Burden of Proof

Edge of Darkness: Breakthrough

Edge of Darkness: Northmoor 

Edge of Darkness: Fusion

















If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!   

OUT NOW: 28 Years Later (Danny Boyle, 2025)

Cut off from the rest of the world, the UK has being the roaming ground for the infected, with a few isolated communities of non-infected.


On a small island, young boy Spike (Alfie Williams) is trying to learn his father’s (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) survival skills, while caring for his mother (Jodie Comer), who has been stricken with a mysterious illness.


When Spike learns there is a doctor on the mainland, he comes up with a plan to get the care his mother needs.



I seriously considered not watching this movie.


I have not been in the best shape, physically or mentally, and a post-apocalyptic thriller did not feel that appetising.


On top of that, I was just not that inspired by what I have not been feeling that inspired by what I have been watching.


This movie was just what the muse ordered.


I rewatched 28 Days Later the day before I watched this. I do not think I have watched it in a decade.


I have never had that strong feelings about it.


On this rewatch the scene that stood out - and which I was reminded of when watching this sequel - was the scene when Brendan Gleeson’s single father is infected.


The character has just had an argument with his daughter, and as soon as he realises how little time he has left, his focus shifts.


He quickly apologises to his daughter, tells her he loves her, and charges in the opposite direction.


It is a beautifully human moment, in a movie about finding humanity amidst the worst of circumstances - the fight between individual survival and shared empathy. 


I enjoyed this movie, but I cannot remember how I felt about the opening because the third act is so profoundly moving.


The first part of the film is a ruse - a coming-of-age story in which our protagonist goes through a traumatic, violent experience that he learns a completely different lesson from the one he is meant to.


Instead of becoming a man through combat, he becomes a faux legend.


This section is solid: There are a few scenes that you could call action or horror-adjacent, but it is fairly familiar stuff.


Once the film shifts into its main action, in which our hero takes his mother to find a doctor, it becomes something more original - and profound.


We get an intriguing injection of the outside world through a lost soldier, Erik (Edvin Ryding), who has been trapped in England - it appears the rest of the world has carried on, creating an intriguing premise that I hope the series will build on. Having the UK stuck in a post-apocalyptic version of 2002, with a character from the 2020s, feels like the stage setting for something more overtly satirical. We get one great joke - Spike’s bafflement at something in a photo of Erik’s girlfriend - that feels like a tease of something more.


Once Spike and his mother Isla (Jodie Comer) reach the bone temple, the movie elevates into the stratosphere.


It speaks to the power of the final scenes that I had to really concentrate to remember what came before.


Ralph Fiennes is moving as Dr Kelson, a deeply compassionate man who has found a way to navigate this new world. He acts as a guide for Spike and his mother , giving them the anchor they need for their painful final choice.


What ends the film is a beautiful meditation of loss, transition and memory. 


I want to watch it again, just to delve deeper into that finale.


If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Tuesday, 29 July 2025

BITE-SIZED: Megan 2.0 (Gerard Johnstone, 2025)

When a new model based on Megan’s design goes rogue, Megan is resurrected in an upgraded form to face off against the new threat.




There is a danger when a sequel appears to be informed by the online hype surrounding the first film - I caught the trailer in the theatre, and I was worried the movie would just be fan service.


I liked the first Megan. It didn’t stick to my ribs but it was fun.


Turning a horror feature into a sci-fi action franchise can work (see Terminator 2), but sadly this sequel follows the law of diminishing returns.


This movie goes for scope and setpieces, in the process losing the intimacy and characterisation of its predecessor. 


 The title character gets more quips and an anime-style makeover, but the attempt at a heroic arc is undermined by the desire to maintain her established personality.


Overall, it just lacks any kind of unifying magic or originality.


Related


Megan


If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour


You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.


If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!