Kermode & Mayo’s Take - Mark’s Thoughts on a New Film About a Pompous Critic + Sir Ian McKellen

Episode Date: September 12, 2024

This week’s guest is the one and only Sir Ian McKellen, who is on the show to very eloquently tell Simon all about his starring role in ‘The Critic’, a period thriller in which a powerful – and pompous – London theatre critic lures a struggling actress into a blackmail scheme that has deadly consequences. Mark also weighs in on the film, as well as reviewing ‘Lee’, a Kate Winslet-starring biopic of photographer Elizabeth ‘Lee’ Miller, a fashion model who became an acclaimed war correspondent for Vogue magazine during World War II; ‘Speak No Evil’, a psychological thriller with James McAvoy, which sees an American family’s dream holiday turn into a living nightmare when they spend a weekend at a British family’s idyllic country estate; and ‘Beetlejuice Beetlejuice’, the long-awaited sequel to Tim Burton’s beloved 1988 comedy horror classic, which sees the mischievous poltergeist Beetlejuice return for more supernatural chaos, as a new family stumbles upon his bizarre afterlife realm. By all accounts, a stellar week! Timecodes (relevant only for the Vanguard - who are also ad-free!): Lee Review – 06:00 Beetlejuice Beetlejuice – 22:37 Sir Ian McKellen Interview – 29:11 The Critic Review – 43:41 Speak No Evil – 54:56 You can contact the show by emailing [e-mail] or you can find us on social media, @KermodeandMayo EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/take Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee! A Sony Music Entertainment production. Find more great podcasts from Sony Music Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts and follow us @sonypodcasts To advertise on this show contact: [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, this is Mark. I want to share a secret with you. I've always wanted to watch Densautis Van on Denmark's public TV station DR. Oh, and also that broadcast of Michael Dudokdovic's La Torte Rouge on France TV. And you know what helps me get to do all of that? NordVPN. Wherever I am, I can pop NordVPN on and bingo, I can switch my location to 111 countries and unlock rare films and global content in the process. Not only that, but all of that watching is safe with encryption, threat protection and dark web alerts to guard against hackers and secure public wi-fi. And by the way, forget any others, NordVPN is the fastest VPN on the market, providing smooth streams with no lagging or

buffering and it can be used on 10 devices. To get a huge discount on your NordVPN plan, go to nordvpn.com slash take. Our link will also give you four extra months on the two-year plan. There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee. The link is in the podcast episode description box. What's up? What's up? What's up? What's up? What's up? What's up? I've got a spring in my step. Hello Simon. Okay. It's weird because it's almost immediately annoying to stop doing it. That's great. I've been annoying within the first 10 seconds. Within the first 10 seconds. Because this is the first back to normal show, because

in the last sort of few weeks, because of the holidays, we had to do some sort of pre-recorded stuff, which is why, for example, we didn't review Beetlejuice last week, but we'll review it this week in the charts. But now, we're through the summer, we are back to normal. It's a live podcast. We're actually speaking this as you're listening to it. If you press pause like that, then we actually stop. So that's the way this whole thing is. Do you remember that time that we were in somebody's podcast and they pressed pause and you didn't stop? You just kept going. It was a bit embarrassing. Anyway, but I do detect a spring in your step, actually. There's some grooves and some vibes coming down the line.

We're recording this just after the debate. That debate. And I'm quite happy about that. I have a number of things I was going to say at that point. And then I realized all our podcasts would disappear and people would think we're some American politics show. Save it for take two. Okay. All right. Very good. What is coming up later on in this year podcast, which is live? Super packed show. We've got a review of Lee, which is a new film starring Kate Winslet. We've got Speak No Evil, which is a remake of a horror film that I liked very much the

first time around. And The Crit critic with our very special guest. Yes, publican and actor Sir Ian McKellen. Always very good to have Sir Ian on the show. What a top bloke he is. You can hear our chat with Sir Ian a bit later on. And on take two, Mark. I was just going to say, do you remember when Stephen Fry introduced Sir Ian McKellen on stage at the BAFTAs and Stephen Fry very cheekily went, ladies and gentlemen, Serena McKellen. Anyway, yes, on take two more premium reviews, my favourite cake, which is a really interesting film, which I'm very keen to talk to you about because

I had a very strange experience with it. And Batman and Robin, the film that we did as the Radio 1 film of the month back in the 90s, is back in cinemas. Wow. Wow. That could be a whole sequence Radio 1's movies of the month as selected by Mark from back in the day. First and for free. Plus I have an interesting new game, which I haven't actually told anybody about, but I'm going to try out live on you, Mark, a little later on. Right. Also, a recommendation feature, which is weekend watch this TV movie of

the week. The best and worst movies to watch over the next few days. One frame back, we'll be doing that. Maybe, who knows? You add free episodes of Shrink the Box. Plus, we answer your film and non-film related queries and quandaries in questions, Schmestrins. You can get all that via Apple Podcasts or head to extra takes.com for non fruit related devices. If you are already a Vanguard Easter, as always, we salute you. Very good. Our broadband are talking to each other. An email from Dan Freeman who's in director's dungeon. Dear my dinner with and re. Longtime listener, longtime emailer, since my children have grown into teenagers, I've noticed that they don't talk to me or my wife as much. And I'm sure parents across the Witterlands

have had the same experience. I'm pleased to say I've come up with a cure. I sit everyone down in front of the telly and give a little intro on why they'll love this important classic film, even though it's old. It's a classic, I plead. Then with faltering resolve, I softly waft their phones to their laps and appeal to them to just watch. The moment the exquisitely tooled titles appear, wide-ranging and florid conversations immediately begin on the new and hitherto unexplored subjects. Wild new interests are expressed. Problems

– philosophical, existential and quotidian – are presented to the group, discussed and often solved. These rhetorical adventures last just until the general gist of the plot, theme, setting and characters have been established. at that exquisitely timed vital juncture. Their loquacity fades to black. They rejoin the film, complain they can't tell what's going on and leave. As Sisyphus said, you can't bleed and win. Particularly Tonk. Dan Freeman, director's dungeon. And that is true. Your house will be different because of the way cinema and film criticism runs through it like a stick of rock, as people used to say. But I suspect that Dan is probably right.

And that whenever anyone says to their kids, whatever I say, no, no, no, no, no, you have to watch this. It's a classic. No, no, no, honestly, back in the day, we all loved it. Yeah, yeah, no, no, no, no. You have to watch this. It's a classic. No, no, no. Honestly, back in the day, we all love it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. 10 minutes and they're gone. Also watching without a phone is almost impossible. It is just, you know, the whole, and I know that sometimes you're kind of looking up, I'm IMDB and saying, oh, right. You know, they were in that. What was that? What's that guy's name? He was in something else.

So you're looking that up. But anyway, it can be a little distracting, but I suspect in your house, things are different. Well, except for the fact that the good lady, press her indoors and I still have the conversation when we were in the car that goes, remember that film, which one? You know, the one with that guy in it, which guy?

The guy from the other film that, what you mean, who was in the, no, no, no, that was directed by the woman who, you know the film? Yes. How enormously reassuring to know that that happens even in your car. As ever, it's Correspondence at Kermit and Moe.com. Tell us about a movie that's out. Okay. So, Lee, this is a Labour of Love project for Kate Winslet who stars in it as American War photographer Lee Millie. You'll remember that when Kirsten Dunst came on to talk about her role in Civil War, she talked about being inspired by Lee Millie. So she, Winslet stars

in the film, she's also a producer. There was a story that at one point she actually, she was paying for the production herself when funds weren't forthcoming. So this has been going for a long time. Directed by Alan Kurus, who's an acclaimed cinematographer whose CV includes Eternal Sunshine, in which she worked with Kate Windsor. And the story goes that she came across a book about Lee Miller, thought that Lee Miller bore a resemblance to Kate Windsor, gave Kate Windsor the book. Anyway, whatever. So, script went through several versions, but it's based on a book called The Lives of Lee Miller by Antony Penrose, whose son and who was on board with the production and gave them access to the Lee Miller archive. So the central conceit has Lee Miller late in her life being interviewed by a young man played by

your friend of mine, Josh O'Connor. She's pottering around the house drinking, you know, surrounded by the detritus of her career. A career which saw her going from being a model famed for being the modern girl to then an acclaimed photographer, which she collaborated with people like Man Ray, to a groundbreaking photojournalist who did extraordinary frontline work in World War II. She says, why do you want to know my story? He says, I want to know the story behind these pictures. Then the film then moves back in time to the story of her life, to her meeting the British painter, Roland Penrose, played here by Alexander Scarlet's God, who I think originally it was Jude Law, but then he couldn't do it anyway. France, 1930s,

teaming up with David Sherman, played by Andy Samberg, who is the live correspondent with whom she then went to Europe to send back photographs from the Second World War. She sent those photographs back to her editor, Audrey Withers, played by Andrea Risebriss, you can see it's star studded, who was her editor at Vogue, and who found some of the pictures, at least according to the film, very, very strong. Here's a brief clip. These are mine. I took them. I decide what happens to them. Listen. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. They're a historical record. Well, who cares? Nobody saw them. You didn't print them. I fought for them, Lee! I fought for them! These must be preserved!

What? It's a stand-up filing cabinet? The Ministry thought they may disturb people. Fuck! This happened! This really happened! Lee! Lee! Lee! This happened! These images will disturb people more than they've already been disturbed. People need to move on. So, as you can tell from that, I mean, it's a powerful film dealing with some very dark subject matter, the need to provide eyewitness accounts

of the horrors of the world and the toll that those, being that eyewitness takes upon, you know, the person. In the interview scenes, she regularly returns to the idea, you can tell that she's been traumatized by what she's seen. And that is all, I think, done very well. However, the most important thing is the film also has, you know, life and vivacity to it. I mean, Lee Miller was a rebellious soul, you know,

she was a muse to the likes of Cocteau and, you know, there's famously a photograph of her taken in Hitler's bathtub on the day that Hitler killed himself, with the dust from Dachau on her boots, on this kind of white mat on the floor. It's like it's a really famous and very, very rebellious image. It's not an easy role to play because in many ways she was a larger than life character. And I think Windsor does it brilliantly. She plays her as somebody who has got all this stuff going on and is larger than life.

And yet she plays it in a way that makes you completely believe in her. I mean, there's very little Kate Windsor can't do, you know, she can do science fiction, she can do action, she can do comedy, she can apparently hold her breath underwater for longer than anybody else in the movie industry. She is, as David Bowie would say, you know, chameleon, comedian, Corinthian, but crucially not caricature. And I think that's important. You have to have a fully rounded portrait of somebody who is larger than life, but believable. Cast also includes Marion Cotillard.

I mean, a really, really impressive cast, all of whom do a pretty good job of establishing sort of thumbnail images of the characters that they're playing. Very handsomely shot by the same cinematographer that shot the pianist. If I have a reservation, it's that I think maybe the wraparound of the interview feels a little contrived. But that's a very minor reservation when you consider just how much the film is attempting to deal with.

I mean, I think it's Winslet's, I think it's one of her best roles. I think it's up there with the mayor of East Ham, which I absolutely loved. And I think it is, you can tell it's a labor of love project for her. And I've now seen it twice. And I have to say the second time round, I was really struck by how well it manages a very complicated narrative. Anyway, it's called Lee. It sounds, and that's a cinematic release. It's a cinematic release, it is. And I think it needs to be seen on the big screen.

Certainly sounds like it. Still to come. Still to come, reviews of Speak No Evil and the critic with our very special guest, Sirian McKellen, who plays a pompous critic who's about to get fired. You can hear my chat with Sirian about this far-fetched and ludicrous premise after these messages. Hi, this is Mark. Longtime listeners will remember that a few years ago, I reviewed French filmmaker Coralie Fargeas' striking feature debut Revenge, a retina-scorching horror thriller with real feminist bite. Earlier this year, Fargeot's long-awaited second feature, The Substance, bowed at Cannes where it went down a storm with Fargeot winning the Best Screenplay award, a body horror thriller from a director who cites Cronenberg, Carpenter, Lynch and Hanukkah as key

influences. The Substance stars Margaret Qualley, Dennis Quaid and Demi Moore in what's been called her finest hour, with Time Out comparing a performance of that of Isabella Gianni in Possession. I can't wait to see the film, which Mubi are opening in cinemas on September 20th. Visit TryTheSubstance.com for showtimes and tickets. And as always, you can try Mubi for free for 30 days at Mubi dot com slash Kermode and Mayo. That's Mubi dot com slash Kermode and Mayo for a whole month of great cinema for free. This episode is brought to you by CIBC. From closing that first sale to opening a second store as a business owner, you've hustled to accomplish a lot, but the rewards don't stop there.

When you earn two times more points on things that matter to you and your business, easily track those business expenses, and experience flexible Aventura rewards, you'll realize how much more rewarding your hustle can be. Get up to $1,800 in value when you apply for the CIBC Aventura Visa for Business at cibc.com slash Aventura Business. Terms and conditions apply. Okay, but Box Office top 10 coming up in just a moment. First is an interesting new game. Oh, yes. Now, this was suggested by Child3. And you know that this ran a couple of years ago, I think, and it was

I think it was called Cheese or Font. You were given a word and you had to say whether it was a cheese or whether it was a style of food. No, I've never heard that before. Okay. All right. So Helvetica could be a cheese, for example. But it's fondue. Exactly. So this particular game is called X or Sist. And this is where you, Mark, have to decide whether people are talking about their X or in fact their Sist. All right. Is there Sist meaning their sister or you mean Sist? C Y S Oh, Sist. Right. Okay.

Okay. X or Sist. So these are taken from genuine tweets, genuine conversations. Okay. X or Cist. So these are taken from genuine tweets, genuine conversations. Okay. So it turns, and I'm going to replace it with blank. Okay. So it turns out my blank was actually really toxic. X or Cist? Cist. No, X. I know it's hard seeing your blank every day, but it'll grow on you. Ex or Cist? Cist. Correct.

And finally, for this week, saw a terrific presentation today on how people treat their blank in Northern Europe. Ex or Cist? Ex. No Cists. So I think it's very good and it's tailor-made for this show. Very good. Can I just say direct from the twisted mind of Child 3. Yes, exactly. If you would like to join in with your personal experience of an X or a cyst, then phrase it appropriately and send it to correspondence.

Otherwise it's just a one week spectacular. No, please don't let it be a one week spectacular. Please make this run and run and run. Okay. It was designed for this show. It doesn't work on any other show. Ex or cyst, so correspondence at code of mare.com. Did child three dream that up whilst eating a cheese only pizza?

Oh, I see. Almost certainly. At three in the morning. I think he came up with it. He was doing a show in Edinburgh at the Fringe and I think it sort of occurred to him like at four in the morning whilst queuing for a bus home. Box office top 10. Now we should say, I think Rob Pease and Starvaker. Yes.

So these are outside the top 10. Starvaker, I reviewed last week and you can find the review. I liked it very much. I mean, it's part of that kind of British folk horror tradition that includes things like Ennis Mane. Rob Peace is a biographical drama from Chuita Lajifol. He wrote and directed it. You remember before he had directed Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. I do, yes. He's a very good director. This is based on a book, The Short and Tragic Life of Robert Peace and stars J. Willis, the Yale University molecular biochemist who turned to drug dealing to help his father, played by J. Willis, who has been imprisoned for a crime which he pleads his innocence.

This is apparently a fairly well-known story, but I knew nothing about it. I think the film tells the story in a very compelling way. It's a story about people being trapped, what their circumstance, their past, their environment. It's a very moving tale of a talented young man doing whatever is necessary to survive, to look after his parents, to outgrow his past, to attempt to create a better future. It's also a story about how good people find themselves in bad places. There's been very little fanfare around it, but I thought it was very well directed, very good period detail, compelling drama. I do think Tritelejiofor is shaping up as a really decent film director. Good for him.

Mason Harkness Starvaker produced this email from Tom in Leicester. Having let Starvaker digest for a little while, I have to confess my current posture is that of being slightly deflated. Throughout the runtime, there was something bothering me and I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but I think it is lacking the presence of real to counterbalance the surreal. I never truly believed our two main protagonists as a couple. Their actions and dialogue were fitting with the theme of the movie. However, they felt they were there to progress the plot rather than being real characters that the plot was happening to. Other than the

sister character, we have no normality to contrast with what's happening. The abnormal starts to feel that it is expected for this kind of environment. That's not to say I don't think the performances were good, but my investment in the plot showing its hand rather than what happened to anyone in the film. Overall, I did enjoy my time watching Starvaker. I just wasn't delivered that killer bite that would get under my skin. Tom, thank you very much. Okay. I mean, I didn't feel that way, but it's very well expressed. I found that it was rooted in reality. Actually, for me, and this is the thing about British folk horror, it all stems from the earth upwards. I thought it had a reality in a similar way to Ben Wheatley's In the Earth,

or of course, Ennismane. Obviously, responses are very personal. But I'm glad you enjoyed it. I liked it more than that, I think. Firebrand is at number 10. No, this is a new release I haven't seen. I am going to go and see this this weekend and so we will get a review of this next week. Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith is at number nine. Well, a weird thing is that I have watched, rewatched Revenge of the Sith not so long ago because one of the children had argued that it's actually a better film than it was given credit for. I remember

there was a review of it when it came out which said, back to the beginning, we have come, wasted our time, we have. There are many things wrong with it, but the score is very, very good. And I do think that there are moments in it that are better than I gave it credit for at the time. I still don't think it's a masterpiece, but I think it may be of the prequels actually the least bad. Inside Out 2 is at number 8, number 14 in America. Yes. Well, it's a great film and it's doing brilliantly and everybody appears to love it. And I think that it's just, it's found that sweet spot, hasn't it? It's absolutely found the sweet spot between young viewers sort of discovering the world

for the first time and older viewers like us just being amazed that they've managed to do it again. So, you know, I don't have anything else to add to it other than clearly my reservations about it being too complex were completely misguided. Number seven is Blink Twice is number eight in America. Which I really, really enjoyed. I just thought it was a terrific piece of cinema. I think it's great that it's Zoe Kravitz's directorial debut just straight out of the

gate, a fully formed director. I really enjoyed it. Yes, there's a touch of Ira Levin, a touch of Jordan Peele, a touch of Glass Onion about it, but I think it's a really good film. It's got a really subversive satirical edge. UK 6, US number 9 is Despicable Me 4. UK number five is Alien, Romulus, number four in America. Tony in Liverpool, listening from the beginning, hi Mark and Simon. Mark is always telling us about the madness of the American rating system. I don't know if you've seen this, but just wow.

He sent us a clip from YouTube. You may well have seen this, but it's worth just playing your little extract here. Okay. Sunday, the Ridgely Theatre in Fort Worth had the biggest day in its entire history. It sold more than The Godfather, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Superman and Love Story. But the biggest surprise to theatre employees is the number of parents bringing young children to see Alien. Did you know that this was an R-rated movie when you brought him? Yes we did.

Are you sorry you brought him? Yes I am. Are you glad you saw it? Yeah. We take him to see a lot of horror pictures and things like that because well we like horror movies, horror bugs I guess. Would you recommend to your little friends who are your age to go see it? No, I wouldn't. Terrible. Terrible. You just head in hands despair. Here's the thing. The American rating system is stupid and makes no sense at all. The R rating, which is the thing that we know over here would generally be an X film, means no one under the age of 17 can go unless their parent takes them, which means anyone can see it. 10-year-olds were taken to see The Exorcist. When they

finally figured out that this was a really stupid system, they introduced the NC-17, no children under 17, and that then became the kiss of death So if you had an NC 17 movie people will put them out on rated the American rating system is completely Stupid and that is a perfect example of why it is parents use it as a babysitting But you know parents want to go and see the Texas chainsaw massacre. Just you know Actually, that probably wasn't even all rated that probably was unrated But you know, they want to go and see alien so they just take the kids with because you can't get it It is a stupid system. Compare it to the BBFC. The BBFC have got their heads screwed on. You may disagree with some of their decisions, but they've

got a sensible system that works. The American system is the strongest rating that they have is anyone can see it. When you have a stupid rating system along with stupid parents who say, yeah, we like horror, so therefore we've brought our kid along. There'll be some payback somewhere along the line. You think? Yes. Number four in the UK, two in the States, Deadpool and Wolverine. I just thought it was trash, but it's obviously popular trash and it's done very well. It's taken a huge amount of money. UK number three, it ends with us. Which I thought was better than I had expected it to be.

I mean, yes, it's dealing with it. It's doing that thing about dealing with the dark subject, but dressing it up to look like it's a romantic movie and then actually moving onto something which is much darker. I know there's been some criticism of it and of her, but I actually thought it was pretty decently done and I was impressed because I didn't really know what to expect from it and I thought it was actually better than I'd expected. Number two is the greatest of all time. Now this wasn't press screen. Again, what I'll try and do is I will try and catch this in the cinema next week. It's an Indian Tamil language science fiction film. One of the most expensive Indian films starring one of India's highest paid actors

apparently had very mixed reviews from people who have seen it. If anyone has seen it, write in and let us know. But as I said, it wasn't press screened here. And the UK number one and the US number one is Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. So we didn't review this last week because last week was a pre-recorded show because there's been holidays. This is the super belated sequel to the horror comedy Weedy that put Tim Burton on the map. He'd previously done Pee Wee's Big Adventure, introduced many of us, most of us to Michael Keaton, who of course would go on to star in Tim Burton's Batman, and made a generational

star of Winona Ryder. She was Lydia Dietz in the original, this goth girl. She reprises that role now. Now she is a mother and psychic mediator who hosts Ghost House with Lydia Dietz. General taker is Astrid, who is her daughter, who has now sort of taken on her mom's goth mantle. Catherine O'Hara is Delia, the stepmother and artist who at the beginning

has a show that goes wrong. Anyway, due to plot contrivance and a family tragedy, they all end up back at the old house. Here is a clip of Minona Ryder and Catherine O'Hara. Astrid found this in the attic. Ew. So? So. Every now and then I feel his presence, like he's lurking somewhere, just out of reach. But lately, I'm seeing him again. And I was really hoping this was all in my head, but now this.

Lydia, you need to take back your life. From the hangar owners, from this thing. Where's the obnoxious little goth girl who tormented me all those years ago? It's time to find her. I think that's a great line. Anyway, so the cast also includes Justin Theroux as the yucky, touchy-feely but bullying boyfriend, Monica Bellucci as Beetlejuice's ex-wife who is in pieces, literally, Willem Dafoe as a dead actor who thinks he's a cop, no talent, but great hair. Very briefly, Danny DeVito.

The idea of a sequel dates back to the early 90s, but it was put on hold after Batman took off. This played at Venice just before it released. It got pretty decent reviews. It's become a big financial hit. I liked it. I thought that it was great to see Michael Keaton back doing a role that was always one of his best, this kind of, you know, the bio-exorcist in the terrible suit. If you remember in the first film, there's a great gag when he's asked for his credentials and he says, well, I've seen the exorcist 167 times and it just keeps getting funnier. This may not be quite- Funny how that would be difficult to you.

I know, I know, I know. And also there's a head spin joke in this as well, which I really enjoyed. I mean, this may not be the original, but unlike the Ghostbusters reboots, this does, I think, have at least some of the charm of the original. I mean, some of that sort of ghoulish charm. It is nicely ghoulish. One of the things they've done, which is quite smart, is there's kind of motion and claymation. It's not just a CGI fest. There's quite a lot of physical stuff in it. There are nods to every single thing. There's a nod to It's Alive and a nod to Bride of Frankenstein and a bit of Trainspotting, I think, and Saturday Night Fever and Mario Barber. And in this final movement, a very, very smart nod to Carrie. They use the music of Pino D'Anazio, Carrie's theme. I thought it was well done. There's a mad set piece in the

third act which involves MacArthur Park, which I enjoyed not least because I've always thought that MacArthur Park was one of the most deranged songs ever made. Yes, definitely. And the fact that it, yeah, it's just absolutely bonkers. But it's kind of doing the banana boat sequence but with MacArthur Park. I thought it was fun. I thought it was ghoulish and I enjoyed it and I liked the amount of squishiness that there was in it. And hey, who knew that it was possible to revisit Beetlejuice and it actually be pretty good as opposed to just doing the Ghostbusters Bill Murray. So yeah, thumbs up from me. Every time you say Justin Theroux, in my head

it goes, is it you? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because that's how immersed I am in 70s glam, as I suspect you are. A less than enthusiastic email from David Hopkins, Simon and Mark, having had the joy of revisiting Edward Scissorhands in Glorious IMAX recently, it was strangely disheartening to then watch Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice. Confirmation that Tim Burton did his best work some decades ago and has moved from making films full of heart and emotion to empty self-parodies. What a strangely soulless affair Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice is and what an annoying title for that matter. I think it's a very good title actually. The design aesthetic looked good but to what purpose? Two confused storylines which never quite met in the middle, the main title for that matter. I think it's a pretty good title actually. The design aesthetic looked good,

but to what purpose? Two confused storylines which never quite met in the middle, the main cast obviously going through the motions and some weirdly weak gags. A couple of new characters added some pep, Willem Dafoe in particular, but overall it looked like it was a lot more fun to make than it was to watch. Okay. Well, you know, as I said, responses are entirely personal. I don't think it's as good as the original, but you know, because the original, the original is Beetlejuice, but I thought it was again, much better than I had expected it to be, particularly in the wake of the Ghostbusters reboots. Correspondents at comodomeo.com, delightfully, and miss this very much, the ads in a minute,

obviously, but first let's step one more time with confidence into our laughter lift. Laughing already? In anticipation of the rib-ticking comedy. It's the gap between you saying, let's step into the laughter lift. They're probably taking the gap out when they edit it. No, they need to. But there's always a comment.

Okay. They need to actually extend the gap. Take it like 10 seconds or something. It can't be too long so that people FF and go a few 30 seconds. Hey, Mark, anyway. I've been getting loads of calls from people asking if I can get a hold of Oasis tickets. I said maybe. Very good. You have to be immersed, I think. Even I got that.

Had a bit of a disastrous barbecue last weekend, full of pretentious, you know, wads. I cannot bear it when people act all intellectual and talk about Claude Debussy, when they've clearly never seen one of his paintings. Mark, lastly... I don't want this to be disappointed, but... Lastly, what's made of brass and sounds like Tom Jones? A trombone.

Correct. Yes. Trombones. Trombones should be plural, but that's very good. Sorry. Top comedy. Very good. So thank you very much indeed.

What else is coming up? Mark, this is where you throw forward. Yes. Well, we have a review of Speak No Evil and also the critic with our very, very special guest, Sir Ian McKellen. After this, Serena McKellen. Upper Canada College inspires boys from senior kindergarten to year 12 to find their passions and realize their potential. An IB World School, UCC offers a supportive environment, cutting edge facilities, and

a best in Canada financial assistance program. UCC, a place where tradition, excellence, and innovation meet. Learn more at our open house events on October 15th and 16th. Register now at cause and effect.ucc.on.ca. Hey you, yeah, you. Scrolling TikTok and avoiding your chem homework? Chegg here, hot take. You've seen enough Bama Rush, ASMR keyboard,

and viral dance videos for one day. Let's lock in and start that assignment. If you need a little help, lean on Chegg's expert-supported learning tools. I say this with love. Put on some lo-fi beats and get going with our step-by-step study support. Your weekend will thank you. Small steps today means big wins tomorrow. With Chegg, subscribe today. You got this. Mason- Okay, well, just ahead of Saria McKellen, you mentioned MacArthur Park, the sequence

MacArthur Park in Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice. My controversial opinion is that the Donna Summer version is better than the Richard Harris version because I don't think Richard Harris gets away with it. His vocal is so strained and is just so rotten that even though it's, when it gets requested at Greatest Hits, I think, I mean, it's tempting, but no. So I think- So do you get requests to play the Richard Harris version? Yeah, because on Tuesday we play epic songs. Well, that's how we call it, Tuesday and people choose epic songs. And clearly it is an epic song, but I think it's just,

I think it's stretching it too much really. Anyway, Correspondence of Kevin O'Meara.com, once you've seen the movie, you want to join in, we'd love to hear from you. So this guest obviously needs no introduction, so it's the briefest introduction. You can hear my chat with Saria McKellen after this clip from The Critic. I think I prefer this play to his other one. His other one? Well, his other famous one.

Duchess of Malta. Malthy. Oh, yes! Duchess of Malthy. Jew of Malta. Duchess of Malta. Same era, though. Webster is Jacobean Marlowe in the Seabethan.

Oh, slightly pedantic distinction. Jacobian Marlowe in the Zwiecen. Slightly pedantic distinction. It's the correct one. And that is a clip from The Critic, and I'm delighted to say that we've been joined by the man who plays The Critic. And that is the one and only Sir Ian McKellen. Sir Ian, hello. Thank you very much for joining us.

Hello, Simon. Nice to be with you. And normally I just say, you know, I hope you're doing fine, but just to get that out of the way, we trust that you are well and mending and feeling as tip-top as possible. Yes, thank you very much. The slip and fall I had from the stage was cushioned somewhat by the padding that I was wearing to play

the obese John Falstaff. So physically I'm much improved and mentally almost ready to be back to work, but I should probably wait till the end of the year. But thanks for asking. Of course. Thank heavens for the fat suit, though. Otherwise, it could have been worse. So here we are with the critic, who is Jimmy Erskine. Tell us about the movie. Tell us about Jimmy Erskine and where we are with this movie, Sir Ian.

All right. When I read it, it seemed like a melodrama, really, which rather suited the period in which it set the 1930s. Jimmy Erskine is a senior drama critic for one of the leading daily newspapers and has enormous power. This is before the time when everyone's opinion counted and was available online. And all is really well with the world until one day it isn't and because of his behavior he is likely to lose his job and to defend his job he goes on the attack in ways that I won't spoil the plot by telling you. He's gay not an easy thing to be in 1930s Britain when it was against the law to have sex with someone of your own gender, he labors with that problem.

Perhaps because of the cruelty and bullying that's been visited upon him by the laws of the land, when he decides to take some sort of revenge, it's of a bullying nature and he behaves extremely badly. I was wondering, Ian, how much of Jimmy Erskine is created by homosexuality being illegal, his proclivities as I believe one of his editors calls it. Well, you know, it was extremely difficult. I was just born in the 30s, but I'm talking about an era that I've only read about or heard other people talk about. But it was a pretty miserable life when you didn't tell even perhaps your closest friends and family about yourself because

the law was so negative. I don't think it's a healthy state of affairs and it doesn't surprise me that Jimmy is rather curdled on the inside, very confident on the outside but inside as frail as any of us. The screenplay is by Patrick Marber who of course did notes on a scandal but there's a book called Curtain Call which came out in 2015 by Anthony Quinn, not that Anthony Quinn, this is another Anthony Quinn, who was theatre critic for The Independent, I think, for a while. So it sounds as though there's some insider knowledge about what it's like to be a theatre critic.

I see. Well, you may be right. I think everyone would agree that Patrick has taken that Quentin's novel as a basis, but has leapt off in other directions. And it rather stands very much as a Patrick Marber script, which means that it's literate, it's intelligent, it's witty and unique. So I was watching it the other day at the premiere and thinking, yes, how would I define this? I define this by we're all in a Patrick Marber script

and it's lines well worth saying and a pattern to the story and a moral to the story really if you choose to look at it in that way. and a pattern to the story and a moral to the story really, if you choose to look at it in that way. But on the whole, it's just simple entertainment and reminiscent of those 1930s films where the story rattled along in a rather melodramatic way. But the point about this melodrama

is that it is all too believable. And so it gets you rather worked up and disturbed when you're watching it as well as amused, I hope. Yes. And one of the, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but there is, because it's the thirties and because Jimmy Erskine has a confrontation with some local fascists, there is that sense of the risk of fascism happening outside that sense of fear for what the future holds, which maybe will resonate with a contemporary audience. Well, it might for those who are of a pessimistic frame of mind. The point about the fascists

in the 30s as opposed to now is that they were really organized and ambitious and looking abroad to the example of Germany and so on and thinking the same thing could be done here. The recent riots and disturbances in the streets may well have been organized but not in the sense that a political party is organised. And thank goodness. Anyway, perhaps I'm being Pollyanna, but it's very disturbing to read about these disturbances and to see it on the TV, of course,

but it seems to have simmered down for the moment with everyone alert, hopefully, unless it should return. Yes. Jimmy Erskine is, in your movie, is particularly taken with writing, I mean, he's clearly a brilliant wordsmith, but he's taken against Gemma Arterton's character who's called Nina Land and she is very upset by that. What have we missed? So before the film started, what has Jimmy got against Nina Land? Is it just that she's just not good enough? What is it? Yes, I suppose, like us all, critics can take against people without having a really good

reason. But there's something about her that he finds irritating because he feels obliged to entertain his audience by, as he puts it, withering or enthusing. He decides to wither with regard to Nina and she's very much a victim of that, that recuperation. He's got over the top, he's gone a bit too far in his, as he tries to entertain his audience, I think that's what really what happens. The film has a fantastic cast. Mark Strong is great. Leslie Manville, so playing Gemma Arnton's mother.

One of the laugh out loud moments of which there are many in the movie is when she's trying to praise a play that her daughter is in and is struggling to think of things that are positive to say, but says, you gave a very audible performance, which is almost like the very definition of being damned with fake praise. Yes, and doesn't apply these days because you know most performances on stage these days of plays as well as musicals are heard through a microphone, which the actors wear disguised in their costume, so that the old days when you had to be heard by the people far away in the gallery doesn't really apply

anymore because the technology takes care of the volume. So everyone gives an audible performance. One of the things that the film goes into and explores is the relationship between the artist and the critic. We won't give anything away, but I wonder whether you have ever had a confrontation with a critic. I have of a very minor sort. On the whole, critics have been extremely kind to me and some might say over kind. John Osborne did refer to me in print as being a critics actor. I'm not quite sure what that meant but I think it was something to do with explaining the

part as I went along so that the critics could write about it. But occasionally a critic has said something which was absolutely wrong, factually wrong, and it was some delight that I scribbled a note and said that. And the replies I got on the two or three occasions when I did it, that's when I was a young actor, the critics bent over, I beg your pardon, you're absolutely right, I shouldn't have said that. Thank you for pointing out to me, good luck for the future. But of course, no retraction in the column the next day. And the truth is that critics of any sort

are not writing and opining for the actors. They're writing to entertain the audiences and the actors' audience. And so what they say can be worrying, it can be pleasurable, but it's not really going to affect your performance, which is crucial. But it might make you feel a bit depressed

when you get a bad review, because the whole point of acting is that we want to communicate well. And if the communication has fallen down in the view of a critic or a member of the audience, that's a poor do. So I'm aware of the critics, but I don't depend on them for approval.

I get approval if I get it at all from the director initially, and then hopefully this. On the subject of the relationship of the artist and the critic, Benedict Cumberbatch came on the show a few years ago, and he sat next to Mark Kermode, who's our critic, and he punched him on the arm because Mark had been rude about Keira Knightley.

Have you ever felt the desire to punch a critic? No, because the critics on the whole have been very nice to me from an early age. So, no, I haven't. Occasionally a critic arrives and gets a notoriety for a turn of phrase and of a negative sort. There was a horrible man whose name I know but I'm not going to repeat here who wrote for the New York magazine while I was working in the States and his reviews were, well for actors actually it was a mark of some achievement if you've got a bad review from this person because it would be something that everyone would quote. He eventually became a bit of a joke.

You can either read the reviews or you cannot read the reviews and I choose to read them. I like to know what's going on. I like to know what impression we're making. Do critics matter less now, Sir Ian? A lot less because everyone's got a point of view and everyone is a critic of course. And it's as well that actors don't hear what people say in the interval, you know, of the play that they're in. Or hear what the cue says as they're leaving at the end because they might be disappointed.

But these days, your criticism, your view, if you look closely at the reviews posted on the advertisements for plays and films, as often as not these days, they're from people who, just members of the public, who've expressed their views online. So the power of the critics that was certainly possible in the 30s and when I'd started out as an actor, I don't think this exists anymore. So Ian, it's always a pleasure to speak to you. Thank you very much indeed and we wish you all the best and always wear a fat suit. Yes, everyone trips. Human beings just trip, I know. It doesn't matter until you're getting on and so avoid

tripping. So Ian, thank you so much. All right, bye. Bye-bye, there. Serene McKellen talking about the critic. They're great conversations that you have with him because he's prepared to talk about everything. Yeah, absolutely anything at all. And I thought that was really, really fascinating and a tribute also to our engineering and production team because as you could probably hear towards the end, he was getting texts and stuff was coming back through his laptop and it was all very discombobulating.

So anyway, I think we got the best that we could out of that anyway. But obviously a movie called The Critic is going to be particularly intriguing, Mark. Well, look, just to start with a couple of things in response to what Sir Ian McKellen said there. You said it's based on a book by Antony Quinn, Curtain Call. I knew Antony Quinn is the film critic for The Independent, not a theatre critic. Although Ian McCallan says this is very much a Patrick Marber script, that he's gone his own way. I haven't read the book, but when I first started, because I think Antony Quinn was the film critic. I think he started being film critic in 1998 and was there for a decade or so. The other thing is you asked about, has he ever

fallen out with a critic and he said, well, there's this person I'm not going to name who was at the New York Magazine. I'm pretty certain that's John Simon. We'll talk about that in take two because there's a kind of interesting backstory to that. So the film plays out in the 30s, background of most of these black shirts, fascism on the rise, homophobia. You talked, I thought very correctly about the fact that this is a character who is gay and therefore their life is complicated by the fact that they're always under threat of arrest and blackmail. Maybe that's something that's feeding into this dyspepsia. However, we should say that if you look at critics in films that are never portrayed particularly,

for a very good reason, never portrayed as particularly lovable. If you think of the most famous critics in films, Theatre of Blood, Vincent Price is a stage actor who comes back from a watery grave to take Shakespeare in revenge on all the critics who gave him bad reviews, including famously feeding Robert Morley a pie with these poodles in it. There's Lady in the Water, the Shyamalan film in which Bob Balaban is this annoying film critic who ends up meeting a very, very sticky end. And then there's Ratatouille in which the food critic is Anton Ego, who is a man whose pomposity makes Will Self look positively self-aware.

So not a good track record. In this particular story, McKellen's critic, he's bitter and twisted by circumstance. He is the, I mean, really of a previous generation of critics, as you said in the interview, in which he has the power to make or break people's careers. That really isn't the case anymore. It hasn't been the case for a while, certainly since the rise of social media. That's definitely changed that. But I think it really did change quite a long time before that. Anyway, he has terrific fun with the role. I mean, he is relishing it. He is relishing the sight of this guy sort of writing this kind of poison pen reviews because he happens to have taken against

an actress played by Gemma Otton, played rather brilliantly by Gemma Otton, who's always fabulous. We see him berating her for entertainment and then her signing this kind of Faustian pact with him in return for his approval because his job is in danger. Without wishing to give anything away about the plot, that's kind of the central thing is that she agrees to play along with him in order that he doesn't lose his job and he in return will give her the career that she wants. You mentioned Leslie Manville. It's a small role for Leslie Manville, but she's, I mean, I could watch Leslie Manville just from morning till night.

That thing about you gave a very audible performance. That is almost word for word what my mom said the very first time I was on the radio. And I rang her after I'd been on the radio and I said, how was it? And she said, oh, the signal was very clear. That was literally- Very much the kind of parents trying to find something positive. No, I could hear every word. I could hear every word. Yes. So I thought all that worked. Here's my issue. And I do think McKellen is really enjoying the role. I think he is the best thing about the film. He compared it to a 1930s melodrama, a rattling piece of entertainment, stories that kind of rattle along, but the difference

with this is it's all too believable. I think the issue is that it isn't believable, that it is indeed a melodrama, a rattling story. I would go further and say that it's tonally confused. Actually, when you start looking into the history of the film, the film premiered last year in September at TIFF. At that point, it was 95 minutes long. There's an article in Screen Daily which says that it was picked up for distribution, quote, on the proviso that the film was re-edited and keycasts were brought back to shoot new scenes written by original screenwriter Patrick Marber. The critic received mixed reviews when it screened in its original, people didn't like the first

version. It had a rushed sour ending that seemed to turn audiences off, but they thought there's a better movie in there and, quote, Patrick had an idea for a different ending that engaged me straight away. So they went back and they did reshoots and recuts. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't do that because one of the things that those recuts appear to have done is to bring McKellen's character much more to the fore. It said, again, in that same article, the Newseys will bring McKellen's gay, acid-tongued writer more to the fore and create a more commercial and satisfying story for audiences. Now, that was as per the screen die. I said, I didn't see the first cut. This is the only cut of it that I've seen. But reading that kind of explained to some extent why it was that I couldn't quite get the tone of it. Because on the one hand, there is this rattling contrived melodrama

yarn with this really delicious performance at the centre of it by Ian McKellen. On the other hand, there is the more serious stuff. There is the black shirts, there is the persecution of gay people, there is, you know, death. And I thought the film didn't quite know how to negotiate between those two things, that it kept wanting to be taken more seriously than it should be. I mean, if you look at Theatres of Blood is a comedy horror, right? So we know where we are. There's shocks and there's laughs. This is a ripe melodrama and an entertainingly ripe melodrama with weird aspiration towards seriousness. I mean, it makes no sense at all increasingly as we get into the sort of later stages. But that's fine if, as MacKellen said, as Sir Ian said, you take it as a 30s melodrama

with a rattling plot and a, a rattling plot. I enjoyed his performance and I enjoyed that, but I thought tonally it was all over the place. Discovering that it had been recut, re-edited, and indeed partially re-shot, did make me think, okay, that kind of makes sense as to why it is that it's very scattershot. I think it is tonally all over the place. There's a word that Ian McKellen used to describe his character in the interview, which he said he is curdled. And I think it's a fantastic word because it does describe, in the same way, I think Salieri was curdled by Mozart. You meet people like that.

It's a fantastic word. Something has changed for the worse. They've gone rotten inside. I thought that was a key to him. There is nobody who has a better turn of phrase than Sir Ian McKellan. Also, even with the technical problems that you spoke about, I could listen to him read the phone book. I mean, you know. Your views on the critic, once you've seen it, please, you are the critic, and then send

your views to correspondents at KevinOMano.com. What's our last review? Speak no evil on the way. RBC has helped millions of young Canadians turn their most likelies into most definatelies, way. RBC has helped millions of young Canadians turn their most likelies into most definatelies, making their ideas happen with scholarships, internships, and skill development, plus resources for artists and athletes. Learn more at rbc.com slash support youth. Oh boy, I should have read the best before date on this milk.

Since I'm with Fizz, my unused data transfers to the next month automatically. I forgot things could expire. For monthly data that transfers to the next month, switch to Fizz. Certain conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. Okay, Mark's Review. Speak no evil in just a moment. Email to correspondence at kermannamao.com from Dominic Shrivelson in Broadstairs.

I hope that's roughly right, Dominic, maybe Shrivelson. Anyway, in Broadstairs, home to the wonderful Palace Cinema, he says. Dear both, just caught up with your recent meanderings and musing and was struck to hear Simon Ponder on the Gaulois and its place in French culture, and also surprised to know that Le Baton de Cancer is now produced in Poland. That was news to me and brought a tear of nostalgia to my eye. Back in a previous lifetime in 1984, when Simon will remember the glorious Spurs winning the UEFA Cup in dramatic circumstances. I do because I was

there. I was assistant anglaise in a northern French lice in Le Pas de Calais. Then an industrial hellscape of coal mines, steelworks and communism. My friends got the Alps, the Med, Paris, me, a mining town near Lens, twinned with Doncaster. Despite the unpromising location, it is a year I look on with fondness, for I did discover the Goulwards, which enabled me to pounce about loosely, which I could never do at university in East Anglia, where smoking was rightly seen as, well, you know, bad for you and smelly. As part of my time down as Mr. Dominique, we had a school trip to the Galois factory, imagine, which was then in Lille. It was eye-opening to see the production and all the kids walked away with a carton of France's best-selling product which could never have occurred in England. Also, smoking was allowed in break

times at school, no big deal. No bike shed to scurry behind and, as a side note, every lunchtime all the staff had a glass of wine. The afternoon part of the trip in French style took the kids to the local brewery, Cronenberg if memory serves, where yes, they were given a few glasses of beer as well as some to take home, ostensibly, for La Famille. I doubt these school trips go on any longer, not least as they would have to go to Poland. Nonetheless, the goulwars and beer are or were an integral part of French culture, as I remember it at the time, and the only time when smoking appeared cool and natural. I do return every few years and it still seems a little odd not to have the smell of Galois in the bars.

Up with love and down with hate. Dominic, thank you. Actually, the coolest smoking I think I might have mentioned to you was I saw the Stray Cats playing Brighton in 1981 and they all came on, they had all just lit up. If was a bit like, if you imagine, so the bike riders, Austin Butler, it's that kind of look. And they did look cool, even though obviously everyone knows that it's a shocking thing. But can you imagine a school trip to the Gulwar's factory? Here you are kids, take away a carton with you and some Cronenberg to wash it down with. I should say on the subject of the stray cats coming on stage smoking, if you've seen how much hairspray Setzer and Co used to put on their pompadours just before they went on stage, the idea of their having lit cigarettes nearby, I mean, they could have set

fire to their heads. That's a very good point. Correspondence at codeomea.com. Okay. Speak no evil. Yes. So, this is a remake of a Danish psychological chiller from 2022, which I reviewed last year when it was on Shudder because we had a recommendation from a listener saying, you know, this was a take it or leave it, you decide. They said, you should watch this, okay? And so, the original was co-written and directed by Christian Tafthrop, a Danish couple on holiday with their daughter. They meet a Dutch couple with a son who can't speak due to congenital aglosia. And then after the holiday, the Danish couple receive an invitation to go and visit the people they met on holiday. And they said, they barely know them, but the husband says,

oh, you know, why not? And they go and visit them and barely know them, but the husband says, oh, why not? They go and visit them in their house, it's a small, beautiful, isolated woodland area, and things seem okay. Then things become increasingly inappropriate and awkward, but they are guests. In fact, they think of guests was the original title. They're constrained by rules of politeness. There's this real horror of awkwardness. You don't know whether your hosts are just a bit odd or what's going on. Anyway, I really liked it. When I reviewed it, I mentioned Ruben Ossolin saying that all his films are about people trying not to lose face. I made the comparison with Sporeloose, the original version of The Vanishing. This is when I reviewed the original version of Speak Vanishing. This is when I reviewed the original version of

Speak No Evil. And I said there is a comparison because in The Vanishing, it's about a couple traversing a border and finding themselves in a place when they don't quite speak the language. And this had a kind of similar quality. But of course, Sporlus was famously remade by its original director in a version, in a US version, which completely botched the ending and completely destroyed the film. So now this film, which when I reviewed it the first time around, I said it gets really, really dark and upset me quite a bit in a good way. I was properly creeped out by it. Now this has a remake from Blumhouse Productions. This is written and directed by James Watkins,

who co-wrote the very nasty My Little Eye, directed the really creepy and upsetting Eden Lake and also directed The Woman in Black, which if you remember got the BBFC into trouble for being the scariest 12 certificate film that, you know, the 12 year olds were going to see and be absolutely terrified by it. So this time around, Scoot McNair and Mackenzie Davis are Ben and Louise, they are the holidaying couple that in Italy they meet up with James McAvoy and Ashton Kvatchiosi, who she was brilliant in the nightingale, he's good in the things. He's a doctor, as before the first couple have a daughter, Agnes, the second have a son who doesn't speak. As before,

the first couple accept an invitation to visit their new friends in their remote house. Despite knowing them, they're told this time, they said, you must come to the West Country. When everybody would say West Country, you start thinking straw dogs. They go and visit them, even though they barely know them. As before, there is this underlying sense of awkwardness. At first, it starts with the wife and mother is forced to eat freshly killed meat, despite the fact that she's explained many times that she's a vegetarian, but she's being polite, but she has told them she's a vegetarian. Then the wife in the family of the host, partner in family host, starts telling off her daughter about how to eat. She said, would you mind not telling my daughter how to eat and not to do things?

And then we see the character played by James McAvoy openly sort of bullying his son and it all becomes very, very, you know, what's wrong with these people? And then they start having discussions about sex, which seemed to be completely inappropriate. But on the other hand, the couple of the guests, they're kind of uptight and they've got their own marital problems. So I don't know, maybe something's going on here that will help them kind of loosen up. And then there is an injury and they go to the James McAvoy character and go, well, you know, great, you're a doctor.

Here's a clip. I think we're gonna hit the road. Yeah, yeah, of course. You know, we had a really great time. Well, I hope so. I know we can both be. A bit much. God, no, no, really. I know we can both be God no, no, really? I mean you guys have been just a breath of fresh air. Oh

That is very sweet of you to say and so there's a lot of that there's a lot of sorry what's going on Is this a joke? Is this is this weird? Is this danger? Is this? Now, James McAvoy is really relishing the role and he's doing it brilliantly. He's obviously having a great time having the opportunity to play a character who may or may not be dangerous. Now, here's the thing. If you've seen the trailer, we know from the trailer that it's the latter because in the trailer we see Louise say, we can't look scared. We just have to go out there and look completely normal because they're going to kill us. And we know that it's a horror movie. But as with the original, Watkins does a very good job at kind of keeping us guessing, even when we know where it's going, there is the thing, the horror is still coming from the horror of social unease and anxiety about, I don't know how to play this as much as any actual threat.

Then in the later stages, it does something that the US remake of The Vanishing did, which is that it adds a kind of reconfigured final act that cranks everything up. The difference is, when they did it with The Vanishing, when he can slice it into his own film with The Vanishing, it destroyed the movie. This time, against all the odds, the retooled ending actually works. As a fan of the original, I really think this did it justice and added a new twist and made it its own film. I thought that it was really well done. I mean, if you haven't seen the original, and a lot of people won't have done, this is a gripping, edge-of-your-seat thriller. It's a real kind of pulse racing nail biter with this great performance at the center of it. But if you have seen the original, I think it works as an addendum. It's not something that, you know, there are parts of it

in which it very, very closely follows the original. But when it makes its departures, it does so in its own way. And I think it does so to its benefit. So I really enjoyed it. I knew the story beforehand, but I sat there thinking, yeah, it's that painful, really, really painful horror of being in somebody's house. And you don't want to appear rude, but they are really, really weird. And the more you don't want to appear rude, the weirder they become and then all hell breaks loose. And that movie is Speak No Evil. That is the end of take one. This has been a Sony Music Entertainment production. This week's team, Lily, Gully, Vicky, Zachy, Matty and Bethy.

The producer was Jem, the redactor was Simon Paul. Mark, what is your film of the week? Well, I think Lee because I think it's a really fine piece of work and as I said, second time round even more so. Take two has landed for our subscribers and our Vanguardista. It's alongside this podcast already. Thank you for listening. We'll talk to you soon.