Los Angeles has had its fair share of both cinematic love letters and deconstructions down the years. For every ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ extolling the virtues of Hollywood and pursuing ones dreams, there is a ‘Mulholland Drive’ that pulls back the bedsheets to expose the dark underbelly of corruption. It’s rare to find a film that manages to portray the magic and hypocrisy of Hollywood simultaneously. But Damien Chazelle’s La La Land takes a wide aim at the movie business while still managing to show why so many flock to Tinseltown to chase their dreams – even if most of them end up writing think pieces in between their shifts at Starbucks. Mia (Emma Stone) is an aspiring actress looking for her big Hollywood break. Through a chance encounter on the highway she argues with Seb (Ryan Gosling) a jazz fanatic desperate to start his own club and reinvigorate the disappearing art he has devoted his life to. As they both struggle through tedious day jobs to pursue their dreams, a chance meeting at the bar Seb works at, and a later incident at a party convince the two that there are sparks between them. They begin dating, and their individual passions power their romance. But as each becomes more successful and closer to their dreams, the demands of success threaten to tear their relationship apart. Also there’s a lot of singing. Movies about moviemaking are regular fixtures on the Oscar-hype train. Many cases are incidents of Hollywood giving itself a nice, self-indulgent slap on the back over how wonderful, mysterious or difficult their lives are. With La La Land however there are quite clear reasons why awards will be heading its way. The film is stunningly directed, with some wonderful and original ideas in its presentation. It can be difficult to offer any innovative scenes in a city like LA, which has been covered head-to-toe in cinema leaving practically all corners a cliché. But every scene in La La Land is drenched in classic Hollywood style and mixed in with modern Hollywood vanity. It’s like existing in a present with a filter of the past covering everything you see. Colour bursts from the screen presenting the world as a land of opportunity at all the right times – when our characters meet and fall in love. This is later drained and unsaturated as reality kicks in, and issues between the characters arise. More impressively, this never becomes a distraction to the story. The subtle differences are what stand out, in lighting, wardrobe and shooting, which work to amplify the story we see played out. The plot itself is not anything particularly special, but the ways the story is told elevate it to greatness. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are both inspired choices for the leads. Stone’s Mia is a hopeful but frustrated dreamer. Her acting career is headed nowhere when we meet her, yet her creativity and spirit remains intact. As Seb enters her life things begin to look up, despite little progress being made. Stone then gets to bring out the characters true feelings of despair as her relationship begins to suffer, despite her creativity blossoming and eventually seeing some payoff. The role is filled with the typical boisterousness you would expect from Stone, and it’s easy to pull for her to achieve her dreams. Gosling’s Seb meanwhile is himself a dreamer, albeit a much more aloof one with a touch of arrogance. His passion for Jazz is the only driving force in his life, to the point where he is willing to join humiliating 80’s cover bands to fund it. Despite his reserved attitude, Gosling brings a warmth and maturity to the role that plays incredibly well off of Mia’s vulnerability. Despite being the standoffish type, it is Seb who is the one supporting the more outgoing Mia and pushing her to aim for the stars. She in turn opens his eyes to new opportunities and ways to make his love of Jazz more relatable to the people he is so desperate to attract. It’s very easy to root for the characters to be together because of these performances, whilst still seeing all the differences in them that make them strong individuals. It’s food for thought maybe that the next person you flip off on the motorway could be your soulmate, at the very least. La La Land’s strongest point is the theme of the film and the battle it tells through the story between chasing your dreams and dealing with reality. The whimsical musical numbers are often interjected with humorous quips regarding the actuality of life outside of the movies. The growing apart of the characters is facilitated not by typical Hollywood misunderstandings or coincidences but by fundamental issues in their relationship relating to the characters careers. Seb’s life on the road as a keyboard player for example and the stress a long distance relationship puts on Mia. These matters are what facilitates the drama of the movie and raise the questions over what we need to compromise on when two sides of a relationship have different goals and dreams. It is clear as these characters become closer that each side requires sacrifice from the other to fulfil their goals. Seb’s goals involve being on the road to earn enough to start his club, leaving Mia alone. Mia’s require Seb to be more present in the relationship where she can stay in LA to secure acting roles. And while both are at a crucial point in their careers, their demands of each other threaten their dreams. In an old Hollywood movie, they would each know exactly what to say and do to solve their issues, and live happily ever after with all their dreams come true. But that isn’t the world in which La La Land exists. It’s a world where people make mistakes. It’s a world where people don’t always know the perfect thing to say. And it’s where people have to give up some of the things that mean the most to them to find what they need to be happy. It’s hard to imagine that a film about an aspiring Hollywood actress and a Jazz sensation falling in love in the Hollywood hills can be applicable to most people on the planet – especially in today’s culture of anti-elitism and disdain for all things metropolitan. But despite all its whimsy, La La Land is one of the most realistic films of the year. Final Thoughts La La Land is no average LA love story. Much like Damien Chazelle’s previous film Whiplash, central to the film is the price that must be paid for success. It’s the story of two creative individuals with hopes and dreams and what they have to sacrifice in order to attain them. Whilst far more optimistic in its outlook than Whiplash was about doing what it takes to achieve greatness, La La Land isn’t afraid to ask questions about whether the pursuit of dreams will truly lead to happiness, and whether relationships can survive against the demands of a passion. Looking past the toe-tapping songs and excellent performances, and the richness of this modern day classic is on full display. If it sweeps the Oscar’s, it won’t be because of Hollywood’s need for self-indulgence (alright, not JUST because of that). It will be because no other film takes the same risks in telling an original story about love, commitment and creativity as La La Land has done. Now, if only J.K Simmons’ cameo appearance could have been changed to feature him screaming ‘NOT MY TEMPO!!!’ at Ryan Gosling, it would have Whiplash beat in every way.

Jessablle is a 2014 American horror film directed by Kevin Greutert and written by Ben Garant. The first time I watched this movie, I wasn't expecting much. Most horror films have the same old boring storyline; people move into an old house with withering walls and strange things start to happen. This movie, however, grabbed my attention straight away. I was gripped. Jessabelle is a movie that has it's hold on you from start to finish, and even has you thinking about it long after it's horrors have been revealed. The twist and turns in the plot will have you on edge and yelling at the TV screen. This film is a must watch and needs to be more widely noticed.

At a runtime of two hours, Justice League is a short film in comparison to director Zack Snyder’s previous efforts. That said, it’s two hours too many for this shambles of a comic book movie. It’s a mystery Snyder is still allowed anywhere near these projects given the mess he has already caused in the DC Universe, which has so far been severely disappointing. It’s difficult to describe the plot given there isn’t really much of one, but simply put, Bruce Wayne aka Batman (Ben Affleck) sets out to put together a team of super-humans to fight an alien enemy, headed by the unsubtly CGI’d Steppenwolf. Batman’s team compromises of Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Mamoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher). The movie picks up where last year’s Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice left off, both narratively and in terms of quality or lack thereof. Snyder clearly hasn’t learned his lessons from the critical response of his previous effort as this is just more of the same loud, over CGI’d and poorly written nonsense that we had to endure last year. The entire film is just one over-egged fight or explosion after the other, much like we have come to recognise with Snyder’s movies. There is absolutely no attention to character detail and there are far too many moments in the movie that leave questions unanswered and the whole thing makes absolutely no sense. There was a shining light for the DC Universe with the entry of Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman which added a bit of colour and charm to what was a bleak cinematic franchise. And you can’t help but feel sorry for Gal Gadot who doesn’t deserve to be in such a mess of a movie after her efforts earlier this year, as she is by far the best thing about Justice League (though that’s not saying much). Ben Affleck has already discussed leaving the franchise and it’s clear to see in his performance that he isn’t keen on staying there too much longer. Little can be said for the other characters in the movie, as we’re either not offered a a full understanding of them or they are just plain annoying. This obviously isn’t helped by the shoddy writing of Snyder who is less concerned about making sense of the movie and instead wants to make a giant spectacle of shouting, fighting and blowing things up over and over again. The dialogue is also incredibly poor and nonsensical, again reiterating what a dour job of writing these DC movies Snyder has done. Yes, Justice League is a superhero movie and therefore shouldn’t be over-analysed, but the Dark Knight movies, along with every Avenger movie, has proved that comic book movies can carry substance and portray more than a vast spectacle. But when a director like Snyder is at the helm, unfortunately that is exactly what we have come to expect and that is what we get from Justice League. Once again, he produces a boring mess of a superhero movie which deserves so much better. @SceneItMovie sceneit3.wordpress.com

Having heard and then read about the tragic way, news reporter Christine Chubbuck had committed suicide live on air while reporting the news in 1974, I was interested in watching this film and seeing how she had come to the end of her tether and decided that life was no longer for her. Christine was a 29 year old television reporter who wanted to bring people the real news and not what the station wanted her to put out there just for ratings. She is constantly at log a heads with her boss who wants her to do pieces on crime and not human interest pieces. She begins to fall for one of her co-workers who she later finds out is dating someone else in the station. Christine starts experiencing stomach pains and after visiting the doctor, she learns she has to have an ovary removed which will reduce her likelihood of having children along with the fact she is still a virgin and has never had a boyfriend in her adulthood. The owner of the station comes to search for talent he can take and set up a new station in Baltimore. She is so eager to please her boss and get the opportunity to move to Baltimore that she goes and buys a police scanner and listens to it in hopes to get grittier stories. She is asked out to dinner by the co-worker that she has a crush on and accepts. They talk about one an another's insecurities and they then head to a self-help group that her co-worker attends because he wants to help her. The co-worker drives her home after the self-help group and before she exits the car he tells her that he has been offered the job at Baltimore. She sits there in silence for a few minutes and then exits the car. She gets in to her car and drives to the boss's house and talks to him about the job in Baltimore and that she knows the co-worker got the job and asks if there is still room for her. The boss tells her that the co-worker had already asked for someone else to attend with him, the women he is dating who reads the sports. The next day she arrives at work and asks her manager if it is okay for her to read a piece and a few minutes of talk about it he agrees and she goes to get ready to go live on air. She starts to read the piece which includes a video bit, however the video gets jammed and she is asked to just carry on reading. She then goes on to tell the viewers that they are about to see a live suicide attempt and she pulls out a gun a shots her self behind the ear. Her manager at first believes it is all a joke but quickly realise it is real and call an ambulance. She is taken to the hospital where she dies 14 hours after the incident. The manager finds the script that Christine was reading from when she had shot her self and it was all written on the script, and it also had what she wanted them to say to the press, "TV 40 news personality Christine Chubbuck shot herself in a live broadcast this morning on a Channel 40 talk program. She was rushed to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, where she remains in critical condition." This film brings to light the effects of depression and how some individuals struggle everyday with it. The struggle they face on a daily basis and how some believe there is no hope and have only one way out. It is a great story with heart and not just focusing on the event that the film is based on. The back story, although unsure if it is true to her real circumstances, shows us that people just want to be loved. I highly recommend this film. The cast are great, Rebecca Hall won 3 awards for her portrayal of Christine Chubbuck.

So, what does that tell us? That the only truly reliable narrator is life itself. But life itself is also a completely unreliable narrator because it is constantly misdirecting and misleading us and taking us on this journey where it is literally impossible to predict where it’s gonna go next. Occasionally I come across such a film that knows how to surprise me. At first, I wondered what it was all about. Usually, I take a wait-and-see approach and see where it’s going. If there’s no improvement in terms of story and it remains quite uninteresting, I’ll give up. Fortunately, this rarely happens. And certainly not in the case of “Life itself“. As the film progressed, it became (at least for me) more fascinating. Before I knew it, I was looking at the credits with astonishment and I thought to myself: “Wow, what the hell was this”. A film that succeeds in making me quiet and paralyzed. That’s quite an achievement. Hate campaign? In retrospect, I was somewhat surprised at the negative comments regarding this film. I do understand there are people who are allergic to tragedy, drama, and sadness in films. But the bursts of tirades being fired at this movie, are rather exaggerated in my opinion. Or is it my anarchist nature that is rebelling? Calling “Life itself” the “Worst movie of the year“, is a bit shortsighted and slightly simplistic. I suppose those who did, only watched the crème de la crème of films that year. I dare to admit that I’ve seen much worse last year. Again it looks like a snowball effect after the appearing of some reviews of prominent film critics. And expressions such as “semi-intellectual”, “philosophical ramblings” and “overly melodramatic” are copied excessively so that it resembles a we-against-them situation. Or is it an acute case of navel-gazing? Or are they all male critics who, just like Dan Fogelman said in an interview, hate films with emotions? Maybe a defense mechanism so nobody would say that their tough torso contains too many female hormones. Oh well. If you focus on the correctness of timelines and the correct layout of the different time sections only, you may lose sight of the larger picture. Holier-than-thou? I am convinced that among those notorious critics, there are some who unknowingly believe in certain things that would fit perfectly into the context of this film. Isn’t it so that people speak of a soul mate who exists somewhere on this planet? That there’s this one special person somewhere who’s a good fit for you? And isn’t the term karma used all the time? Does coincidence exist? Or coincidentally not? And then the pinnacle of mysterious power that millions believe in. The divine power that watches over us and directs our lives. I bet some of those opinion writers have used these terms before? Or that they want to save their soul every week by solemnly entering a church somewhere? Well, not me. Am I too realistic? Too suspicious? Could be. But I believe that a combination of circumstances and destiny can form the basis of a story such as “Life itself“. The first chapter is phenomenal. Without a doubt, the first chapter is the one with the most impact. A chapter full of confusion, psychological distress, and trauma. But also a chapter about eternal love. Finding that one specific person who fits you unconditionally. Will (Oscar Isaac) and Abby (Olivia Wilde) are such a couple. The living proof of the well-known saying about the pot and the lid. Until one day Abby leaves Will, and Will’s life immediately becomes a mess. A ruin that needs to be restored with the help of a psychologist. It’s a chapter in which the storyline wraps itself ingeniously around Will’s past and present. With and without Abby. With and without the will to live. A chapter full of flashbacks. A chapter introduced by Samuel L. Jackson who represents the “unreliable storyteller”. The subject of Abby’s thesis. But at the same time, he plays a character from a script that Abby and Will wanted to write together. “A husband and wife Tarantino”. That’s why Samuel L. Jackson uses his “Pulp Fiction” intonation. And then there are some who claim that his contribution adds little to the story. well, you just have to want to see it, I guess. Two different family trees. The chapter ends shockingly. A blow of a sledgehammer, as it were. And from then on the story begins to spread intercontinental. From the rebellious Dylan (Olivia “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” Cooke), the end result of the wonderful love between Abby and Will, whose life is dominated by death. To Spain, where the rich olive oil manufacturer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas) tells his life story to one of his workers, Javier Gonzalez (Sergio Peris-Mencheta). And although these two different family trees initially have nothing in common with each other, the two storylines melt together in a bewildering manner. But you have to discover for yourself how it all gets connected. The unreliable narrator. The only flaw I could think of is the predictability at a certain moment. At first, you don’t have a clue what’s going on. Once you’ve passed that point, you can already see where it’s going. If I were a nitpicker, I would use this to criticize “Life itself” harshly. But the inventive story and the sometimes excellent acting of a group of well-known actors make this a side issue. Perhaps it all seems doom and gloom. As if real life only produces sorrow and misery. Where you experience one setback after the other. Everyone has bad periods in their lives and emotionally difficult experiences. But perhaps the message is also that there is always light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t believe in coincidence or destiny. I don’t believe in a heavenly power that determines our lives and sets out the route in our lives. But admit it. The way the story developed here could actually also occur in real life. Unfortunately, sometimes life is indeed an unreliable narrator. My rating 8/10 Links: IMDB

When a musical about circus performers set in the mid 1800-s opens with a song which sounds like it could be straight off of the 2018 charts, you can be fairly confident that you are in for an experience you will remember, for better or worse. You could probably say the same about a trip to the P.T. Barnum museum funnily enough and – like the museum – this movie features more than enough pizzazz to keep eyes glued to the attractions despite possessing something of a grimy underbelly. The Greatest Showman is director Michael Gracey’s feature film debut but it doesn’t feel much like it. Whether this is because he was wise enough to surround himself with experienced people, or whether It’s because he himself is particularly talented is anyone’s guess. But what is without question is that this movie had direction, the quality of which is obvious from every assured arc and sweep of the camera. Mechanically and stylistically almost everything here is on point. The songs are catchy as all hell, the choreography is always solid; occasionally wonderful, the costume design feels incredibly authentic, the editing shows some real flair for scene and location transitions and there are one or two genuinely stunning shots. The only mark against it here is a few uses of CGI which could charitably be described as ‘a little on the cheap side’. If you want a movie that provides songs which will stick in your head accompanied by all the stimulation that lights, colours and engaging camera work can provide then you will get what you’re after here. However - and it’s a pretty big ‘however’ - movies need to tell a story, and most of the narrative elements here are lacking. Chief among which is the fact that no one in this movie who hasn’t also played Wolverine gets to do very much actual acting. And listen, I like a good sized helping of Hugh Jackman in my movies; who doesn’t? He’s like Hollywood’s cool dad. But there are other characters in this movie and other stories waiting to be told, and for the most part they’re barely explored. Zac Efron (who is actually really good with what he is given) is set up in a potentially interesting love triangle with Zendaya, but her current partner at the start of the film (played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is - amazingly - unable to do much character work with the whole one line of dialogue he has. So what you end up with is a Zac Efron / Zendaya love story occasionally interspersed with cutaways of Abdul-Mateen looking unhappy for some reason. Character development, or the lack thereof, is a real issue. There are problematic elements of the story being told that are omitted or changed, presumably to make everything more palatable, although I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject. Barnum was, by all accounts, a bit of an exploitative bastard, so when the film tries to hammer home a poorly-judged message about the value of family and your roots in the final act it comes across as white-washing a fairly questionable character’s actions in service of telling a nice story. And it’s a bit of a shame that in 2018 a movie about weirdos and outsiders didn’t do more to compare the prejudice and judgement these characters faced to the experiences of those deemed 'abnormal' by today's society, especially since it had already bridged that gap with the stylistic choice of using modern music in a period film. However, I don’t want to criticise The Greatest Showman for what it isn’t. What it is, despite a script which keeps the narrative incredibly simple and takes the term ‘character development’ to mean that you’re only supposed to develop literally one character before stopping, is an incredibly fun movie. It doesn’t address the social issues it perhaps should, it doesn’t tell a story of any real substance and it doesn’t give it’s supporting cast enough to do, but when the lights come up and the music starts you might well find yourself forgetting any of that because the presentation is so exceptional. This is a wonderful musical, which fails only in the areas that many other (incredibly popular) musicals also have before it, and viewed as such it has to be considered a success for Gracey and co. Jackman's character at one point states that people come to see his shows for the pleasure of being hoodwinked, and that’s a mentality which would well serve people who view The Greatest Showman. You’re not coming here to see the presentation of an actual mermaid, you just want to be lied to for a bit. Here, it is possible to lose oneself amongst the bright lights and the dazzling musical performances. Escapism of this quality is rare, even if it fails to truly capitalise on it’s potential.

(Release Info U.K. schedule; January 26th, 2018) "Maze Runner: The Death Cure" In "The Maze Runner" Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) woke up as he was being delivered to "The Glade'. He had no memory of who he was or why he’d become a member of a community of young people; among them Minho (Ki Hong Lee), lead maze runner; Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), a good friend and advisor, Gally (Will Poulter), a leader and adversary and Teresa (Kaya Scodelario), the only female glader, with whom Thomas may have a potentially dark history. Together they're trapped, surrounded by 200 foot walls and an ever-changing maze. Bad turns to worse when 'The Gladers' finally escape 'The Maze' only to discover they're in the middle of a desolate wasteland called 'The Scorch'. In "Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials", Thomas and the surviving gladers met new allies while discovering clues about a mysterious group behind all of their tests, an organization known as 'WCKD'. With "Maze Runner: The Death Cure" the motives of 'WCKD' become clearer, Dr. Ava Paige (Patricia Clarkson), 'WCKD’s' executive director is close to what she believes is a cure for the disease known as 'The Flare', an infection that has decimated the world’s population. But the cure comes by sacrificing the few young people left in the world who are apparently immune. In order to free those who've been rounded up as test subjects, including his friend Minho, Thomas must now band together with fellow survivors, old and new, and take the battle to what may be the last remaining city and the final stronghold of 'WCKD'. He must break into the super-secure 'WKCD' headquarters and try to bring down the organization from the inside. Action reaches new heights in this mission-oriented third and final segment of 'The Maze Runner". "The Maze Runner" was the first of a trilogy of stories based on the James Dashner novels. In the original 'Maze Runner' the involuntary inhabitants of the mysterious encampment knows as 'The Glade' were surrounded by an ever-changing maze with 200 foot walls. They're a colony of young men with a singular goal; escape the glade by solving the maze. When Thomas showed up and, shortly after, 'The Glade’s' first girl inhabitant Teresa, everything began to change. The way out led them to the truth; they're members in an immense and cruel test. In "Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials" 'The Gladers', as they're now known, discovered that once out of the maze they're not the only participants forced to endure tests. There were in fact other mazes, other survivors and they were to learn of the organization that had selected them, 'WCKD'. Thomas, who had become the presumptive leader of the group, didn’t trust the message he was hearing that 'WCKD' is good. Breaking free from the compound where they’d been housed after being rescued Thomas led the survivors of the original maze and others he had encountered in the new facility out into 'The Scorch”, a desert wasteland that appeared to be all that was left of the world. Looking for a rumored safe haven, the group became trapped when Teresa, conflicted about 'WCKD' and it's true mission, gave up the hidden location of the surviving assemblage and a 'WCKD' resistance group known as 'The Right Arm'. Having been betrayed by Teresa, and vowing to save Minho, who has been abducted by 'WCKD', Thomas concluded 'The Scorch Trials' with a single declaration to kill Ava Paige. The woman who had become synonymous with the organization enigmatically named 'WCKD' had now become his nemesis. When "Death Cure" opens, it's clear the team have had time to come up with their plan. They're a different group, organized and on the offensive. It’s a plan so audacious it requires that they steal an entire moving train car in their attempt to save Minho. "Maze Runner: The Death Cure", picks up roughly six months after "The Scorch Trials" ended. In the final battle of 'The Scorch' the survivors of 'The Flare', a disease that has devastated the world’s population, have defined their purpose; to find a safe haven away from the influence of 'WCKD'. Uncertain if this last city had even survived, 'The Gladers' knew that somehow gaining entry would be difficult. To then break in to the 'WKCD' headquarters where Minho was being held, that was impossible. In the first movie the challenge was to solve the maze, to break out of 'The Glade'. A big part of the group, led by Gally, wanted no part of that. They looked at 'The Glade' as their home and they were safe. 'In Scorch Trials' we're out of 'The Maze', had a building to live in and were taken care of but there was a price to pay.  In "Death Cure", Thomas wants to break in to the place that caused all of this to save his friend Minho, which he promised he’d do. Most thought it was a crazy plan. The Thomas character is someone that takes that step forward into the unknown when everyone else takes a step back. It’s a film about not leaving a man behind. And that's Thomas’ journey. Newt is skeptical of it, so are some of the other 'Gladers'. You've a big choice to make when you’re going after one man who has been captured, what do you do with all of those other young people who you’re trying to save? How does that balance out? So it’s a conundrum of sorts. As the target of Thomas mission, Dr. Ava Paige sees the 'WCKD' agenda as a very challenging moral dilemma. She's someone who truly cares for the immunes but she has a drive to succeed that's above all else. It’s an almost heartbreaking relationship with Thomas. If there’s someone who can deeply affect and touch Ava, it’s Thomas. She goes on to explain how failure isn't something her character handles easily. And she has that very powerful line to Janson (Aidan Gillen) when she says, 'it’s not about giving up, it’s actually knowing when you’ve lost'. As much as all the characters have maintained the family bond through the first two films, this time with a direct assault on 'WCKD' the strategy has become one of divide and conquer, requiring the group to split into teams to become even stronger. She has a very strong agenda, obviously, and people’s feelings, thoughts, emotion are not a large part of her life. What's important to her is survival. As we moved through the three episodes, through the three installments, in this third one you see a slightly more personal side to Ava. You see how she lives in a way. You see she’s more affected by human contact or human interaction. Ultimately you find out in the end she really thought she's doing the right thing. Janson is an employee if you like, of the 'WCKD' corporation. But a very ambitious employee. He’s almost like a secret policeman or something. The Janson character is initially introduced into the story, or to the kids, if we can call them that, as providing a potential way out or maybe a good guy within this corporate prison environment. But it turns out he wasn’t that. We got to see that through the course of the film. At this stage in the story he's even more driven and ruthless and reckless and ambitious you know, with an eye running the show. Though Ava Paige is behind the ever-repeating message 'WCKD' is good there’s plenty of doubt about that in Brenda’s (Rosa Salazar) mind. She doesn’t believe for a moment that 'WKCD' is the altruistic organization they present themselves to be. They’re trampling on the people in order to make money while at the same time telling people we’re trying to help. They’re harvesting the serum from innocent children. They’re trying to capitalize on a very devastating epidemic. They’re not doing it for us, and they’re not doing it for the good of the people, and they’re not doing it to save lives, they’re doing it so that they can make a coin. In the first film, 'The Gladers' primary goal was to escape. In the second film, they're on the run, staying barely a step ahead of 'WCKD'. Now, as they turn the tables and are on the offensive they find help from an unlikely source; Gally. Thought to have been killed while turning against the others in the last moments before escaping 'The Maze', their old companion and Thomas adversary is on the forefront of the war against 'WKCD'. As many fans of 'The Maze Runner' novels know, Gally makes his surprise return in the third book. Gally was the one who, when back in the maze, never wanted to rock the boat. Now, he’s back and he’s a soldier leading the war against 'WCKD'. The others, especially Thomas, don’t trust him but now Gally wants to defeat 'WCKD', he wants to bring them down. As 'The Gladers' pursue their mission to rescue Minho, they also have a chance to save many of the other immune children captured by 'WCKD' and to be used as test subjects. The tests 'WKCD' is conducting are their attempt to see if the immunes might have what's needed to make a serum to cure 'The Flare'. The first film, with 'The Maze', was all cement and decay. The second story was the sand and rust of 'The Scorch' and this film, "The Death Cure", is a world of glass and steel. They each have their own tone and color palate. But it’s the world of steel and glass, a world that 'The Gladers' are not even certain exists that will become the target as they take the battle to 'WCKD'. The battle against 'WKCD' actually started at the end of 'Scorch Trials'. In the third book there’s this whole idea of a resistance, a group opposed to 'WCKD'. Having the warring factions show up at the end of the second movie is a slight deviation from the book. There are things that aren’t exactly like the book but they’re inspired by the books. The fans of the books are very loyal to the stories and very protective of them but some things just work better in a cinematic universe. The whole movie’s really a rescue mission and it’s a special sequence in this exciting trilogy. "Scorch Trials" started at the exact moment that the first film ended. With this film, it been about six months and you can see that these guys have been busy. They’ve taken that time to get organized, to come up with a plane and to go save Minho. You’re in a place where people still band together and they rise up. Where people have an interest in what’s going on around them and they say it and they vocalize it and they fight. People here, they will fight, they will rise up. Having rescued a train car full of young people, all immune to 'The Flare', headed for the test labs of 'WCKD', the ultimate goal is get everyone to the safe haven. Once again, it's a place that no one was sure really existed.   The locations are absolutely stunning and unique and you’re getting a little bit of a throwback to 'The Maze', 'The Grievers’ might make an appearance you get sort of everything. It’s a culmination of all three books and "The Death Cure" really brings it all together. It’s an amazing adventure. The design is fantastic. It’s very easy to act on those sets, you know. It’s not like, oh here’s a white wall and over there it just stops and there’s a bunch of people standing around. It really feels like a world that you can inhabit, like the real thing, because it’s all there. You know you can walk down that corridor and there’s another corridor and you can walk into that corridor and there’s a lab and then it brings you back to the other corridor. It’s quite easy to feel it. It’s not only giant but it’s also very specific in that it reflects a modern day dystopian western.

Robert Aldrich directs this multi-Oscar-nominated psychological thriller about a Southern belle who, plagued by a horrifying family secret, descends into madness when a lost relative suddenly shows up. Director Robert Aldrich had make the first successful ‘women’s picture’ for a hugely long time with the very enjoyable and unexpected success What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? two years earlier, starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in their most memorable roles. Aldrich had wanted to get the two actress, who were very bitter to each other, to get them to work on another film together using the very similar themes that he used for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, but it wasn’t going to be an easy task, as Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte encountered a troubled pre-production and also encountered trouble during the filming of the picture. But the arguments between Davis and Crawford had started way before pre-production had got underway. Bette Davis initially was not interested in signing on to this project and she even ordered the director to change the title of the film (it was originally called What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte). She was also absolutely furious at Crawford for her making a campaign to let Davis not win the Academy Award for Best Actress for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, which she was nominated for (Anne Bancroft ended up winning for her superb performance in The Miracle Worker). Bette Davis accepted the role of Charlotte when Aldrich let her be the producer of the movie, so he got that side of the story sorted out. Crawford had signed on to play the role of Miriam, Charlotte’s cousin. However, she was furious that Davis had given role of the producer and she made her feelings very clear to the director. To make the situation worse for her, during the filming of this movie, Crawford faked an illness that forced Aldrich to fire her from the project and heard via radio that she had ended up being replaced by Olivia de Havilland. Crawford was absolutely upset about this and when she heard the news, her career was effectively ended. The details of how these events happened are depicted in the very enjoyable television series Feud: Bette and Joan, with Susan Sarandon as Davis and Jessica Lange as Crawford. Eventually, Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte was released in 1964 and ended up being another hit film for Robert Aldrich – and it is a very good reason as well. Adapted from the short story What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte, the story concerns Charlotte (Bette Davis), a southern belle who, in 1924, on the night that they were meant to get married, found her lover killed during a party and the blood on her outfit makes everyone think that she committed the awful act. Now, 40 years later, Charlotte is an old outsider and she has to fight to keep her home. She gets her cousin Miriam (Olivia de Havilland) to help her, but soon after Miriam arrives, Charlotte’s mind begins to get unstable – and she descends into madness and violence – demanding that she just gets everything that she wants. Bette Davis (in her final collaboration with Robert Aldrich) gives a very good performance in her role as the title character Charlotte and she suits the role very well, acting at her superb, nasty best and also allowing the audience to let her know that when she is angry, she properly means it (Aldrich’s excellent direction allows the facial expressions to be seen to a very strong effect throughout). Davis also gave a very good performance in a double role playing twins in Dead Ringer, so 1964 would be an excellent cinematic year for her. Olivia de Havilland (who became good friends with Davis and described working with her as ‘highly professional’) is very good in her role as Miriam, a poor cousin who lived with the family as a girl, but since moved to New York City and became very rich herself. Although this isn’t the most memorable performance of de Havilland’s career, it is definitely not the worst, but I can describe it as the most dramatic and best performance that she gave where she was not nominated for any major awards. Joseph Cotten is good in his role as Drew Bayliss, a doctor who rebuilds his relationship with Miriam following the murder, while there is very solid support to be had from Agnes Moorhead in her role as Velma, the housekeeper of Charlotte’s house and she suits the role very well, acting like she wants to help out as much as possible. In her final role, Mary Astor (in her second collaboration with Davis following The Great Lie, which won Astor the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress) is good in her role as Jewel, a not-very-well widow whose husband was murdered. Cecil Kellaway is good as Mr. Willis, an insurance man who investigates the murder of Charlotte’s husband John, while Victor Buono (in his second collaboration with Aldrich and Davis) is good in his supporting role as Big Sam Hollis. So, you can definitely say that Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte definitely appeals thanks to having a star-studded cast and they certainly do not disappoint in their respective roles. The direction from Aldrich is excellent because not only does he allow the facial expressions to be seen to a strong effect throughout on all the cast, but also keeps a tense atmosphere happening throughout, particularly with the dramatic moments and scenes that involve Bette Davis, while the script is written to a very decent standard by Henry Farrell and Lukas Heller as they make the film easy to follow. The technical elements of the film are very impressive, with the set, cinematography, music, costume and editing all standing out best in glorious black-and-white – the set is very decent to look at throughout at all times; the camera makes very good use of the locations the movie uses, captures the facial expressions very well and also captures the tense moments well, which definitely gets the edge-of-the-seat status; the music is very enjoyable to listen to and the dramatic score with the tense moments helps keeping you gripped; the costumes are excellently designed by Norma Koch; the film is edited to a very decent standard. The title song Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte is very enjoyable to listen to. However, what is the single and most annoying thing about the film is the pace – it can only just be a little slow at times – it would have been better if there just a couple more moments of tension throughout. In terms of the major awards, the movie managed to win 7 Academy Award nominations: Best Supporting Actress (Agnes Moorhead), Best Art Direction (Black-and-White), Best Cinematography (Black-and-White), Best Costume Design (Black-and-White), Best Film Editing, Best Music, Substantially Original Score and Best Original Song (Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte). It didn’t win any of those awards, but the nominations were definitely deserved. Agnes Moorhead did manage to win the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress. At least the movie won something rather than absolutely nothing. It’s a shame that the Golden Globes don’t do technical categories anymore, because if they did, I am sure this film would have got nominations for its set, cinematography, costume and music from The Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Overall, Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte is one very enjoyable adaptation of the short story What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte, thanks to the very good performances from the star-studded cast, along with Robert Aldrich’s excellent direction, the well written script, the tense atmosphere and superb technical elements. The only criticism is just the small but sometimes slow pace. ★ ★ ★ ★

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Ron Clements and John Musker direct Disney’s Oscar and Golden Globe-winning animated adaptation of the classic Hans Christian Andersen tale about a mermaid who defies her father and visits the surface of the sea, where she falls in love with a human prince. Disney animated features The Fox and the Hound and Oliver & Company didn’t do particularly well when they were first released but now are regarded as classics and I can understand why. When The Little Mermaid was released, it was a huge critical and commercial hit – the first big success that Disney had since The Rescuers 12 years earlier. The Little Mermaid is also credited with being the movie that started the Disney Renaissance and it is very easy to understand why. So successful, it spawned a direct-to-video sequel called The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea 11 years later and a direct-to-video prequel titled The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning 8 years after Return to the Sea. The movie also inspired a television series of the same name, a prequel detailing the events of Ariel’s underwater adventures before she encountered a prince. It’s also possible that a live-action version will be made and this will be absolutely fascinating to view and look forward to. The story of The Little Mermaid concerns Ariel (Jodi Benson), a 16-year-old mermaid who is struggling to get with her father King Triton (Kenneth Mars), who is the ruler of Atlantica. Triton strongly forbids her to go to the surface, because he strongly believes that humans are dangerous. However, one of her visits to the surface sees her meet a handsome prince and she falls in love with him. Ariel believes that humans are not that dangerous, so she is determined to become human. She strikes a dangerous deal with a sea witch named Ursula (Pat Carroll) and she becomes human for three days. But the plans for the star-crossed lovers go badly wrong, leaving Triton to make the final decision for his daughter. Jodi Benson gives a superb voice performance in her role as Ariel (what she is best known for) and she suits the role so well and also proves that she can sing very well too – she hits high notes to perfection. Jodi Benson is also good as Vanessa (Ursula’s alter-human ego). There is a very good voice performance to be had from Kenneth Mars in his role as King Triton, the ruler of Atlantica who makes his feelings very, very clear towards his youngest daughter. Samuel E. Wright is good as the crab Sebastian who has to keep an eye on Ariel’s every move, while Jason Marin is good as Ariel’s best friend Flounder the fish and Buddy Hackett suits his role as Scuttle very well – Scuttle provides the best moments of humour in the film, which is definitely a good thing because it means the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously. Pat Carroll voices the role of Ursula the sea witch to an excellent standard – she really does – giving the most memorable role of her career. Carroll said that she wanted to play a villain after playing a number of nice characters – this part was perfect for her. The direction from Clements and Musker is very good because they allow the facial expressions to be seen to a very strong effect throughout, most notably on Ariel and King Triton with the scenes that they share together, while the script is very well written by the two directors as they make the movie very easy to follow. The technical elements of the film are very impressive, with the set, cinematography, music, and visual effects standing out best – the set is very decent to look at; the camera makes very good use of the locations the movie uses and also captures the tense and dramatic moments well, getting the edge-of-the-seat status; the music is very enjoyable to listen to at all times – Alan Menken has done an absolutely terrific job with his score and he can be very proud of this; the visual effects are excellent, particularly with King Triton’s trident and the bubbles the movie uses (apparently over 100 bubbles were drawn – for an animated feature – this is very impressive). In terms of the songs the movie has, Part of Your World (which very nearly didn’t make the final cut) stands out very well as Ariel keeps on believing that she wants to be a human girl and the audience now knows exactly what dream she wants to achieve. Kiss the Girl is very enjoyable to very listen to when Ariel and Prince Eric are having a boat ride, while Poor Unfortunate Souls is good and sung very well by Pat Carroll. However, the best song in the movie, by a mile, is Under the Sea, sung brilliantly by Samuel E. Wright, where Sebastian desperately tries to convince Ariel that life is so much better for her Under the Sea (he does literally try everything to stop Ariel from getting into trouble from King Triton). In terms of the major awards, The Little Mermaid deservedly won Academy Awards and Golden Globes for Best Original Score (Alan Menken) and Best Original Song (Under the Sea – music by Alan Menken and lyrics by Howard Ashman), while Kiss the Girl was nominated in the Original Song category at both ceremonies. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association also nominated The Little Mermaid for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy and this nomination was deserved and I do feel that this was unlucky not have to been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. Overall, The Little Mermaid is one brilliant adaptation of the classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen that is guaranteed to bring a smile to your face.

Warmth. Wonder. Wishfullness. As each moment passed, the importance of family filled my heart. The spectacular story that rose Pixar back from the dead - Coco. Suitable for all ages, Coco conveys the appreciation for heritage, as it brings longing, joy, and moving music to the big screen. Coco tells the story of a young Mexican boy, Miguel, determined in becoming a successful musician, like his idol, Ernesto de la Cruz. However, due to his family's ban on music, Miguel finds himself having an adventure in the breathtaking Land of the Dead. Coco manages to make its audience question, "how long will it be before I am forgotten?" This was a powerful route for Disney Pixar to take, but it's not surprising that it worked. How often do they disappoint? Family is the most extraordinary bond on the planet; this is what Coco suceeded in proving to its audiences. However, they not only did that, but showed the world how huge of a role that music plays in our souls. This is clearly showed as 'Remember Me' won an Oscar for Best Original Song. 'Remember Me' conveys that love has no barriers, especially when it comes to distance. No matter how far away a loved one is, they will always be there in heart; this is a significant message within both the song, and the movie as a whole. The power of music is also conveyed in Coco, as we see it tear a family apart, however see an ambitious young boy use it to bring them back together. Coco continues to please audiences as it also ticks off the list for context. This magical masterpiece not only creates characters that are easy to sympathise for, but places them within the very real environment of Mexico. The culture is the very centre of the movie, as it is based around the events of Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), and Pixar clearly went to great lengths to ensure that Coco was culturally correct. Disney Pixar created vibrant visuals for their refreshing, comforting movie. Although Coco was familiar to other Pixar films surrounding the topic of family, Coco is undeniably one of their best! 4.5☆

Lord of the Bad Boys When ‘Bright’ first appeared on my ‘Netflix screen’, when browsing through the various other titles, I hesitated for some time over the play button. The premise interested me, as well as the choice of acting talent and from the trailer, it looked very different and stylish. Having seen ‘Fury’ and thought it a very impressive war film, I was drawn in by this title but at the same time, I had some reservations. Mainly being, that despite David Ayer having directed a handful of good films, he was also the man responsible for ‘Suicide Squad’. Being a big fan of ‘DC Comics’ and ‘Batman’ in particular, I was disappointed in a number of things in ‘Suicide Squad’, as were many others. The main concerns were costume design and casting, as they were the two biggest failings of ‘Suicide Squad’ in my opinion. Will Smith is a very capable actor and given some truly impressive performances over the years but there is always the concern that he will be thrown into a role where he is type cast i.e. playing the same character as in ‘Bad Boys’ and ‘Men in Black’.  So, going into the film, my expectations weren’t particularly high, and I have to say, having watched the flick in it’s entirety, I was actually quite impressed. Initially, after watching the trailer and seeing images and posters, I was a little sceptical of the costume design. On closer inspection however, I must admit that they have upped their game. The orcs have been designed through a mixture of prosthetics and a clever implement of CGI. There is a still a slightly low budget look to the skin and makeup design but it gets away with it because it isn’t too over the top. A few of the minor character’s tattoos did annoy me, as in ‘Suicide Squad’ but I was able to overlook it, as there were enough other strong elements of the film to carry it. Will Smith’s character Ward is well done. On the surface and particularly at the start of the film, he does feel like a generic smart-arse cop but as the film develops and we learn more about his character, we begin to understand that it is all just an act.  Will Smith gives a very strong performance, but it is Joel Edgerton that really stands out in this film. Both his character and personality of Jakoby are created and executed masterfully. His awkward, clumsy and slightly naive attitude makes him a relatable character, even though he is an orc. In fact, in a lot of ways he is more human then Ward. I feel this is kind of what the writer and director are hinting at in a way. From Ward’s brutal take down of a pest fairy at the beginning, to the corrupt and prejudice human cops that racially abuse Jakoby, the film very much aims to highlight the human nature of the orcs. There is also another reason why Jakoby is such an engaging character. Being a rookie cop, he has pressure to perform up against other more experience and hardened police officers. Combine this with being the only orc in a fully human precinct and it sets the scene for a perfect character development and the struggles that come with it.  The way the two interact with one another is nicely done. It has that classic style of veteran cop forced to team up with newbie officer and much of their relationship reminded me of such classics as ‘Training Day’ and ‘Dirty Harry’. Ward has the unfazed and weary behaviour of a tenured cop but when push comes to the shove, demonstrates his competence as a cop. Jakoby on the other hand is eager, optimistic but significantly wet behind the ears. This team up, whilst a cliché in many respects allows for a great dynamic between the pair and some truly hilarious examples of dialogue exchange. It also gives the film that sense of realism. Amid all the fantasy of orcs, fairies and elves, you have that relatable cop partner scenario, which is instantly recognisable to anyone who is a fan of crime.  This leads on to the matter of the world itself. Unlike most films with a fictional world, ‘Bright’ doesn’t mess about with a detailed explanation of how humans, orcs and elves coexist. Instead, it drops viewers right into the middle of the story. The world is already established, and the characters have already been living their lives. This is not to say there isn’t any explanation. The world itself and the creatures that inhabit it are introduced in three ways: through visual cues, in dialogue and finally in situations or confrontations. Some may find this a little bit too immediate but I think it is a very effective and unique way of establishing the world. It also makes it feel more authentic. Shots of graffiti covered walls with references to orc lore and the transition from rough, impoverished orc neighbourhoods to rich, audacious elven territory, illustrate clearly both the political and economical state of the world, without the need for a black screen with paragraphs of writing, spelling it out for the viewer.  Making a gritty cop film or an epic fantasy flick is a hard task by itself. You want aspects to be familiar, as both genres have their own tropes and trademarks but at the same time, you want to bring something fresh and exciting to the table. Imagine how much more difficult that is, when trying to do that in a film that is both crime and fantasy combined. In a way, the use of orcs and elves in a modern day society with cops and gangs, is different in itself but it still needs to demonstrate an ability to do both those things competently. Personally, I think it works. It has a gritty, urban element that will appeal to fans of crime. There are corrupt cops, dangerous gangs and intense shoot outs. As well as this it has orcs and elves squaring off against each other, a prophecy, a magic wand and a dark lord. These aspects will appeal more to fans of fantasy. By combining these elements, Ayer and the writing talent Max Landis have produced something familiar but unique. At first the two concepts seem like they should not marry up but over time, as the characters and narrative develop and the world becomes more established, they slowly begin to coalesce.  ‘Bright’ is a big budget film. In fact with a 90 million dollar budget, it is the most expensive ‘Netflix’ produced film to date. The cinematography, choreography and special effects are very impressive. So much so, that I would have happily paid money to see it in the cinema. At the same though, there is something about the film that feels slightly less polished and glitzy as your standard Hollywood film. The camerawork is one example. Although, the cinematography is very pretty, there are a lot of close, over the shoulder shots, giving the shoot outs in particular, a more realistic and intense feel to them. Ayer incorporated this style in ‘End of Watch’. This style of camera work is more commonly seen in documentaries and by implementing it into a film, you can add a greater sense of realism and prevent it from looking too squeaky clean and smooth. Also, ‘Netflix’ have a reputation for producing films that look and feel different to Hollywood flicks. Mostly this is due to budget constraints but partly because of the way the film is filmed and edited. The choice to make the film through ‘Netflix’ has definitely paid off, as it still packs all the punches of a big Hollywood film but without all the glitzy and sparkly shine that is usually part and parcel.  The film is a nice length. It doesn’t feel like it is dragging. There is a good momentum and pace. Ward and Jakoby are thrown from one perilous situation to the next and there is definitely enough tension and excitement to give that much needed adrenaline hit. At the same time, they spend enough time at the beginning building up the characters and the world, so we feel invested with the protagonists, whilst feeling like the world created is genuine and well established. This accomplished, when the shit hits the pan, Ayer can make it climatic and impacting, making for an exciting watch. There are brief pauses in the chases and shoot outs, where Ward and Jakoby force each other to reveal what each other has been hiding. This technique allows our investment with the characters to grow but because it is only short sequences, it doesn’t feel drawn out or outwardly used as a plot device.  The only thing that was a little weak for me were some of the fantasy elements. The race divisions and class confrontations worked beautifully, as with most fantasy storytelling it highlights issues that are clearly apparent in real life. However, the idea of their being chosen ones, a magic wand and a dark lord seemed like a mishmash of ideas, borrowing off titans such as ‘Lord of The Rings’, ’Harry Potter’ and even ‘The Matrix’. Also, the twist of the film was readily apparent about a third of the way into the film and as such wasn’t as much of a revelation, as perhaps it could of have been.  ‘Bright’ is a deceiving film that offers a lot more to audiences that it outwardly appears. With the flop that was ‘Suicide Squad’ on the director’s resume, it is easy to see why many would be hesitant, including myself. Also, with the inclusion of Will Smith, an actor who is prone to being typecast and some slightly dodgy costume design, on first glance it may come across as unoriginal and a little naff. However, Smith’s character Ward is a much more well rounded character then he first appears and the makeup and the design of the orcs, is far more effective and polished then Ayer’s previous attempt. Once you are able to realize this, the film instantly becomes more appealing. The blending of genres was a risky gambit but pays off, as it takes two strong styles of film and merges them together to produce something which has all the traits we love in fantasy and crime but in combining the two, produces something unholy new. The characters, their personalities and the struggles they face, in a world infested with racial hate and prejudice makes it more then just another action flick and the world Ayer and the writer Max Landis have brought together is both relatable and weird enough to be fascinating. The story and narrative has a good drive to it, despite it being a little weak with some of the fantasy elements. These aspects can be ultimately overlooked, as the characters, acting, world, dialogue, cinematography and editing are strong enough to keep the viewer’s interest sustained throughout. It is only fairy enough, that Ayer gets a pat on back for a job well done.

Watching Gus van Sant’s remake of the Hitchcock classic, I was reminded of a perfectly-timed observation my sister once made when we were watching the original one lazy Sunday afternoon. She suggested that when Marion Crane undresses to have her fateful shower, Hitchcock should have cut to a shot of her removing pink puffy rabbit-shaped slippers before slipping under the cold, murderous water courtesy of the Bates Motel and its sweet attendant, Norman. It was such a hilariously random observation that I remember bursting into hysterics with her as we imagined those pink rabbity slippers being thrashed to shreds and soaked to bursting point in their owner’s blood. Indeed, I still wonder to this day what my mother must have thought when she came into the living-room to discover her two eldest children laughing and pointing hysterically at the onscreen death of a poor, unfortunate Hollywood heart-throb. “We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven’t you?” Gus van Sant’s remake is like a pink puffy rabbit-shaped slipper clinging desperately to the sweat and excess blood of the chilling original: he should have considered that not even Hitchcock can remake Hitchcock. His almost shot-for-shot colour rendition has so many inconsistencies and bizarre details that it is very hard to take Gus van Sant’s efforts seriously. I strongly doubt if that were even his intention For a start, the casting is spectacularly wrong. Van Sant uses capable actors in roles that they either seem too uncomfortable or too mismatched (or simply too bored) to take to interesting levels. Why cast an actor as strange and versatile as Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis in a role that, to be fair, requires about as much acting as a piece of wet wood? In the original, John Gavin played Marion’s dim boyfriend as solid but also as thick as oak: here, Mortensen acts like the singing bush in The Three Amigos! He is strange, quivering, drawls Cowboy slang and has a rather irritating habit of raising his voice at the end of sentences, as if it will break into high-pitched song-and-dance at the most unexpected moments. Anne Heche seems bored and irritable as Marion Crane, who played by Janet Leigh seemed so sweet, self-effacing and genuinely nice (except when she was stealing money from her boss’s rich clients, who it must be said clearly seemed to deserve it). In her scenes, Heche exudes about as much sympathy as a smiling shark to a baby seal. This might have been an interesting trajectory for van Sant to pursue, since Heche’s Marion seems more ruthless and self-motivated than her black-and-white counterpart, and would therefore seem more likely to steal the $40k just for the sheer fun of it, rather than for ulterior motives. Yet since van Sant so doggedly pursues the structure of the Hitchcock original, which was purposefully built to induce our sympathy for guilt-ridden Marion Crane, Anne Heche is unable to develop her character in convincing ways. Her irritability and sharpness seems out-of-synch with the rest of the picture. I feel that if Julianne Moore (as Marion’s sister Lila) had swapped roles with Heche, perhaps the film could have improved. Likewise, if Mortensen had traded places with Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, perhaps some credible chemistry could have arisen between these performers. Even the smaller roles are miscast, although I would say that van Sant achieves some kind of closeness to the original through the casting of James Remar, who makes an excellent highway patrolman. Even if the casting were perfect however, the film’s production design is a very odd mix from start to finish. In such details as Marion’s fluorescent-green underwear, Sam Loomis’ 10-gallon hat and the overly-bright motel surroundings, van Sant demonstrates a profound lack of understatement that made the original so compelling. Even in the beginning when Hitchcock cuts to a shot of Marion’s cheese sandwiches drying in the Arizona heat, there is a gritty and sexually charged atmosphere (to the scene, not the sandwiches!) that recalls the tense social realist films of the late 1950s. Working on a shoe-string budget with his TV crew, Hitchcock created a cramped intimacy and claustrophobia to the early scenes in Psycho that really made Marion and Sam’s afternoon tryst seem urgent and desperate. In the remake however, unsubtle close-ups of buzzing flies and garish wallpaper disrupt the tone, and we are reminded that this film is not about real people, but about actors pretending to be actors pretending to be real people. Like an A-Level student drama production, every aspect of the production—from Danny Elfman’s insistence of setting each moment before a scare with Bernard Hermann’s infamously screeching violins to Amy Duddleston’s editing, which inserts odd shots of thunderstorms and cows in fields at crucial moments in the film—seem to be competing for the spotlight, for the odd audience member to shout out, “Wow! Isn’t that fantastic!” or “He used a 40k lamp there! Genius!” And at the ready of this doomed expedition we have Gus van Sant, a talented filmmaker whose comfort zone until 1998 seemed to be in films dealing with disenfranchised drug addicts and guilt-ridden hipsters on the road to nowhere in particular. Van Sant is very much an actor’s director, and does not usually seem too bothered with the pyrotechnics of his camera, unlike Hitchcock, who was meticulous to the point of being obsessive. It is therefore more shocking that he fails in areas where he might have succeeded, and instead opts for a through-the-motions remake with the occasional bizarre, affected touch or detail that, whilst funny or inventive for the first few minutes, cannot carry the entire film. As van Sant shows Norman Bates masturbating to Marion Crane through his peephole, I could not help thinking that in that one moment I could not see Gus van Sant doing likewise to the original, but ultimately never succeeding to impress, excite… or entertain.