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.

Hello all aspiring film critics! Feel free to use this space to post your film reviews and discuss each other's work. If we like what we see we may get in touch as and ask to publish it on the site! To Post a Review Please select "Create New Post" whilst in the Film Reviews category. Then create your own post with your full review. Feel free to include a relevant trailer for the film by clicking the little video icon at the bottom of your post and inserting a public YouTube or Vimeo link. You can also post images for the film but please ensure you have the correct permission from the photographer. After You Post a Review If you promote your review on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc, please use the hashtag #UKFilmReview and tage @UKFilmReview so we can check it out :)

Hostiles film review. Writer and director Scott Cooper follows the success of moving drama Crazy Heart (2009) and hard-bitten crime thrillers Out of the Furnace (2013) and Black Mass (2015) with arresting and haunting western Hostiles. Set in 1892 the film follows Captain Joseph Blocker (Christian Bale) who, along with a small group of fellow soldiers, is tasked with transporting dying Cheyenne war chief Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi) and his family from New Mexico to their tribal homeland in Montana. Cooper’s unflinching, dextrous direction together with Masanobu Takayanagi’s sweeping cinematography perfectly captures the harsh, unforgiving terrain of the American frontier and the atrocities that took place within. One particularly upsetting sequence sees Blocker passively watching his men as they torment a Native American family in their custody. While Cooper and Takayanagi’s work is remarkable, it is the performances of the central cast that linger in the memory long after the end credits roll. Most impressive is Bale. The actor beautifully conveys the battle-hardened Blocker’s gradual respect and affection for Yellow Hawk. It is an astonishing performance and one that will hopefully not be overlooked this awards season. Rosamund Pike is equally effective as grief stricken widow Rosalie Quaid who is forced to join Blocker’s party. Praise must also be given to Studi’s quiet, dignified performance as Yellow Hawk and Rory Cochrane’s scene stealing turn as Blocker’s world-weary second in command, Sergeant Thomas Metz. Handsomely shot and superbly directed, Hostiles is a spellbinding, harrowing work of beauty.

On Sunday night, my friend and I came to the decision that it was finally time we crawled out of the pits we students call beds, and head to our nearest Curzon to watchThree Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (McDonagh, 2017). We staggered in from the cold, with smuggled bags of popcorn, sweets and other junk we could manage to remotely hide as we flopped into our seats. Despite being told multiple times by a variety of people that the discovery of a 50p bag of popcorn stuffed under my jumper, will not lead to my dismissal from the cinema with my head buried in shame. Nevertheless, the myth haunts me to this very day and I choose to walk in with the same sweat on my brow, as if I were walking through customs with a bag of heroine strapped to my stomach, instead of a bag of Nik-Naks from the corner shop. Finally settled, I allowed my excitement to take over. I have been eagerly waiting for a film that dares to delve down the tricky path that is dark comedy. Three Billboard executes the genre flawlessly and managed to send both my friend and I on a rollercoaster of emotions, discussing uncomfortable topics, exposing us to brutal violence and even accomplishing laughter here and there amongst the upsetting drama. We follow Mildred Hayes, played by Frances Mcdormand, a stern, seemingly emotionless woman who demands justice over the painful loss of her daughter. Sadly, her daughter was brutally raped and murdered with not a peep to be heard from the police over catching the monster that inflicted such agony. Mildred begins to take matters into her own hands and sticks up three billboards to mock and encourage Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) to come out of hiding and find the culprit. Of course Mildred’s act of vengeance brought attention from the media which only helped bring the case to light. However, the billboards also attracted negative attention and much backlash, especially from Deputy Dixon (Sam Rockwell), an emotionally unstable and abusive character with mummy issues coming out the ying yang! Sam Rockwell’s performance has to be the most challenging and simultaneously, the most captivating throughout the entirety of the film. Without giving too much away, Rockwell manages to make the transition from a notoriously hated, senseless being to an empathetic and caring character seeking redemption. However, it seems that the film did not hold a real ‘hero’ so to speak. McDonagh has produced multiple characters who are flawed and enduring the suffering that life, unfortunately, has to deal out in one form or another. I think that’s what I enjoyed the most, the fact that you were able to connect with a majority of the characters because of the realism they portrayed and how they all dealt with pain and grief in their own individual way. I think it’s safe to say that Mildred can be regarded as the epitome of girl power throughout the film. Her straight faced, determined, ambitious, don’t f**k with me attitude truly places her above all the men that attempt to stand in her way. She chooses to ignore and challenge those that argue her approach is too cruel, such as her abusive ex-husband Charlie (John Hawkes), Chief Willoughby and Deputy Dixon. Mildred’s drive and spirit fuels the story to the point where the audience almost feels the need to jump on the bandwagon of the fiery rage that burns within her and demand justice. Mildred pulls out a massive two fingers towards the naysayers and sticks to her gut, despite those closest to her attempting to sway her decision at any given opportunity. Although sad at times, McDonagh has carefully balanced the melancholy with wittiness so hopefully you will not be put off and think the story is nothing more than bleak and depressing. Nonetheless, there is a light at the end of tunnel and I hope that light leads to an Oscar!

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.

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.

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.

One thing is for sure. If you ever decide to go into the advertising billboard business don't plan on using Ebbing, Missouri as your launch pad. They make would-be advertisers use giant sized billboards on back roads where no one will see them and where eventually they will fall into disrepair. This is where Mildred, (Frances McDormand) comes in. A curmudgeonly and waspish woman, who is seeking action from the local police in finding her missing daughter and, we must assume, her daughter's eventual killer. Mildred decides to rent the billboards to grab police attention and advertise in oversized black text the lack of police commitment. The numerous preposterous situations in this film can be attributed to a lethal combination of a writer who feels ill at ease with story telling and then fatally treats his words as holy writ. He should have had a strong director with him to flag up the flimsy logic and horrid clichés. A director who wouldn't let him get away with it. Unfortunately, when the two of them got together, their admiration for each other's work was so intense and resilient, they just couldn't bring themselves to openly question the other's thought process. But they must have both had their suspicions about each other because tanker loads of midnight oil have been burnt beavering away on adding bits to get the plot to catch up and explain itself. Sadly, this film lacks that thread of logic that must exist for an audience to truly believe in the plot. Logic should be the cornerstone. Give an audience a logical story and they will follow. Toy Story, Superman, etc. all fantasy, but all fiercely logical. In any event, both the writer and the director finally gave up on logic and relied instead on three huge, sleight of hand performances to cover any inconvenient truths. For a start it has no sense of location. There are few stores in this town. There are no grocery stores or McDonalds or anything - or if there are we don't get to see them. We just don't know where we are - or even in what time zone. But hang on, I'm forgetting that's not necessary because it's in the title. It's Ebbing, Missouri. And it's about Three Billboards. And they're outside town. Now, just like the lack of stores in Ebbing, the townsfolk are sparse and a weird bunch too. There aren't that many of them but all have presumably been extras in Westerns for most of their lives and as a result stand around on Main Street watching meekly as one of Ebbing's finest, a twerpy, semi-literate cop (Sam Rockwell) inflicts violence on the aforementioned, mild mannered citizens. But no one notices. No one complains. It's as though a part of this town has been set aside to allow a manic theatre troupe to indulge in a sub-culture of idiocy of truly Truman Show proportions. There's the obligatory drunk police chief - no wait a minute, that's Sam Rockwell, he's the drunk but he's not the chief. The police chief is Woody Harrelson and he has a terminal illness but other than that, only the scantest of other clues to his character. We know he is married to a young Australian girl (Abbie Cornish). Who says Hollywood can no longer contemplate a ludicrous age gap? But the Cornish character was presumably on a doomed domestic flight from Sydney to somewhere when she found herself stranded in the twilight zone that is Ebbing. Harrelson and Cornish have two children who are cute and play a curious fishing game by themselves on the edge of a lake. This allows their parents to treat themselves to some off screen hanky-panky and because of this, their children's safety is rather secondary. Harrelson's quiet performance, in a wonderful white shirt, has echoes of Jeff Bridges in 'Hell or High Water'. Although that's where the comparison ends. He really exists only in the mind of the director or writer, or both of them, to compose three hand written letters that will get our director or the writer off a troublesome hook and make everything right for everybody. Then, finally there's Frances McDormand as Mildred , our Three Bill Boards girl. Now, anyone who has seen Ms. McDormand in previous productions will have fond memories of Fargo and Blood Simple and Olive Kitteridge and so on. But, and let's be clear about this, Frances McDormand could waltz through this sort of script while asleep. On a stretcher. In the dark. A ground breaking performance it is not. It's as though she planned to try something else but, and Pavlov was right on this, as soon as an actor sees a red light and hears a bell many of them just can't help but deliver their stock performance. In McDormand's case it's from her Sour and Harsh canon and regrettably she will not develop beyond this now as an actress. So what does all this strange little film add up to? Probably, just like La La Land, it proves you can fool all of the people some of the time - even an Oscar jury. My memory of Three Billboards will be the indulgent script and lack of editing and Sam Rockwell's strange haircut and Frances McDormand's relentless bandana and strange haircut and Clarke Peters flashing his cop's badge a little too early - so when an elderly 'Sidney Poitier' shows up in town our surprise is muted. Oddly, and this is a clue to how a film can mask the insubstantial talent of the writer and director, the minor roles here only serve to amplify the massive theatricality of the principal performances and the production as a whole. And so it will fade away and get an Oscar for something and the game can go on.

Blue Story (2019) A gut-wrenchingly brutal spotlight on south London’s postcode gang rivalries, Blue Story grabs you and won’t let you look away. Rapman’s (Andrew Onwubolu) big screen directorial debut packs a punch with its unflinching message on youth violence, telling the audience that every 14 minutes there is another knife crime in England and Wales. The core message of the film is aimed at young people themselves: violence is a cycle that must be recognised and broken. Blue Story follows best friends Timmy (Stephen Odubola) and Marco (Micheal Ward), who live on different sides of a postcode war. Growing up in the midst of gang rivalries, their relationship is torn apart after Marco is attacked by one of Timmy’s old friends. The film begins at a time of change, showing Timmy entering secondary school. Timmy’s mum sends him away from Deptford to a school in the neighbouring borough of Peckham, where he meets local boy Marco. This echoes Rapman’s own experience of growing up in Deptford but going to school in Peckham, crossing the invisible postcode border. Decidedly contemporary, Blue Story’s narrative is interspersed with grainy CCTV footage of real life youth violence. Even the coming together of Blue Story is uniquely modern, adapted from Rapman’s 2014 YouTube musical drama series of the same name. The film is bursting with homegrown talent, not least of all Micheal Ward whose performance as Marco earned him the BAFTA Rising Star Award. The soundtrack showcases south London rappers such as Giggs, RAYE, Krept and Konan, with drill and trap music setting the tempo between scenes. Despite some dialogue being a little too on the nose, stitching real London personalities into the fabric of Blue Story’s production gives it a natural authenticity. Revenge is a cross-cutting theme, but not in the linear tradition of The Revenant or Kill Bill where someone wronged sets out on a bloodthirsty quest for rough justice. Instead, it cuts both ways. The main characters are trapped in a cycle of vengeance that brings far more pain than satisfaction. Flashback scenes, while a blunt directorial instrument, are used to show the tragic descent into violence rather than celebrate the righteousness of it. The use of handheld cameras throughout puts the audience right there in the thick of the action. During his refreshingly unique ‘rap narration’, Rapman places himself physically in the scene, breaking the fourth wall to look the audience in the eye. He is our bridge into the brutal world he depicts, highlighting the sobering futility of it with an honesty that avoids preaching. Over and over, the bravado of male characters in Blue Story escalates into violence. Victims of this violence are so often left alone as their attacker flees the scene for fear of arrest. But this also means that only the audience is left to dwell on the harm they have caused. Rapman allows the camera to linger. This raw portrayal of contemporary London is so much more than West Side Story meets Kidulthood. Blue Story’s talented cast and experimental style makes a welcome contribution to the Shakespearean turf war genre. Rapman’s final rap narration is a direct appeal to young people who might be caught up in a similar situation to his characters. Powerfully and deliberately rooted in contemporary youth culture, Blue Story is above all a heartfelt plea for peace on our streets.