Search Results

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.

(Release Info London schedule; February 9th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 18:30) "The Mercy" This is the incredible true story of Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth), an amateur sailor who competed in the 1968 'Sunday Times Golden Globe Race' in the hope of becoming the first person in history to single-handedly circumnavigate the globe without stopping. With an unfinished boat and his business and house on the line, Donald leaves his wife, Clare (Rachel Weisz) and their children James (Kit Connor) and Rachel (Eleanor Stagg) behind, hesitantly embarking on an adventure on his boat 'The Teignmouth Electron'. "The Mercy" is the story of Crowhurst's dangerous solo voyage and the struggles he confronted on the epic journey while his family awaited his return is one of the most enduring mysteries of recent times. Not long after his departure, it becomes apparent to Donald that he's drastically unprepared. His initial progress is slow, so Donald begins to fabricate his route. His sudden acceleration doesn’t go unnoticed and he soon emerges as a serious contender in the competition. Donald’s business partner, Stanley Best (Ken Stott)), had reminded him that he could pull out at any time, however, the consequences to his family from such a decision are unthinkable; Donald has given himself no other choice but to carry on. During his months at sea, Donald encounters bad weather, faulty equipment, structural damage and, the most difficult obstacle of all, solitude. One by one, his fellow competitors drop out until it's only Donald left to challenge Robin Knox-Johnston (Mark Gattis), who's first to complete the round trip. As the pressure from what awaits him back home increases, Donald faces his toughest challenge, maintaining his sanity. When he receives word from his press officer, Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis), of the recognition and celebrations awaiting him upon his return, Donald’s mind finally breaks.'The Teignmouth Electron' is found abandoned off the coast of 'The Dominican Republic'. Donald’s scrawled logs are inside, filled with ramblings of truth, knowledge and cosmic beings. Back home, his wife Clare is left without a husband, his children without a father. Donald Crowhurst was born near Delhi in British colonial India in 1932 to John and Alice Crowhurst. At the age of eight he was sent to an Indian boarding school where he would spend nine months of the year. Two years later, his parents moved to 'Western Pakistan'. After 'The Second World War", aged fourteen, Donald was sent back to England to board at 'Loughborough College'. His parents returned to England in 1947 when India gained Independence from Britain and the Partition took place. His father ploughed all of his retirement savings into an ill-fated business deal in the new territory of Pakistan. The Crowhurst’s life in post-war England was a far cry from colonial life. The lack of funds forced Donald to leave 'Loughborough College' at the age of sixteen once he passed his 'School Certificate', and sadly his father died in March 1948. After starting as an apprentice in electronic engineering at 'The Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical College' in Farnborough, Donald went on to join 'The RAF' in 1953; he learned to fly and was commissioned. He enjoyed the life of a young officer and was described by many as charming, brave and a compulsive risk-taker who defied authority and possessed a madcap sense of humour. After he was asked to leave 'The RAF', he promptly enlisted in the army, was commissioned and took a course in electronic control equipment. He resigned from the army in 1956 and went on to carry out research work at 'Reading University' aged twenty-four. Crowhurst is remembered as being quite dashing and he caught the attention of his future wife Clare at a party in Reading in 1957. Clare was from Ireland and had been in England for 3 years. Apparently he told her that she would marry an impossible man. He said he would never leave her side and took her out the very next evening. Theirs was a romantic, whirlwind courtship that took place over the spring and summer of 1957. They married on 5th October and their first son, James was born the following year. It was at this time that Crowhurst began sailing seriously. He secured a job with an electronics firm called Mullards but left after a year and aged twenty-six, he became 'Chief Design Engineer' with another electronics company in Bridgwater, Somerset. His real dream was to invent his own electronic devices and he would spend hours of his spare time tinkering with wires and transistors creating gadgets. He also found solace in sailing his small, blue, 20-foot boat, 'Pot Of Gold'. Crowhurst designed 'The Navicator', a radio direction-finding device for yachting and set up his company 'Electron Utilisation' to manufacture and market the gadget. Donald and Clare’s family expanded with the arrival of Simon in 1960, Roger in 1961 and Rachel in 1962 and they lived happily in the Somerset countryside. When 'Electron Utilisation' hit financial difficulty, Crowhurst was introduced to Taunton businessman, Stanley Best, who agreed to back the company and Best eventually sponsored Crowhurst’s attempt to circumnavigate the world in the trimaran 'Teignmouth Electron'. With the Empire gone, in 1960s Britain there developed a phenomenon where men sought adventure, recognition and heroism. Sending men to the moon was something Britain couldn’t afford, so instead, heroes came in the form of people like Francis Chichester who was the first person to tackle a single-handed circumnavigation of the world, starting and finishing in England with one stop in Sydney. Upon his return in 1967, Chichester was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II and instantly became a national hero. Capitalising on this wave of interest in individual round the world voyages, 'The Sunday Times' sponsored 'The Golden Globe' race, a non-stop, single-handed round the world yacht race. No qualifications were required for entrants but the rule was that they had to depart between 1st June and 31st October 1968 in order to pass through 'The Southern Ocean' in summer. The trophy would be awarded to the first person to complete the race unassisted via the old clipper route, of the great Capes; 'Good Hope', 'Leeuwin' and 'Horn'. The newspaper also offered a cash prize of £5000 for the fastest single-handed navigation. Nine sailors started the race, four retired before leaving 'The Atlantic Ocean'. Chay Blyth who had no previous sailing experience, retired after passing 'The Cape Of Good Hope'. Nigel Tetley was leading the race but sank with 1,100 nautical miles to go. Frenchman Bernard Moitessier rejected the commercial nature of the race, so abandoned it but continued sailing, completing the circumnavigation and carried on half way around the globe again. Donald Crowhurst’s 'Teignmouth Electron' was discovered mid-Atlantic, 1,800 miles from England at 7.50am on 10th July 1969 by 'The Royal Mail Vessel', Picardy that was en route from London to the Caribbean. On inspection, the trimaran was deserted and a subsequent 'US Air Force' search for Crowhurst followed to no avail. British sailor Robin Knox-Johnston was the only entrant to complete the race. He was awarded both prizes and subsequently donated his £5000 prize money to Clare Crowhurst and the Crowhurst children. Donald, the head of the family is an amateur sailor, an inventor, a dreamer and a fantasist, so when he sees a competition in 'The Sunday Times' offering £5000 to the first man who circumnavigates the earth single-handedly, without stopping, he dreams that he could do this. Chichester had sailed around the world recently, stopping once and he was knighted upon his return and became a hero. It’s a story about how boys and men become fixated with becoming heroes. Donald has a lot of madcap ideas which often didn’t get carried out, so at first when Clare hears he’s going to enter this race, it’s such a preposterous idea to her, because he’s not a professional sailor, he’s just pottered around. She believes he would actually do it. Slowly but surely it dawns on her that he’s getting closer and closer to actually going and there’s a moment where she asks him, are you really going to go, and he says yes. The question is, could Clare Crowhurst have stopped her husband from embarking on this risky challenge? Perhaps he would have been stoppable, but from my viewpoint, it’s a portrait of a marriage and a relationship and what would have happened had she stopped him from going? Would he ever have forgiven her? In a relationship, can you stop the other from living out their dreams? In this case, it turns out to be tragic decision. In the moment, she didn’t feel like she has the right to. She's in an impossible situation. It sort of becomes two films, the one at sea, where Clare and the children are not there, and then there’s the family home, waiting for news of her husband and their father who's becoming a national hero whilst he’s at sea. Clare has to deal with the press, with long periods of silence and Christmas and birthdays without him. She also has to deal with having no money to buy food or heat the house without him because Clare depended on Donald for money. Clare is a very progressive thinker. Most people would be aghast at the prospect of their husband setting off on this kind of adventure, but Clare understood how fundamental it's to his being and that casts a really interesting light on their relationship. What makes it so romantic is the fact that they’re separated because that’s what old school romantic with a capital ‘R’ means, something that’s unattainable, unfulfilled and broken. That’s why it’s tragic because they're yearning for each other while they're separated. At that time in history, men were leaving their homes and crossing new frontiers, be it in outer space or circumnavigating the world. Rodney Hallworth is a larger than life character, a former crime reporter for 'Fhe Daily Mail', he ended up living in Teignmouth running a local news agency and acting as PR for 'Teignmouth Council'. He offers himself up as Donald Crowhurst’s press agent. The story takes quite a dark twist with Hallworth. With the role he plays in embellishing what’s going on. He’s not complicit with what Crowhurst is doing, he actually believes he’s going round the world but, he’s not receiving enough information from Crowhurst so he starts to get a little creative and exaggerates the speeds and the whereabouts of Crowhurst on the map. This doesn’t help the world understand the real story, it doesn’t help Crowhurst’s family and it doesn’t help Crowhurst because Hallworth is reporting it as a certainty that Crowhurst has rounded the tip of Africa. Crowhurst hadn’t and therefore this made it increasingly difficult for him to give up and turn back. Hallworth is the man who pushed Crowhurst when the boat wasn’t ready to go and he's the man who says, you’ve got to go, there’s too much to lose. Crowhurst cites Hallworth many times in his log as being the main person he would be letting down, as well as Stanley Best who was his sponsor. He feels that his wife Clare would be more understanding but Hallworth wouldn’t. Hallworth also exhibited dubious, Machiavellian traits, not least when he went aboard the 'Teignmouth Electron' in 'The Dominican Republic'. He entered the cabin and found the logs and discovered the truth. He discovered the rambling, the diaries and the insanity and a very high likelihood of suicide so he ripped out the final two pages of the log, then negotiated the sale of the logs to 'The Times Newspaper', without Clare Crowhurst’s permission. Whoever he's, that's not cool. We can forgive him for some of his part in the story, but not for what he did at the end. Hallworth isn't completely the villain of the piece. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do and he exaggerates Don’s story as it’s being conveyed to him from the boat. He embellishes it and adds to the lie. He feels cheated and as a tabloid crime reporter, he feels he’s been had. So, his anger and indignation are personal but also professional. We can see where he's coming from at the end. Stanley Best is a shrewd, successful businessman who’d makes his money as a caravan dealer in the coastal town of Teignmouth, Devon. He's a very ordinary man of no distinction who grabs the opportunity to be part of something quite splendid. The relationship with Donald Crowhurst is friendly. Stanley likes him very much. It seems that Crowhurst is the kind of man anybody could like because he's charismatic. Stanley didn’t do anything just for the hell of it. He isn't a big risk taker. He likes things to be neatly sewn up. That contributed greatly to what could be considered a modern Greek tragedy in it's immensity. It would have been acceptable for Crowhurst to come home but Stanley Best put that pressure on him. Best blames himself in many ways but the family reassured him, that they didn’t hold him in any way responsible. The irony is the tragedy. Donald Crowhurst's story is an extraordinary and haunting tale of a man going to sea and the family he leaves behind. The film celebrates the beauty of being a dreamer, the beauty of thinking big, wanting great things and following one’s passion and one’s heart towards doing something incredible. Crowhurst’s is a real story, a true story, but it’s definitely a mythical story of the sea and it sort of seeped into the culture as an example of British amateur sailor over-reaching. The idea of hubris-nemesis is built into the story. It’s an absolutely fascinating and compelling narrative. A man has an ambition and ambition doesn’t end up ennobling him, it ends up corrupting him, and tragedy then ensues. It has a very interesting perspective on the unravelling of a human mind. It just gives you a sure foundation if people make these choices and you’ve to understand their story in a dramatic context. They’re real choices and you have to reckon with those and there’s something more persuasive about that than some fictional stories. There are always turning points that you look for in a true story as it gives you a larger insight into the human psychology and you can be constantly surprised by the choices people make. In our era, a true story seems to be one that people increasingly respond to. The film carries out painstaking research and delved deep into the heart and soul of what made Donald Crowhurst tick. Crowhurst has a series of failures, if you like, and he escaped the failure by rolling the dice bigger on the next adventure. He was a man of enormous energy and charm and that energy and charm led him into decisions like the ones he made in joining the race, for example. He had enormous self-belief as well, and people around him substantiated that. He managed to fund and build that boat, so there’s a danger of overlooking what he achieved in this story as well as what he didn’t achieve. He achieved enormous amounts. He was a fairly inexperienced sailor but he wasn’t as inexperienced as some people think he was. He hadn’t sailed the ocean properly, yet he built this very fast trimaran, but the boat wasn’t fully tested and finished. He made a pretty good go at sailing round the world; he stayed out in the ocean for the best part of seven months so all in all, he achieved much more than people ever thought he could, he just didn’t achieve what his objective was. It was a case of over-reach, it was hubris and that's what caused the tragedy of his demise. There are quite a few books out there and great raw materials that he left behind, his logbooks, his diaries and letters he wrote to his wife. He sings on the tapes, mostly sea shanties and he speculates about the state of the world, about politics, about his own life. It’s extraordinary really, some of that's a persona but some of it also is the truth. That’s the great joy of this kind of film, you get a chance to research and the more you know the more you want to know. The public persona Donald Crowhurst created through his tape recordings and the way he talks to his family and people on dry land were, increasingly divorced from what he was feeling and experiencing. In the film, he becomes primitive essentially. He’s stripped of civilisation and becomes much more elemental and that’s shown in his physicality, he loses weight, doesn’t wear as many clothes and starts to look like a vagabond on the boat. The mental journey is much more interesting than the physicality and the film brings that to the character. The sea is like a desert. It’s also mercurial, it has moods, it changes, and it threatens you. But, all you’re seeing is a horizon and a sky. The sea changes colour, it can be stormy and it has this sort of personality that can destroy you. The isolation is a huge part of what goes wrong in Crowhurst’s mind. Your brain chemistry changes when you don’t speak to people. When a real-life character is portrayed on screen, there comes a certain responsibility to the memory of the person and to the feelings of loved ones. "The Mercy" is a version of a story that we think has some truth to it. There’s no definitive version apart from the reality of what actually happened. You capture and distil it somehow into a dramatic form or a documentary form. There's a duty to respect that character and to be sympathetic. There’s a kind of Donald Crowhurst in all of us, we all dream of some kind of glory. In the culture we live in now, we’re encouraged to reach beyond our lot or our station. Crowhurst could have made it and it would be a very different story. It’s about somebody who is a dreamer and he gets caught up in a kind of white lie. Everybody exaggerates a little bit now and then to suit his or her story but obviously, this is a very extreme version of it, therefore it makes good drama. Donald Crowhurst is immensely human and relatable. He’s not a strange, un-understandable being. He’s very understandable. The essence of the film is celebrating him as a kind of romantic hero.

One wonders what the world has done to deserve George Lucas. He is the Lady Macbeth of the Movie Brat filmmakers, an initially independent film maker whose mind once spawned of the greatest and most beloved films of our time, and then spent the rest of his life and career trying to destroy. I am of course talking about Howard the Duck, a masterpiece in every conceivable sense but the word. Produced by George “Moneybags” Lucas and directed by Willard Huyck, who co-wrote the screenplay of the original Star Wars, another of Lucas’ celluloid children that he has ever since tried to butcher with a cruelty matched only by King Herod and PE teachers. Howard is an underrated and sadly overlooked classic of dreadful film-making, a film so utterly bizarre that it achieves a kind of grandeur in its ability to unintentionally out-do most other films in terms of sheer incompetence. It has the usual Lucas-dressed hamburger salad of oak-wooden acting (especially from Howard himself, who is about as convincing a duck as Hannibal Lecter is a vegetarian), unnecessarily convoluted storylines and subtle-as-concrete dialogue. On the other hand, the film’s hero Howard throws some fascinating light on Lucas’ other trigger-happy heroes, Han Solo and Ronald Reagan: he vents all of his frustrations on a friendly janitor Phil played by Tim Robbins, who is very good at talking to feathered animals and does so here at great length. Howard also finds time during his time in Cleveland to hiss obscenities at the kind-hearted girl who takes pity on him and sadistically bite a receptionist on the behind whilst dressed as a French tourist, complete with beret, sunglasses and surly demeanour. Whilst allegedly based on the Marvel comic book, this is very much Lucas’ alter ego, a highly intelligent and capricious mass of feathered malevolence intent on wreaking havoc and causing heart-break to the very people that try to help him the most: his fans. In a cast that includes Jeffrey Jones, Tim Robbins and Richard Edson, Lea Thompson works the hardest—and incidentally does a good job— as Beverley, a young, lonely guitarist eager to find a new friend, but who upon offering the space-travel-lagged duckling a place to stay is cruelly berated and insulted. It is as if poor Miss Thompson were waiting for a friendly alien to come into her life and instead found… Howard. Still, she bravely soldiers on to help him return home and even develops a sexual attraction towards him over the course of their adventures. Enter Jeffrey Jones and Tim Robbins, who view Howard’s landing on Earth as a scientific breakthrough and join a party that evolves into a medley of cross-country chases, aerial acrobatics, glam-rock concerts and fistfights with deranged duck-hungry diners. A typical night in Cleveland this may be, yet if anything the film’s sudden shift from a potentially erotic thriller between Beverley and Howard into a Blues Brothers-style chase movie seem like an attempt by the film makers to bury the blossoming relationship between Howard and Thompson beneath a rubble of explosive but ultimately stale thrills. Indeed, Lucas and Huyck seem to have realised that they do not want to pursue the Michael Douglas/Sharon Stone trajectory between the lady and the duck, so the film ultimately fails to maintain the subversive edge and erotic drive of those early scenes in the final ninety-nine minutes of its running time. As if to punish Beverley for her misplaced affections, her encounters with other male human beings in the film constantly result in violence against her. She is attacked in the street, cat-called and tied down by various men throughout the film; the filmmakers even find it necessary for a fence to be erected between herself and the predominantly male crowd in the club scenes. Given such a representation of male human beings in Howard the Duck, it seems little wonder that she develops sexual feelings towards a talking duck and his…feathers. Still, there is much to enjoy in Howard the Duck, not least the cheerfully inept special effects and the violent intricacies of Quack-Fu. And as for Howard himself, not even James Bond can claim to have slugged three bystanders armed only with a cigar, an ice pick and a knuckle-hard wingspan. Good on you, Howard. That’s something to tell all the ducks back home. By Chris Middlehurst

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.

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.

I'll tell you what I don't want for Christmas, I don't want to watch petulant men-children running around in a tatty and wholly un-funny film that's simply a regurgitated version of its equally mediocre predecessor. Lately it seems that Hollywood has forgotten its knack for comedy Christmas films; having sat through both Daddy's Home 2 and the new Bad Moms instalment I can conclude that such sequels are not worthy of being filmed let alone shown to the public. This confusing and utterly predictable rendition of a domestic comedy, featuring blended families, proves to stand amongst the many Christmas films of the year that certainly didn’t fill me with any form of Christmas joy. Instead I'm left with a disappointed and thoroughly disillusioned view; Daddy's Home 2 produces  as much fun and amusement as a rotting reindeer carcass. The film follows the lives of Dusty aka Mr Macho muscle man (Mark Wahlberg) and the annoyingly innocent Brad (Will Ferrell) in their quest to placate their wooden and equally brattish children/step children with the best Christmas ever. Unfortunately for them, they are joined by their identical fathers (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) who, throughout the film, serve to be nothing more than a predictable plot device and the older stereotypes of their sons, oh, as well as their "kissing partners".Don’t ask it’s not funny anyway. Almost every interaction held between Ferrell and his sexier counterpart, Wahlberg, consisted of simple yet boring back and forth dialogue that became  tedious twenty minutes into the runtime. At one point, they even spend five minutes talking about the temperature of a thermostat, what on God’s earth is funny about a thermostat? This is followed by Will Ferrell getting emotionally and physically abused in some way or another by a medley of festive trappings; be they a snowball, a Christmas sleigh, a falling  plastic reindeer or even an Electric Christmas tree. Ferrell, much like the audience, just can’t seem to catch a break from such drivel. Paired with Gibson’s annoying laugh and Lithgow’s over-indulgent and equally sickly parenting and we have the makings of what seems to be a lesson in how-not-to-be-a-bad-parent rather than that of a Christmas comedy. Wooden acting by both wives throughout the film (Linda Cardellini and Alessandra Ambrosio) certainly doesn’t add the quality or direction  the picture so desperately needed. Instead, we are treated to even more examples of parental misconduct when children are found drunk in a nativity and/or kissing step-sisters: the subject of further corniness and below-the-belt funniness that just wasn’t necessary. Aside from the typical whininess and brash natures that one has now come to expect from Ferrell and Wahlberg characters the film still attempts to lend itself to comedy. Some moments were actually funny however they're underpinned by repetitive scenes, monotonous dialogue and simply over-exaggerated characters. It's therefore no surprise this collection of formulaic scenes disintegrates into the tatty and naturally unfunny Christmas mess that is Daddy's Home 2. The idea of even casting Mel Gibson in a comedy produces just as much toxicity as that of a Christmas Nuclear fall-out. Verdict: A boring regurgitation of what was already a half-hearted comedy the first time around. Dividing laughter, doubling fathers... who said Hollywood’s Christmas formula was broken?