Search Results

(Release Info London schedule; January 25th, 2019, 63 - 65 Haymarket, Westminster, 20:00 PM) "Second Act" As Maya Vargas (Jennifer Lopez) celebrates her 43rd birthday, she has one wish. A promotion. After 15 years at 'Value Shop', the past six as assistant manager, she’s ready to run the big box store in Queens. Her resumé doesn’t scream upper management, but her track record sure does. She’s an innovator who listens to customers, knows what they need and finds a way to deliver. But 'Value Shop' hires 'the right man for the job', a man with an 'MBA', not 'GED'- certified Maya. Maya’s boyfriend Trey (Milo Ventimiglia) and best friend Joan (Leah Remini) try to boost her spirits, but Maya is frustrated as once again street smarts doesn’t equal book smarts. Was her entire future determined when she was 16, or can she actually reinvent herself in her 40’s? Maya’s prospects brighten when she lands an interview at the Manhattan consumer products firm, 'Franklin & Clarke'. When Maya’s friends show up to make breakfast before her first day at 'Franklin & Clarke', a spontaneous 'Salt-N-Pepa' dance party breaks out in the kitchen. Anderson Clark (Treat Williams) wants to meet her and invites his daughter Zoe (Vanessa Hudgens), a rising star at the company, to check out Maya, too. While Zoe is skeptical, Anderson is dazzled by Maya’s ability to think on her feet, not to mention her 'Wharton' degree, 'Peace Corps' service, 'Mastery Of Mandarin' and overall power player vibe. But unknown to Zoe, her father, and initially even Maya herself, those credentials were invented by Maya’s godson, who surprised her with a brand-new online identity for her birthday. Thanks to her years of experience working at 'The Value Shop' Maya lands the job, although she’s uneasy about the deception, and unsettled about her other secrets, she’s confident she can do the job. Her first day at 'Franklin & Clarke' pits Maya against Zoe in a big product development competition. 'Franklin & Clarke’s' heavy hitters align with 'Team Zoe', but Maya and her tiny crew of corporate misfits are determined to succeed. Maya Vargas, a born-and-bred Queens girl, is having her 'Is that all there's'? moment when "Second Act" begins. She's disappointed when we meet her first. Maya has ridden the bus to 'The Ozone Park Value Shop' in Queens for 15 years. Each day, she puts on her smock and name tag and handles the store’s business with a firm and friendly hand. She knows she has what it takes to be the boss. The problem is convincing the chain’s 'CEO' that she’s qualified. But Maya, still wrestling with choices made as a teenager, has lived with regret ever since, and it’s holding her back. The people close to her would say she’s suffered long enough. But Maya has never even told her longtime boyfriend about this part of her life, and keeping that secret from him adds to her burden. Maya really is an every person. We all have dreams and often don't achieve them all. Maya is a person who made certain choices because of things that happened early in her life. There's a lot of regret about how it could have been different. As she tries to climb the ladder and things don't go her way, she sees some of those past decisions as the reason. But then she gets to cross the bridge! With that crossing, she becomes 'Manhattan Maya'. The film shows how women support each other through thick and thin. Maya is destined to be bigger than her friends. Joan is focused on being a mom, but wants Maya to get her chance. She believes that out of all of their friends, Maya is the one who will make it. But when Maya starts to lose sight of who she really is, it’s Joan who keeps her grounded. Of course, not every woman is as supportive. Hildy (Annaleigh Ashford), the product development executive assigned to work with Maya, sees her as a rival. They’re supposed to collaborate and come up with a product together, but Hildy wants to be top dog and will do anything to get there, including stomp on her fellow lady. She’s also one of the first people to see through Maya, and question if something else is going on. Zoe, 'The CEO’s' ambitious daughter, has her guard up, too. Zoe is not Maya’s biggest fan when she arrives at 'Franklin & Clarke'. She’s another woman. Another woman is a threat. But gender is also the reason Zoe’s attitude quickly changes. To see another woman hold her own in a male-dominated space is something that most women look up to. Zoe respects Maya and through that, they form a connection that Zoe didn’t expect. Maya in Queens is a bit sassier than 'Manhattan Maya', with a big hoop earring and bigger hair. Attitude! Borough girls naturally know how they want to look because they’re exposed to a lot of street style. Maya becomes the chic girl in Manhattan, some silks, some softer silhouettes, without completely abandoning the original. Because you can't do that. It's not a lobotomy. The original has to remain there to be believable. You always have to consider what a garment is going to do in a scene. It's not only the look of something, you've to tell the story. It's not a fashion runway. It's interesting for people to see combinations they wouldn't have thought of. This film is about reinvention, because so many people are stuck in lives they don’t want dreaming of lives they do, only to realize they had the power all along to change. It's about a woman who feels she never got a fair shake. But then she gets an amazing opportunity, albeit not entirely honestly, that changes everything for her. Maya learns she does not have to be stuck forever. You can always reinvent. You can always make a change. You can always keep growing and to me that message has so much relevance for everybody, but especially for women. She gets to know what life is like when your dreams come true. And of course she has to deal with the fall-out of lies while achieving the goal. In one of the favorite scenes at Michael Jordan’s 'The Steak House N.Y.C.' at 'Grand Central Terminal'. Maya, Zoe and her dad are having lunch when Maya’s Queens friends, posing as old 'Ivy League Chums', pop by to check on their girl. The film gets all of the women together and we see them interact, and that’s when the real soul of the movie comes out. "Second Act" inspired many conversations about second chances and reinvention and not giving up. About women empowering themselves and each other. About not letting one event become your whole story. About going for your dream, no matter your age or background or zipcode. This movie itself is a reminder that everything deserves a second look, a second chance. It's coming to the world at a time where people need to be reminded you just have to get creative when you’re thinking about what you’re going to do with the next 40 years. "Second Act" always means the second act of the show, when all the good stuff happens. It’s where we back up the story; it’s where the hero confronts their biggest battles, and where we've the opportunity to make the biggest, boldest choices. The mantra for "Second Act" is the only thing stopping you is you. You don’t have to hide. You really can just let all those feelings go.

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.

The monsters in horror films are rarely just monsters. Psychoanalysts thrive on the opportunity to analyse a horror film. Monsters are the Other that we expose in order to kill and reinstate normality. Monsters are the part we don’t like about ourselves. Monsters are communism, technology, gays, lesbians, depression, patriarchy, sexual abuse, our past – you name it. Sometimes the filmmakers are well aware of this and they shape their films with they want to convey, others don’t realise it until they read a criticism online. Nevertheless, if it can be explained on the screen, then the filmmakers have to accept it. How the films are analysed and interpreted are beyond their powers, and once it has been shown on the big screens, then it us up for discussion. Jennifer Kent wasn’t aware she was directing a film that presented a metaphor for depression, but in the end it is what she ended up doing. The Babadook (2014) became known for being a film to shine a light on women filmmakers, on subtle horror at a time when horror films were relying mainly on jump scares, and for exploring the undertones of depression in the narrative. Kent just wanted to tell a simple story about a boy that finds a book and ends up inviting a monster into his house. Once the depression metaphor was put forward as an interpretation of the film, it is almost impossible to watch it without finding clues and, honestly, it is hard to believe Kent didn’t think about it whilst making the film. The Babadook is a monster that lives inside the mother and turns her into a monstrous figure, making her violent towards her son. Even if it wasn’t Kent’s intention it was done well. The film was praised for its good representation of the mental illness, especially its ending, where the character of Amelia accepts the monster as part of her life and lives with it, instead of being in constant fight with it. She tames the monster and acknowledges its power, but she also nurtures it and moves on without letting it dictate her life. On the other hand, a film that deliberately wanted to create a metaphor for depression and backfired was David F. Sandberg’s 2016 Lights Out. Sandberg stated he wanted to portray the disease as he suffered from it and had seen it taking the best of people who were close to him. He turned the monster in his film into a vessel for depression, but the way he did it was painful to watch. Although it was a good film once we turn a blind eye for the problems, some are hard to ignore. The character of Sophie, played by Maria Bello, has to take care of her son, Martin (Gabriel Bateman), after the death of her husband. So far, the story is the same as The Babadook, but then we learn that Sophie had also abandoned her older daughter, Rebecca (Teresa Palmer), when she was a small child. The use of Sophie as reckless and terrible mother due to her depression is harsh. Moreover, the use of the word “crazy” is thrown around to justify Sophie’s behaviour and Sophie herself won’t take antidepressants because, as she says it, she is not crazy. To represent antidepressants that way when it already deals with preconceptions and it is a taboo in our society is negligent and ill-advised. In addition, blaming the mother and her depression for everything bad that happens in the family is beyond victim blaming. The only good thing about this narrative is Martin’s love towards his mother, who despite being put in danger still loves and wants to help her – The Babadook all over again. All of which could have been accepted if in the end we had been presented with an intelligent storyline as Kent did with The Babadook, but no, I was shocked to see that the old trope of “killing the monster to reinstate normality” was used. Sophie commits suicide to kill the monster (as it exists in her head) to protect her family, therefore conveying the idea that suicide is a good way out when it comes to depression to save others from the distress of living with someone who suffers from mental illness. That comes from a director who stated he wanted to talk about depression as his friend took his own life because of it. A noble attitude, but done in a bad way. Sandberg defends the ending by saying that it is not actually a happy ending as he has ideas for a sequel in which he plans to explore the effects of Sophie’s suicide through the eyes of her children, stating that they were not “saved” from her mother’s death, but deeply ruined. The film’s use of depression as a toxic burden on the family proves that the film should’ve stayed in the two and a half minutes format instead of creating a feature film and tainting the memory of a good scare. The Babadook and Lights Out have different monsters but similar undertones - Lights Out was intentional whilst The Babadook wasn’t. Both features were short films beforehand, the difference is that Monster, Kent’s 2005 short film, had more space to work and develop the not only the characters, but also the narrative, welcoming the interpretation of depression; whereas the fame of the short version of Lights Out should have been enough for the filmmakers since creating a longer adaptation only showed the limitations of the story, and it became the perfect example of a short film that should have remained a short, and the monster should have remained a monster.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 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.

(Release Info London schedule; November 8th, 2019, Vue Cinemas, 3 Cranbourn St, Leicester Square, London WC2H 7AL, UK, 20:15 pm) https://www.myvue.com/film/midway "Midway" The story of 'The Battle Of Midway', told through the experiences of the 'WWII' leaders and sailors who fought it. The film starts from 'The Japanese' perspective. It introduces you to a world of culture, honor, and respect. We've an industrial tone for the scenes with 'The American' characters, and then this old world, a more traditional view that you can see in the richness of the colors of 'The Japanese' ships. They've a lot of wood components. Even on the bridge they've real cabinetry. It makes for a lot of brass and mahogany, and warmth, right down to the white gloves worn by the officers. It’s about the beauty of their ships. The Americans didn’t think about their ships as being beautiful, that way. It begins in December 1941 with 'Pearl Harbor' and ends in June with 'The Battle Of Midway'. It's the most dramatic six months in the history of warfare. "Midway" envisions a fresh look at this pivotal battle told for a new generation, with characters who share powerful bonds. The film follows three story lines, depicting three interwoven perspectives on the battle. “One is the pilots aboard the aircraft carrier 'USS Enterprise', mainly Dick Best (Ed Skrein), Clarence Dickinson (Luke Kleintank), and Bruno Gaido (Nick Jonas), who are historical figures. A second storyline follows the critical work of 'Naval Intelligence' officer Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson); a code breaker, Joseph Rochefort (Brennan Brown); and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Woody Harrelson) in 'Pearl Harbor'. The third storyline centers on 'The Japanese' officers, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Etsushi Toyokawa), and Japanese officers Tamon Yamaguchi (Tadanobu Asano), Kaku Tomeo (Nobuya Shimamoto) and Chūichi Nagumo (Jun Kunimura), who are historical characters, as well. Dick Best is the unsung hero of "Midway", a tough-as-nails Jersey guy, and a 'Navy' flyboy working his way up the chain of command as 'WWII' unfolds. A natural leader despite a tendency to get short with guys who aren’t as daring as he's, Best is a risk-taker whose flying skills are first rate; he's the one to fly with if you want to come back. Best is a true American hero whose exemplary performance, both leading his men and courageously flying his plane during 'The Midway' battle, resulted directly in turning the tide of war. There’s a real emotional journey for Best. You see several versions of Best throughout the story. First, there’s the cocky guy who turns off his plane’s engine to prove to himself he knows how to land without it. After 'Pearl Harbor', you see the relentless Best, who’s on a one-man mission to win the war. During the war, Best loses some pilot friends, which begins a dark night of the soul for Best, and we see him at his absolute lowest. Best only opens up to two people: his wife, Ann (Mandy Moore), daughter Barbara (Sarah Bublavy), and his closest friend, Clarence Dickinson. They help him overcome his losses and we ultimately see a Best with all of his old qualities and emotional literacy and intelligence. He's a true leader of his men. Dick Best has been overlooked, in a way. He's a humble guy, and Midway is his last battle because of an injury sustained while flying. In this story, Best stands for all those unsung heroes who fought for our freedom. What happened at 'The Battle Of Midway' changed the world, but this story is also rooted in a man whose strength and lifeline is his family. Edwin Layton is a 'Lieutenant Commander' in 'The U.S. Navy', whose job is interpreting intelligence information for military strategy. Layton works closely with Admiral Nimitz and a group of brilliant decoders, and soon discovers that 'The Japanese' are planning an offensive on 'Midway Island'. Though Admiral Nimitz, who commands 'Allied Air, Land And Sea Forces' during 'WWII', has received contradictory intel from 'The White House', Layton is willing to bet his life, and the lives of countless sailors and aviators that his Midway intelligence is correct. A man who takes his work to heart, Layton spends many long days and sleepless nights in the service of his country. Edwin Layton is an extremely accomplished intelligence officer in 'The United States Navy' who happened to have served in Japan, and is fluent in 'The Japanese' language. During 'Pearl Harbor', he's the lead intelligence officer assigned to the commander. He describes the weight that fell upon his shoulders after that intelligence failure and how he feels this obligation to try to make up for what has happened. Like many who work in 'Intelligence', he's very analytical. When you’re talking about 'Military Intelligence' in the 1930s, and eventually the ‘40s, they're many people who didn’t quite understand it because it's all so new. If you work in 'Intelligence', you're different from the average soldier or seaman. He knows exactly what he's saying, when he converses with Admiral Yamamoto, as he does early in the film. There’s not only a strength but also a globalist point of view when you've someone that’s stationed there that can speak with Yamamoto in his native tongue, knowing that Yamamoto speaks English. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz is given the position of 'Commander In Chief Pacific Ocean Areas', after 'Pearl Harbor', which a fellow officer calls, the most difficult job in the world. As Nimitz faces the entrance of 'The U.S.' into 'World War II', with fronts in Europe and 'The Pacific', he enlists the help of intelligence officer Edwin Layton to provide him with information so he can throw a punch to 'The Japanese' to let them know what it feels like to be hit. Nimitz winds up working closely with Layton, and despite pushback from 'The White House', Nimitz takes a chance on Layton’s intel regarding 'Midway Island', a seminal battle that changed the course of 'World War II'. Nimitz is an amazing figure in military history. He's a man who, at the beginning of 'The Second World War', is coming to a natural end of his career. But after 'Pearl Harbor', 'The Navy' realized they needed someone who could go out there, reinvigorate everyone and make them realize we can win this war. Nimitz is also an incredibly tough man. Notoriously, once when he's giving a tour of a submarine he gestured and a piece of equipment caught his thumb and tore part of it off. He insistes on finishing the tour before seeking medical attention. There’s this iron Texan core to Nimitz that makes him the perfect guy to rebuild a shattered Navy after 'Pearl Harbor'. After 'Pearl Harbour', there's a lot of pressure on 'The United States' to rebuild these ships quickly, and do what they could to become a power. Admiral Nimitz is the right man for the job. He's a relentless, hard-working, and thoughtful guy who makes critical decisions that changed the course the war. Wade McClusky is a courageous and tenacious risk-taker, who's in charge of the torpedo and dive bomber pilots on board 'The USS Enterprise'. McClusky briefs the men on their missions, giving them intel on what to expect from 'The Japanese' forces. In the cockpit, McClusky takes big chances that could either pay off, or land him scrubbing potatoes at Leavenworth. McClusky is an outstanding 'Lieutenant Commander' and a true hero who's fully prepared to go back into battle, despite sustaining an injury, until his commanding officer orders him to sick bay. Through his intelligence, courage, and sheer luck, McClusky makes a vital contribution to the victory at Midway. McClusky is a squadron commander and a gifted pilot. He decides, on a hunch, to turn and follow this Japanese destroyer that ends up heading back to the main fleet. If he has simply followed the route he's supposed to fly, the history of 'The Pacific War' would have been very different. McClusky is a little older than the pilots he’s in charge of. He’s been around longer and experienced much more than they've, and he leads by example. What McClusky does in a pivotal moment in 'The Battle Of Midway' makes him one of the heroes of the war. McClusky and his closest friend, Dick Best, find common ground through losing friends and understanding what the other is going through. As much as "Midway" is a film with huge set pieces and big airborne battles, it’s also about a brotherhood and the union of these pilots risking their lives on a daily basis. Courageous, resourceful, respected and beloved by his men, Jimmy Doolittle (Aaron Eckhart) is the leader of an Army bomber squadron. Admiral Halsey (Dennis Quaid) thinks Doolittle may be the best goddamned pilot in the world. Doolittle is planning a mission to attack Japan, which would be a huge psychological blow to the enemy forces, because 'The Japanese' believed their defenses are impregnable. Blown off-course mid-flight, Doolittle winds up bailing over China. Fearing his entire squadron has been lost, he makes his way through the countryside until he’s welcomed by a 'Chinese Major'. Doolittle is a daredevil and like many daredevils, he likes to push all kinds of boundaries. 'The Doolittle' raid is, militarily, not particularly successful. A handful of bombs are dropped but, strategically, it's of massive importance because 'The Japanese' high command has promised both the people and 'The Emperor' that it's impossible to attack Japan. This assault by Doolittle’s 'B-25' bombers proved that they're either incorrect or lying. It's a huge embarrassment that led 'The Japanese' military to decide that 'The United States' carrier fleet has to be neutralized as soon as possible, which led them into 'The Midway Operation'. Also, it's important from a psychological standpoint, both in making America feel like it has finally struck back on some level, and 'The Japanese' people realizing that it's high command is not infallible. Doolittle and his men knew they wouldn’t have the necessary fuel to return to the carrier. There are '72 Doolittle Raiders' and they all agreed to go on the mission, despite the incredible odds against it's success. Some of them ended up in the sea, many of them crashed, and some died. One team ended up in Russia and has to make it's way back. When 'The Chinese Military' finds out who 'The Doolittle' bombers are after they've crashed, and the mission they've just accomplished, they treated them like kings. They shepherded many of them through China, and then eventually back to 'The United States' Ann Best is extremely proud of her husband, and is an equal match for her husband’s brains and fiery personality. She’s also the one with whom he lets down his guard, and shows some vulnerability. Ann joins the other stoic, but worried, Navy wives when their husbands go off on the Midway mission. She’s strong and courageous. They've a young daughter and Ann is determined to keep her family together at a time when many husbands are encouraging their families to move away from the warfront. Ann and Dick are real partners in their relationship. There’s a deep mutual appreciation, and affection for one another. You’re not just seeing the heroics of these men. You’re getting a slice of their home life, with their families and wives, and a better understanding of what they’re fighting for and what’s at stake. Admiral William Halsey commands 'The USS Enterprise', an aircraft carrier stationed in 'Pearl Harbor'. As Halsey deals with the aftermath of 'The Pearl Harbor' attack and the encroachment of 'The Japanese' in 'The Pacific', he’s faced with the challenge of 'The U.S.' forces being outnumbered by Japan. He’s a stalwart leader who’s not afraid to do what’s necessary to get his best men in to do the job that’s required. Although Halsey is ill, he insists on continuing to work, until he’s ordered into the hospital by Nimitz. Halsey is no fan of 'The Army' brass and is known for taking matters into his own hands. He has his own style, and is brash. But his connection with his men makes him a great leader, particularly of so many inexperienced and young men, some of whom are little more than boys. They look at Halsey as a father figure who's going to get them through this. Bruno Gaido, a Naval radioman, is extremely brave, and very confident about it. He catches the attention of Admiral Halsey through an act of astonishing courage on a carrier, prompting Halsey to promote him immediately. During 'The Battle Of Midway', Gaido is forces to bail from his plane and winds up on the deck of a Japanese destroyer. Lieutenant Clarence Dickinson is a courageous, highly skilled dive bomber pilot, who almost died during 'The Pearl Harbor' attack but lives to fight another day. He’s a good friend of Dick Best, with whom he flies in formation. Though Best is frustrated with his own lack of advancement, Dickinson understands what’s holding Best back from being in command; an obsessive pursuit of perfection from himself and everyone around him. A seasoned pilot who doesn't like the odds of the upcoming Midway mission, Dickinson proves to be as fearless, focused, and effective as any hero of 'WWII'. The commander of the fighter plane 'Torpedo Six', Eugene Lindsey (Darren Criss) is Dick Best's superior officer, and he doesn't appreciate Best’s annoying habit of criticizing his pilots for being too slow, and challenging orders mid-operation. But Lindsey is a courageous officer who earns Best's respect by leading his squadron, despite being injured in combat. Lindsey did several tours and is stationed in various places in 'The United States'. He did a post-graduate degree in aeronautical engineering at 'MIT', when he was in his 30s. By the time we meet Lindsey in this film, he has a pretty storied life of being a man of the sea and a pilot. That kind of courage is pretty extraordinary and inspired a lot of these men at this point in the war. They're fueled by this very raw sense of retribution that needed to be gained after something as devastating as 'Pearl Harbor' James Murray’s (Keean Johnson) laconic North Carolina drawl frequently belies the terror he feels flying as Dick Best’s radioman. Murray doesn't have the same damn the torpedoes mentality as Best; he's frequently worn to a frazzle flying with the relentlessly risk-taking pilot. But Murray perseveres to fly with him because he knows that with Best’s skills in the cockpit, he has the greatest chance of making it home. As 'The Battle Of Midway' progresses, Murray's nerves go to pieces, and he asks Best to turn back. Exhausted and demoralized by the thought of going once more into battle, Murray receives an honest pep talk from Best, igniting his own heroism. Murray is Dick Best’s rear gunner and radioman. He’s juggling two jobs at the same time while being shot at by Japanese planes. Murray basically shoots at the enemy pilots and gives Dick Best the information he needs to safely find and destroy oncoming aircraft carriers and get home safely. He’s not into being a daredevil. Murray wants to do exactly what’s in the rulebook and stick to that. Murray’s an introvert and just wants to do his job. He’s not looking to win a medal, he’s just looking to do his time, to fight for this cause but not sacrifice himself. In the end he learns that he actually would die for his country and sees many of his friends perish. He definitely learns not to take it for granted. "Midway" is a true epic and it’s told at a certain level of scope that’s now become common in superhero and science fiction films. The film centers on 'The Battle Of Midway', a clash between 'The American' fleet and 'The Imperial Japanese Navy' which marked a pivotal turning point in 'The Pacific Theatre' during 'WWII'. The film, based on the real-life events of this heroic feat, tells the story of the leaders and sailors who used their instincts, fortitude and bravery to overcome the odds. It’s a real-life story of brotherhood and camaraderie, and the determination and sacrifice of real-life military heroes, to secure an American victory. Having been decimated by 'The Japanese' attack on 'Pearl Harbor' only six months earlier, 'The U.S. Navy' is desperately outmanned and outgunned heading into 'The Battle Of Midway'. 'The U.S.' military held on to one great advantage; it's intelligence operations and collective grit, are strongly underestimated. The film takes audiences deep inside the complex decision, making of 'The United States’ tactical command, and then straps them inside a bomber cockpit to experience the most visceral on-screen telling, of the greatest battle in 'U.S.' warfare history. These men faced down tyranny and fascism with their very own lives, strapped into planes known to be inferior to those of their enemies. "Midway" is the event that transformed the war in 'The Pacific', basically preserving democracy and freedom in 'The U.S.' and 'The Western World'. Because of them we live in a free world today. True life can sometimes be the most powerful storyteller. Young people today don’t always know the stories about those who fought for their freedom. That without the generation who fought in 'WWII', our world would be very different. There's a lot of hardship and a lot of people died for it, but they died for a reason. There's a real fight against fascism going on in the world. Today we sometimes forget about these things, but movies can serve as a vivid monument to them. "Midway" is an homage to all the sailors who lost their lives at Midway, both American and Japanese. The film honors that fight and those who gave so much. The scope of it and the changes that happened over the six-month period between 'Pearl Harbor' and Midway are some of the most compelling events in history. What really moved is the willingness, and the spirit, behind those who suffered from the attack on 'Pearl Harbor'. You can even see allusions of 'Independence Day' in this film. But most of all, it’s about the fight against an idea that's starting to consume the world at the time. Unlike science fiction, however, "Midway" is firmly based in historical facts, which reveal themselves throughout the course of the film. The film discovers this wave of new scholarship, where 'The Japanese' side of the story is finally being told in English. 'The Japanese' in this story are just as brave as 'The Americans', although with far more tragic outcomes. Politicians start wars, but never fight them. It’s the common soldier who ultimately pays the price. It's important to show how the Japanese fought as honorably as 'The Americans' in 'The Battle Of Midway'. That points to the film’s themes of loyalty, brotherhood, sacrifice and bravery, all of which transcend generations. "Midway" will transport audiences back in time. It shows an America that's not a superpower, and which has just come out of 'The Great Depression'. The country initially tries to stay out of a war but 'Pearl Harbor' changed all that. It's a simpler time, but it also is a time where you've to put your life in danger for ideals. This film isn’t just a tribute to the actions of the people who served in 'The Second World War', but also to the people who continue to put their lives on the line defending us. It looks back at a moment where there was a sense of patriotism and national unity, an understanding of our shared common values, why that’s special, and how, when we pull together, we can achieve something remarkable in the face of impossible odds. It’s a lesson for all of us about uniting in spite of our differences.

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.