The Gentlemen

Guy Ritchie and Hugh Grant... Any takers?

When I saw the trailer for this movie I could see how it could be a good film but I just wasn't convinced because Henry Golding had previously been in a Christmas musical that looked dreadful and I actively avoided and Matthew McConaughey has had a very questionable career. I wanted to see Michelle Dockery take on a different role from Lady Mary in Downton Abbey (I loved her in Hogfather) but the biggest selling point was trying to work out how Hugh Grant could possibly fit in to this film.

Simple answer: This is the most un Hugh Grantish role he has ever taken on. Newspaper reporter Fletcher (Grant) attempts to blackmail a drug producer (McConaughey) for 20 million by writing a story and film script for a series of events that had previously taken place. He effectively is the narrator in this film and we get to see his adaptations and fantasies before hearing the real truth from someone else. He smokes, drinks and swears a lot without the typical upper class accent we have come to expect from him.

This film is a typical Guy Ritchie film. Action, guns, East end type of film. I loved it. When you combine the already mentioned cast with Colin Farrel then you know that you are in for a laugh and a lot of action. In some ways the plot is a little predictable but you think you know what has happened until the end and then you realise that you really don't know what has happened. All you managed to deduce correctly is that Matthew payed someone to hire someone else to steal product from his future business partner so that he could pay less when buying out Micheal Pearson (McConaughey). Everything else is a lot of fun and not what you expected. Three parties turns in to four. Dead bodies appear in the most peculiar places (such as freezers) and the means of how they arrived there is quite probably not what you were expecting.

This is one of the few films which was watched by both of us who supposedly run this blog. Esther and I both loved Michelle Dockery in this film. She was so different but not overdone in any way. Not helpless or too violent. Simple, strong and she was equally matched by her husband. She has a strong career moving forward as she displays diversity in abundance. 'The Gentlemen' is a classic example of a night in with your male adult friends. Pizza, a few beers and a lot of fun with action and drama to accompany it. The plot is solid and one of the better plots to have graced the adult world of cinema in a few years.

I recently wrote about 'Knives Out' and how I thought that it had a really strong plot and a natural feel to the film. I feel the same way about this movie. Nothing was overdone, no character was overplayed and the plot was overly complicated or overly simplified. This film has the perfect balance of known names and natural talent. The perfect balance of action and humour. Blood but no gore, gangster but not unnecessary violence. Adult because of the swearing and the gun use but otherwise it could have received a lower rating. This is one of the best Ritchie films out there. The film industry is mostly stepping the right direction. You get a few films each year with dreadful plots (Star Wars) but most of them are now focusing more on the story line and less on the visual effects.

The Gentlemen is genius and a very enjoyable film.

Dolittle

I make a point of watching all types of films for this blog. I haven't thought too much about making a list of films to watch and review and so at the moment I am reviewing films that I watched before lockdown started. This one is Dolittle and it is a children's film.

I am sure that many of you associate this title with the Eddie Murphy film. I think that I saw it once but I rarely find comedy films funny. I prefer films that aren't played for laughs and therefore come across as more natural. Generally when films are scripted to be comical they get overplayed and it becomes crass or obvious. Good script writing and good acting can create the same effect but a better film. This film is an example of what I am talking about.

Think back to when you were a child. You probably used to play imaginary games and talk to animals even though you couldn't understand anything that they said to you. This film is more or less what you could imagine as a child but with a much broader imagination. A doctor, a Gorilla and Mice playing chess? The chess scene is fantastic but it probably wasn't something that your imagination would have created. A Polar Bear that doesn't like the cold?? Some of the moments in the film are magical but it took someone to think outside the box in order to create this world. This is a word that children can escape to. It is more than just a child's world, it is an expansion of our imagination as children and it brings to life things that only certain children can picture. 

Not only are the visual effects stunning in this movie but the lack of a real 'bad guy' makes the film more enjoyable for people of all ages. A Dragon that suffers from stomach ache due to eating most of the Spanish Amada and some bag pipes... who thinks like that?! This film has everything that you wouldn't think of and everything that you would! Dolittle takes you inside your inner child's imagination and then leads you on a journey that you weren't able to imagine. It's not just the talking animals but more what they say, how what we know assume about animals isn't necessarily true. This film presents an alternate argument simply to challenge what we think and how we think it, not because there is any evidence to suggest that we are wrong; rather to present the possibility that we could be incorrect in our beliefs and assumptions.

When you see the name Robert Downey Jr you tend to expect a certain type of character. This wasn't it. This role is one of the most surprising and different roles that I have seen him take on as a lead actor. He was perfect for this role and because of that the film flowed and felt natural. Not once did his performance feel flawed or did you ever question why he was cast. Each character was thought out carefully and cast to perfection. Emma Thompson as Polly was again a perfect cast. Other names such as Antonio Banderas and Ralph Fiennes were cast and neither character was over played or stereotypical. I am always sceptical of child actors and so I wont comment because as far as I was concerned, the child acting was probably the weak link. 

Whale power... It takes a certain type of person to come up with these ideas and then another type of person to bring them to life for the rest of us to see and enjoy. I think that this is the best children's movie since Despicable Me and Megamind were released. Every adult has an inner child in them and secretly every adult enjoys a good children's movie which doesn't have a really cheesy ending. I can proudly say that I enjoy watching this movie on a Friday night as much as I enjoy watching a film like 'The Gentlemen' or 'Knives Out' on a Friday night. I appreciate good movies, good scripts, thought out animation or visual effects and clever casting. I don't care what age the film is aimed at if it ticks all of those boxes then I enjoy it. No need for extra villains or a 'dark' feel to the film. This movie wasn't written with a sequel in mind and it wasn't left for an obvious sequel which is even more pleasing. It starts, it has a middle, it has conflict and resolution and it has an ending. Simple yet effective and yet most script writers seem to forget the resolution or ending in favour of a sequel which almost always leaves them with a terrible movie and not the success for a sequel. A good script can do a lot more than good effects (as proven by Avatar and Star Wars 7-9).

Take your kids, sit down one evening and watch this film. If you don't have children then sit down alone or with friends/family and watch this film. It doesn't matter how old you are, you can enjoy this film if you appreciate imagination and a well written script.

All the President's Men

For those of you who watched 'The Post' a few years ago when it was released (Starring Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks), this is the other side of the story. Some people will say that 'The Post' is a remake of this film but having now seen both films, it isn't.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman star in this film about the Watergate Scandal. I will say right now that unless you were living at the time of this scandal, the film doesn't really make sense. 'The Post' revealed that Nixon knew that they couldn't win the Vietnam War. Documents were leaked and The Washington Post amount other papers had to fight the legal system to publish the documents. This film seems to be more focused on money that was paid from the presidential election campaign fund to high up members of the senate in order to keep Watergate a secret.

The film starts with a break in. 5 men are arrested for breaking in and attempting to locate and steal documents. A lawyer is provided for these men even though none of them called for one and that leads the reporters from The Washington Post to start writing a story on it. They discover that one of the burglars had a name of someone from the White House written in his diary and they go from there. Redford and Hoffman work together and spend the entire movie clutching at straws. They don't get any positive confirmations and they cannot reveal their sources. The film doesn't really end and when the closing credits roll you sit there thinking... then what?

After they publish a story stating that five high up members of senate or even higher were involved in paying off people and shredding documents they discover that they have been bugged from the start and that whilst they weren't wrong, they also weren't correct in everything that they wrote. Nixon gets reelected and you can't help but feel like they have wasted their time, money and effort and that you as the audience have also done the same thing.

The stars in this movie guaranteed it to be a box office hit. The plot was probably impacted by what they could say and write at the time. This movie was made in 1976, about 2 years after this scandal had taken place and therefore was still very much on people's minds. The problem is that if you didn't live through it, watching this film doesn't give you any concrete knowledge about anything that took place. I can see why 'The Post' was made. That film is a lot clearer about what was going on and what the papers were trying to achieve and write. Once you combine them with 'Frost/Nixon' then you can start to form a clear idea of what had taken place, if, like me; you were not born at the time of this scandal and did not learn about it in school history.

I still sit here wondering if I actually managed to work out the plot from this film just by watching the film. If there is anyone out there reading this post who can explain the plot of this film to me then please comment on this post and explain it to me.

Until next time.

The Good Liar

Helen Mirren and Ian McKellen are the names advertised on the trailers, posters and social media promotion. When you see these names you start forming an idea of what type of film you are expecting to see. Light-hearted and more like RED than what you actually get.

This movie is slightly darker than what you would expect. From the opening title sequence you can see that they are both liars and probably cons but who is pulling the bigger con?
If you grew up around the Teddington and heading towards Surrey area then you will have recognised Teddington Station, the pub next to the station and somewhere that looked suspiciously like Eggham throughout this movie. I will state now that Great Western Railway to Paddington does not run from Teddington as Teddington is on the southwestern train line and not the Great Western line. It's been a while since I recognised the surroundings of a film as well as I did for this movie and that comforted me a lot.

The plot goes like this:

Roy (McKellen) and Vincent (Jim Carter- Downton Abbey) are con men. They run schemes that convince well off, unknowing men and women to invest in joint accounts so that Roy can transfer all the money out of the account once the investment has been made and disappear to a new part of England, a new person to con and a new flat. Bettie (Mirren) appears to be a widowed but well off woman who is suffering from ill health and is completely charmed by Roy. Her grandson Steven (Russel Tovi) is the only obstacle to Roy's plan as he is ever present and very suspicious of this old man. Bettie lets it slip that she is worth something like 3 million pounds and Roy decides to attempt to get her to invest all of her money. They take trips to Germany, Paris, Venice etc as Bettie's health appears to be deteriorating rapidly. When in Munich, Steven takes Roy and Bettie to a house and manages to get Roy to explain who he really is and why he speaks German (even though he pretends that he doesn't). At first Roy lies and says that he was an English soldier who was injured in this house when he came to arrest someone after the war with a German man named Hanz. After he gives his account, Steven makes him admit that actually, he is Hanz who in fact was not killed in the accident. Roy was killed in the accident and Hanz came to London after that mission, already speaking English and changed his name, thus assuming the identity of Roy. He has been living a lie and a con ever since.

Bettie manages to convince Roy to put in all of his money in to the savings and Roy attempts to pull off the scam as he normally would, only to discover that upon his return to London, he has forgotten his key pad and cannot transfer any money. He returns to Bettie's house to find it completely empty with only Bettie in it and after a long time she explains to him that she was the girl that he Raped when he was 15 and living in Germany. Her sisters had turned him down and so he took advantage of a younger girl whom he was supposed to be teaching English to. After that even he was thrown out of the house and never permitted back. In retaliation Hanz reported them to the Nazis for something and they were forced out of their house and their lives were ruined. Bettie has been planning her revenge for a long time. The house was a show, although she does have a lot of Grandchildren, did teach at Oxford and is widowed. Steven is not her Grandson but rather the partner of one of her grandchildren. She takes almost all of his money, leaving him with just enough to repay one of the men that he conned at the start of the film and she leaves him to face a few of the people that he wronged throughout the movie.

End of plot.

This movie is darker than first imagined. I was glad that it was the first part of a double screening for me and that Knives out followed it because I needed something to make me laugh.
I don't want to take anything away from this film. It is very well written and balances a serious topic with a bit of humour. I feel that the making of this film will really help a lot of victims. Mirren's character states in the movie that she needed to face him and I think that this is true for a lot of victims. In order to be totally free from it, you need to face your oppressor but she does it in a way that means that she gets the better of him and therefore can close the case. I wouldn't suggest that every victim attempt to pull off something like this but being able to close the event is important and isn't something that can be given to every victim.
Mental health and abuse are things that have only been shown on the screen to depict someone as crazy or in an act of violence to depict a villain. The world that we are living in is now a lot more focused on mental health, talking and making music to help people verbalise what they are feeling. A lot of people will relate to this film in some way and I wont say that this film will have helped them but it is a step in the right direction for women to be able to see that they could continue living, have a happy life and marriage, have children and grandchildren etc and make something of their lives.

I think that the choice to focus on an older woman helped as it showed what can be achieved and didn't show the destruction and damage caused by the initial attack. I think that the casting was perfect. This film showed a slightly different side to all of the cast involved. Violence isn't something that we would normally associate with McKellen and this type of serious role isn't a typical Mirren performance either. For Jim Carter, I enjoy every performance that he gives and his character was much more likeable as he showed a sense of concern and conscience. He was a con artist yes but one who had limits and rules. To criticise the acting in this film would be wrong and unfounded. What I would say about this film is that you probably only need to watch it once. It isn't what you were expecting when you sat down to watch it (unless you have read this post before hand) and it sticks in your memory for a long time. There isn't a real need to buy a copy of the film because you probably wont watch it again for another ten years or so. Rent it so that you can avoid letting it take up space in your film cabinet. Save that space for a film that you will watch on repeat.

A good film. Serious and important. Memorable but so memorable that it doesn't need to be rewatched in a hurry.

Knives Out

I know that it has been a while since I wrote anything. Sometimes you need to take a break in order to prevent yourself from writing boring reviews that all sound the same. Lock down has given me time to re watch some of the films that hit the cinema before Lock down and write from a different perspective. Over the next week or so I will catch up with all of the films that I saw before Lock down started; including: The Good Liar, Dolittle, The Gentlemen, All The President's Men and The Personal History of David Copperfield.

Knives Out:

This movie starred Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Daniel Craig and Christopher Plumber, along with a lot of other names (check IMDB for the complete list). The trailers made the movie look like an Agatha Christie style Whodunnit movie and that is exactly why I made a point of seeing the movie twice in two different cinemas. It looked like it had humour, sarcasm and a plot to it. Less action and more interest and plot which is not something that I can say about a lot of films being released in to today's world. Knives out is a laugh for people who enjoy reading crime fiction and watching crime TV. 

From the start of the film you get this feeling that they are all acting and lying to the police. Playing happy families is one thing but as each character is questioned by the police you get to see what had really happened on the day of Harlem's (Plumber) death. Almost everyone had a reason to be a suspect but it did take me around half of the movie to work out what had really happened. You have a grandson who cannot be located, a really old, practically deaf mother of the deceased, a daughter who has built her company from the ground up, a daughter in law who is stealing money, a son who has just had his role as publishing manager taken away from him and a son in law who is having an affair. Then add in the Brazilian/ Paraguayan/ Uruguayan/ Bolivian nurse who throws up every time she lies and you can see why every character would be a suspect. Let's not even talk too much about the grandson who is nicknamed the 'masturbating nazi'. This film is comical and serious at the same time. Not played as a comedy but cast with an eye for allowing natural talent to shine.

We have become accustomed to seeing Daniel Craig as James Bond. Seeing him in a different role was very enjoyable. His accent was a lot better than the one he used for the Tomb Raider movies (I think that it is safe to say that Angelina Jolie's British accent was much better than Craig's American accent) and worked well for his character and his portrayal of it. I really enjoyed this different side to Craig. I eagerly wait to see what he will do with his career once Bond is finished. Having been a huge Bond lover until SPECTRE, I can happily say that I am eager for him to finish making Bond movies which are only getting worse and make more films like Knives Out.
Chris Evans was in many respects, exactly what we have come to expect from him but at the same time, it is nice to see him getting away from the superhero line of work and taking on a slightly different role. As with Craig, I look forward to seeing where his career takes him next as their talents really shine through in movies like this, which are different from their typical roles.

As always with these posts, I try not to go through the entire movie as that spoils the plot and after reading it you feel like you don't need to bother watching the film. Watch this film. There's enough to keep you interested throughout the entire movie. The setting is brilliant and simple. Everything about it screams 'period drama' at you until you look at the cast. I took some popcorn and I sat there watching this film as part of a double screening and simply enjoying every moment of it. It wasn't too intense. For me it was perfect and one of the best films released in years simply because it is easy to watch and very enjoyable. I could sit there with a glass of wine or desert and watch this film and I only feel able to do that when watching a Sinatra era movie.

I know that I have missed people from the cast in this review but I don't really want to review and rate films anymore. I would rather write a post on where the film went wrong or why you should take the time to watch a film. This movie can be watched at any time and any season. All ages can watch it and that helps to make it more enjoyable and reach greater audiences.

Le Mans 66

Ford V Ferrarri

This is set before my time but racing movies with a plot, Christian Bale and Matt Damon are always going to be worth watching. I emphasise the plot because this film is more like "Rush" than the "Fast and Furious" franchise which has become a heavily action based set of movies and not particularly about the cars.

The plot:

Ford are losing money. since the war people just aren't buying Ford cars like they used to due to other sports cars and designers available. One guy in marketing pitches the idea of creating a racing car so that Ford can compete with Ferrari at Le Mans. Enzo Ferrari is broke and so they suggested Ford and Ferrari merging. Ferrari never has any real desire to merge with Ford but uses it to get a better deal from Fiat. Ford still decide to build a car to win at Le Mans so that more customers will come to Ford rather than going to Ferrari. Marketing is right, Ford cars just aren't considered 'sexy' or 'desirable' anymore.

They approach Carrol Shelby from Shelby motors as Shelby has actually won at Le Mans but had to stop racing due to a heart condition. Shelby agrees to make them a car that can withstand the 24 hour race at Le Mans but informs them that the right driver is something that money can't buy. He wants to use Ken Miles, the British worker and driver whom he is friends with but Ford only want him to help build it and race it.
Many arguments and a failed Le Mans later, Ken and Shelby win the right to race at Le Mans. Ken is winning the race, Ferrari have crashed out but Ford decide to royally screw them over and insist that Ken brings all the Ford cars over the line together so that Ford finish 1,2,3 in the race. By doing so, because one of the other drivers started from behind Ken, Ken unknowingly gives up his title and doesn't win the race. He doesn't seem that down about it because he got to drive it but the rest of us still sit there wondering what sort of twats sat up in that company and decided to screw over the best driver in the race. This movie really shows a side to Ford which can only be described using the word "ass-hole".
I'm kind of amazed that Ford even let this movie be made because it makes them look like total idiots.

The actual review:

Christian Bale as Ken Miles is stunning. It took me a while to get over his accent but by the end I had got used to it and it didn't bother me. He gives everything to driving and even though he can be a difficult person to work with, he is a true driver and his dedication is unquestionable. 
Matt Damon as Carol Shelby also worked really well. I was a little sceptical because I wanted to see Damon do something a little different but by doing this movie he has done just that. He sat back away from the action and delivered determination, emotion and power all through his performance. 

My favourite scene has to be when Miles and Shelby are fighting on the green opposite to Miles' house and his wife comes out with a deck chair, a magazine and just sits there and watches them fight. It just summed up the emotions and the things that drove everyone.

If you have an interest in cars and real racing then watch this movie. I was the only young person in the screening on release day but I wasn't bothered by it. There was a really nice balance of Men to Women and that made me think that some people were watching the movie because they remembered the events taking place but a lot of them also had an appreciation for cars and the work that goes in to a good car. 

This was the right time to release this movie. They have let the action movies hit the screen and have got it out before Star Wars ruins movies. There was nothing that was really going to steal the audience when this movie made it to UK cinema's and I think that it helped. Official Secrets had already hit the screens and so there was nothing to take the older audience away. 

Next up (If I remember to actually write the review)  will be 'The Good Liar', followed by 'Knives Out'.

Official Secrets

There is a lot of noise around this movie and with good reason as well. This is almost a secret topic that people of my generation don't know about. Official Secrets is about the leak of an NSA and GCHQ email attempting to fix a vote before the Iraq war in 2003.

Katharine Gun was a 27/8 year old analyst attending work on a normal day when she got the email that caused her to start questioning the war. I was six years old when my country decided to go to war thanks to the decisions of Tony Blair and George W Bush. I didn't know anything about this war other than that the world had been lied to about Sadaam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. 


Keira Knightley took on the role of Katharine Gun and let's start with the normal differences. The real footage from the trial is shown at the end and Katharine Gun has blonde hair. Knightley has brown hair. Now that we've got that tiny difference out in to the air let's actually talk about the events in this movie. 

Since watching this movie I have started studying this war and trying to learn as much as I can about it. The movie opens with Katharine Gun being presented at her trial and then goes back to opening with setting the scene. She lives in Cheltnham with her husband. She sits there watching the news on the tensions between Iraq and other UN nations and argues against what is being said. She then goes to work and we learn that she is working on the Chinese analysis. She receives an email which makes her uncomfortable and she doesn't know what to do about it so she goes to see a friend who is part of the Anti-War movement. She says that she wants to give them the email so that they can look in to it and then regardless of what happens, her conscience is clear. 

We see her copy the email to floppy disk and then print the email and sneak it out. She cuts off the head of the email and passes it on. We watch her become nervous and look anxiously for any signs that something has been done with her information until she goes to meet her friend again to enquire about it. 

The email was about forcing the smaller countries in the UN to vote for war. Eventually the email gets handed to a journalist writing for 'The Observer' called Martin Bright ( Matt Smith) and after a lot of digging he manages to obtain that there could be genuine truth to the email and publishes a story on it. 

GCHQ start interviewing everyone and whilst Katharine survives her first interview, she becomes increasingly paranoid and decides to own up to prevent her colleagues and friends from having to continually go though these interviews. She risks her job, her freedom and even her husband who is facing deportation to make the public aware but she does just that and she captures our hearts whilst we are watching, She is defended by Ralph Fiennes as her lawyer from Liberty and he is utterly fantastic as a lawyer. He shows passion and determination to obtain all the information that he needs to argue that the war was an illeagle war and therefore Katharine is not guilty. 

These are probably the best performances I have seen from both Knightley and Fiennes. I thought that his performance in 'The Constant Gardener' was outstanding and this is just as good, if not slightly better. This time as a supporting role, he really shines and shows qualities that are often missed in Hollywood portrayals of lawyers. Keira Knightley really has become a much better actor as she has grown older. There was a lot of passion in this performance but also a really measured performance from her. She didn't become overly emotional and gave a really moving performance. 

I spent the entire film moving around. I was determined to not take my eyes off the screen and I felt myself being pulled in to the movie at times. There were moments of laughter but I didn't want to miss anything that this movie had to offer. I absolutely love films that have historical relevance to them and having done some research in to this movie, I can see that the script spent about five years not being picked up. It seemed like this movie was never going to be made and that would have been a huge shame. This movie needed to be made to educate and to also show the strength of Katharine Gun. This is a woman who has moved out of the UK because she struggled to work after leaking this email. The events were historically accurate and that made me happy. I was angry with the British government for forcing her to appear in court and spend one entire year in total unrest before announcing that they had decided not to prosecute her; a decision that they had made one year earlier. 

I am personally very glad that Matt Smith left Doctor Who. It is good to see him showcase his talent on the big screen. I think that he has a bright future ahead of him. If anyone has seen 'The Post' that was released a few years ago then they will see the similarities with this movie. Smith's character is similar to that of Tom Hanks in 'The Post' but Matt Smith is better in this movie than Tom Hanks was in that movie.

This movie is a movie of determination. Katharine is determined, Martin is determined and Ben (Fiennes) is determined. Without their determination it could have been a very different story. Martin and Ben did most of the work after Katharine had been charged. Katharine Gun broke the official secrets act but she did it to make sure that the British people were not being lied to and that is something to be admired. Ben and Martin tracked down everyone that they needed to and called for questionable documents to be brought to light and by doing so they forced the government to cancel the trial and left Katharine walk free. 

Wherever you are, make sure that you see this movie. Knightley deserves an award for this film. I know that I said the same about Renee Zellwegger in 'Judy' and even though I am a huge fan of musicals, I actually think that this performance from Knightley is better and more deserving of the award. I have never thought much of her as a leading lady before now but my opinion of her has changed.

Watch it, learn about it and appreciate it for a fantastic script and fantastic casting. This movie will help you learn about a very important and forgotten figure in British Political History. I respect you Katharine Gun and thank you for doing what you did.

Joker

The first thing to say is that I would love for anyone with a lot of knowledge surrounding the comic character to comment on this post and help me out because it is difficult to write an accurate, factual review on this movie.

Just from watching the adverts I was not convinced about this movie. Joaquin Phoenix can do weird and crazy well but there is another side to the joker as well that just seemed to be missing from the trailers. The Joker is the one character who seems to make a new appearance on the superhero/villain scene with a new actor every five years or so. The question that I felt needed to be asked is "do we really need another interpretation of the Joker"? Especially considering that this movie was a DC movie and by definition, the best they can be is 'decent'. Looking back over the movies that they have made since 'The Dark Knight Rises', 'Superman: Man of Steel' was a good movie, 'Batman Vs Superman' was shocking, 'Suicide Squad' was a total flop, 'Wonderwoman' was actually decent, 'Justice League' was so terrible that I turned it off after ten minutes and I haven't even bothered to watch Aquaman. That's two decent movies out of the last six  which is very poor considering that 'the lego batman' movie was better than any DC film featuring Batman since the Christian Bale series. 

In this stand alone movie, The Joker is revealed to be called Arthur Fleck. My problem with naming the Joker and giving him a real back story is that there isn't much substance to support it. From the first introduction of this villain in the very first issue of Batman, he had no explanation and no back story. He was given no name and no parents. In 'The Dark Knight', Heath Ledger's Joker gives three different reasons as to how he got his scars, one of which involved his father and another involving his wife. He doesn't name them and because he gives multiple stories you don't believe that any of them are true. In Tim Burton's movie in 1989, Tommy Lee Jones portrays a character called Jack Napier who then becomes the Joker through the same methods described in the comics. In the Netflix series 'Gotham' the Valaska brothers are modelled on 'The Joker' and in this movie, Arthur Fleck is revealed to be 'The Joker'. My first issue with this is that if you are going to do a back story then use a name which has already been used. No one knows the real name of the Joker so why not try to use the same name and make the audience connect the characters in their heads?

In this movie, Arthur is a guy who isn't good at education. His writing is readable but not great, his speech is a little interesting and he doesn't come across as a guy who has an interest and talent for Chemical Engineering. In this movie he is a weird guy, suffering from mental health issues who doesn't eat, dances around, has no friends and works as a clown whilst living with his mother. You don't look at this guy and think that he is going to become potentially the worlds biggest super villain. No way can you look at this guy on the screen and think that. He's delusional, he thinks about killing himself and he kills people because he is crazy but he doesn't seem like a criminal mastermind who has thought out everything. 

I have to agree with the review in the Guardian. After he kills three boys on a train you lose interest in the movie. I felt like I was watching a history documentary where the murder of three innocent people triggered riots and revolts across the city. That is pretty much what happened in this movie and it just wasn't interesting. There wasn't any real action in this movie and it made it really hard to enjoy the movie. Joaquin Phoenix was good but he has given better performances. 

This movie is an interesting interpretation but it is very personalised in many ways and I highly doubt that it will become a box office hit just because it isn't the type of movie that you would go and see again with your other friends who didn't make it the first time around. Honestly, I don't even think that it is the type of movie that you can enjoy with your friends. It didn't trigger anything inside of me, I wasn't bored but I wasn't engaged. I wasn't angry, I was more just wondering why this movie was made. In this movie they hint that Arthur Fleck could be the son of Thomas Wayne, which would make him the brother of Batman but I can't recall ever reading about it in the comics or seeing that mentioned anywhere else so I wonder why they did it? The end of this movie also removes the league of Shadows from 'Batman Begins' and ruins the start of that movie, they don't follow on from each other but this one is trying to lead in to it and failing. I hear rumours that Robert Pattinson has been cast as Batman, which will be shocking, so maybe they will re-do all the movies and make them more terrible than some of them already are which means that this movie would finally fit in somewhere.

I would be interested to know if there is any original material out there, as in, material from the start when the Joker was just kicking off or was originally developed, that suggests his relationship with Thomas Wayne or his name? I'd like to know where the script writers got this idea from.

Judy

Yep, the Judy Garland movie. 

It's not really a musical, it's more of a musical biography type of film, focusing really on her last year or so of life and her arrival and time in London. 

The films flashes back to her time on the set of  'The Wizard of Oz' and explains a lot about her and why she is so skinny and so messed up. The film is more what I would have considered to be a 'classic' musical movie rather than a musical. So it cannot be compared to Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman, A Star is Born or Yesterday. 

Renee Zellweger takes on the role of Judy Garland and I was very impressed with her. Renee became known for taking on the role of Bridget Jones and at times, that role can be very irritating (especially her accent) but she has become a more selective actress and only takes on roles which are different and challenge her. This role is different to any role I have seen her perform and I wouldn't necessarily have known that it was her, had I not have seen the adverts and actually read up on the film before going to see it.

This movie really gives you an incite in to what the life is like when you make your name young. People don't want you to gain weight in the middle of a movie so you can't eat cake or anything fast or sugar-y. Instead you are given pills and your sleep and diet is impacted. I have no first hand experience in the film industry so I can't say that this is what it is like but I imagine that something similar would occur as people notice when the character puts on weight midway through the movie.
I would not doubt that when she was starting her acting and singing career, her life was controlled by the studio and the pills.

Something that was really highlighted in the movie was Judy's inability to recognise her own mistakes and to learn from them. She turned up late, she was rude to the audience at times and at times, collapsed on stage. It was impossible to get her the real money that she could have earned in her later years because she wasn't reliable and was practically impossible to work with. It has been said in a lot of movies that when people get famous, they want all of the privileges but none of the responsibility.


Renee Zellweger is singing. This was something that I wasn't sure about because in some movies the actors mostly lip sync but sing a small amount. I knew that Renee could sing because she sings in 'Empire Records' but her voice was nowhere near as good so I wasn't sure if it was just a recording of Garland being played in the background. I am pleased that she is actually singing as it makes for a better movie and a better performance. Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga did it live in 'A Star is Born' and that made their performances a lot better. You can't reenact that emotion that you actually when you perform live. No matter how good the actor, you can always tell when they aren't singing live because the music is inside of you, it sparks something which changes every time that you perform and so to act something sporadic and unpredictable is practically impossible.

I didn't know anything about Judy Garland because she is way before my time. I knew that she was dead and I have seen a few of her movies. I never found her to be as appealing as Ginger Rodgers or Audrey Hepburn but she was better than average. She could sing and she could dance which is what matters. I am amazed that so many people went to see her show in London after all of the negative press coming from around America. Judy Garland was homeless, she lived in a hotel until she was unable to take on enough paid performing work to cover the bills and then left her kids with their dad so that she could go and perform in London to earn enough money to buy a home for herself and her kids to live in. That didn't work out because she was late, rude to the audience and collapsed on stage and so she ended up with nothing but a fifth marriage problem and potential divorce (although she couldn't pay for the divorce) and nothing to live with. 
Her marriage issues are also highlighted in this movie. Rufus Sewell plays 'Sid', the children's father and he managed her but had problems because she was always late and impossible to work with. In this movie, Garland portrays him as a pathetic figure who can't afford anything and hasn't contributed anything to the world but he  actually has a house and looks after the kids. She needs someone who will devote themselves to her, sort out all of her problems without changing her and that just doesn't work out because in real life you can't just wash away all the negative press surrounding someone and convince people in the movies and theatre that they want to take on someone who has a really bad reputation. 

I don't know if this was an accurate portrayal but if it was then I not only think that it was done very well but it also teaches a lot about fame and about what it can do to people. It's one thing to work hard to become famous but another thing entirely to keep working hard and avoid the drugs and alcohol when you get there. Fame ruins a lot of people and often claims their lives on top of their careers. 

Hats off to Renee Zellweger for this performance. Side notes to Rufus Sewell and Michael Gambon who were both excellent.
Jessie Buckley is starting to make a name for herself (which considering that she originates from the same place my family do, is a hard thing to do!) and Darci Shaw is also one to watch out for. She was almost perfect as young Judy. 

Watch it. Enjoy it and just admire Zellweger's performance.

Fast and Furious: Hobbs and Shaw

Hi all, 

Apologies for the delay- have been away and unable to write a blog post on a movie that I watched about two weeks ago.

I watched the Fast and Furious franchise in random order and had no idea about the plot or characters featuring in this movie but I like the idea of most action movies which star Jason Statham and Dwayne Johnson. 

What can I say about this movie?

Lots of action, a British bad guy to go with a British protagonist and a plot based around Deckard Shaw's sister. The music is fantastic and the final stand is a sight to behold. Moving to Samoa to fight brings a different element to the franchise and makes it more enjoyable for a lot of fans. The technology also helps to bring a different element to this movie. It's more what you would expect from two heavy weights in the same movie. 

Is there the standard, typical, car chase that has to feature in every movie to make it worthy of the title? Not that I recall but possibly. There is one of those 'let's all lock together to ring down an aeroplane' scene but nothing that really screams that this is a Fast and Furious movie other than a few characters who have featured in previous movies. 

I will say that Vin Diesel does not feature in this movie. This is a sort of spin off and so his character doesn't actually feature. 

If you like action movies, cars and stunts then you'll enjoy this movie.

A huge shout out to Helen Mirren who is fantastic as Deckard Shaw's mother. Her birthday cake is fantastic and she has some of the most comical lines in the entire movie. Adding her in to this franchise when they did was one of the better choices that they made about the direction that the franchise was going in. 

This movie really is about Deckard Shaw. His sister becomes a target of a man called 'Brixton' (Idris Elba) as she is working for the Government, transporting a virus when her team is attacked and she manages to escape with the Virus by injecting herself with it. Both Shaw and Hobbs get assigned this case respectively and have to work together in order to take down Brixton and the forces behind him. It takes only the entire movie for them to actually be able to work together but they all manage it in the end.

This movie is just another way to have fun. Watching this movie is a decent way of spending an evening. It is one of those that you can enjoy with family and friends or just on your own. Neither Statham nor Johnson can really act, they just get cast in movies that need people who look strong and can perform stunts well. They get type cast but that isn't always a bad thing. So long as you don't expect world class acting then you are not going to be disappointed with this movie.

Watch it, enjoy it and let me know your thoughts on it.

Ad Astra

Released in the UK on the 18th September (yesterday). 
The adverts made it look like nothing special and that would sum it up. 
Did we really need another movie about Astronauts? No. Was this movie going to be a hit? No.
So let's analyse what we spent two hours staring at.

Major Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend, according to Space Command. He is an Astronaut and he falls from the station just above Earth when a power surge from Neptune destroys almost every complex that the US Space programme have on any other planet. Roy falls from this complex at the start of the movie but doesn't die, he isn't even injured. His heart rate never gets above 80 (which is very impressive) and so he is sent on a classified mission to Neptune, to locate his father, who is secretly believed to be alive and part of the 'Lima Project' which is based on Neptune. 



Roy makes it from Earth to the Moon and then from the Moon to Mars but during that flight he and the captain of the rocket that he is being transported in stop to answer a distress call from a biological transportation ship. They discover that there is no one aboard the ship as they were all attacked by a biologically improved form of Ape. The Captain is killed by this Ape and Roy manages to kill both the Apes on board and attempts to save the Captain. Upon returning with the Captain to the rocket, the Captain is pronounced dead and the last rights are said before his body is removed from the space craft and left floating in space. There are some problems landing on Mars and Roy has to take manual control from 1st Lieutenant who has become afraid of the ship. Roy lands it successfully and omits that detail from his mission report. The 1st Lieutenant is promoted to Captain.

Roy, now on Mars, attempts to communicate with his father. He reads the transcripts created for him by Space Com but gets no response so instead makes up a more personal speech to send to his father. His father responds but Roy is deemed too emotionally involved, fails his Psychological exam and is to be sent back to Earth. On Mars Roy discovers the truth about his father and the 'Lima Project'. The truth is that a crew were sent out to discover life sources on the planet but could not discover any. Once they could not locate any life sources most of the crew wished to return to Earth but Dr McBride would not let them. His crew turned on him so he killed them all. 

The rocket which Roy arrived in has now been equipped with nuclear weapons as their mission is to destroy the Lima rocket on Neptune so that they can continue to cover up what has really happened. Roy already has been given some data suggesting a cover up by his escort from Earth to the Moon and on Mars he is shown classified information detailing the real events. Roy goes aboard the rocket, against all order and in doing so, the rest of the crew end up dead as they try to remove him from the rocket and shoot him. Instead of shooting him the captain accidentally hits an air tank and the air in the rocket is contaminated. Roy attempts to save them but cannot so he flies to Neptune alone. 

On Neptune he plants the nuclear device and is reunited with his father. He attempts to take his father away from the ship and bring him back to Earth but his father, having declared that the only thing that he really loved was his job, un clips himself from Roy and fights with Roy to let him go. His father, played by Tommy Lee Jones, dies in Space and Roy uses the blast from the nuclear device to propel him back to earth, where he crash lands and is retrieved by the US space force. That is the end of the movie. 

This movie is a waste of time. There is no real action and he doesn't even manage to save his father. The movie doesn't show us if he is punished for disobeying orders or if he reveals the cover up. There were so many better endings for this movie than the one that they went with and in the end you just feel like you have wasted your time. There is no spectacular acting in it and it makes you wonder what caused Pitt to agree to make this movie. The plot was nothing special and the movie was clearly never going to win him any award or recognition so why do it?

Don't waste your money on this film. It wont change your life or even make you feel anything over the course of the two hours that you spend watching it. It hasn't added anything to our cinematic universe or the world of film. It's one of those films that you will quite easily forget was ever made. Not bad and not good, not made of anything to draw any response from you. It is, in every way, forgettable. 

Next up will be the Fast and Furious spin off: Hobbs and Shaw.

Downton Abbey

Hi everyone. 
It's been a while and I do apologise for that. I can now announce that due to changes in personal circumstances, I should now be able to write at least one blog on a movie per week. As much as possible, I will try to make these movies recent movies, but I will of course add in a few really old movies for fun.

Without further ado, I bring you...

DOWNTON ABBEY

So I have to admit that I am relatively new to Downton, having only discovered it two years ago. For those of you wondering how I could have only discovered it a few years ago the answer is simple; I knew about it due to the adverts and Maggie Smith but I was unable to watch it when it was released so I had to wait until I picked the box sets up in a charity shop for £2 each. Then I worked my way through them on almost a binge and really enjoyed them all. Naturally, I was excited for the movie as I felt that the series hadn't really ended. Julian Fellowes left so many possibilities with his final episode.

We all wondered what would happen to the house once all the 'Crawley girls' were married and this movie shows us. With Carson living happily retired alongside Mrs Hughes (who is not retired) and Thomas taking on the role of Butler we wondered how much time would pass before Thomas was deemed incapable of living up to the pressure. The answer is that he manages well until the Royal Family announce their visit and then after about two or three days Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) asks Carson to come back temporarily and take over from Thomas as she doesn't want the household to appear unprepared for the Royal visit. 

I am going to try and answer some questions that may have been going through your head when you saw the advert for this film:
1) Do they survive the visit- Yes.
2) Do the household staff actually serve the Royal family- Yes, due to some creativity from Mr and Mrs Bates.
3) Is Lady Edith actually in her underwear for one scene- sort of. There are problems with her dress and so she is wearing her undergarments. This may be scandalous but she isn't revealing anything so it is perfectly sensible and realistic to assume that Ladies and Gentlemen were not always well presented.
4) Does Tom Branson give one of his Ireland speeches again? No. Tom actually saves the King's life by preventing an Irish republican from shooting the King. Tom is very well behaved in this movie.
5) Are there any new characters? Yes but not as additions to Downton. Imelda Staunton takes on the role of Lady Bagshaw, who is a travelling companion for Her Royal Highness the Queen and Tuppence Middleton appears as Lady Bagshaw's maid, Lucy Smith.

Now that those questions have been answered I can write a bit about the movie.

As we all know, Tom's character got a lot better after Sybil died and he became not only bearable but actually likeable. In this film he has a few powerful lines and appears as the most helpful character in the entire movie. You can't help but feel that from the moment he met Lucy Smith that he was always going to marry her. The relevance of this being that Lady Bagshaw is a cousin of Violet Crawley (Maggie Smith) and has been refusing to make Robert (Hugh Bonneville) her heir because she has actually made Lucy Smith, who turns out to be her child (but not from her deceased husband), her heir. Tom marrying Lucy would bring the money back to the Crawley household (in a manner of speaking).
Violet reveals that she is ill and places the onus on Mary to become the strong leader of the family who will fight for everything just because tradition states. This seemed like a good way to write her out of the script, should they chose to continue with this story and produce a one off Christmas episode (famous for killing off characters). Word on the street is that Maggie Smith wasn't going to do the movie until she discovered that the rest of the cast were all going to reprise their roles. The movie would not have been the same without her and the household would not be the same without her constant bickering with Isobel (Penelope Wilton).
Let's try to remember that Daisy and Andy were going to get married. This movie hasn't really moved on from that and at the end of the movie Daisy agrees to start thinking about her wedding. Daisy has really grown from an irritating character who was unable to see Thomas' true nature, to a relatively strong minded woman who can actually fight for the right things. Andy was always a step up from just about any other footman employed at Downton. Andy isn't stupid or a flirt, which makes him better than the two before him and he actually shows other sides to him as well in this movie.
Thomas gets to learn a thing or two about life and also gets a little bit of development. His character never really expanded in the series. Whilst he did settle down and grow up a bit, he didn't actually have much real development in the same that Mrs Patmore, Mrs Hughes and Carson all suffered from an illness which showed a vulnerable side to themselves.
Everyone has their moment in this movie and it is everything that you would expect from a Downton movie. The only negative is Anna's hair. It looks like a terrible wig and I hope that it is a wig because it doesn't look great on her. Everyone seemed to change their hair in the 20's but this just doesn't work for her. 

If you are a fan of period drama or Downton then make sure to watch this movie. It's in UK cinema's and is worth it. If you've never seen the series but are a fan of Imelda Staunton, Maggie Smith (how could you not be) or even if you are a Terry Pratchett fan and want to watch 'Susan' from 'The Hogfather' in something else then watch this movie.


Now that I have passed on my words of advice, without revealing too much of the plot I can leave you with the explanation as to why this post is in purple. Drum roll please... I struggle with Black on White because the contrast makes everything blurry so I now write almost everything in purple. From now on blog posts will appear in purple- apologies for this weirdness.

Alita: Battle Angel

I didn't want to write about this movie before it had been released because it is so fantastic. One of the most highly anticipated movies of the year and for a good reason. James Cameron (Avatar) is back producing it and with him comes the technology used in Avatar to create the character of Alita.

Manga lovers will appreciate this movie even more as there is space to grow and develop because *spoiler alert* it doesn't end properly.

First things first: when you watch this movie, watch it in Imax 3d, it is phenomenal. It is so much more real in 3d than it ever would be in 2d.
This is the tail of a character, who is thrown down from the city above called Zalem and is only left with a head and a heart. A doctor locates her in the scrapyard and gives her a new body, thus bringing her back to life. Alita starts to learn how to use her body and discovers that she is a trained fighter. As she is fighting she starts to remember things and makes a friend. Her friend takes her to a fallen ship and there she locates her new body. The body that was designed for people of her kind and only her kind. She becomes a hunter warrior in the attempt to make enough money to help send Hugo (Keean Johnson) to Zalem. The only way to do this is to ask Vector (Mahershala Ali) to send you up to Zalem in exchange for a fee.

Alita (Rose Salazar) battles in contests and all of it is thoroughly entertaining. She is, of course, accompanied by Hugo and Doctor Ido (Christoph Waltz), who gave her a body and raises her. By the end of this movie there is no love interest. By doing that Robert Rodriguez has eliminated the possibility of weakening her character for love in any future movies.

This movie is just thoroughly enjoyable. As far as action goes, it is packed with it. The stunts are phenomenal but not unreal and there are no really cheesy lines in the script writing. Both Robert Rodriguez and James Cameron have done themselves proud with this movie and have a really great thing going, should they chose to continue it. Jennifer Connelly plays the wife of Doctor Ido, who has been working for Vector in exchange for a return to Zalem but in the end she stops doing the wrong things and starts doing the right things. Her character is another strong character with so much room for development and it is really exciting to think of the possibilities for this franchise. 

Just make sure that you watch this film and for your own sake, spend the extra money and watch it in 3d.

Glass

The movie that gave off a similar feel to the movie 'Unbreakable' and featuring a similar cast in the personel of Samuel L Jackson and Bruce Willis. Add the comic book feel and the references to them and you have yourself a sequel to 'Unbreakable'. I joke. This movie is not a sequel and once you add James McAvoy to the line up you start to realise how even though it looked like a X-Men type of movie to start with, it really isn't.

This movie is a chance for James McAvoy to reignite his acting career. He has made some terrible decisions with movie choice, making movies such as 'Wanted' and 'X-Men Apocalypse' (where the scripting writing was terrible' and hasn't really ever shown much of his talents, rather playing on his looks than anything else. In Glass, he takes on a character who has 24 different personalities and he plays them all exceptionally well. He is psychotic and thoroughly convincing throughout. I think that we probably all had doubts about his credentials and assumed that his career was going down the drain. We would have all watched this movie for Samuel L Jackson and accepted that McAvoy was going to be bad but that we would look past him because we were focusing on the rest of the movie but that really wasn't the case. When you think that Bruce Willis is always just himself in movies then I have to admit that McAvoy was actually the star of the movie. 

Superheroes... sound familiar? Glass is about a man called Elijah. We're not really sure if he is actually a superhero or if he is just a tactical genius. He manages to orchestrate the creation of two superheroes. I don't want to explain how as that destroys the point of the movie but he manages to make it so that all three of them are in the same mental institution. Bruce Willis is exceptionally strong, James McAvoy has a character called 'The Beast' and he can become very strong, very aggressive and climb up things without a problem. Naturally, where there are superheroes, there are government agencies trying to cover it up and make them think that they are normal. This plan doesn't work because Mr. Glass manages to override all the cameras and live stream their escape to the relatives of each of these three characters. 

Spoiler... all three characters die but the live feed of their escape, from the 100 cameras inside of this institution is sent to the relatives and the relatives upload for the world to see. 

This movie is set up for a sequel but I would hope that the production team will take their time with it and make sure that the script is good because they shouldn't just pull out more superheros in the same city because that we be predictable and rather stupid. This agency admits that there are people with unnatural powers but also accepts that where there are heroes, there are always villains and that this creates conflict and therefore they attempt to remove both without anyone realising. They were all prepared to move on to the next city and that is what they should do. Glass was the setup. Other than his brain, he had no powers. His bones shattered easily and it made him easy to kill but he was exceptionally intelligent. 

The lack of real powers and the lack of an obvious hero and villains makes this film different, which is probably why it topped the box office. Glass is memorable and more psychological than most other superhero like movies. You will remember it and you may also spend time wondering about Mr. Glass and if he really did have special powers or if it was more chance than anything else. 

Samuel L Jackson delivers the performance that we have come to expect from him. We have got used to him being a bit weird and different in some of the roles that he has taken on over the decade but that is why we love him. He can do more than just be, there is no other way of saying i, 'a dude'. 

Sarah Paulson is one to keep an eye on. She has this way of taking on roles in smaller films or taking on roles where you may not remember her because she is overshadowed by a bigger name. She has taken on roles in '12 Years A Slave' and 'Carol', as the first two that spring up after 'Glass' when you search her on 'IMDB'. I have seen both of those movies and now that I see them listed I start to remember her but I couldn't without the prompt. Sometimes being forgettable isn't a bad thing. It's not that we forgot her, its just that we made the mistake of overlooking her in smaller roles. If she ever takes on a role that earns her awards then we will all make a point of allocating her a place in our memory, rather than storing her somewhere in the desert of our long term memory and throwing away the key. She was in Ocean's 8 and was fantastic in that movie as well but again, the prompt was needed to make the connection. For some people, this type of career is enough. Take the role, do it well, make successful movies but avoid the spotlight and be able to dictate your career in terms of doing the movies or series that you want rather than having this audience demand to take on weird roles or bigger movies that are so often a huge flop.

I would say to anyone who hasn't seen it, make sure that you catch this movie while there is still time because it is different to most things being released at this moment in time and so much better than the 'Avengers' movies.

Mary Poppins Returns

Very excited for this movie. Huge fan of Emily Blunt and huge fan of Mary Poppins.

This movie is similar to the first movie but with a slighter darker twist and less showstopping tunes. As a bookshop manager I will be playing the song "A Cover is Not the Book" around my shop for several weeks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNvV6N7veRs

Emily Blunt is not Julie Andrews but she is really the only woman currently acting, with a strong voice who could have pulled it off and she really did pull it off! Emily Blunt is the Mary Poppins that children from this generation will remember but children from my generation or earlier will remember Julie Andrews as the main Mary Poppins. Emily Blunt could keep this going for a few more movies though and I think that Julie Andrews may have been proud of their choice to replace her. Blunt has a great voice, the right personality to pull it off and the skill behind it all, which can clearly been seen by her dancing in this movie. So long as you remember that Mary Poppins never comes to save the father, she always comes to save the children then there should be no problems with these movies.

No Dick Van Dyke reprising his role of 'Burt', which makes sense because Burt would be reaching his fifties or sixties and therefore probably wouldn't still be sweeping the chimneys in London. This time, the role of street worker is taken on by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Musical writer of Hamilton and Moanna) and he takes on the role of 'Jack', a street lighter who was a child working with Burt in the original movie so it sort of gives his character a bit more purpose. This movie, in so many ways, runs parallel to the original movie. If you can remember the 'step in time' dance sequence then fear not because there is a similar sequence with the street lighters and of course, 'A Cover is Not the Book' is in a similar place to 'Supercallafragilisticexpialidosious', making it very easy for you as the audience to feel like you are in a Mary Poppins movie.

Of course, Dick Van Dyke gets a brief look in, as does Angela Lansbury as a balloon seller. Van Dyke takes over as head of the bank but he only briefly appears and dances on the desk as the movie resolves itself. The main role of head banker is played by Colin Firth and when I said that this movie was slightly darker that is only because there is an obvious bad guy in this movie and that is Colin Firth. The bank and financial troubles were always a problem for the Banks family but the bankers weren't obviously as bad as this time around.

Poverty hits Michael Banks after his wife dies and leaves him with three children to look after. He forgets to pay monthly loans and generally forgets to do a lot of things. He still has Ellen, this time played by Julie Walters but even she cannot make everything happy again. As I said, less showstoppers means less memorable music and less unity of family but this time Mary Poppins had a more subtle role to play and she did it so very well that I only have positive reviews to write about this movie. Everyone in this movie was great and I especially loved how far Meryl Streep has come with her singing. Her acting was more similar to her role in 'Into the Woods' but her voice has come even further than it had in that movie. She was great, her costume was fantastic, her setting was stupendous and her singing was enjoyable.

Overall, this movie was thoroughly enjoyable. I saw it with my Mother and my Grandmother and we all enjoyed it. There were moments where I wished for the classic, three beat Mary Poppins music but I do have to accept that the songwriters are not going to be the same. There is always room for improvement and this is something that they can take in to the next movie. Emily Blunt appears to do less with her singing voice than Julie Andrews did and therefore may have a little more time to make another movie before having to retire from the musical theatre side of movies but from my point of view, I hope that she makes another movie because she is fantastic in almost everything that she does and this role was different to any other role that I have seen from her and really suited her.

Bumblebee

Transformers was a good movie, the rest were rubbish and changing to Mark Whalberg didn't make them any better.

So instead of making more movies they have decided to backtrack a little and explain how Bumblebee arrived on earth, without his ability to speak. What I will say now is that this movie completely destroys the timeline of the previous series made, starting with the movie staring Shia Le Bouf and Megan Fox.

Instead of picking a slightly sweaty, teenage boy who is out to impress a somewhat attractive young girl, they pick a young girl, portrayed by Hailee Steinfeld. My first issue with this character is that they have chosen the very typical, only child, parent died, other remarried and home sucks feel that so many movies have adopted poorly over the years. Given that Spielberg was involved with this movie I didn't expect to have so many criticisms of it as this is the first movie with his involvement that I think I have publicly criticised on this blog.

Hailee was good and her portrayal and character developed but the sort of, I am so hard done by because you wont buy me a car, attitude just sort of shows what a stuck up lifestyle she thinks she has. A lot of Kids who are turning 18 want their parents to buy them a drink or something smaller than a car, knowing that they didn't grow up with that kind of money. It just seemed a little unreal to me, as an adult viewer, looking back on what I wanted as a seventeen year old girl.
Once we got past that point it got a bit better. There was nothing wrong with her performance but I felt that the script was very tailored towards children and that in doing so they were eliminating the older audience that so often enjoys these types of movies.

Great music choice and generally speaking good action to the movie but it is hard to see how they are going to develop it. Prime  is on earth which removes the older series and means that they now have to reboot the entire franchise. With man having witnessed one fight between the Autobots and Decepticons in an attempt to save Earth and humanity, what are they going to do in the next movie and how do they plan on working with that? The romance was unnecessary and didn't really flow with the rest of the movie.

I am sort of interested in seeing what they do next with it, simply because they have destroyed so much of what we already knew that I want to see how they dig themselves out of it. I am sure that Aquaman would have been a worse choice of movie to go and watch but I still felt like this one would have been challenging Aquaman as it was boring and a bit pathetic.