Movie Review: Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Walt Disney
Studios Motion Pictures,
the film publisher
or graphic artist.)

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Production Company: Marvel Studios
Director: James Gunn
Producer: Kevin Feige
Scriptwriter: James Gunn
Main Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell
Released: April 28 2017
Running Time: 136 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

He says “Welcome to the frickin’ Guardians of the Galaxy”. Only he didn’t use “frickin’”. – Rocket

The sequel to Marvel’s surprise hit finally lands. Were this any other studio, we would have had a sequel to the critically and commercial hit much earlier, keen to jump on all that goodwill, alas with the Marvel Cinematic Universe being interconnected every movie has a place in line. Thankfully, we will not have another three-year wait to see the group again as they will be teaming up with the Avengers next year, which a truly exciting prospect.

Funnily enough, though, there is barely any connection to the wider Marvel Universe in Volume #2. Writer and director James Gunn gave us such an offbeat hit that he has basically been given carte blanche in the sequel. This is quite the compliment in the tightly-controlled Marvel Universe, one not even afforded to Joss Whedon in Avengers Age of Ultron.

We open to the Guardians in team mode, a not-so-well-oiled machine, and straight away we are reminded of how different these films are to the others in the universe with a funky, mixed-focus, alien battle set to the music of ELO. Obviously.

Actually, the music deserves special mention. George Lucas once said that sound and music are 50% of the entertainment in a movie, and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies are prime examples of this. This sentiment most likely refers to a score (of which there are some really nice emotive pieces here by composer Tyler Bates), but in Guardians of the Galaxy, it is a collection of 70’s hit singles, some classics, and it gives the pace of the movie a real rhythm. Sells a hell of a lot of soundtracks too. Due to the success of the first film, Gunn has obviously been allowed any song he wishes, and boy he’s crammed a lot in, but it’s to his credit as a writer how the songs hit the right tone.

The pacing of the first act seemed somewhat off after that first scene. Without the villain not being so clear until later, there does not seem to be much focus on the overall plot. However, it does at least leave plenty of room for that rarest of things in an ensemble – character development. Each character is so well-defined to us now, yet you get a sense of a deep history behind them that you know there are so many stories there and so many directions you can take this group on.

There were moments were it seemed like the movie was going for some sort of gag-rate record that the constant stream of jokes were beginning to undermine serious moments. This was more in the first half, mainly involving scenes that involved the over-used Ravagers. And quite frankly, there is a certain Pac-Man moment that should not have happened. I get the fun of Peter Quill’s old culture references to his comrades, but this was a cringe moment in what was an emotionally and physically charged scene.

But it can be forgiven because the hit rate is much better than the miss, and some hit hard. When did comic book movies become funnier than comedy movies?

The visual effects are eye-popping; this truly is a comic book on screen. The different states we see the character of Ego in are very impressive. It’s great to see a director allowed to really give us the entire colour pallete. And the effect of showing older Hollywood legends as the young men we remember them as – like Michael Douglas & Robert Downey Jr in past Marvel films – turns up again here to wonderful affect. Kurt Russell as Ego is just really cool, guys. Credit too for the promotional team as the fantastic trailers gave nothing too important away.

Finally, although I am a fan of the plot device of well-established teams splitting to join up again later – something that allows characters more room to grow and create different dynamics – the real magic in this space age comic book action adventure of mismatched family drama is when our heroes have a back-and-forth together.

Each member brings something different and the lines sizzle. There are not many cinematic sights more guaranteed to make you smile than the Guardians of the freakin’ Galaxy together in full flow.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – We Are Groot

Beauty And The Beast

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Walt Disney
Studios Motion Pictures,
the film publisher
or graphic artist.)

Written By: Scott Gunnion

Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Production Companies: Walt Disney Pictures and Mandeville Films
Director: Bill Condon
Producers: David Hoberman and Todd Lieberman
Scriptwriters: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Main Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson
Released: March 17 2017
Running Time: 129 Minutes
Certificate: PG

Beauty And The Beast arrived upon us burdened with high expectations. It came shackled with the intimidating legacy of the original that came before it, whilst also afflicted with the immense pressure to convert animated greatness into something credible and magical at the same time.

Apparently, Emma Watson turned down La La Land before signing on to star as Belle; allegedly, she wanted La La Land to be filmed in England. Instead, she opted for this. Good decision, whether it be intentional or not.

The film allowed Emma Watson to finally abandon the shadow of Harry Potter, cast aside its legacy and establish herself as an actress in her own right. The film was so good that it made you forget all about Watson's well-documented pretentious posturing concerning feminism and everything else, something that has no doubt been holding back her career progression.

At times, the film felt like a word-for-word reproduction of Disney's animated original, yet it somehow managed to add an extra half-hour to the running time. So surely it can't have just been a word-for-word remake, though at times it certainly did seem like one. It's interesting that Kevin Kline's Maurice didn't have a musical moment, considering his musical background with two Tonys to his name.

The golden moment was the Gaston musical number involving Gaston, Le Fou and the villagers in full swing. It was an epic moment; a musical at its best. Another musical moment - "Be Our Guest"- felt like, as I said earlier, a word-for-word reproduction of its counterpart scene in the Disney original. A disappointment, though visually impressive.

The much-speculated 'gay moment' turned out to be overblown. Yes, Le Fou was obviously in awe of Gaston, though this could quite easily have been misconstrued as admiration as opposed to unrequited lust and desire. No doubt, it will have gone unnoticed by the legions of young cinemagoers who absorbed the movie and enjoyed it in whole. There is a moment towards the end where Le Fou dances with a man, and this too is underwhelming and overblown. Much ado about nothing.

To those who bigged it up, I say: stop trying to politicise Disney!

Despite these criticisms, the movie in whole was visually impressive and delightful. In fact, it was magical. The cinema was rammed with children and adults in equal measure, which speaks to its universal appeal. No doubt, there is a Golden Globe for Best Picture in either the Musical or Comedy category pending.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Zootropolis

Image Source:
Entertainment Focus
(Copyright: Disney)

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Production Companies: Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Animation Studios
Directors: Byron Howard and Rich Moore
Producer: Clark Spencer
Scriptwriters: Jared Bush and Phil Johnston
Main Cast: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, J.K. Simmons, Jenny Slate, Tommy Chong and Octavia Spencer
Released: March 25 2016
Running Time: 108 Minutes
Certificate: PG

“Life isn't some cartoon musical where you sing a little song and all your insipid dreams magically come true. So let it go.” - Chief Bogo

I see what you did there, Disney: Zootropolis, or ‘Zootopia’ as it is known in America and therefore in the wider world (or ‘Zoomania’ in Germany, just in case you're reading this in Germany and are confused - schreien um meine deutschen fans!)

Those niggling changes are basically forced on Disney having to rename for territories where those titles already have copyright. But while the company will see ‘Zootopia’ as the true title, I'd argue that ‘Zootropolis’ is a more fitting name. Because this is a very modern movie, set in a very modern metropolis. Modern-day items like CCTV and phones are used as plot devices. And the Zootropolis really feels like a full, bustling city of different types. ‘Zootopia’ is basically just a pun on ‘utopia’. Do people really love a pun that much?

But anyway, it is Zootropolis here in the UK and it's all the better for it. Since buying the Pixar company, the Disney corporation have used their acquired know-how to begin putting out their very own Pixar-like content, in terms of looks and almost in terms of quality too. Tangled (before Pixar, it must be said), Bolt, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6 and now Zootropolis move away from how Disney previously would have done stories about a talking animal, a video game, a robot and a Princess. They are almost anti-Disney. Sure, they are still predictable stories with a be-true-to-yourself message, but how we get there is different to what we are used to. With limited musical numbers overall, the Princess’ true love story is about her sisters, and the tale of the talking animal actually goes a little Animal Farm and hits us with a political story wrapped up in a classic ‘follow your dreams’ moral. But unlike every version of Animal Farm I've ever seen, at least Zootropolis does so entertainingly.

So, we basically follow Judy Hopps, a bunny rabbit from the country who not only dreams of living in the big city, but wants to do so as a cop. No easy feat when you consider most of the animal kingdom's predators roam the streets of Zootropolis. But Judy and her boundless energy has proved to herself countless times that anyone who tries to tell her that being the “little guy” is a disadvantage in life is wrong. Standard fare so far, then, as is much of the movie for the first two acts. She teams up with Nick Wilde - a con artist fox who grates on her; they have a standard, though quite intriguing, mystery to solve - to find the missing member of Zootropolis, and they do so through many exciting and often hilarious set pieces. The Godfather-inspired mob wedding provides several laughs, as well as the joke about the DMV being run by sloths, which is probably the stand-out moment of the movie. It's standard, but it's good-looking entertainment up to this point for the intended child audience and their parents (for whom there is even a Breaking Bad reference).

But once the mystery is seemingly wrapped up early, we are hit with a whopper of a third act. All of a sudden, the audience are being confronted with the idea of how people deal with and, just as importantly, use fear. It is a hugely prominent part of modern day politics, especially in this US election year, and arguably modern-day life since 9/11. And here, Disney confront that theme out of the blue, but without beating us over the head with it. With a kids movie! Yes, despite the mentions of 9/11, this movie is aimed at children. But they aren't reading this review. (Well, hopefully; if so, please leave the Internet kids. It's a bizarre and frightening place.)

The story’s outcome is fairly predictable early on, and while it has a lot of heart, it doesn't really have the same emotional weight as something like Up or Toy Story 3. It is not as visually interesting as the likes of Wall-E. But that is not to say that Zootropolis doesn't look stunning, because it really does. So much thought goes into how all these animals live, transport and work together that it could rely on its sight gags alone, but thankfully it doesn't. It plays on our ideas of these animals, modern-day life, and how they blend together, and not just in a superficial way. In fact, they don't ask the audience to forget what we know about animals, but they use our preconceptions on them to forward the plot. And rather than chase its 2D past, as it has been accused of doing before, Disney has instead taken the lead set by its ground-breaking in-house acquisition Pixar, and continues to push its own special Disney brand forward into the new modern-day.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Batman V Superman

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Warner Bros.
Pictures, the film
publisher or graphic
artist.)

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: DC Entertainment, RatPac Entertainment, Atlas Entertainment and Cruel and Unusual Films
Director: Zack Snyder
Producers: Charles Roven and Deborah Snyder
Scriptwriters: Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer
Main Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter and Gal Gadot
Released: March 25 2016
Running Time: 151 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

“The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world. God versus man. Day versus night. Son of Krypton versus Bat of Gotham.” - Lex Luther

It's not Batman vs Superman. It's Batman V Superman. Because having the ‘v’ instead of ‘vs’ is a way ‘to keep it from being a straight “versus” movie, even in the most subtle way.’ According to the director Zack Snyder.

So what does this mean, despite the fact that Lex literally says ‘versus’ several times in the movie? Wait, does this mean we aren't going to see Batman and Superman beat on each other for 151 minutes?! Well, despite what all the excellent marketing we've been hit with might suggest, no we're not. But that was obvious because this is Superman, the character who originally started superhero movies with Christopher Reeve, against Batman, the character who gave superhero movies credibility under Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy. The sell isn't their great battle or the "who will win?" outcome. These guys are the heroes. The selling point of the film is seeing two hugely iconic characters sharing the big screen for the first time.

It also cannot be a straight “versus” movie because, as almost everyone tells me before seeing the film, Superman is an unstoppable force and Batman is just a billionaire genius (conveniently forgetting that Superman's biggest foe is Lex Luther, who is a billionaire genius). How could Batman stand a chance?! Well, I'll forgo divulging the times Batman has defeated Superman in their comic book forms for now and concentrate on what we have here, which is the first true chapter of the DC Comics cinematic universe.

Because cinematic universes are a thing now. Because Marvel and Warner Bros. have trusted the vision of their universe with Zack Snyder. And what vision Snyder has. Quite a polarising director, Snyder has as many critics as fans due to his vivid style. While it is great for his movies to have a look and a feel that makes a Snyder film instantly recognisable, some argue that it is not fitting for every story he produces.

But it works well here. Better than it did in Man of Steel where Snyder's naturally vivid style seemed at odds with producer Christopher Nolan's natural, gritty look. Unlike Nolan, Snyder is really allowed to make a Batman V Superman comic book movie with more emphasis on the comic book and less on the movie.

And it is filmed very much like a comic book; the scenes can be short and cut between each other in a way that is sharp and rushed. In fact, for adult fans of comic books, this movie should be perfect. More complex and adult notions of what drives Batman and what Superman's place in the world is are explored, but unlike the Nolan films, the other worldly element Superman brings means that the movie can take leaps of reality. Though it means that characters make some questionable decisions (would people really just stroll through a cloud of dust from a destroyed building?), it also allows us to accept Wonder Woman's involvement, and she is an entertaining addition to proceedings.

The problem is that the dialogue also sounds like it is from a comic book. Characters don't really engage with each other, there are no natural conversations, and people mainly just say convoluted things at each other. Everything is metaphorical or anecdotal. Everyone is a philosopher.

The movie also has a hefty run time. Where Marvel used five solo superhero movies to build up to its shared universe team, DC are rushing it somewhat by only giving us glimpses of its entire team here. The several dream/vision sequences are clearly with the bigger picture in mind, but they just expand an already bloated movie, and without serving much narrative which can be very confusing. If you don't have an extensive knowledge of the source, then you'll be left scratching your head at just how odd these scenes are. You'll feel you had a bizarre vision yourself. Think Thor in Avengers Age of Ultron in that electric cave Jacuzzi.

Now, the new guys. Ben Affleck does everything the role calls for adeptly, which is anger. Batman is just really angry. And Superman is stressed. Super stressed. Batman V Superman kind of shows us the absolute worst of the heroes. That said, their action scenes are very well done, although they're a bit of a mess in the climactic battle. Batman, in particular, probably has his best fight scenes in any film; they're fast and brutal, but also clearly show what is happening, which is not how the Nolan fight scenes came out in their finished form. It could be straight from an Arkham computer game.

Gal Godot is a refreshing presence. Different from the other two heroes we've seen done to death in movies, she brings the same exuberance to the role as Wonder Woman does to the action. So much exuberance, in fact, that her arrival in the action changes the previously-sombre score to an up-tempo one. It's bizarre really, like a computer game score; the likes that appear after a cut-scene that basically tell you ‘this is when you fight now’. But it does help her leave her a strong impact, while it also leaves enough mystery left hanging over her character to justify her upcoming solo movie.

And then there's Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther. Obviously going for a modern type of Mark Zuckerberg-esque billionaire instead of the classic suit character we're used to, the new take is refreshingly different, giving Superman a truly opposite foe. Eisenberg looks like he has more fun than anyone in a film ever has. The man ticks and twitches his way through with a borderline lunacy that you can accept his maniacal side enough; his respected billionaire businessman side, less so.

Overall, the movie probably takes itself too seriously, which never really seems to fit the Superman character. The dialogue seems like a first draft and the scenes, with the expanded universe in mind while also introducing so many characters, give the audience an enormous amount of information to digest in the allotted time. But the structure of the movie is excellent, all things considered; the necessary pieces are all there; and the action sequences actually get a lot more build-up than I expected. In fact, the film is so un-Snyder that it's Snyder's best movie. Not the best Batman or Superman movie by any means, but for the average film-goer, at least they are seeing these old characters do something different.

Overall Rating: 7/10 - Respectable

American Hustle

Image Source: Wikipedia.
(Copyright: Columbia
Pictures, the
film publisher
or graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributors: Columbia Pictures (US) and Roadshow Entertainment (Australia)
Production Companies: Atlas Entertainment and Annapurna Pictures
Director: David O. Russell
Producers: Charles Roven, Richard Suckle, Megan Ellison and Jonathan Gordon
Scriptwriters: Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell
Main Cast: Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence
Released: December 12 2013 (Australia), December 13 2013 (US) and January 1 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 138 Minutes
Certificate: 15

American Hustle combines a pretty strong cast (Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence) for a movie that I would describe as unusual. It is part-comedy, part-drama, part-romance, with crime and violence mixed in, over the course of a long running time, and with a fair amount of confusion as it relates to the main plot-line. Still, as a whole, the movie remains an engaging experience, and one worth seeing for the powerful performances by the aforementioned stars.

We begin by learning that a relationship has been formed between two con artists in Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Adams). They are rmoantically linked, although their love for each other is perhaps best exemplified by the lengths to which each is willing to go to ensure that their schemes are a success, from pretending to be English aristocrats to generally misleading potential customers to the point where you realise that their fate truly lies in the hands of the con artists. More troubling, though, is that Irving is actually married to another woman named Rosalyn Rosenfeld (Lawrence), who is mentally unstable yet has an undying love for her man.

Unlike some movies where you would believe that having two women on the scene spells trouble further down the line, Irving if anything is unapologetic: he realises as time goes on that he has made mistakes within his relationships, but he is in no hurry to try and narrow it down to one, and he feels no guilt as his primary concern is how he can make money. Rosalyn later learns the truth but, rather than immediately blowing up Sydney, she subtly gets involved, making herself indispensible yet distracting, and generally getting her revenge from the inside. This, of course, doesn't go well with the con artists and leads to a number of confrontations as the movie goes on.

However, whilst love and romance are elements of American Hustle, its main storyline centres around the leading characters' attempts to make money through false means. And the plot takes an intriguing twist when Irving and Sydney are caught in a loan scam by an FBI agent named Richie DiMaso (Cooper), but through a number of suggestions and allegations, it ends up that Richie actually works alongside Irving and Sydney to pull off even greater cons, to the point where some of his attempts seem so over-the-top and so difficult to pull off that even Irving has misgivings.

Unbeknownst to him, however, it soon comes to light that Richie and Sydney have fallen in love. This means that Irving is at risk of not only losing his key business partner in the event that Richie and Sydney try to cut Irving out of potential deals, meaning a loss of big money (and consider that if he moves away, Richie as an FBI agent will most likely have Irving taken to jail), but of also losing the woman he is in a relationship with behind his erratic wife's back. In short, Irving has been conned into a situation where he now has to go along with the orders of everybody around him, because while the developments are clearly taking a toll on him, he has much more to lose by getting out. It eventually leads to one major potential deal with the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey (Renner), where the deal-making process is comprised of several parts where the different storylines and character clashes are certain to come to a head. And given what each character has to lose, and since each character is in someway playing somebody else, it is uncertain as to how this will be resolved, who if anybody will face punishment for their actions, and who if anybody will come out of the whole thing smelling like roses.

It is an unusual story, packed with different plot developments. It is never predictable, and is engaging to watch. Lawrence shines as the unstable wife whose behaviour is at times alarming, even given the obvious negative treatment she is receiving, yet remains in love with the man she married and uses her own forms of psychological manipulation to achieve some level of redemption. Describing her as a sympathetic character may be a bit of a stretch because she comes across so erratic that you are unsure whether she is someone whose side you would take, but the character is a complex one that holds your attention in all scenes where she is featured. Bale and Cooper also play their roles well and, in the case of Bale, he plays a poker face which ensures that, despite his stated intentions and what is going through his mind, you never quite know what he is thinking and what he will do, and how he will react to sudden changes in the situations that he finds himself in. Adams also does this albeit to a lesser extent.

The main problems I had with American Hustle concerned the structure of the story. It is very hard to follow what is going on, to determine who is on whose side, and to establish who deserves sympathy and who deserves scorn. I have outlined the plot above, and the way I have written it out, you will understand it more than you would if you watched the film. It isn't a case that too much is going on, just that too many developments occur without proper exploration of the whos, whats and whys. I also felt that the running time of 138 minutes was a little too long, as the movie lost a bit of steam in the final quarter. Some scenes could have been dropped or at least shortened; a two-hour presentation would have reduced the irrelevant activity, and by streamlining the film as a whole, it perhaps could have been easier to explain the important developments and relationships, since we wouldn't have had added unncessary elements on an already-busy storyline.

That all being said, I still enjoyed American Hustle, and so did many others, given the praise it has received and the fact that it won three BAFTAs, three Golden Globes and a Screen Actors Guild Award, as well as ten Academy Award nominations. So, whilst it is a bit hard to follow and it does drag on a bit, I think that American Hustle is a very engaging movie which will entice fans of any genre, whether it be comedy, drama, crime or suspense. It may be best to watch it and then see it again to understand everything that goes on, but if the question is whether I would recommend American Hustle, the answer is a definite yes.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Hitman Hart: Wrestling With Shadows

Image Source: IMDB

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Vidmark/Trimark
Production Companies: A&E Television Networks, High Road Productions and Trimark Pictures
Director: Paul Jay
Producers: Paul Jay, Sally Blake, David M. Ostriker and Silva Basmajian (NFB)
Writer: Paul Jay
Main Cast: Bret Hart, Vince McMahon, Shawn Michaels, Stu Hart, Julie Hart, Owen Hart, Davey Boy Smith and Jim Neidhart
Released: December 20 1998
Running Time: 93 Minutes
Certificate: E

Since it's WrestleMania Week, this week's retro movie review takes a slightly different approach by focusing on a wrestling-themed production, which is more of a documentary than a film; however, its reality-based content and gripping footage allows it to shine nonetheless.

Wrestling With Shadows tells the story of Bret Hart, at one point the WWF/WWE's biggest star. He first became WWF Champ in 1992, and lost his third title to Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XII in 1996. Shortly afterwards, Hart went on an extended vacation from wrestling, and pondered his future as WCW made him an offer; bear in mind that WCW was now overtaking the WWF in terms of popularity. It is around this time, in autumn 1996, when Bret chooses to stay in the WWF that the documentary begins to tell its narrative.

Director Paul Jay and his crew were hoping to follow the life of a WWF wrestler, and a very popular one, outside the ring so that fans could get a feel of their real-life persona, mixed in with footage shot at the family home, and of stories going back to the early days of Bret's career. Along the way, we get to see backstage footage of WWF events (a novelty at the time), and a chance to see how storylines impact upon a character's real-life (Bret turned into an anti-American heel in 1997, albeit one who still remained, in his words, "very pro-Canadian", leading to a divide on loving and hating the man based on where fans lived).

That was the intention, anyway. But during the timeline of filming, things changed.

For Bret would be leaving for WCW in late 1997, reluctantly it must be said, because apparently the WWF could no longer afford Bret's contract due to financial difficulties. Bret said in his autobiography Hitman that as production of the documentary was still ongoing, he thought it would be a good idea to allow Paul Jay and company to film his final few weeks in the WWF.

It is fascinating to see Bret's clear desire to stay in the WWF being overruled by the wishes of Vince McMahon, the apparent money troubles in the WWF and the change to more adult-orientated content on Raw and WWF PPV events. But it pales in comparison to the elephant in the room: Bret is leaving, not long after Survivor Series 1997, but remains WWF Champion. And with SS being in Canada, where Bret is genuinely idolised, losing the crown there to his real-life enemy Shawn Michaels is a combination too emotionally strong for the Hitman to overcome. So, he suggests to Vince (as captured here) for a DQ finish to his match with Michaels in Montreal, and for him to vacate the title the next night on Raw and leave on a positive note (he was still an anti-American villain, remember). McMahon agrees, and so Bret goes into Survivor Series and his last major match for the WWF after 13 years in the company.

But in the body of the match, Michaels locks a Sharpshooter on Bret; however, while Bret tries to reverse the move as planned, referee Earl Hebner calls for the bell, as advised from a stationed-at-ringside Vince and Michaels himself. Bret had been robbed of the WWF Title for real; the Montreal Screwjob had taken place.

Bret is clearly fuming, and post-match footage shows Vince leaving the arena with a black eye and a limp from a Bret punch (the fight itself is not on camera; imagine if it had), and Bret's then-wife Julie admonishing Triple H, who pretends to have had no involvement in the whole saga. Michaels on camera lies to Bret by saying he had no participation in it either. In Bret's mind, subsequent Raw footage of Vince saying that "Bret screwed Bret" and of DX mocking a midget Bret proves otherwise. The documentary ends with Bret reflecting on his poor treatment by the WWF and suggesting that heroes are no longer accepted, only anti-heroes.

The story of why Montreal happened and who was right and wrong is too great to go into here; I will write about it in-depth in the future. For this review, the purpose is to show that what began as a basic scope of a WWF wrestler's lifestyle turns into a production that shows the true story of the most controversial incident in wrestling history. It is truly real-life; Bret cannot hide his emotions towards the end, and the events of November 9 1997 genuinely weakened Bret for many years. Before Montreal, the documentary is a nice look at the backstage goings-on and home life of a top WWF star; when it comes to covering Montreal, though, it is as gripping as any production on any sports event that you will ever see.

Jay would later comment that he wanted to humanise Vince more, so that he wouldn't come across as the villain and may have been able to have his say (outside of his comments shortly afterwards on Raw). As it is, we only see and hear Bret's side of events; having the opposite set of opinions would have made coverage of the incident even more powerful. Still, that wasn't going to happen in the late 1990s, when wrestling was only occasionally noted to be entertainment, and since this was essentially a Bret Hart documentary and not a WWF one.

So, the crew inadvertantly captured the events leading up to the most talked-about incident ever in wrestling, and of the moment itself and its aftermath. For that, Wrestling With Shadows is essential viewing for any wrestling fan, but the documentary would still have been engaging without the events that led to Bret's departure from the WWF. As a total package, though, Hitman Hart: Wrestling With Shadows is a brilliant documentary and a must-see for all followers of the world of professional wrestling.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Annabelle

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: New
Line Cinema)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: New Line Cinema, RatPac Entertainment, Atomic Monster and The Safran Company
Director: John R. Leonetti
Producers: Peter Safran and James Wan
Scriptwriter: Gary Dauberman
Main Cast: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton and Alfre Woodard
Released: October 3 2014 (US) and October 10 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 99 Minutes
Certificate: 15

Recently released on DVD and Blu-ray but having premiered last autumn (just in time for Halloween), Annabelle is both a prequel to and a spin-off from the 2013 movie The Conjuring. It tells the story of a doll which, over time, causes great terror and puts lives at risk. And, yes, the movie is scary. Not the most frightening film you will ever see, but frightening enough that you will suddenly feel uneasy about having your doll by you in your bedroom (assuming you still collect dolls, like me ... I'm only joking).

Annabelle begins in 1970 with first-person accounts of the doll, in a scene which was also used at the beginning of The Conjuring. They are told to Ed and Lorraine Warren, or at least their characters as the real-life couple were ghost-hunters who had told or spread the story of a haunting doll named Annabelle. Then we go to 1969, where the movie begins proper.

We meet John Gordon (played by Ward Horton) and his wife Mia (Annabelle Wallis; a fitting first name for the lead actress), who live in Santa Monica, California, and are expectant parents, and their neighbours, the Higginses. We also see the doll Annabelle for the first time, a childhood treasure of Mia's which is re-introduced to her by John. However, as the movie poster proves, the doll has a chilling, evil glare in its eyes, one of which appears to be bleeding a tear. Now, I am a man, but if I was a woman, and I had been a little girl, receiving a doll of such resemblance would have scared the you-know-what out of me; I wouldn't have wanted it anywhere near me. Nevertheless, it's a horror movie, and whilst I can't fathom why a doll which looked like Annabelle would not immediately scare a young child, which Mia had been, it is suitably frightening for this story and gives you the chills each time you see it.

Anyway, you can tell that things are too pleasant; something untoward is bound to happen. It comes one night when Mia awakes and hears what turns out to be the murdering of her neighbours. When she returns home and calls the police, she is viciously attacked by the assailants, one of whom is holding the doll of Annabelle. The attack is frightening, violent and bloody, but Mia survives. We learn that the assailants were actually the children of their neighbours, Annabelle Higgins and her boyfriend, and that they are members of a satanic cult named the Disciples of the Ram, where they worship a demon with horns. After the attack, the doll is disposed of, but it keeps reappearing.

And so do the devil worshippers. The Gordons relocate to Pasadena, with Mia having now given birth early due to the after-effects of a fire caused by the disposing of the doll, but the evil follows them. A detective named Evelyn (Alfre Woodard) is brought in to help them, as is their local priest Father Perez (Tony Amendola), but the demonic attacks and home invasions continue, and those who are brought in to help also become targets. It becomes apparent that the only way to stop the plague of evil is to offer up a soul for it to take. The manner in which the evil ghost behind the doll tries to achieve this goal is uncomfortable to watch, and the way in which the situation is dealt with is equally shocking.

Annabelle only has around four or five scenes of genuine threat and horror, but those that are here do deliver. The other scenes take the time, occasionally too much time, to build up the characters and set up the chilling moments. In that sense, this is a lot more about storytelling than actual horror; however, the scariest scenes will make an impact. Some elements will be a little clichéd to long-time fans of the genre, but they are timeless in that they will always get a jolt out of you. Put it this way: even if you have always watched horror films, if you're walking by your bed and you are suddenly, unexpectedly grabbed by something beneath it ... you'd still be scared.

The plot itself is a little familiar; the idea of an evil doll spooking its owners goes back decades, a good example being a 1963 episode of the classic US series The Twilight Zone, which focused on a doll named "Talky Tina" that starts off being gentle and sweet, but becomes evil and causes psychological terror and threatens to kill those around it. (Incidentally, The Simpsons did a parody of this in a Halloween episode with a Krusty doll which was very funny, but elaborating on that here would lower the tone of this review; you really should see it though.) The key differences between the Annabelle movie and Twilight Zone are that in this film, Annabelle looks more sinister, this movie is much stronger for its horror and especially for bloody violence, and this doll possesses a truly evil streak, one which at times is beyond belief. Ironically, the name of the mother who buys "Talky Tina" for her kids in that Twilight Zone episode is ... Annabelle. Spooky, eh? (Cue the Twilight Zone music; if you've seen it, you'll know what I mean.)

Summing it up, then, Annabelle is a film which will be judged not by the performances of those involved or the strength of its story, but on the delivery of thrilling, horrifying visual elements. In that respect, it does a good job, because while the scary scenes are few and far between, those moments do generally meet expectations. As I said earlier, fans of the genre will not consider this to be the scariest film they have ever seen, and even those who saw The Conjuring may have expected more, but it does provide a suitably horrifying movie experience. And there are rumours of this being the beginning of its own film series. So, despite some mixed reviews, you should enjoy it. Just don't watch it at home in the presence of your old childhood doll.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

Austin Powers In Goldmember (Austin Powers 3)

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: New Line Cinema
Production Companies: Gratitude International, Team Todd and Moving Pictures
Director: Jay Roach
Producers: Jan Blenkin, John S. Lyons, Eric McLeod, Demi Moore and Mike Myers
Scriptwriters: Mike Myers and Michael McCullers
Main Cast: Mike Myers, Beyoncé Knowles, Seth Green, Michael York, Robert Wagner, Mindy Sterling, Verne Troyer and Michael Caine
Released: July 26 2002
Running Time: 94 Minutes
Certificate: 12

And so we come to the third and final chapter of the Austin Powers trilogy! In 1997, the build-up suggested that Austin Powers would be popular but a bit of a niche film. In 1999, the sequel was more popular. By 2002, when Austin Powers 3 arrived, it had become one of the most anticipated films of the year, and the casting reflected this: Goldmember opens with a self-parody called Austinpussy (a take on the James Bond film Octopussy; other Bond homages are included in this film), and this scene features cameos by Steven Spielberg , Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito (we also get a cameo by John Travolta later on). We then come to the real opening scene, an elaborate musical montage that includes another celebrity cameo by Britney Spears.

We begin by learning that Dr. Evil (Mike Myers) plans to go back in time again, to 1975 this time, and to bring back Johan van der Smut a.k.a. Goldmember (Mike Myers in his fourth new character of the trilogy) to help him in a plot to pull a meteor into the Earth that will strike the polar ice caps and cause global flooding. However, his plan is quickly foiled by Austin Powers (Mike Myers again) and both Dr. Evil and Mini-Me (Verne Troyer) are arrested. For this act, Powers is knighted but, to his disappointment, he realises that his father Nigel Powers (Michael Caine) is not present. He soon learns that Nigel has been kidnapped.

The only man with the answers about Nigel's whereabouts is Dr. Evil, still imprisoned. After some humorous jail scenes involving Evil and Mini-Me, the evil Doctor informs Austin that Goldmember is behind the capture and explains where and when to travel back to for a rescue - but only if Evil and his miniature sidekick are released from prison, which Austin agrees to. We then go to 1975, and we realise that Nigel is very much of the same, flirtatious mould that Austin is, albeit a little older and ever-so-slightly wiser. We meet Goldmember, as well as one of his female sidekicks Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyoncé Knowles). Long story short, Goldmember takes Nigel with him into the time machine and back to 2002, whilst Austin is left to be taken out by Goldmember's assailants. But Foxxy helps Austin escape and the two return to 2002 as well, where the plot takes shape and a trip to Tokyo, which includes a brief reappearance by Fat B-----d (yes, Mike Myers once again), provides details of what Dr. Evil and Goldmember have in mind, and also leads the two to finding and rescuing Nigel.

It seems like standard fare, then, as Powers and company look to quash Evil, but there are some changes. We realise that Austin and Nigel have some differences which could affect their chances of remaining on the same page. Meanwhile, Scott Evil has started living up to his surname and proving to be the son that Dr. Evil would finally appreciate, which not only sees their father-son bond strengthen, but also results in the Dr. Evil-Mini-Me relationship weaken, to the point where Mini-Me later joins Austin's side (and hilariously turn into a Mini-Austin). It all comes down to one final showdown between Powers and Evil, the culmination of years of assassination attempts, destructive plots and all manners of time travel, and act as the true end to the Austin Powers trilogy. But, wait: there's a twist. Not all is as it seems, and a stunning relevation changes everything. But there's still a resolution to be found; how will this twist affect the climax as well as the future?

As stated, this film had been anticipated for a while, much more than the previous two entries. For this reason, it had a higher standard to live up to, and I felt that it did. I actually enjoyed it more the second time than I did the first, just because aspects of the plot seemed to make more sense then. The humour is of the same vein as in the previous Powers films, although the sexual innuendo is slightly toned-down in this entry. The story is of greater prominence this time around, although that isn't to say that the comedy within the movie suffers; not at all. There are still plenty of funny moments, both verbally and visually, which range from Austin's impossible-to-ignore mentions of a mole on the face of his team's mole, Number 3 (Fred Savage), to some witty one-liners by Nigel Powers, to a ridiculous yet hilarious visual in Tokyo involving Austin, a fountain and - well, I won't spoil it here.

The new additions to the line-up hold up their roles well. Knowles does a good job as Foxxy, and Michael Caine does a tremendous job of not only applying himself fully to the role of Austin's father, but of actually out-shining his on-screen son at times. One would assume that the parent may be a distraction or a hindrance, but Nigel is a great character to join the fold. If anything, the only disappointing new character is actually Myers' newest creation, Goldmember: he has some funny lines, but overall he is nowhere near as funny as Mike's three other alter egos, and I found myself enjoying his scenes less than anyone else's in the movie.

As a whole, I thought it was a very good movie and a worthy addition to the series. That being said, I thought it was a step down from The Spy Who Sh---ed Me; a fair number of the jokes feel forced, either by recycling material and not being funnier this time around, or just not being as funny as the cast clearly want it to be. It would have been better to have abandoned this material and come up with something new in those scenes, as they did with the Austin character: sex is not really on his menu in this film besides the original scene where he first finds Nigel, and instead we get a new, family relationship with Nigel, and as stated his jokes are overall really funny. I also thought that the time travel aspect was unnecessary; having dealt with going forward in film one and going back in film two, it just felt like a rehashed concept in film three.

Rumours continue to circulate that there will be a fourth movie in the series. It has been nearly 13 years since Goldmember now, so I doubt it happening, and I actually hope it doesn't now. Myers wasn't exactly a young man when the trilogy began, but I think the character would feel too old now. If some material misfired in Goldmember, I can't see it working again in a new movie. Plus, without giving away the ending of the film under review here, the manner of its conclusion means that another film would feel odd; either some key plot developments would be ignored or we would lose some much-loved characters. And, besides, the Austin Powers character is essentially a 1960s swinger living in the modern age; the world has changed a lot since 2002, and with nearly a decade-and-a-half added to the time clock, how many younger people nowadays even know of what life was like back in the 1960s for some of the jokes to work?

So, I hope that Goldmember marked the end of the Austin Powers series and, if it did, it went out on a high. Despite my comments earlier, this is still a very funny movie and a satisfactory end to the trilogy. I just felt with watching this that it was the right time to bring the series to an end, and so whilst there would undoubtedly be a following and a tremndous amount of hype for a fourth movie, I hope that the Austin Powers tale culminated with this movie, Goldmember. If you want to see this film, I would suggest watching the previous two films first but, if you decide to just see this one, you will still enjoy it a lot.

Overall Rating: 8.5/10 - Excellent

Night At The Museum 3: Secret Of The Tomb

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: 20th Century Fox, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Production Companies: 21 Laps Entertainment and 1492 Pictures
Director: Shawn Levy
Producers: Shawn Levy, Chris Columbus and Mark Radcliffe
Scriptwriters: David Guion and Michael Handelman
Main Cast: Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Dan Stevens, Ben Kingsley, Mickey Rooney and Ricky Gervais
Released: December 19, 2014
Running Time: 98 Minutes
Certificate: PG

I have found that, if you are planning to see a movie which acts as part of a series, it helps to watch the films in chronological order, otherwise it may get a little confusing to understand what is going on. That definitely applies with the third instalment of Night Of The Museum: although I was a little familiar with the trilogy and its basic elements, this was the first of the NOTM movies that I had actually seen, and it took me some time as a newcomer to the franchise to get to grips with the characters and situations. Once I had overcome these, however, the story began to make sense (well, within the parameters of this film, anyway).

A flashback to Egypt in 1938 sees the discovery of the tablet of Ahkmenrah by an archaeologist and his son, but before they can take it away, they are strongly warned that "the end will come" if they do so. Back in the modern day, a nighttime event at the Museum Of National History in New York City goes disastrously wrong (in a humorous way) when the exhibits that have come to life act abnormally (had I been familiar with the movies, I would not have found it strange that the exhibits were alive in the first place with it not being treated as unusual); we soon learn that this is connected to the aforementioned tablet.

Larry Daley (Ben Stiller), who is responsible for the exhibits, conducts some research and meets Cecil Fredericks (Dick Van Dyke), who is now long grown up but was the young boy who originally tried to take the tablet in Egypt, and learns that the message referred to the end of magic, something which would have a detrimental effect on the after-hours existence of the exhibits. And it becomes apparent that the tablet is corroding, hence the strange behaviour of the exhibits at the aforementioned event. A consultation with Dr. McPhee (Ricky Gervais), who is being fired, results in Larry travelling to London and to the British Museum, where Ahkmenrah's parents are and where it is hoped that the problems that the tablet is causing can be resolved.

In the meantime, we see problems in the father-son relationship between Larry and his child Nicky, who is rejecting advice that he go to college and is instead looking to carve out a career as a DJ. Hoping that the trip to the UK may help them to bond, Larry allows Nicky to come along with him, but unbeknownst to Larry, most (if not all) of the other exhibits travel over as well. And chaos soon ensues when it becomes clear that getting the tablet to Ahkmenrah's parents is not as easy as it seems. Both on the outside and the inside of the British Museum, there are human obstacles, but it seems that they have an ally in their quest to bring the tablet to its rightful home in the form of Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). There is an initial confrontation but it is resolved and all involved are on the same page ... or are they? And how will the developments to come affect the outcome of a mission which, if unresolved, could see all the exhibits return to a state of non-existence? And will the father-son difference of opinions have a happy ending?

The movie is notable for being the last movie to star Robin Williams and Mickey Rooney; both are cast here as Theodore Roosevelt and Gus respectively, but both passed away before it was released. As such, the film credits include separate tributes to both actors.

This is a film aimed at families and children (hence the PG rating), so it stands to reason that much of the humour is of the nature which would appeal to and be acceptable for kids. Given those barometers, I still found that the movie was enjoyable enough that adults should gleam a decent amount of entertainment from it. Without trying to provide a major spoiler, I will say that as a lifelong Liverpool FC fan, I for one appreciated the inclusion of an LFC mug during one scene at the British Museum (actually, it's in two scenes, but it's clearly a case of them being separated into two parts rather than being two different scenes). If you're a Kopite watching this movie, keep your eye out for that one!

As I said earlier, it really does help to have seen the previous two entries in the trilogy before watching this film, as a lot of things would then make a lot more sense. Otherwise, I would categorise as a fairly good, but by no means a classic, comedy adventure movie which a family with young kids should enjoy. And it has a star-studded cast which never hurts, as well as a parade of unusual and interesting characters.

So, if you are debating whether or not to watch Night Of The Museum 3: Secret Of The Tomb, I would suggest that you give it a try, but don't expect too much from it. And if you watch films one and two first, you'll understand movie number three a lot more.

Overall Rating: 6/10 - Reasonable

Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Sh---ed Me

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Production Companies: New Line Cinema, Eric's Boy, Moving Pictures (uncredited), Team Todd and Pixar Animation Studios
Director: Jay Roach
Producers: Jan Blenkin, John S. Lyons, Eric McLeod, Demi Moore and Mike Myers
Scriptwriters: Mike Myers and Michael McCullers
Main Cast: Mike Myers, Heather Graham, Michael York, Robert Wagner, Seth Green, Mindy Sterling, Rob Lowe, Elizabeth Hurley, Kristen Johnston and Verne Troyer
Released: June 11 1999 (US) and July 30 1999 (UK)
Running Time: 95 Minutes
Certificate: 12

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into bed ...

The second part of the Austin Powers trilogy, The Spy Who Sh---ed Me (a take-off on the name of the James Bond flick The Spy Who Loved Me), picks up where the original left one, quite literally; we return to the location where Austin Powers (Mike Myers) and his new wife Vanessa (Liz Hurley) are together, only to discover that she is an evil fembot! Austin withstands an assault and is sad at the discovery, but then cheers up when he realises that he is single again, which opens the film.

It is now 1999, and Dr. Evil (Mike Myers again) returns to Earth in hilarious fashion, as a guest on The Jerry Springer Show (which was very popular back then) to discuss his awkward relationship with his son Scott (Seth Green). This is a brilliant scene, probably the funniest of the entire trilogy. We then learn that he has plans to return to 1969, whilst Austin was frozen, to steal his mojo and thus weaken Powers', erm, powers, but not before meeting his new sidekick, a little man who is one-eighth the size of Evil, Mini-Me (the role that made Verne Troyer famous).

Back in 1999, Powers meets one of Dr. Evil's assistants Ivana Humpalot (Kristen Johnston) at a photo shoot, but although Ivana is assigned to kill him, instead she finds him irresistable and they have sex. But disaster strikes: as part of Dr. Evil's, erm, evil plan, he employs a new associate of his, the hilariously-titled and humourously-large Fat B-----d (the third character played by Mike Myers in the continuation of a running joke), to visit the frozen Austin and remove his "mojo". With Powers weakened from a villain-tackling standpoint and a sexual standpoint due to this, there is no greater incentive for him to also go back in time and defeat Evil, who is planning to destroy the world from his new lair on space (he calls the whole plot "The Alan Parsons Project", which you may have heard of via the rock band).

In the 1960s, Austin meets a young lady who would become his new sidekick, Felicity Sh--well (Heather Graham; by the way, apologies for the dashes but, hey, this website is family-friendly). As the name suggests, she is nothing like Vanessa, and since this is Austin Powers we're talking about, there is instant connection, but Powers concedes that without his mojo, he simply can't bring himself to have sex with her, although he does find her to be beautiful (who wouldn't?).

In the meantime, Evil is treating Mini-Me more like a son than he does Scott, which causes friction, but he also gets closer with the 1969 Frau (who, unlike the retro No. 2 who is played by Rob Lowe, hasn't changed at all from the modern day). Fat B-----d is disgusting, but in a funny way. (Author's sidenote: Somehow, my old secondary school class managed to convince the teacher to let us watch this movie in class. The scene where Fat B-----d talks about "having a crap on deck that could choke a donkey" was the point where it was turned off; that lesson was great fun. Oh, I miss doing English). Never more so than when he is naked and Felicity has to sleep with him to insert a tracking device into the mammoth man, a fact that Austin later learns and is disappointed by (the opposite to his actions in the first movie).

Austin and Felicity track him to Evil's lair and soon all involved head to space for the climatic, daft but funny conclusion. During the credits are extra scenes with the odd revelation, so keep watching once the main feature ends.

Throughout the movie are a ton of jokes, many quite rude or gross (there are two different montages of quips about penis references), but overall they are very, very funny. There are scenes which are funny for other reasons, including the ridiculous yet amusing performance of "Just The Two Of Us" by Dr. Evil and Mini-Me. And knowing that a third movie is on the horizon, the ending is satisfying enough.

To me, this film was the peak of the Austin Powers saga. The jokes are better than in the original and the new characters are great additions, and the material is fresher than in the third movie. You do have to be into a certain type of humour to enjoy it (or, to put it another way, if you're not into a certain type of humour, you won't enjoy it), but assuming that you're on board and you "get" the jokes and scenarios, you will love this movie. As stated, there is one more film in the trilogy which I will review next week, and that one is also great, but if you only plan to watch one Austin Powers movie, make it The Spy Who Sh----d Me.

Overall Rating: 9.5/10 - Classic

Fifty Shades Of Grey

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Universal Pictures
Production Companies: Focus Features, Michael De Luca Productions
Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Producers: Michael De Luca, Dana Brunetti and E.L. James
Scriptwriter: Kelly Marcel
Main Cast: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Jennifer Ehle, Eloise Mumford, Victor Rasuk, Luke Grimes, Rita Ora, Max Martini, Callum Keith Rennie, Andrew Airlie, Dylan Neal and Marcia Gay Harden
Released: February 11 2015 (Berlin) and February 13 2015 (UK and US)
Running Time: 125 Minutes
Certificate: 18

The long-awaited (by some) motion picture version of Fifty Shades Of Grey, the surprise hit novel of 2012, was recently released to great fanfare (that it was premiered the week of Valentine's Day was no coincidence). However, before I got round to seeing this film, I had heard a lot of people saying how boring it was, and how disappointed they were with the movie. Was it as bad as people claimed or were the poorer elements more noticeable because of all the hype? I was about to find out.

I should point out before going any further that I had not read the original book, so whilst I knew of the themes which the movie would contain, I was unsure what the plot was about. Therefore, the storyline as a whole would be fresh to me, whereas those who had read the book and loved it would have known exactly was coming, which could perhaps explain part of the reason why they did not enjoy the film as much as they would have hoped for.

The movie begins with Anastasia "Ana" Steele (Dakota Johnson) covering for her friend Katherine "Kate" Kavanagh (Eloise Mumford)E in travelling to Seattle to interview Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), head of Grey Enterprises. She is totally nervous and, due to her nerves, she comes across as unprofessional when interviewing Grey. However, whilst he clearly notices her somewhat less-than-stellar interviewing skills, and uses his intimdating presence to show his superiority, he is willing to overlook this because, as we learn, he has something of a crush on her. Due to their vastly different backgrounds and levels of wealth, the relationship develops very slowly, and we only know for sure that the two are getting closer when, after Grey brings Ana back to his hotel room after discovering her in a drunken state on a night out with friends, the two share a passionate kiss in an elevator.

Even at this point, though, the assumption (or at least my assumption, being someone who did not read the novel) is that the two would become an item, I hate to say it, but "the normal way". But whilst their love for one another turns physical, we learn that Grey is only willing to do certain things with her on a social level, and insists on Ana conforming to his desires when it comes to what they get up indoors. He even has a contract drawn up for her to sign, which strikes her as odd; why would she have to sign a contract to become a girlfriend to this multi-billionaire?

We soon discover why when we see Grey's so-called "play-room": Christian enjoys performing sadomasochistic activities, and always being in control, even at times admitting that he feels his other half should be "punished" if necessary. Ana is shocked by this but, being a virgin before she met Grey, she feels that she has nothing to lose by going along with a relationship that looks rosy on the outside, but the details of which remain very secretive. She does insist on certain things which she simply will not get involved in as she gets to know Grey more, and he is willing to listen, but with the contract unsigned, there is still a sense of distance that Christian puts between the two before he is willing to fully commit. This is despite the fact that he showers her with expensive gifts, including a new car and a laptop. In the end, though, her insecurities force her to at least experience what would be "the worst"; after this, Ana simply cannot comprehend why Christian would find this pleasureable and leaves.

Sorry to spoil the ending, but let's be honest: if you see this film, it is mostly because a) you read the novel and loved it; b) you haven't read the novel but want to see it for its feminist ideology, or c) you're being dragged along by your girlfriend. (Hey, it's true.) As for me? Well, I'm a film reviewer and so it stands to reason that I should at least go and see one of the most anticipated films of 2015 and provide a review. Well, that's my excuse anyway (only joking).

Seriously, though, I actually did not find the film to be too bad. There isn't a great deal of excitement but I wasn't bored watching it. I felt that the relationship between Christian and Ana built slowly and logically, or at least logically under the circumstances. The believability of how two people of completely different backgrounds would begin such a relationship was questionable, as was the manner in which Ana dropped something of a key revelation about herself, and within minutes in screen time it may as well have not been mentioned (remember, I didn't read the novel, so I assume that in the book, this was a far bigger aspect of the plot). Still, it flowed well enough, or as well as could be expected, even when we learn the truth about Christian and realise why someone of such wealth remains single. Oh, and the soundtrack is very good, and appropriate to the movie. No, really, the soundtrack is very good!

I didn't think that the ending was up to scratch, though: we are told throughout about the importance of the contract being signed, and we are repeatedly informed that some sort of revelation about Christian which would truly explain the reasons for his behaviour were forthcoming, and yet the conclusion is abrupt and suddenly it ends without answering either of the burning issues. I know that a sequel is planned so perhaps we'll get more information there, but purely from the perspective of someone watching this film who is new to the world of Fifty Shades, I found the ending to be sudden and a bit unappealing.

Jamie Dornan is believable as Christian Grey, in terms of playing an intense, intimdating yet at times charming man, although it's unquestionable that his looks were prioritised over his acting skills when the casting was made. I actually thought that Dakota Johnson did a very good job as Anna. Considering the themes of this film, I expected the lead female character to be a raunchy, in-your-face girl who gave off the impression that she would be willing to do anything. Although the film includes some heavy physical content, at no point did I feel any less about Anna, which is a credit to the portrayal of her by Dakota. It's not Oscar-level acting by any means, but it's good to see nonetheless.

So, how to sum Fifty Shades Of Grey up then? I felt it was satisfactory but nothing more. It certainly wasn't a classic film, but nor do I think it was a giant waste of time. I think those who had waited so long for it would be disappointed and understandably so, but only an absolute knock-out movie would match such expectations and, with credit to the original writer of the novel E.L. James, Fifty Shades was never going to be that kind of film. At the same time, those who had no time for the novel and had even less time for the movie probably wouldn't see anything to change their minds. But for a someone who has read the novel and simply wanted to see it in action, or for a neutral observer, I think you'll find it worth your while; do not expect a great film by any means, but it's watchable enough that you should be satisfied, rushed ending aside.

And that's the end of my review. Now, time to write the overall rati ... oh, was there a word I forgot to mention in relation to this film during the course of the review? One beginning with "s"? Okay, okay, to answer that question before I finish ... yes, there is, and it's quite strong but it could be worse, so I doubt anyone (at least amongst the British audience) who goes to see the film will be offended by those scenes. Alright, now are you happy?

Overall Rating: 5.5/10 - Above Average

Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Production Companies: Capella International, Eric's Boy, Juno Pix (uncredited), KC Medien, Moving Pictures (uncredited), New Line Cinema and Pixar Animation Studios
Director: Jay Roach
Producers: Jan Blenkin, Eric McLeod, Demi Moore, Mike Myers, Claire Rudnick Polstein
Scriptwriter: Mike Myers
Main Cast: Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Michael York, Mimi Rogers, Robert Wagner and Seth Green
Released: May 2 1997(US) and September 5 1997 (UK)
Running Time: 94 Minutes
Certificate: 15

In 1997, Mike Myers, star of the Wayne's World films, introduced the world to his newest movie trilogy. This one was a spoof on the hugely successful James Bond franchise as well as other films, except that the hero here, Austin Powers, hammed up his British roots (Myers pulls off the role very well; although a Canadian, he has British connections via his parents) to become a sixties swinger as opposed to the perfect gentlemen that Bond was and remains. Plus, whilst Bond had an appetite for women which was more a charm as part of his character, in Austin Powers a desire to have sex IS the character: although his primary focus is to prevent terrible things happening, his obsession with females often threatens to steer him off-course.

This first movie of what would become a three-parter begins with Powers having fun one night in his nightclub, surrounded by many beautiful women (who hilariously know exactly who he is, despite him supposedly being a secret agent), as well as his assistant Mrs. Kensington (Mimi Rogers), only to be subject to an attempted assassination by Dr. Evil (also played by Myers, a running joke that is never acknowledged throughout the series). Powers avoids this fate by punching the villain's assailant (a woman who turns out to be "a man, man!"), but Dr. Evil gets away in a space rocket disguised as a Big Boy statue, which cryogenically freezes him for 30 years.

We then jump to 1997, where Basil Exposition (Michael York) reveals that Powers froze himself in response to Evil's actions, and with reports that the Doctor is back on Earth with plans for world domination and/or destruction, it is time to release Austin in an attempt to stop the diabolical plot. The scenes where Powers comes back around are funny, as are the items he left behind. We also meet Vanessa Kensington (Elizabeth Hurley), daughter of Austin's old partner who is Powers' new sidekick. Unlike her mother, though, she has no desire to sleep with Austin, insisting she is work-focused and that times have changed since the 1960s when casual sex was the norm.

Meanwhile, we are introduced to Dr. Evil's team of scallywags, including his number 2 man ("His name ... Number 2"), played by Robert Wagner, and Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling). Other evil members of the squad include Patty O'Brien, played by Paul Dillon; Mustafa, played by Will Ferrell; Random Task, a deliberate parody of Odd Job played by Joe Son; and Alotta Fagina (as in, "a lot of vagina" ... get it?), played by Fabiana Udenio. Evil is also surprised to learn that he had a son created in a lab during his time in exile, Scott Evil (Seth Green). Seeing a relatively normal young man trying to win the love of his dangerously evil father is very amusing, especially later in a scene where they attend a therapy session and Evil freely admits that he wants Scott killed, and reveals daft parts of his background: "My mother was a 15-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanise, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy."

Still, while the developing relationships on both sides are of importance, the primary plot is about Evil's desire to hold the world ransom for money, despite Number 2 having made his empire a multi-billion dollar enterprise called Virtucon while he was frozen, which then becomes an attempt to get more money by stealing nuclear weapons after Evil learns that his ideas had already been done, and his behind-the-times approach surfaces again when he initially suggests a ransom fee of 1 million dollars; under advice, this becomes one hundred billion dollars.

Powers bumps into Evil's associates at a casino, leading to a humorous assassination attempt scene. But as Powers and Vanessa uncover the Project Vulcan which Evil has in mind, the two become smitten, yet Austin feels that it isn't right for them to have sex. Which makes it funnier when he does later sleep with Alotta Fagina with his justification being that he had to do this to get the required information about the project.

Eventually, Austin and Vanessa are captured by Evil, as he closes in on the time where he will proceed with his dastardly plot even if he receives the money. The two are trapped, but even if they find a way out, can they stop Dr. Evil before it is too late? Will Austin's sexual temptations prevent the duo from staying on the same path? And is everyone really on the same page on Dr. Evil's team? Plus, if they do survive, what will become of Austin and Vanessa's relationship?

There are many comedic elements, many of which parody the stereotypical aspects of super-sleuth films of the past, such as the apparently dangerous yet not completely threatening devices (Dr. Evil puts Austin and Vanessa in "the unnecessarily slow-moving mechanism"), the lack of importance given to minor characters (a deceased henchman's wife wonders aloud why nobody ever considers them), deliberately bad production (an extended laugh by the evil crew, a threat to world leaders being interrupted by a clip from Beavis & Butthead) and other moments of mirth. And we haven't even mentioned Evil's cat Mr. Bigglesworth!

This is a great comedy film; it is a little slow to progress at times, and it looks very old-fashioned when watching it now despite it only being released in 1997 (and I mean the 1990s-era scenes, not just those from the 1960s), but it is a very funny movie with a lot of laugh-out-loud moments. It helps to be someone not embarrassed by sexual innuendo as there is a ton of that here; but even if it isn't your thing, you should find a wealth of enjoyment from the movie spoof elements, the silly dialogue between Dr. Evil and his team, and the one-liners which are repeated to this day by die-hard fans of the trilogy. Myers, in particular, deserves great praise for perfectly playing two very opposite yet equally funny characters (some would say that Evil is the funnier of the two), and for writing the screenplay as well.

As this is part one of the series, you might guess that this is the peak with the subsequent two films being slightly disappointing add-ons. But you'd be wrong: movies two and three (which I will cover in future reviews) are both very funny and, if anything, this is probably the least amusing of the three parts. Don't let that put you off seeing this film though: Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery is a comedy treat from which you will take a great helping of entertainment.

Overall Rating: 8.5/10 - Excellent

Whiplash

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Sony Pictures
Classics, the film publisher
or  graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Sony Pictures Classics
Production Companies: Bold Films, Blumhouse Productions and Right Of Way Films
Director: Damien Chazelle
Producers: Jason Blum, Helen Estabrook, Michel Litvak and David Lancaster
Scriptwriter: Damien Chazelle
Main Cast: Miles Teller, J.K Simmons and Paul Reiser
Released: January 16 2014 (Sundance Film Festival), October 10 2014 (US) and January 16 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 107 Minutes
Certificate: 15

There are certain films that you make specific plans to see, and then there are those which you don't. Whiplash is one of those that happened not unexpectedly, but by chance. You see, me and a friend attended a special screening of an upcoming film where the identity of the movie would only be known when it begun. And when I saw the name "Whiplash" appear on-screen, I was unsure what to expect. It sounded like a thriller. But it could have been a drama. Or would it be something completely different? And regardless of what genre it was, would it be any good?

The first question is hard to answer. It is a drama, but it has elements of a thriller, and it also has aspects which make it a comedy. And the second question? Well, it is good. Very, very good.

It starts off quite slow as we are introduced to Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller), a student jazz drummer determined to become a master at his craft, a goal spurned on by the direction of his new jazz teacher Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). His skills improve due to the guidance of his tutor, but of greater note is how strict a teacher Simmons is. He uses brutal criticisms to not only push his students to the peak of their powers, but he forces them to the level of tears - Fletcher throws a chair at Neiman as he is getting to grips with the musical number Whiplash in his very first lesson - even to the point where they are performing so hard with their instruments that they are bleeding profusely. And it is so realistic and there are so few camera cuts during the music rehearsal scenes that you wonder how they could have made it look so real. The answer is simple: these scenes were done for real. Well, maybe not quite as ferocious as what we see, but there are few special effects used here; what you see is what you would get had you been on set for the filming of these scenes. It helps that the other students are largely compromised of real musicians.

And Fletcher does not hold back: whatever you think is "too far", he goes beyond that, and then some. His delivery is as intense as could be, his general look and mannerisms exude intimidation, and he looks like he would sooner put a bullet in your throat than let you use it to produce music. In Neiman's case, as he is a drummer, we see his eyes water and his mouth quiver with every brutal verbal shot fired at him by Fletcher as he is rehearsing and attempting to learn new routines with very little practice and with the knowledge that one error results in him being torn apart.

All of that makes Fletcher seem like a truly loathsome man. But, at the same time, one cnanot help but smile - and, at times, laugh out loud - at some of his criticisms. Some of his cutting lines are so unacceptable, so filthy, so far beyond the realsm of acceptable taste in a college environment that you can't help but giggle, even if he is reducing his students to an absolute wreck.

Still, Andrew does improve. Too much, in fact: as he grows in confidence, it crosses over into arrogance as he willingly sacrifices a romantic relationship to pursue his dream to be, as he tells his less interested family, "the greatest drummer who ever lived". But being pushed by Fletcher and his attempts to fight back by standing up for himself result in a car accident that one would assume crushes his dreams. But he gets back up, only to be treated like an afterthought by the uncaring Fletcher. Now, Andrew does fight back, for real, and both are taken away from the environment which turned them into monsters.

However, their story does not end there. A chance reunion leads to them coming to an understanding, and even building something of a friendship as Fletcher invites his former student to perform at a major jazz festival. This is Andrew's chance to prove his talent once and for all. However, will he get the chance, or is Fletcher setting Andrew up for one giant fall? And, once he discovers the truth, how will Neiman respond to what could be the greatest moment, or greatest disappointment, of his life?

The story is very engaging, and there are plenty of twists which ensure that the plot never becomes predictable. The high-drama scenes are as intense as could be, and one cannot help but be mesmerised at what is unfolding on the screen. Fletcher manages to provoke hatred and some admiration at the same time, although the former definitely outweighs the latter; and the same applies to Andrew, only in his case the latter definitely outweighs the former. And whilst Simmons is the undisputed star of the movie as Fletcher - he brings to the role an air of menace, passion and a demand for perfection that, along with his cutting yet at times hilarious insults and his generally high levels of intimdation and intensity, that he becomes one of the most memorable "villain" characters that you are likely to see - Teller is very good as Neiman, and his performance in the final scene can only be described as phenomenal. To explain why would spoil the ending, so I cannot elaborate; when you see it, however, you will come away feeling that you have just witnessed something momentous. All I'll say is, you'll be even more impressed to know this was all real.

Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can give Whiplash is that I was not expecting to see this film, I may not have gone to see it had I known it was a drama based on jazz music, and there are scenes which are a bit slow and even the climax, as spectacular as it is, made for an abrupt ending. Plus, I had not heard of most of the cast beforehand. But even with all that, I found Whiplash to be an extremely compelling movie that I would recommend to anybody. Unlike what I had done, you should definitely make specific plans to see what I consider to be a brilliant film.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Airplane!

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Company: Paramount Pictures
Directors: Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker
Producer: Jon Davison
Scriptwriters: Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker
Main Cast: Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty and Leslie Neilsen
Released: July 2 1980
Running Time: 87 Minutes
Certificate: 15

"Surely, you can't be serious."

"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."

If ever a piece of dialogue embodied a film, it's this classic exchange from the movie Airplane! For whilst the plot centres around the possibility of an aeroplane crashing, and one's desperate attempts to prevent such a tragedy from happening, the frequent one-liners and ridiculous yet hilarious visual jokes are so funny that the tone of the movie is never anything less than slapstick comedy (fans of the Naked Gun movies, including me, will not be surprised once viewing this film that the Zucker brothers were also responsible for the aforementioned trilogy).

Ted Striker, played here by Robert Hayes, used to be a fighter pilot. Unfortunately, after a bad experience which traumatised him, he now has a fear of flying. But he happens to be a passenger on this flight, which becomes uncomfortable when he learns that one of the air hostesses is Elaine Dickinson (Julie Hagerty), who used to be his girlfriend. They catch up on old times, accompanied by flashback clips (the homage to Saturday Night Fever, a recent film at the time as it was released in 1978, is great), but it becomes clear that past problems remain an issue for both, and their interaction becomes awkward for each as the film rolls on despite Ted's hopes to rekindle their romance.

However, there is a greater problem on the horizon. The menu for passengers consists of only two options, fish and steak, but the fish has given food poisoning to everybody who has eaten it including, worryingly, the pilot and his co-pilots. The illness is identified by Dr. Rumack, played by my favourite comic actor Leslie Neilsen, who humorously says that he avoided the food problem himself by eating lasagna. Still, whilst the problem is identified, it hasn't been solved: the plane is going to crash unless someone else takes control at the cockpit.

But whilst an inflatable autopilot named "Otto" helps, the only passenger with experience of flying planes is Ted Striker, who as noted is nervous enough due to a fear of flying. At this point, though, he's the only hope that everyone has, causing people to panic (including the Statue Of Liberty, who puts her head in her hands at the prospect). Despite having never flown an aircraft of this nature, he gives it a shot, but nerves get the best of him, especially when having to exchange instructions with Rex Kramer (Robert Stack), previously Ted's commanding officer. Add to that his relationship problems with Elaine, and the forecast seems bleak. However, a timely pep talk by Rumack convinces Ted that he has what it takes to finish the job and land everybody safely - but is it too little, too late?

The premise is easy to follow and the side-story of an old romance slowly reforming gives the story a logical structure, but the true entertainment comes from the hundreds - and I do mean - hundreds of physical, visual and verbal gags, many of which are very, very funny, and some of which are classic movie lines. Other images are unforgettable, such as this one of Steve McKroskey (Lloyd Bridges) to the right.

Image Source: Pix Good

Notice anything?

I am a bit biased, but I have to say that Leslie Neilsen is brilliant here as a straight-faced doctor who comes out with some hilarious comments or is simply funny in his overall mannerisms, including a repetition of a good luck message after the situation has been resolved. In fact, this marked the first role in comedy for Neilsen, previously a serious actor (which was another spoof element), who would then go on to become famous for deadpan comedy.

Robert Hayes is very good as Ted Striker, and is believable not only in portraying the Ted character and handling the situations he encounters, but also in making the ridiculous seem genuine. For instance, if somebody says they have "a drink problem", it's unlikely to resemble the dilemma Ted has, but it never stops being funny despite the daftness of it. The rest of the cast are good too: Julie is very good as Elaine, and even minor characters are involved in some very amusing moments, one example being the use of the pilot phrase "Roger" when one of the co-pilots is actually called Roger.

In closing, Airplane! is the perfect spoof of a disaster movie (it particularly lampoons the 1957 film Zero Hour!). It takes a logical storyline and turns it into a comedy classic, not by making the overall plot nonsensical, but by adding a huge amount of great jokes to virtually every scene. You would probably have to watch this more than once to notice them all. And they range from the silly (Dr. Rumack's exchanges) to the dark (such as trying to calm down passengers on a risk-surrounded flight by showing them a movie which includes a plane crashing), but they all have one thing in common: they are very funny and even the oft-repeated lines never get old. If you haven't seen Airplane! in the past, make plans to watch it because it is an all-time great comedy film, maybe even the best comedy ever, so you will love it. Shirley.

Overall Rating: 10/10 - Perfect