500 Days Of Summer: You Never Know What Is Around The Corner

500 Days Of Summer is a romantic comedy drama directed by Marc Webb. The plot see hopeless romantic Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt), fall for Summer (Zoey Deschanel) a girl who believes true love doesn’t exist.

The film details the events the lead up to their relationship, their relationship and then what happens after they break up.

In many ways, this is an anti rom com, the two leads don’t end up together at the end of the film, the both end up in relationships with other people. However, that is the whole point of this film, it knows what a rom com is, and it goes against genre stereotypes in near every way to try and make something that is entirely different.

This is an incredibly nuanced film. It portrays love as it really is with all the highs and lows making the cut rather than portraying it in the idolised over the top ways a lot of romantic comedies do, which simply isn’t how real life is like; Bridget Jones wouldn’t exist in the real life.

Both Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zoey Deschanel are fantastic, they have great onscreen chemistry and are both easily charming and charismatic. They both add a lot to this film’s quirky sensibilities which really set it apart from other parts and makes it feel unique and special.

What’s more as a hopeless romantic myself I love the ending, just when it seems like all hope has been lost and that maybe fate and true love don’t exist the revelation comes that Summer was all part of fate’s plan for Tom and then the love of his life is just round the corner. This film borrows a lot from the logic of How I Met Your Mother.

Overall, this is a romantic comedy unlike anything else, both of the leads are great, and the ending is uplifting. Defiantly something to get you through the hard times.

Pros.

The ending.

The quirkiness.

The two leads.

The non-linear time structure.

Cons.

Misleading for people wanting to see a rom com as this isn’t that.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

A Star Is Born: A Romance To Stand The Tests Of Time

A Star Is Born is a romantic drama film directed by Bradley Cooper, it is the third remake of the 1937 classic. The plot follows a hard-drinking self-destructive musician Jackson (Bradley Cooper), as he falls in love with a young singer called Ali (Lady Gaga). The film chronicles Ally’s rise as well as Jackson’s fall, with the love story acting as a means to show this.

Before I get into this review, I need to talk about the music. Music is a central focus of this film, and as such it is very important, with there being multiple songs scattered throughout. ‘Shallow’, is the big original song for the film and it is great, it is passionate and emotional, and you feel something every time you hear it, both Gaga and Cooper really nail the music. In many ways, both are incredibly believable as great musicians and that is the highest compliment I can give.

I have never seen any of the A Star Is Born film’s before this one so I was unfamiliar with the story, as such I can’t say to you how faithful of a remake this is, or if it is better or worse than the other versions.

Personally, I thought the film’s story was incredibly effective, I bought into the romance and genuinely warmed to the characters; which made Jackson’s self-destruction hurt all the more. This film has great emotional stakes, which is a result of the very, very believable chemistry between Gaga and Cooper, it is almost impossible to think they don’t actually love each other.

My one complaint about this film is that it is too long, and this is a problem that I believe ultimately ruins the film. If this film had really just focused on Ally and Jackson’s relationship and ignored everything else, all the needless B plots, all the musical drama, then it would be at least half an hour sorter and all the better for it. There are some many sub-plots and so many needless one note characters that the film feels so overstuffed that it loses focus of what makes it good, I don’t care about what Jackson’s brother is up to, or that he has an overly long drawn out backstory, I just want to see the two leads interact.

Overall, the music is what saves this film from being a very by the numbers rom-com. The two leads have great on-screen chemistry, but the lack of focus means that you get bogged down with other characters and barely get to see it.

Pros.

The leads chemistry.

The music.

The emotional stakes.

Cons.

All the side-characters and B-plots.

Far, far too long.

3/5

Crazy Rich Asians: How To Miscast Your Lead

Crazy Rich Asians is a romantic comedy film directed by Jon. M. Chu. It is based on the book of the same name. The plot follows economics lecturer Rachel (Constance Wu), as she travels to meet her boyfriend Nick’s (Henry Goldings), parents. Once she arrives in Singapore, she is shocked to find out that her boyfriend belongs to one of the richest families in the country.

I haven’t read the books, so my reaction is based only on the film. I thought that this was a fairly standard rom-com, I understand how it is important from a cinema diversity standpoint as this film features an almost entirely Asian cast which is something quite rare in Hollywood. However, as a rom-com this film left me going ‘eh’.

The love story between Rachel and Nick is as you would expect it to be, she feels out of place in this rich world, Nick’s mum Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), doesn’t approve of their relationship, it all seems hopeless, they break-up, they realise none of that matters and then get back together in the end, this is pretty much your standard fish out of water rom-com plot line.

The far more interesting plot line is that of the failing marriage between Astrid (Gemma Chan), and Michael (Pierre Png). Michael is resentful that he doesn’t have any agency of his own as his business ventures keep failing, he also doesn’t like the fact this wife is rich from her own money, he is deeply insecure and it says a lot about relationship power dynamics and masculinity; it also works as a nice parallel for Rachel and Nick at the start of the film. This sub-plot between two supporting character is more interesting than the main story!

As for the main two characters, Henry Golding is as effortlessly charming as always, he has charisma for days and that is needed here, as his on-screen partner Constance Wu has none. It is very hard to root for Rachel as Wu does very little to make her warm or endearing, Wu seems to think that she herself is great and that is why you should care about any character she plays, she seems to refuse to shot scenes that make her appear even slightly vulnerable. This is true of her other projects as well and it just makes her come across as a very cold person, which is not want you want from the lead character in a rom-com. She is also outperformed by Awkwafina, who plays her sidekick/best friend in the film.

Overall, I wish this film had cast someone else as it’s leading lady, or at the very least had given Gemma Chan more screen time as she is by far the best actress on screen. Golding is charming, but that only carries the film so far.

Pros.

Gemma Chan.

Henry Golding.

A step forward for Hollywood.

Cons.

Deeply average.

Constance Wu is woefully miscast.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Peter Rabbit: Stone Cold Killer

Peter Rabbit is a 3D live-action/computer-animated comedy film directed by Will Gluck. The plot of the film takes inspiration from the Beatrice Potter books of the same name and sees Peter and his family trying to steal from the garden of Thomas McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson), whilst also trying to stop the romance developing between him and the rabbits beloved Bea (Rose Byrne).

What can I say about this film? The only positive I will give this film is the fact that there is nothing else quite like it, it is bizarre in both a good way and a bad way. The good way is due to the fact that Beatrice Potter is interacting with the rabbits she created, so that worked for me in a meta way. However, in the bad way we have baffling decisions like having their be a cockerel character, who openly says things to the extent of, ‘he only had kids because he thought the world was going to end tomorrow and that now he is stuck looking after them’ and ‘he hates his life’. Fear not by the end of the film he loves his life as a single father, but my question is why was this put in? The cockerel is not a main character he is incredibly throw away, so who were his ‘jokes’ aimed at, they certainly weren’t child friendly, so maybe the parents? However, I doubt parents very much would like a lot of what he was saying.

Moreover, the film decides to make Peter evil. I get that he is having a fun war of escalation with McGregor, and McGregor tries to kill Peter, but he is the villain, so it is okay for him to do it. However, Peter (James Corden), who is the hero of the tale tries to kill McGregor both by trying to make him die of an allergic reaction as well as by torturing him with bear traps, it’s sounds like I am joking, but I am not. Why is the hero of a kid’s movie doing this, why?

Furthermore, this film is aggressively dumb and teaches kid’s bad lessons. One of peter’s sister constantly throws herself of things, breaking her ribs, but it’s okay because she has more ribs to break her fall the next time she does it. In no way should this be taught to kids because not only is it not true, but it is the sort of things they might see and try and imitate.

This review has already gone long, so I am not going to go on about James Corden and how the world should leave him behind, he isn’t as annoying as usual here, but it is safe to say that still means he is incredibly annoying.

Overall, the only reason to watch this film is out of morbid curiosity, there are some hilarious moments, not a single one of them is intentional. I wouldn’t let kids watch this because it has a lot of harmful messages and because it is just trash.

Pros.

Funny when it is not trying to be.

Freakishly bizarre.

Cons.

Peter Rabbit tries to murder people.

James Corden.

Who is this film for?

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Aladdin: Disney If You’re Listening Please Stop!

Aladdin is a musical romantic adventure film directed by Guy Ritchie. The plot follows a young street urchin called Aladdin (Mena Massoud), who finds a magical lamp that when rubbed produces a Genie (Will Smith), that then offers him 3 wishes. We all know the classic story.

This is yet another one of Disney’s live action remakes that they seem hell bent on making, even though the animated films are still perfectly good and more importantly no one asked for these new films. Personally, I think of the Disney live action remake trend this is probably the best, Will Smith is entertaining and it is a good date movie, it is very romantic at times.

That said let me get into why this film shouldn’t exist. First things first the very existence of this film is an implied slight to the animation, I know in Western countries there is that underlying belief that animation and animated films are for kids, which simply isn’t true, but even still this film is vastly inferior to the animated original in almost every way.

The characters lack any kind of warmth, the characters in the animated film are funny and endearing, you care about them and want them to be happy; here they’re just eh, I have literally never thought about them again since I left the cinema. Massoud is fine, so are the rest of the cast, but therein lies the problem they’re just fine, they’re trying to be as good as the animated original’s voice cast were and they come up short.

What’s more there is a general cheapness to the film, it is clearly an aesthetic choice to make the film look gritty, but I didn’t like it, it made the film look too washed out and serves to reinforce the lack of fun in this film. What’s more there is a lot of things in this film that date it, that in 5 years’ time people will be like that was such a 2010’s film, which in a way makes it bound to that time period and that isn’t a good thing. The thing that dates it of course is the new song for the film, which is incredibly on the nose and proves that Hollywood doesn’t understand the meaning of the word subtly and instead has to ram political messages into every single film; political messages if done right can be effective, but all this served to make me do was cringe.

My final reason for why you shouldn’t waste your money seeing this is because very little is new. As was the common complaint of The Lion King, which was shot for shot the same, there is little new material in this film, there are a few extra Will Smith Genie scenes and a new song, but everything else is pretty much beat for beat the same. I wouldn’t mind paying to see these live action remakes if they actually did something new, but they don’t, it is just a tired rehash and one I can’t support.

Pros.

It is romantic.

If you wanted a less fun version of the original film, you will be in luck.

Cons.

The cheap, gritty look to it.

The new song was bad cringe.

It is just paying to watch the same thing again.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

Emma: Jane Austen In 2020

Emma. Is a comedy drama film directed by Autumn De Wilde, based on the book of the same name by Jane Austen. The plot follows Emma (Anya Taylor-Joy), a young woman who by her own admission is “handsome, clever and rich”, as she messes with the lives and romances of those around her; whilst also going on a journey of self-discovery, learning things about herself and love.

Austen period dramas aren’t really something that appeal to me greatly, but this one I thought looked promising. From the trailers I was hoping it might turn out to be something like The Favourite a period drama that had an edgy twist and something new to say about the genre; I was badly wrong. This film is by all means just a modern retelling of the same old story, just with a fresh coat of paint and a quirkier sense of humour.

Said quirky sense of humour was for me incredibly hit or miss, some of the jokes in the film had me smiling and chuckling whereas other fell flat; truth be told I found myself laughing quite a few times at things that upon later reflection I’m pretty sure weren’t meant to be funny.

Without that more modern sense of humour, you are just left we a Jane Austen adaptation, which is fine if that is your thing, you will probably love this, but for me I thought it was boring and dull; this is only made worse by the fact that the film goes on for what feels like an eternity, dragging further and further out.

On a more positive note I think Anya Taylor Joy was delightful and did really well in the role, her performance brought something new to the standard leading woman in these kinds of films. Likewise, Bill Nighy as Mr Woodhouse had some great comedic moments and was the standout of any scene, he was in.

Overall, I think I greatly misjudged the tone of this film from the trailers, had I known that it was just yet another modern adaptation of Jane Austen then I probably wouldn’t have gone to see it. Taylor-Joy and Nighy do their best and there are a few laughs to be had throughout, but unless you’re really into Austen I would probably stay well clear of this one.

Pros.

The jokes that do land.

Anya Taylor-Joy is fantastic.

Cons.

It is boring.

It is too long.

The humour doesn’t always land.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

Friends: Do We Need A Reunion?

Friends was a sitcom that ran between 1994- 2004 and it had a monumental effect on Pop Culture and influenced countless other shows. The premise of the show revolved around a group of twenty something friends who all live together in New York, each week they get into different funny situations and a few of the more serious plot lines carry throughout the show.

It is near impossible when talking about this show to not mention the cultural phenomenon that it was at the time, whether you love it or you hate it, it shaped network television for a long time. The premise if it was released now would sound uninspired and samey, but at the time it was novel. When you watch shows like The Big Bang Theory or, How I Met Your Mother you can see the lifeblood of Friends still alive, serving in many ways as a perennial force to both modern sitcoms.

Friends was very much a product of it’s time, it was undeniably 90’s in many ways and that is clear to see when you watch an episode of it. I think when Friends was released on Netflix and everyone was upset and saying how offensive it was; that it was a tad ridiculous. By modern standards there are multiple jokes and situations that seems sketchy, but that is true of any shows that weren’t made in the last 5 years, in another 5 years the shows we are watching now will seem widely not up to standard, so you can’t be too harsh on the show in that respect.

The reason why this show was so successful, is because it is nice to watch a group of friends get into silly situations there is something comforting about it, because at the end of the day it is relatable. Most people have at least one friend that they enjoy hanging out with so they can relate. This is helped by all the characters being likeable, there isn’t a character that ruins the ensemble by being a dick, yes there is Ross (David Schwimmer), but even he isn’t out and out hateable.

Overall, I think this is a very important show for better or for worse, I was inspired to write this when I heard that they were doing a reunion show for HBO Max and in regard to that I wanted to say please don’t. Yes, I know it will be seen by millions of people, but do we really truly want to see a 2020 episode of Friends? It has it’s place in the mid to late 90’s and early 2000s, but as sad as it is to say, it doesn’t really have one now, people have moved on; plus other beloved hits that have tried to comeback have a long track record of not being well liked and I would hate to see Friends end a similar way.

Written By Luke

Mamma Mia: Couldn’t Escape If I Wanted To.

Mamma Mia: The Movie is a jukebox musical romantic comedy film directed by Phyllida Lloyd. The plot revolves around Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), who, a few days before her wedding, wants to find out who her dad is, so she invites 3 men to her wedding who could all be her potential father, so she can in her own words, “get married knowing who she is”.

On watching this I found it to not be as good as the sequel, Here We Go Again, a lot of the drama in this film I found annoying, Sophie’s character is stressed as she doesn’t know what she is going to do about the 3 men she invited to the wedding, one of whom is her father, here’s an idea why don’t you sit down and have a conversation with them, no that would be too simple. However, that said no one is really watching these films for the intricate details of the plot, they’re watching them to listen to the Abba soundtrack.

Most of the Abba songs you know and love are in this film, Super Trooper, Waterloo, Dancing Queen are all there, one of my personal favourites Fernando, yes I like it because of that scene in Malcolm In The Middle, isn’t in it, which I found personally disappointing, but that’s all just a matter of personal taste. The film is still incredibly fun and entertaining to not only watch, but also sing and dance along with. All of the cast give good performances: Meryl Streep (Donna) as well as the 3 dads Colin Firth (Harry), Stellan Skarsgard (Bill) and Pierce Borsnan (Sam), are all the standouts, they each have a lot of fantastic moments that make you laugh and smile, Firth especially.

The dance choreography is all done quite well and there are many lavish numbers where it can be seen and appreciated; this is especially true of the beach scene; you will know which one I mean if you have seen the film.

Overall, this is an incredibly fun film that will make you laugh, cry and want to dance. Abba’s songs are timeless and never seem to go out of style, you will find them stuck inside your head days after you have seen this film, so be prepared for that. The only thing that stops me from giving it full honours is that I believe it was upstaged by its sequel in a few ways, as a result I have more fondness towards that film.

Pros.

The songs.

The dance.

The laughs.

The love.

Cons.

It is not as good as its sequel.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke.

Dumplin’: And The Winner Is

Dumplin’ is a coming of age comedy film directed by Anne Fletcher. The film sees Dolly Parton obsessed teen Willowdean (Danielle Macdonald), compete in a beauty pageant despite her mother’s strong disapproval. The film tackles a lot of issues surrounding the idea of what makes a person beautiful and self-worth.

I think in regard to how this film portrays weight issues it is a triumph. Dumplin’ is proud of how she is and wishes people would see her for her rather than how she looks, there is an important message of not judging a book by its cover and self-love that is at the core of this film and I think it is one we should all heed.

A lot of things about this film are quite stereotypical, they go the way many other romantic themed coming of age films go, Willowdean doesn’t win the pageant in the end, but it doesn’t matter as she has proven something to herself and her mother Rosie (Jennifer Aniston), thereby earning her approval. However, despite the lack of originality, these plot points still hit home they still feel impactful. As anyone who has ever tried to seek approval from their parents would tell you that moment when you get it, if you get it, is incredibly rewarding and you can feel that here.

The romantic sub-plot between Willowdean and some boy, I can’t remember his name, I could take or leave: it did very little for me and also drew attention away from the inner journey that Willowdean was on as well as the relationship between her and her mum, both of which I think were better done. I enjoyed the relationship between Willowdean, and her mum and I think Aniston did a really good job showing us this character whose whole world is conventional beauty and these pageants, coming to terms with a new way of thinking and being happy for her daughter rather than trying to change her.

Overall, despite being weak in some areas and contrived in others, this film still has an important message and one that I think will resonate with a lot of people. Both Macdonald and Aniston give good performance and I think it is worth watching for their relationship alone, fascinating.

Pros.

A good message.

The relationship between Mother and Daughter.

Aniston is terrific.

Cons.

Contrived sub-plots.

The story could have been tighter, did we really need the romance storyline?

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Wedding Singer: Let Adam Sandler Into Your Heart

The Wedding Singer is a romantic comedy film directed by Frank Coraci. The plot follows Robbie Hart (Adam Sandler), a wedding singer, who gets left at the alter when his fiancé doesn’t attend their wedding: he then gives up on love and falls into a spiral, that is until he meets Julia (Drew Barrymore).

This film is widely regarded as one of Sandler’s best, certain this is true of the films he made during his romantic era and I have to admit when I rewatched it recently it holds up to how good I remember it being from when I was a kid.

Sandler’s character is sweet, and you root for him in the same way you did in Mr Deeds or Big Daddy, none of that loathsome hate ability, whereby he could easily be the villain of the film, that infects a lot of his later works is present here. You want to see Robbie and Julia get together, in that regard this film functions very well as a romantic comedy as it achieves it base purpose. The chemistry between Barrymore and Sandler is arguably the best of his career, though in recent years he has been pairing himself with Jennifer Aniston in terms of romantic interest, Sandler has far more on-screen chemistry with Barrymore and it is plain to see.

My issues with this film are only very minor, but they are the same issues that effect a lot of Sandler’s films. A lot of the comedy relies on stereotypes and questionable humour, which yes you can say is a product of its time, but it stands out when viewing it today. Furthermore, the villain Julia’s cheating fiancé Glenn (Matthew Glave), is almost cartoonish. By that I mean there is no nuance to his character at all beyond the fact that he is a dick, he cheats, he is a misogynist, he treats Julia like dirt and for good measure he hits Robbie in the face; we get it film he is a bad guy.

Overall, this is certainly one of Sandler’s more charming films, there is a genuine warmth and heart to it that reminds everyone how good an Adam Sandler film can be if he isn’t just phoning it in. The issues are only minor and for the most part his is a very enjoyable film to watch.

Pros.

Good chemistry between Sandler and Barrymore.

Sandler is sweet and endearing.

The music is fantastic.

Cons.

The villain is cartoonish.

Stereotypes for humour.

3.5/5