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.

The Current State Of Doctor Who: Please Someone Put It Out Of It’s Misery!

*Bonus Content

Doctor Who is a British institution it has been so far decades, but what I want to talk about today is how the series has been since it’s 2005 revival, the steady decline. I have watched Doctor Who since I was a kid, I loved Eccleston and Tennant’s Eras, I stuck around during the Smith years, I skipped Capaldi and I came back for Whittaker.

For me what makes Who Who is off world adventures, unique and memorable aliens, and story lines and characters you care about, these I would stay are the staples of good Doctor Who that feature in most iterations of the show. However, New Who seems to have an identity crisis it is so hellbent on being new and different that it is hemorrhaging viewers like it’s going out of style.

Remember what I said a few lines up about what makes good Who? Well let’s look at some of the recent episodes of Doctor Who and see if they stack up. Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor seems to have a fear of going off world as most of the episodes of these newer series are set on Earth, that shouldn’t be a bad thing in and of itself as there are plenty of cool things they could do with it, but oh my they don’t.

Then you have memorable aliens, New Who seems to like to have most of it’s villains be humans, so it can make overt and blatant political points, but to it’s credit when they do have new alien villains they do work well such as in the Nicola Tessla episode. Although something that New Who seems to do, most likely to play on audiences’ nostalgia is bring back classic monsters and I’m sorry but it is just cheap. You can’t have your cake and eat it; they want so badly to be new and fresh and yet they still play up the nostalgia to get people to stick out the new series. What’s more when they do bring these classic monsters back, they ruin them, here’s looking at you Dalek New Year’s Special.

Finally we have characters and storylines that you care about, now I have no issue with Whittaker’s portrayal for the most part, I think she can shine when the writing is good, but the issue here is that it very rarely is and this leads to the new Doctor having a sycophantic personality. Moreover, the companions are fine, but there are too many of them, this stops anyone of them from getting meaningful development outside of tropes and clichés. In terms of storylines, we might have one good storyline such as ‘Fugitive of the Jadoon’, followed by a never-ending wave of trash like ‘Praxeus’. The writing is horrific and often far too on the nose, yes before you say it I know Doctor Who has always been a political show, but it was done in a subtle way, now it has become a weekly lecture about the evils of humanity and how we are terrible and for me that just isn’t fun.

So across my criteria current year Doctor Who is a failure.

I hope the BBC end this before the ratings drop much lower, current Who is already an embarrassment of what it used to be, but surely it can’t get any worse.

I will be back to do a review of the new season when it ends!

Luke

Toy Story 4: Saying Goodbye

Toy Story 4 is a computer animated comedy film directed by Josh Cooley. The plot continues on from the ending of Toy Story 3 with the toys now having moved on from Andy and are now loving life under Bonnie. However, one of the toys feels as though he doesn’t fit in this new world anymore and questions where he does belong, this toy is Woodie (Tom Hanks).

I firmly believe this film doesn’t need to exist, Toy Story 3 wrapped the character arcs up for everyone in such a nice and satisfying way we didn’t need to revisit them, maybe in 30 years when the series will inevitably be rebooted, or remade, but we didn’t need another sequel. Pixar billed Toy Story 4 as an epilogue, a whole film that would serve as the end. So, it is by that definition I will judge this film.

I thought this film was good, but not great, by far it is the weakest instalment in the quadrillage. This film is very much Woodies film and yes, he has always been the main character of these films, but he has just been one part of a larger ensemble. Here he is the main focus. As such characters like Buzz (Tim Allen) and Jessie (Joan Cusack), are not really in this film, they have sort of appearances here and there, but they are given nothing of note to do, Jessie especially.

In terms of characterisation Woodie goes on quite the journey, he starts the film trying to make Bonnie into the new Andy, when he realises, he can’t do that and Bonnie makes Forky (Tony Hale), a new toy to replace him, he realises he needs to move on. In many ways Woodie is the audience in this film as he realises the time has come to say goodbye. They tie into this Bo Peep (Annie Potts), coming back into Woodie’s life, she is the one who got away and she shows him, very much the film shows us that it is okay to move on.

Audiences of my generation have grown up with these films and now we are being told it is okay to move on and leave the Toy Story films behind and I think there is something beautiful about that. Though I think this film was deeply unnecessary and was most likely a cash grab it still had heart and it still had soul, I liked seeing where it left Woodie and I hope they leave him there.

Ps. Please Pixar don’t make Toy Story 5!

Pros.

The ending.

Woodie’s Arc.

The new characters are good for a laugh.

Cons.

Side-lines Buzz and Jessie.

You can’t shake the feeling this film doesn’t need to exist.

3.5/5

Avatar: A World Beyond Imagination

Avatar is an epic science fiction film directed by James Cameron. The plot of the film revolves around Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a marine who arrives on the planet of ‘Pandora’ to follow in his brothers’ footsteps and join the Avatar Program. Once Sully dives into the native’s culture he realises that they are a wonderful people and that he is on the wrong side of the conflict; he then goes native.

The story of his film is one we have all seen before, solider goes undercover and learns about another group of people and then switches sides, think Dances With Wolves. There is a timeless quality to the narrative. The Na’vi’s world is deep and rich and every inch of it seems rife to explore, it is stunningly designed, and each character design is a marvel to look at; James Cameron truly did something special with this film.

Sam Worthington is serviceable as the lead, but he is in no way memorable. It is a surprise to no one that Worthington has been in nothing of note since about 2010, his time has very much passed. My main issue with his performance is that anyone could play that character, he doesn’t make the character his own. This problem is only made more evident when you compare his performance to some of the heavy hitters in the cast such as Stephen Lang and Sigourney Weaver. Stephen Lang plays the film’s antagonist Colonel Miles Quaritch, a man who wants to wipe the Na’vi out as he sees them as a threat and as standing the way of what he wants.

Lang is easily one of the best things about the film as he is a great menacing villain and one that has something about him. When Cameron brings out the inevitable 4 sequels, that no one has asked for or wants, I would love to see Lang return; with some type of Science Fiction magic obviously.

Overall, I think the strongest thing about this film is its world. It is this world that I want to see more explored not the characters. I hope the sequels reflect that. If Cameron can show us more of this world then I think they could be hits. The thing that stops me from grading this film higher is the fact that the main character is bland and in no way unique.

Pros.

Stephen Lang.

Beautifully Designed Creatures And Characters.

Fantastic World Building.

Cons.

Pacing Issues.

Sam Worthington.

3/5

Reviewed By Luke

Lady And The Tramp: Disney’s Golden Age?

‘The Lady and The Tramp’ is an animated musical romance film. The plot follows Lady (Barbra Luddy), as she comes to terms with the fact that she might get overlooked when her master’s new baby arrives, during which time she ends up falling in love with Tramp (Larry Roberts).

This film is classic Disney, it came out during that Golden Age for Disney which saw the release of things like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. I have seen this film but twice in my life, once when I was very young and then much more recently last weekend. I have to say it is not how I remember it and, not in a good way.

No, I am not going to go on about how it is outdated and then talk about the racist cat song: because ultimately that was just a feature of a lot of films from that time period. Instead I am going to talk about how I felt it was lacking a lot of the warmth and heart that a lot of those other classic Disney films have.

Lady and Tramp are both likable as protagonists, but I never found myself caring about them. There are two scenes in the film’s third act that both deal with the supposed death of a character. One of these scenes features Tramp being taken away to the pound to be put down, the other sees Trusty (Bill Baucorn), almost sacrifice his life to save Tramp. Out of these two scenes the one that should have more emotional impact is the one where Tramp faces death as he is one of our main characters, that we spent a lot of time with, but this just isn’t the case.

What’s more this film has no real business calling itself a musical, it doesn’t feature many songs at all. Moreover, the few songs that the film does have are not at all memorable and are mostly flat.

Overall, this film wasn’t what I remembered it to be, it lacked a lot of the warmth and the heart I remember it having, for the few good moments it has and the heart warming ending I will still give it an above average score, but it really isn’t a must see.

Pros.

The Classic Disney Animation.

The Happy Wholesome Ending.

Cons.

You Don’t Care About The Main Characters.

It Lacks Any Real Warmth.

It Doesn’t Have That Disney Magic.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Chicken Run: Who Is Really Escaping Who

‘Chicken Run’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, focusing on the efforts of a group of Chickens to escape the farm they live on before they get turned into pies. ‘Chicken Run’ is Aardman Animation’s first film as such, it set the benchmark for the studio.

Though many love this film, I think it is a weak start for the studio. I think though the film is serviceable and, not offputtingly bad, it pales in comparison to Aardman’s later works.

Stop-motion animation for me is hit or miss, sometimes in the case of things like ‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ it can work well and enhance the film overall, whereas in films like ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ it can be vile and off-putting. This film I would say is more like the latter than the former the stop-motion animation, for the most part, is good, much like the studios later work with Wallace and Gromit, but there is something off about the human characters; specifically their faces.

The two main human characters are Mr Tweedy (Tony Haygarth), and Mrs Tweedy (Miranda Richardson), they’re both serving the antagonist role; while they’re meant to be threatening, they’re not meant to be creepy. However, there is something about the stop-motion animation with these characters that gives them an unsettling look; there is something about their cold dead eyes and manic facial design that is deeply off-putting and, I can only assume that this was unintentional; as this is not a horror film.

However, the stop-motion animation of the chickens is fine, so at least that is a small mercy. My issue with the chickens is that I don’t find them likeable, they never connected with me, the humour that characters like Fowler (Benjamin Whitrow), provide does nothing for me at all, it doesn’t land.

A lot of the chicken characters are annoying stereotypes this is best shown in Babs, (Jane Horrocks), who is there to provide comedic relief but the whole joke is that she is dumb. Overall I found this to be a very charmless film. What’s more, the fact that they include Mel Gibson as an American Rooster called Rocky feels forced in as though having a big Hollywood name on the poster would sell more tickets. It feels like more of a Dreamworks decision rather than an Aardman Animation one.

Overall this film will do fine entertaining small children but, anything beyond that is a harder sell. The main issue with this film is that it lacks any kind of charm at all. At least Aardman Animations film’s after this improved.

Pros.
It Is Watchable.

Cons.
It Is Strangely Creepy.
The Humour Doesn’t Work.
The Characters Are Unlikable.
Mel Gibson Feels Out Of Place.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mary Poppins Returns: Everyone’s Favourite Nanny Comes Back!

‘Mary Poppins Returns’ is a musical comedy fantasy film it serves as a belated sequel to the 1964 film. The plot this time around sees everyone’s favourite nanny return to teach the next generation of Banks children, how to have fun. The characters of original Banks children are in this film though they’re not played by the same actors.

I have never counted myself as a Mary Poppins fan, I know that it is a very popular film, but it never appealed to me personally. Now that I’ve said that, let’s get into the review.

I think this film has been rather unfairly written off, many people had very high expectations when the sequel was announced, and I believe no matter how good this film was, it would never live up.

I think this film has a lot of charm and all of it, and I mean all of it, comes from Emily Blunt. Blunt plays the new iteration of Mary Poppins and seems to be loving every minute, she has charm and class to spare and lives up to, if not eclipsis, Julie Andrews from the original film. Not only that, but Blunt can also hold her own when it comes to singing, she is fantastic in every song she is in; especially the lamplighter themed one in the second act.

I think on the whole the songs in this film are good, they’re catchy and memorable, without becoming annoying. Though this isn’t true of the film’s first musical number ‘(Underneath the) Lovely London Sky’ which is the worst song in the entire film as it feels like it goes on and on and won’t end; this opens the film on a bad note.

The plot of the film is fine, the Bank’s have to find some shares in the bank so, their house doesn’t get taken away from them. It is serviceable if a little uninspired. It completely wastes the talents of Colin Firth, who is the film’s villain as he is incredibly boring and one-note. The one good thing Firth’s villain does is allow for us to see Dick Van Dyke return, which admittedly is a crowd-pleasing moment.

Overall this film lives only because of how good Emily Blunt is in the role, it has nothing else going for it, in many ways it seems like money was the only thing that made Mary Poppins Return.

Ps. Don’t even get me started on Meryl Steep as Topsy, for another time.

Pros.
Most Of The Music.
Emily Blunt.
Dick Van Dyke’s Return.

Cons.
The Opening Song.
The Plot Of The Film.
Wasting Colin Firth.

3/5

Reviewed By Luke.

Mr Popper’s Penguins: The Love Between A Man And His Penguins

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins’ is a comedy film about a businessman who has lost the ability to have fun, until one day he receives a create and in that create is a penguin. Over time Popper (Jim Carrey), gets more and more penguins and forms a bond with them; this is their film.

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins is the sort of film that revels in the human-animal friendship space, think Alvin and the Chipmunks, or even animated fare like How To Train Your Dragon. These films, play upon the bond that people form with their pets.

Carrey is on top form as Tom Popper he plays him reserved, or at least reserved for Carrey, focusing on how the character slowly begins to care about these penguins and, realises what is important in his life. The message of this film is cliched family and the people you care about, or in this case penguins you care about, are more important than wealth and success. You see, that is the thing with this film in many ways it is incredibly cliche and has been done before, but that doesn’t make in any less effective. It is still incredibly good and sweet despite having not been fresh or, original.

The villain of the piece is a penguin expert called Nat Jones (Clark Gregg), who wants to take the penguins away from Popper and put them in a zoo. Jones is a good antagonist for the film as he is a character you love to hate as well as having a real sense of menace about him at times. You want to see Popper and his penguins continue to be together and be happy, so him wanting to take them away not only adds tension but also makes you consider what is best for the penguins.

Popper’s family, who also plays a role in this tale are all serviceable if not memorable I can’t remember a single one of their names.

The humour of the film delivers, Carrey is excellent and all of his jokes land. Also, the penguins have their moments of comic genius they gave me a good few chuckles as I watched.

Overall this is very enjoyable family fare and, the relationship between Popper and his penguins will speak to anyone who has ever loved a pet.

Pros.
Carrey.
The Villain.
The Penguins.
The Comedy.

Cons.
Cliched.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Fantastic Mr. Fox: Redefining The Word ‘Fantastic’

‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, adapting the Roald Dahl beloved children’s book of the same name. The plot follows Mr Fox (George Clooney), as he tries to get back into the business of stealing from the local farmers; after he had given up that lifestyle when his first cub was born.

‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ both the book and the film have a special place in my heart and, the film especially is amongst my favourite animated films of all time. There is so much life and vibrancy in the animation that it brings the book to life in the most beautiful way; this is in no small part because of the decision to use stop-motion animation, which not enough films do.

Many people prefer Wes Anderson’s other stop-motion animated film the ‘Isle Of Dogs’, but personally I don’t think that film has anywhere near the same level of charm as this. Yes, a lot of that charm comes from the voice cast Clooney is a great Mr Fox he has both the easy confidence for when things are going well and the steely determination/ gravitas for when things get serious. As well as Clooney the voice cast is also made up of people like Willem Dafoe, Billy Murray, Meryl Streep and, Jason Schwartzman. All of these big stars not only give it there all but also really make the characters memorable. Dafoe plays a Rat that serves as a sub-antagonist for Mr Fox, though he only has very limited screen time Dafoe not only makes us care about this character but, also gives him a personality.

There are several changes made to the story that keep it from being a fully faithful retelling of the book. However, I believe these changes serve the film well as they are often used to create character depth, which helps the characters seem more realised.
The best things about this film are because it has a very keen sense of identity, as well as a very specific sense of style. I truly believe that both of these things are owed wholly to Wes Anderson, who does a great job here and elevates this film into almost a masterpiece.

Overall, this film not only captures the nature of the book but also adds to it. Fantastic Mr Fox will make you care about foxes and badgers while also giving you a laugh or two along the way. This film is a testament to two things firstly the star-power of George Clooney, and secondly what a director with a sharp eye and a firm idea can do.

Pros.
Wes Anderson.
The Voice Cast.
The Beautiful Stop Motion Animation.
Making A Classic Out Of A Classic.

Cons.
Minor Pacing Issues In The Second And Early Third Act.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington 2: Paddington Goes To Prison

‘Paddington 2’ is a live-action animated film and sequel to the 2014 Paddington film. The plot this time around sees Paddington (Ben Whishaw), be implicated in a crime, after a pop-up book of London, that Paddington was going to buy for this aunt’s birthday goes missing. This results in everyone’s favourite Peruvian bear going to prison and the Brown family having to try and prove his innocence.

‘Paddington 2’ is a very strange film to me, in many ways it is because I didn’t see the plot of this film coming. Not only was I not expecting to see Paddington as a jailbird this time around, but I also wasn’t expecting the shift in tone. Make no mistake this is still a happy family film, but there is definitely more of a sense of melancholy this time around; a sadness in the air. The reason why this moodier tone works is because of the first film; it made us care about Paddington as a character, perhaps more deeply than we first realised, as such when we see him lose the court trial and, go to prison it can’t help but break your heart.

The Villain of the film Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), fixes my only issue with the first film, that being the villain was weak, Buchanan is a central part of the narrative throughout. Not only that but, he is much more threatening than Kidman’s villain from the first film, as he represents a real sense of danger to Paddington and his well being. Grant’s performance ranges from comedic and sympathetic, too loathsome and hateable, his Buchanan is an antagonist that you love to hate.

However, my issue with this film which I believe makes it worse than the first film, is that other than Paddington and Buchanan the rest of the cast are barely used. Whereas last time around each character had a moment to shine, without taking focus away from our hero, now these moments are few and far between; this is a shame as the series had amassed some real talent. What makes this issue more pronounced is the fact that while in prison in the film adds even more characters to its ensemble, which stretches the moments each character gets to shine even thinner.

Overall this is still a very good film and, the end of the film is very heartwarming and feel good. However, this is definitely the darker of the two films and also sadly the inferior. Still worth a watch.

Pros.
Paddington.
The Occasional Bits Of Humor.
Grant’s Villain.

Cons.
Over Crowded.
Wasted The Brown Family.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke