Finding Dory Teaser Trailer Reaction

Well this looks good!

'Finding Nemo' may well be one of my favourite Pixar movies of all time and in my top 5 favourite movies at least! The characters are memorable, the animation is gorgeous and it manages to be both touching and funny. So its sequel, 'Finding Dory,' has a lot to live up to but this trailer promises to live up to its predecessor. 

The music presented in the trailer instantly brought me back to the world of 'Finding Nemo' as it is the music used for the emotional moments of the film. One of the things that was great about 'Finding Nemo' was its calm atmosphere punctuated by Thomas Newman's score (who returns for this movie). The teaser isn't shy to pull the feel card early as Dory says the following quote in her sleep:

"Don't cry Mummy, Don't cry"

*Tissues on stand-by*

The opening of this trailer is beautifully animated and it was awesome to see Marlin (Albert Brookes) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence) again. There's also a pretty amusing joke concerning 'sleep-swimming' (inspired!)

The rest of the trailer? It's ok. They seem to run a joke into the ground (Dory can remember! Shock!) and it can get tiresome. However, it does explain the premise of the movie in that Dory is finding her family so that should be good. Honestly there's not much to say considering it's a teaser but who knows? Maybe it could live up to its predecessor! Pixar did well with sequels before. (Hey! Cars 2 was alright actually and so was Monster's University!)

Other things to note/speculate:

• Oh how I love 'Somewhere beyond the Sea' by Robbie Williams!
• Where are the new characters? They don't appear at all in this trailer!
• It's nice that Dory's living with Nemo and Marlin in her own.... err... house?

Overall, this movie is set to be a worthy follow-up to 'Finding Nemo' and though this teaser shows little, that's what teasers do. 'Finding Dory' comes out on June 17th 2016.

La Haine (Hate) (1995) Review

Distributor: Studio Canal

Starring: Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, Said Taghmoui

Director: Mathieu Kassovitz

Screenplay: Mathieu Kassovitz

Producer: Christophe Rossignon

Running Time: 1hr 38m

Release Date: May 31st 1995 (France), November 17th 1995 (UK)

Rating: 15

In 1993, Mathieu Kassovitz was inspired by two moments of police brutality. One was in 1986 where a man named Malik Oussekine was beaten to death by a riot police during a demonstration he was not a part of. The other was in 1993 where another man named Makome M’Bowole was shot in point blank range by a policeman even though M'Bowole was in police custody at the time. On that same day, Kassovitz started the script for 'La Haine,' which dealt with themes of police brutality and riots. The film was released to critical acclaim and currently stands at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Does Kassovitz truly deserve that praise?

What's the story? The movie follows 24 hours of the lives of three young men after a riot in Paris. These men are a Jew named Vinz (Cassel), an Afro-French named Hubert (Kounde) and an Arab named Said (Taghmoui). The movie centres around their lives in the Banelieu district, their scuffles with the police and their adventures in Paris, all the while Vinz is debating on whether or not he should violently avenge a friend who was brutally beaten by the police.

Kassovitz makes sure that the characters are not black and white, even though the film is. The main character, Vinz, wishes to be violent as he bases himself off Travis Bickle from 'Taxi Driver' and often fantasises about killing a policeman in revenge for his comatosed friend Abdel (Abdel Ahmed Ghili) but he does grow as a character as he starts to realise that violence isn't the best option. Hubert is the opposite. He is less violent and often tries to think of a peaceful solution to the conflicts that the three come across. However, he has shown some violence when the situation calls for it. Said is, almost literally, stuck in the middle of his friends. He is as easily excitable as Vinz but he also tries to work out a peaceful solution, especially when Vinz and Hubert butt heads over their conflicting ideologies. The three leads are not good or bad people, they are just normal youths who were set apart from society due to race, class and age. 

The police are similar though Kassovitz does portray them in an unfavourable light. They are portrayed as inept as they can barely control the hot-headed Vinz; they are portrayed as stupid since they mis-identify the "leader" as Said; they are portrayed as buzzkills as they constantly move the characters along from one location to another and they are portrayed as corrupt which is shown through a brutal interrogation scene. Throughout the film, the characters call the police 'pigs' and Vinz displays a burning hatred towards them as their displays of police brutality affected their lives. That's not to say the police are all bad as there are one or two that are actually helpful but the 'pigs' seem to be a constant nuisance that tail the trio and ruin their lives.

Then again, the lives of the trio aren't all that spectacular. Through the majority of the film, the characters wonder aimlessly through Paris and the Banelieu district with very little to do other than hang around and talk about cows or other topics. Their attempts at joining larger groups are often thwarted by the police or higher authorities, so it is as if they are forced to wonder haphazardly through the Banelieu because society will not accept them. Hubert is the voice of that message as his hopes of being a boxer are ruined by his gym burning down and his lack of job has forced him to stay in the Banelieu district, despite his verbal desire to leave. Even in Paris, the three are temporarily trapped there so they wonder through the city during the night. 

The production values are good too. Kassovitz really tried to make the film as realistic as possible and he succeeds. The characters share the names of their actors to make it seem like they are real people, the filming was actually done in the Banelieu district to show it in its entirety and some of the characters are played by people from the districts to make it seem like Kassovitz and his characters know what they are saying. That doesn't mean he isn't stylised as the film is in black and white to make it seem gritty and there is a ticking clock motif that not only details their 24 hours but also seems like it is counting down to something.

Does this film have problems? Well since the characters wonder carelessly throughout the film, the plot as a result does fall under a lot of filler so most of the scenes do little other than to convey the message of aimlessness. Also, besides the main three, the supporting characters are forgettable and the police are interchangeable. The characters of Vinz and Said can be unlikable since they are single-minded and obnoxious respectively. The ending, whilst making sense, does seem to come out of nowhere and does come across as abrupt.

Overall, 'La Haine' is more of a character study of the lives of three immigrants rather than an actual story. The characters and themes are very strong as it is a harsh and realistic presentation of Paris and the inhabitants we don't often think about. However, this movie needed more of a plot to keep things more interesting and it is only when looked at closely does the film truly shine.

'La Haine' gets 4 'pigs' out of 5

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below, be sure to share the review around Facebook, Twitter etc. and like my Facebook page 'Joel Mole'. Join me next time for my next perfectly honest film review.

SPECTRE (2015) Review

Distributors: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Columbia Pictures (both from Sony)

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott, Dave Bautista, Monica Belucci

Director: Sam Mendes

Screenplay: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth 

Producers: Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli

Running Time: 2 hrs, 30 mins (approx.)

Release Date: October 26th 2015 (UK)

Rating: 12A

The Daniel Craig era of the James Bond Franchise has had its fair share of quality. 'Casino Royale' was unique and gritty, 'Quantum of Solace' was confusing and generic and 'Skyfall' was just plain awesome. Now Mendes of 'Skyfall' fame returns to direct this year’s Bond flick: 'SPECTRE' with Craig returning as Bond. Is this as good as 'Skyfall' or as big of a train-wreck as 'Quantum of Solace'? 

James Bond (Craig) is discharged after an explosive opening in Mexico, so he is working alone to track down a mysterious organisation known as SPECTRE. With the help of Madeline Swann (Seydoux), daughter of an old enemy of Bond, Q (Whishaw), M (Fiennes) and Eve Moneypenny (Harris). Bond discovers SPECTRE and its leader, Franz Oberhauser (Waltz), and they must stop him from taking over the world.

This film takes James Bond back to his 1960s roots with the return of SPECTRE, the lines 'shaken not stirred' and 'Bond, James Bond', a strong assassin and the famous gunshot sequence being in the opening this time round. This feels like a James Bond film unlike 'Quantum of Solace' which is a good thing as the era has truly taken off. However, because it played it safe, the plot feels predictable at times (gee, I wonder who Waltz is playing?!) and it's also abominably long. That doesn't mean it's a bad film as it is still entertaining to watch as the plot at least makes sense this time round. It also plays with the theme of surveillance quite nicely. We are in an insecure society where we seem constantly watched and the SPECTRE organisation utilises it to their advantage making the film very relevant. 

Craig, despite his (to put it lightly) resentment for the role, turns in a good performance, continuing the colder side to the character but also showing a sense of humour as most of his comedy comes through dry wit. Honestly though, despite revelations of his past coming to light, Bond doesn't feel developed as a character as he is more of the same throughout.

  

The Bond Girl, Swann, is also a weak character. Seydoux does turn in a decent performance but her character does not get much personality nor room for development as other characters steal the stage. She's just there to be a Bond Girl, that's it. Also Belucci is vastly underused in her role as she only turns up for one scene and she is never seen or mentioned again. This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't draw so much attention to her life being in danger.

The MI6 team fair a lot better though. Whishaw shows off his comedic timing for the role of Q and the role itself provides most of the comedy (which works). Fiennes turns out to be a very good M and he even gets in to a lot of the action. The same goes for Moneypenny who plays a key role in the story. Their antagonist, C (Scott) is also a slimy yet charming character, though what did you expect from the guy who plays Moriaty in 'Sherlock'?

As for the villains, Waltz is clearly having a lot of fun with his character as he steals every scene he's in. However, Oberhauser is not really in it that much which sadly doesn't give him time to develop as a villain so thank goodness for Waltz who was born to be a Bond villain, he's been playing Bond villains throughout his career for crying out loud! Bautista uses his physique for the role of the assassin Mr Hinx but the character makes a little impact and there is nothing that stands out about him unlike Oddjob and Jaws.

As for the production values, the films looks beautiful with the same quality of cinematography from the last film (that's a good thing!). The film also has a wide range of locations from Mexico to London to Rome to Austria and to Morocco. The wide range of locations allow for some stylised filmmaking to make them all stand out. 

The action sequences are also exciting for the most part. One particular highlight is the Day of the Dead opening with the majority of it being done in one shot, which can't have been easy given the amount of people there. There are other good sequences too like the plane/car chase in Austria and the train fight with Mr Hinx. 

The music is good too, again the highlight being the Day of the Dead scene as the James Bond theme is mixed with carnival music to make the scene lively. However the 'Writing on the Wall' theme is a bit weak by Bond song standards (though what do you expect from a singer as uninterested as Sam Smith?) and what is up with those visuals? Seriously Mendes, Octopuses do not make things sexy! 

With that said, the film is good but not great. It is a satisfying and entertaining follow-up from 'Skyfall' with good action sequences, humour, comedy, performances and the feel of a Bond film but it feels too safe as the plot is predictable and the characters do not feel developed. In answering the question on whether or not it is as good as 'Skyfall' or as bad as 'Quantum of Solace', it is neither. It is on the same level as 'Casino Royale': good but not great. However, it is good enough to recommend.

'SPECTRE' gets 3 and a half octopus rings out of five

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Trailer #3 Reaction

Ok first things first *a-hem*: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

'Star Wars' has to be my favourite movie franchise of all time with 'The Empire Strikes Back' not only being the best of the saga but possibly my favourite movie ever. So as you can imagine this trailer got me hyped!

What's interesting about this trailer is the lack of plot details revealed. In a world where trailers give away crucial plot details (hello Terminator Genisys!), it's satisfying to see that the trailers for the most anticipated movie of 2015 give away little of the plot. However, it leaves enough to piece together some clues and get me excited!

Secondly, it's interesting to see that we might have a female protagonist this time round! One issue with the Star Wars films are the lack of female characters. Yes Leia and to some extent Padmé were awesome but they were the only major female characters in the whole saga. Finally, we may get a Star Wars movie that passes the Bechdel Test (Google it!).

Thirdly, the shots! This movie looks gorgeous and unlike any Star Wars movie we have seen before... but still recognisably Star Wars! The cinematography makes you feel like you're flying with the ships and the colour palette is rich so the movie looks aesthetically pleasing to look at! Even if the plot turns out to be rubbish, it will still look amazing. (One highlight is the hyperspace scene!)

Lastly, the tone. This Star Wars movie looks like it's going to blend dark and mysterious with fun action! That's good! That's the same tone as Empire!

Other things to note/speculate:

• Kylo Ren looks set to be a terrifying villain! Ok he's not Darth Vader but the scene where he tortures Poe Dameron looks daaaaaaaaark.
• I like how Han Solo is the guide and how his character has grown into believing the Jedi now
• Speaking of the Jedi, they're myth?
• The lightsaber duel has a brilliant set-up! A Jedi-in-training who knows little in lightsaber combat vs. a powerful force user? Sign me up!!!

Overall, there's little to expect in this movie which will make watching it all the more exciting! Bring on December 17th 2015!!!!

This is England (2006) Review

Distributor: Optimum Releasing

Starring: Thomas Turgoose, Stephen Graham, Jo Hartley, Andrew Shim, Vicky McClure, Joseph Gilgun, Rosamund Hanson

Director: Shane Meadows

Screenplay: Shane Meadows

Producer: Mark Herbert

Running Time: 1hr 40m

Release Date: April 27th 2007 (UK)

Rating: 18

In 2007, Shane Meadows released his independent film 'This is England' to critical acclaim. So much so that it spawned several sequel TV mini-series'. This coming-of-age story turned ensemble drama about a group of teenagers and young adults in the 1980s (and 1990) has resonated with people for the characters and the realistic depiction of violence, drugs and sexual abuse has earned the series several awards. At the time of writing, 'This is England '90' (the final season of the series) is currently playing so it is time to review the movie that started it all: 'This is England'.

Set in Northern England in 1983, the movie follows Shaun (Turgoose). He is a 12 year old kid who has recently lost his father to the Falkland Wars and is constantly bullied. Things change when he encounters a group of skinheads led by Woody (Gilgun) with members such as Milky (Shim) and Gadget (Andrew Ellis), as well as female members such as Lol (McClure), Smell (Hanson), Kelly (Chanel Cresswell) and Trev (Danielle Watson). Shaun feels at home with the group until former member Combo (Graham) returns with nationalist views and the gang are divided with Shaun joining Combo's group and he soon learns the darker side of patriotism.

The best part of 'This is England' is the characters. Before Combo arrives, you feel such a comradery between the gang to the point where you want to join them in their misadventures. Shaun in particular is the audience surrogate as he is a trouble kid but still a kid. He is naive to the dangers of youth culture and as such, he becomes easily influenced by Combo's racist views. This sets up a perfect coming-of-age story as he is exposed to extreme violence and racism and this is where the title comes in. THIS is England, not the patriotic country we all love but a country of violence, drugs and racism. Turgoose is a very good child actor who gets across the fun loving side but also the angry side of Shaun very effectively.

The other notable character is Combo. Combo represents nationalism and racism as his views of what it means to be English is disturbing but he is so charismatic you almost don't care. He does have a comforting side whether it is being a father figure to Shaun or professing his love to Lol, you do feel almost sorry for him in the end. Well almost... as he does have a violent side which is apparent in one scene. This will not be spoiled but this scene is truly horrifying and it is hard to watch Combo's blind fury comes out in full force.

It's not all doom and gloom as the supporting characters are likable enough to maintain a light-hearted side to the movie. Woody is a very likable and charismatic character but to be honest, there should be more of him. Yes we do see him more in the TV show but in the movie, he disappears after the first half. Smell provides some comic relief whether its Hanson's deadpan delivery or her unconventional romance with Shaun, there is bound to be some laughs. Cynthia (Hartley) is a caring mother who is struggling to bring up her troubled son as a single mother and Hartley makes her role comforting. Finally there is Lol. Like Woody, she isn't in the movie much to make an impact but there are hints to a past that is luckily expanded upon in the TV show. The rest of the cast, besides Gadget who gets a few standout moments, are interchangeable and only get development in the TV show except Pukey played by Jack O'Connell who is mysteriously replaced by Harvey (Michael Socha), Shaun's bully at the beginning. Overall, the cast are likable but are clearly screaming for development as the focus is on Shaun and Combo.

The production values are decent but not that special. The camera used is quite clever as it is a similar quality of a camera used for an '80s film which adds to the authenticity (though it gets ruined when a normal camera is used for the TV show) and the use of editing is done to good affect especially in THAT hard to watch scene. That and the music, whilst used sparingly, is used in the movie's more effective moments but besides that, it doesn't feel like a cinematic movie but rather a TV movie pilot. 

That's the problem with 'This is England', it feels like a TV pilot as there are lots of characters who need developing and are developed in a TV show. That being said, 'This is England' is a great look at skinhead culture with it's somewhat lovable cast and a hard hitting message on what it means to be English. It also perfectly mixes the tone between light-hearted fun to some of the most gut-wrenching scenes in British film history. Definitely watch this movie, if you like it then watch the TV show to see the supporting characters shine.

'This is England' gets 4 skinheads out of 5

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!

Cidade de Deus (City of God) (2002) Review

Distributor: Miramax Films

Starring: Alexandre Rodrigues, Leandro Firmino da Hora, Phellipe Haagensen, Matheus Nachtergaele, Seu Jorge, Douglas Silva

Directors: Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund

Screenplay: Bráulio Mantovani

Producers: Andrea Barata Ribeiro, Mauricio Andrade Ramos

Running Time: 2hr 10m

Release Date: August 30th 2002 (Brazil)

Rating: 18

'Cidade de Deus' or 'City of God' was based off 1997 novel of the same name by Paulo Lins however it is loosely based off real events. Upon release, it received critical acclaim with Meirelles receiving a nomination for Best Director at the 76th Academy Awards. Is this Brazilian film worth the praise? Is the City of God ironically named? The answer to both of these is yes!

What's the story? Where do I begin? The film follows Rocket (Rodrigues), a resident of the City of God, as he details the rise and fall of the crime lord known as Lil Zé (Hora) formally known as Lil Dice (Silva). The story shows his rise to power through drugs and murder, his best friend Benny (Haagensen) becoming a playboy, the war with rival drug lord Carrot (Nachtergaele) and a personal vendetta against Knockout Ned (Jorge). 

That's explaining the story in simple terms and that's this movie's problem. There's way too much going on. These were just the main characters. There's also Angelica (Alice Braga), Rocket and Benny's love interest; Blacky, Carrot's assistant; Tiago, Angelica's ex-boyfriend; Steak N' Fries, a notable member in Ze's gang; The Tender Trio: Goose (Rocket's brother), Shaggy and Clipper; Bernice, Shaggy's girlfriend; Shorty, a man who somehow gets focus even though he has no bearing on the overall plot and the Runts.

There's just way too many characters and subplots to develop and many suffer as a result. Shorty gets focus even though his character goes nowhere, Steak N' Fries gets focus in the movie's most infamous scene yet it is uncertain what happened to him. The Tender Trio get little screen time outside the first act so it is difficult to care about them. Angelica is also just a love interest. No more no less. Most of these characters can be taken out of the movie and the plot would not suffer as a result.

Aside from that, there aren't any problems with this movie. The movie's main strength is the characters. Rocket isn't the focus of the movie but rather the observer. He's the relatable protagonist to shed some normality into the chaotic world of the City of God. He has ambition, he cares and interacts with the other characters and he has some normal teenage personality traits such as wanting to have sex. Rocket doesn't get a lot of development but the audience cares for him because he's the one normal character in a crazy world. In fact, he is similar to Max Rockatansky from the 'Mad Max' movies. He's the observer, not the main character.

The main character is actually the film's antagonist: Lil Ze. Ze is a scary antagonist as he kills for pleasure and he just won't stop until his quest for power has completed. That's what makes him scary, he's is ruthless and relentless. He does have dimension though as he gets upset when someone he cares about is hurt and he does have his kinder moments. However for the most part he is a sadistic psychopath. His rise and fall story arc is also interesting as he brought himself down by failing to realise that his actions have consequences. That and his humongous body count makes him an intimidating yet charismatic villain that the audience actually cares about. Hora plays adult Ze well giving him a sick charisma but it is Silva as the child version, Lil Dice (Pictured) that knocks it out of the park as his sadism mostly came out of Silva's performance and he is one of the most bone-chilling child actors out there.

Despite Lil Ze being a great villain, his best friend Benny is the best character. He starts off as Lil Ze's lackey but he is the voice of reason who stops Ze from becoming a full on nut job. Once he becomes a playboy, he is loved and respected by all which makes what happens to him all the more tragic. Playboy Benny is incredibly charming and likable, so much so that you either want to be with him or actually become him. He is also key to the movie as he is the only person who can control Lil Ze whilst also being central to the movie's main theme which is escaping reality. His fate is also what sets off the events of the second half of the movie.

Most of these events centre on Knockout Ned. Ned has the biggest fall of the movie as he starts out as another guy everyone respects. However, one tragic night later and he becomes vengeful and his pursuit of Lil Ze is reminiscent of The Terminator. He won't stop until he has his target. In a way he's the anti-Ze. He is a psychopath who won't stop until he gets what he wants whilst also being careless of consequences. However, unlike Ze, he has morals and you can tell he is regretful of what he has done. However when his morals are cast aside, it comes back to bite him in the most Edgar Wright-ish of ways. (For those who don't know, Edgar Wright has a payoff for aspects that seems insignificant in the movie).

All of these characters (with the exception of Lil Ze) have one ambition, to leave the slums for a better life. However reality catches up to them in the most brutal way which makes it clear what Meirelles' message is: You cannot escape reality. And boy does reality suck in the City of God?! It has everything from corrupt cops, poverty, drugs, murder, rape, gangs, violence and war. There's this one scene especially heart-wrenching where Steak N' Fries does terrible things to children in order to be initiated into Lil Ze's gang. This movie does not shy away from all the things mentioned above and it shows them in great detail.

It's not all doom and gloom as the movie oddly has a quirky style. This ranges from carnival music to camera sound effects to title cards of character stories to fast editing to flashbacks. This prevents the movie from being boring and this coupled with the likable characters makes 'City of God', despite the drama, a fun ride. Meirelles maintains the style throughout yet it is serious when it needs to be. It keeps the perfect balance that makes the movie entertaining whilst still keeping its serious message.

In conclusion, 'City of God' is an entertaining, heart wrenching yet overblown movie with likable (if too many) characters, a quirky style and an important message about poverty. If it had less characters and subplots this would have been very special but as it stands, it's very good and worth checking out... though viewer discretion is advised!

'City of God' gets 4 and a half psycho kids out of 5.


What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!

Gypsy (1962) Review

Distributor: Warner Bros.

Starring: Rosalind Russell, Natalie Wood, Karl Malden, Morgan Britteny, Ann Jillian, Paul Wallace

Director: Mervyn LeRoy

Screenplay: Leonard Spigelgass 

Lyrics: Stephen Sondheim

Producer: Mervyn LeRoy

Running Time: 2hr 23m

Release Date: November 1st 1962 (USA)

Rating: PG

Based off the memoirs of famous stripper, Gypsy Rose Lee, this musical (created by Jule Styne, Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents) was released on stage in 1959 and later on film in 1962. Since then it has been revived in theatre many times with a 2015 West End version starring Imelda Staunton as Rose Hovick. The film itself did reasonably well in the box office as was its critical reception with Russell winning a Golden Globe for Best Actress that year. So was this musical well adapted into a film? Yes... with a few flaws.

What's the story? The movie follows Gypsy Rose Lee, known as Louise Hovick (Wood), from childhood to her stripper days. Through most of her life, she and her sister June (Morgan Britteny and later Ann Jillian) have been pushed onto stardom by their domineering mother Rose (Russell). Whilst 'Baby/Dainty' June is very talented on stage, Louise didn't seem to be talented at all which frustrates Rose. One day, when a man named Herbie (Malden) offers them a chance to tour around vaudeville, they soon use June and her back-up singers 'The News Boys' to gain fame and attention. However, when June leaves because of her resentment before Rose, Rose uses Louise as the new star in the now dying vaudeville lifestyle. When they accidentally book a performance in a burlesque, Louise soon becomes the famous stripper Gypsy Rose Lee.

Despite the title, Gypsy isn't the main character in this movie. Oh sure she gets a lot of focus, particularly towards the end, this is Rose's story as she is the one who pushes her daughter into fame. Rose is a show mother, someone who tries to force their children into theatre or the media because they want to be noticed themselves. This means that she is actually a pretty insufferable character. She never listens to anyone, especially her children, she keeps trying to shoehorn ways into keeping the 'Baby June' act alive even though everyone grows up and leaves and she is trying to stay in theatre even though it's falling into decline since the introduction of 'talkie' films. All throughout the film she is just unlikable since she basically robs her daughters of a normal childhood and Russell just sells it in the performance. Russell just gives the role so much power and dominance which is exactly what Rose needed to be. The song at the end, 'Rose's Turn', truly makes her character as she pours her heart and soul at the audience about her life and what she could've been which makes her motivation slightly more understandable. It is clear that Russell deserved that Golden Globe award.

That isn't to say Gypsy Rose Lee herself doesn't get any focus and in fact, she's the best character. Natalie Wood is very diverse in the role from the shy and reclusive Louise to the diva-like Gypsy and yes she was fiiiiiiiine. But back to the character, Louise always let her mother walk all over her and the audience just basically wants her to live her own life and get a break. There's this one song called 'Little Lamb' where she is celebrating her birthday all alone. The lyric that stuck out was 'little lamb, little lamb, I wonder how old I am.' That is just heart-breaking to watch as her life is practically gone at this point. So when she does become a star, it's all the more refreshing to see her stand up to her mother and break free. This is especially shown in the montage of her rise to fame where with each performance, she takes off more items of clothing which shows her increasing confidence. Whilst Rose steals the show with Rosalind Russell's performance, Louise is a more likable character.

Herbie is a good side character as well. Herbie is the voice of reason and it’s his interactions with Rose that makes her more bearable as he humanises her. He also cares for the girls and helps out the News Boys through their vaudeville years. Malden plays him like a fast talking manager but he isn't just that as he is a man who lives in a show mother's shadow so when he stands up to her and leaves her, it's good to see him asserting dominance for once and tries to give Rose the wake-up call.

All of these characters are good but the others feel pushed aside. June in particular is a missed opportunity since her character alone can hold a movie. June was pushed at a very young age and is forced to act like a child well into her teens. You can imagine how scarring that is to a child and it certainly takes its toll considering what happens to her character. However, she is given little screen time since the focus is on Rose and Louise. The problem with this is that June never got the chance to develop as a character nor did we see much of her increasing frustration with Rose. Her connection with Louise is never fully realised either. Whilst there is a connection, it never really has much of an effect on June herself since her goodbye letter to Rose only had Louise as an afterthought. It really is a shame since her character could've been the focus since she was a) pushed around by her mother to breaking point and b) she was ultimately upstaged by her sister who became more famous than her. There's not one scene or mention of how she feels about the latter since she completely disappears in the second half of the movie! Yes she has an effect on Rose (this is what possibly broke her sanity) but not on Louise? She does mention her about how she is not like June but she never seemed that upset about her departure after the goodbye scene. A real shame that a character this interesting never got developed properly.

The News Boys are interchangeable as well. With the exception of Tulsa (Wallace) who gets his own time to shine, the rest of them are basically background characters. One of the News Boys in particular does something with June when they leave but we were never pointed out who Jerry was so the audience are left thinking 'who's Jerry?' 

The song numbers are hit and miss, mostly hit. 'Little Lamb' and 'Rose's Turn' are strong emotional highlights and they're the best songs of the movie. 'Mr Goldstone,' 'Moo Cow' and 'You've got to have a gimmick' are funny as well and good luck getting 'Let me Entertain You' out of your head. However, songs like 'Small Worlds' 'All I Need is a Girl' and 'Everything's Coming up Roses' are forgettable and boring. 

The production design, whilst good at creating a 1930's feel, it all feels staged, particularly during the musical numbers. Sometimes this works like the 'Let me Entertain You' numbers and 'Rose's Turn' because the former is literally a stage show and the latter is also on a stage to symbolise Rose's desire for stardom. However, the other songs felt like they could've easily been done on stage which is a problem because LeRoy did not take advantage of the fact that it was a movie and could've done something more stylised with some of these songs to make it feel more like a movie and less like a stage show on camera.

However the biggest problem with this film is the run time. It is LOOOOOOOONG with scenes that drag and don't connect as much with the rest of the film and therefore should've been cut. Also, like 'Into the Woods,' each half of the stage show doesn't translate into one coherent film because it feels like two different ones. You've got one half with the Hovick family on vaudeville and the second half focusing on Louise becoming Gypsy Rose Lee. If this was a modern film, it should've been split into two parts like every last instalment of all the young adult film franchises. That way, the pacing could've been much better,

With that said, the performances are great, some of the characters are phenomenal as are most of the songs. It's well made considering its 60's background as well. However, some characters are underdeveloped, it's too long and it all feels too staged to justify its existence as a film (save for the Gypsy rise to fame montage). If you're a fan of musicals or you're parents make you watch it, you'll be fine. However, there are films, even musicals that are slightly better.

'Gypsy' gets 3 and a half striptease shows out of 5

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!

Inside Out (2015) Review

Distributors: Walt Disney Studios, Pixar Animation Studios

Starring: Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling, Kaitlyn Dias, Richard Kind

Directors: Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen

Screenplay: Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley

Producer: Jonas Rivera

Running Time: 1hr 34m

Release Date: July 24th 2015 (UK)

Rating: U

There was a time where Disney Pixar was on top of the animation industry with hits such as 'Toy Story', 'Monster's Inc.', 'Finding Nemo', 'The Incredibles', 'Up' and even more. However that changed with 'Cars 2' and while that wasn't exactly bad, it wasn't good by Pixar standards and it was a critical flop. 'Brave' didn't help much nor did 'Monster's University.' So when Pixar's latest film, 'Inside Out' was announced, people were excited yet sceptical. So was it any good. Well not only is this one of Pixar's best but it is also one of its most important films.

What's the story? In every person there are five emotions: Joy (Poehler), Sadness (Smith), Anger (Black), Fear (Hader) and Disgust (Kaling). The movie follows the emotions of an 11 year old girl called Riley (Dias) as she moves house from a comfortable and happy life to a more alien world of San Francisco. When Joy and Sadness get lost in Riley's long term memory, the other emotions try to keep her stable but they keep failing miserably. So it is up to Joy and Sadness, with the help of Riley's old imaginary friend Bing Bong (Kind), to get back to the headquarters of Riley's mind to help her cope with the change.

What's great about this movie is how cleverly it takes this premise which has been done before in movies such as 'Osmosis Jones.' For example, Riley's memories are placed inside these little orbs whose colour represents the emotions of that memory. So when Riley struggles with her situation, the memories are all anger, fear and disgust. Even the joy memories are turned sad by Sadness which is cleverly represented by Riley looking back at her old life with Sadness. That is clever writing and the movie is full of that.

This is also represented by the dominant emotions. As you've seen from the trailer, we go into the minds of Riley's parents whose dominant emotions are Sadness for the mother and Anger for the father. That could probably represent the fact that they may have forgotten their Joy as they grew up (who is still there just in the background) yet Riley has Joy as her dominant emotion. However, as Riley copes with the change, Sadness becomes just as important as Joy which shows her emotions becoming more complex. Gah! The layers in the movie are so many!

The world of Riley's mind is well realised as well. There's a fantasy world which constantly changes with age, a dream world which is basically a movie studio, a trippy abstract area, a train of thought, the subconscious where her worst fears are and the forgotten wasteland where her memories disappear. These places are put into great use, especially the forgotten wasteland which adds a lot of stake to the main characters as once they disappear, that's it. And that's what's so great about films like these, it's that they're not shying away from reality which is good as the film is about accepting reality, which is represented brilliantly by Bing Bong. Bing Bong is a fun side character with a lot of depth as he is a near-forgotten aspect of Riley's life as she has grown up and has needed him less. He has a great and colourful design and is voiced well by Richard Kind.  

The character designs and animations are great as well with the standouts being the unique designs of the emotions. Sadness is a teardrop, Anger is a fire-spewing box, Fear looks like a nerve, Disgust looks like a stereotypical stroppy teenager and Joy is literally glowing. The way they all move is flowing and unrestricted as well. The humour is also brilliant with a genius running gag about how certain jingles get stuck in your head and some hilarious looks inside other characters' heads. The score by Michael Giacchino is also amazing and haunting at the same time.

The emotions, as you would expect from Pixar, are amazing both in the characters and the tone. Joy is very energetic and Poehler gives her a bubbly personality but at times her energy can be forced (which isn't a criticism, it's the point of the movie) so when she does remember the importance of the other emotions, especially sadness, she calms down and lets them get on with it. Anger provides most of the laughs and Black is pitch perfect in the role. Hader is brilliant as the paranoid Fear who also gets some of the best laughs. Kaling is also great as the concerned yet hard to please Disgust. However the true MVP of the movie is Phyllis Smith as Sadness. Sadness has a genius teardrop design, a lovable pessimistic personality and Smith makes the role all the more funny. However she also provides the film with a message that makes this film important: it's ok to be sad.

And that's what makes the film as amazing as it is. When both Joy and Riley realises this, it's genuinely tear-jerking to the point where anyone who didn't find this emotional has no soul (to put it bluntly). We live in a society that, whilst progressive, is also filled with people who won't admit to their emotions in the fear of making them seem 'uncool.' So it is relieving to see a movie like 'Inside Out' tell them that it's actually ok and not 'uncool' to feel upset. This is what makes this film quintessential viewing to anyone aged 11 and above because they're the ages when people start to think that Sadness isn't 'cool.' 

'Inside Out' proves that Pixar has still got it with lovable characters, amazing animations, both hilarious and tear-jerking moments and a brilliant and important moral. Go and see it immediately to see the true beauty and cleverness of this movie. Sadness is important and I thank this movie for reminding us for that.

'Inside Out' gets 5 memory orbs out of 5.

Johnny English (2003) Review

Distributors: Universal Studios, Studio Canal, Working Title

Starring: Rowan Atkinson, Natalie Imbruglia, John Malkovich, Ben Miller 

Director: Peter Howitt

Screenplay: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, William Davies 

Producers: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Mark Huffman

Running Time: 1hr 24m

Release Date: April 6th 2003 (UK)

Rating: PG

Rowan Atkinson is an odd actor. He's best known for playing 'Mr Bean' who is a complete idiot to the point where he can't form coherent words yet strangely, he's funnier when he plays clever people. His best role is 'Blackadder' because Atkinson suits the smarmy know-it-all better than his idiot role and 'Blackadder' is funnier for it. 'Johnny English' is a mixture of both as he is a complete idiot but he is also able to talk fluently and at least thinks he's clever. Does this work? Yes... and no.

What's the story? Johnny English (Atkinson) becomes the last British spy in MI7 as the others are killed in an explosion but unfortunately, he's a complete idiot. However, when the crown jewels are stolen English is sent to investigate and suspects that French businessman, Pascal Savauge (Malkovich, is behind it all. With the help of his partner Bough (Miller) and a foreign spy called Lorna Campbell (Imbrglia), English must stop Savauge from taking over England as king.

The main problem with this movie is that Johnny English himself is an insufferable twit. He acts like he's a clever spy yet his associates and even the villain often get the better of him through his misguided judgement. He does so many stupid things it makes you wonder why he's still in MI7, or how he even got there in the first place. He also allows the villains to get away from multiple occasions and his absolute worst moment is where he tries to denounce Savauge at a ceremony which is painful to watch as he constantly humiliates himself. What does work about his character is his actor, Rowan Atkinson as his delivery is near perfect particularly with the slapstick. Yes he is better when he acts clever but when he is required to play an idiot, he needs to go all out and the scenes where he does are just hilarious.

It's a good job the delivery works because the jokes are really predictable. Some of it works such as Atkinson's slapstick, how he works off the other characters and even some funny punchlines. The problem is that the punchlines take a while to build up and by then, you've already figured it out. For example, there's this one scene where English and Bough chase down some villains driving a hearse. By that description, you will probably work out the punchline yet the movie takes so long to tell it and it is English's response that makes the joke work at all. However what makes it more annoying is English's stupidity as he doesn't realise what is really going on which makes the joke drag out longer. It's frustrating because the punchline is funny but the movie takes a while to get there despite the audience knowing what it is.

The rest of the plot is hit and miss as well. There are moments of cliché such as the misunderstanding that causes the characters to mope and dope which adds nothing to the story so it feels like a waste of time. However, there are moments that are unique such as the villains plan and how English stops him which is so bizarre it's genuinely funny. On the flipside, the plot can be so bizarre that you would have to suspend your disbelief. This is especially true of the villain’s plan which is really implausible when you think about it.

The villain himself is engaging however and that's largely due to Malkovich's performance. Usually in everything he's in he plays his roles so uniquely it's hard not to like him and it is no different here. He just hams it up as a French Bond villain that he usually steals every scene he's in. English's sidekicks are good as well. Ben Miller plays the keen yet serious Bough which makes him a likable and Natalie Imbruglia brings a lot to a role which is actually quite bland but all three of them make great straight characters to work off Atkinson's bumbling antics.

There are some decent set pieces as well including a particularly thrilling chasse involving a tow truck. There are some decent locations in France and Westminster Abbey and the music fits the tone well with the main title song well performed by Robbie Williams which gives the movie a Bond-esque feel. However, the pacing does feel rushed at times as the movie feels too short and the reason why English is the only spy left is just squeezed in the opening 5 minutes.

'Johnny English' is a hit and miss film. The jokes are either funny or insufferable. The characters are either really good or really bad and the plot is either clichéd and dull or out there and implausible. It just feels like a mess which is only held together by the actors who are really good in the film. It's harmless enough to watch but some moments really, really die.

'Johnny English' gets 2 and a half faulty guns out of 5

Legally Blonde (2001) Review

Distributor: MGM Studios

Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Luke Wilson, Selma Blair, Matthew Davis, Victor Garber, Jennifer Coolidge, Holland Taylor, Ali Larter

Director: Robert Luketic

Screenplay: Karen McCullah Lutz, Kirsten Smith

Producers: Marc Platt, Ric Kidney

Running Time: 1hr 32m

Release Date: October 26th 2001 (UK)

Rating: 12

'Legally Blonde' has gained a pretty large cult following with a sequel, a spin off movie and even a musical adaptation which was probably even more successful. So why has this movie gained this status and more importantly does it deserve it? Ehhhhhhhhhh...

What's the story? Elle Woods (Witherspoon) is a Delta Nu who is enjoying life in California with fashionable clothes, fabulous friends and an attractive boyfriend called Warner Hunington III (Davis). So when Warner breaks up with Elle because she isn't 'serious' enough for him, she applies to Harvard Law School where Warner is going. However once she arrives, she finds it's a lot harder than she thought as she deals with the brutality of Law and the prejudice of being a 'dumb blonde.' Now she has to prove to everyone, especially Warner, that she can be an efficient Law student regardless of her background and status as a blonde.

The main problem with this movie is the attitudes of different characters. Elle, when you get down to it, is a pretty pathetic character. When Warner dumps her she enrols to quite possible one of the toughest universities in America even though she's likely not to get him back. So basically, she's so naive and pathetic that she doesn't even realise how tough life is and that she would sail through Law school as she did in California. It doesn't help that Witherspoon plays her up as a caricature at the start as she obsesses over clothes, her dog and literally whimpers like a dog when she breaks up with Warner. Maybe it's played for laughs but that goes against the message as they're literally saying "tee-hee look how dumb girly and blonde she is" when the message is saying that you shouldn't judge blondes!

Why is everyone so prejudiced against her anyway? Blondes are more accepted amongst society compared to say different ethnic groups yet everyone at Harvard (with some exceptions) treats her as though she's inhuman! And there's no reason for it! Yes she's out of place but she isn't mean and she is determined so why does everyone treat her like an outcast? The message they're trying to convey is decent as no-one should be judged by their cover especially if they have potential but the way they convey it is really confused.

Luckily, when Elle does get good at her studies she becomes more likable and realistic. You do want to see her succeed, especially as everyone seems to be a butt-head towards her so it is satisfying when she does. There's a murder trial that takes up half the movie and the way she defends the suspect is quite clever. Speaking of which, the law stuff is quite interesting and makes the movie more unique as a chick flick.

Elle, overall, does become a good character and Witherspoon plays her strongly but you do have to bare her cartoony nature at the first half of the film. It's such a shame that the other characters leave little to no impact. Warner is the standard douchey boyfriend, Vivien is the standard bully, Emmet (Wilson) is clearly another love interest with little-to-no screen time especially with Elle which is idiotic since there is no time for a romantic connection, Paulette (Coolidge) is given a bit of a backstory and serves her role well as a confidant but her role in the grand scheme of things has little point. Callahan (Garber) is a standard snob who makes a sudden and out-of-nowhere move. The problem with all of them is that they are given little development, little screen time and for the most part little to no backstory! We need details on these guys or else they won't be interesting!

Really the only good aspect of the story is the murder trial as there are some decent character beats, Law stuff and the climax gives both the character of Elle and Witherspoon the time to shine. But even then there are some clichés. There's the misunderstanding that leaves the characters moping and doping even though it gets cleared up in 3-5 minutes. There's a gay stereotype in there that is either really funny or really painful to watch. There is, as stated before, a true love interest and the realisation that maybe the guy she was after wasn't 'the one.' It can be painful to sit through because it's been done before and done to death and thank goodness for the Law stuff.

Oh and the structure is probably a huge factor towards this. The editing is so choppy and the scenes are so quick that it never gives time for characters to develop and there are some odd scenes of slow motion, particularly in the opening credits, that feel kind of unnecessary. The music is forgettable and few that is except for the song 'Perfect Day' by Hoku which will not leave your head. Also on a side note, the 'bend and snap' routine looks ridiculous and is a terrible method of seduction. It makes you look like a T-Rex for crying out loud!

In all honesty, besides the Law stuff and Elle's overall arc there's nothing really much to this movie. There's barely any motivation and if there is it's petty, the supporting cast are non-existent, the message has a confused delivery despite its good intentions, and the production values are nothing memorable and the structure rushes through everything. It's not quite illegally bad as it is a fun chick flick nonetheless and I hear the musical version is better but honestly, don't think about it too hard or else it will collapse which is sadly my job to do.

'Legally Blonde' gets 2 scented pink résumés out of 5

Ant Man (2015) Review

Distributors: Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Productions

Starring: Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lily, Corey Stoll, Michael Pena

Director: Peyton Reed

Screenplay: Paul Rudd, Edgar Wright, Adam McKay, Joe Cornish

Producers: Kevin Feige, Nira Park

Running Time: 1hr 57m

Release date: July 17th 2015 (UK)

Rating: 12

Ant Man has often been described as the butt of Marvel jokes because of his silly concept and unlikable personality and as such, the movie based on the character has raised some concern to the general movie-going audience, especially as he is in the same universe as the now legendary Avengers. This didn't help when acclaimed director, Edgar Wright dropped out of the movie because of creative conflicts. 'Yes Man' director, Peyton Reed, stepped in and finally, after years of development, we have our 'Ant Man' movie and did it pay off? Hell yeah... for the most part.

What's the story? A scientist named Dr Hank Pym (Douglas) used to be a superhero named Ant Man: a hero who can shrink down to the size of an insect with twice the strength and can also communicate with ants. When SHIELD is after the technology, he retires. Years later, Pym's former protégé, Darren Cross (Stoll), recreates and has weaponised the technology in the form of Yellowjacket whom he plans to sell to evil organisations such as Hydra. When Pym realises this, he recruits a thief name Scott Lang (Rudd) to become the new Ant Man and with the help of Pym's daughter Hope Van Dyme (Lily) and Lang's friend Luis, they go on the heist to steal the Yellowjacket prototype to save the world.

What's great about this movie (besides the shrinking) is the casting. Paul Rudd is great as Scott Lang. He plays the everyman hero complete with a family and the most adorable daughter ever. Rudd brings a warmth to the character as he is funny and heart-warming. In a world full of billionaire playboys, green monsters, Norse Gods, super soldiers from WW2 and aliens, it is nice to see a normal guy become a superhero for once which is what makes Lang a unique character in the MCU.

His story arc is very good as even though he is a thief, his heart is in the right place as he wants to impress his daughter who he currently cannot see unless he can financially support her. This is a brilliant motivation to his character as it emphasises how human Scott Lang is and his moments with his daughter are the emotional highlights of the movie.

Whilst Evangeline Lily plays her role very well, Hope Van Dyme is the weak link of the character. She is a strong female lead and a more capable hero than Lang but that's the problem, she could have easily been the new Ant Man which would've been fine if the movie didn't harp on about it. Van Dyme always says that she could easily be Ant Man (or... woman) and with good reason. She's tough, she's a good fighter and she's already close with the villain so she can do it. Granted there is a good reason why she can't but that's revealed half way through the movie and Pym could've told her this earlier or at the very least, have a good reason why he didn't. That said, the mid-credits sting promises much more of her character which is good.

Douglas is the true star of the movie as he gives an almost Oscar winning performance as Hank Pym. Pym is a broken character as the Ant Man suit and a recent loss has took its toll on him and it is one of the reasons why he stops being Ant Man and also why he has a friction with his daughter. This helps the main theme of legacy as it is too late for Pym to give his daughter the support she needed but not too late for Lang and Pym hopes that the same doesn't happen to Lang's daughter. That doesn't mean he doesn't care for Van Dyme, just think about why he doesn't let her be Ant Man and you will see (though that does contradict the mid-credits scene thinking about it but whatever). Douglas could have easily phoned in his performance but he gives it his all being funny but also playing the role with gravitas that outshines the other actors and actresses.

Darren Cross/Yellowjacket is sadly just another Marvel villain but that is by no means the fault of Corey Stoll. In fact, he makes the character work. He plays Cross with such charm that he is almost likable until he shows how ruthless he is in some of the grossest scenes in the MCU (Daredevil excluded). Honestly, he is more intimidating without the Yellowjacket suit because with it, he is another mad ranting humourless baddie. His motivations are murky as well. Why does he hate Pym? Why is he mad? The movie explains that his brain chemistry was addled by the shrinking technology but we never see him in a suit before the climax so that feels odd, especially as he is evil throughout the film, like I said he is more intimidating without the Yellowjacket suit.

Pena's character, whilst likable and memorable, isn't really that funny and can be annoying at times. That being said, he is likable and there is one moment that most heist movies miss out that makes him great. Plus, how he gets his information is very Edgar Wright in terms of editing and scripts.

The action is phenomenal and some of the best in the MCU with creative uses of both the Ant Man and Yellowjacket suits, the ants and Thomas the Tank Engine. Yes Thomas the Tank Engine is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe... deal with it. The shrinking effects look great as do the ants, especially a flying and called Anthony (geddit?) who if you do not feel sorry for by the end of the movie, then something is clearly wrong with you. There is also a surprise appearance from a certain MCU character in the second act of the movie

The final fight is where this movie elevates to awesomeness with fights inside a helicopter, a suitcase and a child's bedroom complete with a trippy sequence into another dimension. That scene was fun from start to finish to the point where you are left wanting more. And that is the movie's biggest downfall since the amazing stuff is in the final act and even though the first two acts are still well written and acted, they do feel slow and cluttered at points. For example, we see Lang train as Ant Man then we get to some Father-Daughter issues for 5-10 minutes then back to the training. That felt very odd and took away from both moments.

Despite this, 'Ant Man' is an awesome movie with phenomenal action, hilarious scenes, great acting and an entertaining script. The problem is that more was needed. More motivation for the characters and more Ant Man action could have made this one of Marvel's best (though it is in the top 5) and it is curious to see what Edgar Wright could have done but as it is, it's an amazing film that is I would highly recommend. Oh and stay through both credit scenes.

'Ant Man' gets 4 ants out of 5.