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.

An introduction to Perfectly Honest Film Reviews

The golden rule of criticism is that every opinion has to be honest and I feel that whilst this is mostly the case, there is something fishy about how most professional reviews seem to have the same opinions on these movies. That isn't to say they're dishonest but I feel that for the criticisms to be truly honest, they have to be true to themselves regardless of whether or not they match the consensus.

With these reviews I will say what I think about them without bias and peer pressure. This is my opinion and mine alone and if you disagree, tough! Let the reviews commence!