"The Front Runner" (Preview Screening)

Ever since I saw the trailer for this film, I have been keen to see it, and thanks to a preview screening, I got to do so early.

Some of us here in the UK do follow American Politics, so we have seen the likes of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Geraldine Ferraro come and go. One name that might not be overly familiar is that of Gary Hart, a charming and charismatic Democrat who was the front runner for the Party nomination, and would therefore run for President in 1988.

And why did he never get to sit in The White House as Commander in Chief?  A news report broke of an extra-marital affair, and the house of cards came tumbling down.
A some of you know, films involving Politics and The White House have always caught my attention, so this was a must see film, especially as it is based on true events.

But like Donald Trump at a 'We Love Mexico' Rally, it fails to deliver.
We get a little of his back story, seeing how he did not get the nomination in 1984, and then we join him and his team as they look to get the Democrat nomination for 1988, and then the events that cause his fall from grace.

Overall the film lacks any real tension. For want of a better choice of words, I was bored. Some say its poses questions that are as relevant today as they were 30 years ago, and yes that may be the case, but if those questions get bogged down in a dull film, then what is the point?
Many are raving about Hugh Jackman's performance, as you will see from the poster. He smiles, then he looks mean and moody, and shouts quite a lot. That about sums it up. And I'm sorry but I would have thought that with Studio money behind the film, you would have thought they would have forked out for a more realistic wig for Jackman to wear!!!!
A great actress like Vera Farmiga, who plays Harts wife is given little to do.
J. K. Simmons does fare better as we see him as the equivalent of a Campaign Manager.

Like some school reports say.....Could do better......5 out of 10

"Colette" (Preview Screening)

This film has everyone talking about how great Keira Knightley is in the title role, a role that sees her playing French novellist Colette, who was one of several ghost writers used by her well known Husband 'Willy'. She creates a series of nevels which become a huge success, and understandably she wants to have her name added to the book, but her Husband refuses saying that it will impact sales, and He is the face behind the book.

From humble Country life beginnings to the hustle and bustle of Paris, Colette becomes aware of their lack of funds, not only is Willy frittering away their money on wine and song, but women also. Colette finds solace in the kindred spirit of 'Missy'. They embark on a relationship, one that lasted for many years.

Naturally given recent events with all the MeToo campaign, and gender pay equality, the film has a great deal of relevance, and I'm sure that there is much that people can relate to. It seems that things have not changed much over the last 120 years.

Keira Knightley is very enchancting as Colette, and is her best performance for some time. I did see one review that said "It is the performance that Keira will be remembered for some time". Well I wouldn't go quite that far, but certainly it is an excellent piece of work. Dominic West is ok as Husband Willy.
One actress who is always a delight to watch is Fiona Shaw, and she is on top form playing Colette's Mother. Another great peformance is from Denise Gough as Missy, the love interest.

It is a good film, enjoyable enough. It just did not have that punch to make it an extraordinary film.

7 out of 10

"Mary Poppins Returns"

A very brave move by Disney to make a sequel to such a beloved film, especially over 50 years after the original came out.
But then again possibly enough time has passed by to revisit the flying Nanny.

Jane and Michael Banks are now grown up, and Michael has a family of his own. But his wife passed away a year ago, and he is all set to lose the family home. Just when their need is the greatest, in comes Mary Poppins. Aside from learning the children how to have a sense of fun, it is never really clear what purpose she is there to serve.
It is a slightly different interpretation of Mary Poppins, at times walking round the Banks house more  like a Sergeant Major than a Nanny. If anyone was to play the role then I can think of no one better than Emily Emily, who does a decent enough job.
Panto season is in full swing with Colin Firth doing his moustache twirling villainy as the evil Bank Manager.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is excellent as Candle snuffer Jack, and does a great job of exorcising the Cockney accent of original star Dick Van Dyke.
For me the worst written character is Michael Banks, who seems very wishy washy, and you just want to shout at him to grow a pair.

It's enjoyable enough, and fans young and old will be entertained. Will this still be being watched in 50 years time, like the original? 6 out of 10

"Holmes & Watson"

There has been much in the press about tbis film. From having had a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes to people walking out en masse.
But the question remains, is it really that bad?  The answer is yes.
The poster says it all "They don't have a clue", and that just about sums it up perfectly.

It isn't even funny accidentally, it just falls flat through out the film. 2 out of 10

"AquaMan"

I would imagine that by now most of the civilised world will have seen this film, so I am not going to go on at length about it (Thank the Lord I hear you cry).

Arthur Curry has a happy life on land, but has to venture to Atlantis when there is mischief afoot from his half-brother, and battles galore ensue. That's pretty much all you need to know.

DC comics that have become movies have not faired well, with the exception of "Wonder Woman". Most have been met with scorn and derisiosn, and for the most part rightly so.
What "Aquaman" has tried to do is make it lighter, in every sense, and it does the job.

The Box Office has been phenomenal for this film, and for me it's like Marvel's "Black Panther", in that I have no idea why. Both are ok movies, with Aquaman being visually stunning and having a great score, and Momoa is excellent in the title role, for it is instantly forgettable. Much like "Black Panther".

"Wonder Woman" aside, this is a big improvement on other DC films, but still has some way to go to be up there with the very best Marvel films.......6 out of 10

"Stan & Ollie" (Preview Screening)

Not matter what age you are, just about everyone has heard of Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy. The genius of their work is perfectly illustrated by the fact that we are still watching and loving their films more than  80 years after they were made. They are up there with the absolute greats, like Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin.

To make a documentary about them would be one thing, but to actually portray them, and thus bring them to life, well that is a whole different ball game. Their quirks and mannerisms are so well known, it is not a performance that you can do half heartedly. You have to give it 100%, and then some.
And boy do John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan deliver.
I would have thought that the prospect of recreating these two comedy Icons for the big screen would be a daunting task but these two great Actors seem to have a great ease in their work. It is far from an impersonation, far more than that. They inhabit these two men, and it is just like seeing Laurel & Hardy on screen one more time.

The film mainly centres on their later years as they embark on a tour of the Theatres of Britain, whilst at the same time working on a forthcoming return to the Big Screen with a Comedy version of Robin Hood. Their relationship has been a little frosty since they went their seperate ways due to the Studio Contract system. Theatre Impresario Bernard Delfonte lures them to the UK. Times have changed, especially since the Second World War. Will the masses still come out to see a double act who best worked together almost 20 years earlier?

Naturally the tour takes its toll on Oliver's health, and on their friendship. It is a compelling look at these two giants of mirth, and it is beautifully written by Jeff Pope, and Directed by Jon S. Baird.
The team lovingly recreate some of those legendary sketches but it is thanks to the truly outstanding performances of the two lead actors. They do far more than impersonate Laurel & Hardy, they do far more than characterize Laurel & Hardy. For me they ARE Laurel & Hardy.

If you thought that "Bohemian Rhapsody" would get the title of Best biopic of the year, then think again, as it might just have been beaten.....10 out of 10

Quick Reviews:- "Creed II", "Ralph Wrecks The Internet:, "The Old Man & His Gun", "Green Book", "Tulip Fever"

A quick apology....I am sorry for doing the briefest of reviews for these recently seen five films, but I have been rather inundated what with work, especially with it being Christmas, and also getting ready for the Festive season. I hope that you will still get an idea of what I thought of these movies.

 "Creed" showed that although the film series was getting on for being 40 years old, that there was still plenty of fight in the boxing material. It became both a Box Office and Critical success, and with a great performance from Stallone, earning him a Golden Globe, and an Oscar nomination.

Now we have the sequel, which for anyone who has seen the previous movies, will know that we are revisiting the past, and in an inspired idea, we see the Son of Apollo Creed come face to face with Son of Ivan Drago, he being the man responsible for his Father's untimely death.
Rocky is set against the match, and advises Adonis Creed that he has nothing to prove, but Creed knows that if he is to keep his Title, then he must face the Russian.

Some Critics have said that this pales somewhat to the first "Creed" film,  but I disagree. I think it is every bit as good. Stallone again gives a beautifully understated performance, and Michael B. Jordan is great as the young upcoming Boxing Champ.

Its a knockout.......9 out of 10

My other half is a huge gamer and was not impressed with the first 'Ralph' film, saying that there were not enough in-jokes for gaming fans. I cannot comment on this, but rest assured we both thoroughly enjoyed this sequel, with great animation, and laughh out loud moments. There is a small section where it loses its way towards the end, but pulls it back for a good finale.
A vast improvement, and a sequel that is better than the original....8 out of 10

Much has been made of the probable impending retirement of a true Hollywood legend, with Actor & Director Robert Redford leaving the Cinematic world.
In this swansong of a film, based on real life exploits, he plays an aged man, who along with two equally aged friends, robs banks. What leaves the Police so baffled, is that any Bank staff involved, always say how charming they are during the robbery, and that Redford does it with a smile. A real gentleman of the Thieving Fraternity. Along the way he meets typical American Housewife SIssy Spacek, and forms a friendship with her. Casey Affleck is the face of the Police, and is hot on Redford's trail, with they get their Man?  That would be telling.
Some have speculated about a possible Oscar nomination for Redford. It is a good role, but overall I felt it was Redford being Redford, that Gentleman of the Screen, playing a Gentleman on Screen. It made no major demands of him as an actor, bhut was still highly enoyable.....7 out of 10

Through no fault of its own, this film (which I got to see 2 months ahead pf general release) almost turned into a disaster. The screening I attended showed the film with subtitles, which for a foreign language is fine, but I find it very distracting when used on a English language film. Am I the only one who thinks like this?

 I knew nothing about the subject matter, especially as it was a secret screening. The start of the film did little to arouse my interest, showing a racist and homophobic Italian, Tony, working in a nightclub. 

When the Nightclub has to close temporarily Tony has to set about finding some employment, and ends uo being Chauffeur to the lead Pianist of a touring Jazz trio. Naturally a white man driving a black Jazz painist is going to raise eyebrows, it probably would in certain States now, let alone 50 years ago. Tony also acts as a bit of a muscle man if things get heavy. But given the time despite being the star of the show, segregation is still rife, and our Jazz player, Don Shirley, has to find a particular hotel to stay, where Blacks are accepted, There is a road guide which highlights such hotels, it is called the Green Book. He also finds that despite playing in lavish venues, he may all too often have to use a utility room to get changed.

The film looks at racism, and homophobia, and it is a very unlikely friendship that blossoms through the film. It struck me that it was a bit like "Driving Miss Daisy" but in reverse. 

Great performances from Viggo Mortensen but especially Mahershala Ali as Don Shirley. It wasn't until the end of the film, that I found it was based on a true story. One to enjoy.....8 out of 10

Battles for precious Tulip bulbs, a painting commission and love in 17th Century Amsterdam, not the most enticing subject matter for a film, hut none the less it makes for a really good film. When the Tulip became popular, the demand for bulbs was high, and if you got a really rare bloom, you could command a very high price.
Add to the mix a local well to do Man and his younger wife, who seems unable to conceive, and the plot begins to thicken, especially when the wealthy Husband commissions a local young artist to paint their portrait, and the Painter and the young wife fall for each other.

There is a wealth of acting talent, with Supporting Actor Oscar Winners like Alicia Vikander, Christoph Waltz and Dame Judi Dench, not to mention a favourite actor of mine, namely Jack O' Connell.
I was pleasantrly surprised.....7 out of 10