Prime Time: Here (2024)

I've said it many times before, and I will undoubtedly say it again, but we definitely lost something when Robert Zemeckis started to become more and more seduced by technology. He was a director once able to use the best special effects to tell wonderful and hugely entertaining stories (having helmed at least two features that could easily be considered absolute classics of the 1980s), but he started to focus more and more on FX-laden movies that just seemed designed to showcase the FX work.

And now we have Here, a film with a couple of gimmicks to attract or repel viewers, depending on your reaction to the main premise. With the camera largely locked off for most of the runtime, Here shows us a house, and the people who have inhabited that house over the decades and centuries. We also see the space as it was before the house was built, sometimes seeing people coming and going from the house across from that space, sometimes seeing people moving through the space when it was just untamed wilderness, and sometimes even seeing a bit of prehistoric action. Although various people come and go, the two main characters are Richard and Margaret, played by Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. They are digitally de-aged for certain scenes, and we get to see most of their lifetime play out in front of us. 

Based on a graphic novel by Richard McGuire, turned into screenplay fork by Zemeckis and Eric Roth, the visual style here may put many people off, but it's a nice way to keep things moving along and keep jumping in between the various generations. What you see are various panels appearing in different areas of the screen as the image transitions from the present to the past, to the very past, and back towards the present. The visuals sometimes lag behind the audio, but it works to keep viewers engaged in a way that wouldn't otherwise wouldn't be possible with such a static camera set-up.

Hanks and Wright are very enjoyable when they get to be front and centre, but they share a lot of the screentime with Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly (as the parents), Michelle Dockery and Gwilym Lee (a couple who lived in an older incarnation of the house), Ophelia Lovibond and David Fynn (a different couple who also made the place their home at one time), and Nicholas Pinnock, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and a handful of others helping to keep the space busy.

The big surprise, however, is how little the film really rests on the shoulders of the cast. They help, and Bettany and Reilly have some particularly effective moments, but this is a film that actually allows Zemeckis to marry the tech to a strong heartbeat in a way that is unexpectedly satisfying. While it's a technical exercise, one that may only appeal to a minority able to tolerate the use of the format, it's actually more interested in sharing a positive message about the shared experience of life. Birth, love, pain, loss, sacrifice, laughter, tears, and, of course, death.

I don't think I'll ever rewatch this, and I cannot think of anyone I would strongly recommend it to, but I enjoyed it while it was on. Everyone involved, on both sides of the camera, is doing very good work, and there's a lot of sweetness, but, unlike the fixtures and furnishings of the house depicted here, there isn't all that much below the surface. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: The Circle (2017)

I didn't mind The Circle, but I didn't really enjoy it either, and I am going to say that the fault here needs to be shared between the pair of us. The film doesn't quite do enough with the main ideas it is working with, but I may have enjoyed it a bit more if I'd watched it back when it was first made available in 2017. The intervening years have simply shown us more and more reasons to distrust tech-bros and offensively rich and powerful individuals, which makes The Circle much less tense and more predictable than it would have been in a world before people like Bezos and Musk started to act increasingly like parodies of James Bond villains.

Emma Watson plays Mae, a young woman who is helped in to a dream job by her friend, Annie (Karen Gillan). She ends up in the Circle, a tech company that has seemingly unlimited power and resources. It's a bit odd though, considering how people are encouraged to interact online and fully commit to the Circle way of life. The pill is sugar-coated by the big boss, Bailey (Tom Hanks), who can acknowledge how silly some of their practices appear, but continues to present his vision of a tech-reliant utopia in a way that is convincingly benign. Some start to worry about the implications, however, as the Circle starts to reach further and further into the lives people all around the world.

Based on a novel by Dave Eggers, this was adapted from page to screen by a pairing of the writer and director, James Ponsoldt. Eggers has worked on other movies, and Ponsoldt has a mixture of projects in his filmography (with his best work being made for the small screen), but none of them manage to find the best way to handle this material. What should be a standard dream-turns-sour scenario, with the added threat of super-charged tech to make things more complicated, is turned into a disappointingly dull drama in which things go quite well for many of the characters . . . until they stop being so blissfully naïve. The biggest problems stem from the way things are plotted, but it doesn't help that the cast is relatively weak.

As much as I enjoy Emma Watson, she hasn't quite managed to convince in any of her post-Potter main roles, despite trying her hand in an interesting variety of projects. She's not bad here, but she's also not a strong enough screen presence, and is outshone by almost every supporting cast member (including Gillan, Hanks, Patton Oswalt, John Boyega, and Glenne Headly and Bill Paxton, who do wonderful work in the role of her parents). Mind you, few of those people I just mentioned are the best people for their roles either. Gillan has to overdo a heap of nervy paranoia throughout the second half, Hanks seems far too nice to have reached his position in life, and Oswalt isn't given enough screentime to make his character anything more than an obvious schemer who does some hand-wringing and metaphorical wiping of his damp brow as the plot heads toward the final scenes. Boyega does well, but his relatively small role here feels as if it doesn't deserve his talents.

It's ironic that I'll be sharing this review around in the usual places, ensuring that it ends up in certain social media spots, linking to it on IMDb, and potentially making some money from clicks that are generated via Google. Considering what the film posits, maybe I am part of the problem. Okay, I admit it, I am definitely a part of the problem. We all are, but many of us are savvy enough to shape our own corner of the internet to exactly how we want it to be, with the help of ad-blockers, data usage options, and ongoing attempts to balance out the negatives with more positives. There are very few legitimately good options nowadays when it comes to conscientiously maintaining an online presence. But at least I can use this platform to belatedly warn you against wasting your time with The Circle. It's not terrible, but it never manages to become more than harmlessly dull and average.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Elvis (2022)

Let’s start by mentioning what Elvis is and what it isn’t. Elvis is a look at the legendary 20th-century performer (played here by Austin Butler) and his fateful connection with “Colonel Tom Parker” (played by Tom Hanks). It shows the latter viewing the former as a golden goose, someone to be controlled and manipulated to benefit their own ends. What we don’t get here is a look, track by track, at the songs Elvis lifted, reworked, or had written for him by black artists. That isn’t to say that we don’t see him lifting from the music and people around him. We do, and those claiming that Elvis was ever coy about this are conveniently forgetting how much he spoke about it, but the film uses the development of a few key hit songs to show where his musical roots lay. What we also don’t get here is the more unsavory side of Elvis, to put it politely. We see him abusing himself, we don’t see him abusing others. We see him being groomed by The Colonel, we don’t see him being the groomer (Priscilla figures in the movie, of course, but her very young age is never clarified).

This is a film about a legend. It wants to state some truths, but it is much more interested in showing the effect that Elvis had on a generation, be it as a handsome and hip-shaking rock god or as an out-of-shape “performing monkey” who still gave it his all whenever he was on stage in front of an audience, despite also already being viewed as something of a cautionary tale.

The story is, basically, what I have already mentioned above. Things start with a young Elvis being discovered (although the structure allows for Colonel Parker to frame everything behind his own filter for a while), move through various great successes and flash points, and move towards a massively important TV comeback special, growing dissatisfaction and health issues, and the Vegas years. It’s a primer for the life of Elvis, but I would encourage those who enjoy the film, or the artist, to then delve deeper. 

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Sam Bromell, Craig Pearce, and Jeremy Doner, this is a typically vibrant and kaleidoscopic slice of Luhrmann cinema. He is a man who loves putting on dazzling shows, making him a natural fit for someone who could arguably be described as one of the greatest musical showmen of the last century. While it doesn’t assume that anyone going in to the movie will know anything about Elvis, there are a lot of nice little touches scattered throughout for those who are already familiar with his story.

Key moments are given room to grab your attention, and all of the 150+ minutes of the runtime just fly by, while the soundtrack dances between classic Elvis hits, the original songs that he appropriated, and some more modern interpretations (Luhrmann being as entertainingly anachronistic as ever). If you want a film packed with just the facts and pure reality then this ain’t it. This is heightened reality all the way, although there IS an authenticity at the heart of every scene, and it’s a tale told by someone being highly subjective.

It is also a tale told with the help of one of the best central performances I have ever seen in a biopic. Butler is AMAZING as Elvis, and deserving of all the awards that I hope he ends up nominated for. It is easy to do an impression of Elvis, which would have also suited this particular film, but Butler also invests every little movement and mumbled phrase with the emotional undercurrent that shows his determination, his charm, his vulnerability, and also his turbulent mental state. Hanks is a different beast altogether, and I am still unsure about his performance. He certainly plays his greedy schemer with a twinkle in his eye, but the accent and make-up help to make his character feel like he is almost a parody villain, although it could be said that The Colonel acted in that way to wrongfoot people who would then underestimate him. Maybe. Olivia DeJonge makes an excellent Priscilla, Helen Thomson and Richard Roxburgh are quite good as Gladys and Vernon, the parents of “The King”, and there are very enjoyable supporting turns from Kodi Smit-McPhee, David Wenham, Kelvin Harrison Jr, Luke Bracey, Dacre Montgomery, Leon Ford, Alton Mason (as great at playing Little Richard as Butler is at playing Elvis), and Shonka Dukureh, as well as many others.

I do think it’s a shame that Luhrmann didn’t also include more of the bad alongside the good (a lot of bad was also missed from the TV movie, which had the excuse of being a TV movie), a decision that holds this film back from being a real modern classic, but I also can’t entirely disagree with his reasoning for it. This is a classic cinematic case of “print the legend”, and I think the legend makes for a superb movie. I know many who would agree. 

I will, however, end by once again encouraging people to seek out the truth elsewhere. There are a litany of books out there on the subject, although I recommend starting with “Elvis & Me”, the book written by Priscilla Presley, and then asking for further recommendations from those who have much more knowledge than myself.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Inferno (2016)

Despite knowing how they are generally viewed by many other people, I am a BIG fan of the previous movies featuring the character of Robert Langdon. Having read most of the books written by Dan Brown, I knew the way he created the contrivances and characters, and the movies managed to move along at a brisk enough pace to make me forget the increasing incredulity of the set-pieces (almost). I was looking forward to Inferno, remembering the high stakes and the tense final act.

Sadly, this is the weakest of the cinematic trilogy, and it's easy to see why. The source material just isn't as easy to translate into cinematic entertainment, and there's also the small problem of each subsequent film highlighting just how many times Brown reaches for the same bag of tricks. Director Ron Howard cannot do much while tied to the novel, and writer David Koepp doesn't want to take any risks in his adaptation of the work.

Hanks returns once again to play the hero, who this time starts things by waking up in an Italian hospital with what seems to be a very bad case of amnesia. He barely has time to try and remember who he is before Dr. Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) is helping him to evade a deadly assassin. The two of them then race against the clock to hopefully stop a madman from releasing a virus that will cut the population of the entire planet in half.

It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for Inferno, it's such a mediocre and disappointing movie, especially coming after two much better films. Things start promisingly enough (there's the suicide of the madman who has already put his plan in motion, there's Langdon having a nightmarish vision of people burning to death around him), but that is all soon forgotten as the plot starts to trudge along from one weak set-piece to the next. Even the travelogue aspect isn't all that enjoyable, with the camerawork and visuals surprisingly dull throughout. How the hell do you make Venice look anything less than eye-poppingly gorgeous??

Hanks is yet again a comfortable fit in the role, and Felicity Jones is an enjoyable co-star for him, hampered by the material, but buoyed by the fact that she's Felicity Jones. Omar Sy is okay, but equally hampered by the material, and there are unmemorable supporting turns from Irrfan Khan, Sidse Babett Knudsen, and Ana Ularu. Ben Foster stands out, despite his limited screentime, thanks to his role in one or two of the most intriguing scenes.

Others might end up enjoying this more than I did. If you haven't read the books, or seen the other movies, then you may have a better viewing experience. I found it a big disappointment, especially following on from the two movies that preceded it.

4/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Angels & Demons (2009)

The pope must die . . . in order to kickstart the proceedings of this, the second cinematic adaptation of the implausible adventures of Robert Langdon. It’s a rip-roaring “treasure hunt” through Vatican City, and holds up as an equal to the first film.

Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to Vatican City after a plan is put in motion that involves killing potential new Popes (I cannot recall the name of the ceremony, they really should just call it Pope Idol by now) in a manner tied to the four elements, branding bodies with special writing that may signify the work of the Illuminati, and having everyone do their damnedest to track down a vial of anti-matter that has been set to explode in mere hours.

With Hanks back in the lead role, Howard back in the big chair, and Akiva Goldsman back on writing duties (this time alongside David Koepp), Angels & Demons is very much a happy reunion for people who clearly enjoyed doing such a great job of things the first time around. While you could continue to complain about to the disparity between popular entertainment and great art (and the common ground), the source material from Dan Brown certainly stands high in the former camp, and both Howard and Hanks are used to delivering to people what they want.

The only downside of this film is the female thrown alongside Langdon for this particular escapade. Ayelet Zurer plays Dr. Vittoria Vetra, but she’s really not given much to do. Compared to the other onscreen allies that Langdon has been paired with, this woman is sorely undeveloped and redundant, for the most part (which is really saying something, considering how consistently weak Brown is when it comes to visiting the same well over and over for his stock of supporting characters).

Hanks is comfortable reprising the famous symbologist, Ewan McGregor is a treat, playing someone who was close to the previous Pope, and believes the church should attempt to be even more progressive, and Stellan Skarsgård is as dependable as ever, here playing a stubborn, no-nonsense, head of the Swiss Guard.

The end may become a bit too ridiculous (which you could arguably say about all Dan Brown tales), but this feels a bit more intense than The Da Vinci Code, and makes absolutely fantastic use of the gorgeous environment of Vatican City. For slick mainstream thrills, I think this is top-notch stuff.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Dan Brown is not Charles Dickens. He's no Brontë. No Stephen King. Even when it comes to thrillers, he's not as good as the likes of Patricia Cornwell, Lee Child, or even (when he's on form) Dean Koontz. But that's not to say that his writing is terrible. He has amassed a huge fanbase over the years, and a lot of that stems from the success of The Da Vinci Code, a thriller that blended some fact with a whole lot of fiction in a way that intrigued readers and made them feel as if they were becoming a bit smarter while the plot became dumber and dumber. That kind of success is very easy to turn your nose up at (especially when you recognise the formula that Brown has used in almost every one of his books, and I have read, and enjoyed,  Deception Point, Digital Fortress, and three of his Langdon adventures, the ones that have so far been adapted into movies), but it also happens for a reason.  Brown knows how to thread together ludicrous plot points into something that is entertaining and thrilling.

You could say the same of director Ron Howard, who has been at the helm of numerous hit movies throughout his career. It's also easy to turn your nose up at many of his works, but they're often hugely popular for similar reasons. Howard is a pro when it comes to the technical side of things, and when it comes to crafting moments of cinematic emotional manipulation. Has he made any absolute classics? You can be the judge of that, but if he's not made one movie that you would always enjoy if you caught it randomly on the TV then I'd be very surprised.

So Howard directing the cinematic adaptation of the book that really made Dan Brown a household name was surely always a guarantee of a blockbuster hit. Put Tom Hanks in the role of Robert Langdon and what could possibly go wrong? Not much, actually, not much at all.

It's a simple enough premise, a straightforward journey complicated by numerous obstacles and twists. Langdon is called to a murder scene inside the Louvre, and that sets him on a quest to both clear his name and find the Holy Grail, which seems to have had its location hidden away in a number of coded messages over the years. Langdon is accompanied by Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), and hopes to enlist the help of and old friend, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), as he tries to continue evading Captain Fache (Jean Reno), a self-flagellating albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), and others who are in hot pursuit.

Although Howard is in the big chair for this, a lot of the credit should be shared by everyone involved. This is a film that makes it clear just how much care and attention has gone into every department, from the props and design to the casting, and it's also got a gorgeous score by Hans Zimmer. Brown came up with the source material, but Akiva Goldsman does a superb job of making things more cinematic. The twists and turns are nicely handled, the exposition delivered in ways that don't let the film feel as if it has come grinding to a halt, and Hanks and Tautou are a winning pairing in the lead roles.

The supporting cast aren't half bad either. Reno works with an ambiguous character who may have an agenda of his own while he tracks our hero, McKellen has fun with a character who is oh-so-English that it's positively precious, and Bettany is an intriguing presence. Alfred Molina and Jürgen Prochnow also have good parts to play, with the latter involved in a set-piece that emphasises how silly some of the plotting can be, which doesn't necessarily make things any less fun.

It's very easy to mock and dismiss the Dan Brown books. It's also very easy to mock and dismiss the movies based on his books (and I know many complained at the time that Tautou seemed a bit wasted in her role, I think she remains a plus, thanks to her sheer screen presence). Maybe try to see how many positives there are, and simply accept the fact that being a crowd-pleasing work of art is almost always far removed from being the best work of art, but isn't any less worthy when it comes to having made people feel happy and entertained.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Dragnet (1987)

Although I wasn't aware of the character of Joe Friday, or the TV show Dragnet, by the time I saw this movie, it didn't really matter to me then, nor does it matter to me now. The main characters are established quickly enough (this isn't complicated material) and it's obvious that our lead is someone who still feels rooted in a past that has a slightly different kind of police officer dealing with a slightly different landscape of crimes.

Here's the typically 1980s, buddy cop, take on the material anyway. Friday (Dan Aykroyd, playing the nephew of the famous TV show character) is given a new partner in the shape of Pep Streebek (Tom Hanks). The two of them could hardly be any more opposite in nature. Friday is meticulous, organised, and polite, Streebek is a fairly happy-go-lucky slob. While investigating a number of bizarre thefts, the two lawmen stumble on to a nefarious plan that involves ritual sacrifice, murder, chemical poisoning, and the virgin Connie Swail (Alexandra Paul).

Another film often forgotten by people who probably, and with some good reason, dismiss it as a lesser comedy outing from the decade, Dragnet is absolutely not some kind of classic that is due for rediscovery and reappraisal. It is, however, exactly what you may want when seeking out a simple and entertaining comedy, boosted by two talented leads who work well with one another.

Aykroyd does well as the fastidious and ever-polite main character, a role that restrains him in a way that works well for the laughs, and Hanks is in his peak careless manchild comedy phase. Harry Morgan makes the transition from the TV show (as Gannon, now promoted from officer to Captain) and there are fun performances from Christopher Plummer, Elizabeth Ashley, Dabney Coleman, Kathleen Freeman, as well as a number of other supporting players. Paul is appropriately demure as Connie Swail, although she's not given much to do beyond being the maiden in distress.

Director Tom Mankiewicz also co-wrote the movie with Aykroyd and Alan Zweibel, helping to get both the tone and look of the movie right. Despite the modern-day setting, it's very much a believable world in which someone like Friday could be working his beat. There are numerous nods to the show, the familiar soundbites you expect to hear are delivered, and the main theme tune is given a fun reworking by the Art Of Noise.

A perfectly valid choice for some easygoing entertainment when your work week is done, you want to enjoy some unhealthy food and beverages, put your feet up and exclaim "Thank God, it's Friday!"

And it also has this, which is absolutely a favourite '80s movie soundtrack bonus (no, I am not being sarcastic)

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Post (2017)

Based on real events of the 1970s, The Post shows viewers the battle that the newspapers, and specifically The Washington Post, went through as they attempted to publish extracts from classified documents that revealed damning details of politicians and presidents who led America, step by step, right into the folly that was the Vietnam War.

Lots of people are giving love to The Post, partly because it has a typical level of technical expertise you would expect from director Steven Spielberg and partly because the battle between the press and the White House resonates with a lot of people watching the current events that have given us terms such as "alternative facts" and "fake news". If ever there was a time for this movie then that time is now.

Unfortunately, and let me say I have thought about this long and hard, it really isn't that good a film.

It works as a statement, as a piece of art created specifically to fire a reminding warning shot to those who think that the press is just expected to relay soundbites without questioning people in positions of authority, but it doesn't work as a satisfying cinema experience, for two main reasons.

First, you have the script by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer. It's a strangely messy tangle of different strands, from the investigative journalist who first broke the story to boardroom meetings about The Washington Post moving from private ownership to a company with public shareholders, from the relationships between the various writers and staff to the truncated snippets of the trial that would prove so important for the freedom of the press.

Second, you have the cast. Meryl Streep is as good as ever, playing Katharine Graham, owner and publisher of The Washington Post, and Tom Hanks is also his usual reliable self in the role of Ben Bradlee, editor in chief at the paper, but the rest of the cast is either wasted (Sarah Paulson, Alison Brie, Jesse Plemons) or made up in a way that will take you out of the movie as you figure out who is under the heavy make up (Bruce Greenwood, David Cross, Bradley Whitford). Bob Odenkirk and Tracy Letts are two other exceptions, both given decent scenes without having to be heavily disguised.

Third, and perhaps most damaging of all, the film feels too busy being smug when it could be spending more time dissecting the core issue. Those who know the tale, or are aware of The Washington Post, should know the outcome, and they should know, considering the time period, what comes next, so that could have been the background to something looking more closely at how the battle built up on both sides of the divide. Replace all of the talk of the stock market with scenes instead showing meetings in the White House laying out their opposition, perhaps even spitballing ideas that they realised they wouldn't be allowed to follow through on, and the whole thing may have felt more intense.

Maybe it's just me. The film has already garnered a lot of love, and I might remain in the minority here. But I still advise people to approach with trepidation. It's a decent story, and there are some great performances, but Spielberg doesn't create the magic you would expect. Very disappointing.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Ani-MAY-tion Month: Toy Story (1995)

It's strange now to think of the many, many years before Pixar were such a huge success in the realm of animated movies, but Toy Story certainly announced their arrival in the best way possible. Smart, packed with great gags and characters, a visual delight (although Pixar would develop and improve with each subsequent movie), and benefiting from a premise that will appeal to any child, and anyone who can remember their childhood.

Woody (Tom Hanks) is a cowboy, and he's also young Andy's favourite toy. He loves his life. When nobody else is around, the toys are all able to live the lives that they keep secret from all of us humans. But things change when Andy receives a shiny new toy for his birthday. A Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) action figure. Buzz has a laser, wings, better audio speakers, the lot. He's a super duper, shiny spaceman, and his presence threatens Woody's position as the number one toy in the room. And to add to the frustration, Buzz doesn't realise that he is a toy. He thinks that he is THE Buzz Lightyear.

Directed by John Lasseter, who also developed the story idea with Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter and Joe Ranft, Toy Story remains not just one of Pixar's best movies, but also a statement of intent. It showed just how in tune they were with audiences, mixing fresh ideas and animation with enough jokes and nostalgia to keep adults happy. The script is packed full of great lines, written by Stanton, Alec Sokolow, Joel Cohen, and one Joss Whedon, and the world of the toys is rendered in a creative, colourful, and brilliantly believable, way by the team of talented animators.

The voice cast is the icing on the cake. Hanks and Allen are both superb as Woody and Buzz, but the film is given even more plus points thanks to the involvement of Don Rickles, Jim Varney, John Ratzenberger, Wallace Shawn, R. Lee Ermey, Annie Potts, and, well, basically everyone who lends their voice to any character (including Erik von Detten, who does great work as Sid, the nasty kid who lives next door, and spends a lot of his time damaging toys).

The original, and still the best, Toy Story is an object lesson in how to make a modern movie for the whole family. The tools are used to realise the story, as opposed to being overused just because they're available, the film talks directly to children without ever talking down to them, and both the script and visuals provide enough gags and details to keep boredom at bay, no matter how many times you've already seen it.

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Larry Crowne (2011)

When I sat down to watch Larry Crowne I admit that I wasn't expecting to like it. It just seemed as if it was something a bit too safe and twee and uninteresting. And, in a way, it was all of those things. Yet it was also quite enjoyable in an old-fashioned way, a vehicle for Tom Hanks to star in, direct and also write (with Nia Vardalos). He even finds a role for his wife, Rita Wilson.

Hanks is the titular character, a man who finds himself at a bit of a loss when he is fired from his job. Times are tough but Crowne hopes for the best when he enrols in some further education classes. One of those classes is being taught by Mrs Tainot (Julia Roberts), a woman who doesn't really have much enthusiasm for her job any more. Thankfully, Larry Crowne brings out the best in everyone. His teacher starts to properly teach, his classmates start trying to actually learn what they're being taught and the lovely Alvarez (Roxana Ortega) enjoys a new pet project when she decides to help "Lance Corona" make himself a bit more socially active and cool.

Larry Crowne is actually, for almost 3/4 of the runtime, a good film. Hanks is as likeable as ever, Roberts is okay and the support from Roxana Ortega, Wilmer Valderrama, Pam Grier, George Takei, Cedric The Entertainer, Bryan Cranston and others (including a fun couple of scenes for Rob Riggle) really help to lift what is, essentially, average material. At best. From the opening titles, accompanied by a lively ELO track, to about the halfway point, I was able to overlook many of the negatives and enjoy myself. However, once it gets to the halfway point, the negatives start to become harder to overlook.

The biggest failing that the movie has, and that builds and builds up to an end credit sequence which involves characters actually waving to the audience, is a certain smugness. It's almost as if the movie makes the assumption that everyone will find the main characters so endearing that they'll be sad to see the end credits roll. Hanks does well as director, nothing flashy but he keeps everything nicely paced, though he's not as talented in the writing department, which piles up cliche after cliche.

I saw the trailer for this movie, as did many people, and thought "well, that's probably not for me". As the first half of the movie kept moving nicely along I started to change my mind. Maybe I'd been too cynical and the fact that this was just a decent movie with a bit of a sweet, soft centre wasn't all that bad. But as the sweetness started to build up to levels threatening to give me dental problems and/or put me into a diabetic coma I was able to see that my first impressions were correct.

There are many other people who will enjoy this much more than I did, people who want something that's slightly removed from every other comic book movie, zombie flick or shoot 'em up, and I can see the appeal. I've actually rated the movie as slightly above average because there were a number of little moments, even if they were covered in cheese, that I enjoyed. I laughed, I wanted the lead character to do well, I was won over. The film succeeded. For that first half, at least.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share