The new Winnie-the-Pooh film is just superb! I absolutely love it. When I first heard it was coming out, I was very apprehensive as a Pooh fan. Especially when the title "Christopher Robin" is too similar to the title of the biopic about A.A. Milne that came out last year, "Goodbye Christopher Robin".... I had a feeling that Disney might have just been jumping on the bandwagon, following the success of that film.
But even if they WERE jumping on the bandwagon, I'm pleased to say they have jumped on it beautifully. They have captured the characters exactly how they should be. The film is genuinely hilarious in parts, and certain moments had me laughing to the point where I didn't think I'd stop. They also had little touches of Milne's type of subtle, whimsical humour. There were emotional moments, and beautiful storytelling with deep meaning and messages throughout, just like the books.
It's difficult to predict how much the kids would enjoy it compared to the cartoons we’re so familiar with. I wonder if there were too many scenes of being an adult, and not enough scenes of playing in the forest. But I'm certain that there's a huge audience out there of grown up Winnie-the-Pooh fans, who aren’t really grown up at heart. (I can’t be the only one!) And for us, this film is perfect. I hope the kids enjoy it too.
I would absolutely love it if they do a live action version of the original Winnie-the-Pooh stories. Disney has already covered these books in the original cartoon series of features back in the ‘60s. However, I genuinely believe that if they find the right actor to play Christopher Robin as a young boy, then it would be brilliant. They would have to work really hard on capturing essence of the characters and the stories, and so there would be a lot of pressure. But this film proves that it can be done.
This film’s opening scene is based on the last story from “The House At Pooh Corner”. My only small criticism is that I don’t think they chose the right actor to play Christopher Robin as a boy. He was good, but he looked like he was acting. For me, he just didn’t play it realistic enough. I’m probably being too picky!
The boy who played Christopher Robin in last year’s film, Will Tilston, has set the standard high. But if someone could play him as well as he did, then a live action based on the original books would be perfect. I may well get in touch with Disney myself and suggest it.
Everyone in the world should watch this film. It's absolutely incredible. The work that has gone into restoring the footage and putting together the sound effects and voices is absolutely remarkable. It's always fascinating to hear information from the people who were actually there fighting this horrific war. I think it speaks volumes that they all hate the glorification of war, and that when it was over, they didn't really care who won - They were ALL just glad it was over, on all sides. One of them stated that we must all make sure it will never happen again. These are the people who were there; these are the people we need to listen to. Never underestimate the devastation, the trauma, and the absolute hell that war is. This film should be played in schools every single year. Don't just stick a flag up on Facebook every November and say "Lest We Forget"... It means absolutely nothing! Actually remember what soldiers, medics, animals, and civilians really went through. Remember the true gore that war creates and all the people that suffer because of the stupidity of politics.
Absolutely perfect! Exactly what I hoped it would be: An affectionate, but objective biopic about Queen and their music. I'd heard about it being an emotional rollercoaster, and I must admit, one or two tears did roll down my cheeks. But I was quite relieved that it didn't dwell on the aids too much, as that's not what Freddie would have wanted. He kept on "fighting 'til the end", and the main focus of the film was their music.
Outstanding performances by all members of the cast, and whoever did the casting, make-up and costumes deserves an award. You really believed Gwilym Lee was Brian May, Ben Hardy was Roger Taylor and Joseph Mazello was John Deacon. They all looked spot on. Needless to say Rami Malek was just phenomenal as Freddie. Nobody could have played the part better.
The amount of work that has gone into the making of this film is absolutely mind-blowing. They have set the standard high for all future biopics to compete. I've never known anything like this film.
While the film is an incredible and affectionately made tribute to the boys, there is a fair amount of artistic licence used and the film’s story differs from real life events.
“Zenobia” - The Elephant Film....
In “Stan and Ollie”, the film portrays Stan at Fox Studios ready to sign a contract but Ollie doesn’t turn up because he’s still at Hal Roach Studios, making “the elephant film” ( the actual title was “Zenobia”).
In reality, after leaving Roach Studios in 1940, both Laurel and Hardy made 6 films with Fox Studios and 2 films for MGM between 1941 - 1945. (Therefore Ollie did actually turn up to sign the contracts.)
“Zenobia” was made in 1938, when Stan’s contract with Roach had terminated and he was unwilling to sign a new contract with Roach until Ollie’s had expired too. Therefore they could sign a contract at the same time together. It was the next best thing to having a joint contract.
While the “Stan and Ollie” film portrays them both as remaining bitter about “the elephant film” and eventually having an argument in public about it, the reality was that it was never an issue between them. By all accounts, they always remained friends and never had a falling out.
“Stan and Ollie” doesn’t mention the fact that Ollie appeared in two further films without Stan. “The Fighting Kentuckian” (1949) starring John Wayne and “Riding High” (1950) starring Bing Crosby.
If “the elephant film” was such a big issue between them, it’s doubtful Ollie would have appeared in two more films without Stan.
Nobby Cook.....
In the biopic, when Ollie falls ill, tour manager Bernard Delfont convinces Stan to temporarily join a new comedy partner named Nobby Cook. Due to his loyalty towards Ollie, Stan backs out at last minute, causing them to cancel the show.
Nobby Cook was actually a fictional character created for the “Stan and Ollie” film. There was never any attempt to form a new partnership. In reality, Ollie suffered a mild heart attack in Plymouth in May 1954. He recovered at the Grand Hotel and they both sailed back to the United States on 2 June. Ollie sadly passed away in 1957.
The UK Tours....
Laurel and Hardy toured the UK in 1947, 1952 and 1953-54. They had also arrived in the UK for a holiday back in 1932, however the huge crowds of people that greeted them prevented any relaxation they might have hoped for.
The “Stan and Ollie” film portrayed it as though they’d lost their popularity and that they were initially playing to almost empty theatres. In reality their first tours were highly successful. The crowds that greeted them at each public event can only be compared to Beatlemania.
It was only on their final tour in 1953-54 that audience numbers occasionally dropped but certainly not to the same extent portrayed in the film. Contemporary reviews of this tour were also mixed, most likely due to Ollie’s failing health.
On all of their tours they were part of a package variety show with a number of different acts on the bill.
Hal Roach Studios - The Lot Of Fun.....
Laurel and Hardy’s film producer, Hal Roach was nothing like how he was portrayed in the biopic. All of his actors and crew were extremely well paid.
In 1934, Roach paid himself $2,000 a week, Ollie also received $2,000 a week and Stan was on $3,500 a week. Therefore Roach was paying Stan Laurel more money than he was even paying himself. This was reflective of the many extra hours Stan spent working with the writers before and during the production and then working with editor Bert Jordan after photography was completed.
If certain scenes didn’t play too well in the previews, Roach never objected to spending more time and money to make it a better comedy film.
According to Laurel and Hardy film historian, Randy Skretvedt: “Roach actually lost money by making the three and four-reel films because the agreement was for a set number of two-reelers.”
On making the four-reel Laurel and Hardy film “Beau Hunks” Roach told Skretvedt: “It was already sold as a two-reeler; we couldn’t get any more dough out of all the circuits because they’d already bought it. But it was just one of those things; it was intended to be a two-reel comedy, but it kept getting funnier.”
Roach kept Laurel and Hardy on separate contracts that expired six months apart. This was to encourage them to stay at his studio. While some would say that this was a manipulative arrangement, it is understandable that Hal Roach wanted to keep the biggest comedy stars of the day at his studio. Especially considering the fact that his first major star, Harold Lloyd left his studio in 1923 to produce his own films.
In the Laurel and Hardy Encyclopedia, Glenn Mitchell writes: “Though necessarily ruthless, Roach permitted his employees a mostly free hand with an agreeable environment; most agree that there was no finer boss.”
“There’s been no other studio to date like it. MGM, Fox, Universal - they were nothing but machines. The Roach lot was very individual. And the people there had talent with a wonderful sense of humor. The Roach studio was nicknamed ‘The Lot of Fun’ because it was a comedy studio - and it was a lot of fun”. - Roy Seawright, optical effects department. Quote from “Laurel and Hardy, The Magic Behind The Movies”, Skretvedt.
"Much of the time, you feel like you're beholding the real duo, so thoroughly conceived are the actors' physicality and performances”. - Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter.
While “Stan and Ollie” is a fictional re-imagining of the events and creative with the facts, it is certainly an excellent tribute to their work and legacy. Many skeptics have been astonished by the skilled performances of Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly and most agree that they couldn’t have chosen anyone better to play the parts.
The costumes and set designs for the film are nothing short of phenomenal. During the re-creation of the famous dance sequence (from their 1937 feature “Way Out West”), they were able to use exactly the same background footage used in the original film. It’s this attention to detail which makes the viewer believe they’re watching the original sequences.
Most importantly, the film has helped put Laurel and Hardy back in the limelight and encouraged parents to show their children the greatest comedy films of all time. Their timeless humour appeals to all ages and this film has helped introduce them to a new generation.
It is a very funny and moving film made with genuine affection for the comedy of Laurel and Hardy.
There are many reasons why this film will always be a Christmas Classic. It's filled with exactly the right ingredients for the whole family to enjoy year after year forever more. The story is simple: A huge family go on holiday, and carelessly leave their son Kevin behind. While home alone, Kevin uses booby traps to fight off two burglars.
The acting by all members of the cast is spot on. They all play a part to make the unrealistic seem believable. We really believe that the parents have forgotten about Kevin until the mother suddenly remembers that he's not there. Her reaction was spot on: Not overdramatic, but believably startled.
I always forget about John Candy's appearance in this film and he will guarantee to make you smile in any movie. So it's always a lovely surprise to see him.
Janet Hirshenson and Jane Jenkins did an amazing job at casting the two burglars, played by Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern. They couldn't be more right for the part. They provided most of the silly slapstick, which was always bound to win me over.
It goes without saying that Macauley Culkin is a phenomenal actor. I'm NOT gonna use the phrase "for his age", because that's patronising and he is as equally as talented as all the other adult actors in the film. He is fantastic throughout but there was one shot that stood out for me. He was carrying many bags of shopping home, and all the bags tear at the bottom, and everything falls on the floor at once. He breaks the fourth wall and looks directly into the camera, and his arms drop to the side. This shot alone demonstrates how incredible he is as a comedian and how skilled he is as an actor. No other actor or comedian could have played this shot so well, especially as the camera is quite a distance from him. Oliver Hardy would've applauded that scene. However Macauley does a fantastic job throughout the film. Not just this scene. He is truly remarkable.
The music used throughout this film really makes you feel in the festive spirit. It's an emotionally uplifting ending, as any decent Christmas film is. The whole film is heartwarming and it's absolutely a must watch movie. I will always love it, and I'll be watching it every year for the rest of my life.
Absolutely wonderful! I would give this a 20 out of 10 if I could. It was refreshing to see a new Christmas film with emphasis on the story and characters. (I know I always waffle on about that, but it is important. It's what makes a film tick for me.) There were moments that could be quite hard to watch, especially for anyone who's lost someone close due to death. However, don't let that put you off, because the overall film is a feel-good, uplifting family movie with a true Christmas spirit throughout. About time they made such a wonderful film like this.
Of course, this film is also guaranteed a 10 from me, simply because they have not one - but TWO Christmas songs recorded by Elvis Presley. It didn't surprise me to learn that Santa is played by Kurt Russell, who not only starred as Elvis in a 1979 biopic, but he also starred WITH the great man himself as the shin-kicking boy in "It Happened At The World's Fair."
If you don't believe in Santa after watching this movie, you're just "denying your inner child."
This is my favourite Christmas film of all time. I used to watch this constantly as a kid (no matter what time of year it was!) and I still watch it every year at Christmas. It never fails to give me goosebumps, because it always takes me back to being a child, and it is an incredible reminder that magic really does exist.
I'm also a big fan of Home Improvements, and Tim Allen is equally as hilarious and entertaining here. Not only is he a brilliant comedian, but he really knows how to play those sentimental scenes that tug at your heart-strings.
Eric Lloyd who plays the young boy Charlie is fantastic throughout and can equally play a multitude of moods in a believable way to make the story flow so well.
When I was little, I always found the role of Neil, played by Judge Reinhold quite irritating, because he is too much of a grown up and his lack of understanding childhood is unreal. But now I've grown up, I understand that most adults are as stupid as his character is and so I've began to sympathise with his point of view, even though I entirely disagree with it. I understand he's MEANT to be irritatingly stupid!
Another character who deserves a special mention is Bernard, one of the Elves, played by David Krumholtz. When I was little, I used to colour in a bit of paper with a dark green felt tip pen and stick it on my forehead, so that I could have "hair" that looked like Bernard's. (I'm not sure it did look QUITE like his hair, but it was worth the effort.) I've always had a soft spot for Bernard. Even though his character can be quite bossy at times, he can also be quite endearing at other times. He has a lot of compassion for people who DO believe in magic, but doesn't have any time for people who don't.... A bit like me! And that's why I identify with him the most. Like the rest of the cast, he plays this part so well.
Both the background music and the soundtrack songs help add to the festive feel of this film, and helps bring Christmas and Santa to life. If you STILL don't believe in Kris Kringle after watching this movie, just remember this dialogue from the film:
Charlie: Have you ever seen a million dollars?
Neil: No.
Charlie: Just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Every frame in this film is hand painted animation. Considering there is 24 frames per second in a film, the work that must've gone into this is phenomenal. At first the animation was a little distracting from the story, because it's not the smooth flowing digital animation that we're used to from Pixar films. (It's quite flickering.) However when you get used to it, the story is gripping and very moving. Unlike most biopics, this one demonstrates that we can never really know anybody, because everyone has a different opinion.
I can forgive people for believing this film if they just watch it and do no further research into the subject. But this is clearly just another money-grab and the many mistakes and inconsistencies have proven that.
Michael Jackson was autistic and couldn't always see when devious people were just using him for their own financial gain. He was too trusting of everyone. Anybody and everyone could walk into Neverland whether Michael was there or not and demand food from his cooks, play on the fairground rides, run riot round the mansions, or even sleep in his bed.
Being autistic, one of his obsessions was all things Disney. Even before he bought Neverland, for his 24th Birthday, he hired the original voice actress for Snow White, Adriana Caselotti, along with the seven actors who dressed as the Seven Dwarfs at Disneyland to come to his house and serenade him to sleep.
Another time, Michael was invited to the White House. When he arrived, he walked into a conference room and he saw many people dressed in suits ready to greet him. This scared him and he run into the library in the White House and locked himself in the toilets and wouldn't come out until they had all gone. This way of dealing with uncomfortable situations is common among people who are autistic. Some argue he wasn't autistic because in early interviews he has good eye contact. But another pop star, Mika, has also been diagnosed with autism, and he shows excellent eye contact and appears to be very comfortable in interviews.
Macaulay Culkin once stated that Michael "has never been great at explaining himself," which is why he could never understand the reaction he got when he stated on camera that kids have slept in his room. He did clarify that the kids slept on the bed and he often slept on the floor. And as Culkin pointed out: "I don't think you understand, Michael's bedroom is like two stories, and has three bathrooms." It was more like sharing a house than a bedroom.
Contradicting this mockumentary, many people who were there have verified that on these famous "sleepovers", there were always multiple people there including, Macaulay Culkin, Keiran Culkin, Brett Barnes, Natalie Barrett, Corey Feldman, Shanice Wilson, Aaron Carter, Omer Bhatti, Keira Chaplin, Michael Jackson's family members such as Taj and Brandi Jackson, as well as Michael Jackson's kids Prince, Paris and Bigi. As well as many, many more.
So where did it all go wrong?
In 1993, a guy named Evan Chandler told Michael that if he doesn't pay him $20 million, then he will go to newspapers claiming that Michael had molested his son, Jordie Chandler. Evan kept on pestering him for 6 months about this but Michael kept refusing until his attorney at the time stated that if Michael didn't pay, then he'd have to go to court and cancel his worldwide tour, losing him at least $100 million. Therefore his attorney arranged for Michael's insurance company to pay the $20 million.
(All artists have insurance companies because they are sued all the time. If they didn't pay people off then they'd end up in court every day of their life. The song "Billie Jean" is about a woman trying to sue him, claiming that he’s the father of her son.)
Michael then counter-sued the Chandler family for extortion/blackmail.
Despite many police raids round Neverland and the FBI getting involved, they couldn't find any evidence for a criminal trial. But when it came out in the newspapers that Michael had "payed off" an accuser for child sexual abuse, this sent out a message to the world: "Why work, when you can sue Michael Jackson?"
In 2003, a guy called Martin Bashir released a controversial documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson". He tricked Michael by saying that it was going to revive his reputation after the 1993 allegations. The reality was that Martin Bashir was just as harsh as the tabloid media and mocked Michael's autism and eccentric behaviour by calling him "disturbing". Believing Martin Bashir to be a decent journalist, Michael really opens up to him, showing him the tree that he often climbed to write his songs. Behind the scenes footage shows that Bashir encouraged Michael and couldn't praise him enough. Michael happily went along with him. But then Martin Bashir later recorded seriously judgemental commentary for the documentary. He basically used Michael like a monkey in a zoo.
To Michael, Martin Bashir told him that he wanted to show the audience all the charity work he does for kids and so Martin himself arranged the most controversial scene in the whole documentary, in which Michael is sat next to a surviving cancer patient, Gavin Arvizo, and Martin is asking Michael about the allegations and about the sleepovers. Michael does admit to having many people (both kids and adults) sleep at Neverland and in his bedroom, but does specify that it's not just him and another kid. It's "many, many children" and that it's "not sexual." He also does specify that the kids sleep in the bed, while he sleeps on the floor. (Verified by Michael's adult friend, Frank Cascio who was at all the sleepovers along with the many kids and parents who joined them.)
However it was those scenes in the film that made District Attorney Tom Sneddon believe he could finally prosecute Michael Jackson. When the documentary was released, the world's media went into uproar and to make matters worse, Gavin Arvizo who defended Michael in the documentary received a visit from Evan Chandler's lawyer, specifying how much money they could make if they claimed Michael had molested him.
The police arrested Michael and he went through a 5 month trial in 2005. This is when Wade Robson (from "Leaving Neverland") defended Michael. If Michael really had been molesting Wade Robson all those years, then he took a HUGE risk putting him first on the stand to defend him in the trial! Doesn't make much sense to me.
But this trial wasn't the Wade Robson Show, as he made out in "Leaving Neverland"... There were many others who defended Michael too, including Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker all of whom still defend him today.
But as Michael's new attorney, Tom Mesereau pointed out, he didn't really need a defence team anyway because the prosecution side made themselves look ridiculous! The 8 thousand page court transcript of the trial is online for you to read. It may take some time but it's worth it for comedy purposes. I laughed out loud several times at what they were trying to claim and how they contradicted themselves. (There is also a book about the court case by Aphrodite Jones that's worth a read too.)
Gavin Arvizo first claimed to a child protection officer that he had been molested before the Martin Bashir documentary... and when the outtake footage was shown in court, he then claimed he was molested just AFTER the documentary was released.... and then when further footage was shown of the Arvizo family defending Michael after the documentary was released, Gavin changed the molestation date again to months after the documentary.
It was also proved in court that Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain even before he met Michael Jackson. He tried to claim that his mother was raped by a security guard at a department store. The CCTV cameras proved that he was lying. The Arvizo family had quite a history of lying for financial gain. They had even told many celebrities that he couldn't afford the treatment for his cancer, when in fact, his father's insurance covered all costs. But they fooled many celebrities and attained thousands of dollars from them.
The Arvizo family also tried to claim in court that Michael had kidnapped the whole family and took them to Miami and held them hostage. The dates of plane payments and witnesses proved that this was also untrue.
Plus many people who were on the prosecution's side, including June Chandler, the mother of Jordie, actually said more to defend Michael than anyone. June even claimed that she always thought that Evan Chandler was in it for the money.
So Michael was already proved innocent of all these false claims even before Wade Robson took the stand.
After 5 months, the jury found Michael: Not Guilty on all charges.
When Michael passed away in 2009, Wade Robson wrote this tribute to a friend via email:
"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."
In 2011, Wade attempted to gain employment as the lead choreographer for a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production. He was rejected.
His career in his words began to "crumble."
In 2012, heavily in debt, he tried to sell a book to publishers claiming he had been abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher agreed to publish it.
In 2013, he filed a civil lawsuit against the Jackson estate for up to $1.6 billion dollars. A court dismissed his claims in 2017 on the grounds that there were too many inconsistencies and a judge actually stated that “no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements.”
In 2019, "Leaving Neverland" is released but they claim "It's not about the money".
One thing Wade Robson conveniently forgets to mention in the film is the fact that he was dating Michael Jackson's niece Brandi Jackson for seven years and it was Michael who suggested they date. But that doesn't fit in with the story that Michael wanted him to stay away from girls because they were "in a relationship”.
In “Leaving Neverland”, Wade Robson claims that Michael Jackson was molesting him ’til he was 14 and then lost interest because he became too old for him and so he replaced him with Macauley Culkin… Culkin is two years older than Wade Robson so that doesn’t make much sense!
Arguably the most laughable moment in the mockumentary is when James Safechuck pulls out a ring and tries to claim that Michael had done a mock wedding ceremony where they exchanged vows to each other. He then placed the ring on his finger. Why would a child’s ring fit so well on an adult’s finger?
Safechuck was very clear in the documentary that the abuse stopped when he was 14. He was very specific about that - Watch the documentary again to see how specific he was. However he also claimed that he had been abused several times in a train station built on the Neverland premises.
After doing some research, Mike Smallcombe proved that the train station wasn’t built until 1994, when James Safechuck was 16. Even the director of “Leaving Neverland” had to admit that Safechuck had made an error and when “Leaving Neverland” was made available for streaming, the train station error had been mysteriously edited out!
Time travelling errors seem to be a Safechuck family trait. James’s mother claims in the mockumentary that when Michael Jackson died in 2009 she celebrated by dancing saying “he can’t hurt any more children.” In 2012 however she was following Michael Jackson fan pages on Twitter and sharing his music. In 2013, she claimed she had only just found out about the abuse.
Many argue “we’ll never know what really went on” and that can be said for both in favour or against Michael. But in response, I’d say you can tell when someone is lying. Dan Reed, the director, had admitted that it’s a one-sided film and that he never attempted to interview anyone who was willing to defend Michael (including Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker.)
Four people have accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. 2 in his lifetime and now 2 after his death. 3 out of those 4 people (Evan Chandler, Robson and Safechuck) have been fully grown adults attempting to sue Michael or his estate for millions. The one child that accused him, Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain.
Although it was a little slow to begin with, I was not disappointed at all by this film. As soon as I heard there was a new one, I kept an open mind and told myself that: "If it makes me laugh as much as the first and second, then I will be happy", and thankfully, it certainly did! If I was going to pick between the three, I'd still slightly prefer the second one, but I don't really think we should be comparing them. Why not enjoy them all? I certainly have.
As with all of Rowan Atkinson's comic creations, Johnny English is a hilarious character who can simply be funny in an empty room. So many people discuss his physical ability, which is of course outstanding, but even his ability to phrase words for comical effect can brighten anybody's day. There are so many subtle gags in this film, it's unbelievable.
I loved the return of Bough as his sidekick. He plays an excellent part in both the first one and this new one. His character is equally as brilliant as Johnny English himself.
A wonderful film, filled with brilliant comedy, and there were moments when I didn't think I'd be able to stop laughing. It was fantastic!
A truly remarkable film. There's nothing wrong with predictable, but it's refreshing to see something that isn't. The two main characters in this film are both rather eccentric. Harold is obsessed with death - He keeps pretending to kill himself, and he keeps attending random funerals. At one of his many funeral visits, he meets a 79 year old woman who is also eccentric. She attends funerals regularly to make herself feel alive. Despite such an age difference, a friendship develops into a romantic relationship. For 1971, this was probably outrageous, but it's actually told in a beautiful and realistic way.
Despite the morbid theme, there are many comical moments, and it isn't all that upsetting overall. Be aware of the morbid theme though, as it may not always be appropriate viewing for anyone who's just buried a loved one. But don't let it put you off watching it. It's one to definitely watch when you feel able to do so.
As a Chaplin fan, I had to admire the final shot, which was very Chaplin-esq (whether intentionally or not.) Towards the end of a few Chaplin films, he walked away sadly, with his back to the camera to show that he was quite upset, but then he would always kick up his heels and continue walking but in a more cheerful way, as if to say: "tomorrow's another day."
In this film, Harold does the same thing at the end. He walks away from the camera sadly, but then kicks up his heels and quickly becomes happy again. It's as if his character has learnt to be positive and not let negativity get him down. We can learn a lot from Harold and Maude.
I can forgive people for believing this film if they just watch it and do no further research into the subject. But this is clearly just another money-grab and the many mistakes and inconsistencies have proven that.
Michael Jackson was autistic and couldn't always see when devious people were just using him for their own financial gain. He was too trusting of everyone. Anybody and everyone could walk into Neverland whether Michael was there or not and demand food from his cooks, play on the fairground rides, run riot round the mansions, or even sleep in his bed.
Being autistic, one of his obsessions was all things Disney. Even before he bought Neverland, for his 24th Birthday, he hired the original voice actress for Snow White, Adriana Caselotti, along with the seven actors who dressed as the Seven Dwarfs at Disneyland to come to his house and serenade him to sleep.
Another time, Michael was invited to the White House. When he arrived, he walked into a conference room and he saw many people dressed in suits ready to greet him. This scared him and he run into the library in the White House and locked himself in the toilets and wouldn't come out until they had all gone. This way of dealing with uncomfortable situations is common among people who are autistic. Some argue he wasn't autistic because in early interviews he has good eye contact. But another pop star, Mika, has also been diagnosed with autism, and he shows excellent eye contact and appears to be very comfortable in interviews.
Macaulay Culkin once stated that Michael "has never been great at explaining himself," which is why he could never understand the reaction he got when he stated on camera that kids have slept in his room. He did clarify that the kids slept on the bed and he often slept on the floor. And as Culkin pointed out: "I don't think you understand, Michael's bedroom is like two stories, and has three bathrooms." It was more like sharing a house than a bedroom.
Contradicting this mockumentary, many people who were there have verified that on these famous "sleepovers", there were always multiple people there including, Macaulay Culkin, Keiran Culkin, Brett Barnes, Natalie Barrett, Corey Feldman, Shanice Wilson, Aaron Carter, Omer Bhatti, Keira Chaplin, Michael Jackson's family members such as Taj and Brandi Jackson, as well as Michael Jackson's kids Prince, Paris and Bigi. As well as many, many more.
So where did it all go wrong?
In 1993, a guy named Evan Chandler told Michael that if he doesn't pay him $20 million, then he will go to newspapers claiming that Michael had molested his son, Jordie Chandler. Evan kept on pestering him for 6 months about this but Michael kept refusing until his attorney at the time stated that if Michael didn't pay, then he'd have to go to court and cancel his worldwide tour, losing him at least $100 million. Therefore his attorney arranged for Michael's insurance company to pay the $20 million.
(All artists have insurance companies because they are sued all the time. If they didn't pay people off then they'd end up in court every day of their life. The song "Billie Jean" is about a woman trying to sue him, claiming that he’s the father of her son.)
Michael then counter-sued the Chandler family for extortion/blackmail.
Despite many police raids round Neverland and the FBI getting involved, they couldn't find any evidence for a criminal trial. But when it came out in the newspapers that Michael had "payed off" an accuser for child sexual abuse, this sent out a message to the world: "Why work, when you can sue Michael Jackson?"
In 2003, a guy called Martin Bashir released a controversial documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson". He tricked Michael by saying that it was going to revive his reputation after the 1993 allegations. The reality was that Martin Bashir was just as harsh as the tabloid media and mocked Michael's autism and eccentric behaviour by calling him "disturbing". Believing Martin Bashir to be a decent journalist, Michael really opens up to him, showing him the tree that he often climbed to write his songs. Behind the scenes footage shows that Bashir encouraged Michael and couldn't praise him enough. Michael happily went along with him. But then Martin Bashir later recorded seriously judgemental commentary for the documentary. He basically used Michael like a monkey in a zoo.
To Michael, Martin Bashir told him that he wanted to show the audience all the charity work he does for kids and so Martin himself arranged the most controversial scene in the whole documentary, in which Michael is sat next to a surviving cancer patient, Gavin Arvizo, and Martin is asking Michael about the allegations and about the sleepovers. Michael does admit to having many people (both kids and adults) sleep at Neverland and in his bedroom, but does specify that it's not just him and another kid. It's "many, many children" and that it's "not sexual." He also does specify that the kids sleep in the bed, while he sleeps on the floor. (Verified by Michael's adult friend, Frank Cascio who was at all the sleepovers along with the many kids and parents who joined them.)
However it was those scenes in the film that made District Attorney Tom Sneddon believe he could finally prosecute Michael Jackson. When the documentary was released, the world's media went into uproar and to make matters worse, Gavin Arvizo who defended Michael in the documentary received a visit from Evan Chandler's lawyer, specifying how much money they could make if they claimed Michael had molested him.
The police arrested Michael and he went through a 5 month trial in 2005. This is when Wade Robson (from "Leaving Neverland") defended Michael. If Michael really had been molesting Wade Robson all those years, then he took a HUGE risk putting him first on the stand to defend him in the trial! Doesn't make much sense to me.
But this trial wasn't the Wade Robson Show, as he made out in "Leaving Neverland"... There were many others who defended Michael too, including Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker all of whom still defend him today.
But as Michael's new attorney, Tom Mesereau pointed out, he didn't really need a defence team anyway because the prosecution side made themselves look ridiculous! The 8 thousand page court transcript of the trial is online for you to read. It may take some time but it's worth it for comedy purposes. I laughed out loud several times at what they were trying to claim and how they contradicted themselves. (There is also a book about the court case by Aphrodite Jones that's worth a read too.)
Gavin Arvizo first claimed to a child protection officer that he had been molested before the Martin Bashir documentary... and when the outtake footage was shown in court, he then claimed he was molested just AFTER the documentary was released.... and then when further footage was shown of the Arvizo family defending Michael after the documentary was released, Gavin changed the molestation date again to months after the documentary.
It was also proved in court that Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain even before he met Michael Jackson. He tried to claim that his mother was raped by a security guard at a department store. The CCTV cameras proved that he was lying. The Arvizo family had quite a history of lying for financial gain. They had even told many celebrities that he couldn't afford the treatment for his cancer, when in fact, his father's insurance covered all costs. But they fooled many celebrities and attained thousands of dollars from them.
The Arvizo family also tried to claim in court that Michael had kidnapped the whole family and took them to Miami and held them hostage. The dates of plane payments and witnesses proved that this was also untrue.
Plus many people who were on the prosecution's side, including June Chandler, the mother of Jordie, actually said more to defend Michael than anyone. June even claimed that she always thought that Evan Chandler was in it for the money.
So Michael was already proved innocent of all these false claims even before Wade Robson took the stand.
After 5 months, the jury found Michael: Not Guilty on all charges.
When Michael passed away in 2009, Wade Robson wrote this tribute to a friend via email:
"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."
In 2011, Wade attempted to gain employment as the lead choreographer for a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production. He was rejected.
His career in his words began to "crumble."
In 2012, heavily in debt, he tried to sell a book to publishers claiming he had been abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher agreed to publish it.
In 2013, he filed a civil lawsuit against the Jackson estate for up to $1.6 billion dollars. A court dismissed his claims in 2017 on the grounds that there were too many inconsistencies and a judge actually stated that “no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements.”
In 2019, "Leaving Neverland" is released but they claim "It's not about the money".
One thing Wade Robson conveniently forgets to mention in the film is the fact that he was dating Michael Jackson's niece Brandi Jackson for seven years and it was Michael who suggested they date. But that doesn't fit in with the story that Michael wanted him to stay away from girls because they were "in a relationship”.
In “Leaving Neverland”, Wade Robson claims that Michael Jackson was molesting him ’til he was 14 and then lost interest because he became too old for him and so he replaced him with Macauley Culkin… Culkin is two years older than Wade Robson so that doesn’t make much sense!
Arguably the most laughable moment in the mockumentary is when James Safechuck pulls out a ring and tries to claim that Michael had done a mock wedding ceremony where they exchanged vows to each other. He then placed the ring on his finger. Why would a child’s ring fit so well on an adult’s finger?
Safechuck was very clear in the documentary that the abuse stopped when he was 14. He was very specific about that - Watch the documentary again to see how specific he was. However he also claimed that he had been abused several times in a train station built on the Neverland premises.
After doing some research, Mike Smallcombe proved that the train station wasn’t built until 1994, when James Safechuck was 16. Even the director of “Leaving Neverland” had to admit that Safechuck had made an error and when “Leaving Neverland” was made available for streaming, the train station error had been mysteriously edited out!
Time travelling errors seem to be a Safechuck family trait. Jame’s mother claims in the mockumentary that when Michael Jackson died in 2009 she celebrated by dancing saying “he can’t hurt any more children.” In 2012 however she was following Michael Jackson fan pages on Twitter and sharing his music. In 2013, she claimed she had only just found out about the abuse.
Many argue “we’ll never know what really went on” and that can be said for both in favour or against Michael. But in response, I’d say you can tell when someone is lying. Dan Reed, the director, had admitted that it’s a one-sided film and that he never attempted to interview anyone who was willing to defend Michael (including Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and Chris Tucker.)
Four people have accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. 2 in his lifetime and now 2 after his death. 3 out of those 4 people (Evan Chandler, Robson and Safechuck) have been fully grown adults attempting to sue Michael or his estate for millions. The one child that accused him, Gavin Arvizo had already lied in court for financial gain.
I love Spiderman and this film is a great example of why. Even in the most action-packed scenes they always make room for plenty of comedy. As much as everyone loves Tobey, Tom Holland has earned his crown as the best Spiderman. (In my humble opinion.)
2 hours of my life I will never get back. To be fair, this film did have some good moments, but on the whole it was an utter snooze fest. Another case of too much CGI, and not enough story. For the life of me, I can't work out why Johnny Depp has suddenly started dressing like Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols.
I was really looking forward to this film, because I usually love all the Harry Potter films, and the first Fantastic Beats. So what went wrong here, I do not know. I hope the next one will be better.
(I must warn you that my negative point of view of the film wasn't helped by the fact that someone in the cinema stunk of poo and I could hardly breathe throughout the whole film, which made a boring and long film seem even longer. Therefore, it might be slightly better than I give it credit. But even so, I still didn't enjoy it.)
There's nothing quite like a heartwarming Christmas film to get you in the spirit at this festive time of year. They couldn't have chosen a better lead role than Tim Allen, who I already associate with Christmas since he is actually Santa!
I really liked the running gag where they couldn't work out who Marty was. I've got to say though, I was a little disappointed that we did find out who he was eventually. For me, it would have been funnier had we never got to find out. But I suppose it brings it together to make sense.
The cast were brilliant, funny but realistic. They could perform visual comedy and slapstick very well. Unfortunately, there was too much focus pulling in the camera work which made it look ridiculous and distracting. But that's about the only downside to the movie.
One fantastic part of the movie is when they start singing an Eddie Cochran song "C'mon Everybody". Eddie Cochran is the bees-knees of music and I remember being pleasantly surprised at this when I saw this film in the cinema. (I've always been a huge Cochran fan.)
Definitely worth a watch and I'll probably watch it every year from now on.
It's only 77 days to go 'til the big day!! So Merry Christmas everyone!
It may not be his best film but no film with Jim Carrey in is a bad film. I really enjoyed it. A guy who says no to everything decides to lead a more upbeat and positive life by saying Yes to everything.... Literally EVERYTHING. It changes his life positively for a while but as with anything done by extreme, it doesn't work out. It's good to have a bit of Yes and No in your life. I would say Yes to this film.
This is an excellent film which becomes extremely deep and meaningful towards the end. It is a universal love story that is very touching. The acting is phenomenal, especially the last shot of the close up of Timothée Chalamet, as the credits roll. I think we've all been through his emotions, which makes it all the more emotional.
I'd love to mark this film high, but I had to knock off points due to one, pointless, and cruel shot of a fish struggling to breathe. There was absolutely no need for it, and so the torture and pain the fish went through was completely in vain.
And while I appreciate that it was meant to be a slow film for artistic and storytelling purposes, there were moments when it felt a bit too slow. However this is only nitpicking.
The focusing and composition of the camera work and editing was very artistic, which worked well with the feel of the film. Most of the music was very well chosen, but not all of it. The film was so close to being a masterpiece, but never quite made it. Apparently there's gonna be a sequel. I will look forward to seeing it.
I have never read the books by C.S. Lewis before, but this is still an excellent film that tells the story beautifully. It takes us on an emotional journey. Some parts were upsetting, some parts were hilarious, while some parts genuinely had me terrified... (I didn't know if the beavers would die or not.)
Some characters however were quite annoying, especially Susan, who played the 'realist'. I think it was intentional, but nevertheless, she got on my wick, as realists usually do, and for that, I have to knock off marks. Also my favourite character, Mr Tumnus was frozen throughout most of it, which was quite upsetting. That wasn't the filmmakers fault, as Mr Lewis probably wrote that in his book. But it is still rather sad, as I quite liked him, yet he only had a small part. All in all, I definitely recommend it, especially to those who are fans of fantasy. But it's definitely not my personal favourite.
This could be a contender for the best Christmas film ever made, if it wasn't for Tim Allen's "The Santa Clause", which will always have a special place in my heart. I can definitely identify with the main character of this film, Buddy, whose positivity and endless enthusiasm for Christmas has no boundaries. His enthusiasm is infectious and if you need reminding why Christmas is one of the most exciting times of the year, then this film will certainly provide you with the festive spirit.
As with all great family films, it can be enjoyed by kids and grown ups too. It has lots of slapstick, as well as more subtle gags. Due to his naivety and lack of understanding the world outside of the North Pole, Buddy gets himself and others into some hilarious situations.
The soundtrack and background music help provide the feel-good factor in the film. The acting provides us with some really loveable characters. Like all of the best Christmas films, it can be viewed year after year without ever going stale. A must-watch for every human being with a heart and a sense of humour.
Jim Carrey is definitely a marmite kind of actor; you either love him or hate him. I personally think he's brilliant and have enjoyed all of his films so far. (Out of the ones I've seen.) This is no exception. It was really slow starting and far from his funniest film, but the more the story goes on, the more fascinating it becomes, and you eventually become hooked. And I love the deep meaning towards the end, which I believe is quite true. I'm not gonna spoil it though. Go and watch it!
I absolutely adore Elvis Presley. He is my favourite singer of all time. However, I'm not a huge fan of his films and neither was he.
As Elvis films go, "Viva Las Vegas" isn't quite as boring as most of them. The chemistry between Elvis and Ann Margret is obvious, there are some genuinely funny moments. The songs are hit and miss. Most songs are wonderful that really suit Elvis: "Viva Las Vegas", "Come On Everybody", "Today, Tomorrow and Forever" are all beautiful
On the other hand, "The Yellow Rose Of Texas" is a bit bland.
Far from his worst film. For Elvis fans, it's worth a watch. For the general public, I wouldn't bother wasting your time on any of his films, apart from "King Creole."
I absolutely loved this film. When it first started, there were parts that dragged, and I didn't think much of it. But as it went along, I became more and more hooked on the characters and the way they fought back against the Wicked Witch was very clever. Though some of it was a bit predictable, it was nevertheless a wonderful film.
Way better than I thought it was going to be. I saw it advertised on TV and it looked rather bland. But when a friend tonight suggested we watch it, I figured we might as well give it a go. I've got to admit, it's something that's never crossed my mind, perhaps coz I'm not particularly a Royalist. But it's never occurred to me that there will have been and will continue to be many gay or bi-sexual Royals who have had to hide their sexuality for public image. Same goes with politicians and arguably anyone under the spotlight. In an ideal world, nobody SHOULD have to hide who they are and this film brings up a very good point. I love the speech that Alex makes when their sexuality is exposed to the world as I agreed with every word. I won't repeat it here (my memory's not THAT good.) But watch it and if you're a half decent human being, you'd agree with it too. The acting by every actor was brilliant and believable and as other comments have stated, the chemistry between Alex and Henry (Taylor and Nicholas) was very well portrayed. Plus, I've gotta admit, it's worth watching the film just for the eye candy.
This film couldn't be more up my street if it tried! Hilarious slapstick and visual comedy throughout and a story based on animals outwitting humans. In this case the animal is a mouse and more damage gets done to the humans while the mouse gets off Scott free! There is a clear and obvious inspiration from my favourite comedy team Laurel and Hardy. In one scene, Ernie even mimics Oliver Hardy's famous tie twiddle. It's a fandabbydozy film. I love it.
Not all drugs are bad. I'm addicted to music and comedy and can quite happily get high when climbing a tree. (I'm also addicted to Coca-Cola, which is quite bad actually.) We all have a real addiction of some kind whether it's bad for you or good for you; so please don't be judgemental on those who have taken the path of illegal drugs or alcohol. Truth be told, they're no different from anyone else. They are simply searching for something to provide them with inner-peace and happiness. This film demonstrates though that going down the path of hard drugs can be extremely self destructive and can harm everyone around you. It's certainly not a light-hearted film or an easy watch but it's very real and truthful. There is no easy answer for those who are addicted because I know how difficult addiction can be. I wish everyone could find true happiness from music and comedy. It would be a lot less harmful.
Hoping to have a festive night watching films to keep us excited for Christmas, this turned into a nightmare before Christmas. My hopes were raised by learning that it's a Tim Burton film, the man behind "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (2005). My hopes were shattered by seeing this dreadful film. Either I just wasn't in the mood for this film, or it really was as boring and pointless as I thought. I'd say it's a little more Halloween than Christmas, but it didn't dampen my Christmas spirit. I just shook it off as an hour and 13 minutes I will never get back.
I've watched a couple of sexuality themed films now, but this is by far the best. Many of the others are often so dramatic that they may frighten people to come out the closet. This is the first film I've ever seen that demonstrates my point of view: Nobody has to make any announcement. Straight people don't announce their sexuality, and so gay or bi people should not feel obliged either. And yet, it still doesn't encourage anyone to hide who they are, because nobody should have to feel that way either!
It was a nicely balanced look at a young lad coming to terms with his sexuality, and dealing with the relationships with his friends and family.
I love the mystery in working out who 'Blue' was in the emails. We know it's one of his school mates, but as the audience, we're constantly trying to work out who it is, while convincing ourselves "there's bound to be a twist.... or is there?" And we begin to wonder if we will ever find out who this mysterious person is.... But I'm not gonna spoil it. Watch it, and find out for yourself!
The most important aspect of this film is that throughout all of it, it's very light-hearted. Even though it does take you on an emotional journey, it's never afraid to put plenty of comedy in there. Even in the most heartbreaking scene, you got a good gag.... And that's brilliant, because that represents life... Those who think miserable dramas that show constant doom and gloom are representative of real life are very negative people. It's refreshing to see a gay-themed film that doesn't make you depressed!
The great thing about this film is that you care deeply about all the characters. The casting was excellent, because the acting was believable throughout, and gave depth to even some of the smallest parts. Very well written. The camera work was also fantastic too, because it didn't go overboard with any artsy-farsey shots or constantly had objects pointing in the middle of the screen just so they could use that annoying focus pull that every modern camera operator seems to use these days. The film did what it was supposed to do: Tell a good story. And quite frankly, it is one of the best films I've seen this year.
I don't usually enjoy science fiction films all that much, but the "Back To The Future" trilogy is the main exception. I absolutely love them. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid, and when I saw the first one the other day, I wasn't disappointed. It was just as enjoyable as how I remembered it. There were a couple of really obvious mistakes in it, which I didn't seem to notice when I was a kid. But I'm not gonna dwell on them, because all films have mistakes. I'm not even gonna point them out. Just enjoy the amazing films.
I love John Lennon, and this documentary couldn't be a more perfect tribute to the legend. The people who worked on it clearly put every effort in telling his story from his own point of view, using many interviews, and hours of footage from the archives. It helps that John was so open and honest in each interview, and willingly spent most of his life in front of a camera. Apparently they had over 240 hours of film to work with. You can begin to appreciate how long that must have taken to edit. Yet the film shows no sign of strain. His story is beautifully told. I highly recommend it for any fan of John Lennon, or The Beatles.
A very funny movie, and this type of silly humour really appeals to me. It certainly wasn't the best of its kind, but it's definitely entertaining to watch.
