Mad Matty

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!

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.

So this certainly isn't Dennis The Menace as we know him from the Beano comics. For starters he's not wearing his trademark red and black striped jumper. Also in this film, 95% of the mischief that Dennis gets up to is a genuine mistake. He's not really the mischievous brat that we know from the comics - he's just very clumsy! (So I find him more relatable in that sense.)
Speaking of appearances, the actor who plays Dennis' father in this film looks more like the geek Walter from the comic books, who Dennis always picks on! The Walter character is nowhere to be seen in this movie.

So watching it just as a stand alone film and not expecting to see any resemblance to the comic strips, it is an enjoyable movie. It is spoilt a great deal at the beginning by a young actress named Amy Sakasitz (who plays Margaret). She cannot act to save her life and I was really glad she wasn't in it for very long. Interestingly all the other actors, both kids and adults were rather good. Mason Gamble who played the lead role was brilliant. Walter Matthau and Christopher Lloyd are fantastic actors anyway so that came as no surprise.

It also comes as no surprise that it's written and produced by John Hughes because the film does have a similar feel to "Home Alone" and "Uncle Buck". And while it is an enjoyable film to watch, unlike the other two films I've mentioned, I see no need to return to it time and time again. Once is enough. But it's certainly enjoyable that once.

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.

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.

Whoever wrote this adaption must have been on something strong. I suppose I wouldn't have been an easy audience. I'm a big fan of Roald Dahl's books and the 1996 "Matilda" is a perfect film. However, I kept a very open mind watching it. (While the 1971 Wonka is perfect too, I also very much enjoyed the 2005 Depp version too. It is possible to do excellent re-makes.)

This version of "Matilda" could have been so much better if the songs weren't so forgettable and if they didn't have that strange psychedelic storytelling where Matilda predicts Miss Honey's past. That never happened in the book and it spoiled this version and made it incredibly boring.

Like so many bad films, it was very much a missed opportunity. The cast were all fantastic and played the parts how you imagine them all to be when reading the book, even if you haven't seen the original '96 version.

With the exception of our dinner lady at school, Mrs Mossop, I didn't think anybody could play Miss Trunchbull as well as Pam Ferris in the original but Emma Thompson does actually do an incredible job. That being said, it would have made more sense for the kids to be singing and dancing around the Trunchbull. I don't think the Trunchbull would be singing and dancing!

The strange writing and some of the directing of this film really let it down. The songwriting wasn't particularly great either. Some might really enjoy this film so it might be worth a watch but it's not for me. I'm sending my DVD to the charity shop.

When a re-make of a film is done the natural thing for anyone to do is to compare it and unfortunately I'm going to have to do that a little to make my points. But I genuinely believe that more people would have enjoyed this film so much better, if the 1971 Gene Wilder film hadn't already been made. This 2005 adaption has just as much heart, the story is beautifully told and every member of the cast were absolutely spot on with the acting. As a huge Roald Dahl fan myself who has read the book many times over the years, I believe Johnny Depp captures the essence of Willy Wonka more accurately than Gene Wilder. Wilder was wonderful and did his own classic take on it but Johnny Depp makes him appear a lot more eccentric - much like he was in the original story.

The '71 version certainly has better music which helps justify its status as the classic adaption of the film which everyone loves. "Pure Imagination" is one of my favourite songs ever recorded and "The Candy Man" is also a gem. (These songs were written by one of my favourite singers, Anthony Newley along with Leslie Bricusse.)
One of the few flaws in the 2005 adaption is the fact that the music (particularly the Oompa Loompa singing voices) sounds very robotic and they've clearly tried to put in multiple styles of music. Arguably you could say that this fits in with the eccentric nature of the Willy Wonka character but I think it's because of this one minor issue why it falls short of becoming the classic film it should be. It doesn't have the charm of "Pure Imagination". Although it has to be said, that Willy Wonka is not meant to be charming! Quite rightly, he doesn't particularly like people in general. That was a major point lost on Gene Wilder. And therefore perhaps charming songs would be too wholesome.

The lyrics for the Oompa Loompa songs in the 2005 adaption were written by Roald Dahl as they're taken from the book and therefore once again, more true to the original story.

Unlike so many modern films, the camera work just tells the story! And that's wonderful because I'm SO SICK of seeing focus pulls for no apparent reason! I'm so sick of camera guys trying to show off! The only obvious focus pull I can remember in this film is when Wonka notices a grey hair in the barber scene. And that's good. A camera should go unnoticed. So for any camera crew reading this - just set the focus and leave it at that!!!! It's the story and acting we should be concentrating on. Stop showing off! They could pull focus back in the early 1900s but they didn't because they knew how to tell stories! It's nothing new. It doesn't make the film any better. It's distracting. SO STOP IT!!!!

All in all, this film is just as good as the '71 adaption and it's certainly more true to the book. Roald Dahl disowned the Gene Wilder version. We can't predict what he would have thought of this adaption but Johnny Depp certainly plays Wonka how I've always imagined him when reading the book. And as I've previously said, each member of the cast is outstanding. The acting is superb. There isn't a weak link among them. Tim Burton should be proud. Thank you for making such a wonderful film that I've already watched many times and will continue to see time and time again.

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.

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.

On the whole a very interesting documentary about the life and death of Whitney Houston. It focuses on her life more than it does career, but I'm sure there will be many alternative documentaries that focus on her career too. I would have liked to have had a bit more interviews with Whitney herself. I feel we know what her family thinks, but not much about what Whitney thinks of her own life.

The interviewer showed himself up by stating: "If we can't talk about drugs that makes it hard to talk about the last years of her life."
I'm not saying that he should have avoided talking about drugs, but if you can only talk about one aspect of somebody's life, even in their declining years, then in my opinion, you're not a good documentary maker.

A decent documentary maker would've talked about drugs to all those who were willing to discuss it, and talk about another subject to the one who wasn't. Therefore it would've been more balanced, and shown a more human side. For we all have many aspects to our lives rather than just one.

On the whole though, it was fairly balanced, and kept my interest throughout and so I've got mixed views about this documentary. I felt it could've been so much better.

Despite being warned at how dreadful this film is, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I didn't think it was dreadful at all. I can understand some fans of Beatrix Potter being disappointed by the fact that it has been modernised. It is a far cry from the original books. Truth be told, if they modernised Winnie-the-Pooh as much as they have here, I'd be distraught. I felt the soundtrack was designed to appeal to modern fashion, using songs such as the "Pa pa l'americano" remix. Sometimes when they put something in a film just because it's fashionable at the time, it can look or sound extremely cheesy.

Despite its lack of authenticity, the film made up for itself in heart, story and comedy. It had romance sprinkled all the way through, and it was never too long before I was laughing again and again. I was pleasantly surprised by Domhnall Gleeson who became a main character throughout. I know him best from "Goodbye Christopher Robin" a biopic about A.A. Milne. He really is a fantastic actor, and in "Peter Rabbit", he has more of a chance to demonstrate his skills as a comedian. A very talented man indeed.

This film is not the Peter Rabbit we know from the Beatrix Potter stories, but as a stand alone film, it is wonderful.

May your days be merry and bright!

I really enjoyed this film and it was a privilege to see it for the first time in a good old fashioned cinema, the Roxy Cinema in Ulverston. 64 years after its initial release in 1954, and the film still has the power to pack them in. The cinema was almost full of all ages, which was a lovely surprise. It was also beautiful to hear everyone singing along to the title song at the end.

Bing Crosby sings the song "White Christmas" twice in the film and I personally prefer both renditions to his original single release in 1942. It's one of the most commercially successful records of all time, so who am I to criticise, but I've always felt that the original was a little dreary. Both versions in the film however are very uplifting, and I think they should release one of them as a single if they haven't already.

The film itself is perhaps a little longer than it needed to be and could do with some chopping down a bit in the editing room. However, I really did enjoy the film. There were many comical moments that had everyone in the cinema laughing out loud. I may not watch it every single year but I will definitely be watching it again a few times.

As with many trilogies, the first one is usually the best, but I will always try to avoid comparing them too much to allow myself to appreciate the merits as an individual film. This is probably the most frustrating of all Christmas films (in my humble opinion). On the whole, it is a fantastic film, and yet it is ruined by one of the main plots!

The storyline about Santa losing his magic and needing to find a wife within 28 days is great as the main storyline. This gives Santa a chance to go back to the "real world" of Scott Calvin, away from the North Pole. It gives him a chance to meet up with his son Charlie, who is now a teenager, and becoming a naughty boy, spray painting and vandalising his school. Charlie's storyline is quite irritating and upsetting for those of us who have grown to love him from the first one. However, his behaviour is explained in the film... He's frustrated keeping his Dad's secret for so long, and that's why he feels so upset with anyone who disrespects Christmas... like his school. (I know how he feels. Our deccy doo-dars are STILL not up, and it's the 8th December!! I'm gonna be having serious words with my family.)
Charlie does finally see the error of his ways and in many ways, becomes the hero of the film. So I'm quite relieved with how that storyline pans out.

Finding a good wife before Christmas Eve gives the film some lovely romantic moments between Scott Calvin and his future Mrs Clause. It's perfectly acted on both sides, and they make a fairly unreal story seem quite believable. (The nature of all good fantasy films.)

While Santa's away, it all goes downhill at the Factory back in the North Pole. In order to keep the Elves happy, Curtis (an Elf) has cloned Santa and made a robot version of him. The robot quickly becomes too big for his boots and forces all Elves to start making coal, as every child has been naughty in his opinion. This is where the film fails. I don't mind silliness and I'm usually the first to be silly. But this clone is so irritating, as if we're not annoyed enough by Charlie's behaviour!

I understand that something had to go wrong at the Factory to give the Elves more of a story. However it would've made more sense if Santa had simply asked one of the Legendary Characters (that already appear in the film) to look after the Factory for him, and then they turn too big for their boots. He should've asked Father Time (who was played by Peter Boyle. He would make a good, and comical baddie anyway!) Incidentally, Peter Boyle has a part in the first film as Scott Calvin's boss, but I don't think we're supposed to notice that!
I do like the idea of making huge toy soldiers to battle against the Elves though. As a Laurel and Hardy fan, I wonder if that was taken from their film "Babes In Toyland", where the same thing happens?

This film certainly doesn't have the magic that the first film had, but on the whole, it is still an excellent film with some very touching moments. It's a pity it's slightly ruined by one of the main characters. The first film can be watched year after year. This film is worthy of watching four times at the most.

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.

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.

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!

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 love Elvis Presley as a singer, but his films vary from fairly enjoyable/watchable to downright dreadful. This film is just a typical one. The songs were fantastic, but I felt there wasn't quite enough of them in this one. The racing scenes were boring in my opinion, but I have no interest in sport anyway! And as with a few of his films it really lacked in story. (There was one hilarious gag with the old man as the cleaner, but I won't spoil it. That part did have me laughing actually!)

After watching "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" recently... (incidentally was released in the same year as "Speedway") I began to wonder why do I enjoy musicals like that, but I don't enjoy Elvis films as much?
The answer lies purely on the story and the market. Elvis films were aimed at teenagers of the '50s, but fashion/style and tastes changes so rapidly in the teen market that by the '60s (when most of his films were being made and released) they were already dated. It made Elvis look so old fashioned compared to The Beatles. And they churned them out so quickly that nobody really gave two hoots about the story. And so whatever little story was there was being dragged out for the full 90 minutes, and it just makes the whole film a dull experience.

"Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" on the other hand is a timeless classic, which is aimed at kids. Kid's taste in films and comedy will never change, and we've all been kids so that's why we can all relate. One of the scriptwriters for this film was Roald Dahl - one of the greatest storytellers of all time. And there was enough brilliant catchy music and dance sequences to keep an audience entertained for almost 2 and a half hours.

And that is probably the frustrating thing about watching Elvis Presley's films. Even if he didn't manage to make a career out of being the next James Dean and Marlon Brando (as he wanted to), Elvis definitely could have starred in family musicals like "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" or "Mary Poppins", with a decent story, rather than 'chic flicks' that were not even of their time!

I love Elvis Presley as a singer, but his movies definitely vary in quality. Some are fairly enjoyable, while others are just dreadful. This was actually ok. (Of course, I may be comparing it to "Harum Scarum... a dreadful film that I saw the other day. A three hour epic of a sponge would have been more exciting than THAT film.)

Elvis films seem to fit into three categories: The fairly enjoyable rom-com musicals that the Colonel wanted him in: G.I Blues, Roustabout, Blue Hawaii...
The boring, and utterly dull (usually westerns): Love Me Tender, Flaming Star, Harum Scarum...
Or the one film that was a drama, but was actually decent: King Creole.

This film fits into Colonel Tom Parker's category, but I have to admit, I'd much rather watch those ones than the dull attempts at westerns or dramas. This doesn't mean for one second that the Colonel was doing good by sticking him in these films. Had he allowed him to star in "West Side Story", or "A Star Is Born" (as he was offered!)... Or more films like "King Creole", then maybe Elvis's acting career would've turned out better. But we can't dwell on such things. After all, if it wasn't for the downside of his filming career, we wouldn't have had the wonderful '68 Comeback, and his fantastic tours from 1969-1977.

The songs in this film are fantastic. The highlight is one of the best songs Elvis recorded: "All That I Am."
And the whole film is a breath of fresh air compared to the awful "Harum Scarum". It's not his best film, even among the rom-coms, but it's still enjoyable to watch once or twice.

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.

I absolutely love John Lennon and Yoko Ono. They were both truly remarkable singers, songwriters, musicians, artists, film-makers, poets, writers, and peace activists. Their work is eternal.

As they were such unique personalities, I thought that making a biopic telling their story would be next to impossible, and for that reason, I have put off watching this three hour long film for a very long time. I figured it would be cringe-worthy. Yet when I read that the film had been made in co-operation with Yoko Ono herself, I decided I would give it a chance. I’m really glad I did.

The acting is absolutely phenomenal. As they are such famous icons, writers and reporters often had a tendency to sensationalise everything they did. The subtleties in the acting of this film helps us understand the true personalities behind the myth. They were truly caring people who used their fame and fortune to good advantage by promoting love and peace.

Many cynics would call them naive, believing that “not everyone will be peaceful”, and that “without war, we’d be speaking German”… (I’ve heard these arguments time and time again!)
These people don’t realise that without peace, we’d all be dead. It wasn’t World War 2 that saved us all from the Nazis. The Nazis created the war. The only reason we are living today is because the British army helped put an END to the war, and created peace. And it is peace we have to cherish, and promote as much as possible.

One of the many reasons John Lennon was such a great songwriter is due to his honesty, and sincerity in his work. His songs cover a multitude of moods, and many of them are autobiographical. Therefore each song that was chosen to fit a particular scene worked extraordinarily well, and was particularly moving. As a fan of Yoko Ono, I am also pleased at the amount of times they included her songs as well. Yoko often gets overshadowed by John. Yet this film may convert some people to think differently about this wonderful artist.

Even with Yoko’s co-operation, the film doesn’t appear to be at all biased. She wasn’t the sole reason for The Beatles breaking up, but the film does show how frustrating her presence was in studio for the rest of the band. John and Yoko were clearly unaware of this at the time though, because they were so madly in love. I genuinely love this film, and I would happily watch it again and again.

This is without a doubt one of my favourite Laurel and Hardy films of all time. I have watched all of their films countless times, and this one never, ever fails to make me laugh. Stan and Ollie play themselves as well as each others' wives. They are dressed in drag, while their voices are provided by Carol Tevis and May Wallace. The dubbing of the voices is absolutely spot on. There isn't a syllable out of synch, and yet the voices are spoken with such fluidity and full of character.

As usual, the acting is also spot on. When Stan's sister cries out: "I haven't got a big mouth have I?" she immediately goes from crying her heart out to angrily nodding her head. This drastic change in emotions and facial expressions completely matches those of a child. Once again, Stan Laurel demonstrates his genius in acting by showing how accurately he can mimic a child.

When Ollie's sister is told that Stan wants to speak to her on the phone, she immediately curls up her hair, as if Stan would be able to see the difference through the phone. It is only a subtle gesture that not many would notice on their first viewing, but that goes to demonstrate Ollie's expertise in comic timing. Not a moment is wasted. He fills the gaps between gags with tiny gestures that are equally as brilliant as the writing itself.

The editing also deserves a special mention. This film was made in 1933, and they were able to split the screen so that it looked like Stan and his sister were on the same shot together, even though Stan played both. Bert Jordan and Stan Laurel worked together to edit the Laurel and Hardy films, and Roy Seawright was the special effects technician. It is possible they all worked together to achieve these shots, which help the film flow and make more believable.

The attention to detail in this film is remarkable, and yet even though they had so much to think about to avoid making mistakes, the attention was never taken away from the comedy itself. As always with any Laurel and Hardy film, the comedy was the main focus and the inventive gags keep coming one after the other. When the cake falls off the table and lands on Ollie's sister, it falls in such a way that it looks like the queen depicted in the painting. Stan blows water through the telephone line to spray Ollie, and when Ollie attempts to blow ink back at Stan, guess who receives it?

The film is pure Laurel and Hardy comedy gold throughout. I definitely recommend it to any person who has a sense of humour.

Life without Laurel and Hardy would be like attempting to live on the sun; painful, and you'd be dead. Stan was the uncredited writer, director and editor of all their films at Hal Roach Studios, and it was only when they left Roach in 1940, that he lost his creative control.

The amount of hilarious films they made in that 13 year period at the 'Lot of Fun' was nothing short of phenomenal. They always produced quality as well as quantity. There isn't one bad film among them. However there are a few that aren't quite up to their usual standard. They are still brilliant films, but they do have their faults. For me, "Laughing Gravy" is the worst film they made for the Roach Studios.

The overall film just feels like a poor re-make of their earlier silent short "Angora Love". I don't usually mind when they re-make films, or re-use ideas. Whenever they did, they usually made it better. Their silent film "Love 'Em And Weep" eventually became their talkie: "Chickens Come Home", and it worked better as a sound film.

In the case of "Angora Love" and "Laughing Gravy", it is the silent film that works best. Their attempts at trying to hide a goat (rather than a dog) in the hotel is more absurd and therefore more funny!

Plus there is a long period in "Laughing Gravy" where Stan is trying to pull Ollie safely across the roof. The concept is great, but there are no gags. With the exception of Stan slipping underneath Ollie and nearly falling off the roof, there are no other ideas to support the length of this sequence. And therefore, it just looks like five minutes of shuffling about on a roof. There's nothing funny in it.

There are two different versions of "Laughing Gravy". There is the two-reel version, where the landlord, Charlie Hall, shoots himself because he doesn't want to have to spend any more time with Laurel and Hardy. This is quite funny, but also quite morbid.
There is also the three-reel version. In this one, Stan receives a letter telling him about an inheritance he will get if he "severs all ties with Oliver Hardy." This is another scene which drags out longer than it should, and isn't particularly funny. I think it's their only attempt at pathos, but it doesn't really suit Laurel and Hardy.

It is perhaps controversial of me to have such a low opinion of the film, especially when it is a favourite for many other fans. It is certainly a favourite amongst dog-lovers and for them it has the cuteness appeal. I still recommend this film to anyone. It is absolutely brilliant, and hilarious almost all the way through. Even if it isn't quite up to their usual standard, it is still better than most other films. I'd rather watch Laurel and Hardy than anything else!

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. Many consider "Jailhouse Rock" to be his best movie, but I definitely disagree. It feels very slow and dull at times. It seems the script has created some good, believable characters, and the casting was chosen well, because the acting was realistic. In fact it's so rare that an Elvis movie has such a good cast. Yet after the characterisation, the plot is quite weak and repetitive. Elvis's character Vince Everett isn't particularly likeable as a person. In fact he's quite horrid, but I guess that helps make it more interesting in what is otherwise a rather boring film.

The songs for the movie are all absolutely fantastic. However the actual recording quality of those songs is rather poor, as there is not enough bass on any of them. Listening to them with headphones on would hurt your ears something chronic. Yet the "Jailhouse Rock" sequence is without a doubt amazing. Choreographed by Alex Romero and Elvis himself, that two minute section of the film is a masterpiece, and remains a contender for the first music video.

It is about time RCA remastered the songs properly, as they already have done with "Jailhouse Rock". After all, the song "Baby I Don't Care" would be one of my favourite Elvis songs, if it wasn't for the poor quality of the sound. And it's got nothing to do with "how old" these songs are. Elvis was recording music as early as 1954, and some of those records sound a hundred times better!

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.