Frozen II review

Following from the 2013 mega-success of Frozen, Disney have been champing at the bit to make a sequel ever since. Almost every major Disney animation is going to be a big hit but Frozen‘s success was unexpected. This brought the problem that the source material – Hans Christian Anderson’s The Snow Queen – was its own story and so, in turn, was Frozen. Six years later, directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee return with the original cast of animated characters and the Frozen world is being expanded.

After spending the opening five minutes providing exposition, we learn that the kingdom of Arendelle is not far from an enchanted forest. Elsa (Idina Menzel) hears a literal “call to adventure” and goes to investigate, leading to many events along the way. The story is, shall we say, rather slight. However, it provides just enough of a framework for what’s important: the music. A major complaint of the first film is that, whilst it had fantastic songs, they dry up rather quickly in the second half. The same complaint cannot be made here as song after song is brought before the audience whenever it looks like the story might be slowing down.

There are several memorable numbers, though arguably nothing quite hits the heights of “Let It Go” and the hilarious “In Summer”. Nevertheless, the songs are top notch, with “Lost in the Woods” being an hysterical homage to ’80s and ’90s boy band pop ballads and “Into the Unknown” letting Menzel show the quality of her pipes once more. In fact, this is one of those soundtracks you may hear playing on a loop in many cars for the next few years.

As per usual, the animation is stunning. Interestingly, this one strays away from the Scandinavian themes into more colonial images. It presents an oddly political theme that Disney only semi-commits to but it nevertheless provides a different flavour from the first. The inevitable cop out where no one suffers any real consequences bears its head again.

Fortunately, this continuation of the story (or should I say franchise) focuses on the characters – who are just as delightful as ever. Yes, nothing particularly original happens to anybody and their stories don’t develop very far but they all have funny, dramatic and/or heroic moments in good measure. Despite its title, this is a warm blanket kind of movie. The sort many will snuggle down together to watch on a cold winter’s night once it’s out on home release.

As previously mentioned, the story isn’t up to much and it does end rather abruptly after some random magic seems to rectify everything. However, there has definitely been left some room for a sequel if the appetite for the franchise remains – which early evidence suggests it does.

If you’re a fan of the first, then you can’t really go wrong. It’s not going to rock your world but it will cheer up your day and leave you humming a tune or two by the end.

The Lion King (2019) review

Jon Favreau’s remake of The Jungle Book back in 2016 was one of the best of Disney’s recent and increasingly aggressive attempts to poke people in the nostalgia and get them to pay a second time to watch something they’ve already seen. The Jungle Book updated the story, changed certain elements and introduced some amazing special effects and a winning turn from its young star. Now Favreau has turned his gaze to one of the greatest animations – nay, films – of the last 25 years.

So what’s different? Story-wise: not a whole lot. Unlike the modernisation and tangible feel given to The Jungle Book, this film sticks closely to the film that Millenials were rightly obsessed with. Some parts are literally shot-for-shot. Of course, now it looks photo-realistic. It’s beautiful and astounding and weird. For example, a lion’s mouth just doesn’t look right belting out Can You Feel the Love Tonight? and the complete lack of expression possible to convey on an animal like say, a hornbill… So some moments look amazing and the vistas are jaw-dropping but the lack of cartoon stylisation becomes the film’s biggest issue. In fact, much of it becomes rather soulless.

Fortunate then that the story is just as strong as ever. Most of the songs are there too, although some have been neutered because the new animation style wouldn’t work with the song (which is a particular issue for fans of Be Prepared).

The voice cast are a mixed bag, with John Oliver, Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner standing out as the new Zazu, Pumbaa and Timon, respectively. They maintain the original concepts of the characters whilst also giving just enough of their own spins to make it worth watching. In fact, these characters are where the most flavour comes from, introducing new jokes and tweaked dynamics to the relationships. Unfortunately, Donald Glover and Beyonce Knowles-Carter feel like ineffective stunt casting, preying on popular culture rather than being able to give the required emotion for Simba and Nala. Also, Beyonce seems to be trying to prove just how many notes she can sing rather than actually get the point across.

But more to the point, James Earl Jones returns as Simba’s father Mufasa. He’s great. As great as he was last time, but what’s the point in hiring the same person as last time unless you just want to have the same effect. The whole thing therefore is nothing but a huge comparison for anyone who’s seen it before, which has been evident in this review.

From the point of view of first-timers, though, the story, characters, comedy and songs are engaging enough to entertain the masses (though they should definitely prioritise watching the original version). However, due to the realistic stylisation, the five year-old amongst us was forever confused as to which lion was which and so on, so some fundamental issues of clarity do occur with this remake.

There you have it. If you’re seeing this, it’s most likely for nostalgic purposes and you’ll be listing similarities and differences throughout. For kids, it’s pretty scary with the muscular, toothy lions fighting with a fiery background, and the running time is a bladder-testing 118 minutes. It’s good because it’s The Lion King and Disney are going to keep making these as long as we’re willing to cough up the cash. Let’s hope they go back to the quality and reinvention of The Jungle Book, though, rather than expensive retreads like this and the recent Aladdin. Mulan is already next on the cards…

Yesterday review

It’s not very often we get high concept rom-coms. Let alone ones that aren’t entirely obnoxious. So here we have an idea that seems entirely British: what if everyone forgot The Beatles except for one man… a man who happens to be a musician. Better still, the screenplay is by Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually and About Time) and directed by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later). Is it as good as it sounds, though?

Himesh Patel (most well-known for his tenure in Eastenders) plays failing-musician Jack Malik, who has a cycling accident at the exact same time the entire Earth’s electricity goes out for 12 seconds. Upon waking up, he discovers he’s lost two front teeth and no one remember The Beatles. Not even his manager/best friend Ellie (Lily James from Cinderella and Downton Abbey) is aware. So he begins trying to remember their songs and making a success of it, whilst also struggling to realise his true feelings for Ellie.

It’s a very sweet film. And it makes decent use of The Beatles vast back catalogue. The story itself is a bundle of towels and doesn’t really go very far with its enticing premise. Nevertheless, the sheer charm of the cast sails you through to the end of the film, with Curtis’ characteristically witty and lovely dialogue, accompanied by Boyle’s distinctive direction style. Many of the elements are recognisable from previous Curtis scripts, such as Joel Fry’s Rocky, who may as well Rhys Ifans from Notting Hill. However, it still works and Patel and James make yet another delightful central pairing – if not quite as adorable as Domnhall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams in About Time.

Unfortunately, it’s very predictable and doesn’t take many risks, which is fine as this is a comfort food kind of film. What it does lack is bigger laughs, instead providing a steady stream of smiles. So whilst it isn’t amazing, it’s absolutely worth a watch. Plus, it’ll appeal to a wide audience thanks to its killer soundtrack.

However, one odd point – that fortunately doesn’t derail the film – is the not insignificant appearance of Ed Sheeran, playing himself, as someone who helps Jack on his journey to stardom. He’s fairly integral to the plot and not a terrible actor. Yet, it’s so odd that it is somewhat jarring.

Anyway, a good date movie, one for your parents or even a decent family movie (providing everyone’s 12 or over).

Rocketman review

Dexter Fletcher directs this musical biopic of Elton John’s life – or at least the first half of it – in a style totally different to the recent Bohemian Rhapsody biopic about Freddie Mercury. It plays out like a fantasy musical with people literally being elevated off the ground by the music and people singing in the streets. It’s a bold style and one which allows this film to feel unique.

Elton’s life story is a tumultuous tale of sex, success, the trials of closeted homosexuality, drugs, booze and rock ‘n’ roll. It opens with Taron Egerton’s Elton, dressed as the devil, bursting into a therapy group, whereupon the narrative is then told through flashback form from his childhood to when he entered rehabilitation. Throughout the story, the devil-outfitted version of Elton starts to shed the costume as he exorcises his demons to the group and, consequently, the audience.

It’s an interesting framing device. However, your enjoyment of the film comes down to whether or not you enjoy Elton John’s music. A kind of greatest hits catalogue of his songs are played out – paying no mind to their real chronology – in order to thematically fit into the turmoil happening in his life at any given moment. Be that the lack of affection of his father, his passionate relationship with his manager John Reid (The Bodyguard‘s Richard Madden), his fluctuating mental health and much more. It’s fair to say the film flits from moment to moment at a breathtaking pace, barely giving five minutes to some significant points – such as his marriage to Renate.

Yet, it works brilliantly. Like any good musical, you are totally swept up in the drama of the music and the events. Egerton is brilliant as the eponymous rock legend but his performance is bolstered by a superb supporting cast, like the smouldering Madden, Bryce Dallas Howard as his abrasive mother and, perhaps most importantly, Jamie Bell’s Bernie Taupin. In fact, the relationship between Taupin and John is central to the film as it is their relationship which is the main driving factor for all their success. It’s something of a love letter from John to Taupin – and not in the romantic sense.

Furthermore, the choreography of the set-pieces with the fantasy and dance numbers sweep you up into the giddy hedonism of the lifestyle John has been able to lead, whilst also presenting the severe lows that come with it.

Director Fletcher – who has previously made the Proclaimers‘ musical, Sunshine on Leith, and was brought in at the last minute to sort out Bohemian Rhapsody once Bryan Singer was kicked off set – has done a sterling job. Sure, it’s not perfect, as some scenes don’t have the editing quite right which makes the lip synching look a little off, but it was never going to be perfect. Also, this is the kind of film with scenes that you probably wouldn’t want to see with your family due to the sex.

Nevertheless, if you’re up for the fantasy element and you like Elton John’s music, this is a film that you’ll probably be able to watch again and again. Highly recommended.

Mary Poppins Returns review

It’s been 54 years since the first Disney adaptation of P.L. Travers’ series of Mary Poppins stories. It’s one of the most beloved films of all time, which means that this sequel – starring Emily Blunt in the title role – has a lot to live up to.

Set a mere 25 years after the original film, the Banks children are all grown up. Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) is a widower with three children, all of whom have had to grow up quickly after the death of their mother. Jane Banks (Emily Mortimer) is champion of the working classes, organising labour campaigns. After Michael is unable to repay a loan in time, the bank sets up to repossess the Banks’ family home. In swoops the eponymous, practically perfect Mary Poppins to save the Banks’ family, with a little help from a lantern lighter named Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda in his first full film role after the enormous success of his Hamilton musical).

Sticking closely to the format of the original, Mary Poppins guides the family through a series of fantastical, musical events that helps the family to live a better life. The songs aren’t as catchy as the original’s but anyone born after 1964 will have grown up with those songs as commonplace earworms. Nevertheless, the music is wonderfully done – charming and full of whimsy. Furthermore, the choreography of the dance pieces is entertainingly done.

However, the most engaging segments are those in which Mary Poppins transports the children into a hand-drawn, animated world. It harkens back to a style that is hugely underused and it overflows with charm. Unfortunately, this is not as significant a component as you might hope.

The original film, for all its accolades, actually has very little plot. This one has rather more so, using Colin Firth’s bank manager as a dastardly antagonist, set on repossessing the Banks’ house and actively impeding them. It’s a simple enough story that helps to move the characters along to each set piece but there’s nothing wholly interesting going on.

If you enjoy Mary Poppins, the biggest praise is that this film does it justice. However, it’s not jaw-droppingly brilliant enough to have the same impact as the original. The music is enjoyable, the plot is plodding and the characters are engaging enough. The whole experience lives and dies on one key thing, though: is Emily Blunt any good as Mary Poppins?

Yes. She’s brilliant. Sophisticated, beautiful, smart, magical and practically perfect in every way. Moreover, she’s capably accompanied by Miranda, who shows off his Hamilton talents to full effect. There’s even a wondrous, chunky cameo from Dick Van Dyke towards the end.

Overall, it’s not the best musical from the last few years but it’s very much worth your time. It’s the kind of film that you know how much you’ll enjoy based on your enjoyment of the first one. That being said, it’s funny, colourful and gives the requisite warm feeling you desire from a film of this ilk.

Bohemian Rhapsody review

The long-gestating project about legendary rock band Queen, primarily focused on its charismatic lead singer, Freddie Mercury, is a dream come true for many Queen fans. Bohemian Rhapsody is brought to the screen by director Bryan Singer (famous for making the X-Men film franchise so popular) and screenwriters Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan (known for other biopics like The Theory of Everything and The Crown, respectively).

Initially using 1985’s iconic Live Aid concert and Queen’s comeback performance as a framing device, the film begins with Freddie Mercury – at that time still Farrokh Bulsara – in 1970, as he offers to replace the band’s outgoing lead singer. What follows is then a linear timeline of events that show the band’s meteoric rise to fame, Mercury’s emerging sexuality and – most importantly for a film about musicians – the wildly swinging highs and lows that come with success.

Rami Malek of Mr Robot fame takes on the lead role and completely embodies Freddie Mercury. It’s a transformative performance. In addition, Gwylim Lee is uncanny as Brian May. In fact, the performances are generally solid, even though a few are caricatures, such as the Bob Geldof character, whom it is unclear whether or not it’s supposed to be amusing. Allen Leech (Downton Abbey) gets the slightly thankless job of playing the villain in Mercury’s story but does the best with a cartoonish antagonist.

Unfortunately, despite Mercury having such an interesting life, some of the plotting is rather pedestrian and soapy. However, it works well when they focus on the music, of which there is plenty. The ending is especially rousing and led to tearful eyes and a round of applause in the screening I attended, which is a rare pleasure.

Sacha Baron Cohen had been attached to a much earlier iteration of this film, which would probably have been a far grubbier project. This is certainly supposed to be celebration of Freddie Mercury, for the most part, but you can tell that there’s a lot of darkness left untapped in this version of the narrative.

Nevertheless, many Queen fans will be absolutely enthralled by this, whilst others may feel they deserved a bit better. If nothing else though, it highlights just had damn good Queen music is. Expect Rami Malek to get plenty of nominations come awards’ season.

Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! review

Unbelievably, the last Mamma Mia film was released 10 years ago! It was a smash-hit musical based on the stage production, which was in turn based upon the songs of ABBA. It followed Donna (Meryl Streep) and her daughter, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), on an idyllic Greek island just before Sophie’s wedding, with the twist being that Sophie has invited three men she hasn’t met before (Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard), any of whom could be her biological father.

In this sequel-cum-prequel, we have moved forward to see what’s happening with Sophie and the hotel on the Greek island, whilst also getting flashbacks to Donna’s earlier escapades with the three potential fathers – only now the young Donna is played by the ever-charming Lily James (Downton Abbey, Cinderella, Baby Driver). As far as narratives go, it is fair to describe this as weak. Moreover, the flashbacks and present day events are basically disconnected and simply take turns to play out with no particular framing device to be seen.

Just like the previous film, though, something like this basically lives and dies based on the music. If you can’t stand ABBA music then there’s frankly no point in even watching the film, however the ABBA fanbase is enormous and people with only a mild interest will find the music presented in a lively manner.

From a musical point of view, the actual singing does leave a little to be desired in places (much like in the original). There are a few stand-out singers, such as Cher, but they’re largely shoe-horned in so that someone can have a decent crack at a song. Lily James is a capable singer and absolutely delightful in what is essentially the lead role, making it understandable why three men would fall in love with her upon meeting. Fortunately, the film doesn’t take itself seriously whatsoever, which means there’s a good vein of humour running throughout it’s 114 minute length. In particular, the returning Julie Walters and Christine Baranski as Donna’s best friends are hilarious and their younger alter egos are pretty good too.

Quite a long of songs are re-used from the original film but most songs are new; however, it’s apparent the best songs have already been used up, which is why some lesser-known tunes get thrown into the mix.

Generally, this feels are more competent production than the original, with snappier transitions and more interesting choreography. This plots between the first and second films do not marry up at all and you may find yourself questioning how this was possible and why that happened there when it didn’t happen before. Alas, all these issues are for naught really. The only question is whether or not you’ll enjoy it if you like the music. Overall, the answer is yes but you won’t be blown away either. At the end of the day, though, it’s nice to see something cheerful at the cinema!

Phantom of the Opera (Her Majesty’s Theatre) review

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s seminal Phantom of the Opera is in its 32nd year in London. Based on Gaston Leroux’s French novel, Le Fantôme de l’Opéra, it tells the story of a Parisian opera house in the 1890s that has just transferred to new management. Upon taking over, the new owners are informed that the opera house is haunted by a phantom, who makes demands of a salary, box 5 and stipulations about the performances. Needless to say, this is not well-received.

This show has been performed literally tens of thousands of times and the level of professionalism on display is sublime. The staging and performances are all exceptional and, in all honesty, the production is as good now as it’s ever likely to be. Your enjoyment therefore will simply come down to whether you like the story and, of course, the music.

All the songs are performed very well; however, it does suffer from poor diction, which means for the uninitiated (like myself), making out the lyrics is difficult. This is especially difficult in songs where multiple characters are singing, which occurs with some frequency throughout the performance. Nevertheless, the score still stands up and will still have you leaving the theatre dramatically – or melodramatically – humming and singing bars of the music. Damn yooouuuu! You little prying Pandoooooora!

Where the show seems outdated now is in its melodrama, which is a little much to take in an era where more realism is expected of the characters. Furthermore, the characters are largely two-dimensional so it’s difficult to feel much empathy for many beyond the Phantom.

Having said this, the show is truly a spectacle to be enjoyed on the stage with its inventive staging, pyrotechnics and dancing. It retains a wonderfully postmodern feel as you see performances of musical within the musicals that are then transported behind the scenes into the dressing room. In particular, the dry ice and gondola effects where the Phantom navigates to his lair as mesmerisingly done.

Playing to a packed out Her Majesty’s Theatre in London, it’s clear that it’ll be some time before people’s enthusiasm for the show wanes. The theatre itself is spectacular with golden statues adorning the pillars on either side of the stage. However, from our seats in the dress circle, there were plenty of places that would have had pillars obstructing the view and the seats, whilst comfortable to sit in, did not allow much leg room whatsoever.

Overall, it’s a great performance but you probably know before you go whether you’re going to enjoy it. In short, it’s as good as it’s ever going to get and a solid, melodramatic, larger-than-life theatre experience.

Monty Python’s Spamalot – UK Theatre Tour 2017/18 review

Coventry’s Belgrade Theatre hosted one of several performances by Selladoor Productions on 28th February. Monty’s Python Spamalot has been running in different forms since late 2004 and, for those not in the know, is a “loving rip-off” of the 1975 film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If you’ve seen the film, you have already seen the narrative (what there is of one) and the majority of the skits. However, unlike the film, in the absence of Terry Gilliam’s eponymous animations, we instead have music and dancing. For we are in Camelot, and ’tis a silly place!

John Du Prez and Python alumni Eric Idle’s musical is borderline a pantomime: topical references (Trump and the Oscar mix-up from last year get a mention), audience participation and camp silliness. This particular rendition worked well on the Belgrade’s stage as the, presumably deliberately, cardboard-looking sets make it look like a rush job cobbled together for the tour. This replicates the charm of the film and the low budget aesthetic, which would be hard to accept on a long-term West End stage.

The jokes come thick and fast, though they’re very familiar if you’ve seen the film, so don’t watch it in advance. However, if you don’t already like Monty Python humour, this is a no go area. The show does suffer from the same lulls as Holy Grail too; however, the musical numbers help to at least keep the tempo high, which is a genuine improvement. Some classic scenes are replicated or even improved, like the famous French castle scene. Whereas, others, like the white rabbit scene, just don’t translate as well on stage.

One of the high points of the show is the fourth-wall breaking that permeates throughout. This eventually led to the finale with a highly unimpressed audience member, which served only to increase the hilarity. On that point, the audience were an asset to the show and were on-board with the jokes, yet it’s clear that the appeal of the show is diminishing as the theatre, which was very well-organised, was barely half-full. This is a shame, though, as it could play very well to the uninitiated. Unfortunately, the appeal of a show like this is marketed by nostalgia, when it would be beneficial if it could stand on its own.

There were no particularly familiar faces amongst the cast, which served to benefit the performance as no individual was being pandered to or trying to upstage anyone. King Arthur, Patsy and Galahad were extremely funny and the delivery of the gags and music was clearly well-tuned.

I went with a Python fan (he wore a t-shirt) and someone unfamiliar with the material. All three of us enjoyed it a lot, though Python remains, on the evidence of those in attendance, something more for the boys than the girls. Overall, it has wonderfully immature jokes and impressively silly dance numbers. It’s worth watching the Black Knight clip before going to give you a taste of the humour and, if you find it funny, buy a ticket.

As a final note, it still has Malvern, Birmingham, Shrewsbury and Derby to go (to name but a few). Let’s see if it can get the audience it deserves elsewhere.

Pitch Perfect 3 review

Sometimes a film series comes along out of nowhere and starts a phenomenon. That happened with the 2012’s original Pitch Perfect, which initially seemed to be playing off the success of the television series Glee, but became popular for its great acapella mash-ups of contemporary songs and its offbeat (sorry) humour. That spun-off a very lucrative sequel that had little of the charm of the first film. Due to its financial success, though, Pitch Perfect 3 comes to complete the trilogy.

The film starts near the end and then explains how it got to that point. It’s a ridiculous plot that is less paper thin and more tissue paper thin. The Bellas – the singing troupe around which the series is based – are not very happy because their lives after college aren’t as good as they’d hoped. As a result, they come back together and do a tour around army bases to entertain the soldiers. That is the main plot…

Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson are the main characters, with Kendrick’s Becca still the film’s driving force. However, Wilson’s Fat Amy has the most amusing subplot as her father (played with an hilarious Australian accent by John Lithgow) reappears into her life despite being a mobster. Whenever the two are on screen together, there are lots of gags and one-liners flying around; they’re not all winners, but the jokes come so thick and fast that it doesn’t really matter.

The other Bellas all return from the previous movies: Brittany Snow, Anna Camp and Hailee Steinfeld get some good lines but the others are largely just there as always. However, the film is pretty self-aware and makes fun of its own shortcomings, even acknowledging the fact that no one knows who two of the Bellas are.

So it is pretty funny. However, the other question is: are the songs any good? Happily, the answer is yes. There’s nothing as memorable as the cup song in the original but every song is a winner and it’s a joy to watch. In the second film, it felt like the songs were too spaced out but here you never get too much talking before the next song.

If you’ve seen one of the previous films and disliked it, then this is not for you. Frankly, you have to be in the mood for the cheap , sometimes coarse gags and pop music. This film exists to cater for a specific audience. So in short, if you liked both Pitch Perfect films that preceded this one, then watch it. If you weren’t so keen on number two, though, this is an improvement.