whostolemytrousers

[whostolemytrousers]

The Limey

Steven Soderbergh Marathon. #2

Dir. Steven Soderbergh; Wri. Lem Dobbs

I love Steven Soderbergh right now. It’s the way he knows exactly what he's doing and what he’s making and uses that to his advantage that interests me so much. It’s like he chooses a certain sandbox to play in - in this case the noir/revenge thriller - and uses everything he finds there to form his own new thing. And it’s not overly knowing or winking at the audience either. Clever, but in a good way.

There’s no way you call a movie ‘The Limey’ without knowing the clichés you’re dealing into. The main character at times is so over the top with his limey/West End-ness that he positively gurns at the camera. But that’s kind of the fun of it. On the surface it’s your bog-standard revenge narrative, but he infuses a melancholy too throughout that raises it above that standard.

There’s a motif all the way through that I really enjoyed where different times are juggled and mixed together to form a collage of sorts. I read later somewhere else that this was meant to invoke memory and the regret of the main character, but what I got from this was a sense that the events we are seeing are almost still happening. They seem to be constantly reverberating, leading you to feel there is no real beginning or end to the narrative. It’s core just sort of carries on after the end.

And I guess this is what people refer to when they talk about nostalgia and this film. Nostalgia reverberates through us as if it was still happening, or we wish it was still happening. Both the Terrence Stamp’s Wilson, who has been in prison for a long while, and Peter Fonda’s Valentine, who mourns for and is said to be stuck in the late sixties, are both very much out of time. That is definitely what the film is too. But purposefully so.

Again, Soderbergh arrives in a genre that could be stale, and makes this - a really enjoyable film. If you can’t undermine a genre, adopt it wholeheartedly.

[Link for Sex, Lies and Videotape]

[whostolemytrousers]

Wedding Crashers

Dir. David Dobkin; Wri. Steve Faber & Bob Fisher

I really took against this film, and quite early on. Why would anyone in their right mind decide that for a fun, friendly comedy go, ‘I know, let’s make the main duo hateful womanisers who don’t care about anything other than themselves. That’ll be zany family entertainment!’. No.

You start off with a sequence (which frankly goes on for about 5 minutes too long) of them seducing women at weddings by lying to them. The beginning of the film is where you introduce us to your, if not likeable, then interesting leads. Who in the world thought that was a good character introduction. And, I get it, they are meant to change throughout the film and realise their woes, but the last scene of the film is them off to another wedding to crash and steal food. What a character arc.

The best bits, I have to say, are Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson who I do quite like here. Rachel McAdams’ characters might be the only sympathetic presence throughout the two hours. And Owen Wilson is only sympathetic in the sense that compared to Vince Vaughn he is a positive angel of a man.

It’s was just the streak of nastiness that really put me off. You get a constant sense of cynicism and unkindness that give even the most pleasant moments an edge. For instance, there’s a main character who is gay and so he is portrayed as a ‘comedic’ presence who acts a bit strangely around everyone. By all means have a gay character. Have several! But don’t make the only gay character the ‘weirdo’ to be sneered at. And practically all the main women are just desperate to be with one of the two main characters. It’s like the screenwriters went:

‘So, we’ve got another female character we are going to introduce at this point. What should her character traits be?’

‘Sex.’

‘What?’

‘SEX.’

‘Brilliant. Let’s win some Oscars.’

[whostolemytrousers]

Hustlers

Dir. Lorene Scafaria; Wri. Lorene Scafaria & Jessica Pressler

Even though this movie might actually be 50% slow motion, it’s still great. Lopez brings the confidence, Wu brings the innocence and the two of them together, even their physical presences next to each other, form a really perfect duo of maternal affection. I really think it’s easy to underestimate the impact of the whole physicality thing - just seeing Lopez and Wu walking side by side, one much taller than the other, does something influential subconsciously to help you determine the meaning of the images you’re seeing on screen.

By all means I don’t think this is perfect by a long way. Sometimes early on I felt it became a bit stilted, a bit bitty, even a bit flimsy and surface at times. And because it’s based on true events it can have a hard time escaping being a little too expository at times - this happened, then this did, then this. But I thought Constance Wu was so great all the way through. You can really see the determination and envy and the search for approval in her eyes, especially when she looks at Lopez’s character. And it’s the surprisingly sympathetic characters (surprising because of the events of the film), and the sense from the very start that the stripping is nothing but a job (for the players and the filmmakers) that accentuate all the best parts of the story.

At one point, in the interview wrap-around that frames the film, it is said that Wu’s Dorothy didn't want the article being written about her to be just another way for people to say that all strippers are thieves. The movie then goes on to show you these strippers thieving. But this doesn't seem hypocritical because of the way this film, like a lot of the films I like the most, makes you think twice about judging people. Instead of telling you that all strippers are thieves, it asks you why that is a stereotype. There’s a constant motif throughout the movie - when a credit card is swiped the word approved is baldly shown on the screen on the card machine. It’s like we are being told, however much you disapprove of what you see, in some way it has been approved or made necessary by society. And maybe you, the viewer, too.

The heart here is centred around survival and control of one’s own life and how right and wrong is blurred in certain circumstances. That really made it for me, and that’s what turned this film from fun to pretty damn good.

[whostolemytrousers]

Sex, Lies and Videotape

Steven Soderbergh Marathon. #1

Dir. Steven Soderbergh; Wri. Steven Soderbergh

I’ve decided to have a Soderbergh marathon. Why? I have a strange draw to his films, even though I actively haven't enjoyed some of them in the past. I think it’s that I always feel a drive behind them, an enjoyment or motivation or something. None of them seem factory made, and that’s very true of his debut.

Starting at the beginning, I really liked Sex, Lies and Videotape. It’s not one of those that I can easily pinpoint something specifically enjoyable, but I’m going to have a go at describing its good points anyway.

For some reason James Spader’s character, a highly bizarre, slightly off-kilter anomaly thrown into the main couple’s lives is almost the most sympathetic presence in the film. Normally a film involving a fetishist voyeur would paint them as dark and seedy and to be avoided. But Spader’s character (Graham) seems to, for want of a better phrase, own his abnormalities. And I think that’s important for the context of the film. Control - who has it, who wants it, who lacks it - is central to the story for me. And Spader is perfect for that.

From the very first scene Andie MacDowell - who’s really great here too - is fretting about one thing or another to her therapist and it establishes really well that she lacks the control she seems to crave. Later on, we see her cleaning desperately - a manifestation of this. But she also can’t see her own problems through the cloud of world-ending concerns she has weighing upon her. I loved how all this drastically contrasted with how her husband, and also Graham, seem to be keeping it all under control when in fact it’s all surface. Graham controls his issues through the ultra-controlled nature of videotapes - they are fixed, unchanging. The husband controls his issues through lies - they are far trickier to stop from unravelling. It all comes to a head when the lies and the videotapes break, literally for the tapes in a great scene where Graham hulks his way through his stash of interviews.

So that’s where the lies and videotape come in, but what about the sex? I decided to watch this film completely alone as the title seemed to suggest that this wasn't family viewing, but objectively there is very little sex in it. Sex is used more as something that is uncontrollable in the characters’ lives, it’s something animal in their human lives. Who uses it and who doesn't, who has it and who doesn't - this all mirrors the whole control thing from earlier and it made sense to me. In one scene he shares to her that he is impotent. It’s clear he has to find other pathways to retake control. That might be why the end is as satisfying as it is. She physically takes the camera and points it the other direction and is eventually able to see her own problems and take back control, and he can let go of that aspect of himself.

There’s also a whole thing about therapy and how it can be a strange process - at one-point Spader says, ‘you should never take advice from someone who doesn't know you intimately’ that seems emphasise the strange therapeutic nature of his videotapes - but I’m not going to get into that further. Instead, I'll just say this is a good film. I think this Soderbergh binge was a good idea. Let’s find out.

[whostolemytrousers]

Sing Street

Dir. John Carney; Wri. John Carney & Simon Carmody

I love this film. I don't know how many people have watched it, but not enough have. It’s about a guy who creates a band to get a girl to like him which could sound pretty mundane. But it’s not.

I’ve got to start with the songs. I’m no music fanatic, but they're so, so great. They won't leave my head anytime soon that's for sure. The director pretty much did everything on this film, including writing those songs. I’m always surprised why songs don't have huge success just because they’re in films - these songs (especially ‘Drive It Like You Stole It’) are more listenable than a lot of songs on the radio.

And it’s funny. Further, it even makes it look easy to be funny. What the funniest films for me do is they are incredibly cine-literate and knowing -- but not too much so, then you just want to slap the people on screen. For example, when the main characters kiss for the first time and some ill-timed bites of biscuits get in the way. It’s not what you’re expecting from that moment, and it’s funny! Or when they come up with the name of their band - Sing Street - from the name of their school - Synge Street. They say, ‘do you get it’ to one another. I don't know, that stuff makes it work and endears you all the more to the on-screen shenanigans of teenage boys.

The best way I can describe watching this film is like when you get those sinister shivers from a really great horror movie, but the complete opposite. A lot of that is down to the music, but it all comes together with my new favourite actress (until I find another one) Lucy Boynton, the main actor Ferdia Walsh-Peelo and especially Jack Reynor. The film is much more focused on a central brotherly relationship than you would expect at the start, and it’s Jack Reynor that truly makes that aspect truly remarkable. Oh, and all things John Carney did I loved (which is pretty much everything). The film is seriously good.

[whostolemytrousers]

Airplane! 8/10

Dir. Jim Abrahams, David Zucker & Jerry Zucker; Wri. Jim Abrahams, David Zucker & Jerry Zucker

Earthquake Bird 6/10

Dir. Wash Westmoreland; Wri. Wash Westmoreland; Nov. Susanna Jones

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle 7/10

Dir. Jake Kasdan; Wri. Chris Mckenna, Erik Sommers, Scott Rosenberg & Jeff Pinkner

A Scanner Darkly 8/10

Dir. Richard Linklater; Wri. Richard Linklater; Nov. Philip K. Dick

[whostolemytrousers]

Knife in the Water

Dir. Roman Polanski; Wri. Jakub Goldberg, Roman Polanski & Jerzy Skolimowski

I haven't watched any Roman Polanski before and I hear he’s a bit of a big cheese so I watched one of his movies. Not sure what proportion of the general public would seek out and watch movies like this. But when I’m in the right mood, seeking out an old, foreign, black & white art film doesn't seem as pretentious an idea as it might seem. A bit of snobbery never killed anybody (that’s probably not true but hey).

I applaud this film for being the most uneventful movie I’ve seen in a very, very long time. Therefore, I applaud it most energetically for never being boring. It’s so subtle with its themes of male competition and gender politics that it rides a very thin line between annoying and clever. For a while I was thinking that if I was going to have to do the work and find the subtext all on my lonesome, I might get just a bit peeved. It would be quite nice if the film gave something back in return. If I’m going to assume that this is anything other than three people on a boat trip, help me out a little with what that something else is. In the end, it gives you just enough - I couldn't tell you what it is that you are given in return, but I know character is involved somehow.

The dynamic between this young man coming to interrupt a couple’s weekend, and this older man who feels threatened by youthfulness, is evident from the first few scenes with them. The lack of dialogue helps that tenfold. You look at their faces instead of their mouths; you look at the situation, not every moment. I was reminded of the trailer for ‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) - “How long have we been on this rock? Five weeks? Two Days?” Replace the word ‘rock’ with ‘boat’ and you can understand a key strength of ‘Knife in the Water’.

It also holds an esteemed accolade for a film that is mainly propelled forward in its plot by the weather. I don't mean like when people talk about their ‘emotional storm’ or whatever, but actual weather. It’s surprising how few films you can say that about. It’s irrelevant but interesting.

So, if you don't like someone going, ‘Hey dummy check out all my sweet, sweet subtext. What? You don't get it? That’s your problem’ then the film could be an issue. If you think the subtlety of themes just ends up enhancing the whole film, you’ll really enjoy like I did.

[whostolemytrousers]

The King

Dir. David Michôd; Wri. Joel Edgerton & David Michôd

After Falstaff, Joel Edgerton should play Santa. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

This film reminded me, for a very different reason than normal, that filmmaking is a collaboration. Most of the times I am reminded of this are when one or two things are glaringly wrong in an otherwise perfectly enjoyable film. Say, an irritatingly poppy soundtrack (any half-assed rom-com) or a script (300 comes to mind). But here I reckon it’s the lack of meshing between the direction and script (bear in mind I say that not really knowing what good or bad direction looks like).

I enjoyed this film, don't get me wrong. It’s just the main criticism being levied at it is that it’s up its own bum - a little too serious for what it is. Everywhere you look the tone you're being fed is different to the feelings you have at any given point. Everything seems overegged and that's when it gets irritating - like when someone is really excited and into something, and you’re just not there with them. Maybe a few changes in register would have been nice. Constant epic ness is unsustainable. Register changes I undervalue - also like arcs.

So, at the beginning he is a wayward prince. He’s cavorting around with women and booze, constantly getting into trouble etc. etc. And then, rather suddenly, he’s not. And after that he didn't really seem to have anywhere to go. I studied Henry V at school, the play this film is mainly based on, and that had constant progression. When you’re looking at how great a film looks, it doesn't bode well for character and that other stuff like depth and investment people babble on about. If only spectacle could be as compelling as all that.

Some films make it look easy and don't seem like they are working tirelessly for each pleasure they deliver, but this isn't one of those films. Who's knows what I mean by that. I want it to be both a compliment and a criticism. There are many pleasures, including Timothée Chalamet and Father Christmas - once they are laboriously hand-delivered.

[whostolemytrousers]

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum

Dir. Chad Stahelski; Wri. Derek Kolstad, Shay Hatten, Chris Collins & Marc Abrams

There’s such a thin line between stupid and epic here, and it gets it just right - overall. This did feel less tonally even than the others, and the violence seemed more gratuitous. But I don't know if that's just me or the film. It’s the mind-boggling choreography I'm after, not blood and guts. Yeah, sometimes one requires the other but maybe not so much...? Other than that, I smiled. A lot.

Even if it is tonally messy, I just love the knowing cheese John Wick movies go for. Everything about the film from the neon colours, to the dialogue, to the way Keanu says the simplest things - I’m thinking specifically of the way he says ‘yeah’ - it’s pungently OTT. And it contently dwells in cliché. It’s not trying to avoid it like a lot of films, and it’s definitely not accidentally slipping into it like many others. You just have to look at the subtitles to know that this is meant to be fun. So, allow it.

And one thing which I really appreciate, and I’m surprised how rare this is (you just have to watch Star Wars’ Stormtroopers), is that the bad guys actually seem like they’re trying their best. They aren't just punching bags - the fights are done so well that you think that there is a back and forth power struggle between the thousands of people Keanu ends up dispatching. And I guess if I was really trying to squeeze out some metaphor from that, you could say that that is what the makers of the film are like. They are constantly pushing John Wick further and further. You get the sense of a real struggle going on, and that's why even though this is a third instalment, it seems just as fresh as the first.

With all that said, you do have to choose to go with it. For the first act, I could feel the majority of my being trying to recoil from what I was seeing. But if you overcome that strange uneasiness, you can just forget about life for a couple of hours with some knife fights, attach dogs and horse-fu. It’s as fun as it sounds.

[Link for John Wick & John Wick: Chapter 2]

[whostolemytrousers]

Radio Days

Dir. Woody Allen; Wri. Woody Allen

‘Who is Pearl Harbour?’

I know all movies are ‘telling a story with pictures’, but when I say that about this I mean something different. It feels like someone is literally telling a story, like they would around a campfire if someone asked them what were the happiest days of their life. The pictures are used in a way just to visualise the words. I really like that.

And the title is exactly what a title should be. It sums up some kind of essence, or core, or tune for the movie. From ‘Radio’ you can understand that the main character is both the radio and what it brings to this family in New York in the 40′s, and from ‘Days’ you can infer that what Allen really wants you to get out of it is a feeling for the period, the situation and context.

With so much Woody Allen, I find it so hard to say why it works. Maybe that’s why his authorship is so well recognisable and unique. All I can put my finger on so far is that this is like lots of bits strung together to form a feeling. Usually when you say a film is ‘bitty’ it’s a negative, but that's only when it doesn't form into some kind of a whole, like in ‘Snatch’ or ‘Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood’. And the funny thing is that I couldn't tell you what that feeling is most of the time - it’s just really enjoyable.

I think this point is most prescient in a scene where we see some happy people dancing. The voiceover then tells us that actually the people dancing don't have a very happy future together. Instead of cutting away immediately the scene just lingers a little. I loved that. It was the heart of the film for me. It was saying - live in the moment (but in less cheesy ways) and focus on the music while it plays, not on what comes after. It says - the best moments are transient, just like the radio.

[whostolemytrousers]

Some films I like. #2

For a Few Dollars More

Dir. Sergio Leone; Wri. Luciano Vincenzoni & Sergio Leone

The Dark Knight

Dir. Christopher Nolan; Wri. Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan

Mamma Mia!

Dir. Phyllida Lloyd; Wri. Catherine Johnson

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Dir. Guy Ritchie; Wri. Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney; Cha. Arthur Conan Doyle

The Lord of the Rings

Dir. Peter Jackson; Wri. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson (& Stephen Sinclair)

[Link for “Some films I like. #1″]

[whostolemytrousers]

Blindspotting 8/10

Dir. Carlos López Estrada; Wri. Rafael Casal & Daveed Diggs

Con Air 7/10

Dir. Simon West; Wri. Scott Rosenberg

[whostolemytrousers]

21 Jump Street

Dir. Phil Lord & Christopher Miller; Wri. Michael Bacall & Jonah Hill

“If it’s good, you hear from me. If it’s not good, you hear from me about telling you how it’s not good.”

I try to watch as many new films as possible but there are some films that you can just keep re-watching, and bearing in mind this is a reboot of a 1980′s TV show, I could watch this over and over. Because it’s legitimately funny. Who knew that was possible for what this is.

I love how this is Jonah Hill’s idea and project. Somehow, he saw how an old cop show could make a really good spoof of how reboots can be lazy, and turn that into something new. It was actually rather timely too. Back in 2012, I can’t remember half as many reboots coming out. There were probably quite a few, but now it seems like they are every other film. And if there’s good timing in its release, there’s also good timing in the film itself.

Not because the key to good comedy is .................. timing. But because this movie flies along -- for me. I abruptly realised at one point that I was already half way through, and this must be my fifth time watching it. It’s because of observations like how what constitutes ‘cool’ can change over time (like the double or single strap back pack) or lines like, “you know who call people narcs? Narcs. Narc” that make me chuckle along with it.

The main reason I can re-watch this though is because of the characters. It’s said a lot I know, but I wouldn’t just return for some good gags. Even though the film is quite meta at some points, it retains its inner logic somehow. Maybe that’s because it can feel like the two leads are in on the joke, I don't know. But a big reason why most comedies don’t work for me is, bizarrely, because they rely too heavily on jokes. Just jokes. That’s not enough for a film, and this knows that.

[whostolemytrousers]

Ed Wood

Dir. Tim Burton; Wri. Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski; Bo. Rudolph Grey

Given Ed Wood’s reputation as the worst director ever to bless the world with their cinematic turds, I thought it would be quite funny if the film about him was shit too. I’m probably the only one but that idea made me laugh. The film did too.

Depp plays Ed Wood with this strange, fixed, solid smile that sums up who the man is. He has a happy go lucky innocence, but the forced nature of it doesn't let you relax into contentedness at our main character’s peace, but puts you on edge. Just like the subject matter. The man who made apparently made terrible, terrible movies is sympathetic and kindly at moments. That’s all summed up in that contradictory smile I think.

And he always has some kind of entourage. One of the very first shots of the movie is him surrounded by people while holding a newspaper containing a r review of one of his productions. Then that entourage morphs into another later on - his movie making gang. I guess it’s trying say - ‘hey, this guy’s loveable and likeable and... nice’. And he is. That’s why the film works, and works better than ‘The Disaster Artist’, a film with the same premise. I like Ed Wood the person more with all his naive optimism. Or stupidity. Or stupid optimism. And I always try and remember, however bad his movies were, he should be applauded for even making movies in the first place.

On the surface, it may seem like Ed’s whole aim is to make films, whatever it takes. In one scene, a man is massaging his girlfriend and what he notices isn't that, but that the man looks like his friend Bela Lugosi, and that’ll help his next film. But throughout the picture, there’s scattered much evidence that although at first glance his main purpose in life is to make movies, he is much more altruistic and empathetic than that. And his actions show it. Even if he is making films, you get the idea that the films are to entertain other people, not to please himself. You very clearly gather his motivations. His goal is to achieve something in his life, and it’s very hard to laugh at someone for that.

[Link for Batman Returns]

[whostolemytrousers]

Red Sparrow

Dir. Francis Lawrence; Wri. Justin Haythe; Bo. Jason Matthews

What is it with ballet & birds & spies & colours? Black Swan, Black Widow, The Red Shoes. I dare say, there’s probably a legit answer, but I don’t really care when a movie is this... meh. It pains me to say it because ‘The Hunger Games’ movies (from the same director and actor) really got to and surprised me. What worked there was the main character. She was awesome. Here, I know fuck all about this woman, and it’s almost like that’s purposeful by the makers. Her motivations are deliberately ambiguous to the very end of the film where you’re meant to go ‘ooohhhh’, and I did. But it was too late.

The Sparrow character is too perfect. I never believed she wasn't on top of things. She goes from perfect ballerina to a great spy, and it all happens really quickly. In movie time that is. Maybe if parts were done closer to real time... Or maybe they just focused on the wrong bits. I never fully & completely bought she was a super ballerina or a spy. I mean, I did enough for it to be passingly entertaining - it’s Jennifer Lawrence. But even with her, because of her goofy, down to earth public persona, I couldn’t help but laugh a little near the start seeing her be some super amazing ballerina. And also, some parts where everyone’s putting their spy face on and doing really spy-y spy stuff. Movie stardom is weird, but maybe that’s my issue.

I watched this in two parts and that made me think. Can you judge a movie by how quickly you can get back into it? I got back into this quite quickly, to the extent I was in it before. Does that mean there was too little to get into in the first place, or does it mean the film is done well enough that I’m straight back where they want me. I’m tempted to say the former here. But I think that’s interesting.

What separates good from great is the minutiae. This doesn’t have the minutiae. And that means I can’t really pinpoint anything majorly wrong about any aspect, except maybe how muddled the storytelling can get - there’s lots of ‘they know that we know that they know’ etc. It’s like when you have a good meal that isn't excellent and you can’t say what more is needed. The film certainly has spice - there are some scenes that are meant to shocking and are, and that’s commendable. But zoom out a little and it becomes too uninteresting and generic. Zooming out even further, it’d be hard to say a spy thriller with Jennifer Lawrence isn't worth a watch, even all 140 minutes of it. It is. Ish.

[Link for The Hunger Games films]

[whostolemytrousers]

Zombieland

Dir. Ruben Fleischer; Wri. Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick

“The first to go, for obvious reasons... were the fatties.”

I love when you find a movie that has no purpose other than to entertain, and actually is entertaining. This is like The Road but watchable. And you don’t call a movie Zombieland without knowing you’re referencing a theme park. The movie even ends in a theme park. It’s a ride. Or maybe an open world zombie video game. And what would I do when playing that game? Probably what Woody Harrelson does here - smash stuff up, shoot guns in the air and worry about zombie kill of the week, not say how to you would feed yourself on a day to day basis like one would really do in that situation. As well as the movie itself forgetting about technicalities like nutrition, it makes you forget too. That’s a big compliment. It instead focuses on the good stuff - sometimes, too much... like cameos and romance.

I don’t want an advert for how awesome Bill Murray is in my zombie movie. Granted, he’s pretty awesome. But get on with the shoot em up arcade game stuff, or even the incidental romance bit. Otherwise, this film does a good job at making the zombie apocalypse look fun. Not even ‘Shaun of the Dead’ did that. These two movies are doing the same thing, the rom-zom-com, but their focuses do differ. The romance in Shaun is quite sweet. And when I say ‘incidental’ romance I think I’m probably referencing that I can’t work out whether Jesse Eisenberg’s young romantic shtick is cute or creepy. I think it needed more focus (or much less like Bill Murray). Those things are what got me down the most.

But most importantly this made me think: why has no one tried to do this kind of thing with zombies before - gory fun for your entertainment only? Or have I missed it? I can safely say that any film starring Emma Stone & Woody Harrelson & zombies that’s under 90 minutes I'm watching before you can say Twinkie.

[whostolemytrousers]

Hook

Dir. Steven Spielberg; Wri. James V. Hart, Nick Castle & Malia Scotch Marmo; Bo. J.M. Barrie

I was going to start by clarifying that I have no nostalgia for this, as I never saw it as a kid. But, despite that, my nostalgia glands were whirring (or whatever glands do). I can’t remember ever having that feeling so strongly for a film I’ve never seen before. That’s probably Steven Spielberg (and John Williams) for you. Bizarrely though, Steven himself doesn’t even like this film!

He has said before that he wants to go and re-watch this film again to see if he likes even one thing about it. Shit Steve - harsh. From that, I was understandably expecting something resembling poo in cinematic form, though I shouldn't have as even the worst Spielberg is okay at least (granted, I haven't seen 1941). But no. I really liked it.

There are some things that should have been flagged up as a big no from the get go, like skateboarding and basketball playing lost boys. Ugh, no. And why isn't Captain Hook that scary? Maybe it’s because I’m older. I remember the Peter Pan (2003) Hook chilling me silly. But, despite London being perpetually Victorian, that’s all that was bothersome. Yes, I even came to appreciate that every set looked like the set-yist movie set they could find.

The register could be highly irritating if directed poorly. But, mostly, it’s not - the characters are consistent and the theatrical aspects are almost charming. I can believe in adult Peter’s reaction to being told he is Peter Pan, and can fly, and has to go save his children from Captain Hook. And more importantly, I want to. I heaved a sigh of relief when I realised that instead of Peter Pan just losing his magic over time (please, that would never happen), he has actually forgotten he was Pan in the first place. Because of all that, if ever a film recently felt like a warm hug, this would be it for sure. That register is right for a Peter Pan movie.

Maybe, just maybe, a criticism I’ve heard of ‘It Chapter Two′ could be relevant here - that some stories through children’s eyes are just more engaging, like the original Pan tale - but, when it’s Robin Williams and Steven Spielberg you come out highly satisfied and with a big cheesy grin. Well, I did. The best compliment I can give this, and probably any movie, is that it made me think: you know, the world ain’t that bad after all. That’s a nice feeling.