Goldfinger (1964)- improved

Back when Goldfinger (1964) was released, the success of the previous Bond movies - Dr. No and From Russia with Love - generated enough pre-release hype. The director, Guy Hamilton, was different from the previous director (Terence Young). Did his direction match up to Young? Yes! Because Goldfinger introduced several elements into the franchise that weren’t earlier there (substantial female roles, cheeky humour, multiple foreign locales, a pre-credit sequence that might not always relate to the rest of plot) whilst continuing what the previous installments started (gadgets saving the day, larger-than-life villain, Bond rewarded with romance after saving the day). 

Gentleman secret agent James Bond (Sean Connery) is assigned with following multi-millionaire businessman Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe) on suspicion of him smuggling gold. This mission takes him from Miami to Switzerland, from Jill Masterson to Pussy Galore (yes you heard right!). During the mission, it's never clear what Goldfinger's aims are nor why he is so obsessed with gold. Now it’s up to Bond to lift the lid on Goldfinger’s plans and stop him before he becomes a threat to Queen and Country. 

Before he gets to meets Auric Goldfinger face to face, Bond knocks a girl unconscious, kisses one and gets one murdered. At one point, you have to ask yourself a question - are women safe around him? Sean Connery was always the best Bond for me and this movie proves why. Towards the second half, he effectively brings out Bond’s helplessness without making him like a coward or an unintelligible fool. He’s convincing in the action scenes and his self-deprecating humour always lightens the proceedings.

The Aston Martin DB5 owes its cult status to this movie and the special effects expert John Stears, who turned this luxury grand tourer into a faster, sleeker, comfortable version of an army tank. The DB5 scenes are enough to make anyone’s eyes melt and the chase sequence in Goldfinger’s factory was highly enjoyable due the car’s secret weapons come to the forefront. There’s oil, smoke, water, an old lady firing an assault rifle - it’s all delightful chaos. Those wondering when the ejector seat will come in handy, believe me it’s a well scripted move. However the culmination broke my heart what with Bond being captured and the DB5 battered to smithereens.

Goldfinger provides enough information for the audience to familiarise themselves with Auric Goldfinger since we learnt enough about Bond in the previous movies. If Goldfinger leaves you on a table with a laser coming to cut you in half, don’t expect sympathy from him. If a character betrays him, their death will become a cinematic moment to remember. His method of execution via skin asphyxiation is one that’s incredibly imaginative and one that flows with the plot. He’s one of the richest villains in the country (and cinematic history), due his immense wealth and assets. Every facility he owns makes for an enjoyable action playground. When Gert Fröbe was called in to play Goldfinger, he spoke little English and whatever English he spoke it was very slow. So the producers redubbed his voice, leaving his acting limited to facial expressions and body language. Might I say, he does a marvellous job! His expressions during the above mentioned laser scene were fantastic. He creates a great sense of danger through his performance which is the greatest mark for an actor who couldn’t English very well.

The second half of the movie had a certain Hitchcock-feel as it reminded me of North by Northwest what with the hero being just as clueless as the audience. Goldfinger’s plan isn’t revealed all at once. We receive slight hints and most of these are only noticeable in the second viewing. The viewer doesn't know how Goldfinger will steal all the gold from Fort Knox. Neither does the viewer know an alternative to Goldfinger's plan, if not stealing gold. I applaud the writing for not handing the entire masterplan at the start because it creates suspense and curiosity. It also helps develop the main characters in terms of Bond's helplessness and improvisation, and Goldfinger's intelligence and threatening presence. 

As mentioned earlier in the introduction, this film provides a stronger female role for its leading lady Pussy Galore played by Honor Blackman. The previous installments had the Bond girls playing sex dolls that constantly needed rescuing and becoming his reward for saving the day. Blackman’s character is appropriately introduced into the second half of the film, where the layers on Goldfinger’s plan are slowly uncovered. Unlike other Bond girls, her arc serves necessary material for the plot as she’s one of the pillars in bringing Goldfinger’s operation to fruition. Without her cooperation, Bond doesn’t stand a chance of stopping Goldfinger. This time, his charm doesn’t stand a chance as she dismisses any love-at-first-sight thoughts in their first meeting. Her expressions bring out the required "playing-hard-to-get" coldness and her judo skills aren’t to be missed!

The climax is every action movie buff’s dream for its explosions, gunfights and a face-off between Bond and Goldfinger’s indestructible henchman Oddjob (Harold Sakata). Had Bond been shown as a Schwarzenegger-type-indestructible beefcake, the impact of this fight would have suffered as I believe the mismatch in strength helps create tension. The excitement in this fight is only strengthened by Sakata’s facial expressions as Bond’s punches prove ineffective. The culmination of this fight is quite interesting as once Bond stops using his miniscule brawn, he realises there’s a more logical approach to defeating his superhumanly strong opponent. 

You must have heard this film being praised or mentioned at some point in your life. Any list made on the top five Bond films and you can always bet Goldfinger will be on that list. The film is worthy of all the praise it deserves for its sheer spectacle, escapism, action and excellent performances extracted from Connery and Fröbe. Folks, this is one to remember for the record books.

Scream (revised) [Spoilers]

During the 1990s when Scream was first released, the horror genre was practically dead. Most popular horror franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th) were churning out sequel after sequel where the supposed killer keeps coming back and it was getting repetitive. The rapid increase in gore and violence couldn’t overshadow the weak writing, and the fact that each film is indistinguishable from the previous instalment. Scream revived the genre in multiple ways.

Scream takes place in Woodsboro. College student Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is still struggling to cope with her mother’s death. The fact that her mother’s one year death anniversary is coming closer doesn’t help either. Suddenly her classmates are receiving threatening calls from a masked killer. And later getting murdered by them! With the body count increasing and the finger of suspicion being pointed at everyone, it’s almost impossible to guess the killer or his/her motives. Suddenly the killer drops a clue about Sidney’s mother’s death and Sidney realises she is the killer’s target and no one in her close proximity is safe.

The killer of this movie is called Ghostface. People accustomed to the indestructability of Myers and Voorhees will find it refreshing this is a man in a mask made obvious from the first scene. This killer is highly intelligent for his trivia on horror movies being far more advanced than the entire cast’s knowledge put together. His killings have reasons behind them. A more logical subversion of Myers’ approach who butchers anyone for no rhyme or reason.  

The suspense in this movie is mind-blowing! My finger of suspicion was flying on everyone by the time of the climax. Scream could have easily made the mistake of having a huge cast and make a movie about the killer knocking each cast member down like a bowling pins. Instead they’ve kept the focus on suspense rather than gore and given the film that classic Agatha Christie-murder mystery vibe. There’s several hints in the film that misdirect the viewer as to who the killer is and there’s several hints that make it obvious who the killer is. The beauty of these hints is that they warrant a second viewing so the viewer can make out where he/she went wrong or what he/she didn’t notice the first time. If anyone remembers the infamous shower scene from Psycho, it was firmly established killers can come anywhere and shower time isn’t a safe place after all. Scream reinforces this same ideology - this time it’s the college bathroom! 

Although I believe the murder mystery set up of the slasher film is the film’s biggest asset, most cinephiles have the opinion that Scream is a subversive deconstruction of the genre. The characters are aware the events in their life have the similar happenings of a traditional scary movie. They know all the rules (virgins aren’t victims, characters who say they’ll be back won’t be back) but knowledge isn’t enough to survive the killer’s hit list.

Neve Campbell showed a certain amount of vulnerability as this movie’s "scream queen" Sidney Prescott, especially the last forty-five mins of the movie. My heart went out for her, especially when she gets stabbed by the killer. Courtney Cox’s character Gale Weathers will immediately be hated for repeatedly bringing up the untouched topic of Sidney’s mother’s death as an attempt to unravel the truth. This detective side proves crucial in the third act when it seems the narrative is going on Ghostface’s favour. Reading about David Arquette’s character Deputy Sheriff Dewey Riley gives the impression he’s a six foot, muscle-bound strict yet morally correct middle-aged man. Watching the movie, one realises it’s a boyish skinny slightly cowardly yet courageous young man, who’s every bit as vulnerable as the body count of college students.

Rose McGowan essays the role of Tatum Riley. Despite being saddled with the stereotypical best friend role which receives a predictable outcome, she immediately gets in the viewer’s good books for sticking up for Sidney. Skeet Ulrich and Matthew Lillard play Sidney and Tatum’s boyfriends Billy Loomis and Stu Macher. Anyone who’s seen horror movies knows that boyfriends never have a substantial role other than getting sliced before intercourse with their girlfriends. Billy plays the ideal red herring, confusing the viewers whether he’s good or bad. In contrast, Stu exudes a great amount of energy and always seems to carry a buffoonish smile on his face, an otherwise difficult job in a slasher movie.            

Jamie Kennedy gets the character everyone will remember after they leave the theatres. As the film geek Randy Meeks, he displays vulnerability and comic timing. His scene in the video store made me laugh the most. He doesn’t bring the boisterous approach to his character that Lillard does with Stu (which I think would better his performance) but his subtle taunts and his comical style of referencing movies in conversation provide a counter-balance to Lillard’s over-the-top antics.

If I’m allowed to make a spoiler other than the killer’s identity, it would be Drew Barrymore’s character’s length. Since it’s been two decades since the movie came out, everyone is aware she isn’t the main character of the movie as she was publicized at the time. At the time the film was released, Barrymore was the most recognisable face (everyone else was a newcomer or a TV actor). When she was signed on for the script, it was for Sidney Prescott’s part. However she chose the role that gets sliced in the first ten minutes, convincing the director that if she dies then it leaves an air of uncertainty whether who else will survive. 

If you enjoy racking your brains to solve mysteries or you’re eager to "watch the knife cut and scrape the bone beneath the skin", then I suggest you head for the nearest DVD store and purchase a copy of Scream. The underlining of the word "purchase" reiterates… you will see this more than once

Goldfinger

Back when Goldfinger was released, the success of the previous Bond movies - Dr. No and From Russia with Love - generated enough pre-release hype. The director, Guy Hamilton, was different from the previous director (Terence Young). Did his direction match up to Young? Yes! Because Goldfinger introduced several elements into the franchise that weren’t earlier there (cheeky humour, multiple foreign locales, a pre-credit sequence that might not always relate to the rest of plot) whilst continuing what the previous instalments started (gadgets saving the day, larger-than-life villain, Bond rewarded with romance after saving the day). 

Gentleman secret agent James Bond (Sean Connery) is assigned with following multi-millionaire businessman Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe) on suspicion of him smuggling gold. This mission takes him from Miami to Switzerland, from Jill Masterson to Pussy Galore (yes you heard right!). During the mission, it's never clear what Goldfinger's aims are nor why he is so obsessed with gold. Now it’s up to Bond to lift the lid on Goldfinger’s plans and stop him before he becomes a threat to Queen and Country. 

Before he gets to meets Auric Goldfinger face to face, Bond knocks a girl unconscious, kisses one and gets one murdered. At one point, you have to ask yourself a question - are women safe around him?

The Aston Martin DB5 owes its cult status to this movie and the special effects expert John Stears, who turned this luxury grand tourer into a faster, sleeker, comfortable version of an army tank. The DB5 scenes are enough to make anyone’s eyes melt. The chase sequence in Goldfinger’s factory was highly enjoyable because the car’s secret weapons come to the forefront. The chase involves oil, smoke, water, an old lady firing an assault rifle - it’s all delightful chaos. Those wondering when the ejector seat will come in handy, believe me it’s a well scripted move. The culmination, however, broke my heart what with Bond being captured and the DB5 battered to smithereens.

Plot wise, the first half of the movie is all about the audience familiarising with Auric Goldfinger, since we learnt enough about Bond in the previous movies. If Goldfinger leaves you on a table with a laser coming to cut you in half, don’t expect sympathy from him. If a character betrays him, their death will become a cinematic moment to remember (gold paint). He’s one of the richest villains in the country (and cinematic history), owning a factory, golf-club, stud-farm, expensive cars and the most loyal henchman you can ask for. Every facility he owns makes for an enjoyable action playground.     

The climax is every action movie buff’s dream for its explosions, gunfights and a face-off between Bond and the indestructible henchman Oddjob. Had Bond been shown as a Schwarzenegger-type-indestructible beefcake, the impact of this fight would have suffered. I’m glad they showed Oddjob physically superior to Bond because it created an enjoyable fight scene and the culmination of this fight makes me love how the "final kill" weapons are coincidentally placed in front of Bond.

The second half of the movie had a certain Hitchcock-feel as it reminded me of North by Northwest what with the hero being just as clueless as the audience. Goldfinger’s plan isn’t revealed all at once. We receive slight hints and most of these are only noticeable in the second viewing. The viewer doesn't know how Goldfinger will steal all the gold from Fort Knox. Neither does the viewer know an alternative to Goldfinger's plan, if not stealing gold. I applaud the writing for not handing the entire masterplan at the start because it creates suspense and curiosity. It also helps develop the main characters in terms of Bond's helplessness and improvisation, and Goldfinger's intelligence and threatening presence. 

Sean Connery was always the best Bond for me and this movie proves why. Towards the second half, he effectively brings out Bond’s helplessness without making him like a coward or an unintelligible fool. He’s convincing in the action scenes and his self-deprecating humour always lightens the proceedings. When Gert Fröbe was called in to play Goldfinger, he spoke little English and whatever English he spoke it was very slow. So the producers redubbed his voice, leaving his acting limited to facial expressions and body language. Might I say, he does a marvellous job! His expressions during the above mentioned laser scene were fantastic. He creates a great sense of danger through his performance which is the greatest mark for an actor who couldn’t English very well.

Honor Blackman’s character Pussy Galore only comes into prominence in the second half of the movie. Plot wise, she is one of the pillars in taking down Goldfinger’s operation and the fact she doesn’t give into his charms gives Bond something to think about. She brings out the "playing-hard-to-get" coldness and her judo skills aren’t to be missed! Unlike other Bond girls who were used as sex dolls, her arc serves necessary material for the plot. Harold Sakata doesn’t get much speaking lines as Goldfinger’s mute henchman Oddjob. His role is mainly limited to carrying Goldfinger’s bags though he bags the spotlight in the climax when Bond needs to stop a ticking bomb and Oddjob is the only obstacle in his way. I liked his facial expressions especially his smiles when Bond’s punches prove ineffective on him.

You must have heard this film being praised or mentioned at some point in your life. Any list made on the top five Bond films and you can always bet Goldfinger will be on that list. The film is worthy of all the praise it deserves for its sheer spectacle, escapism, action and excellent performances extracted from Connery and Fröbe. Folks, this is one to remember for the record books.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

I’m probably the last person in my generation to watch Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003). After its release, the film spawned several sequels in the following fifteen years (and it’s likely they’ll be more). When the film first released, let alone sequels, film journalists and pundits predicted this film wouldn’t be a success. Why? The pirate genre was no one’s idea of a summer blockbuster and the lead star Johnny Depp wasn’t considered box office gold. Yet this film proved everyone wrong.  

Young lad Will Turner is recovered from a shipwreck by Governor Weatherby Swann (Jonathan Pryce) and Lieutenant James Norrington (Jack Davenport). The mysterious medallion around his neck finds its way into the possession of Swann’s daughter Elizabeth. Many years later Elizabeth has blossomed into a refined and elegant young lady (Kiera Knightley), Norrington is expected to be promoted to commodore and Governor Swann is hoping the pair get married. This alliance faces three hurdles. Firstly there’s Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) who carries a burning torch in his heart for Elizabeth. Secondly there’s the pirate Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) who ends up incurring the wrath of every character in the movie. Thirdly and most frighteningly, there’s a group of undead skeleton-resembling, zombie-looking pirates led by Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who have old scores to settle with Jack, Will and Elizabeth.       

Jack Sparrow is a talking point for obvious reasons. He’s the subject of the spin-off novels, video games, a song and a constant mention in the the various "Greatest Movie Characters" / "Best Action-Adventure Heroes" polls. He displays a lot of characteristics we don’t associate with heroes. He’s deceitful in the sense that not only the bad guys, even the good guys aren’t spared from his trickery. He isn’t the hero because he does the rightful deed, he’s the hero because he claims the title without doing anything heroic. He fights his enemies using non-violent negotiation, only resorting to violence when he runs out of options. He’s essentially a rebel without a cause and it’s quite clear he’s not actively trying to look for a cause.

In contrast to Sparrow, Will Turner’s cause/mission is to see to Elizabeth’s safety. He represents more of the traditional characteristics we identify heroes with. He’s the lower class good guy whom we sympathise with, has morals, actively engages with every opportunity to combat the pirates and gets the girl in the end. He doesn’t have any grey shades which makes him less complex than Sparrow though it’s helpful in establishing a noticeable difference between him and Sparrow.

Elizabeth Swann’s character surprised me, in a pleasant way. Her role is written as a damsel in distress but for half the movie, she’s portrayed as a damsel that doesn’t submit to helplessness. Any opportunity she sees to grab a weapon or point an escape route, she takes it with full power! Her character helps bring two important events to the forefront; the clash between Jack and Norrington, and the initiation of the Barbossa’s crusade for the medallion.        

As with every other film, there are shortcomings. The second half isn’t as easy to follow as the first half, what with the protagonists constantly becoming hostages to Barbossa and Norrington. This slightly bothered me as it went against their heroic stance built by the film’s first half. I’d look forward to watching this movie a second time and seeing if these "hostage situations" bother me again. My other complaint would be with Jack’s character as he felt short of my expectactions. No doubt, Jack Sparrow was engaging to watch and the best character of the movie. However I believe the writers could have smartened the writing behind his character because at times I felt he was trying to be witty just for the sake of it.

In terms of other aspects, the settings and production design were great. They really brought me to their time period without making me root for the modern technology. The authenticity of the pirate ships reminded me of my primary school history books. Barbossa’s cave is the hideout every megalomaniac supervillain dreams of. There’s enough room to accommodate the villain’s army, the heroes can get in and out with ease and it’s all visually appealing at the same time. Port Royal made me extremely comfortable because it serves as a playground for the exciting chase scene at the start.

The action scenes are a major highlight. Jack quickly becomes Norrington’s enemy and "challenge of the day" which leads to an engaging chase scene between Jack and Norrington’s men. Though it’s only a minute long, it quickly establishes Jack’s dexterity, the Royal Navy’s inability to match his pace and most importantly, the film’s swashbuckling vibe. This scene follows on with a swordfight between Jack and Will which is expertly choreographed and just as engaging to watch. I couldn’t make up my mind who was going to win. Towards the climax, the swords make another appearance but this time, Jack’s opponent is Barbossa. This scene holds an extra appeal because the culmination of the fight is another example of Jack’s trickery.

The background score deserves a special mention as it impressed me in a particular scene where Barbossa offers Elizabeth as a sacrifice. I usually don’t feel like this about other movie scores but I felt this score in this scene really helped increase the tension.      

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is a great first time watch. The second half’s pace drops slightly yet it’s enough to sustain interest. As for the film’s legacy, the successive sequels have given the film journalists food for thought. Even though I’m not enthusiastic about the pirate genre, Depp’s comic performance received so much adulation that even I had to give this one a viewing. If you haven’t done so, go ahead!          

Scream 4 (2011)

Heard the term "reboot?". It’s done to discard continuity or establish a new universe. It sounds like a "remake" but it’s not telling the original’s similar story. It’s working with the audience’s familiarity of the original work. In movies, it’s done to attract new fans to a franchise that has grown stale and work with an established fan base to generate profit.

Before I get sucked into the review, let me just say RIP Wes Craven. I should have mentioned this in my last review but I think it’s really important to acknowledge this mastermind won’t be alive to give us any more adrenaline pumping suspense thrillers like the Scream trilogy (One of my favourite trilogies.) I’d seen Scream 4 a long time back and I enjoyed it but my recent viewing made the minus points brighter than the plus points.

Sidney Prescott has returned to Woodsboro after many years and is launching a book on her experiences of facing off five psychopathic nut-jobs (yeah I would definitely read how girl did that!). Her return sparks a new wave of kills, chills and thrills but this ride is for Sidney’s cousin Jill Roberts and her college circle. Sidney is just supposed to sit and watch people drop dead until the climax reveals her role in this new blood bath. Can Sidney reduce the body count and save the day? Can Gale get another book written from this fiasco? Can Dewey finally prove him useful instead of being tossed around like a rag doll?   

The latest instalment in the Scream franchise is a reboot. My intro explanation should enlighten you on the purpose of this instalment but I can’t guarantee how much it helps you enjoy the movie. See this movie was supposed to be the start of a new trilogy. Kinda been waiting half a decade for the next part to come out.  

See the writing behind the Scream franchise is what I believe is what makes this franchise worth watching whether it’s the awesome f***-word one-liners or the suspense-filled screenplay. So I’ll start of mentioning the writing behind this reboot this movie isn’t a reboot of the franchise; it’s a reboot of the storyline. To make this a reboot of the franchise, you would need things like the younger generation taking over Sidney, Dewey and Gale’s roles. Their struggles. Their banter. More elaborate death scenes. More unpredictable jump scare placements. A shakier suspect list. Also, the characters need enough spunk/sympathy/humour in their personalities for us to even care about them when they’re put in harm’s way.  

Reading these points you would think I know the franchise like the back of my hand. Unfortunately the writer Kevin Williamson wasn’t thinking like me. He did a good job with the first two Scream movies. Unfortunately the writing seems like a half-hearted effort here.

·         Sidney, Dewey and Gale are still the main characters of this franchise which is good except they aren’t at their best because they’re doing the same things they did ten years ago. Dewey and Gale are married. Whoopee! They looked married even when they were arguing in the previous sequels. No big surprise there. Sidney makes some effort to combat the villain with a kick and some quick thinking so I’ll excuse her.

·         The younger generation are ""So Not Interesting"". There’s two Randy Meeks wannabe geeks who combined together... aren’t even half of what Randy was. Randy looked like a guy who actually watched movies. These two look like people who just read about movies off the Internet. There’s the suspicious boyfriend who’s supposed to give the Billy Loomis vibes but comes across as constipated. There’s Sidney’s cousin Jill who carries the lost-and-confused expression even before the killing starts. There’s Jill’s bestie Kirby who was the saving grace for me. She was interesting to watch and gave the much required spunk.

·         The death scenes and the jump scares don’t have the same magic as the trilogy. The trilogy had the protagonists crawling over an unconscious Ghostface in a taxi that crashed, a TV studio where Ghostface haunts the leads, a gas leak explosion and a heart-pounding use of two way mirrors. This movie hardly has any scenes I can put up there with the trilogy’s best scenes. People said this movie was an improvement over Scream 3 but sorry I prefer that movie over this and I’ll apply the same criticism people used for Scream 3 - " has become what it originally spoofed "

Other disadvantages: a lot of characters seem to serve no reason other than body count. Although I couldn’t predict the killer’s reveal and the motive, it didn’t exactly lead to an excitable climax. I’ll give you a clue; a hospital room that’s about the size of your living room. You guys had potential to do a Halloween 2-type climax. The writer had an opportunity to use a subplot of Gale engaging in banter with Deputy Judy Hicks but doesn’t do much with it. The opening sequence was interesting but the second time I saw this movie it was very annoying. It looked gimmicky and felt like an obligation.

On to some plus points, the killer’s reveal and motive was good. The killer’s acting really stands out in the climax. Kirby’s character was good. Sidney was good in her brief face-offs with the killer. The parking lot scene where Ghostface confronts Sidney’s book publicist. The students discussing the rules of the reboot.

This movie is a reboot in the sense that you don’t need to have seen Scream 2 and Scream 3. You just need common knowledge to know Sidney’s life has been screwed over with Ghostface enough times. All the references in this film are directed to the original Scream. The pre-climax had a nod to Scream’s opening sequence.  

I won’t give an overall verdict on if you should see the movie or not. My above rant tells you what to look out for. I believe the Scream trilogy will always be remembered in the horror movie record books for bringing the excitement back into the slasher genre with its focus on suspense rather than gore. Especially the first Scream. Sequels, reboots and remakes can’t prevent the franchise from growing stale but they can do a good job of fucking up the original like Sidney mentions during the movie. Why does she say that? Watch Scream 4 to find out!

Halloween (2018)

Before I get started on reviewing the latest instalment of the Halloween franchise directed by David Gordon Green let me just give some trivia that will help you understand the movie before I begin my review…

• ·         So this movie takes place 40 years after the original Halloween. (The original one also released in October like this one. Great strategy Universal Pictures!). If you’re interested in watching this movie then what happened in the original Halloween is pretty much common knowledge. If not, then here’s the common knowledge in a nutshell: indestructible supervillain Michael Myers attacked nubile scream queen Laurie Strode and got arrested. At least that’s the knowledge required for this movie - I remember the culmination being much spookier.
• ·         Because this movie is a direct sequel to the original, you can ignore the assembly line of sequels that ran between the 80s and 90s, and the two previous attempts to reboot the franchise (2007, 2009). Which in a way, works for this reviewer. I mean who’s got time to spare 15½ hours to watch Michael getting maimed, stabbed, burnt, exploded then still come back without a scratch. I mean, after a while even you will forgot which scene belong to which sequel due to its repetitiveness.
• ·         In one of the articles, I read the director sir Gordon Green wanted to portray Michael Myers as an unstoppable killer without the Cult of Thorn: a supernatural cult that gave Michael his invincibility, immortality and the lesson that "if you have great power, you can screw over everyone". This change isn’t highly noticeable but it helps us subconsciously emphasize with the good guys because if they kill him in this one, he won’t come back again. But after seeing how much fun this movie was and looking at the box office records it broke, I’m guessing early development on a sequel will begin shortly. I mean it’s not like horror movie villains need well-developed excuses to come back and horrify us.

Anyway on to the movie, I’ll refer to our villain as "Mikey" because it rhymes with Laurie and allows me to take a creative liberty of mocking him (without having to face the consequences). I know he’s not actually going to come for me but let’s take liberties and see where this review goes.

Halloween’s central protagonist and Hollywood’s scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie) has aged, matured yet still looks as beautiful as she did forty years ago. She’s now turned into this badass from the Schwarzenegger-Stallone school of maim-n-kill. She’s got guns, booby traps, explosives and just about every thinkable invention to counter the threat of Mikey. Ever since he was institutionalized, Laurie developed post-traumatic stress disorder been waiting for the opportunity to kick his ass. However this experience has taken an emotional toll on her. She’s a divorcee, alcoholic, grandmother who doesn’t get to see her grandkid, all these problems she’s been through I hope Mikey dies slowly and painfully!

Moving on to the grandkid, we have Alyson Nelson who will portray the role of the school-going virgin whose friends will die because… that’s what always happens. The killer goes for boring friends of the circle to spice up the fun then kill the ones that we care about. In this instance, I don’t care about anyone who got killed because we don’t get enough development on them. They serve as bowling pins to be knocked down until Mikey gets to Laurie and Alyson.

There’s a lot more characters to make this venture interesting. There’s two podcasters Aaron and Dana who want to interview Mikey. Only in a horror movie we would find such idiots who invite trouble. These two morons make the mistake of going right into the killer’s face to send this invitation. You might as well just give him Laurie’s address while you’re at it. The climax will come an hour earlier and a bunch of innocent people will be spared from Michael’s wrath. Though I guess this won’t justify the ticket price I paid so I’ll go with Gordon Green’s route. There’s also the policeman sir Frank Hawkins who’s out to help the good guys. If you’ve seen enough horror movies you’ll realise the police don’t prove handy and this movie is no exception. There’s also a doctor sir called Ranbir Sartain. It’s customary for all Halloween instalments to have a psychiatric doctor or a high figure of the medical word assisting the protagonists. Normally I don’t have a problem with the doctor characters because they speak lingo that bounces off my head and they always narrate bad things happening to the good guys ("unfortunately we were unable to remove the bullet from the head", catch my drift). This doctor however has a twist regarding his character that completely threw me off. At the time, I was in awe that I was unable to predict something but now when I look back at the movie I’m confused whether I should appreciate this twist or call out its unnecessariness.

Now on to a bit of story structure. So there’s two subplots going on. On one hand, there’s Mikey escaping the asylum and killing off everyone he sees in his mad pursuit for death. On the other hand there’s Laurie’s grandkid Alyson having the time of her life at the Halloween dance. Unfortunately good old Mikey sniffs out her location and his victim list engulfs her friends including Oscar, an innocent teenager who tried to channel his "inner 50 Shades" with Alyson before she rejects him. Wow he didn’t get to fulfil his last wish before death! These two subplots are linked via Laurie and her daughter/Alyson’s mother Karen who plays an integral part in the climax. There’s some disagreements between Laurie and Karen regarding the former’s unhealthy obsession with Mikey. But thankfully the movie doesn’t waste too much time dwelling on them.    

Saving the horror till the last paragraph. I was expecting heart attack jump scares but unfortunately didn’t receive any. Probably because I could predict most of the jump scares. Probably because I’d seen the original Halloween and realised this movie also follows a similar template where the last forty five minutes is an elaborate suspense-filled bloodbath. To the film’s credit, I couldn’t predict whether Laurie, Karen and Alyson were going to survive. In terms of death scenes, there’s a guy’s jaw ripped open, Mikey scaring his victim by scattering the previous victim’s teeth (my favourite scene), a kid dying, a kid’s babysitter dying and the lights going on and off before another victim gets axed. One aspect I admire of the horror is that Mikey’s face is never shown. We’re aware from the start he’s an old man but we never get to see his face. It’s always the back or the side of his head. I think it helps that we don’t get to see this murderer’s face.

Overall I’d say the movie served its purpose to entertain the audience. There’s plenty of jump scares for the fainthearted, Jamie Lee’s badassery deserves a watch and there’s plenty of franchise loyalists who will enter cinemas to make comparisons. It served its commercial purpose at bringing back its budget ($15 million budget vs $246 million worldwide gross). If you have a penchant for slasher films, Jamie Lee Curtis or are looking for a good time pass, Halloween is the best bet for you.

Captain America 3

Superhero films have remained crowd-pulling VFX spectacles since their inception and possibly box office gold with a good screenplay. Good news folks, Civil War has a great story to tell behind those crazy CGI action scenes.

Our protagonists, The Avengers, have smashed the block one too many times whilst saving the world (Avengers, Avengers 2, Captain America 2, Iron Man 3, this list will go on forever). Now the government asks for the Sokovia Accords: accountability and oversight from the Avengers. Half the Avengers believe oversight isn’t an idea to be dismissed if they want to reduce the casualties whilst the central protagonist Steve Rogers believes "the safest hands are still our own". This escalates in a fight that pits half the team against each other. All while this is going on, Steve has to protect his best friend Bucky Barnes from the government, the Accords and the schemes of a new villain. Can Steve protect Bucky? Who is the new villain? Does the new villain’s intentions succeed? How will the Accords shape the future of the Avengers? Civil War has these answers.

As you can tell from the summary, the plot of this movie asks a lot of questions and has a huge potential in shaping the Marvel Cinematic Universe as we know it. More potential exploited and more questions asked than Avengers 2: Age of Ultron, which despite having so much potential didn’t click for me somehow. This film, however, clicked for me because the jokes are placed appropriately, the new characters get a good account of themselves and the villain despite not having the strength of past villains ends up doing more damage to the Avengers status quo.

The direction by the Russo brothers is top-notch and the writing by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. I was a fan of the foursome’s work in Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier and this film only makes say the same thing twice. In the comics, the Superhero Registration Act was a legislation passed that all superhero activities must be registered and regulated. This storyline was a great trigger for conflict because there was face-offs, death, imprisonment and a struggle for optimism. In this movie, the writers keep out the "registration" part and focus on government oversight. This is a good move because cinematically X-Men and Avengers aren’t linked so only certain aspects can be adapted onto the big screen.  

Another credit I’d like to give to the foursome. In the film, they’ve adopted a clever role reversal. Captain America known as "God’s righteous man" is forced to become an anti-hero of sorts in an attempt to reinforce his ideologies whereas Iron Man, dangerously lingering on impulsiveness in his "save-the-world" stance is represented as what the world wants to see as the "hero". This plot point is another underrated reason of why the action-lacked climax works so well.

The action must be given a special mention. The Lagos action scene is terrific for its awesome coordination between the Avengers. The culmination of this scene is what drives the resulting conflict. The airport action scene which was a major talking point of social media when the film was released. The explosions, the martial arts choreography, the technology, the banter, everything in this scene was perfect. You can sense the struggle of the Avengers not wanting to hurt their friends whilst at the same time having to uphold their values. Then there’s the climax. Any true Marvel fan will appreciate the epic-ness of this fight as it’s superbly choreographed between Iron Man vs Captain America and the Winter Soldier whilst at the same time, your inner child wishes they weren’t up against each other.

Black Panther and Spider-Man are the newest entrants of the franchise and I believe they deserve a separate paragraph of their own. I’d seen Black Panther in my childhood as a guest appearance in the Fantastic Four TV Series and instantly became a fan of his Batman-vibe. So seeing him on the big-screen had the fanboys excited. A key reason I liked Black Panther’s arc because the actor playing him, Chadwick Boseman, brings out the relentless pursuit without looking like an aimless killing machine. Though he benefits from good writing, I think it’s the acting and the eye expressions that did the trick.

Spider-Man’s debut in the MCU was long overdue. Though he’s made five appearances courtesy of Sony, the Marvel incarnation easily gets more right than wrong. The boy playing Spider-Man is the college-going age and his Aunt May is correctly his mother’s sister’s age and not his grandmother. Though his suit has too much Iron Man influence and that initially bothered me a bit, I eventually got over it. The actor playing him easily brings out the innocence, confusion and bravery of a school-going-teenager-turned crime fighter.

Onto the rest of the cast, Chris Evans and Robert Downey Junior get the maximum screen time. Robert Downey Junior gets to add more layers to his characters rather than be a self-destructive playboy. Chris Evans does everything we’ve seen him do before yet still appeals every time. I’d suggest the franchise do something new with his character before he becomes repetitive.

Paul Bettany and Elizabeth Olsen share a warm chemistry as Vision and Scarlet Witch and are given better material to work on than their last film. Anthony Mackie and Paul Rudd bring a lot of fun to the proceedings as Falcon and Ant-Man. It was great to see Frank Grillo reprise his character as Crossbones. His send-off was really good even though I wanted to see more of him. William Hurt returns to role of Thaddeus Ross after eight years and surprise surprise still hates the good guys. Jeremy Renner has a brief appearance and his role has a lot more sass than his previous outings gave him. Daniel Brühl deserves a special mention as Helmut Zemo. He is easily one of the best villains Marvel has produced and is more memorable for the intrigue and ruthlessness he brings to the role. Although this hasn’t been written accurately comic book wise, it’s still a great character.     

Overall, there’s great action, great characters and an interesting storyline to bind them together. Captain America: Civil War is definitely worth a try.

Goldfinger (1964)

It’s Flashback Friday and I’ve decided to review the 3rd instalment in the oldest and most popular spy franchises - Goldfinger. Back when this film was released, it made its name for several commercial reasons. It recouped its budget within 2 weeks (a record), it was the 2nd highest grossing film of the US and one of the most successful marketing campaigns.

Gentleman secret agent James Bond (Sean Connery) is assigned with following multi-millionaire businessman Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe) on suspicion of him smuggling gold. This mission takes him from Miami to Switzerland, from Jill Masterson to Pussy Galore (yes you heard right!). Now it’s up to Bond to lift the lid on Goldfinger’s plans and stop him before he becomes a threat to Queen and Country. 

Before he gets to meets Auric Goldfinger face to face, Bond knocks a girl unconscious, kisses one and gets one murdered. At one point, you have to ask yourself a question - are women safe around him?

The first half of the movie is great. There’s the iconic gold paint scene which is just perfect on so many levels. The scenes featuring the Aston Martin DB5 is enough to make anyone’s eyes melt. The chase sequence featuring Bond’s DB5 around Goldfinger’s factory was highly enjoyable what with the car’s secret weapons coming to the forefront, an old lady firing an assault rifle - this is camp at its best. The golf match between Bond and Goldfinger was quite tense - making the audience swing their thoughts as to who will win?    

I found the film’s second half wildly entertaining for several reasons. It introduces Goldfinger’s moll and the next Bond girl - Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) who serves necessary to the plot rather than some sex doll. Plus we get to see her engage in a brief fight with Bond which adds to her aura. Shame we didn’t see more Bond girls like her. We don’t get to see much of the DB5 again- another wasted opportunity. One reason I really like the second half more than the first is because not just the viewers, even Bond is taken for a ride. Bond is a helpless position and just like us, doesn’t know what Goldfinger is up to. How will Goldfinger steal all the gold from Fort Knox? If he’s not stealing gold then what he is planning to do?  

ACTION

At the start of the movie, Bond blows up a drug laboratory that was producing heroin-coated-bananas (something nonsensical like that) and a henchman enters his room like a disrespectful loser to teach him a lesson. This fight sequence was quite engaging and I really liked how it switches between Bond punches once, henchman punches one.

The DB5 chase, as mentioned previously, was enjoyable. Those wondering when the ejector seat will come in handy, believe me it’s a well scripted move. The culmination of the chase broke my heart what with Bond being captured and the DB5 battered to smithereens.

The climax is every action movie buff’s dream. There’s explosions, gunfights and a one-on-one battle between Bond and the indestructible henchman Oddjob. Had Bond been shown as a Schwarzenegger-type-indestructible beefcake, this would have hammered the impact of this fight. I’m glad they showed Oddjob physically superior to Bond because it created an enjoyable fight scene and the culmination of this fight makes me love how the "final kill" weapons are coincidentally placed in front of Bond.

Sean Connery’s acting never disappoints me whatever the outing is. This movie is a testament to the excellence with which he portrays Bond. Towards the second half, he effectively brings out Bond’s helplessness without making him like a coward or an unintelligible fool. He’s convincing in the action scenes and his self-deprecating humour makes it even more obvious why he’s my favourite and arguably the best Bond.

When Gert Fröbe was called in to play Auric Goldfinger, he spoke little English and whatever English he spoke it was very slow. So they decided to get someone redub his voice. This leaves Gert’s acting limited to his facial expressions and body language. Might I say, he does a marvellous job! His expressions during the laser scene were fantastic. He creates a great sense of danger through his performance which is the greatest mark for an actor who couldn’t English very well.

Harold Sakata doesn’t get much speaking lines as Goldfinger’s mute henchman Oddjob. His role is mainly limited to carrying Goldfinger’s bags. Though the spotlight is on him in the climax when Bond needs to stop a ticking bomb and Oddjob is the only obstacle in his way. I liked his facial expressions especially his smiles when Bond’s punches prove ineffective on him.

Honor Blackman’s character Pussy Galore only comes into prominence in the 2nd half of the movie. Plot wise, she is one of the pillars in taking down Goldfinger’s operation and the fact she doesn’t give into his charms gives Bond something to think about. Performance wise, her judo skills aren’t to be missed! She brings out the "playing-hard-to-get" coldness without being a bitch about it. When I saw the movie back in childhood, the name Pussy Galore sort of hit my ear wrong.

Shirley Eaton’s character Jill Masterson isn’t on the screen for a long time so it’s difficult to talk about her character but due to the gold paint scene, she deserves a mention. I found her character quite sweet and adorable and thought she would be a large focus in helping Bond take down Goldfinger but her early demise helps to establish how much of a threat Goldfinger is.

Tania Mallet plays Till Masterson, Jill’s sister. Her character felt quite weak and mostly unnecessary for me. I felt the film could have done better without her. Even the ruthlessness in her character looks forced.

You must have heard this film being praised or mentioned at some point in your life. Goldfinger is worthy of all the praise it deserves for its sheer spectacle, escapism, action and fine performances extracted from Sean Connery and Gert Fröbe. Believe me folks, this is one for the record books.

Scream (1996)

During the 1990s when Scream was first released, the horror genre was practically dead. Wondering why? Most of the popular horror franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th) were churning out sequel after sequel where the supposed killer keeps coming back and it was getting frustrating. The rapid increase in gore and body count couldn’t overshadow the weak writing, and the fact that each film is indistinguishable from the previous instalment. So what did Scream do to revive the horror genre? Read on

The film takes place in Woodsboro. College student Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is still struggling to cope with her mother’s death and it doesn’t help that the narrative is closing in on the 1 year anniversary of her mother’s death. And it also doesn’t help that her classmates are receiving threatening calls from a masked killer. And later getting murdered by them! With the body count increasing and the finger of suspicion being pointed at everyone, it’s almost impossible to guess the killer or his/her motives. Suddenly the killer drops a clue about Sidney’s mother’s death and Sidney realises she is the killer’s target and no one in her close proximity is safe.

Let me begin by saying Scream is one of my favourite movies. It’s a movie I’ve seen several times. And there’s several reasons why. Once the true killer was revealed, I had to watch the movie a second time to pick up on all the clues/hints I missed out on. This reason alone is why I believe Scream has built a cult. However fellow cinephiles will beg to differ. Most cinephiles believe Scream has built a cult because of its ability to be self-aware. The characters are aware they are in a horror movie, they are aware of all the rules (the virgins aren’t the victims, characters who say they’ll be back won’t be) and references movie trivia in conversations. Despite knowing the rules of horror movies and survival, almost every character is placed in danger’s way. 

This film was made to satirize the clichés of the horror genre. Characters reference the methods victims get killed, make fun of mistakes made by victims (only to end up doing the same thing) and bring up horror movie names. This film succeeds to a great extent because you can still enjoy the film even if you aren’t a huge horror movie buff. I know I wasn’t when I first saw the film. This is I believe is the beauty behind the methods with which Scream pokes fun at common horror movie tropes and makes it appealing to its target audience.

I absolutely love the suspense in this movie. Whilst watching this movie for the first time, my finger of suspicion was flying everywhere. Ever thought your college bathrooms were the safest place in school? After this movie you won’t think that. Slightly reminds me of the shower scene from Psycho. I’m starting to think all horror movies are made to establish your comfort zones aren’t safe places. There’s several hints in the film that misguide the viewer as to who the killer and there’s several hints that make it obvious who the killer is. And the beauty of these hints is that they warrant a second viewing so the viewer can make out where he/she went wrong or what he/she didn’t notice the first time.     

Neve Campbell did a brilliant job as this movie’s scream queen Sidney. She showed a certain amount of courage, intelligence and helplessness during her encounter with Ghostface which also continued in the last 45 mins of the movie. My heart went out for her, especially when she gets stabbed by the killer.

Courtney Cox was also brilliant as the icy news reporter Gale Weathers. She is believably bitchy when she repeatedly annoys Sidney with the untouched topic of her mother’s death yet she is praiseworthy when she tries to unravel the truth. The bitchy side serves the purpose of fuelling Sidney’s hate for her whilst her "detective" side is there to point out the clues for us, the audience.

Just reading about David Arquette’s character Deputy Sheriff Dewey Riley would make you think he is a 6 foot, muscle-bound strict yet morally correct middle-aged man. You’re wrong! Watching the movie, you see it’s a boyish skinny slightly cowardly yet courageous young man. This marks a welcome change because you normally would expect the policeman to be the obstacle in the killer’s path with whom the killer will have a breath-taking showdown towards the climax. However the presentation of Dewey Riley makes him look every bit as vulnerable as the college students getting picked off one by one. David Arquette does a great job because he’s comical without making himself or the role look ridiculous.

Rose McGowan essays Tatum Riley, Dewey’s sister and Sidney’s best friend. This role is quite stereotyped and one can easily predict what’s going to happen with her character. I liked her performance and her confrontation with the killer made me smile but rather quite hesitantly.     

Skeet Ulrich plays Sidney’s boyfriend Billy. His character has a sense of mystery whether he’s the good guy/the bad guy. Skeet does a great job bringing out the mystery in his character through his facial expressions, especially the eyes. One easily feels like slapping this character at several points because he brings the type of you-are-getting-too-close-for-my-taste discomfort in several scenes with Sidney. If that was the aim of his performance, I would give him 10/10.  

Matthew Lillard plays Stu, Billy’s best friend and Tatum’s boyfriend. His character is essential for the film’s third act to kick off. Lillard is clearly having fun with this role as he brings a great amount of energy in an otherwise ordinary role. Towards the second half of the movie, I had a buffoonish smile on my face every time he spoke.

Anyone who reads and hears about Jamie Kennedy’s character will know he gets the most fun character out of the lot. As the film geek Randy Meeks, he displays vulnerability and comic timing. His scene in the video store with Stu made me laugh the most. He doesn’t bring the over-the-top-approach to his character that Lillard does with Stu (which I think would better his performance) but his subtle taunts and his comical style of referencing movies in conversation made him win my heart.

If I’m allowed to make a spoiler other than the killer’s identity, it would be Drew Barrymore’s character’s length. At the time the film was released, Barrymore was the most recognisable face (all the other cast members were newcomers or TV stars). When she was signed on for the script, it was for Sidney Prescott’s part. However she chose the role that gets sliced in the first 10 minutes, convincing the director that if she dies then it leaves an air of uncertainty whether who else will survive.  

I had lots of fun watching this movie and if you like

• ·         Racking your brains over the course of 110 minutes in an attempt to solve the mystery
• ·         Being placed in a position where you don’t know what’s going to happen next
• ·         Watching the knife cut and scrape the bone beneath the skin

Then I suggest you head for the nearest DVD store and purchase a copy of Scream. I underlined the word "purchase"… you will see this more than once

Review for Sleepless in Seattle (1993)

Hollywood has been churning out romantic comedies since it’s inception - Some Like It Hot, When Harry Met Sally, Pretty Woman are some of the examples that come to mind. Is Sleepless in Seattle in the same league of the above mentioned or another or is it another product of the rom-com factory? Let’s read on…

Sam Baldwin (Tom Hanks) is a widower and lives with his only son Jonah (Ross Malinger). Jonah constantly longs for his father to fall in love again due to the fact that he can’t get over his memories over his former wife and Jonah’s mother, Maggie. Jonah convinces Sam to talk about these feelings on a radio talk show which bestows Sam the title of "Sleepless in Seattle". These feelings are overheard by several young women who are touched by Sam’s story. One of these women are Annie Reed (Meg Ryan), currently a reporter for the Baltimore Sun newspaper. Annie develops an interest in Sam and feels a longing to meet him. What lengths will she go to meet him? Will Sam ever contemplate dating? What does the movie An Affair to Remember have to do with all this? Sleepless in Seattle has the answers!

Since this is a romantic comedy, I would like to give 2 opinions on the narrative.

For the romantic part, there’s a man who pours his sadness and frustration on a radio live show and unknowingly/fortunately attracts the attention of a gorgeous female. Nice concept right? Unfortunately this concept hasn’t aged well. Due to this being the "oh-so-innocent" 90s, Annie stalks a guy she's never met, hires a detective, travels to Seattle and getting jealous of other ladies in his life sounds adorable. The director Nora Ephron was lucky she got to make this movie at the time she did as today’s audiences would have found Annie’s character majorly creepy for chasing a guy she’s never seen. I’m surprised no one’s called out Meg Ryan’s character for displaying majorly stalker-like behaviour. I’d like to see a man in Annie’s shoes do the same thing and hopefully not get stomped upon by harassment charges and feminism groups. I won’t disrespect Meg Ryan for portraying such a character because I’ve seen several male characters like these in Bollywood films and I’ve learnt to forgive and forget. If radio voices are what makes women tick, I would assume the Saturday morning radio guys are immediately ahead of all of us in the dating game.

As the comedic part, several characters attempt to keep the film light-hearted. Jonah made me smile in several moments such as the Fatal Attraction joke and his knowledge on sex. Jonah’s comedic part is enjoyable due to the fact that he’s a kid yet he understands the world of romance much better than his father does. I believe the film’s writer and director Nora Ephron understood that an 8 year old having this cheekiness with his father would be lapped up by the audiences. Had Jonah’s character been a 16 year old, he would have received slaps instead of laps. Smart decision there! The acronyms, however, got on my nerves. There were MFEO, NY, and H and G from what I can remember. I can see they were trying to make us smile but these were annoying. MFEO sounded like a swearword, H and G was just plain stupid whilst the NY one just about made me laugh.  

I liked Tom Hank’s acting. His character doesn’t want anything to do with dating and Tom Hanks pulls off the bitterness incredibly well without making his character insufferable. His bewildered expressions at his son’s ridiculous questions complete the scene. One minor complaint I have with his character is his confusion on which girl he wants to date. He falls in love with Annie at first sight, not realising who she is, whilst stringing along Victoria. Though I guess that was part of the reason why he chose not to enter the dating life, the abrupt ending is probably the reason why I can’t work around his character’s confusion.

Meg Ryan has had adequate experience with the rom-com genre- When Harry Met Sally immediately comes to mind. Despite her character giving it the stalker-ish feel, I somehow warmed to her character because she was a die-hard romantic. Her picking inspiration from an old Hollywood classic was probably what helped me like her easily. Her reactions to the radio talk show are a testament of her acting.   

As mentioned before, Ross Malinger was my favourite. I’m not familiar with the rest of his acting career but I’m sure it must have been fruitful because at the age of 8/9 years, he displays adequate comic and emotional chops.

Bill Pullman plays Walter, Annie’s fiancée. Wondering why I didn’t mention his name in the plot? Because he hardly has any relevance and I didn’t care much for him. Not because his acting school gave him the wrong guidance but because he hardly has a role of play. Annie is having doubts about her relationship with him and we, the audience, can’t put our finger on what she hates about him. His allergies? His inability to dance? I’m guessing he can’t light a fire in her belly, the same way Sam would but the viewer’s guess is as good as mine because I didn’t see anything wrong with him. I won’t comment too much on his acting but I can only say he did the best with what was given to him.

Barbara Garrick plays Victoria, Sam’s fiancée. Though she’s a nice girl she has the tendency to laugh too long for Sam’s not-so-funny jokes. The cringe worthy laugh she had, I’m glad Sam didn’t go with her. Credit goes to Garrick’s acting for making her laugh so believingly annoying.

Rosie O'Donnell plays Becky, Annie’s editor and friend. She is also a good contributor to the film’s comic quotient though I can’t say I whole-heartedly like her acting because her character is too stereotyped. She did make me laugh on certain scenes though.

If you want to find out the meanings of the above mentioned acronyms, then I would suggest you watch the movie. The meanings aren’t mind-blowing, I’m not sure they were supposed to be mind-blowing and I common sense when I was hoping the acronym would become a part of movie pop culture and ended up with a damp squib.

For those who are considering watching the movie, Jonah will immediately become your favourite. The storyline, though illogical at times, kept my interest. Especially towards the end when Jonah catches a flight on his own (see! Told you, illogical). Tom Hanks has handled his character and performance incredibly well and is worthy of that Golden Globe nomination.