ELLIOTT, THE LITTLEST REINDEER

Canada, 2018, 89 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Josh Hutcherson, Samantha Bee, Martin Short, Morena Baccarin, Jeff Dunham, Christopher Jacot, John Cleese, George Buza.
Directed by Jennifer Westcott.

Another animated film for Christmas audiences. It is probably best suited for primary school aged children – and younger rather than older. At times there is quite some dialogue which might be a bit much for the youngers but they can enjoy the visuals.

We might have thought that the reindeers for pulling Santa’s sleigh were above reproach. However, here some of them are coming to the end of their careers (and one of them, in fact, Donner, is revealed as taking too many cookies – and is voiced by John Cleese). So, there is a need for at least one replacement and Santa authorises a competition to select a substitute.

In the meantime, one of Santa’s devious assistants (voiced by Martin Short) is planning to do away with the reindeers and substitute rather slick red vehicles to deliver the presents.

But, before we see the competition, we go to North Dakota to a Petting Farm, managed by a former baseball player who suffered from some misplaced focus, who is visited by a rather insistent journalist who wants to make her mark with a fresh story, and visitors who come to see the little goats’ run as well as to see the reindeers do their expert running. In the meantime, the poor manager of the farm has been persuaded to do a deal with a most sinister-looking femme fatale, with the most sinister accent, dark glasses and cigarette holder (also voiced by Martin Short – who does some of the reindeers’ voices as well). But that is not yet the centre of the drama.

There is an engaging little pony, Elliot (Josh Hutchison) who would love to be a reindeer and spends a lot of time practising reindeer movements – egged on by a pretty-in-pink, though sometimes raucously loud, goat, Hazel (Samantha Bee).

One doesn’t need to be a political forecaster to know that Elliott will become part of the competition for Santa’s reindeer (trying to be disguised with fake horns which do go askew), rivalling DJ, the competitive reindeer at the farm, persuading authorities to let him into the competition.

There is something of a tangle of themes with Santa not very happy about finding a pony in competition, with the evil associate pursuing his plans, with some rivalry from the other reindeers – leading to a crisis in which Elliott, inevitably, is the one who is able to save the day.

Then a nice moral choice: going home to his friends at the Petting Farm or becoming the next Santa-sleigh reindeer (or, rather, its equivalent). Fortunately, the film takes both possibilities successfully.

Probably this review is written best for those parents – or grandparents – who might be taking the youngsters to see Elliott and know what’s in store for them.

WIDOWS

US, 2018, 129 minutes, Colour.
Viola Davis, Liam Neeson, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, Cynthia Erivo, Colin Farrell, Robert Duval, Brian Tyree Henry, Daniel Kaluuya, Jacki Weaver, John Bernthal, Garrett Delahunt, Lukas Haas.
Directed by Steve Mc Queen.

This is a film for those who enjoy a complex drama but, especially, for those who are fans of crime novels and films, detectives, investigations, betrayals…

The screenplay has been adapted by the director, Steve Mc Queen, from Lynda La Plante’s story, adapted for British television in the 1990s. While Mc Queen is a celebrated British director (with quite a wide range from the Irish Troubles drama, Hunger, to the exploration of male sexuality, Shameless, to his Oscar-winning 12 Years a Slave), he has transferred the action to Chicago.

In many ways, this is a very ugly Chicago. After a very intimate scene between Viola Davis and Liam Neeson (which has quite some dramatic repercussions throughout the film), there is a dramatically staged heist and chase, ending disastrously with the deaths of the thieves. The widows of the title are those of the men killed in the ill-fated chase and explosion. The leader of the gang from the robbery is Harry, played by Liam Neeson. His widow is a tough woman, Veronica, Ronnie, played by Viola Davis, expert in her variety of roles in film and on television. There is also Linda, Michelle Rodriguez, a great opportunity for her and versatility in comparison with her continued presence in the Fast and Furious franchise. The other widow is Alice, from a Polish background, played by Elizabeth Debicki, also a very versatile actress (The Great Gatsby, The Night Manager, Breath) – with a nice touch of casting with Jacki Weaver playing her mother.

So, those are the widows and how they became widows.

But, there is quite some political and political corruption in the foreground. Two American- African brothers are working towards nomination and election in the local ward. They have a great deal to do with the money that was robbed. And, one of the brothers, Daniel Kaluuya (also versatile when we think of Get Out and Black Panther) is a brutal and callous thug, not shrinking from any violence.

On the other hand, there is a long-time boss, Tom Mulligan (Irish tone) who is played by 86-year-old Robert Duvall, also versatile over a very long career, playing a man who knows he is boss, and he dominates his son, Colin Farrell (versatile actor again) wanting to prolong the dynasty.

It is very clear from the trailer that the women are going to join together to steal back the heist cash. In the latter part of the film, we see more of the characters, Ronnie dominating them, Linda and Alice having to do deals to get vans, buy guns, the women and their target practice. But, they need a driver – and she comes in the form of Linda’s babysitter, Belle, played by Cynthia Erevo (an award-winning singer who made such an impression in Bad Times at El Royale).

There is quite a twist towards the end of the film which gives the action a great deal of further energy. And, the re-take robbery does not go entirely as planned.

As has been said, those who like the genre conventions should find this thriller very entertaining, backed by sharp writing and plotting and that excellent cast.

1. The title, the focus, expectations?

2. The work of Lynda La Plante, novels and television series, the English settings and background, the transferring to Chicago?

3. The city of Chicago, the different areas and neighbourhoods, the political implications of some of the areas, electioneering, bribery and corruption? Crime, violence? Robberies, the police, action? The musical score?

4. The introduction to Ronnie and Harry, the intensity of the relationship? Setting a tone for the rest of the film, especially Ronnie’s character and experience and memories? By Harry’s behaviour and betrayal?

5. The initial robbery, the drama of the heist, the vehicle, the money, the pursuit, going to the depot, the deaths of the explosions?

6. The wives, the memories of their husbands, the brief back stories? Linda, family, the gambling husband, the shop, its being reclaimed and all the contents? The humiliation? Belle and her looking after the children? Alice, her Polish background, brittle husband, her bond with her mother, the reaction to her husband’s death, coping, setting up as an escort, David, the businessman, the affair with him, the effect on her? On him?

7. Ronnie, strong woman, Teachers Union background, her relationship with Harry, their son, the regrets, the funeral sequence, the flashbacks to her son’s death, shot by the police fearing he was reaching for a weapon? The repercussions on both Ronnie and Harry?

8. The widow, the young child, Ronnie discovering that it was Harry’s child? The issue of race and relationships between them?

9. Harry chauffeur, devotion, Ronnie and the disposition of the car, the shivers continue devotion, torture and death?

10. The political background of the film, the Manning brothers, the characters, the campaign, the speeches and the promises? The issues of money? Audiences seeing behind-the-scenes, the deals, their money being robbed, wanting to recover it? The politician, relying on his brother, his brother’s violence and ruthlessness? His perpetrating the violence or callous watching TV while the thugs were brutal?

11. Tom Mulligan, the family tradition in the ward, his political acumen, his pride, his ambitions for his son, the discussions between them, his laying down the law, violent language, Jack being more flexible, working behind-the-scenes?

12. Ronnie has hard, her memories of the years, the sense of loss, the notebook, the deals to recover the notebook, her puzzling, the contacts, getting the information, the decision?

13. Her gathering the widows, the discussions, her tough stances, the reaction towards her, her leadership? The various jobs and the talents needed? Ronnie’s expectations, their having to get the van and the details of the deals, Linda and her shrewdness, Alice seductive and shrewd and the getting of the guns, the women and their target practice? The need for a driver? Linda and Belle as the babysitter, the phone calls, her own daughter, running to jobs, her character, talking back to Ronnie?

14. Ronnie and her discussions with Jack Mulligan, the flask, her realisation of what had happened? Sadness and regrets? The meeting with Tom Mulligan, her surveillance of the house, the location of the money?

15. The preparation for the heist, the training, physical, the weights to carry the money, the masks? The entering into the house, Tom Mulligan’s Asian mistress, his confronting with the gun, Alice shot, Tom Mulligan killed, they getaway, the money and the sharing?

16. The scene with Jack Mulligan, Harry, the motives for the robbery, the plan, Harry and his callousness?

17. Ronnie meeting with Harry, their talk, her sense of betrayal, his hardness, pulling the gun, her shooting him first?

18. Linda, the recovery of the shop, starting again? Alice, her future? Sitting in the restaurant, Ronnie also present?

19. Ronnie, the politics, the donation of the money, the finance for the library, using the name of her son?

20. The complexity of politics, crime, heist thrillers, betrayals, the range of characters and interactions?

LEAN ON PETE

UK, 2017, 121 minutes, Colour.
Charlie Plummer, Steve Buscemi, Chloe Sevigny, Travis Fimmel, Steve Zahn, Alison Elliott, Lewis Pullman.
Directed by Andrew Haigh.

In fact, Lean on Pete, is a horse. And, he is a racehorse but past his prime, one of the increasingly-fewer horses in the stable of Del, who takes his horses on circuits around rural Oregon and states beyond. Audiences who enjoy horses in films will probably take quite a shine to Lean on Pete.

But, the focus of the film is steadily on the young, rather quiet, healthy runner, Charlie, who through a series of circumstances finds himself working for Del and attached to Lean on Pete.

Charley is played by Charley Plummer (who played the Getty heir who was abducted in All the Money in the World). He is a very sympathetic presence, quite introverted, quite quiet, but still finding his way in life – which will entail a literal journey across the western states of the US.

Audiences who warm to the characters and the horses will enjoy sharing the journey – in most ways, it is quite a restrained journey, not action-packed. In fact, later in the film, when Charley’s quiet patience comes to a boil, his angry bursting out becomes something of a shock.

Charley lives with his father (Travis Fimmell), his mother having run off years earlier. He has a genial relationship with his father as well as the women who come to the house. Charley would like to find his aunt who stayed with them for a while but has since moved to Wyoming. At least, Wyoming and his aunt do give him a goal for his quest.

He comes across Del and offers to work for him, forming quite a bond with world-weary Del, a very enjoyable performance, especially with his deadpan criticisms of the life around him, by Steve Buscemi. When his father dies, Charley goes off with Del on the racing circuit, doing all the menial work with some devotion, being introduced to one of Del’s jockeys, Bonnie (Chloe Sevigny), both of them acknowledging that life is tough and that’s how it is – no attachment to the horses at the end of their career and who are destined for Mexican abattoirs.

Of course, with Lean on Pete on the list for Mexico, what else is Charley to do but to set out for Wyoming with his horse?

As with the stories of travelling across the states, there are some brief interesting and enjoyable subplots, genial families who offer food and shelter, Iraqi veterans who are also friendly, a cameo by Steve Zahn as a drinking possible helper, enabling Charley to work with a Latino company in cleaning houses, but who turns on Charley leading to the aforementioned angry outburst.

While this odyssey may seem something of a fantasy, it is also very down-to-earth, not a sentimental attachment by Charley to his horse, but an emotional reuniting with his aunt and potential security for his future.

The film was directed by Andrew Haigh who made quite an impression with his portraits of characters in Weekend and 45 Years (bringing a British perspective to this very American story).

1. The title? The horse? But Charley’s story?

2. The director and writer, a British sensibility on American characters and story?

3. The locations, Oregon, the countryside, the trek across the states to Wyoming? Homes, stables, the race circuit, diners, caravans, shops? The musical score?

4. Charley Plummer as Charley? Aged 15, the absent mother, the bond with his father, the girlfriends? Athletic, his running, his father’s encouragement? His father, taken to hospital, his death? Charley’s memories of his aunt Margey, his searching to find her? The family background, Charley and his encountering Del, the horses, offering to work, his hard work and doing all the menial and dirty work, a decent and conscientious boy, introverted? Seen at home, the television, running, quiet?

5. The contrast with Del, the tough type, his life and career, his work, the horses, the races, the circuit? Tough, appreciating Charley, paying the wages? The horses going to Mexico? Charley and the introduction to Bonnie, her story, the hard life on the racing circuit, treatment by men? Her riding and injuries? Del and Bonnie and their philosophy of that is what life is like? No sentiment?

6. Charley, his response to Del and Bonnie, to the horses? Looking after Lean on Pete, wanting to save him? The easy-going times with Del, sharing the rooms, the meals, Del’s comments about life and people?

7. The race, Charley upset, his bonding with the horses, Lean on Pete, wanting Bonnie to ride him? Her refusal? His taking the horse, driving the car, his aim, his escaping the authorities?

8. The trick, stopping for petrol, Lean on Pete getting away, Charley chasing him, walking, audience shock with the car crash and the death of Lean on Pete?

9. The various people met on the way, the homes, the families, the men and their experience in Iraq, the meal, the town, Silver and his wife, getting the job in cleaning houses, Silver turning on him, his violent outburst? His wife, her character, reactions?

10. Getting the train, arriving in Cheyenne, the phone calls, finding that his aunt worked in the library, his visit there, being reunited with her? Her feelings, regrets about the past? Talking with her, her allaying his fears, his apprehension about the police, but security and a future?

11. A film with a sense of humanity?

TRAPPED BY TELEVISION

US, 1936, 64 minutes, Black and white.
Mary Astor, Lyle Talbot, Nat Pendleton, Joyce Compton, Thurston Hall, Marc Lawrence.
Directed by Del Lord.

This is a historical curiosity kind of film. It is a thriller with romance from the mid-1930s, a small-budget supporting feature. However, it is the television that is of interest.

Audiences who take television for granted may not give a second thought to its origins. While television did not develop as much as anticipated because of World War II, it emerged in the mid 1930s and later 1940s and spread throughout the world.

This is a film about an inventor, in need of money, but skilled, who gets the opportunity to promote his equipment to a broadcaster. While this seems a fairly bland kind of story, it is enhanced by some villainous shenanigans in the background. One of the officials of the company is in league with criminals who want to institute a different deal. They have abducted the inventor from the company and a ruthless killer, (Marc Lawrence in an early villainous role which was he was to continue throughout his career) shoots him. There are also further complications with the villains trying to commandeer the invention.

The film opens with the focus on Nat Pendleton doing his familiar shtick, this time quite engagingly, a debt collector who continually tells us that his hobby is science and who takes the inventor under his wing to help him. He also has to collect debts from a business woman, played in her tough style by Mary Astor (with some romantic moments) and her associate Mae, Joyce Compton. They decide to be the agents for the inventor with the company.

The inventor gradually succeeds, the debt collector always promising his landlady that he would pay his rent. The crooks sabotage the demonstration at a football match, smashing his cathode ray. Unbeknownst to him, his agent sells her coat and buys him a new ray. They trick the board into watching a demonstration which turns out to be the fight between the inventor and the crooks, leading to a car chase, arrests, happy owner of the company, happy romance – plus one with the debt collector and the agency associate!

An entertaining short feature – but a reminder of the early development of television.

KICKBOXER: RETALIATION

US, 2018, 110 minutes, Colour.
Alain Moussi, Christopher Lambert, Jean- Claude Van Damme, Mike Tyson, Hafpor Julius Bjornsson.
Directed by Dimitri Logothetis.

Back in 1989, Jean- Claude Van Damme created the character of Kurt Sloan the archetypal kickboxer of the movies. There have been several Kickboxer films but, in 2016, there was Kickboxer: Vengeance, starring Alain Moussi as the new Kurt Sloan, the character initiated by Van Damme. This film takes up the story, with Moussi taking up his role again, a champion at kickboxing and martial arts, challenged, his wife abducted, he himself being taken back to Thailand under sedation, imprisoned.

Christopher Lambert appears as Mr Moore, an entrepreneur, trying to force the hero to confront a giant competitor, Mongkut (Hafpor Julius Bjornsson). Our hero is unwilling, is often bashed, forced to do hard labour in the prison, continually provoked, involved in all kinds of fights, fist and martial arts. And, frequently, he is lashed.

One of the boxers in prison is Briggs, played by Mike Tyson himself, some fights, but Briggs ultimately helping the hero.

Jean- Claude Van Damme himself appears, blind, but with an ability to sense people’s presence and doing some martial arts moves himself. He becomes something of a mentor to the hero.

Mongcut is brutal towards the hero in prison but he trains vigorously and finally confronts Mongcut for a highly choreographed battle.

This is a film made for fans rather than the general public. Is full of martial arts action to please them. The hero is a strong presence, humiliated and brutalised, recovering, training, winning.

The cinematography is at times quite stylish and experimental, highlighting the quality of the production. But audiences will be pleased to see Jean- Claude Van Damme make a reappearance.

STRANGE COLOURS

Australia, 2017, 86 minutes, Colour.
Kate Cheel, Justin Courtin, Daniel P.Jones.
Directed by Alena Lodkina.

When considering Strange Colours, it is best to check one’s mood, to check one’s admiration for cinematic colour photography, to check one’s interest in small-budget Australian dramas. If the answer comes up that these are important, then this film, supported by the Venice Biennale as well as Australian government film offices, goes on to the list. On the other hand, if the answer comes up that sometimes these are not so important, then best to check on reviews of the film.

For many, this is an admirable film from a young director, Alena Lodkina, Russian background, her first film, her writing and directing. For others, it is a very slow-burner, probably too slow for those who prefer pace rather than feeling like they are watching paint drying. Certainly diverse opinions.

The strange colours of the title actually refer to opals, very strikingly presented as background to the final credits. The location for this film is lightning Ridge, north-western New South Wales, a mixture of outback, desert, bush, mines. And, of course, the title could refer to the strange colours of the different characters.

There is some initial focus on mining and drilling but also highlighting the consequences for health, a young woman giving up her studies to come to visit her mining father from whom she has become alienated. He is impatiently in hospital, ready to get out.

The camera follows the young woman and the range of townspeople she meets, setting up in the house, getting some help from the locals, invited into their way of life, satisfying for those who are mining and looking for the opals, but also satisfying for those who are happy to move out of the big cities, preferring the isolation of the bush.

There are some emotional issues which come to the fore, a young woman coming to terms with her father, a rough diamond (opal) if ever there was. There is also an agreeable man to whom she forms an attachment, swimming, the sexual advance which he rejects – and her having to discover his traumatic story. There are some genial old blokes around Lightning Ridge, the pub where some of the young and old blokes go, pool tables, the young woman beginning to feel at home.

Whatever the response to the film, admiration or feelings of tedium, the audience can appreciate that this is a visit to a town that that very few are likely to visit and an opportunity to see and reflect on the characters and their way of life.

1. The title, opals and the variety of colours? The close-up in the final credits? And the strange colours of different people?

2. The work of the writer-director, her background from Europe, her first feature film?

3. North-western New South Wales, the town of Lightning Ridge, the importance of the opal mines, the diggings, the tunnels, the soil hills? The bush, the dirt roads, the lake? Homes, novels, huts, exteriors and interiors? The musical score?

4. The young woman, arriving by bus from the south, an alien world from what she was used to? The help, going to the hospital? Her father, miner, his health? Rugged, not wanting to be in hospital? The emerging story of the family background, his wife, his going to the mines, his tough life, separation from his daughter? His getting out of hospital, going home, the discussions with his daughter, his disappointment, her reactions, wanting to go? The empty house, her search for him, going down the mine, discovering him? His death? The funeral? The effect on her life in this experience of her father?

5. The old miner, tough, underground, the opals, his ambitions, leaving his family, ill, hospital, getting out, his later collapse down the mine, the rescue, his death? The importance
of his dialogue, expressing himself to his daughter, her response?

6. Frank, helpful, the drive, borrowing his car? His help with the house, setting her up? Going for the swim, the talk? Her sexual advance, his rejection, leaving? The later revelation about his story and the tragedy of the death of the child in the accident?

7. The range of old miners, their befriending the girl, their houses, the conversation, their philosophy of life, living away from the towns, happy in their own company? The socialising, friendship, golf…?

8. The pub, pool, the drinking, the comradeship in the pub?

9. The pathos of the story, quest, relationships, love? The opportunity for an outside audience to see something of the life in a place like Lightning Ridge?

CREED II

US, 2018, 130 minutes, Colour.
Michael B. Jordan, Sylvester Stallone, Tessa Thompson, Phylicia Rashad, Dolph Lundgren, Florian Munteanu, Russell Hornsby, Wood Harris, Milo Ventimiglia, Robbie Johns, Brigitte Nielsen.
Directed by Steven Caple Jr.

And the answer to the Trivial Pursuit question is: Rocky IV, the question, of course, being: which was the Rocky film in which Drago appeared.

In 2015, Creed, which might be considered a sequel to the Rocky films, proved to be very popular. Michael B. Jordan was very acceptable as the next-generation boxer. And there was Sylvester Stallone again, not only contributing to the writing as he had for all the previous Rocky films, even getting an Oscar nomination as Best Supporting Actor. The director of Creed, Ryan Coogler, had worked with Michael B. Jordan on the thoughtful, Fruitvale Station, and they were part of the team for the highly successful Marvel Universe film, Black Panther.

On release, this sequel received very enthusiastic reviews and responses. It seemed to be exactly what the fans wanted. The screenplay is full of well-worn (or time-honoured) pieces of dialogue, reinforcing the conventions of the boxing film that so enthral the audiences.

Actually, the plot draws on its predecessors very strongly. Adonis Creed is the son of Rocky’s rival, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers), and then collaborator in several films. But, in Rocky IV, with the introduction of the Russian fighter, Drago (described in 1985 with the adjective, Soviet), Apollo Creed dies and Rocky vanquishes Drago in the ring. Now, more than 30 years later, here is his son, Viktor Drago, a huge hulk of a man, the actor portraying him, Florian Munteanu, credited with his nickname “Big Nasty�. (And here is Brigitte Nielsen again as Draco’s wife, Viktor’s mother – and was actually married to Sylvester Stallone at the time of Rocky IV.)

And for those expecting big things in the fights, they will not be disappointed. First fight sees Creed overcoming an opponent. Then there is the big fight, for the world heavyweight title, between Creed and Drago, a literally punishing fight. And, of course, there has to be a climax, Creed versus Viktor Drago again, a kind of resurrection fight which goes for 10 rounds, powerfully choreographed. For the audience veterans, there is the enjoyment of hearing excerpts from the original Rocky theme music.

And for those who do not immediately take to boxing films let alone the fights themselves, there is quite some humanity in the underlying plot. With apologies to Sylvester Stallone, who has been a decades-long screen presence and who knows how to write screenplays, Michael B. Jordan is a much more convincing actor. There is his relationship with his girlfriend, Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and a proposal seen (after he nervously asks Rocky for advice). There is also the complication that Younger is deaf, with her hearing aid, which leads to some pathos when she becomes pregnant and there is concern about the condition of the newly-born daughter.

And there is the emotion concerning the comeback fight, the recovery after the battering from Viktor Drago, physical and psychological rehabilitation – and, of course, Rocky urging Creed to the most rigorous training program in the desert, exhausting for the audience as they are comfortably sitting in their theatre seats!

It is all as expected – and who would want it to be otherwise?

In 2018 it is interesting to watch an American film where the hero is fighting a Russian, a bruiser of an opponent, seen as the enemy. And then there is also the thought that it is 42 years since the first Rocky film, which means that it could be still another 40 years with Michael B Jordan coaching the champion of 2058!

1. The popularity of the first Creed film, Adonis Creed as a character, his boxing skills, his fights, his being coached by Rocky Balboa?

2. The popularity of Rocky, from 1976, the many sequels? Sylvester Stallone reprising his role in Creed and again here? Stallone and his writing of the original film, his writing contributions to all sequels including this film?

3. Audiences liking boxing films? The film tradition for these films? And the contribution of the Rocky tradition? Underdogs, imposing fighters and rivalries?

4. Audience knowledge of Apollo Creed, fighting Rocky, collaborating with him, his defeat by Drago in Rocky IV? This film bringing Drago back, his wife, Ludmilla, his coaching his son to fight Creed, to vindicate his own loss against Rocky? The death of Apollo Creed and some vengeance?

5. California settings, apartments, gyms? Philadelphia settings? The trophy room? New York and the boxing matches, arenas, crowds? The comparison with the Moscow staging of the fights? The elaborate staging? The contrast with the desert sequences and the locations for the rigorous training?

6. The musical score, the sense of triumph – and the incorporation of the Rocky theme at various moments?

7. Audience sympathy for Adonis Creed? The initial fight, his skills? The fight for world Champion? His relationship with Bianca, discussions with Rocky about how to propose, Rocky’s advice and words? Bianca in the shower, not hearing Adonis clearly, the humorous and sentimental touches of the proposal and acceptance? The ring?

8. Bianca, from the original film, her relationship with Creed, her hearing impediment, at the fights, going up and down? The strong character, her singing? Her acceptance of the proposal, the marriage, her pregnancy? Supporting Creed in his fights, her presence? Who is supporting him after his battering, his distance from her, the recovery? Giving birth?

9. Creed, his relationship with Bianca, love, her continued support, hospital and his reaction after his battering? The pregnancy, the birth, his presence? The apprehensions about the little girl and her hearing? The tests? The fact that she was deaf, and the later scene with the hearing aids?

10. The fight in Moscow, Viktor Drago and his presence, his fighting, attack and strong, the audience seeing his father, the memories of 30 years, the relationship with Apollo Creed, with Rocky? The father coaching his son and encouraging him?

11. The entrepreneur in Moscow, arranging the fight? The first fight between Viktor and Creed? The intensity, brutal, injuries, Creed’s collapse, Viktor helping himself up and therefore being disqualified? Not gaining the title? Creed retaining the title? The consequences for the battering, hospital, doctors’ opinions, his pride, recovery?

12. The role of Rocky, not being present at the first fight, watching it on television, the camera returning to him and his comments during the bout? His going to see Creed and apologising? The personal relationship, the memories of Apollo? His going to Creed in California, after the visit to the trophy’s room, urging him to special training? The scenes in the desert, the collage of the intensity of training, running, weights, being hit…? And the intercutting of Drago and his coaching his son?

13. The acceptance of the bout? Creed and his mother and their discussions? Bianca and her support?

14. The fanfare in Moscow, Viktor and his being so large, the potential for intimidation? The tactics, the choreography of the fights, the length of the fight, Viktor and his aggressiveness, bullying? Creed and his skills, the support of Rocky, his entourage, mother and Bianca, his final aggression, surviving, the knockout? His retaining his world title? Drago throwing in the towel?

15. The aftermath, Rocky and Creed talking about Rocky visiting his son and grandson? His going to Philadelphia and being welcomed? Rocky and the memories of Adrian, the photos, his talking to her the cemetery?

16. Creed, going to his father’s grave? With Bianca and his daughter – and their future?

MONEY MADNESS

US, 1948, 73 minutes, Black-and-white.
Hugh Beaumont, Francis Rafferty, Harlan Wade, Cecil Weston, Ida Moore.
Directed by Sam Newfield (as Peter Stewart).

Money Madness opens with a young woman being condemned to prison for 10 years. Then it goes into flashback – and arrives at the ending of the film without the sentence, audiences hoping that, instead, all will be well.

A comment is made about people who arrive on buses and the focus is on a middle-aged man, played by Hugh Beaumont, getting off a bus at an unintended stop, going to a bank and putting money in a personal safe. He then becomes a taxi driver in the town, becoming friends with young woman (the woman sentenced at the beginning of the film), takes her out, comes home, visits, rather sweeps her off her feet and marries her.

He is revealed to be a cad, people arriving in town to claim money from him, the revelation that he was a partner in a bank robbery. He also swindles the young woman, claiming that he is not divorced from his former wife, is hostile to the young woman’s aunt, something of a cantankerous hypochondriac, and poisons her so that her niece will inherit her house and everything in it (where his planted the money).

The niece’s lawyer is sympathetic, confronts the villain, but he is clever in setting up the young woman, menacing her with the gun, and allowing her to be arrested for the murder of her aunt – leading to the sentence of 10 years.

The film retains its interest with the twists of its plot.

THE PHANTOM

US, 1931, 62 minutes, Black-and-white.
Guinn Williams, Allene Ray, Niles Welch, Tom O'Brien, Sheldon Lewis, Wilfred Lucas, Violet Knights, William Gould, Bobby Dunn, William Jackie.
Directed by Alvin J.Nietz.


This is a very (very) creaky early sound film, relying on all of the techniques of the silent era, of the different acting styles of the silent era (which clash very much in the variety of characters here). The filmmakers also seem to have been influenced by German Expressionism, especially with the representation of The Phantom, reminiscent of Nosferatu.

The film opens with some action, a man to be executed getting over the wall of a prison, leaping onto a moving train, being rescued by a plane.

It is taken for granted that this escapee is The Phantom. There is a threat to a wealthy man and action takes place in his home, a strange creature, hat, veiled, claw fingernails, frightens the daughter of the house as well as the maid and the chauffeur (the latter two with extremes of overacted farcical comedy). Also in the action is a newspaper reporter who is secretly engaged to the daughter, and the newspaper boss who is also in love with her.

There are a whole lot of shenanigans, secret doors, screams a-plenty, the newspaperman being the hero and searching for the mysterious visitor.

It is decided that they go to a local institution to find the doctor who will have some explanations, encountering a strange character who acts as the doctor’ all s servant. Ultimately, it will be all revealed that the doctor is one of those mad doctors, wanting to do experiments on the brain (a feature of films of the 1930s) and has his eyes on the young woman. However, he is unmasked and all is settled.

Minimum entertainment value but of creaky historical interest. Guinn Williams is the hero – that is more often seen as something of a lug and as an action character.

CLUB PARADISE/SENSATION HUNTERS

US, 1945, 62 minutes, Black and white.
Robert Lowery, Doris Merrick, Eddie Quillan, Constance Worth, Isabel Jewell, Wanda Mc Kay, Nestor Paiva, Minerva Urecal.
Directed by Christie Cabanne.

This film was originally called Club Paradise but, for commercial purposes, became Sensation Hunters.

There is a phrase to describe the downfall of a character, especially a woman: The Primrose Path. This is definitely a Primrose Path film.

The film opens with a man arriving at a house at night, a woman on the balcony, the man going in, the audience hearing a shot. The rest of the film is flashback until we arrive again that scene.

This is war time, men and women working in factories. Doris Merrick portrays Julie, attractive young woman, often victim of a harsh father is also critical of his son who lives in the house with his wife pregnant. The mother is concerned but unable to intervene. Julie likes to go out, and has dates with a trumpet player, Eddie Quillan. There is also a girlfriend from factory.

While out nightclub, Julie encounters a man about town, Danny (Robert Lowery). She is immediately infatuated – but the audience can quickly see that he is more than a cad. He sponges on people, especially a sympathetic manager of a nightclub who does give him money (Constance Worth). At another time, out with Eddie Quillan, who has hopes of being the next Harry James, there is a raid and they go to court, Quillan to jail for a month, her father bailing out Julie but banning her from coming home.

While still infatuated with Danny who comes and goes, is a womaniser and clearly not to be trusted, she still believes in him, gets a job at the nightclub as part of the chorus, boards with a sympathetic singer and is supported by the manager.

The film explores Julie’s ups and downs, Eddie Quillan’s success, his invitation for her to become a singer at his club, the continued devotion to Danny until she is ditched and he goes off with her friend from work. Though she seems rather sweet, the screenplay requires Julie to become a woman scorned and certainly full of fury. It is she who is on the balcony at the beginning and end of the film – and it is she who shoots Danny.

A rather grim ending rather than a sweet romantic finale.