Movie review - "Philadelphia" (1993) ***

 Nineties cinema par excellance - hot director, social issue, Oscar bait, etc. It made a lot of money, got rewards, but after this the critics turned on Jonathan Demme - too establishment.  The movie became a joke in a way - Tom Hanks seems to apologise for being so acclaimed playing gay and it led to In Out. 

But the movie holds up well. Confidently made. Two great stars in flashy roles. Denzel is that 90s standby - a loveable ambulance chaser. Hanks is very affable - who was as affable, really? Classy support cast including Bradley Whitford, Antonio Banderas. 

The film goes for very long. It's two hours. Thirty minutes could have been cut out. I understand they needed to give Hanks a big monologue in the second half because otherwise Denzel takes over. The powerful drama of the opening half an hour - Hanks discovering his illness, getting fired - is dissipated.

But the acting is lovely, the direction sensitive, it does have heft. 

Roger Corman is used very well once again - Demme knew how to deploy his persona. 

Book review - "There's No Going Back The Life and Work of Jonathan Demme" by David M. Stewart

 Solid biography of the director - I'm surprised there hadn't been one before now. It packs a fair bit in - his publicist, flashy dad, who had progressive politics and was a bit of a sleaze, like his son, really, who didn't always treat women well. Like his Australian first wife who he refused to allow produce.

Demme broke in as a publicist, worked in New York, interned for Joe Levine, benefited from a wealthy background, move to London, did some work on Eyewitness, then hooked up with Roger Corman, stayed with Corman a few years. Obviously talented, so much so that people kept giving him work despite a lack of hits. Indeed, he only had a few hits throughout his career. Quality of his work seemed to slip after Philadelphia with too many remakes but in his defense his focus seems to have been split, doing a lot of producing and documentaries, being involved in Haiti. A heavy smoker which is why he died relatively young.

I'm not a huge Demme fan. Something slightly lacking in the book. Maybe a layer of depth or something.

John Candy Top Ten

 1) Stripes (1981) "well, we were on our way to bingo..."

2) Splash (1984) - "I could never be that happy..." 

3) Home Alone (1990) - a wonderful eleventh hour cameo

4) Only the Lonely (1991) - he would have had a long rich career as character actor

5) JFK (1991) - see above

6) Cool Runnings (1993) - an ex-athlete, no, as a wonderful performance, yes

7) Planes Trains and Automobiles (1987)

 8) Uncle Buck (1989)

9) National Lampoon's Vacation (1983)

10) Summer Rental (1985) - yes I know but I have fond memories of it 

I acknowledge these are mostly cameos. 

Movie review - "The Burbs" (1989) **1/2

Joe Dante was ideal to direct this combination of horror, fantasy, comedy and mystery about neighbors who are convinced a newbie is a killer. It's directed with typical Dante skill and enthusiasm and the cast can't be faulted - everyman Hanks, Carrie Fisher in a weirdly suburban role as his wife, Bruce Dern having fun as a nutter married to hot Wendy Schaal, a big role to vaguely familiar Ric Docummun.

The main problem with this is it doesn't t have enough story for a feature. It felt like an hour long TV ep, if that. I think it we'd found out Gibson was bad at say the end of act two it would have had more stakes and more menace.

Characters feel as though they duplicate functions. There's nothing for women to do. You could have consolidated the characters

Still, I acknowledge this is a cult movie that people like and it may benefit from re-watching.

Book review - "Boone's Lick" by Larry McMurtry (2000)

Not bad Western from McMurtry - at the end of the Civil War a family head north to Wyoming to find the missing father of the family ("missing" as in he shot through, not he's a mystery). They arrive in time to witness the Fetterman Massacre.

There is easy going prose, bursts of violence, a cameo from Wild Bill Hickcok and a bigger role for Fetterman. Like I said, not bad. Narrated from teen Shay. There's a tough female lead, some cranky old timers. 

The journey doesn't start until one-third of the way through. It's not a long book. The book doesn't feel cohesive. One review I read thought the problem was the focus was it was told from a teen's POV and he wasn't across the emotional issues the way that grumpy Uncle Seth would've, or the female lead. Maybe.

McMurtry said Tom Hanks was interested in a film version - I'm not sure a film version would've been that awesome.

Movie review - "Elvis" (2022) ***

The unique vision of Baz Luhrmann/Catherine Martin adapts well to the Elvis story, with its low rent, tin pan origins (carnivals, appropriated culture, hayrides), and high rent kitsch (Vegas). Austin Butler does fine in an  impossible role. He mimics Elvis as well as I guess anyone can - but he's not the real thing and isn't as charismatic. But then no one can.

Tom Hanks' make up takes getting used to. I never did. He's always a cartoon. Richard Roxbrough and Helen Thompson score strongly as Elvis' parents.

The research felt wikipedia deep in terms of script - not in production design. It kind of is about the Colonel and Elvis but then the Colonel takes a step back for slabs of running time and it becomes about the beauty of Dacre Montgomery - and then Luke Bracey gets all these close ups as one of Elvis' gang (though he doesn't do anything). Priscilla is in there, worried, and that's it - no cheating on Elvis with the karate instructor in this one, but I know they needed .

Bright, bubbly, a spectacle. It got wearying after a while. This needed an intermission more than Australia did.

Movie review - "Bonfire of the Vanities" (1990) **

 I was inspired to watch this again after listening to the podcast on the movie by TCM. The main feature of that was Julie Salomon's recordings of interviews at the time. But actually production of the film wasn't too tough - Bruce Willis was a bit egotistical, Melanie Griffith was insecure, the budget went over but... it was reasonably professional. Pages are dedicated to some guy getting a shot of a concorde, as if it mattered.

The film isn't very good. But then I wasn't wild about the novel. Not an easy novel to adapt - it's all about multiple characters and atmosphere. Maybe Robert Altman could've done it.  Sidney Lumet. 

 It had to be about someone we enjoyed seeing suffer. It's not fun to watch Tom Hanks suffer. He seems too nice.

It's mean about the black people. Shows the kid who is in a coma has his CV artificially pumped up as an honours student, shows the black preacher as a cartoonish figure, makes a cheap joke about his mother wanting $10 million to buy clothes.

It has no feel for New York. The sense of the divide between classes. It's too stylish.

The film is about nice Tom Hanks not really doing anything bad except root Melanie Griffith and even that's not too bad in the world of this movie because Kim Cattrall plays the wife as a caricature. And in this story every one is mean - Melanie lies on the stand, his wife leaves him, Bruce Willis writes nasty articles, protestors yell at him, his firm fires him, his co op kicks him out of the building. But then Bruce Willis has a change of heart and comes to the rescue. And white dad Donald Moffatt says he loves him.  And judge Morgan Freeman asks everyone to be decent when Hanks triumphs (well, escapes prosecution) by lying that he made a tape with dad's approval. Go the patriarchy!

Bruce Willis feels off as a drunken journalist. Michael Caine or some old boozy Brit would've been better. Melanie Griffith is actually the best cast.

The miscasting was bad but they distorted the novel into a stock Hollywood hero's journey but still tried to be faithful which means the film just comes off as really racist. That's why people got upset about it.

Script review - "Jerry Maguire" by Cameron Crowe

 Felt like reading this again so I did. So good. Fresh, interesting. An amazing star vehicle. Why did Tom Hanks turn this down? I do feel Tom Cruise was a better choice. Dorothy is lovely but I remember a lot of my mates at the time really wanted to date Avary. Rich support characters: Rod Tilson, his wife and brother, the kid, the sister, the babysitter, Bob Sugar, the other athletes.

What happened to Cameron Crowe's writing in the 21st century? Is he too rushed? Needs to do research?

Movie review - "The Post" (2018) ***

Solid story - I was surprised, I wasn't sure how they could get drama out of printing leaks, but they went to character, establishing Kay Graham as haunted by her husband's suicide and her own inexperience and insecurity... and having Ben Bradlee motivated by a desire to beat the Times as much as save democracy.

There's typically high quality production design, Spielberg moves the camera around and lingers over his production design in a way that suggests perhaps the material doesn't completely resonate for him - he clearly finds it interesting rather than fully emotionally engaging. But it is a smart film for grown ups.

Strong cast, Meryl is very good and Tom Hanks is fine but he simple feels miscast - when he's smoking cigarettes and being gruff you kept thinking "that's Tom Hanks acting" in a way I never did Jason Robards in that role.

Movie review - "De Palma" (2017) ***1/2

Funny sort of doco - basically just De Palma talking to camera about his career, interspersed with photos, clips from his films and home movies. But since his career has been so long and varied and De Palma is a strong raconteur (I'd actually never heard him speak before, I think!) it passes the time well.

I particularly enjoyed hearing about his upbringing - upper middle class (dad was a surgeon), squabbling family life but Brian seemed to have plenty of cash (another spoilt boomer director!), lots of education, he only got the film bug at college. Loved seeing clips of a young De Niro, Jennifer Salt and Jill Clayburgh.

De Palma was given a lot of advantages in life (his sex, his background) but was/is a self starter - he had the moxie to make his own feature back in the 60s, and made a living out of doing promotional documentaries. He also has resilience to bounce back from things like being booted off Getting to Know Your Rabbit.

He's got one of those careers where failures are followed by successes then failures. The success of Sisters led to the failure of Phantom of the Paradise led to the success of Obsession (Cliff Robertson was a pain in the neck which was sad to hear) and Carrie, led to the failure of Home Movies, led to the success of Dressed to Kill (the script was hot property and sold for $1 million), led to the failure of Blow Out, led to the success (ish) of Scarface, led to the failure of Body Double and Wise Guys led to the success of The Untouchables led to the failure of Casualties of War and Bonfire of the Vanities, led to the success of Carlito's Way (which he says "I can't do better than that"), Raising Cain and Mission Impossible (clashes in approach from David Koepp and Robert Towne), the mixed success of Snake Eyes and the failure of Mission to Mars, then the more "indie" path he's tread since then.

De Palma comes across as affable and confident, hungering for success as much as anyone in Hollywood, remarkably unaware and un-analytical of what all these scenes in his films where women die violently might mean for him or how derivative he is, and simplistic in his political takes ("it's a sewer"). He's appreciative of great composers and actors and collaborators.

Lots of interesting bits:
- Sean Penn punched out Michael J Fox in Casualties of War to help Fox's performance - thanks Sean
- he still stands by Bonfire of the Vanities
- he's bitter Sidney Lumet pinched Prince of the City off him
- he was offered Flashdance
- he followed his father around when younger to see who his dad was cheating on his mother with
- he hit up Spielberg and Scorsese for money to finish Home Movies

Very much worthwhile.

Movie review - "Sully" (2016) ***1/2

I totally enjoyed this more than I thought I would. My expectations weren't high - Tom Hanks in another Tom Hanks-y role, being a modern day James Stewart, and I couldn't see how they could get a feature out of it. Surely there was only half an hour of plane landing?

But the twist is the film is about something we can all relate to: did I stuff up? Did I make the right decision? I.e. was Sully/Hanks right in landing the plane on the Hudson, very risk endeavour, instead of going for the airport?

The investigators are made into villains which apparently upset them but big deal - it works dramatically and I bought it. Because that's what happens once danger is passed - people nitpick and go "did you have to do it that way".

The other great universal thing about the film is the actual plane crash which is done very well. Having been on a lot of plane trips this struck home - all the little details (the procedure, the flight attendant going "Brace Brace") were great.

Occasionally the film slips into "movie" territory - I wasn't that gripped by the adventures of Average Man and his two Cap Wearing Sons (I'm still not sure what the point of this is/was... they get a lot of screentime... was it to appeal to Clint's Flyover base audience"? I was more invested in the old lady and the mum with the baby). Also the climactic hearing scene felt very "movie" - a packed house, surprise witness, etc.

But it was very well done. Hanks is extremely effective as Sully, and Laura Linney does wonders as the wife - this could be a thankless part ("thank goodness you're alright") but she makes it work and the writer gives her stuff to play with (she does her scenes with Hanks over the phone, she's freaking out, etc). Good support parts too like Molly Hagan as the flight attendant.

I only meant to watch this in instalments and wound up watching the whole thing.

Script review - "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Michael Cristofer - third draft 2 April 1990

A famous flop, mostly because someone wrote a book about it - a good book, which I've read, and remember a lot about (Tom Hanks playing basketball with the crew, Melanie Griffith not having any friends among the crew, Bruce Willis being shoe horned into the film, Hanks being cast because he was likeable, Morgan Freeman being the recipient of affirmative action casting, Brian De Palma complaining about people always going on about his Hitchcock rip offs then ripping off a scene from Foreign Correspondent...).

I read the novel too and have to admit being underwhelmed. Maybe I read it at the wrong time of life or something - but it wasn't a very exciting story (not particularly nice but not evil white man goes on to suffer at the hands of politics) and it didn't seem to have any of the stunning insights of Wolfe's Right Stuff. I do remember phrases like "Master of the Universe".

And I found the film version to be very much "what's the point"? Reading the script reminded me of that - what's the point of it? It doesn't really encapsulate an era or a time. It's not a great story. The characters aren't particularly memorable - Sherman is over paid, cheats on his wife, is a bit of a whimp, probably doesn't deserve to suffer. His mistress is a one-note sex bomb femme fetale. Peter is just drunk. We know very very little about the kid who is hit or his family. The black leader and Jewish prosecutor are caricatures. The whole thing is a downer. I'm not sure what emotion the filmmakers were hoping to invoke in an audience other than "gee I saw the film of a best seller".

Cristofer has said the three hour script version was fantastic. I haven't read that, to be fair. This isn't fantastic.

Movie review - "Bridge of Spies" (2015) **1/2

Steven Spielberg became a legend in part by making movies that perfectly targeted in the inner child in all of us - this one targets the inner forgotten middle aged man. Tom Hanks works hard at his boring job (insurance lawyer), isn't particularly respected by his nagging wife or ungrateful kids. He gets a call to defend a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) which he does with such passion that he saves the spy from execution and people on the train start scowling at him. But he proves Everyone Wrong when the spy is used to swap for Francis Gary Powers. Then everyone hears about what he does and people are nice to him on the train again.

It's an odd sort of movie. There's a very sympathetic description of a Soviet spy, who is calm, and brave and a bit doddery in a loveable English eccentric sort of way - Hanks keeps going on about how hes better than say the Rosenbergs because he was born Russian. But he is in the country spying isn't he? And is it so great we got back Francis Gary Powers? I mean, yeah, he was brave and that crap but it was hardly a massive victory for freedom.

I feel in my guts there wasn't enough story here for a feature film. It was a hit, but I'm inclined to put that down to the fact it's a big budget film for adults with a star in it, that tries to tell a story... Hollywood makes hardly any movies like that these days. And it does a nice line in middle aged man wish fulfillment.

I'm not sure why Spielberg wanted to make this. I get the impression he may have been excited about the possibilities involved in recreating the era. It's slow paced and not that gripping and at 140 minutes way too long. The stakes feel low. Who cares about spies who've been caught? Or a lawyer whose wife nags him? Tom Hanks isn't Jimmy Stewart - I miss the days when Tom Hanks played Tom Hanks. But it does have novelty and the production design is impressive.

Movie review - "Captain Phillips" (2013) ****

Another excellent true life action tale from Paul Greengrass despite a miscast Tom Hanks in the lead. Oh I know he's conscientious and gives a good performance and all that stuff but he still looks like Tom Hanks with a beard and glasses and never really convinces as a sea captain.

Everything around him feels authentic though - I'm sure it was hyped for Hollywood (eg Phillips demanding the hostages take him instead of his men, his final attack of his kidnappers) but so much of it looks and seems authentic: the Somali actors, the views of Oman and the Indian ocean, the big tanker, the logistics of how modern day pirates work and the techniques against them, the American Navy Seals and their methods, the naval ships. It's visually different and fascinating.

I also liked how you wind up having sympathy for the Somalians, particularly that young kid. Barkhad Abdi is very good as the head pirate though the others impress as well. Max Martini felt very believable as the head negotiator.

I did feel this went on a bit - it's over two hours, with perhaps too much time spent in the life boat - but the finale is very intense and moving. (The scenes were the pirates attack are great too), And it was great how they devoted some time to Phillips' immediate PTSD. And yes he is depicted as heroically but the film doesn't shy away from the fact that after the first pirate attack Phillips might have taken more precautions - and the crew come out of it well.

Movie review - "Catch Me If You Can" (2002) ***1/2

It's not hard in hindsight to see the appeal of this piece for Steven Spielberg, with its quick witted protagonist who cons his way around big companies with bluff and charm - like Spielberg famously did at Universal in the late 60s - and who, like Spielberg, is haunted by his parent's divorce, who seeks out elder mentors and who just wants to be loved.

Frank Abagnale is probably has some sort of narcissistic mental condition, like a lot of con artists - he's definitely not all well in the end. That's not really explored here, apart from blaming mum and dad, which is probably a good thing. Leo di Caprio is excellent in the role though, as is Christopher Walken as his father. Good work too from Amy Adams as the girl who may or may not be his one true love. Tom Hanks' FBI agent annoyed me - he was just an overweight Tom Hanks in a hat, with occasional character notes thrown in i.e. he is estranged from his family.

The production design and costumes are great though less fresh now we see it all the time on Mad Men. The tone is jaunty and there is some really clever writing - I loved all the cons, and technical details about cheques and his escapes. It does go too long and there were lots of bits where you felt it could be cut eg Jennifer Garner's cameo (though this was charming and well done), Ellen Pompeo's cameo.

Random sitcom memories

A friend recently pointed me in the direction of this wonderful article about sitcoms in the 1980s. It brought back a lot of memories because I'd seen so many of them - sitcoms were all over Australian TV at the time, especially late at night when I would stay up and watch TV while at uni.

Some random memories of various shows:

The Cosby Show - agreed with article in that it had a great first season but quickly ran out of genius and ideas; it had to import cuter kids, more family members, more nods to the black experience; the show was obviously making so much money the credits became more elaborate and the sweaters huger. But it did have a genuinely great first season and the dynamic between Cliff and his wife and Cliff and his underachieving son (a fresh trope at the time) was really memorable.

Family Ties - adored this show especially early on; later it struggled, became over-reliant on clip shows and Malory's boyfriend Nick, and couldn't get any story out of Tina Yothers. But Michael J Fox was excellent as were Meredith Baxter Birney, Michael Gross and Justine Bateman; some really classic episodes. And who doesn't have a soft spot for Skippy?

Cheers - classy, ageless - the George Clooney of sitcoms; managed to survive Sam and Diane's romance ending brilliantly, had a dazzling array of support characters. I reckon it could have survived Ted Danson quitting too, it was such a well oiled machine - would have loved to see them try.

Night Court - I always remember watching this at 11.30pm at night on Channel Nine, a timeslot which completely suited it. A lot of fun, with John Larroquette being particularly good; very funny vaudeville schtick that made you want to be a judge or lawyer.

Who's the Boss? - an okay show which repeated the same old jokes monotonously, but Alyssa Milano did grow up to be very hot and Katherine Helmond was funny.

Growing Pains - I really liked this in its day; Kirk Cameron was a genuinely likeable star and had a pleasing dynamic with his family, and I had a little crush on Tracey Gold. The poor old youngest kid didn't grow up hot so they tried turning him into a nerd and brought in street kid Leo di Caprio. I wonder how this has aged; I have fond memories of it. And the episode where Mike gets smart by writing out cheat sheets and thereby memorising the work accidentally I actually found very useful.

Full House - could never watch it but ads about it were always on so I could follow the serial strands. Amazingly popular.

Family Matters - like Full House this was on Friday nights so if you watched it you were a social leper. Encouraged you to get out of the house.

Perfect Strangers - I actually liked the first season of this but it ran out of steam very fast. Yet lasted for years. Imagine those days.

The Golden Girls - never got into this that much but everyone knew the quality of the cast was amazing.

Gimme a Break - this was always on during the weekend. I have vague memories of it not being that good but then got good towards the end and was better without Dolph Sweet. Am I remembering that right? I recall the elder daughter always seemed to be having something complicated going on in her life.

The Facts of Life - terrible show but it was always on; never seemed to have any gags, far too many serious episodes. Nancy McKeon and Lisa Welchel were cute.  I recall when they tried to make it better bringing in Cloris Leachman and making a new set but the magic left. They did make The Facts of Life Down Under which was kind of cool.

Kate and Allie - the first few episodes were terrific then it seemed to run out of steam as well. Or maybe I simply couldn't relate to enough of it.

Designing Women - funny but too much hair and shoulder pads. Often used as a wet weather cricket replacement.

Murphy Brown - an excellent show, a big favourite of mine. Very strong workplace sitcom. Did inspire far too many women to go into journalism.

Newhart - another Channel Nine stick-it-anywhere show this was actually a lot of fun with a solid range of support characters.

Married... with Children - a really funny, at the time unconventional show with some great lines. And what teenage boy at the time didn't have a crush on Christina Applegate?

Roseanne - not a hit on Aussie TV at first until used by the nearly broke Channel Ten. A brilliant show which managed to reinvent its characters (eg Darlene) better than any other. Genuinely groundbreaking and superb until it went ga-ga.

Sledgehammer - fun Dirty Harry send up which ran out of puff soon but had some first-rate epiosdes.

Bosom Buddies - genuinely witty cross dressing comedy with Tom Hanks a star from the get go.

The Wonder Years - sweet, very accomplished, fresh look at a well documented time; love the parents, especially how Dad remained gruff. Lost magic the older Kevin became. And Winnie never did develop that third dimension, did she?

Small Wonder - dreadful sitcom which helped Rupert Murdoch make a fortune. I do remember the anti smoking ep where a friend of the lead chewed tobacco and got cancer of the gums.

Charles in Charge - I actually have a soft spot for this because it reunited the leads of Zapped. Fairly dreadful admittedly but was one of those shows you always found yourself watching. Jennifer Runyon was cute.

Head of the Class - as a bit of a nerd I loved the concept of this and always watched it when it was on Billy Connolly was never as good as Howard Hessmen though.

Never saw Franks Place, Too Close for Comfort, Taxi, Barney Miller, Mr Smith, One of the Boys.

I watched too much TV in the 80s and 90s.

Script review – “Bachelor Party” by Neal Israel, Pat Proft

Loved this when it came out – but then I was eleven. It’s not as funny now but the basic idea is still strong – party guy decides to get married. It worked on film because there was an essential decency about Tom Hanks which made you root for him.

The script has two subplots in particular which aren’t in the final film: a scene where Tom Hanks gets a blow job under a table as he talks to a priest (isn’t that still cheating?) and a whole subplot where the Hispanic mechanic chases after a hooker who winds up winning a beauty pageant. Both good deletions.

Book review – “The Men Who Would Be King” by Nicole Laporte

Anyone with a half-decent knowledge of Hollywood history would had treated the hype that greeted the formation of Dreamworks with scepticism – how much would they really be able to change? Based on the track record of other companies, the most we could expect would be a handful of decent films and the inevitable folding – that happens with all mini studios, such as Seven Arts, Hecht Hill Lancaster and Embassy. (The exception is something like United Artists in the 50s which pioneered a genuinely different way of doing things). And that’s what happened with Dreamworks.

 

It’s a tale worth telling – not an epic struggle like Eisner vs Katzenberg or Cimino at United Artists, but worth knowing about. The three principals actually didn’t have that much to do with each other – David Geffen seemed removed from the company most of the time except for Dream Girls, Katzenberg was stuck in animation, Spielberg floated in and out of the company. The driving force of the live action studio in the early days were the husband and wife team of Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald, about whom I’d heard little – charismatic, smart, troublesome, with a great track record.

 

There are cameos by people such as Mike de Luca, Stacey Snider and Terry Press, and interesting tidbits like Rita Wilson sulking because she didn’t get cast as the mother in Almost Famous (Rita Wilson thinks she has that much pull??) The person who comes off best is Katzenberg – he founded the studio to get revenge on Disney only to have running the studio taken away from him and put into animation; he took it like a man, buckled down and worked his arse off.

 

The main problem with Dreamworks is they couldn’t figure out what they wanted to be. They could have been an artistic hot house a la American Beauty provided they kept their budgets down (eg Almost Famous cost a fortune) – or they could be a commercial mini studio (they made Transformers and had a good relationship with Paramount). The could identify talent – just not keep the bills down.

 

Laporte writes in a journalistic style, which means over emphasis on things like Oscar campaigns, box office results, and ridiculous personal feuds (eg Brad Grey making a faux pas), and little on the quality of the movies. She also makes silly errors such as claiming films rarely get a standing ovation at Cannes. But it’s entertaining.

Movie review – “Toy Story 3” (2010) ****

Another Pixar masterpiece and money-maker. The formula is followed – an odyssey mixed with heart. The toys are about to be kicked upstairs to the attic with Andy going away to college – a set up which gives this a great deal of depth and heart, because you know no matter what happens the ending isn’t going to be really happy. The toys wind up at a day care centre, which seems like paradise, but isn’t. As normal with Pixar, the last act is one big chase/race-against-the-clock scene.

There are some incredibly moving moments, such as everyone holding hands as they think they’re going to their deaths, and the finale where Andy says goodbye (I don’t mind admitting this brought tears to my eyes – Woody’s smiling face staring at Andy especially, giving it away to a shy girl… it’s all about rites of pages, and changes and surise/sunet… no wonder grown men were bawling in cinemas).

Tom Hanks/Woody is very much the star here – he’s the one picked to go to college, he gets the close ups at the end, he has his own adventures whereas Buzz is stuck with the others. Even in animation, star factor counts. Lots of funny bits throughout; I particularly liked the idea of toys watching each other do theatre, and getting on ebay to see how much they’re worth.

TV review – “Band of Brothers” (2001) *****

Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg executive produced this epic mini series, which I guess was their follow up to Saving Private Ryan (of which today everyone seems to remember the first section but none of the rest). It follows the adventures of a troop of airborne soldiers from D-Day to the end of the war in Europe.

The first episode deals with basic training, with David Schwimmer as a bastard training instructor who is lousy in the field. Schwimmer is obviously a talented actor and his performance is fine, it’s just his mannerisms and voice are so distinctive it takes a while to forget Ross Geller.

Second episode is D Day, emphasising the confusion and sheer hard yakka that went into the battle. The big set piece is a raid on a series of German guns – this is terrifically exciting.

Episode three deals with attacks and counterattacks after D Day. The battle sequences are even better here. There is a subplot about a psychologically affected private, who really go through the gamut.

Episode four is Operation Market Garden, the battle that featured in A Bridge Too Far, and concentrates on new recruits joining the company. This was is less good, although the sequence where the Germans counter attack is very strong; all the new faces make this one particularly hard to follow. Also I don’t think Americans are that good on defeat (a reason why Operation Market Garden has rarely been covered by Hollywood).

Episode five involves a skirmish in Holland, focusing on the decent, brave officer of easy company. This was directed by Tom Hanks – was he attracted to this episode in particular by the Hanksian lead character?

Episode six is Bastogne. A strong episode – stunning snow-drenched visuals - where the famous Battle of the Bulge is given a fresh twist by being seen through the eyes of a medic. (Cue lots of bloody scenes in hospitals; as pointed out by Flashman, it’s hospitals which really remind you how horrible war is.)

Episode seven is the Ardennes – a follow up to Bastogne, involving the effect that shelling had on the men. (A morale low point for the men.) Its scene through the eyes of Don Wahlberg, whose sad eyes gives the drama extra resonance.

Episode eight is after Bastogne, when the end of the war is in sight, but the danger still great. It involves two newcomers to Easy Company – well one, really, a green lieutenant (Colin Hanks, who I don’t think I’ve liked in anything I’ve ever seen him in) and one who is coming back from a long stint in hospital and is resented by the men. The guts of the action centers around a patrol. It’s moving, exciting and depressing – reminiscent of Journey’s End in a good way.

Episode nine has Easy Company enter Germany. Ron Livingstone gets a chance to shine in this one after being a supporting character for the most part – he is about to have a nervous breakdown. This is also the first episode to have some breasts in it, which is reticent for HBO. But that’s early on – the guts of the story concerns a liberation of a concentration camp, which is incredibly powerful.

The final episode concerns the end of the war – visiting Hitler’s beautiful Eagle's Nest and occupation is over. Even though the Germans aren’t shooting you’re still on tenterhooks because you go “oh there’s going to be accidents” and there are. (One shocking moment a drunk Allied soldier shoots a member of Easy). However there are so many different characters you can’t help thinking “who is that guy” at times. Still, they keep coming up with great twists – like having a farewell speech spoken by a German officer to his troops, translated with our guys watching on.

The cast are full of vaguely familiar actors like Ron Livingstone and Dexter Fletcher, plus some future stars (James McEvoy, Simon Pegg, Jamie Bamber; Jimmy Fallon has a cameo). Sometimes it’s hard to tell who is who, especially with all those helmets, but the actors do a good job – they succeed in looking like 1940s kids, to my eyes anyway, and that’s something lacking in many modern day war films.