A Star is Born (2018)

 And this week's Friday night movie has been... A Star is Born (2018)!

Original image located here. Accessed 27th March 2026

AKA: The one with Lady Gaga in it.

Once again, the question I posed previously persists: Given that there are four versions of this movie, what is it about it that keeps bringing people back to it?
I have mentioned the potency of the source material, the potential for real-life parallels and how easily this movie can adapt to the times. But another reason comes to mind: The role of the female lead is one that any actress can really sink their teeth into - Indeed, it is telling that each remake is defined by who plays the female lead. I guess it's fair to say Judy Garland ended up setting a benchmark that many an actress has sought to match.

Of the four this is the most recent and, without a doubt, the one most people will be familiar with - after all, that's what star power does for you. So, lets bring this little experiment to a close.

Of the three predecessors, this one owes the most to the 1976 version. And it's not just the rock music framework: A lot of the plot points were reiterated quite closely. And that is odd given that each of the previous iteration has something of their own to say. It is telling that Jon Peters, producer of the 1976 version is also credited as producer here too (still no sign of a giant mechanical spider though).
Still, this does have what worked previously: The instance of a first timer with something to prove (director Bradley Cooper and star Lady Gaga) The real-life parallels with Cooper and Gaga showing chemistry both on and off screen and the implication of a rock star being surpassed by a modern form of pop music. 

But does this movie has something of it's own to say? Well yes: Lady Gaga delivers a stellar performance and her afore-mentioned chemistry Cooper does indeed sparkle. But hey, this is tried and tested material so you know it's going to work.  

A Star is Born (1976)

And this week's Friday night movie has been... A Star is Born (1976)!

Original image located here. Accessed 20th March 2026

AKA: The one with Barbra Streisand in it.

Let us, for a moment, go back to that question I posed last week: Given that Hollywood has produced four versions of this movie, what is it about A Star is Born that keeps bringing people back to it?
One likely reason is that it can easily be adapted to fit the times it was made: If the 1937 original was a snapshot of the Golden Era of Hollywood, and 1954 version came out at a time when musicals were popular, then this one brings something it's own to the table: It ditches the movie approach for one about music. In particular rock music and the industry attached. 

It may be a new approach but let's be honest here: This is all Streisand's show. She stars, is the executive producer, used her own clothes for her wardrobe (as the credits seem eager to point out) and has her then-hairdresser-turned-boyfriend Jon Peters as producer (well before his obsession with mechanical spiders). It would be easy to say this is her bid for some credibility/An Oscar, taking some tried-and-tested material and bringing her own stamp on it - but the question is, does it work? 

When I was a young lad in the nineties, I had a view of the seventies as being one borne of derision: There were hippies everywhere, the hair was bad, the fashion was worse and a lot of the music was over-produced and over-bearing. Granted such a perception was a product of a narrow one but I bring this up because this movie does nothing to challenge said perception. 
Sure the source material does translate well into a music environment, sure Kris Kristofferson plays the role of 'washed up and self destructive' rock star well, sure Streisand does indeed get chances to flex her vocal prowess (the final eight minutes being of particular note). But does this work as a whole? 
Honestly I'm torn here: For every strength this movie has, a weakness emerges: The Oreos. Streisand not quite cutting it is a rocker type. It's meandering nature. The aforementioned aesthetic. 

Still, there's always next week.....

A Star is Born (1954)

 And this week's Friday night movie has been... A Star is Born (1954)!

Original image located here. Accessed 13th March 2026

AKA: The one with Judy Garland in it.

Given that Hollywood has done four versions of this movie the big question is: Why do people keep coming back to it? One likely reasons is that the plot summary has an eternal appeal: The contrasting storyline of a young and upcoming actress making their mark whilst the veteran, experienced actor tries a comeback and fails. With the universal theme of chances - both first and second - it certainly helps to have some parallels in real life.
With this in mind, lets consider this iteration:
 - This was one of Garland's final films after years of personal struggles and some misfires. 
 - Director George Cukor was offered a shot at doing the 1937 original but he turned it down as he felt it too similar to another film he directed What Price Hollywood?. 

So compared to it's older brother, does this one have something of it's own to say? Well it's longer and, as was the trend of the time, it was a musical. Now I personally found the length to be problem as it certainly was a slog to get through - matters weren't helped in that this was a restored version with some missing scenes added with stills and dialogue that came across as pointless and justifiably cut. 
But whatever problems I may have had with this film, they are easily forgiven with the knowledge that this is, without question, Garland's show. She pretty much carries this movie and is a presence to behold. She is funny, dramatic and can pull off some effective musical numbers (see The Man That Got Away and Born in a Trunk).

Personally I found the first A Star is Born a tough act to follow but that doesn't mean this isn't a worthy contender. 

Unforgiven

 And this week's Friday night movie has been... Unforgiven (2013)!

Original image located here. Accessed 20th February 2026

Hollywood has a reputation of taking movies that originated in Japan and remaking them - Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven being one such example. So what happens when it goes the other way?
This movie is a Japanese remake of the Clint Eastwood magnum opus (pun intended) of the same name. It takes a western and reworks it into a samurai setting. Well I rank Unforgiven as a long-standing favourite so this seems like a challenge worth rising up to. 

The first thing that leaps out is that this movie is set in the Meiji era, the period in Japanese history that saw the end of the samurai era and the beginning of modernisation (and would be very familiar to fans of Rurouni Kenshn). This also means that there are firearms in this movie but given that this is a remake of a western it somehow isn't surprising. It should also be noted that this is set in Hokkaido which is a setting never really addressed in many Japanese films (most likely due it having it's own can of worms but that's another story). 
So how does this stack up against the original? Well like any remake it can't really escape the shadow of the original. And to that end, it does follow the plot of the original closely. It also shares some truly stunning imagery - and even replicates some shots wholesale. And it certainly understands what made the original work - even if there is somewhat less subtlety and the ending was altered. 
Still this was a compelling watch and I'm glad I saw it. 

How to Train Your Dragon (2025)

  And this week's Friday night movie has been... How to Train Your Dragon!

Original image located here. Accessed 11th July 2025

I will admit that I was something of a latecomer to the How to Train Your Dragon movies - but no matter: I still wound up adoring them. I equally enjoyed watching Race to the Edge. I even jumped  aboard the HMAS Hiccstrid. 

Of course, I had no plans to watch this - if the frosty reception of the Disney remakes is anything to go by - but Kiera had other plans and dragged me to it. Still, my cynicism remained: How can Live Action improve the animated splendour of the original?

I will say this: It's beautifully shot, the cast are all great, the designs are fantastic, the excitement is still there, there is a clear commitment being put into it and the strength of the source material still resonates. 
But there is still a slavish loyalty to the original: there is no need to make any improvements and there's nothing the animated original didn't do better. Furthermore, I think the original had more personality.

So yeah, it's a rollicking adventure movie but I still can't see what the point of it all was.
Mind you, if you told me that this was ploy to secure composer John Powell an Oscar then I'd believe you,
Can't wait for the Live Action remake of Shrek though...

Lilo and Stitch

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Lilo and Stitch (2025)!

Original image located here. Accessed 13th June 2025

I didn't plan on seeing this but Kiera dragged me to it. So here we are.
I think at this point the Disney remakes have been shaping up to be a series of disappointments. Complaints have been running rampant such as not offering anything new, lifeless in comparisons to their animated source material, blatant in it's cash-grabbing nature, and buckling to the bad-faith criticism internet nerds like to spruik. For such reasons, I have been hesitant in taking on these films.
Still, that a Lilo and Stitch remake exists is a surprise: It wasn't part of the Renaissance and it never seemed like one of the box-office successes. But I adored the original so maybe there will be something?

Well it wasn't bad. 

There are some good jokes and the heart of the original is still there but it's buried under an approach that is bigger and louder. It's the classic 'shock and awe' tactic: Give the audience a lot and within a short space of time and they wouldn't have time to look at it more closely. 
And that does leave an unpleasant aftertaste as the original wasn't a large scale narrative. It had something that worked. And that something was still present with this one (although I do feel Nani was done dirty in the end). 

Mind you, I do want to know what kind of witchcraft Tia Carrere is using to preserve her good looks.

Nosferatu (2024)

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Nosferatu (2024)!

Original image located here. Accessed 10th January 2025

I saw this in the cinema where some goth girls were in the row behind me. And when the line came "He's coming! He's coming!" I heard some giggling....

It's a bold move to remake one of the foundation stones/benchmarks of horror cinema: what can one do with the source material? Okay sure the original is over a century old and may look creaky today, but there are some genuinely freaky moments that put more modern horror movies to shame. So what does this one bring to the table?

Well the atmosphere is stunning with some great use of creeping dread. The visuals are gorgeous and there plenty of nods to the source material. But at the same time, I can't help but think that this is a soulless exercise. It is horny to the point of absurdity, the accents are silly and I was left with the thought of what the whole point of it was.

Miracle on 34th Street (1994)

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Miracle on 34th Street (1994)!

Original image located here. Accessed 16th December 2022

Back in 2019, I saw the 1947 original. So why not watch the update?
I suppose it will be inevitable that comparisons will be made between the two. But I am willing to give this film a chance and allow it to stand up on it's own two feet.

That being said, one change made is the sub-plot the makers added with Bryan and Dorey. And in all honesty it didn't do that much for me. But what DID work for me is Richard Attenborough's performance as Kris Kringle. The man owns every scene he is in and gives the role plenty of gravitas. Indeed, you could make the argument that he is exactly how one expects Santa Claus to act.
I will also admit that, compared to the original, the winning argument is handled more successfully. So one-up to the remake.
So yeah, not a bad movie

Evangelion: 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon a Time

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Evangelion: 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon a Time!

Original image located here. Accessed 28th January 2022

IV - Rebuild
I can't recall the last time I sat down and watched Evangelion - clearly End of Evangelion left a bad taste in the mouth. But what i do know is that I spent a fair chunk of my twenties and thirties sorting myself out and overcoming the demon that is self-loathing - and much like Shinji it was down through a lot of self-analysis. Of course, the only difference is when i overcame my self-loathing I didn't get a round of applause accompanied by "Congratulations!" (would've liked to though).

 So when i found out a new Evangelion reboot, Rebuild, came about it was a case of "You Again"
Which now brings us here: Facing down the fourth and final movie in this rebuild, therefore the endpoint of this journey taken over this pat month - and also the endpoint of a longer journey that started back in late 1998.

Firstly this movie is long, at two and half hours. Granted this nothing new for movies in general but to see an animated film at such a length is indeed an anomaly. With such a length it wouldn't be that much a of a stretch to draw comparisons to Avengers Endgame. So can this movie pull off the same trick?

Well...kinda.....

A number of things of note: I like the quiet moments - that may sound odd but thy work. And considering that Evangelion has a reputation for bombast when it decides to be quiet it does so superbly.
I like the revelation of Gendo's history. It has indeed been along time coming - and who would've guessed that one of fictions most reviled characters could command empathy?
And I I like that this is effectively the big farewell that Anno wanted: There are indeed surprises throughout and we finally FINALLY get to see Shinji grow up and take control of his life. And yes, I do feel happy for him.
Of course, there are a lot of things that don't work: The action is fast and aggressive to the point of being difficult to keep up, certain characters are sidelined and, once again, the mysteries of Evangelion are never resolved to the point of aggressive.
Still, this movie does what it set out to do: Conclude Evangelion as a franchise for good so I give it that much. Furthermore, I will forever maintain that End of Evangelion was Anno urging us the audience to move on. And here i do believe he is saying the same thing - just in a far less passive-aggressive manner.

Well this month-long odyssey has now come to an end and what a heavy one it has been. So next week, i think I'll watch something a bit more fun.
And that s a guarantee.

Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo!

Original image located here. Accessed 21st January 2022

III - Distance
The year was 2001. I finally did get to see the End of Evangelion, by which stage had entered a 'Holy Grail' type status. And at the time i was astonished by it. It wasn't so much a movie being freed from the restrictions of TV but what was being portrayed on screen. The Shock and Awe tactics did indeed work but, once I processed what I had witnessed, the shine wore off quickly.
The disappointment from the End of Evangelion took it's toll: It was ugly, nihilistic and made me appreciate the original ending more. Come on, Shinji Ikari had been through so much crap that he deserved a happy ending. Indeed it is a bold move to end a series with your lead character achieving self-respect. But is such a thing that a hard sell to angst-ridden teenagers?
No matter: Such was the disappointment from the End of Evangelion that I distanced myself from this franchise. Indeed it is telling that in the years since, Shinji became a punchline for being 'whiny' and 'sexually-repressed'. Clearly having a protagonist who is emotionally vulnerable struck a nerve.
Also it is well-documented that End of Evangelion came about because creator Hideaki Anno received death threats over it;s ending - some of them actually appear onscreen during the movie. With such bitterness involved, is it any wonder that I would move on?
Furthermore my tastes in anime were evolving. One telling incident: When i was enthusiastic about Evangelion, I did, at the same time, dismiss the movie Royal Space Force (Wings of Honenamise). The people who made fun of me for liking Evangelion in turn thought very highly of Royal Space Force. Of course they were obviously trying to wind me up but in the years since, I have come to see Royal Space Force in a more favorable light.
Finally, the distance from Evangelion made me see it in a new light: Because this is not a series about giant robots, invading aliens and layers of conspiracy. This is about the Anno laying out his fears and doubts. The real enemy is not the Angels; It's self hatred. Therefore, to be a fan of Evangelion one must accept this along with the fact that the mysteries in it many never be properly answered and this series must be approached on Anno's terms.

And that mindset is indeed present with the third movie in this rebuild. The movie starts with an interesting scenario but at the same time, questions are raised which, being Evangelion, are never answered. It may be exasperating but this start is nothing more than a red herring.
The real meat is seeing Shinji encounter Kaworu and the bond they build. Consider: If you're depressed and have trouble building connections and then you meet someone who provides inspiration and is genuinely interested in you, would you turn them away? I know a lot of people challenge 'soul-mate' narratives with the reasoning of "No one's coming to save you" but here we have such reasoning being put into practice. As such, to be tempted in such a a way leads to distrust to outside forces, learning the wrong lessons and making bad decisions.
But ultimately that is my interpretation: I am okay with Evangelion not being about giant robots - indeed the opening half hour come across as coming from a completely different movie - but not so with many other (and angrier) Evangelion fans.

So to wrap up this very long post, it has been theorized that 1.0 is Eva, 2.0 is the Eva fan see as Eva and 3.0 is what Anno sees as Eva.
I believe it.

Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance!

Original image located here. Accessed 14th January 2022

II - End
And it came to pass that in 1999 i became a fan of Evangelion. But when one becomes a fan of something one begins to notice people who do not share a similar opinion and are therefore able to provide an outsider's opinion. And boy did I hear the complaints about Evangelion., Chief along them that Shinji is too whiny a protagonist and the rather baffling ending.
I find the complaints about Shinji interesting because he does have an everyman quality to him: Who doesn't feel despair, have parental issues and have trouble making friends (among other things)? Did having such recognizable qualities strike such a nerve with people? And by the end of the series, Shinji does indeed realise that not only does he wants to be liked but he wants to move beyond such a thought pattern. And to that end I felt happy for him.
When i reached the end of the original TV series, the ending took me completely by surprise. It was indeed a bold move to end such an action/-packed-thought-provoiking series on something of a personal note. I did appreciate it at the time but there were too many questions left unanswered. What on earth was going on? What were the secrets that the series had hinted at previously?
Of course I would later find out that a lot of other viewers were angered by the ending and so Hideaki Anno produced a new movie with a new ending: The End of Evangelion.

As for the second movie in the rebuild, if the first movie was to rely on familiarity to pull us in, here the rug is pulled from underneath. Sure some familiar story beats are here but by the movie's end, a different direction has been firmly established.
What is of particular note is the various character moments speckled throughout: Asuka enters, is still hostile but benefits from some interesting development. Rei is making an effort to bond with the people around her. And Shinji is whining less and showing a more proactive characterization.
If anything, the only major character that does not receive some development is the newcomer Maki, who certainly does an interesting first impression but is, let's be honest here, far too well-adjusted to be an Eva pilot.
And special mention must go to Gendo's line "Grow up Shinji'. It amuses me as it gives voice to many a thought many a viewer of Evangelion has had.
In the end, there are some great moments of animation and action but, much like it's predecessor, Evangelion's real strength is in it's heart. So with the movie ending on an astonishing note, it would be interesting to see what happens next.....

Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone

And this week's Friday night movie has been... Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone!

Original image located here. Accessed 7th January 2022

It's a new year and i want to kick it off with a bang. So I'm going to aim for something ambitious: On each Friday of this month, i will be watching one of the new Evangelion movies (and confuse all the non-anime fans in my audience).
I have been holding out on these as i wanted to wait until all of them were readily available. Well the time has come to finally watch a saga that has been fourteen years in the making.
But that's not all: As I will be going through each of these movies, I will be sharing my own experiences with these franchise. I will be sharing my own perceptions on this and how they have evolved over the years. After all, creator Hideaki Anno went through his own odyssey in creating Evangelion, the franchise itself has been through a separate odyssey, but I have an odyssey of my own to bring to the table: That of the viewer. I want to talk about my thoughts on this franchise and how they have evolved over the years, contrasting Evangelion with my own journey through this thing called life.

So here we go:

I - Genesis
It was late 1998 - a time when SBS began flogging an anime TV series called Neon Genesis Evangelion. As this was an age well before online streaming, and one had to actively hunt down anything resembling anime, my interest was well and truly piqued (that and the trailer SBS used was monumental). I watched every episode, every weekend, expecting to see giant robots knocking the stuffing out of giant aliens. Well that was exactly what I got but at the same time there was something else: As I watched I noticed that a lot of the characters were going through a lot on a psychological level. I was puzzled by this at first - and at times annoyed as I wanted to get to the action - but what did it matter? I had found something new and was eager for it. I do recall someone people at the time made fun of me for liking it but did it matter? After all, i was getting a lot out of it - even if it's lead character, Shinji Ikari was a whinger to the point of exasperating.

As for this new movie, it wears it's intention as a reboot on it's sleeve: It's a reconstruction of the first six episodes of the TV series. The familiar beats and themes are there - with many shots looking exactly the same - and there are some new footage thrown in. Some mysteries are revealed early on, Shinji is less whiny (mercifully) and, although things are moving at quicker pace, it is all there, just as i recalled it.
Obviously a sense of familiarity is being applied here - a perfect scenario to have the rug from pulled out from under them.
And that really is the only goal of this movie: to welcome back it's viewers. But in the end, it is still a big ask: I mean, I can't expect this movie to deliver the same thrill as it did back in early 1999. I mean i am the same person i was back then? I hope not

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

And this week's Friday night movie has been.....The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)!

Original image located here. Accessed 29th September 2017

As promised last week, I am tackling the remake Hitchcock did of his own movie. Funny thing is, I have found some cinephiles find the remake the superior of the two. Indeed, i found it quite telling that the remake was easier to find whilst the original required some effort to track down.

As for the movie itself, well, it some areas it is superior to the original: The pacing is more natural and less abrupt. There are less characters so more time is devoted to seeing them develop. The movie is more engaging and less dull. And there is certainly a sense that Hitchcock is in fair greater control on his second attempt.

However, not all is good news: The villains are boring and the climax was better handled in the original.
Still, Hitchcock did what he set out to do and he wanted to improve on his original. And to that end he succeeded. Now if other remake-obsessed film producers would take notice....

Beauty and the Beast

 And this week's Friday night movie has been... Beauty and the Beast (2017)!

Original image located here. Accessed 7th July 2017

Hooo boy, how this one made me cautious in my approach.
Let it be known that Beauty and the Beast is my favourite of the Disney Renaissance so I wasn't exactly eager to see this new version. What was wrong with the original that warranted a second go (besides a cash grab?). Still I was open to the possibility of being surprised.....

I think it's fair to say that this movie will be one of those that will polarize people: The kind that attract detractors and supporters who will defend it with unusual fervor. Me? Well I didn't think this movie was a complete disaster, but i came away underwhelmed.
Okay, so sure the movie was visually interesting and the art direction was engaging and some of the new stuff worked (I particularly liked that Harpsichord) but there's something about this movie that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

You see, one selling point of this movie was that addressed some of the plot holes of the original. Not a bad choice but there were times when i felt like it was the sole point of the movie. Or, as another critic put it, it was like the movie was written by someone on the internet who wanted to say "I'm Smarter Than a Disney Movie!" - and in that case, you're still being patronized to. Thus, in the haste to correct the plot holes, it seems the script forgot to work on some of the more important elements. Consequently some of the more important parts (ie Belle's imprisonment and Beast letting Belle go) come across as abrupt - and this movie is longer than the original!

I'm also not fond of the Beast either: He seems far too much of a jerk and looks far too much like a satyr than that wonderful creation of the original. But the original was purely a creation of 2d animation so the question remains: What can you do in live action that hasn't already been done better elsewhere?
So in the end, it's not a disaster but I'll stick with the original thank you very much