Wonka (2023)
Director: Paul King
Screenwriters: Simon Farnaby, Paul King
Starring: Timothee Chalamet, Calah Lane, Keegan-Michael Key, Paterson Joseph, Olivia Colman, Matt Lucas, Matthew Baynton, Tom Davis, Hugh Grant

Willy Wonka is an enigma. In Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), the original adaptation of Roald Dahl’s 1964 novel “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” we don’t learn much about him, other than his desire to find an heir to his candy empire, as well as the cruel delight he takes in teaching naughty children a lesson. Wonka is charming and a little unhinged, paranoid from all of the years he has spent locked away in his factory, making sure no one gets their hands on the secret to his out-of-this-world sweets. With a devilish smile and a playful yet devious twinkle in his eye, actor Gene Wilder infuses Wonka with dimension, but we never dig too deep. He’s a nut that we never quite crack, and he works as a character because of that. There’s a reason why the original novel is called “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” after all – at the end of the day, it’s Charlie’s journey. Wilder’s performance hints at the layers inside of Wonka that we don’t need to unpeel, but nevertheless know are there. Wonka, the spiritual prequel to the 1971 musical classic, helmed by Paddington director Paul King, does unpeel those layers, but what’s found underneath is a deeply disappointing origin story that lacks the magic and edge that the original (and even Tim Burton’s 2005 remake) has in spades. Touted as a fun-for-the-whole family Christmas classic in the making, Wonka simply doesn’t have enough sparkle to ever hope to achieve that distinction.

Despite its tagline, which insists we will find out how “Willy became Wonka,” Timothée Chalamet’s version of the famous candy maker and magician doesn’t actually become anything. He just kind of already is.

The film begins with Willy, bright-eyed and bursting with optimism, atop a ship mast, where he begins his “I Want” song, “Hatful of Dreams”. Willy arrives in an unnamed city, fresh off the boat, ready to share his chocolate with the world, as his mother (Sally Hawkins) always hoped he would. Willy is earnest and determined, living on nothing but a dream. But the Galeries Gourmet is not what Willy initially imagined it would be. Instead of spreading his creations, he faces opposition and sabotage from three greedy chocolate makers, including Arthur Slugworth (Paterson Joseph), who will soon become his arch-nemesis. Willy then gets tricked into indentured servitude because he cannot read and fails to read the small print on his contract with Mrs. Scrubitt, played by Olivia Colman doing her best over the top Madame Thénardier impression. Aided by Noodle (Calah Lane), a fellow indentured servant and orphan who becomes Willy’s assistant, as well as the rest of the workers, Wonka bids to outsmart the trio and earn the freedom of himself and his friends.

Timothée Chalamet might be the only saving grace in the film, contrary to early assumptions that he may have been miscast. At times he’s charming, funny and endearing, but his performance is constantly in flux and dependent on the material and direction he’s given. When his jokes don’t land, his performance falls flat, even though he is clearly committed to the bit. Thankfully, he doesn’t try to do an impression of Gene Wilder, but he also doesn’t make the character enough of his own to really stand out. This isn’t his fault; he isn’t given much to work with.

All of the obstacles Willy encounters are external. Whether it’s Mrs. Scrubitt’s dishonest business practices, the antics of the greedy chocolatiers, or Hugh Grant’s Oompa-Loompa hijinks, the plot is always happening to Willy. He is almost entirely a reactionary character, and this is a problem in a movie that is supposed to be an origin story, the story of how he became who he is. It would have been nice if he actively participated in the narrative…

Willy’s desire to share his inventions with the world just as his mother hoped is sweet and admirable, but it simply isn’t enough to drive what we see. The writers, King and Paddington 2 co-writer Simon Farnaby (who also appears in Wonka as Basil), were backed into a corner considering Willy Wonka is a recluse by the time we meet him in the original movie. Telling that story would certainly be more interesting, but not very uplifting, so the filmmakers sidestep it entirely. As a result, there doesn’t seem to be any connection between Chalamet’s Wonka and Wilder’s.

Demystifying a character that works the best when we don’t know everything about him is a non-starter (as proven in Star Wars spin-off Solo), but the filmmakers didn’t give much thought to the supporting characters either. Lane and Chalamet work well together, and their friendship is a bright spot in the movie, but most of the supporting characters are so thinly drawn they barely register as real people. As for Hugh Grant’s Lofty, an Oompa Loompa who has been stealing Willy’s candy because he was excommunicated from Oompa Land until he can get back all of the chocolate that Willy stole, he’s surprisingly in very little of the film. The motion capture is jarring and unconvincing, but at least Grant’s contempt for the role, which he has expressed in several recent interviews, doesn’t show on screen.

Wonka, like the original film adaptation, is a musical, but not a very good one. The songs, written by Neil Hannon, King, Farnaby, and Joby Talbot, are unremarkable and lack passion, which is a shame considering Hannon’s exceptional work with The Divine Comedy. The songs in Wonka, especially Willy’s “Hatful of Dreams,” pale in comparison to those written by Howard Ashman, the songwriting genius behind the iconic tunes of The Little Mermaid (1989) and Beauty and the Beast (1991). By comparison, “Hatful of Dreams” lacks interiority or reflection. Perhaps the biggest faux pas in this regard is how Willy’s desire to sell chocolates in the hopes of reconnecting with the spirit of his late mother is barely mentioned. Songs in musicals should, in theory, take place when characters are so full of emotion that words no longer feel enough. And then, they must dance when singing doesn’t feel enough. But nothing drives the songs in this movie and they don’t feel needed. They are boring and directionless. Chalamet’s voice is fine, if a little weak and thin in places, but it’s worth noting that his best performance is when he sings “Pure Imagination”, a song not originally written for this film.

Wonka also strips away any of the melancholy or dark comedy found both in the 1971 movie and Roald Dahl’s overall work. The 1971 film feels a lot like “Alice in Wonderland” in that it is a dreamlike and slightly menacing descent into a magical world, but Wonka smooths all those edges out. As a result, the movie is sickly sweet and above all, nice. Which is ironic, because while the filmmakers were busy adding uplifting lyrics to “Pure Imagination” and simplifying the orchestrations, themes, and social commentaries of the 1971 film, they also made time to make several offensive and outdated fat jokes, aimed at Keegan Michael Key’s Chief of Police, who is dressed in a ridiculous fat suit and gets fatter and fatter the more he indulges in the sweets the greedy chocolate makers use to bribe him with. Using fatness as a shorthand for gluttony and greed, and having an actor who is not fat perform fatness, is hurtful and mean-spirited. It’s hard to believe such an antiquated trope is included in a film made in 2023 – especially one made about the wonderful taste of sweet treats – and it sours the viewing experience. For all of the niceness this movie tries desperately to exude, it makes sure to keep one of the only things from the original film that actually needed updating.

If Wonka is trying to say something, it’s hard to know what that something is. The film plays with themes of oppression, poverty, and greed, but doesn’t do much with them. It would be a losing battle to assume that Western filmmaking would trust its young audience enough to sprinkle in some adult themes, but it is equally weird to mention them in passing and not engage with them. Believing in your dreams and sharing those dreams with others should feel like magic, but the film doesn’t allow us to know these characters enough to genuinely care about them or their dreams.

The sets also leave something to be desired. When Wonka first unveils his factory in the original film, it’s a technicolor dream, calling to mind the reveal of the land of Oz in 1939’s The Wizard of Oz. It is bright and colorful and a little surreal. Wonka feels like a step down in comparison, and the filmmakers’ decision to set a good chunk of the film in the Galeries Gourtmet makes the world of Wonka feel like it’s just floating in space surrounded by nothing. It is small and claustrophobic.

Prequels bait us with the promise that we will get to see some of our most beloved characters become the people we love and remember from our childhoods. In Wonka, Willy may be younger and brighter and less mad than he will soon become, but if you are counting on the film to show you how that happens, you will be very disappointed. Instead, Wonka is a barely passable movie musical that is so sugary it ends up choking on its own sweetness.

Score: 12/24

Recommended for you: ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’ (1971) Earned a Spot in Joseph Wade’s 10 Best Films of All Time

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves (2023)
Directors: John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein
Screenwriters: John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein, Michael Gilio
Starring: Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis, Regé-Jean Page, Hugh Grant, Daisy Head, Chloe Coleman

Despite being the most consistently popular fantasy role-playing game since its debut in the mid-1970s, a successful film adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons has remained illusive. Now, thirteen years after the last major Hollywood attempt at a D&D film, Game Night directors Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley roll their d20 hoping to change that with Honour Among Thieves. 

A ragtag party of reluctant heroes – including quick-witted bard Edgin (Chris Pine), his barbarian platonic partner Holga (Michelle Rodriguez), accident-prone mage Simon (Justice Smith), and shape-shifting freedom-fighter Doric (Sophia Lillis) – undertake a dangerous quest to steal a valuable magical artefact from a former ally (Hugh Grant) and stop a powerful necromancer (Daisy Head) from unleashing an undead horde on the world.

D&D has been given a new lease of life in recent years, particularly among younger players thanks to its prominence in shows like ‘Stranger Things’ and the success of YouTube live-streaming accounts like Critical Role. The new movie successfully connects with fans old and new alike because it not only packs every scene full of creatures, locations and magic from decades of imposingly dense lore (even non-fans may have heard of some of the game’s more bizarre monsters like the owl-bear and the gelatinous cube), but more importantly allows you plenty of time to get to know and love these new characters.

Chris Pine often plays roguishly charming guys and Ed is another of these with added singing (and when the singing doesn’t work, whacking someone over the head with his lute might), but what a lot of people forget is just how funny Michelle Rodriguez can be. Holga is the most formidable warrior in the party by some margin, but her deadpan responses to wisecracks and the slapstick gags that pepper her unbelievably tightly choreographed brawls with armoured goons frequently catch you off guard. Sophia Lillis and Justice Smith have delightful chemistry as two of the potentially most powerful heroes battling trauma and self-doubt and Regé-Jean Page’s self-serious and ultra-literal paladin Xenk Yendar is hilarious in contrast to his quipping allies. It’s amusing to realise just how little Hugh Grant’s 1990s romcom persona needs tweaking to become quite sinister, and Forge Fizwilliam follows hot on the heels of Paddington 2 in giving him another smarmy antagonist we love to hate.

Essentially a heist movie with an elaborate setup involving multiple game-appropriate side-quests, this is light on its feet, exciting and really funny, making an unexpected virtue of the original game being so much about engrossing storytelling. Characters colourfully provide their backstories at the drop of a hat, but usually not just as an exposition dump, whether they aim to make new friends, convince a fantasy parole board of their reformed ways, or as an elaborate distraction from their true purpose.

Goldstein and Daley gave us an incredibly inventive and tense long-take action scene in Game Night with that film’s hapless ensemble being chased around a mansion chucking a fragile Faberge egg between them. Here, they one-up themselves in a sequence that follows Doric rapidly morphing between a series of animal shapes as she escapes a hostile castle, from inside an impregnable treasure vault, through corridors, out a tower window and through city streets. As a side-note, the shape-shifting effects aren’t always perfect but their well-timed use in already dynamic battles makes sure they are always striking to look at. 

Much like in Duncan Jones’ ill-fated Warcraft adaptation, magic in this universe is shown to carry a cost, capable of achieving wondrous feats or causing great harm to yourself and others if misused. It can be a useful tool but only if you’re skilled and level-headed enough, and it can’t overcome every obstacle. Early on Simon is just as likely to cast the wrong spell that will send him hurtling uncontrollably skywards as he is to magic him and his companions out of their current predicament, but as is often the case with stories like this a lot of it comes down to believing in yourself. Everyone has their demons to overcome, their crosses to bear (or owl-bear), but coming together to share their burdens makes their monumental task seem a little less insurmountable. 

For all the fantasy fireworks and zippy exchanges between a likeable group of unlikely heroes, this film also has a big heart to it and really hits you on an emotional level towards the end, particularly in regards to exploring the highly unconventional but tender family dynamic between Edgin, his daughter Kira (Chloe Coleman), and Holga. 

As funny as it often is, not every joke in the film lands, like Hugh Grant making entirely too much of a big thing of telling his audience how unexpectedly hot his tea is, or a side-quest involving temporarily reviving the dead for information that drags on a little too long, plus some characters’ arcs and backstories make a lot more sense than others. It’s the final act arena challenge prominently featured in most of the trailers that is probably the least interesting passage in the film, but even this doesn’t outstay its welcome and we get a properly satisfying final fight shortly afterwards. 

Despite a few nitpicks, thanks to its charismatic cast, wit and constant momentum, Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves is a rip-roaring success and one of the best times you’re likely to have at the cinema this year. Video game movies may still be finding the right formula, but more old-fashioned role-playing games could very well provide the inspiration for a whole range of hugely enjoyable films if practiced current and former Dungeon Masters are that way inclined.  

Score: 19/24

Grab a hot cup of tea (or a bottle of vodka) and join us with this Movie List from The Film Magazine as we look back at this staple of British cinema’s most cringe-worthy, jaw-dropping, and heartwarming scenes. These are the 10 Best Bridget Jones’s Diary Moments.

Follow @thefilmagazine on Twitter.

10. Introducing Mark’s Christmas Jumper

Family gatherings are uncomfortable enough without your mother trying to set you up with a divorcé in her sitting room while you’re wearing a floral waistcoat she laid out for you. Unfortunately, this is exactly how Bridget first meets Mark.

At Christmastime, Bridget visits her parents, Colin (Jim Broadbent) and Pamela (Gemma Jones), at their yearly turkey curry buffet hosting all their closest friends and neighbours. Her father warns her that her mum is playing matchmaker when Pamela suddenly swoops in to usher her over to Mark, a recently divorced barrister. Given her mother’s track record, Bridget is convinced that he’ll be a ‘bushy-haired, middle-aged bore’ and is pleasantly surprised when she first sees his kind eyes and dimpled chin. But her spirits fall when she casts a glance at his tacky Christmas reindeer jumper.

Mark’s jumper is iconic and a lasting image from the film. It instantly defines his character as a bit stiff and awkward while also not being too impressed with himself. We get our first glimpse of Bridget’s nervous oversharing too, as she resolves to quit smoking and drinking while still holding a cigarette and mimosa. This moment is funny and cringey, and quickly sets up their opposites-attract character dynamic.

9. Blue Soup for Bridget’s Birthday

Bridget is always making a mess of things, so it comes as no surprise that she’s a mess in the kitchen as well. As she struggles to cook a three-course feast for her birthday dinner, Mark suddenly stops by her flat. This moment is a complete 180 from the last scene as she is genuinely pleased to see him and they share a smile. Upstairs, he inspects her cluttered stovetop, and a cut to a closeup reveals that she has in fact prepared blue soup (thanks to the bright blue string she used to tie some celery and leek together). Mark pours them each a glass of wine, takes off his jacket, and saves the day by making omelettes.

This is a sweet moment when Bridget sets aside her judgements, Mark lets down his stiff exterior, and we get to see the real chemistry between them. They work well together, sharing a drink, a laugh, and an inside joke, revealing that they were actually suppressing their feelings for one another all along. Finally, when Bridget’s friends arrive for dinner, the camera cuts to Mark subtly adjusting his tie. This small gesture reveals so much about his character and that he cares about making a good first impression with her friends. They, in turn, are delighted to meet him, though his impression is a bit overshadowed by their effort to gulp down Bridget’s blue soup.

In this Movie List from The Film Magazine, we’re counting down the most emotionally resonant, funny and important moments from Love Actually for these, the 10 Best Love Actually Moments.

Follow @thefilmagazine on Twitter.

10. Colin Goes to an American Bar

After deciding he is on the wrong continent for love, Colin Frissell (Kris Marshall) travels to America, because “any bar anywhere in America contains ten girls more beautiful and more likely to have sex with [him] than the whole of the United Kingdom”.

Sure enough, not one but three beautiful American women are charmed by his cute British accent and invite him to their place (after warning him that they only have one bed and no pyjamas).

Colin’s Christmas gets even merrier when they tell him that he hasn’t met their fourth housemate Harriet, and “she is the sexy one”.

9. So Much More Than a Bag

In a rush to buy an expensive gold necklace for the woman with whom he may or may not be having an affair, Harry (Alan Rickman) wants to grab it and go, but the shop assistant (Rowan Atkinson) has other plans when he agrees to have it gift wrapped.

After placing it in a box, he ties it with a bow before delicately wrapping it in cellophane. Rickman anxiously glances over his shoulder as Atkinson slides open a drawer to retrieve tiny, dried roses, which he sprinkles lovingly. Atkinson then meticulously crushes fresh lavender. An increasingly agitated Rickman urges the man to hurry, to which he agrees, before slowly attaching a large cinnamon stick with a ribbon. As Atkinson retrieves a pair of garden gloves to add some holly, an exasperated Rickman asks – “what else are you going to do? Dip it in yoghurt? Cover it in chocolate buttons?!” All the while, his wife Karen grows increasingly near.

For this list, we’ve analysed the contemporary era of cinema (1970 and beyond) for the very best rom-com ensemble casts that came to define eras, surprise audiences and ultimately sell their film, whether the picture could be considered good or not.

As a rule, we’ve avoided films that are firmly attached to other genres, such as musicals like Grease and La La Land or dramas like The Silver Linings Playbook and Shakespeare In Love (all of which have rom-com elements), and have judged all casts based on casts alone – beware, there may be some seriously trash movies in the list ahead!

In no particular order…

1. No Strings Attached (2011)

Starring that year’s Best Actress Oscar winner Natalie Portman and arguably the decade’s most trustworthy go-to rom-com leading man Ashton Kutcher, this early 2010s offering from Ivan Reitman, the director of Ghostbusters (1984), featured a stacked cast of future industry leaders including Oscar-nominated director Greta Gerwig and multi-time Emmy nominee Mindy Kaling.

Oscar winning actor Kevin Kline played Kutcher’s father, meanwhile Lake Bell, Ophelia Lovibond, Ludacris and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse’s Jake Johnson offered their two cents in some of the film’s smaller roles, filling No Strings Attached to the brim with some of the decade’s most influential and recognisable names.

Cast: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Kevin Kline, Lake Bell, Cary Elwes, Greta Gerwig, Olivia Thirlby, Ludacris, Mindy Kaling, Jake Johnson, Ophelia Lovibond

2. You’ve Got Mail (1998)

The 2nd half of the Meg Ryan/Tom Hanks rom-com double bill, You’ve Got Mail, also directed by Nora Ephron (When Harry Met Sally), peaks its older sister to this slot due to each of its stars (particularly Hanks) being even closer to the top of their game, with the supporting cast being nothing short of a who’s who of top class late 90s names.

Leading male Tom Hanks had won two Oscars between Sleepless In Seattle and You’ve Got Mail (for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump) and was about to win his 3rd for 1998’s Saving Private Ryan, while the supporting cast featured that year’s Supporting Actor Oscar nominee Greg Kinnear, award-winning comedian Dave Chappelle, Steve Zahn, Parker Posey and even Chris Messina in a small role.

Cast: Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Greg Kinnear, Parker Posey, Dave Chappelle, Steve Zahn, Heather Burns, Jean Stapleton, Chris Messina

And we all know that they come in many forms.

I’ve thought too much about this and come up with some categories for cinema fuckbois. I’ve found Six…

6. The Straight Up

A word of advice if you are going to be a fuckboi: please, be this one. He is honest about his fuckboiness. He calls you for sex but it is a booty call, it’s 2am and you can let yourself out when you are done. He never expects more from you so please don’t expect anything from him. The straight up is a womanizer but key to the fuckboi narrative, you don’t end up together.

Key example: Ted (Jon Hamm) Bridesmaids.

5. The One Before the One

He’s a ladies man, he’s beautiful, you wonder why he’s even looking at you, but he is. He’s charming and funny, he takes you to great restaurants and even your friends fancy him, but you’ll never meet his mother and he’ll never commit to you. When you ask him to, he’s got an American girlfriend that is much younger and thinner than you.

He’s only here to make you realise that the next guy will treat you so much better.

Key example: Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) Bridget Jones Diary 

4. The Loner

He is independent, successful and charming. He does not want to settle down, but unlike the straight up fuckboi he isn’t honest about his sexual intentions. However, he is clear that he doesn’t want to be in a relationship with you. You can follow him on an adventure and if you are lucky you can join him for a film or two, but that’s the limit. You might mistake his loner status to mean he is sensible and maybe just hasn’t met the right girl. Maybe just maybe that girl is you.

Spoiler alert: it isn’t you.

Key example: Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) Indiana Jones Franchise

3. Soft, Sensitive Boy

This guy is slippery, because he doesn’t know he is a fuckboi. Sometimes he thinks he is the anti-fuckboi. He is sensitive, he listens to your problems and he likes the same pop culture as you. He’ll tell you he’s a feminist on your first date, but the key to his fuckboiness is what he expects from the women in his life. He wants a woman who is perfect and will save him. Your personality is not important, more how you fit into his life.

Key example: Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt) 500 Days of Summer

2. YA Art Boy

Much like the sensitive soft boy, the YA Art Boy is in touch with his emotions, he reads poetry or plays the guitar (bonus points for both). However, this is a play, sometimes to impress his friends, but mainly so he can get you into bed. You decide to lose your virginity to him and then he tells you he wasn’t a virgin after all. It helps if he’s older than you and adults in the audience wonder why he can’t get a girlfriend his own age.

Key example: Kyle (Timothee Chalamet) Lady Bird.

1. I Can Show You the World

This is the worst type of fuckboi. He is a lovely guy, sensitive and understanding. He has a great job, and a good relationship with his mum. He doesn’t even mind waiting to have sex, in fact he encourages it. But once you have sex, he leaves you… and in the worst way possible.

You lose all hope in men and marry your cat.

Key examples: The doctor in Friends with Benefits. (I’m not looking up his name, he doesn’t deserve it)

Left: Colin Farrell (Dumbo – 2019); right: Michelle Dockery (‘Downton Abbey’)

Dockery has been brought on board to replace the outgoing Kate Beckinsale as the wife to an unnamed character set to be played by Matthew McConaughey.

The movie, being developed under the Miramax banner and said to be similar to Ritchie’s earlier works Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, will tell the tale of a man (McConaughey) who wants out of selling marijuana after developing a drug empire.

Hugh Grant has also been revealed for the cast as a photographer looking to blackmail McConaughey, while Henry Golding will play a Vietnamese gangster. Jeremy Strong is also a part of the cast. Farrell will play a Mixed Martial Arts trainer.

Toff Guys was co-written by Ritchie, Marn Davies and Ivan Atkinson. It has yet to be given a release date.

Guy Ritchie’s next move Aladdin is due for release on 24th May 2019.

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_SOCIAL_ICONS]

Paddington 2 (2017)
Director: Paul King
Screenwriters: Simon Farnaby, Paul King, Jon Croker
Starring: Brendan Gleeson, Sally Hawkins, Ben Whishaw, Michael Gambon, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Peter Capaldi

A collective sigh of relief could be heard across the nation when Paddington was released in the winter of 2014. Despite the worrisome marketing material it proved to be a joyous and goodhearted adaptation of Michael Bond’s original source material, arriving to remind us all that there was still some good despite all the hardship in the world. A sequel was immediately greenlit, and the cast and crew have somehow managed to match their previous accomplishments.

Paddington 2 succeeds because it understands, unlike so many sequels, that sometimes going bigger doesn’t make it better. Against the temptation to take the beloved bear and place him at the centre of a save-the-world narrative or facing off against fantastical creations, the plot is admirably simple and humble; Paddington (Ben Wishaw) wants to buy a pop-up book of London landmarks for his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton), but has to get a job in order to afford it – hilarious mishaps follow, including a run in with Hugh Grant’s villainous actor character Phoenix Buchanan.

The key is returning director Paul King, whose direction is just as impeccable and picturesque as before, if not more so. A glimpse inside the pop-up book, in which Paddington guides his Aunt Lucy around a cardboard representation of London, is a beautiful call-back to the classic Michael Hordern animated series, but his work in the basic language of visual storytelling extends beyond that in creative and simple ways. From in-camera transitions which almost border on magic-realism, to effective time-lapse effects and camera movements, he brings a real sense of identity to the series that unboxes itself like a toy chest of wonders.

It carries over the same idealistic version of London as its predecessor; a multicultural society built on hope, integration and acceptance as epitomised by Windsor Gardens – where not even the constant grumbling of nationalist allegory Mr. Curry (Peter Capaldi) can deter the neighbours of the street from rallying behind Paddington. Its a 21st-century vision of contemporary London that works around its own iconography while feeling open and accepting of all people – this is still a world in which an anthropomorphic talking bear is never a topic of conversation. Modern in aesthetic and design, and yet at one point, Paddington calls home from a derelict red telephone box. Even the prison system seems like a far more charming place to inhabit as Paddington’s kindness slowly transforms the inmates, including Brendan Gleeson’s hilarious Knuckles McGinty.

Much of this is down to Wishaw who, as the titular character, brings so much warmth and wide-eyed optimism to the picture, giving a vocal performance so believable that it’s strange when you have to remind yourself that he’s a perfectly rendered digital creation. Although, he is almost upstaged by Grant, who is a riot as the washed-up former theatre performer (which is meant as the highest compliment). He’s an absolute joy in the role, and the various facades that he wears over the course of his fiendish scheme are all a physical comedy treat.

The structure of the film and its screenplay is faultless; many scenes of which play out like they could easily work as individual stories in and of themselves (Paddington… becomes a Window Cleaner, goes to the Barbers/goes to Prison etc.). It makes sure that the main cast is handled well, and as with the in the previous film every member of the Brown family eventually uses one of their own unique abilities in their efforts to bring Paddington home, and the returning cast is as game and enjoyable as before. There’s even an action sequence on a train during the climax that is more exciting, funny and emotionally engaging than anything in the last James Bond movie.

The cast and crew that made the original work so well have pulled off the impossible again. Paddington 2 is an absolute delight; an utterly charming storybook adventure that’s as sweet and gooey as marmalade, a confident and assured family classic and every bit as good – if not better – than the first.

22/24

Written by Luke Whitticase

You can support Luke at the following links:

Twitter – @WhittyStuff
Letterboxd – whittystuff

We’ll see just how close I get this Sunday…

Best Motion Picture – Drama: Moonlight
With 6 nominations overall, and the most of any of the ‘Best Drama’ movie nominees, it seems like 2017 truly is the year for Moonlight. The drama, telling the development of a gay black man from a deprived area in Miami, seems to be one of the favourites at other awards shows so far this season and that could be enough to sway some voters in this category. With ‘Manchester by the Sea’ breathing down its neck as perhaps the most likely of its contenders, and ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ appealing to the hard right of Globe voters, ‘Moonlight’ is not without competition, but I just can’t see them passing on the opportunity to award such a landmark film.
Contenders: Hacksaw Ridge; Manchester by the Sea

Best Performance By An Actress In A Motion Picture – Drama: Natalie Portman (‘Jackie’)
This category is a two-horse race between the early front-runner for the award, Natalie Portman, and the late-comer to awards season, ‘Arrival’, and namely its star Amy Adams. With the Globes being a far more accepting place of so-called ‘mainstream’ or ‘genre’ films than the Academy is, Adams is the favourite in the minds of a lot of industry professionals, but it’s hard for me to pass on Portman as the winner simply because her performance was as a beloved public figure within a well constructed biopic, the likes of which is known as ‘awards fodder’ for a reason. By a whisker, Portman takes it.
Contenders: Amy Adams… the rest have been left in the dust. 

Best Performance By An Actor In A Motion Picture – Drama: Casey Affleck (‘Manchester By the Sea’)
The ‘Best Performance by an actor in a drama’ category is perhaps the strongest of any category at this year’s Golden Globes, with every member of the nominees list having a realistic chance of winning the Golden trophy. I’ve gone with Casey Affleck simply because he’s won a lot of other awards in the build-up to this ceremony, though it’s worth noting that Andrew Garfield could have arguably been nominated for both ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ and ‘Silence’ and may earn himself the Gold as a means of two-for-one recognition. If Garfield does win for ‘Ridge’, the war movie would become the front-runner for Best Picture – Drama.
Contenders: Everyone else… Edgerton, Garfield, Mortensen, Washington.

Best Motion Picture – Musical Or Comedy: La La Land
I would bet my house on this. Owing to an overall weak category in terms of award nominated movies, ‘La La Land’ should blow away all competition on Sunday night. It was nice to see the creativity behind ‘Deadpool’ and ‘Sing Street’ be rewarded with nominations but they’re just making up the numbers in perhaps the most obvious category to predict on this year’s show.
Contenders: There aren’t any…

Best Performance By An Actress In A Motion Picture – Musical/Comedy: Emma Stone (‘La La Land’)
As with the category above, it seems like there can be no choice other than ‘La La Land’ and therefore Emma Stone. Annette Bening is perhaps the huge outsider, but considering any one of three leading women in ’20th Century Women’ could have been nominated for this award, it seems that the Globes were never truly sure on whom to select, the uncertainty of which could scupper Bening’s chances.
Contenders: Annette Bening… but only if Pigs fly.

Best Performance By An Actor In A Motion Picture – Musical/Comedy: Ryan Gosling (‘La La Land’)
Much like Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling is the front-runner for his category courtesy of his work on this year’s awards favourite ‘La La Land’. Colin Farrell was excellent in ‘The Lobster’ but his inclusion came as a pleasant surprise rather than an absolute certainty, which all but counting him out, and the work of Hugh Grant (‘Florence Foster Jenkins’), Jonah Hill (‘War Dogs’) and Ryan Reynolds (‘Deadpool’) simply doesn’t match up to that of Gosling, despite there being positives in each performance.
Contenders: Zip.

Best Motion Picture – Animated: Zootopia
It’s very rare that Disney are knocked off their perch of collecting every ‘best animated feature’ award on the planet, especially during years of critical success like has been the case in 2016. The logic here seems to point to either ‘Moana’ or ‘Zootopia’ but, given the much more positive response ‘Zootopia’ got out-of-the-gate, it seems the most likely option despite ‘My Life As A Zucchini’ winning the animation award at the European Film Awards and ‘Kubo and the Two Strings’ offering an artistic alternative to mainstream western animation.
Contenders: Moana

Best Motion Picture – Foreign Language: Toni Erdmann
Maren Ade’s German/Austrian comedy cleaned up at the European Film Awards and therefore seems the favourite to win at the Golden Globes given the very Euro-centric list of nominees. American awards shows do seem to gravitate towards French pictures in their ‘foreign language’ categories however, and this could tip the balance towards ‘Elle’, a movie that has had gained a lot of attention in the weeks building up to this event. This is a close one.
Contenders: Elle

Best Performance By An Actress In A Supporting Role In Any Motion Picture: Viola Davis (‘Fences’)
This category is very strong, with each of the actress’s performances gaining a lot of critical attention and Oscar buzz since their respective movies were released. Naomie Harris has been on the frontline of such awards speculation as of late for her small but impactful role in ‘Moonlight’, and Michelle Williams has been strongly favoured at independent film award events, but the two front-runners seem to be Nicole Kidman for ‘Lion’ and Viola Davis for ‘Fences’, and I’m going with Davis simply because of a flick of a coin.
Contenders: Everyone… but mostly Nicole Kidman.

Best Performance By An Actor In A Supporting Role In Any Motion Picture: Jeff Bridges (‘Hell or High Water’)
My heart says Aaron Taylor-Johnson for ‘Nocturnal Animals’, but my head says Jeff Bridges for ‘Hell or High Water’, simply because of the gravitas of the latter’s performance within a relatively small movie. It’s interesting to note that Dev Patel has been squeezed in to this category despite obviously leading ‘Lion’, and this may work in his favour as it has done for others in the past, but Jeff Bridges remains the front-runner and a choice I’d still support given its quality and how much exposure it will lend to his small but noteworthy movie.
Contenders: Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Dev Patel.

Best Director – Motion Picture: Damien Chazelle (‘La La Land’)
‘La La Land’ is a visual masterpiece that pays homage to Hollywood itself, and despite how sensational Tom Ford’s work on ‘Nocturnal Animals’ truly was, there’s simply no way that Chazelle isn’t going home with the Globe on Sunday night. Wins for Mel Gibson (‘Hacksaw Ridge’), Barry Jenkins (‘Moonlight’) or Kenneth Lonergan (‘Manchester By the Sea’) could inch their respective movies into the lead in terms of the ‘Best Picture – Drama’ race, but it seems like this category is wrapped up.
Contenders: Tom Ford… though I’d like to see the final order of this top 5…

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture: Barry Jenkins (‘Moonlight’)
This is as close as it gets between Kenneth Lonergan for ‘Manchester By the Sea’ and Barry Jenkins for ‘Moonlight’, but given the lack of attention I’ve given the massively nominated ‘Moonlight’ so far in this article, I’m inching ‘Moonlight’ into the winner’s slot. Every screenplay in this category is excellent, but it would be a surprise to see any of the other nominees (Chazelle, Ford, Sheridan) win.
Contenders: Kenneth Lonergan

Best Original Score – Motion Picture: Justin Hurwitz (‘La La Land’)
When you score what will ultimately become an iconic musical, you land yourself in the spot of ‘front-runner’ for the ‘Best Original Score’ category at awards shows, and Justin Hurwitz has done just that with his work on ‘La La Land’. Dustin O’Halloran and Hauschka’s work on ‘Lion’ seems the most likely of underdogs but don’t count on it. 
Contenders: Dustin O’Halloran and Hauschka

Best Original Song – Motion Picture: “Can’t Stop the Feeling” from ‘Trolls’
Justin Timberlake’s chart-topping smash will go down as one of the pop songs that defined 2016, and with that comes a responsibility on the part of the Globes to honour that. Though popular consensus certainly isn’t what sways votes in any other categories at the Globes, there has been a historic precedence of successful pop songs winning out over lesser known musical numbers in the history of this award. Even so, look out for ‘La La Land’ to be a suitable alternative with its Hollwood love-letter of a song, “City of Stars”.
Contenders: “City of Stars from ‘La La Land’.

For the full list of nominees, click here.

As for part 2.. let’s just get stuck in and try to enjoy my ramblings on the divine…

Spoiler Alert!!!

Blade Runner (1982)

Yes, yes. I’m back on the existential-crisis inducing sci-fi movies again. And, like “2001: Space Odyssey” and the soon-to-be-mentioned “Cloud Atlas”, the spiritual experience I had watching this film can be largely attributed to the sheer beauty of the movie. The setting is gob-smacking (it even makes me excited to drive through Middlesbrough – the only real-life comparison I can think of) and the music is somehow both synthetic and deep, perhaps even sensual and mournful at times. The whole affair is a devilishly stylish and futuristic Film Noir.

Although it brings up interesting musings on God/The Creator, the source of my experience comes from its focus on humanity and the human condition. The film (based on Philip K Dick’s novel) is set in a dreadfully dismal future: the world has been devastated by a generic nuclear apocalypse and much of the population have left the Earth to make a new life for themselves in off-world colonies. It’s a hard existence, so androids (or ‘Replicants’) are created to do all of the awful jobs necessary for the survival of the colonies. Some Replicants escape from these pitiful lives and try to make a life for themselves on Earth, but these renegade androids are considered extremely dangerous – they are stronger, quicker and more resilient than humans – and, as androids, they are designed with sub-par emotions and empathy, giving them the potential to be ruthless killers. As such, Bounty Hunters (often referred to as “Blade Runners”) are employed to track them down and take them out.

Deckard (Harrison Ford) is reinstated as the titular Blade Runner when one of his former colleagues is gravely injured after an encounter with a suspected runaway android; his boss is anxious for him to take up the job as four Replicants have actually escaped to Earth together. As if this wasn’t bad enough, it’s revealed that the escaped androids are the latest Nexus-6 models from the Tyrell Corporation. Dr Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkell) himself, “Thee Creator”, is not so much a mad scientist but more of a man driven by perfection and is evidently enormously proud of his accomplishments in Replicant design – his androids are so identical to humans it’s nearly impossible to distinguish between them, making Deckard’s work that much more difficult. Fortunately, their inferior emotional and empathetic capacities allow them to be identified via “Voight-Kampff” analysis which detects the physiological responses associated with emotion and empathy. There’s only one problem: his latest Nexus-6 models now have an emotional capacity equivalent to that of humans. Shit.

Not only are these Replicants harder to find, but they are also more emotionally bombastic too – Tyrell has tried to compensate for this by inserting a 4-year life span into these models, but this offers little comfort to the hapless Deckard. He witnesses how bad this design can be when he analyses Tyrell’s niece Rachael (Sean Young) with the Vogiht-Kampff analysis. Deckard laboriously struggles to get a definite result from the test, causing Tyrell to reveal in a flurry of triumph that Rachael is in fact an android who has been transplanted with memories from Tyrell’s real niece, making her unaware of the fact that she is not a human. As you can probably guess, this can only end in tears.

What moved me to my core about this movie was the way it displayed and analysed what it means to be human. This is hard to articulate because I know what constitutes being a human, but this film left me in absolute awe. It reinvigorated my principles and helped challenge my apathy towards the plight of my fellow man. As you see throughout the movie, all the humans encountered are bland and unremarkable, it is the replicants who were the most vivid and vibrant. At first their violence is shocking (watching all of Deckard’s beatings genuinely left me with a headache, no wonder Harrison Ford had such an awful time making this movie), so you can understand why they are so relentlessly hunted, but these four escapee Replicants have escaped to Earth to find their creator; they simply do not want to die and are willing to bargain for their lives. What would any one of us do when boxed into a corner with death quickly approaching? Fight like hell! The Replicants’ want for life is so utterly desperate it is incredibly moving, as it hits home to the centre of my existence: the dread of being aware of my own mortality. Zhora (Joanna Cassidy), one of the four hiding Replicants, is disguising herself as an exotic entertainer but is soon discovered by Deckard. After a confrontation, she runs off into the crowded city – it seems she may get away in the hustle and bustle of the over-populated scape, but Deckard finds a shot and takes it. Bleeding, injured and terrified, Zhora clings on to her version life, an effort that causes her great pain. It is another gunshot and several glass windows that finally extinguish her life. In those last few minutes, she was terrified and suffering massively, yet she didn’t give the fight when it would have been so easy for her to let death wash over her.

The replicants are the most charismatic beings in the movie (at least over the human characters in the movie) due to the presentation of their raw emotions. Rachael is wonderfully vulnerable and tender. Pris (Daryl Hannah), another of the four, is frightened but rejoices in life and fun. Roy Batty (Rutger Haeur), the leader of the escaped androids, is ferociously protective of his family and is defiant in the face of his sad fate. They stir up much sympathy in the audience, for contrary to what we are led to believe, they each seem perfectly capable of empathy – at least amongst themselves. They love each other’s company but squabble as any group of friend’s do – so their deaths cause inconsolable grief.

The whole point of these Replicants coming to Earth is to get Dr. Tyrell to find a way to increase their life-span. From Roy Batty’s point of view, it’s not for his own sake but for that of Pris, the woman he loves. These beings are sentient and they are now questioning the creator why their most precious gift is snatched from them before they can enjoy it for themselves. So, when Tyrell denies it, the uncontrollable rage and violence that rains down upon him is of the most revolting intensity, but you can’t help thinking Tyrell gets what he deserves. Above everything else that happens in the movie, it is the Replicants that come out on top as the most righteous. As Deckard hunts the last remaining Replicant, a battle ensues in which he is battered beyond belief. Roy ends up in a position where he can easily take Deckard’s life and, why should he not? Deckard clings to the roof of a building as the rain pours; it’s so wet and his fingers are bruised and broken so he cannot maintain his grip. Any slip and he plunges to his death. But, in the moment Roy reaches out and saves Deckard, the man who has killed his family, he resigns to his fate and dies, just lamenting the memories that will die with him before he takes his final breath. Despite every insult laid upon his existence, Roy redeems himself, and offers mercy when none is offered to him. In Roy lies what it means to be human: emotion, suffering, love and the divinity to do the right thing when no one else will.

His death truly is the most tragic, for if anyone deserves to live it is him.

Through this the film also speaks socially, serving as representation for any oppressed group, any people/s who have been dehumanised – this film cries out for us to look from the perspectives of those who are downtrodden and to see the humanity and hence the divinity that rests in all of us, and as such respect their dignity.

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Amongst its majestic philosophies and beliefs, Cloud Atlas is transporting in its production alone. The best word I can use to describe it is: unique. Despite an array of characters from several different storylines – most of the principle roles are played by only a handful of actors transcending gender, race, and age – the film has been criticised that the aesthetic of such a technique can be unconvincing, but I appreciate the actual idea as it is in accordance with the film that every human is connected to each other, beyond the arbitrary labels applied to it by society. This film is a religious experience (like many of the other awesome films in this list) – the craft of the movie alone is practically a testament to God.

The film follows 6 story strands that weave between each other as the film progresses – I must admit it took about an hour and a half for me to truly get into it due to the constant switching between narratives, but I was completely sucked in by the several twists which often felt like a winding kick in the gut. Eventually the plot comes together, allowing you to make sense of the whole thing and the film blossoms like a flower. You realise that all these supposedly random tales from across far flung points in time and space are all linked, and to a point in which they have a profound effect upon one another.

First, in the 1800s Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is a lawyer on a trip to the Pacific to arrange a contract with a slave-trader for Maori slaves. Next follows the struggles of a talented composer Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) in the 1930s as he creates his Magnum Opus. Following this are the adventures of journalist Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) in the 70s as she fights against a corporation cover-up of dangerous nuclear facilities. It then leaps to the modern-day in which a small-time publisher named Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) inadvertently lands himself in a totalitarian elderly care-home when on the run from thugs. We then zoom into far into a future in which clones are made to do the menial work of looking after natural-born humans. One clone’s life, that of Sonmi-451 (Doona Bae), is suddenly changed from total monotony when she meets a remarkable natural-born “pureblood” human. Finally, in a far-flung and post-apocalyptic future, a tribesman named Zachry (Tom Hanks) is torn between his loyalties as an outsider implores for his help in her mission.

If you were looking at the movie in the most cold and unattached way, all of these plot-lines have only the most tenuous links – discovered letters; journals of the souls from before – but if that is all you see then you need to take your head out of your arse. Each of the main protagonists go through great trials of love and battles for justice. They all muster small moments of courage to do incredible things and lead the way for the rest of mankind. After a slave saves Adam Ewing’s life, he realises he could no longer live with himself by continuing to work within the slave trade, despite how it leads to his personal ruin. Frobisher, in the face of the destruction of his own future, fearlessly sticks up his middle finger to the entitled rich by ensuring they never get their hands on his work, even though he himself perishes. Rey tirelessly works to whistle blow the nuclear reactor situation, even though her pursuit of the truth puts herself and those around her, including her young son, in mortal danger. Sonmi-451 discovers that, as a clone, she is destroyed after 11 years of existence to become food for other clones, and when she is asked to condemn the government that profess clones to be ‘lesser life-forms’, she agrees despite the almost absolute certainty that she will be caught and executed. Zachry, an outcast in his community due to his cowardice, makes the decision to help an outsider get to a place of great dread, despite all of his literal personal demons; his selfless actions lead to the rescue of the remains of the human race on Earth, allowing them to prosper in the colonies.

Even more remarkable is that the good deeds and tremendous acts of those from the past make their presence felt to those succeeding them and, despite how small their presence is, the bravery and the beauty of those before succeed in inspiring goodness in those after them. If Adam had not resigned from the slave trade, would Zachary have saved the human race? Basically, this film reaffirms one of my biggest beliefs and driving forces in life, which Sonmi-451 beautifully articulates:

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others. Past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.”

I try to live my life, admittedly not always successfully, doing as much good to others as I possibly can, even in the smallest kindnesses – knowing that the tiniest acts will pass on from person to person, having an impact on them, propagating eternally, even after my death. And if this is so, it does not bear thinking about what evil I could leave as my legacy if I walk through life with hatred and apathy. All human souls are connected and are hence all beautiful and equal to one another. We are all always connected, not even death can keep us apart:

“I believe death is only a door. When it closes, another opens. If I cared to imagine a heaven, I would imagine a door opening and behind it, I would find him there.”

The best thing about this movie is that I believe it has helped me to become a better person, even if it was by just a smidge, and that’s the whole point really.

It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)

God, I love this movie so much. It’s probably the biggest tear-jerker on this list and it stands out like a sore thumb as it’s not a sci-fi, fantasy, religious epic, or a story drenched in blood. It is, however, probably the biggest celebration of human goodness in the ordinary man.

I have already unashamedly celebrated this masterpiece on this here website – article here. This film is on the must-watch list of Christmas movies for countless numbers of people all over the world and, in my opinion, is the greatest Christmas movie ever-made as it far more embodies the true Christmas Spirit than any of its contenders.

The initial prayer montage and galaxy/outer space/heaven/God scene can seem a bit hokey and out-dated, but if you let that get on your nerves then you’re a fool as it sets up the premise of the movie which contains the unfortunately everyday, yet saddest event, in human life: the taking of one’s life. Down-trodden and crushed underfoot, at the end of his tether and at breaking point, the central protagonsit is fully convinced that he is better off dead. However, his family and friends, in their sorrow and worry, have fervently prayed for his sake; prayed for his deliverance from his suffering. Their prayers do not fall on deaf ears as his Guardian Angel descends from heaven to earnestly come to his side and help him.

Before we get to that part we learn of how this man, George Bailey (James Stewart), has been driven to this desperate state. George, from the off-set, seems like an ordinary man, but it is revealed that inside shines a keen intellect and fiery ambition far greater than that of his friends and peers. His life is shown as a long flashback, and seeing George as a boy then a young man, you are excited to see if he becomes a well-educated and travelled person whose life will be full of grand accomplishments and achievements. Instead, we see a life of seeming mundanity laid out before him. This is because, beyond the talent and ambition within his being, George is defined by his love for his fellow man.

Throughout his life, you see him sacrifice his dreams for the sake of others. Instead of going off to College, he takes up the top position in the “Bailey Building and Loan” Building Society after the sudden death of his father, as he knows it is the one thing that stops the monopolisation of his hometown, Bedford Falls, by a greedy old man who couldn’t care less if most of the working class suffered as he made his profits. From then, he takes moments and efforts from his own life to benefit the poor and unprivileged around him (whilst his friends prosper in their fantastic careers). He gives his college money to his younger brother, he doles out his honeymoon cash to ease the pinch when the 1929 bank crash comes, and remains in the penny-counting job that he hates knowing that he helps to enable many people to own the roof above their heads. However, these selfless acts eventually take their toll and, due to an unfortunate mix-up with several thousands of dollars which causes an imbalance in the books, George finds himself in a mess which he in no way created and is struggling to find a way out of. If he can’t find the money, he may be accused and imprisoned for embezzling funds. He is overcome with strife and despair as he doesn’t know what to do, or who to turn to, and he is so very afraid of what will happen to his family. When finally turning to the Divine Father for providence and ending up with a fist to the face for his efforts, he finally sinks into despair. It is in this anguish that the character comes to his devastating conclusion.

Although it has taken an extremely tragic turn, the story of George Bailey up to this point is already wonderful and inspiring. We live in a very self-obsessed age, where everyone is out for number one. We have all witnessed some dreadful acts by the few privileged in power who act to line their own pockets whilst those in real need are left to suffer. And, as many of us very much feel the austerity upon us, it seems very difficult to find the time and resources spare to help those around us. However, George Bailey (who is just a man) time and time again takes the moral courage to make the decisions which defend the less well-off in his community rather than enrich himself. The amazing effect of this movie on the audience is largely attributed to James Stewart’s amazing performance. One moment that literally breaks your heart is the aforementioned scene when George finally resorts to prayer – his hands tremble and the tears freely flow down his cheeks – surely this is a desperate man. However, the movie’s message really makes its impact when George’s Guardian Angel, Clarence, grants his wish of “never being born” and George witnesses the terrifying transformation of Bedford Falls. Now called Pottersville, it’s a ghastly and miserable place. Cheap and nasty, the high street is filled with seedy night clubs and brothels. Everyone is miserable and hostile, and many of George’s friends and families are subjected to despairing existences.

George Bailey then finally realises he has “A Wonderful Life”. In this terrible vision, he begins to see how far-reaching his acts of goodness and kindness are, to the point where his own being has improved the lives of so many people in the town. And that is something we must all learn too. Evil is always present in our lives, but all of us have the duty to try and keep it at bay. It really doesn’t take that much… George Bailey simply does the modest work of his trade with integrity and honesty, and working with those principles ensures he treats all of his fellow human beings with dignity. And remember, yes Clarence rescues George from the brink of despair and George accepts his possible fate of winding up in prison; but it is George’s friends and family who pull together to raise the funds to balance the books at the Building and Loan. They do this because they all love him and know he would do the same for them. In the words of Clarence:

“Remember no man is a failure who has friends.”

Remember, you can read Part 1 by clicking here.