Search Results

There is an apocryphal saying - variously attributed to Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mark Twain and a host of others - that there are only two stories we tell each other in our literature, our movies, our narrative arts. In the first, a person goes on a journey; in the second, a stranger comes to town. What matters is not which of these stories an artist chooses, but how it’s told, and how it illuminates another corner of the human soul, be it dark or light. With “Your Move” actor/director/writer Luke Goss effectively combines the two in the person of his protagonist, who must go on a journey to save what he loves most in the world, becoming a stranger in the dark underworld of a Mexican town where clues and danger are virtually indistinguishable. Goss - up to now known as an actor’s actor and platinum-selling musician - proves highly adept at this newest iteration of his abilities, guiding what in other hands might be a standard genre story forward with skill and subtlety. By keeping the focus on the inner workings of his characters Goss creates as much nerve-wracking tension with a quiet tableau between two people as he does with an all-out chase scene. Goss plays New York businessman David Miller, a man with a good life and a family he adores. While on a video call with his wife Isabel (Patricia De Leon) and young daughter Savannah (Laura Martin), who are in Mexico visiting Isabel’s parents, David - back home in New York - witnesses a brutal attack on them that ends in an apparent kidnapping. Stuck thousands of miles away and not knowing where to turn, David calls the local NYPD, whose skeptical response only makes him realize how dire his family’s situation actually is. As an actor Goss is deeply likable, exceptionally effective at translating what his characters are feeling, and the terror David experiences at not knowing what has happened to his loved ones is brutal and palpable. In Mexico he meets the cop in charge of the case, Detective Romero (the superb Robert Davi, in a richly nuanced performance). David wants answers, action, anything to make him feel that progress is being made. Romero, a good detective, understands the need to build his case on facts, and while Romero feels for David’s plight, the man is also his worst nightmare - an uncontrolled wild card who could blow the case at a moment’s notice by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Romero’s careful, low-key approach to the investigation seems like dangerous and deadly plodding from David’s point of view, sure to get his wife and daughter killed. On the other side of the coin is Isabel’s father, Señor Barrabas, a wealthy patrón of weight and gravity. Luis Gatica plays Barrabas with a quiet intensity that is at once civilized and menacing. Though he treats David and the detective as equals, he appears to engender fear and respect everywhere else. Accompanied at all times by a suited, hulking - and likely armed - bodyguard, who Goss subtley keeps just at the edge of the frame, Barrabas’ business dealings can only be guessed at. When it appears that he agrees with Romero’s method of handling the case, David panicks and takes matters into his own hands. Though fit and athletic, David has no “special set of skills” with which to make the bad guy’s life hell a’la the uber-hero in “Taken”, relying instead on instinct and sheer persistence, driven by the certain terror that if he doesn’t use every means at his disposal to track his family down, he will never see them again. Agonizing every step of the way over what he must become to get the job done, he isolates himself from both family and the authorities and relies instead on his gut. Goss’s abilities as a visual stylist and storyteller are well-matched to his subject matter and the camerawork is assured, but he doesn’t sacrifice character development for the sake of style. Goss - who also wrote the script - keeps the dialogue spare and measured, making wonderful use of the players’ inner lives to push the narrative and generate emotion. The acting is uniformly superb and the casting and directing are spot-on, with a touching and almost Fellini-esque sensibility, making scenes with even the most secondary characters satisfying and rewarding. The landscape of the human face as a map of the psyche clearly fascinates Goss at the deepest levels, and his painterly use of color, light and shadow add to the suspense and the unfolding story, while allowing the audience their own visual and emotional journey. And though the church is never explicitly mentioned there is a strain of lush religious iconography running through the film, implying religion as a particularly horrifying form of self-justification for the antagonist, played by Alain Mora in a performance that is a revelatory and disturbing portrayal of a man with a terrifying split in his psyche. The film may be billed as a psychological thriller, but the execution and performances defy simple genre categorization. It would appear that “Your Move” marks the auspicious start of yet another successful branch of Goss’s multi-hyphenate career. “Your Move” has its UK premiere on January 27, 2017. Watch the trailer, here: Writer: Kely Lyons - Los Angeles - January 27, 2018

Disney is back with another live-action adaptation of one of their animated films. This time it was up to Beauty and the Beast to be remade and please the audience. But if we look at the final product that the film is, it seems to be that Disney did it more for the money than for the audience. Will the audience end up roaring for the new film or will it just be Disney happily roaring their victory over their audience? I think we all know the answer to that question. Beauty and the Beast is directed by Bill Condon and tells the tale of Belle. Belle (Emma Watson) is a young adult, who loves to read books and dreaming of playing a part in the adventures that are depicted on those pages. But when she leaves her small village to find her missing father (Kevin Kline), she encounters a large castle in which lives a horrifying Beast (Dan Stevens). As Belle stays with the Beast, she learns that true beauty is found within. Right from the beginning, the film wants to make very clear what kind of a jerk the Beast was before he came a Beast. Just like in the original animated film, where they spend a short monologue on the case. However, in this live-action adaptation they take more then a few minutes to make it clear that the Beast is a jerk. The problem is not that it is not well done, because making the Beast look arrogant is something the movie does is quite well, but the problem is that right from the beginning one of our main characters is an unlikeable prick, which creates a situation wherein you cannot root for the Beast to become normal again. You want him to stay a Beast, because that’s what he honestly deserves to be. He acts like a Beast for the first two acts of the movie. Then the filmmakers remembered that the Beast also must become a human at the end, so they quickly shoved moments in the movie trying to make the Beast look less like a prick and more like an misunderstood young adult. In the original animated film, the Beast had a compelling arc. In this film he does have an arc, but it’s not compelling because the Beast is arrogant throughout most of the film and acts like a prick to everyone around him. The arc is also rushed to the point that it makes you care even less for the Beast. Do you want examples of how much of a prick the Beast is? Well, the Beast doesn’t even give Belle a minute to say goodbye to her father, the Beast keeps correcting and interrupting Belle, the Beast wouldn’t give Belle a room, the Beast forces Belle to eat with him and lets her starve when she says she won’t eat with him etc. The thing with this movie is that they like to exaggerate everything the original did, to the point that this movie feels more like a dark cartoon then the original did.The scriptwriters Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos also try to add new story elements to the script. There is a new back-story how both Belle and the Beast lost their mothers and it adds nothing new to the story. The scriptwriters probably did this trying to make the Beast, after first writing him as such an unlikable character, look more sympathetic and to give Belle an arc. Only thing is that the new back-story doesn’t make Beast look more sympathetic, he still comes across, as a bitter young adult and Belle never gets a conclusion to her arc. Her mother died when she was just a baby. Belle never knew her mother and this has had a great impact on her. However when she finally finds out, what happened to her mother, the subplot is quickly moved aside to continue the main story. Her arc is never resolved or even started to be honest. It just a waste of time. The script also tries to give Belle more personality. They did this by making her amazing in everything. She is good in reading, good with children, good in teaching, good in inventing, good in drawing, good in taming wild beasts (get it?). However, as expected, being good in everything doesn’t count as a trademark for a character. She isn’t Leonardo Da Vinci. Belle is a dreamer, who gets inspired by the books she reads. Belle is intellectual. Indeed. But in this movie they exaggerated her intelligence to the point that this Belle feels more like a cartoon character then her animated counterpart. There are also some continuity errors. Belle on Phillipe, the horse, move like the Flash when needed. Belle just arrives shortly after the villagers arrive at the castle, while the villagers had a big head start. The sound effects are also sometimes off in the final battle. Oh right, forgot. To please the immature and the children, the movie also includes butt and poop jokes. Yeah! There is also a mystery subplot for the character Agathe, which turns out to be the witch that cursed the Beast. This is so poorly done and unnecessary. She just comes and goes when the story needs her to come an go. And her importance to the story is never explained. Which leaves another unsolved subplot.The CGI in this film is, in contrary to the beautiful The Jungle Book, more creepy than fantasy provoking. Nobody wants to see a CGI teapot smiling. They created some nice nightmare related visuals for the younger kids. Can’t wait to see this on a childhood trauma list.Not everything is bad though. The acting is on point. Especially Gaston is likeable, which feels weird because he’s supposed to be villain of the film. Well don’t worry, because for this first half of the film Gaston comes across as a normal, somewhat dimwitted, individual, but in the second half, he leaves Maurice for the wolves stuck at a tree. Something the animated Gaston would probably also be able to do. The Gaston song is also very amusing. Their is actually an illiterate joke in their that works. The song also contains one exciting, maybe little expectable, but still amusing shot. In the end, Beauty and the Beast, is another Disney remake that is poorly executed and is solely done for the money. This movie in particular felt more like a cash grab than the other Disney movies. That is probably because the effect of the original is still untouched by other Disney movies. It is the only animated movie to be nominated for best picture. It is one of the most well known Disney movies. These were the reasons for which Disney thought that their live-action version could earn some big money. Sadly, it did. Overall, it’s not a complete failure. There are some genuine emotional moments. Some new interesting ideas, that all don’t workout however. And sometimes a joke works. But in the end, the movie is still pretty bad, mostly thanks to the poor script.

(New York City relrase; January 25th, 2019, Cinema Village, 22 East 12th street New York, 10003, 12:30pm ET) "King Of Thieves" A famous thief in his younger years, widower Brian Reader (Sir Michael Caine), 77 years of age, pulls together a band of misfit criminals to plot an unprecedented burglary at 'The Hatton Garden Safe Deposit'. The thieves, all in their 60s and 70s except for one, employ their old-school thieving skills to plan the heist over 'The Easter' holiday weekend. Posing as servicemen, they enter the deposit, neutralise the alarms, and proceed to drill a hole into the wall of the safe. Two days later, they manage to escape with allegedly over £200 million worth of stolen jewels and money. When police are called to the scene and the investigation starts, the cracks between the misfit gang members begin to show as they row over how to share the goods and become increasingly distrustful of each other. Meanwhile, the crime has become public knowledge, and a frenzy of speculations begin. As details about the crime come to light, both the British public and the media are captivated, and the investigation is followed with bated breath around the world until the criminals are eventually captured. The oldest of the gang at 77 years of age, and described as 'The Last Of The Gentlemen Thieves,' Brian Reader is, in his day, as close to being a star as a villain can get, one of the country’s most prolific jewel thieves, involved in raids and heists totalling more than £200 million. His name is synonymous with some of the most infamous burglaries of his time. By the age of 32, Reader was among the gang of master thieves who were dubbed 'The Millionaire Moles', so called because they tunnelled into a Lloyds bank vault in London to loot 268 safe-deposit boxes in 1971. He was also associated with the Brinks-Mat Job in 1983, the gang stealing what today would be worth $145 million of gold bullion. Born and bred in South London and from humble beginnings, he's a man who, at the height of his success, enjoyed the finer things in life, expensive restaurants, winters skiing, summers yachting. He’s the guy that devised it all in the first place and figured out how to do it. He's a man of stature who earned the respect of his peers. Brian is not a wild, extrovert man, like some of the people in the criminal fraternity are larger than life characters. Brian is not like that. Terry Perkins (Jim Broadbent) is the character that's conveyed as the most menacing and dangerous of the five strong gang, and not without merit. Perkins is a career criminal, who in 1983, on his 35th birthday, was involved in the UK's biggest-ever cash robbery, 'The Security Express' depot raid in London, in which six million pounds was stolen. Perkins was apprehended and sentenced to twenty-two years. On sentencing him, the judge called him evil and ruthless, not least because he threatened a bank employee by dousing him in petrol and shaking a box of matches at him. In a bizarre twist of fate, thirty-two years to the day after 'The Security Express' heist, and celebrating his 67th year, Perkins is boring through a wall into the vault at 'Hatton Garden'. Aged 61 at the time of the robbery, Danny Jones (Ray Winstone) has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1975, with convictions for robbery, handling stolen goods and burglary. Described as an 'eccentric 'Walter Mitty' character during the trial, Jones claimed he has supernatural powers, could read palms and would sleep in his mother's dressing gown and a fez hat. That aside, he's obsessed with crime, and spent his spare time reading about and studying famous villains. Jones is a larger than life character and that demanded a larger than life screen presence; someone who's at ease in the skin of a slightly unconventional criminal. At 75 years of age, John Kenny Collins (Tom Courtenay) has a long string of convictions for crimes, including robbery, handling stolen goods and fraud, dating back to 1961. Described as 'wombat-thick' by his accomplices, during the trial prosecutors said he lost the plot in the weeks after the raid. Collins is the least distinguished criminal. He’s the getaway and look out man and he’s not very competent. They just sort of like him although he does put them off. Cause he’s extremely deceitful and inceptive. He’s very duplicitous. There remains the enigma that's Basil (Charlie Cox), the 5th member of the gang who's the most enigmatic; a faceless lynchpin that got away; or did he? Conspiracies continue to spiral around his identity and what fate, if any, befell him, but it's all conjecture, theory and hearsay. Basil is not a cheeky chappie. You see some real ugliness amongst him. There was a period of time when people were interested in him being the mastermind behind it all, and then that idea seemed a little bit on the nose and not quite as interesting. Now he's completely unknown, his true identity a mystery. He's the faceless piece in the puzzle, who has no past, no future. The only proof to his existence is the 'CCTV' footage from "Hatton Garden', and then his identity was disguised. The Basil character is a bit of a mystery and the film keeps it that way. Carl Wood (Paul Whitehouse) is a trusted associate of the ringleaders, who's recruited as an extra pair of hands to pull off the heist. Whilst Carl didn’t go through with the heist, scarpering mid way through the job when the drill broke down, he was sentenced to six years for his part in the burglary. He sensed there would be problems and legged it, as did Brian Reader. If you’re half way through a job like that and the initial stages go wrong, the sensible people would leg it, so his character got out early. Carl is the second youngest of the gang, at 59, he's not without his ailments, in his case, 'Chrohn’s' disease. What with the list of ailments suffered by the other gang members, diabetes, arthritis, etc., it adds to the sense of the heist being a last hurrah. As with the gang they portray, they're all very different characters, and in this instance it's their screen heritage that lends itself so well to identifying these nuances. The characters are very matey and jokey. And they’ve known one another for a long time. But the sheer pressure of that money being available is more than they can deal with. And they do fall out because of that. Because nobody trusts anybody else. There’s a slight 'Robin Hood' romance about it, apart from the fact they're going to keep it all to themselves. The burglary of 'The Hatton Garden Safe Deposit' vault in April 2015 has been labelled by many as the biggest burglary in English legal history. Whether that assertion is capable of proof. However, it's clear that the burglary at the heart of this case stands in a class of it's own in the scale of the ambition, the detail of the planning, the level of preparation and the organisation of the team carrying it out, and in terms of the value of the property stolen. The story of 'Hatton Garden' captivated the public, dominating the news agenda from the moment of discovery until the eventual capture and sentencing of the gang. When 'Scotland Yard' realized who was behind the burglary, they needed to build a water tight case to warrant the arrest and eventual trial of the gang, and so they started tailing the gang, tapping their phones, recording their conversations, using lip readers when they couldn’t plant listening devices. Every conversation recorded, every activity observed was filed and when the gang was eventually brought in for questioning, their interviews recorded and transcribed. It's inevitable it make it's way into popular culture. Very old men doing very difficult, physical tasks for reasons of greed and opportunism. That’s funny. People being treacherous towards each other because they're greedy and opportunistic and people making ridiculous mistakes, as the gang do, is naturally funny. They all got caught because they made stupid mistakes, so from the start we knew it's funny, but the thing about being funny in drama is to do it as real as you can and play the truth of it. All of the actors are such superlative actors that if you get them to play the truth of it, it will be screamingly funny in places. The moment you start cueing people that this is comedy, it lets the air out of the tyres, so you've to sneak up on people and let them discover the comedy and absurdity of the situation. They're very funny to be around, so you don’t have to write a gag fest. You can keep it serious, and because they're smart they will figure out the paradoxes and the ironies. Film and TV are dominated by genre, and before you start you've to convince people what it's you're doing, is it comedy, is it drama, is it scary, is it serious, is it worthy. There’s a lot of humour and tension and the humour comes from the tension. The dynamics between the characters are quite complex, more so than most of us. A serious subject deserves a serious approach, and yet there's a comedic element, verging on Ealing esque, to "King Of Thieves" that's difficult to ignore; a modern-day 'Lavender Hill Mob" where the heroes are rogues that one just can’t help but root a little for. These old villains decide that they’re going to do this very old fashioned crime, and they actually do it rather well, but what they don’t know, because they don’t live in the world that we live in, is that there are surveillance, cameras everywhere in London. There’s planning, execution, and aftermath. And the aftermath is often a bitter fight over the spoils. Indeed this is a case in the true story. It’s a sort of ugly back-biting, back-stabbing scenario where everyone’s turning on each other. So there’s great comedy to be had in those characters clashing. Everywhere we walk, everywhere we go, we're being filmed. And they just don’t know this. They don’t know much about the internet, they don’t know about mobile phones being tracked, so they go into this crime ignorant of the modern world. And the comedy lies somewhat in that juxtaposition between their innocence, as it would seem, and the sort of sophisticated snooping of the modern world. It's a character-driven comedy based on a true story. It’s like a mythical story, and any story like this is bound to attract different versions. It’s irresistible as a proposition when you read the headline. When you realise that these old men have done this crime, and they’re haplessly ignorant of the modern world. There's something that "King Of Thieves" has access to however, that no other version has, and it's this that gives the film a real edge on whatever else has come before and whatever else comes after. Playing real people can offer a wealth of information for actors in order to build the layers of their characters, and with so much written about the gang, it would not be presumptuous to assume that's the case for the cast on "King Of Thieves". But criminals are, of course, shadowy figures. Their exploits may be infamous, but they remain hidden from view. The version is definitely as close as you can get to the truth at this moment in time. And it's also emotionally, existentially and psychologically the truth. The film addresses the notion that villains who put together crimes like this are of a particular type. It takes a particular kind of psychology for a 70-year-old man to go underground for three days, smashing, drilling and hauling. It takes a certain kind of madness and determination, a kind of bent genius, to do that. The thing about a lot of villains is that they're not really socialized. The only thing they can do is that kind of crazy enterprise and they're not necessarily great at relationships. Although they're all really great friends, they do turn on each other endlessly. There’s a lot of ego involved as they jockey for position. There’s a great deal of narcissism, obsession and lack of empathy and passiveness. They really don’t have any thought at all for all the people that lost everything. There’s a blinding lack of empathy, and psychologically it’s really fascinating to examine what’s not obvious. It’s obvious that millions were stolen, but what’s not obvious is what kind of people can do that.

Let's face it one of the most artistic, visual, imaginative Directors alive and working today in Hollywood is Guillermo Del Toro. A CV with Pan's Labyrinth, Crimson Peak, Hellboy and Pacific Rim is definitely going to get your attention and defiantly make you wonder what a director/writer like that is going to concoct next.... well look no further for The Shape Of Water has arrived. The story set in the 60s follows a lonely mute Elisa (Sally Hawkins) who whilst working as a cleaner at secret government Area 51 style facility comes starts to slowly form a bond with a underwater creature that has just arrived to be experimented on under the watchful eye of violent, paranoid, unstable government agent Strickland (Micheal Shannon). The films spins a highly original fairytale yarn that pulls the audience on a journey of the years most unexpected love stories. The script negotiates multiple genres, moods and themes in order to carefully unfold the story through its generous two hour running time. Care and attention to details has been employed here to really justify any choice our characters make by giving all involved real features, flaws and frailties that isn't always the case in many films. The cast lead by Sally Hawkins are on top form clearly making the most of the script Shannon shines as the deeply troubled flawed government agent, Octavia Spencer hot of Hidden Figures performs charismatically as the best friend and Richard Jenkins lavishes his diverse character journey he goes on. Nicely and neatly shot but certainly not as trade mark stunning say as Crimson Peak the director navigates this film with the experienced skill that comes with his twenty plus years experience and shows us here that risks can certainly still be made. And worth the gamble. Whilst the film may not be for everyone, a highly engaging, entertaining and original modern day fairy tale love story like this should prove that originality like romance is not dead.

Imagine Goodfellas on Ice. With having several unreliable narrators (Tonya herself, her husband and mother) we never truly get the full story which is kind of the point given that the dramatic story of Tonya Harding's life has a cloud of mystery about it. We get a very strong central performance from Margot Robbie- who desperately needed one after flops like Focus and Suicide Squad- her stand out scene which you may have spotted in the trailers where she's silently putting on her make-up in front of the mirror is simply engrossing. The story thankfully stays clear of becoming a stereotypical 'Hollywood underdog sports movie', but I think we needed just a little bit more of Tonya at some competitions. Though dramatic, I think they could have extended the on-ice performances a tad. Just as you were getting into her performances...they ended. That said, the visual effects really made it look like it was Margot Robbie was truly performing the near impossible triple axel jumps. Could quite easily have done a dodgy photo-shopped head and we would have ended up with a Henry Cavill moustache moment. What let the film down was that I felt it skipped over too much in passing, a lot like in Tupac's recent biography All Eyez on Me. Both suffered from maybe trying to cover too long a time period rather than focusing in on maybe a year or a few months. A lot of time was spent in the first third of the film building the audiences' understanding of Tonya's fractured relationship with her mum (Allison Janney) but then she kind of disappeared from plot- as a true story this may have actually been the case but I don't believe that the pay off from a script point of view was worth it. In the end I was a little disappointed and starting to check my watch to see how much longer I had to go until this ended. Would watch again on Netflix but wouldn't be eagerly waiting for it. 3/5.

That day, I just killed a man. What he stood for was unstoppable. The absurd title alone should stimulate your curiosity. A film with such a whopper of a title (sounding completely absurd) can only lead to an unrivaled experience. My first reaction was: “Only Monty Python can come up with such a film title.“. I found “The man who killed Hitler and then the Bigfoot” a relief, after seeing so-called masterful films that should be breathtaking but ultimately were disappointing. More and more I come to the realization that mainstream films appeal to me less than those that can’t be seen in the commercial circuit. What stays in my mind after watching “The man who killed Hitler and then the Bigfoot“? Firstly, the makers of this wayward film created a myth on the one hand. And on the other hand, they eliminated a myth. Secondly, Sam Elliott, besides being the owner of an impressive walrus mustache, also knows how to act. Nothing new I’d say. And now he has an Oscar nomination. That has taken way too long. And finally, the question that gnaws at my soul. What was in the box? And what was in Calvin Barr’s shoe and bothered him the whole movie? No, it’s no violent B-movie with an absurd storyline. It’s already clear to the attentive readers. This isn’t an average film that was created for the general public. And even though the two main subjects are earth-shattering (if they would be true) and absurd at the same time, there are also secondary subjects beneath the surface that are just as important. Subjects that deal with regret and musing about a life course and whether or not it could have been different. And also about handling traumas and neglected family relationships. And finally losing an old love. It’s all included in a subtle way. Even though the film title seems to indicate that you are going to see some obscure, modernist film experiment with cheap violence and an absurd storyline (it also reminded me of Craig Moss and his absurd movie titles), it all looks very different. And surprising. Perform one bold task, and surely they’ll ask you again. It’s all about Calvin Barr (Sam Elliott). A veteran who has done something specific in WWII that would normally have to be very far-reaching and had to change world history. Only his assignment, well prepared and successfully executed, didn’t appear to have the alleged effect. Apparently, it seems to have something to do with covering it up and secrecy. His reputation, however, ensures that he’s once again being asked by the secret service to carry out another ultra-secret mission nobody will probably know anything about afterward. Such an assignment that undoubtedly will grow into a myth. And in the end, people will start guessing whether or not it actually happened. Eliminate someone you hate versus losing someone you love. Maybe this is what’s weighing on Calvin. The lack of any appreciation for his actions and an official tribute for what he had done for mankind. Either the realization that his actions ultimately didn’t make any difference. That’s why he’s not interested in the question asked and he gives an explanation about how crooked thoughts and ideas continue to exist. Even after eliminating the person who spread the ideas. And probably the thing that bothers him the most, is the fact that the mission to eliminate the person, who’s a threat to world peace, has ensured that the person he loved the most, slipped through his fingers. Sam Elliott is an icon. Undeniably, the interpretation by Sam Elliott is simply sublime. His appearance and facial expressions definitely are the cause of this. Something Krzykowski took advantage of extensively. So you can expect a lot of close-ups where you get to see his steely eyes glancing over his glasses. A rough appearance with bushy eyebrows and a gigantic gray walrus mustache. He’s such a man who has had a richly filled life that he thinks about and reconsiders. But he’s also a man of age who has to take his pills every single day, who falls asleep in front of his antique-looking television and who asks his old dog how they’ll get through the day. A character face with a unique, deep voice. Wonderful acting by an icon in filmland. The younger Calvin. But also the acting of Aidan Turner as the younger version of Calvin is pretty decent. The frequent flashbacks that occur in the film show Calvin’s comings and goings. Flashbacks that suddenly pop up when the mind of the older Calvin wanders. We see the somewhat timid seller of hats who falls for Maxime (Caitlin FitzGerald). A rather clumsy person who doesn’t succeed in popping the question. Bringing a marriage proposal to a successful conclusion seems to be extremely difficult for him. In fact, the parts where Aidan Tuner appears in, are the funniest parts. The awkward and embarrassing dinner. And the scene when he arrives at the headquarters of the Nazis is utterly hilarious. A must see? Once again. No, “The man who killed Hitler and then the Bigfoot” isn’t only a movie about a hero and his heroic deeds. And even though the title is literally what’s going on in this film, it does not cover the subject completely. The title would be more complete with “… and gained nothing with it.” because on both missions, Calvin actually lost something. But then the title would probably no longer fit on the poster. I just thought it was a fascinating film. A film about absurd facts of mythical proportions. Or maybe not? Sadam Hussein also had a bunch of doppelgangers. And no one could ever prove the Sasquatch does NOT exist. That’s why those are a myth. I was left with only one burning question. What the hell was in that wooden box and Calvin’s shoe? Some good advice. Go watch this movie. And when you’ve done that, could you please answer my question? My rating 8/10 Links: IMDB

Summary Barnaby is a down-in-luck loser who has just been dumped by his long-term girlfriend, fired from the job he hated in the first place, and kicked out by his parents. Oh, and he’s 29 years-old as the film will remind you on occasion. At his age, life isn’t going where Barnaby thought it would and he does little to turn things around. That is, until an old high school friend pops back into his life at a reunion and helps Barnaby pick himself from the dumps. What I Liked It would have worked wonders had the multitude of awkwardly placed jokes been collected for a stand-up comedy special, because they were undeniably funny – or at least tickling – to watch. The character of Madison is a delight with her girl-next-door type personality and sweet-natured charm that provides incentive for the viewer to stick around and not give up on the movie. There’s also the basic premise which is relatable to an extent. We’ve all been there when life seems to have rushed by and we haven’t caught up with. The balance between following through with your passion and working a job just to pay the bills is the theme of this movie which should resonate with viewers as it did with me. What I Didn’t Like Barnaby. Not to say he’s wholly unlikable, but the guy is an overgrown man child. 29 isn’t too old but the manner which he conducts himself – taking showers in the nude in public, fabricating his resume to include outlandish achievements that would realistically land him a kick in the rear in any interview, and his inherent sluggish personality coupled with serial laziness – makes it hard to root for him. He also lacks the required charm to pull the viewer to his side as other, more talented actors like Bill Murray would have possessed. It isn’t done much favors with the gauche direction that teeters in the brink of total dullness due to the long drawn out silences for no apparent reason, or the complete absence of background music that contributes further to the already abundant silence onscreen during interactions. Murphy Martin isn’t a talented actor – comedian he might be – but he can’t pull off this role with charisma the same way Diana Solis can. Had there been the presence of more actors in the movie, Martin’s impact would have been lost in the shuffle. What perplexed me was the attraction Madison held for Barnaby. There may have been some long suppressed feelings from their high school days, or her lack of dating options, because her investment in Barnaby’s life– from getting him gigs to straightening out his CV, and basically spending all her time with him – isn’t understandable in the slightest. Any woman would have been turned off by Barnaby’s lack of drive and all round lethargic personality, but Madison is enchanted by Barnaby upon her first seconds of screentime. Overall It ultimately depends on how Barnaby comes across to the viewer, whether his sarcasm and dry humor can be endearing or if his crude jokes (that include toilet humor) and juvenile behavior will overstay its welcome after the opening minutes. While the general idea of an uplifiting ending is comfortable, it is also a longshot the manner with which Barnaby is handed one opportunity after another and is then equipped with superb skills out of the blue that do not align with his brazen demeanor. The farthest idea the movie wants us to believe is that two very attractive women could ever find Barnaby appealing in the first place. You get the sense the director wanted to appeal to the “loser community” by handing them a wish-fulfillment scenario. Finally, the story drags along easily a half-hour more than it should have – which is not helped by the stretches of silence between dialogues – for an ending that doesn’t really place Barnaby, or the viewer, in a different place than where they had started. 

Film for action rating 5/5, For climax, sound and effects also 5/5 This has to be the all time film of the year for me, Personally I have never connected with a film like I did with this nor have ever had the same amount of interest with any other film which I have had with this one. The whole story line is just so unexpected I think my focus with this film and the bit which really engaged me the most would have to be that moment between the friend of ceasar and the little girl. The way the situation went out of control in this bit blew my mind and it is one particular bit which I just can't forget like that. It also one of the kdy highlights of the entire film. Overall this is a great film which was worth experiencing not only that but there was a lot of action going on. I highly recommend this film to other people to see it is one you can't miss.

I saw Paddington 2 on Monday 20th November with my Mum and sister at the Vue Cinema and I have to say it was truly marvellous. The film features a snappy, classic narrative arc, a lovable Special FX bear (that looks scarily real may I add!) and some of the finest and well-loved British actors of this generation, what’s not to love?! I couldn’t help but laugh out loud most of the way through, along with the rest of the audience and at some points was moved to tears by Paddington’s innocence and total trust in others. I can imagine this film being a box office hit in America, with features of top British landmarks like Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament and a very unrealistic, over the top British prison, I can imagine they loved the film. The films plot and story is perfect for people who love a warm hearted, funny, typical British family comedy, like me. I have to say I was quite impressed with Hugh Grant’s performance as the once loved famous actor, now turned bitter wannabe West End Actor Phoenix Buchanan. The first time you see him on screen you see a somewhat typical antagonist, a villain wanting the same thing the protagonist wants. However, throughout the film you begin to see a funny and a very over dramatic actor that you can’t help but love. From seeing him in your typical British Rom-Coms like Bridget Jones, Love Actually and Notting Hill, it’s nice to see another, funnier side of his acting and to hear his fantastic accents! Overall, it’s a fantastic film that I would recommend to anyone who’s wanting to sit back, relax and watch a fun, entertaining, truly British film. Everybody who was in the cinema went out with a big smile on their face, a true testament to a good film.

I'm probably the last person on Planet Earth to review or simply converse about this film, which has stolen everyone's heart in this bleak time. Many people may question, what's the whole song and dance about, this film has received the most praise than any other in recent years emphasizing how our new age society are just longing for old Hollywood films to reer their head back into the industry. As a Musicals fan they have taught me many things over the years, one thing being that I'm a romantic. They also showed me at a young age that some emotions in films are so powerful that it can't be put into mere words - it must be sung aloud and proud. After the opening scene, I knew I was in for something special, and over the course of two hours the picture takes you on a beautiful, whimsical, at times heartbreaking journey that provides exactly the kind of cinematic escapism and diversion that we are in desperate need of at this time. In recent years, pure joy is limited on the big screen and off, meaning that this film is so much more poignant and cherished from a universal audience. However, the best thing about this film personally as someone who is a die hard fan of the style of musicals that were last seen in the 1960's. It does pay homage to those classics without even directly mimicking them and still staying contemporary and new by maintaining an appeal for all ages. In it's entirety, it's a beautiful film about love and dreams, and how the two impact each other. The city of Los Angeles that surrounds the story-line, is filled with dreamers and sometimes it takes a partner to make your dream come true. The two in question is Sebastian (Played by Gosling), a passionate jazz pianist with a wholehearted ambition to open a club of his home and defend his passion of jazz from extinction. His partner is Mia ( Played by Stone), a gifted aspiring actress who flits between terrible auditions and a coffee shop till on the Warner Bros Studio lot. After their chorus- like introduction, like any good musicals, the two have their false starts and playfully mock each other flaws in their first scenes. But we know what is to come and Gosling and Stone have the chemistry to make us long and possibly cheer for them to be together. Most of the praise of the film is down to the leads Gosling and Stone, the pairing of them as a romantic couple is spot on and  has already been established from the gangster mob film 'Gangster Squad' and the romantic comedy 'Crazy Stupid Love'. They have an immediate chemistry and charisma that exudes on screen and pours right into the heart of the cinema-goer. Their musical scenes are only embraced more by the pair not being the world's  greatest dancers but are clearly having fun while they are doing it, making it more endearing and lovely to watch. Both of them also, adopt the star power and charm of actors that existed in that time. They are the definition of movie stars and are serious triple threats who are at the top of their game. They get these characters, finding grace in their movement and an unexpected emotional depth in their stories.  I absolutely  cannot imagine any other actors in the roles, they boast enough charisma to charm even the most cynical viewer into falling head over heels for their relationship. Going into the film, the pressure was immense as the film had made Award history by winning every Golden Globe category it was nominated in, seven in total. The praise merely emphasizes that the film was foremost a collaborative effort  that has thoroughly payed off. However, La La Land offers nothing particularity new or groundbreaking, but when something is done so brilliantly, excuted so perfectly, it can feel so refreshing and innovative which is what this film evokes. The opening sequence of the film gears you right into the euphoric nature of this film and takes you on a ride of color and modern day movie magic. Director, Damien Chazelle does fully embrace the corny nature of the romantic films in the 1960's, dancing among the stars etc.., and with the staging of cinemascope bringing a new light to the musical which many have tried to recapture. Overall, this film had magic emanating from the screen, and as the minutes went past my smile grew wider after every musical number, and then it hit me that I didn't know how this film would end and most importantly I didn't want it to end. In these times, the world can get you down but I challenge anyone to  not fall head over heels in love with this film and not be humming the song's on your way home from the cinema. La La land serves to remind us that movies can still be innovative and they channel us to also see the magic in the world around us. It's going to take something absolutely extraordinarye to knock this off the top of my list for the year.

AMAZING! 10/10 Director: Greg Berlanti Cast: Simon (Nick Robinson), Leah (Katherine Langford) Love, Simon is by far the best film i have seen this year. Making a film about a teenager who is gay but does not know how to come out because of how people may react is very appropriate for this day and age. Love, Simon addresses all the most important aspects of coming out, the accepting > saying it > telling people > the reaction from others. Why is this film important in 2018? Coming out in general is so hard let alone doing it when you are in college. Simon (Nick Robinson) at the start acknowledges the fact that he is gay and from then the film follows his story on coping on a day to day bases whilst having a huge secret he cannot tell anyone. Being gay in 2018 is still very difficult even though people are more understanding and accepting it is more the younger generation that is not. Simon is shown to have an amazing family by him and friends and this is what makes his story amazing, he speaks to this person called Blue and comes out to him and creates a very strong cyber connection/relationship if you would like to call it that however it is not till the end he actually meets blue. This shows that no matter who you have around you it still does not make it any easier on coming out unless you are confident in yourself. Everyone truly does deserve a Great Love Story The cast in this film is extremely strong and many will progress further. Nick Robinson has embraced his role as Simon and it has resulted in love, Simon being a huge success. Greg Berlanti has created a very heart warming, powerful and funny movie here that will hopefully inspire other teenagers in Simon's situation to come out and embrace who they are. Berlanti has produced a perfect balance between humor and seriousness which has kept the message of the film consistent the whole way through. Well done to everyone who was apart of making of this film. Denny