Search Results

I'll tell you what I don't want for Christmas, I don't want to watch petulant men-children running around in a tatty and wholly un-funny film that's simply a regurgitated version of its equally mediocre predecessor. Lately it seems that Hollywood has forgotten its knack for comedy Christmas films; having sat through both Daddy's Home 2 and the new Bad Moms instalment I can conclude that such sequels are not worthy of being filmed let alone shown to the public. This confusing and utterly predictable rendition of a domestic comedy, featuring blended families, proves to stand amongst the many Christmas films of the year that certainly didn’t fill me with any form of Christmas joy. Instead I'm left with a disappointed and thoroughly disillusioned view; Daddy's Home 2 produces  as much fun and amusement as a rotting reindeer carcass. The film follows the lives of Dusty aka Mr Macho muscle man (Mark Wahlberg) and the annoyingly innocent Brad (Will Ferrell) in their quest to placate their wooden and equally brattish children/step children with the best Christmas ever. Unfortunately for them, they are joined by their identical fathers (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) who, throughout the film, serve to be nothing more than a predictable plot device and the older stereotypes of their sons, oh, as well as their "kissing partners".Don’t ask it’s not funny anyway. Almost every interaction held between Ferrell and his sexier counterpart, Wahlberg, consisted of simple yet boring back and forth dialogue that became  tedious twenty minutes into the runtime. At one point, they even spend five minutes talking about the temperature of a thermostat, what on God’s earth is funny about a thermostat? This is followed by Will Ferrell getting emotionally and physically abused in some way or another by a medley of festive trappings; be they a snowball, a Christmas sleigh, a falling  plastic reindeer or even an Electric Christmas tree. Ferrell, much like the audience, just can’t seem to catch a break from such drivel. Paired with Gibson’s annoying laugh and Lithgow’s over-indulgent and equally sickly parenting and we have the makings of what seems to be a lesson in how-not-to-be-a-bad-parent rather than that of a Christmas comedy. Wooden acting by both wives throughout the film (Linda Cardellini and Alessandra Ambrosio) certainly doesn’t add the quality or direction  the picture so desperately needed. Instead, we are treated to even more examples of parental misconduct when children are found drunk in a nativity and/or kissing step-sisters: the subject of further corniness and below-the-belt funniness that just wasn’t necessary. Aside from the typical whininess and brash natures that one has now come to expect from Ferrell and Wahlberg characters the film still attempts to lend itself to comedy. Some moments were actually funny however they're underpinned by repetitive scenes, monotonous dialogue and simply over-exaggerated characters. It's therefore no surprise this collection of formulaic scenes disintegrates into the tatty and naturally unfunny Christmas mess that is Daddy's Home 2. The idea of even casting Mel Gibson in a comedy produces just as much toxicity as that of a Christmas Nuclear fall-out. Verdict: A boring regurgitation of what was already a half-hearted comedy the first time around. Dividing laughter, doubling fathers... who said Hollywood’s Christmas formula was broken?

Four Rooms is the result of the collaboration between four of the most influential directors of the 1990’s: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. The anthology comedy film is set at a hotel on New Year’s Eve. The audience follow Ted the bellhop (Tim Roth) on his first shift at the hotel as he wanders from room to room attempting to fulfill the every request of its guests. Each film maker makes their mark on the hotel by directing the inhabitants of one room; and, you guessed it, there are four in total. Tim Roth’s portrayal of Ted in Four Rooms does not disappoint. From room to room, he oozes energy: skipping, jumping, wiggling and sweating whilst cantering around the hotel. Ted’s every move is exaggerated. Roth brings a fresh take on the bubbly male character, and no homosexual stereotypes are thrown at him, though he uses his light voice and crisp, English accent to his advantage. In many ways, it is Roth’s performance which makes the film a whole. Without a strong lead, and commitment to the character, a movie with four big name directors would be unenjoyable. Instead, the comedy which flows through the movie links each room and is expressed greatly through Ted. The first scene is from Anders, winner of the 1992 New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best New Director. Hers is an all-female cast; a covern of witches who attempt to revive one of their own. Madonna stars as Elspeth, the head of the covern, a woman dressed in head to toe, skin tight leather. The Honeymoon Suite was my favorite of the rooms, for it proved itself to special. The women are written to be sexy and funny, a combination which, it could be said, intimidates male audiences and is thus scarce in Hollywood. They dance around, semi-nude, close together and chanting. Not one actress falters, embracing the weirdness of the scene which results in hilarity for audiences watching the drama unfold. A highlight is the discomfort shown by Ted around the women, who in turn tease him and eventually end up needing his services to complete their spell. The next room is Room 404, written and directed by Rockwell. Following a call to the room where a party is taking place, Ted heads up to refill their ice bucket, however, he enters the wrong room. Suddenly, a fantasy hostage situation is unfolding before Ted, and he soon becomes non-consensual participant. A husband has his wife tied up and gagged and is accusing Ted of having an affair with her. Uncertain if the situation is real or a fantasy of the couple, Ted ends up with a gun pointed at his head. The best part of this scene is the shot of Ted hanging out of the bathroom window, shouting for help. The screen is split in half by the outside wall of the hotel as Ted’s body is suspended, his whole weight on the window ledge. Despite the creativity in the cinematography of this scene, the scene as whole doesn’t contain much action. Furthermore, I found the narrative of the scene quite confusing. The audience are aware Ted is at no real threat, though the husband and wife characters are written to compliment the faults of the other. Eventually, Ted escapes the room and checks the number on the exterior of the door, it could either read 404 or 409. As every film fan knows, Rodriguez has a certain panache to his movies. They are effortlessly stylish, and usually dangerous. In the third installment to Four Rooms, Room 309, Antonio Banderas is the strict father of two misbehaving children. He and his wife wish to escape their little terrors for an evening, thus bribing Ted to watch over them whilst they party into the New Year. Chaos, as it surely does where the bellhop is concerned, ensues. The screenplay for Room 309is is near perfect: for example, the scene opens as Banderas’ character is scraping his son’s hair back with a comb, causing the boy obvious pain but he shows little regard for his son’s dcomfort. Eventually he gives up, angrily telling his son he has his mother’s hair. His wife’s reaction is priceless. The children display a sassy attitude towards the eager to please Ted, calling him for every little thing and driving him crazy. This scene is by far the funniest of the four in the movie and ends in a horrifically hilarious still. The final room is The Penthouse. Tarantino directs and stars in the seemingly longest installment of the movie. As always, his acting is wooden and the scene revolves around him; Tarantino casts himself as “famous film director, Chester Rush”, the hotel’s VIP guest. By this point, Ted is growing tired and after phoning his boss to quit, he is persuaded to stay for one more call. He enters The Penthouse and from there the scene is seamlessly edited as the camera pans the set and the audience are introduced to each of Rush’s friends. The first half feels like Tarantino is exaggerating his knack for writing dialogue. The scene is fun, but pointless; nothing much happens. However, the narrative picks up in the second half as the characters educate Ted on their bet, which if he agrees to participate in will earn him a lot money: one of the men bets Rush he can light his Zippo lighter ten times in a row with no faults. If successful, this man will win Rush’s classic car, but if he fails he loses his “pinky” finger. After much persuasion Ted agrees to participate: it is his role to slice the man’s finger from his hand. The scene ends swiftly (WARNING: SPOLIERS) with the man failing to light his Zippo on the first attempt, the shot cuts to a close up as Ted brings down a hatchet onto the man’s finger, dismembering it from his body. Ted sweeps up his money and exits The Penthouse, anarchy unravelling in his mist. Overall, Four Rooms is a well put together comedy drama which begs not to be taken seriously. The lack of action in some scenes is made up for in the cinematography and comedy provided by Ted. The directors created a brilliant common thread in the bellhop, the character’s physical comedy and exaggerated hyperactive mind is well portrayed by Tim Roth. For me, the best room is Anders’ Honeymoon Suite whereas Tarantino’s Penthouse is an anticlimactic end to an otherwise entertaining movie.

"The Commuter" In this action-packed thriller, Michael MacCauley (Liam Neeson), an insurance salesman, whose daily commute home quickly becomes anything but routine. After being confronted by Joana (Vera Farmiga), a mysterious stranger, Michael is blackmailed into finding the identity of a passenger on his train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, Michael is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for himself and his fellow passengers. The commuter trains into New York travel from the suburban areas into the inner city, terminating in the Financial District. Along the way, they pick up all kinds of people from every strata of society and, because there’s no first class, the passengers all mix in together. The story centers on Michael MacCauley, a former cop and a now mid-level manager at a faceless insurance company, who lives with his wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern) and son Danny (Dean-Charles Chapman) outside of New York City. Like so many hard-working family men, he's facing a financial breaking point, trying to make ends meet on a paycheck that is stretched to the rafters and a son who's about to go to college. Michael has been taking the same train for 10 years, five days a week, and then one day he's fired. He doesn't know how to tell his wife, and he's double-mortgaged on his house. At the end of his last day in the office, Michael gets on the train ready to face his family and admit that he has been fired and that the family faces bankruptcy. After having a drink in the local bar with an ex-cop friend of his, he takes the commuter train back to face the music. Into the seat opposite him slides a woman who's not one of the regular commuters Michael knows. She introduces herself and makes him a strange offer. Would you do one tiny, little thing for $100,000? Something of hers has been stolen on the train and she needs help finding it. If he agrees to help, he’ll be generously compensated. Joana literally shaking up his otherwise mundane existence. We all come to a fork in the road at times where we're quizzed on morality versus need, and she's that quiz master. Of the hundreds of people on the train, most are just normal people who are innocent bystanders. But Michael is forced to trust a handful of passengers who offer their help. One is Walt (Jonathan Banks), a commuter pal. Another is Tony (Andy Nyman), a regular New York guy who s always on the train, who lends Michael his phone. Others who raise suspicion include college girl Gwen (Florence Pugh), Dylan (Killian Scott), a young guy with a tattoo who Michael vaguely recognizes, Vince (Shazad Latif), a Wall Street type, Jackson (Roland Møller), a burly construction worker, Oliver (Kobna Holdbrook-Smith), a tired-looking guy with a guitar case, Eva (Clara Lago), a panicked nurse and Sam (Colin McFarlane), the train’s conductor. Following the worldwide success of "Unknown", "Non-Stop", and "Run All Night", Liam Neeson and director Jaume Collet-Serra reunite for a fourth time with the explosive thriller "The Commuter", about one man‘s frantic quest to uncover the truth about a train passenger before it's too late. The screenplay proves irresistible, not just for the bravura of the action and the thrill of the suspense, but for the moral conundrum the protagonist faces and it's consequences for him, the passengers on a New York City commuter train, and his family. On his commute home, the passenger sitting opposite him puts a proposition before him, find a passenger on-board the train who doesn’t belong, in return for a handsome financial reward. As an ex-cop with a strong moral sense of right and wrong, this is not an offer Michael takes lightly. Apprehensive to return home after just having lost his job, Michael eventually agrees to find the suspect amongst the sea of passengers, using his wit and skill to uncover their identity. But he soon realizes that he's at the center of a deadly conspiracy that only he can stop. If someone asked you to do something that seems insignificant, but you’re not sure of the outcome, in exchange for a considerable financial reward, would you do it? That’s the philosophical choice that our central character, a man of 60 who’s just been fired, has no savings, and mortgage he cannot afford, is faced with. Is he thinking just about himself or is he going to take into consideration the possible moral consequences of what he’s asked to do? It's really important to have Michael as someone who belongs to both worlds, he works in the financial district, but he's a real man who’s probably from a blue collar background and he has fought his whole life to give his family the best possible life. On the train ride home, he’s with a bunch of strangers who are also going through their own personal dramas, large or small. They all start off as strangers, but by the end, there’s a real sense of community between them, and it's very important to end it that way. The story almost plays in real time. The main character realizes what he’s set in motion; and sets out to identify the person that holds the key to the conspiracy. The tension cranks up at every stop as new passengers get on, and another clue is left for him. The danger gradually gets greater and greater and the film becomes this really fast-paced psychological thriller along the lines of a Hitchcock‘s "Strangers On A Train" or "North By Northwest". The audience is with him every step of the way, so we learn that his family is in danger only when he does. The film keeps the camera on the train, but imply that his family was in danger without showing it. "The Commuter" disguises a morality tale as a genre film. Michael strikes a Faustian pact with this mysterious woman and, once he’s agreed, the film plays out his deep regret. Joanna is the catalyst, a temptress who entices him, coaches him, and pulls his strings throughout. The film notes of mystery around some of Michael’s co-commuters, who may or may not be players in the conspiracy engulfing him. So when you meet a new character, you’re not sure why they’re on the train or what’s in their bag or why they’re acting the way they do. They’re rounded characters, so you care about what they’re thinking or what they’re up to. It's very important to keep our interest in them going throughout the movie so the payoff at the end is more satisfying. It's a spiritual sequel to "Non-Stop". With a mystery evolving around your central character, it has more impact if your protagonist is a normal guy. How much is he willing to do for money without knowing the consequences of what he's going to do? When extraordinary events happen to regular people, it's important that the first choices that these characters make are choices that we, as an audience, agree with, and that the action escalates plausibly from those choices.

Written, Produced and Directed by: Mahmoud Shoolizadeh United Kingdom, London, September 2018 Synopsis: SUSAN is a story of Love and War. A feature social drama film basically about Susan who lives in London, England with her lovely family. She loses her husband in Afghanistan war. She suffers but she keeps her Love and hope alive. In this film Susan is the symbol of love and kindness. She faces lots of challenges in her life, though she tries hard to keep this kindness and love, even in the very difficult situation she is facing. While she is alone, full of pain and misery, one unexpected moment happens and this is just the beginning!

One wonders what the world has done to deserve George Lucas. He is the Lady Macbeth of the Movie Brat filmmakers, an initially independent film maker whose mind once spawned of the greatest and most beloved films of our time, and then spent the rest of his life and career trying to destroy. I am of course talking about Howard the Duck, a masterpiece in every conceivable sense but the word. Produced by George “Moneybags” Lucas and directed by Willard Huyck, who co-wrote the screenplay of the original Star Wars, another of Lucas’ celluloid children that he has ever since tried to butcher with a cruelty matched only by King Herod and PE teachers. Howard is an underrated and sadly overlooked classic of dreadful film-making, a film so utterly bizarre that it achieves a kind of grandeur in its ability to unintentionally out-do most other films in terms of sheer incompetence. It has the usual Lucas-dressed hamburger salad of oak-wooden acting (especially from Howard himself, who is about as convincing a duck as Hannibal Lecter is a vegetarian), unnecessarily convoluted storylines and subtle-as-concrete dialogue. On the other hand, the film’s hero Howard throws some fascinating light on Lucas’ other trigger-happy heroes, Han Solo and Ronald Reagan: he vents all of his frustrations on a friendly janitor Phil played by Tim Robbins, who is very good at talking to feathered animals and does so here at great length. Howard also finds time during his time in Cleveland to hiss obscenities at the kind-hearted girl who takes pity on him and sadistically bite a receptionist on the behind whilst dressed as a French tourist, complete with beret, sunglasses and surly demeanour. Whilst allegedly based on the Marvel comic book, this is very much Lucas’ alter ego, a highly intelligent and capricious mass of feathered malevolence intent on wreaking havoc and causing heart-break to the very people that try to help him the most: his fans. In a cast that includes Jeffrey Jones, Tim Robbins and Richard Edson, Lea Thompson works the hardest—and incidentally does a good job— as Beverley, a young, lonely guitarist eager to find a new friend, but who upon offering the space-travel-lagged duckling a place to stay is cruelly berated and insulted. It is as if poor Miss Thompson were waiting for a friendly alien to come into her life and instead found… Howard. Still, she bravely soldiers on to help him return home and even develops a sexual attraction towards him over the course of their adventures. Enter Jeffrey Jones and Tim Robbins, who view Howard’s landing on Earth as a scientific breakthrough and join a party that evolves into a medley of cross-country chases, aerial acrobatics, glam-rock concerts and fistfights with deranged duck-hungry diners. A typical night in Cleveland this may be, yet if anything the film’s sudden shift from a potentially erotic thriller between Beverley and Howard into a Blues Brothers-style chase movie seem like an attempt by the film makers to bury the blossoming relationship between Howard and Thompson beneath a rubble of explosive but ultimately stale thrills. Indeed, Lucas and Huyck seem to have realised that they do not want to pursue the Michael Douglas/Sharon Stone trajectory between the lady and the duck, so the film ultimately fails to maintain the subversive edge and erotic drive of those early scenes in the final ninety-nine minutes of its running time. As if to punish Beverley for her misplaced affections, her encounters with other male human beings in the film constantly result in violence against her. She is attacked in the street, cat-called and tied down by various men throughout the film; the filmmakers even find it necessary for a fence to be erected between herself and the predominantly male crowd in the club scenes. Given such a representation of male human beings in Howard the Duck, it seems little wonder that she develops sexual feelings towards a talking duck and his…feathers. Still, there is much to enjoy in Howard the Duck, not least the cheerfully inept special effects and the violent intricacies of Quack-Fu. And as for Howard himself, not even James Bond can claim to have slugged three bystanders armed only with a cigar, an ice pick and a knuckle-hard wingspan. Good on you, Howard. That’s something to tell all the ducks back home. By Chris Middlehurst

Watch the official Thoroughbreds film trailer! Childhood friends Lily and Amanda reconnect in suburban Connecticut after years of growing apart. Lily has turned into a polished, upper-class teenager, with a fancy boarding school on her transcript and a coveted internship on her resume; Amanda has developed a sharp wit and her own particular attitude, but all in the process of becoming a social outcast. Though they initially seem completely at odds, the pair bond over Lily's contempt for her oppressive stepfather, Mark, and as their friendship grows, they begin to bring out one another's most destructive tendencies. Their ambitions lead them to hire a local hustler, Tim, and take matters into their own hands to set their lives straight. THOROUGHBREDS is released in UK cinema’s on March 9th 2018 Read our official Thoroughbreds film review.

AHHHH Titanic, one of the major classics on screen, and the still 'going-on' debate whether Rose had room on that door or not?! If you are part of the population who loves a romance, with a few tears, as well as a young Leonardo DiCaprio on your screen, then Titanic is definately a film you will enjoy. Titanic is one of the most famous tradegies to occur causing the director James Cameron, to have the pressure on highlighting the the world the horrible tragedy and historical events which occured that awful night in 1912. DIRECTOR: For a good movie, calls good director, and James Cameron is certainly a good director. With the stress of showing the emotional aspect of this occurance, Cameron provided a memoriable and amazing tale of two lovers of different classes, wanting to spend eternity with each other rather than with their apparent family. The use of flashbacks made this film so moving and memorible whislt seeing Rose aged 100, (the present) and to the past (1912) ACTORS: The use of actors within Titanic provides an amazing and emotional atmosphere for the audience watching the film. With the talented acting of Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, what is there to hate about it?! Kate's acting is devine, highlighting her aristocratic life with her elegant gowns and stunning appearence. Whilst Leo's role is much more layed-back, due to him being noticed as a 'poor guy', thus contrasting with his romantic interest. The acts of the class system is shown to see higher and lower class being divided, however Kates character Rose, and Leo's character Jack go against this and find love in the weirdest of places - a massive ship. SETTING: The setting and effects used are amazing! Notice the intricate details which the creators have placed into the scenes. I was able to watch the behind the scenes of the film, in which the creators informed of the detail of making the settings look exatly the same as the real titanic which tragically sunk in 1912. The delicateness of first class gives the atmosphere of pure wealth and power over the lower class, who are seen to be in rooms like a square, two bunkbeds and nothing more. COSTUMES: As a member critiquing films, I believe costumes is to be one of the main aspects which creates the atmosphere in which the film was set - if for example they were wearing hoodies and adidas shoes in this film is wouldn't be realistic - however, the designers inflicted their knowledge on past higher and lower class fashion back in the early 20th century. The black suits with black ties showing men as the dominant figure, with the higher women wearing elegant gowns and fuffy hats highlighting purity and delicatness. THEMES: The overall theme for this movie is LOVE, a tragic love story left with the audience in tears and inpity. As well as providing a desire for both men and women to have on how their relationship would be. SOUND: The non-degetic sound in my opinion proivide the most emotion, with Celine Dion's song of 'My Heart Will Go On,' even when used in an instrumental way, left my heart shaking and feeling faint. MEMORIBLE MOMENTS: There is flashbacks of the video footage of the real life titanic, this moment creates a flood of emotion for the entire audience as it puts into account the real life event which took place, and that this movie was based off of such a tragedy that it is shocking it truly happened. I RECOMMEND K x

Jessablle is a 2014 American horror film directed by Kevin Greutert and written by Ben Garant. The first time I watched this movie, I wasn't expecting much. Most horror films have the same old boring storyline; people move into an old house with withering walls and strange things start to happen. This movie, however, grabbed my attention straight away. I was gripped. Jessabelle is a movie that has it's hold on you from start to finish, and even has you thinking about it long after it's horrors have been revealed. The twist and turns in the plot will have you on edge and yelling at the TV screen. This film is a must watch and needs to be more widely noticed.

Hostiles film review. Writer and director Scott Cooper follows the success of moving drama Crazy Heart (2009) and hard-bitten crime thrillers Out of the Furnace (2013) and Black Mass (2015) with arresting and haunting western Hostiles. Set in 1892 the film follows Captain Joseph Blocker (Christian Bale) who, along with a small group of fellow soldiers, is tasked with transporting dying Cheyenne war chief Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi) and his family from New Mexico to their tribal homeland in Montana. Cooper’s unflinching, dextrous direction together with Masanobu Takayanagi’s sweeping cinematography perfectly captures the harsh, unforgiving terrain of the American frontier and the atrocities that took place within. One particularly upsetting sequence sees Blocker passively watching his men as they torment a Native American family in their custody. While Cooper and Takayanagi’s work is remarkable, it is the performances of the central cast that linger in the memory long after the end credits roll. Most impressive is Bale. The actor beautifully conveys the battle-hardened Blocker’s gradual respect and affection for Yellow Hawk. It is an astonishing performance and one that will hopefully not be overlooked this awards season. Rosamund Pike is equally effective as grief stricken widow Rosalie Quaid who is forced to join Blocker’s party. Praise must also be given to Studi’s quiet, dignified performance as Yellow Hawk and Rory Cochrane’s scene stealing turn as Blocker’s world-weary second in command, Sergeant Thomas Metz. Handsomely shot and superbly directed, Hostiles is a spellbinding, harrowing work of beauty.

You’re the girl in the inner room. Alicja is your story. You talked, he wrote it down. I suppose it’s almost impossible to use an exuberant color palette for a film situated in a Slavic country. Every time the story takes place in such a communist or ex-communist country, the screen is filled with depressing colors. The closer one approaches Russia (the motherland of communism) the more gray, grizzled, and duller the images become. The desolation and gloom are splashing off the screen. Everything seems bare, simplistic and simply boring. To camouflage this problem in a film, one must have a fascinating and intriguing story, played by colorful actors. But that’s missing in “Dark crimes“. Even Jim Carrey has an impressive, gray beard. With a little imagination, you look at it as if it’s an old-fashioned black and white movie. Carrey did a great job in this serious movie. “Dark Crimes” is based on an article from the Washington Post about Krystian Bala. A writer who described an unsolved murder in detail in one of his books and was arrested based on this. Perhaps an interesting item to make a film about. But here the pace is similar to writing a book. Painfully slow. And Jim Carrey couldn’t remedy that by himself. This goofball who got in a fight with God Himself, who got plagued by a gang of penguins and who put laxative in the coffee of his best friend, wasn’t so bad in this more serious role. Unfortunately, his career has marked this good man. I expected any minute a spastic grin while doing an absurd dance with lots of leg-swinging. Personally, I think it’s quite logical because that’s the kind of movie role I associate Jim Carrey with. There aren’t many comedians who succeed to convince in a serious film. Dull, duller, dullest. The only thing this film radiates is dullness. And not just because of the scenery. The story is immensely long-winded. And as a fill-up, additional plots were added. So you’ll be presented with the story of the degraded detective and his will to take revenge on the injustice done to him. Obviously, you get the story of a detective who wants to solve the last case before he retires. A bit like Morgan Freeman in “Se7en“. But this time it’s because he wants to see his name fully cleared. There’s also the neglected wife who can’t longer cope with the absence and obsession of her husband. And finally, there’s the sex slave Kasia (Charlotte Gainsbourg), girlfriend of the writer Kozlov (Marton “The Equalizer” Csokas), who’s the culprit according to Tadek. She’s a drug addict and her SM past creates sinister images. One last time. Jim Carrey impressed. There are only a few moments you could call exciting. And that’s every time the writer Kozlov comes into the picture. His pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber may not be essential from a substantive point of view, but his charisma and personality fill the screen completely. These were a few moments when you could feel the tension and intensity. Perhaps Charlotte Gainsbourg also caused a certain tension with certain images. However, all praise for Jim Carrey who impressed me, in an otherwise not so impressive film. His stiffness, resentment and the moments in which he realizes that he was wrong (with gagging as a result), are brought in an excellent way by Carrey. But that’s about it in this mediocre film. My rating 5/10

Having heard and then read about the tragic way, news reporter Christine Chubbuck had committed suicide live on air while reporting the news in 1974, I was interested in watching this film and seeing how she had come to the end of her tether and decided that life was no longer for her. Christine was a 29 year old television reporter who wanted to bring people the real news and not what the station wanted her to put out there just for ratings. She is constantly at log a heads with her boss who wants her to do pieces on crime and not human interest pieces. She begins to fall for one of her co-workers who she later finds out is dating someone else in the station. Christine starts experiencing stomach pains and after visiting the doctor, she learns she has to have an ovary removed which will reduce her likelihood of having children along with the fact she is still a virgin and has never had a boyfriend in her adulthood. The owner of the station comes to search for talent he can take and set up a new station in Baltimore. She is so eager to please her boss and get the opportunity to move to Baltimore that she goes and buys a police scanner and listens to it in hopes to get grittier stories. She is asked out to dinner by the co-worker that she has a crush on and accepts. They talk about one an another's insecurities and they then head to a self-help group that her co-worker attends because he wants to help her. The co-worker drives her home after the self-help group and before she exits the car he tells her that he has been offered the job at Baltimore. She sits there in silence for a few minutes and then exits the car. She gets in to her car and drives to the boss's house and talks to him about the job in Baltimore and that she knows the co-worker got the job and asks if there is still room for her. The boss tells her that the co-worker had already asked for someone else to attend with him, the women he is dating who reads the sports. The next day she arrives at work and asks her manager if it is okay for her to read a piece and a few minutes of talk about it he agrees and she goes to get ready to go live on air. She starts to read the piece which includes a video bit, however the video gets jammed and she is asked to just carry on reading. She then goes on to tell the viewers that they are about to see a live suicide attempt and she pulls out a gun a shots her self behind the ear. Her manager at first believes it is all a joke but quickly realise it is real and call an ambulance. She is taken to the hospital where she dies 14 hours after the incident. The manager finds the script that Christine was reading from when she had shot her self and it was all written on the script, and it also had what she wanted them to say to the press, "TV 40 news personality Christine Chubbuck shot herself in a live broadcast this morning on a Channel 40 talk program. She was rushed to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, where she remains in critical condition." This film brings to light the effects of depression and how some individuals struggle everyday with it. The struggle they face on a daily basis and how some believe there is no hope and have only one way out. It is a great story with heart and not just focusing on the event that the film is based on. The back story, although unsure if it is true to her real circumstances, shows us that people just want to be loved. I highly recommend this film. The cast are great, Rebecca Hall won 3 awards for her portrayal of Christine Chubbuck.