Search Results

Blue Story (2019) A gut-wrenchingly brutal spotlight on south London’s postcode gang rivalries, Blue Story grabs you and won’t let you look away. Rapman’s (Andrew Onwubolu) big screen directorial debut packs a punch with its unflinching message on youth violence, telling the audience that every 14 minutes there is another knife crime in England and Wales. The core message of the film is aimed at young people themselves: violence is a cycle that must be recognised and broken. Blue Story follows best friends Timmy (Stephen Odubola) and Marco (Micheal Ward), who live on different sides of a postcode war. Growing up in the midst of gang rivalries, their relationship is torn apart after Marco is attacked by one of Timmy’s old friends. The film begins at a time of change, showing Timmy entering secondary school. Timmy’s mum sends him away from Deptford to a school in the neighbouring borough of Peckham, where he meets local boy Marco. This echoes Rapman’s own experience of growing up in Deptford but going to school in Peckham, crossing the invisible postcode border. Decidedly contemporary, Blue Story’s narrative is interspersed with grainy CCTV footage of real life youth violence. Even the coming together of Blue Story is uniquely modern, adapted from Rapman’s 2014 YouTube musical drama series of the same name. The film is bursting with homegrown talent, not least of all Micheal Ward whose performance as Marco earned him the BAFTA Rising Star Award. The soundtrack showcases south London rappers such as Giggs, RAYE, Krept and Konan, with drill and trap music setting the tempo between scenes. Despite some dialogue being a little too on the nose, stitching real London personalities into the fabric of Blue Story’s production gives it a natural authenticity. Revenge is a cross-cutting theme, but not in the linear tradition of The Revenant or Kill Bill where someone wronged sets out on a bloodthirsty quest for rough justice. Instead, it cuts both ways. The main characters are trapped in a cycle of vengeance that brings far more pain than satisfaction. Flashback scenes, while a blunt directorial instrument, are used to show the tragic descent into violence rather than celebrate the righteousness of it. The use of handheld cameras throughout puts the audience right there in the thick of the action. During his refreshingly unique ‘rap narration’, Rapman places himself physically in the scene, breaking the fourth wall to look the audience in the eye. He is our bridge into the brutal world he depicts, highlighting the sobering futility of it with an honesty that avoids preaching. Over and over, the bravado of male characters in Blue Story escalates into violence. Victims of this violence are so often left alone as their attacker flees the scene for fear of arrest. But this also means that only the audience is left to dwell on the harm they have caused. Rapman allows the camera to linger. This raw portrayal of contemporary London is so much more than West Side Story meets Kidulthood. Blue Story’s talented cast and experimental style makes a welcome contribution to the Shakespearean turf war genre. Rapman’s final rap narration is a direct appeal to young people who might be caught up in a similar situation to his characters. Powerfully and deliberately rooted in contemporary youth culture, Blue Story is above all a heartfelt plea for peace on our streets.

Hello all aspiring film critics! Feel free to use this space to post your film reviews and discuss each other's work. If we like what we see we may get in touch as and ask to publish it on the site! To Post a Review Please select "Create New Post" whilst in the Film Reviews category. Then create your own post with your full review. Feel free to include a relevant trailer for the film by clicking the little video icon at the bottom of your post and inserting a public YouTube or Vimeo link. You can also post images for the film but please ensure you have the correct permission from the photographer. After You Post a Review If you promote your review on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc, please use the hashtag #UKFilmReview and tage @UKFilmReview so we can check it out :)

In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, we rejoin the story three years on: An impending volcanic eruption threatens to wipe out the surviving dinosaurs on Isla Nubla, and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), has created the 'Dinosaur Protection Group' in an attempt to save the dinosaurs from extinction. After the U.S. Senate rejects plans to rescue the dinosaurs, Claire is contacted by John Hammond's former partner, Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), who is planning to move the dinosaurs to a new island sanctuary. Whilst discussing the rescue operation, Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) – Lockwood's aide – voices concerns that locating Blue, the sole surviving velociraptor, will be near impossible, compelling Claire to recruit Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) to help on the mission. J.A.Bayona directs this sequel to Colin Trevorrow's, Jurassic World. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom promises to be a "darker film", one more "scary"; exactly what you'd expect from Bayona. However, with a huge franchise production such as this, there's always going to be a back-and-forth between the director and studio; usually resulting in any influence the director has being significantly watered down. Regrettably, that's exactly what's happened here. Bayona does what he can with a lacklustre script, naff story, and a franchise too afraid to take risks. There are – and entirely to Bayona's credit – some visually beautiful and brilliantly put to together scenes; some of which are actually quite scary. The opening scene – one of the best – Is full of promise: The pitch dark setting, tropical thunderstorm, lashing rain, and general murky gloominess provides a sincere horror movie ambience; comparable in tone to Jurassic Park's opening scene. And again, during the third act, there's a remarkable scene, set in a sprawling gothic style mansion, which sees the indoraptor – Henry Wu's (BD Wong) latest lab manufactured horror – hunt Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon, playing Benjamin Lockwood's granddaughter), who is seeking solace in her bedroom. The creature, slowly creeping over the rooftops, silhouetted against the moon, strikes an imposing figure; the iconic Wolfman look. The scene shifts to a Nosferatu feel as the creature, with long reaching claws, purposefully and delicately opens Maisie's bedroom window and enters her room: Shadows creep slowly across walls, and claws tap menacingly against the wood floor as the creature moves in a measured, loury manner towards Maisie; hiding under the covers of her bed. Extreme close-ups of both subjects follow; creating a palpable sense of uneasy closeness. Making good use of long unbroken shots, slow purposeful movement, and intense close-ups do add a tangible sense of dread: I enjoyed these sections of the film very much and really appreciated the directors nods to various classic horror monsters. Unfortunately, these scenes are few and far between; any sense of threat is quickly extinguished within the first quarter of the movie as you realise this is the safe franchise film you knew you should have expected. The cast is adequate if not exemplary, and Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard obviously enjoyed a friendly working relationship. There are a slew of new faces, all of whom do a perfectly acceptable job in their respective roles, most of which are destined to end up as one-hit wonders. And therein lie the problem. Neither of the main cast has anything in the way of character development (They're reunited in this movie in exactly the same way as in Jurassic World; with Claire having to recruit Owen, who's at his trailer, at the behest of somebody else, after an awkward break-up), and none of the new characters are worth spending any time or effort on as they'll never be seen again. Much of the storyline seems rushed and badly paced, particularly the island rescue scenes: There was a good deal of build-up to this section of the film, and many people were anticipating a Jurassic Park: Lost World kind of feel; those people must be feeling let down. Too much time was spent on scenes either side of the island rescue section, but particularly just after it takes place. The section of the movie between the Isla Nubla rescue and Lockwood estate scenes is long, unnecessary, and just boring. Much of this could have been scrapped and more time could have been spent on Isla Nubla, developing characters and giving us more dinosaur action. From a technical point of view, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom has some wonderful cinematography, and is perhaps where J.A.Bayona's influence is felt most staunchly. The use of animatronics is something which has been sorely missing from these movies for many years and make a welcome return here: A shame then that the movie relies far too much on CGI throughout much of the duration and never uses it to its full potential. While the CGI isn't bad in and of itself, it does feel unsubstantial and holds no weight. The scenes using animatronics were instantly noticeable and more enjoyable: Consequently, this leads to many of the scenes using CGI to feel a bit limp. Verdict Maybe I expected too much from a child-friendly franchise movie, maybe I'm being overly harsh; I just couldn't help but feel massively disappointed. In all fairness, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom achieves what it sets out to make; a loud, fast, and entertaining enough action-adventure movie which families will flock in their thousands to see; I have no doubt that it'll have a huge taking at the box office. I just wish J.A.Bayona had more free rein, or that the studio had been more willing to take risks. What we've been left with is a movie which is as average as they come: A movie which showed such promise, and really could have been something special. For me, the movie is saved from falling into complete mediocrity by the (admittedly few) windows of greatness that could have been; something I attribute to the director. Should you go see it at the cinema? Yes, absolutely. Is it something I'd want to purchase on release? Probably not. 6/10

Robert Aldrich directs this multi-Oscar-nominated psychological thriller about a Southern belle who, plagued by a horrifying family secret, descends into madness when a lost relative suddenly shows up. Director Robert Aldrich had make the first successful ‘women’s picture’ for a hugely long time with the very enjoyable and unexpected success What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? two years earlier, starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in their most memorable roles. Aldrich had wanted to get the two actress, who were very bitter to each other, to get them to work on another film together using the very similar themes that he used for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, but it wasn’t going to be an easy task, as Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte encountered a troubled pre-production and also encountered trouble during the filming of the picture. But the arguments between Davis and Crawford had started way before pre-production had got underway. Bette Davis initially was not interested in signing on to this project and she even ordered the director to change the title of the film (it was originally called What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte). She was also absolutely furious at Crawford for her making a campaign to let Davis not win the Academy Award for Best Actress for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, which she was nominated for (Anne Bancroft ended up winning for her superb performance in The Miracle Worker). Bette Davis accepted the role of Charlotte when Aldrich let her be the producer of the movie, so he got that side of the story sorted out. Crawford had signed on to play the role of Miriam, Charlotte’s cousin. However, she was furious that Davis had given role of the producer and she made her feelings very clear to the director. To make the situation worse for her, during the filming of this movie, Crawford faked an illness that forced Aldrich to fire her from the project and heard via radio that she had ended up being replaced by Olivia de Havilland. Crawford was absolutely upset about this and when she heard the news, her career was effectively ended. The details of how these events happened are depicted in the very enjoyable television series Feud: Bette and Joan, with Susan Sarandon as Davis and Jessica Lange as Crawford. Eventually, Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte was released in 1964 and ended up being another hit film for Robert Aldrich – and it is a very good reason as well. Adapted from the short story What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte, the story concerns Charlotte (Bette Davis), a southern belle who, in 1924, on the night that they were meant to get married, found her lover killed during a party and the blood on her outfit makes everyone think that she committed the awful act. Now, 40 years later, Charlotte is an old outsider and she has to fight to keep her home. She gets her cousin Miriam (Olivia de Havilland) to help her, but soon after Miriam arrives, Charlotte’s mind begins to get unstable – and she descends into madness and violence – demanding that she just gets everything that she wants. Bette Davis (in her final collaboration with Robert Aldrich) gives a very good performance in her role as the title character Charlotte and she suits the role very well, acting at her superb, nasty best and also allowing the audience to let her know that when she is angry, she properly means it (Aldrich’s excellent direction allows the facial expressions to be seen to a very strong effect throughout). Davis also gave a very good performance in a double role playing twins in Dead Ringer, so 1964 would be an excellent cinematic year for her. Olivia de Havilland (who became good friends with Davis and described working with her as ‘highly professional’) is very good in her role as Miriam, a poor cousin who lived with the family as a girl, but since moved to New York City and became very rich herself. Although this isn’t the most memorable performance of de Havilland’s career, it is definitely not the worst, but I can describe it as the most dramatic and best performance that she gave where she was not nominated for any major awards. Joseph Cotten is good in his role as Drew Bayliss, a doctor who rebuilds his relationship with Miriam following the murder, while there is very solid support to be had from Agnes Moorhead in her role as Velma, the housekeeper of Charlotte’s house and she suits the role very well, acting like she wants to help out as much as possible. In her final role, Mary Astor (in her second collaboration with Davis following The Great Lie, which won Astor the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress) is good in her role as Jewel, a not-very-well widow whose husband was murdered. Cecil Kellaway is good as Mr. Willis, an insurance man who investigates the murder of Charlotte’s husband John, while Victor Buono (in his second collaboration with Aldrich and Davis) is good in his supporting role as Big Sam Hollis. So, you can definitely say that Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte definitely appeals thanks to having a star-studded cast and they certainly do not disappoint in their respective roles. The direction from Aldrich is excellent because not only does he allow the facial expressions to be seen to a strong effect throughout on all the cast, but also keeps a tense atmosphere happening throughout, particularly with the dramatic moments and scenes that involve Bette Davis, while the script is written to a very decent standard by Henry Farrell and Lukas Heller as they make the film easy to follow. The technical elements of the film are very impressive, with the set, cinematography, music, costume and editing all standing out best in glorious black-and-white – the set is very decent to look at throughout at all times; the camera makes very good use of the locations the movie uses, captures the facial expressions very well and also captures the tense moments well, which definitely gets the edge-of-the-seat status; the music is very enjoyable to listen to and the dramatic score with the tense moments helps keeping you gripped; the costumes are excellently designed by Norma Koch; the film is edited to a very decent standard. The title song Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte is very enjoyable to listen to. However, what is the single and most annoying thing about the film is the pace – it can only just be a little slow at times – it would have been better if there just a couple more moments of tension throughout. In terms of the major awards, the movie managed to win 7 Academy Award nominations: Best Supporting Actress (Agnes Moorhead), Best Art Direction (Black-and-White), Best Cinematography (Black-and-White), Best Costume Design (Black-and-White), Best Film Editing, Best Music, Substantially Original Score and Best Original Song (Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte). It didn’t win any of those awards, but the nominations were definitely deserved. Agnes Moorhead did manage to win the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress. At least the movie won something rather than absolutely nothing. It’s a shame that the Golden Globes don’t do technical categories anymore, because if they did, I am sure this film would have got nominations for its set, cinematography, costume and music from The Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Overall, Hush…Hush Sweet Charlotte is one very enjoyable adaptation of the short story What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte, thanks to the very good performances from the star-studded cast, along with Robert Aldrich’s excellent direction, the well written script, the tense atmosphere and superb technical elements. The only criticism is just the small but sometimes slow pace. ★ ★ ★ ★

So, what does that tell us? That the only truly reliable narrator is life itself. But life itself is also a completely unreliable narrator because it is constantly misdirecting and misleading us and taking us on this journey where it is literally impossible to predict where it’s gonna go next. Occasionally I come across such a film that knows how to surprise me. At first, I wondered what it was all about. Usually, I take a wait-and-see approach and see where it’s going. If there’s no improvement in terms of story and it remains quite uninteresting, I’ll give up. Fortunately, this rarely happens. And certainly not in the case of “Life itself“. As the film progressed, it became (at least for me) more fascinating. Before I knew it, I was looking at the credits with astonishment and I thought to myself: “Wow, what the hell was this”. A film that succeeds in making me quiet and paralyzed. That’s quite an achievement. Hate campaign? In retrospect, I was somewhat surprised at the negative comments regarding this film. I do understand there are people who are allergic to tragedy, drama, and sadness in films. But the bursts of tirades being fired at this movie, are rather exaggerated in my opinion. Or is it my anarchist nature that is rebelling? Calling “Life itself” the “Worst movie of the year“, is a bit shortsighted and slightly simplistic. I suppose those who did, only watched the crème de la crème of films that year. I dare to admit that I’ve seen much worse last year. Again it looks like a snowball effect after the appearing of some reviews of prominent film critics. And expressions such as “semi-intellectual”, “philosophical ramblings” and “overly melodramatic” are copied excessively so that it resembles a we-against-them situation. Or is it an acute case of navel-gazing? Or are they all male critics who, just like Dan Fogelman said in an interview, hate films with emotions? Maybe a defense mechanism so nobody would say that their tough torso contains too many female hormones. Oh well. If you focus on the correctness of timelines and the correct layout of the different time sections only, you may lose sight of the larger picture. Holier-than-thou? I am convinced that among those notorious critics, there are some who unknowingly believe in certain things that would fit perfectly into the context of this film. Isn’t it so that people speak of a soul mate who exists somewhere on this planet? That there’s this one special person somewhere who’s a good fit for you? And isn’t the term karma used all the time? Does coincidence exist? Or coincidentally not? And then the pinnacle of mysterious power that millions believe in. The divine power that watches over us and directs our lives. I bet some of those opinion writers have used these terms before? Or that they want to save their soul every week by solemnly entering a church somewhere? Well, not me. Am I too realistic? Too suspicious? Could be. But I believe that a combination of circumstances and destiny can form the basis of a story such as “Life itself“. The first chapter is phenomenal. Without a doubt, the first chapter is the one with the most impact. A chapter full of confusion, psychological distress, and trauma. But also a chapter about eternal love. Finding that one specific person who fits you unconditionally. Will (Oscar Isaac) and Abby (Olivia Wilde) are such a couple. The living proof of the well-known saying about the pot and the lid. Until one day Abby leaves Will, and Will’s life immediately becomes a mess. A ruin that needs to be restored with the help of a psychologist. It’s a chapter in which the storyline wraps itself ingeniously around Will’s past and present. With and without Abby. With and without the will to live. A chapter full of flashbacks. A chapter introduced by Samuel L. Jackson who represents the “unreliable storyteller”. The subject of Abby’s thesis. But at the same time, he plays a character from a script that Abby and Will wanted to write together. “A husband and wife Tarantino”. That’s why Samuel L. Jackson uses his “Pulp Fiction” intonation. And then there are some who claim that his contribution adds little to the story. well, you just have to want to see it, I guess. Two different family trees. The chapter ends shockingly. A blow of a sledgehammer, as it were. And from then on the story begins to spread intercontinental. From the rebellious Dylan (Olivia “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” Cooke), the end result of the wonderful love between Abby and Will, whose life is dominated by death. To Spain, where the rich olive oil manufacturer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas) tells his life story to one of his workers, Javier Gonzalez (Sergio Peris-Mencheta). And although these two different family trees initially have nothing in common with each other, the two storylines melt together in a bewildering manner. But you have to discover for yourself how it all gets connected. The unreliable narrator. The only flaw I could think of is the predictability at a certain moment. At first, you don’t have a clue what’s going on. Once you’ve passed that point, you can already see where it’s going. If I were a nitpicker, I would use this to criticize “Life itself” harshly. But the inventive story and the sometimes excellent acting of a group of well-known actors make this a side issue. Perhaps it all seems doom and gloom. As if real life only produces sorrow and misery. Where you experience one setback after the other. Everyone has bad periods in their lives and emotionally difficult experiences. But perhaps the message is also that there is always light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t believe in coincidence or destiny. I don’t believe in a heavenly power that determines our lives and sets out the route in our lives. But admit it. The way the story developed here could actually also occur in real life. Unfortunately, sometimes life is indeed an unreliable narrator. My rating 8/10 Links: IMDB

Cast: #anthonygonzalez #gaelgarciabernal Director: #adrianmolina Disobeying his family’s baffling ban on music, Miguel embarks on a journey through the enchanting Land of the Dead in search of his dreams of becoming a #musician. 12-year-old Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) who lives in a small town in rural #Mexico hopes that one day he can become a musical sensation, just like his idol, the late great #ernestodelacruz (Benjamin Bratt). But, his family have other plans and imposed a ban on music. He still practices and plays in secret, in an attic which his made into a shrine for his idol Ernesto de la Cruz. The ban commenced many generations ago, when Miguel’s great-great-grandfather supposedly abandoned his loved ones to pursue a career as a singer. As the annual Day of the Dead festival approaches, the town of Santa Cecillia prepares to celebrate its deceased and honour their memories. However, a twist of fate sees Miguel miraculously transported into the Land of the Dead, where the macabre residents are shocked to find a living person walking amongst them. MY FINAL THOUGHTS A few things which caught my attention about Coco was some of it's breathtaking animated backdrops, they looked absolutely stunning. The magical thing about Pixar they've always manage to capture the imagination of the audience. This lovable new addition to their franchise doesn't disappoint. It also educates the younger audience about the Mexican folklore festivities, which is associated with the celebrations #dayofthedead. This movie has a touching storyline, not forgetting to mention it's gorgeous music which is composed by Michael Giacchino, the man behind the music of #startrek. Overall I gave this toe-tapping, inspiring movie which is catered for the whole family young and old, a dizzying 5/5 Stars 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 #followyourheart #seizeyourmoment #cinema #cocó #entertainmentnews #familymovienight #filmcritic #movienews #mustseemovie #mexicanmusic #pixar #pixarcoco #composer #michaelgiacchino #unpocoloco #kamaras_reviews

At a runtime of two hours, Justice League is a short film in comparison to director Zack Snyder’s previous efforts. That said, it’s two hours too many for this shambles of a comic book movie. It’s a mystery Snyder is still allowed anywhere near these projects given the mess he has already caused in the DC Universe, which has so far been severely disappointing. It’s difficult to describe the plot given there isn’t really much of one, but simply put, Bruce Wayne aka Batman (Ben Affleck) sets out to put together a team of super-humans to fight an alien enemy, headed by the unsubtly CGI’d Steppenwolf. Batman’s team compromises of Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Mamoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher). The movie picks up where last year’s Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice left off, both narratively and in terms of quality or lack thereof. Snyder clearly hasn’t learned his lessons from the critical response of his previous effort as this is just more of the same loud, over CGI’d and poorly written nonsense that we had to endure last year. The entire film is just one over-egged fight or explosion after the other, much like we have come to recognise with Snyder’s movies. There is absolutely no attention to character detail and there are far too many moments in the movie that leave questions unanswered and the whole thing makes absolutely no sense. There was a shining light for the DC Universe with the entry of Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman which added a bit of colour and charm to what was a bleak cinematic franchise. And you can’t help but feel sorry for Gal Gadot who doesn’t deserve to be in such a mess of a movie after her efforts earlier this year, as she is by far the best thing about Justice League (though that’s not saying much). Ben Affleck has already discussed leaving the franchise and it’s clear to see in his performance that he isn’t keen on staying there too much longer. Little can be said for the other characters in the movie, as we’re either not offered a a full understanding of them or they are just plain annoying. This obviously isn’t helped by the shoddy writing of Snyder who is less concerned about making sense of the movie and instead wants to make a giant spectacle of shouting, fighting and blowing things up over and over again. The dialogue is also incredibly poor and nonsensical, again reiterating what a dour job of writing these DC movies Snyder has done. Yes, Justice League is a superhero movie and therefore shouldn’t be over-analysed, but the Dark Knight movies, along with every Avenger movie, has proved that comic book movies can carry substance and portray more than a vast spectacle. But when a director like Snyder is at the helm, unfortunately that is exactly what we have come to expect and that is what we get from Justice League. Once again, he produces a boring mess of a superhero movie which deserves so much better. @SceneItMovie sceneit3.wordpress.com

On Sunday night, my friend and I came to the decision that it was finally time we crawled out of the pits we students call beds, and head to our nearest Curzon to watchThree Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (McDonagh, 2017). We staggered in from the cold, with smuggled bags of popcorn, sweets and other junk we could manage to remotely hide as we flopped into our seats. Despite being told multiple times by a variety of people that the discovery of a 50p bag of popcorn stuffed under my jumper, will not lead to my dismissal from the cinema with my head buried in shame. Nevertheless, the myth haunts me to this very day and I choose to walk in with the same sweat on my brow, as if I were walking through customs with a bag of heroine strapped to my stomach, instead of a bag of Nik-Naks from the corner shop. Finally settled, I allowed my excitement to take over. I have been eagerly waiting for a film that dares to delve down the tricky path that is dark comedy. Three Billboard executes the genre flawlessly and managed to send both my friend and I on a rollercoaster of emotions, discussing uncomfortable topics, exposing us to brutal violence and even accomplishing laughter here and there amongst the upsetting drama. We follow Mildred Hayes, played by Frances Mcdormand, a stern, seemingly emotionless woman who demands justice over the painful loss of her daughter. Sadly, her daughter was brutally raped and murdered with not a peep to be heard from the police over catching the monster that inflicted such agony. Mildred begins to take matters into her own hands and sticks up three billboards to mock and encourage Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) to come out of hiding and find the culprit. Of course Mildred’s act of vengeance brought attention from the media which only helped bring the case to light. However, the billboards also attracted negative attention and much backlash, especially from Deputy Dixon (Sam Rockwell), an emotionally unstable and abusive character with mummy issues coming out the ying yang! Sam Rockwell’s performance has to be the most challenging and simultaneously, the most captivating throughout the entirety of the film. Without giving too much away, Rockwell manages to make the transition from a notoriously hated, senseless being to an empathetic and caring character seeking redemption. However, it seems that the film did not hold a real ‘hero’ so to speak. McDonagh has produced multiple characters who are flawed and enduring the suffering that life, unfortunately, has to deal out in one form or another. I think that’s what I enjoyed the most, the fact that you were able to connect with a majority of the characters because of the realism they portrayed and how they all dealt with pain and grief in their own individual way. I think it’s safe to say that Mildred can be regarded as the epitome of girl power throughout the film. Her straight faced, determined, ambitious, don’t f**k with me attitude truly places her above all the men that attempt to stand in her way. She chooses to ignore and challenge those that argue her approach is too cruel, such as her abusive ex-husband Charlie (John Hawkes), Chief Willoughby and Deputy Dixon. Mildred’s drive and spirit fuels the story to the point where the audience almost feels the need to jump on the bandwagon of the fiery rage that burns within her and demand justice. Mildred pulls out a massive two fingers towards the naysayers and sticks to her gut, despite those closest to her attempting to sway her decision at any given opportunity. Although sad at times, McDonagh has carefully balanced the melancholy with wittiness so hopefully you will not be put off and think the story is nothing more than bleak and depressing. Nonetheless, there is a light at the end of tunnel and I hope that light leads to an Oscar!

Phantom Thread, the latest collaboration between auteur director, Paul Thomas Anderson, and notoriously method leading man, Daniel Day-Lewis, is a sumptuously indulgent audio-visual banquet. Viewing feels like peering into an old music box and dancing along with its inhabitant, who delights in dancing with you until the box inevitably slams shut. In the voyeuristic fashion of Hitchcock et al, Anderson, taking on DP duties as well as directing, provides a window into the life and mind of a character who stares right back at you with relish or avoids your gaze with belligerent contempt. A trademark idiosyncratic performance from Day-Lewis brings Reynolds Woodcock and his House to life and he, in the vein of There Will Be Blood’s Daniel Plainview, makes you believe that the world might just revolve around him. In a post-Weinstein landscape, the tale of an ageing eccentric efficiently negging a perpetual stream of young assistants until he tires of them and his sister subsequently sends them packing is as exasperating as it sounds, however, Reynolds Woodcock, dress-maker extraordinaire’s charm and attraction is undeniable: abusive relationships are not so black and white; in fact, they are an ambiguous rainbow of assorted fabrics. Woodcock is insatiable: he intensely joyrides down country roads late at night, gorges himself on interminable breakfast orders and sews ‘phantom threads’ into the dresses of the rich and famous for the sheer intrusive satisfaction of being the only one to know they are there. Phantom Thread questions the, up until very recently, unquestioned authority of the rich, white man and explores the means and effects of saying no to somebody who has never been told no. A music box will always wind down, although, one can always restart it. This is the nature of Reynold’s work and his relationships. The exhaustive passion of a true artist requires a down period to wind back up after such an expenditure of energy; this is the Woodcock way, anyway. One must waltz up and down in all of life’s endeavours with all the sporadic enthusiasm of a manic depressive. Whether this is a true vision or the cliche’d aspirations of a dress-designer who deems any alternative to be boring is all part of the enigma that is the Reynolds Woodcock ensemble. Such theatrics stem from the odd oedipal longing for his deceased mother. Reynolds’ takes great comfort in the omnipresence of her spirit, seemingly showcasing his performance for her audience of one at the expense of any poor soul who may cross his path. Such performance is inevitably unsustainable. Alma, Reynolds’ ultimate concubine, as most real girlfriends do, sees through his theatrics and falls for the vulnerable, spoilt little boy within. Tending to him in sickness and enduring him at his most pretentious and backhanded she becomes the mother that he needs and that his sister can not be. As Reynolds’ handler and superego, Lesley Manville cements the undercurrent of creepy to the House of Reynolds by actively enabling his behaviour. Alma, of unspecified European heritage, brings a previously unheard voice and perspective to The House of Woodcock and the ensuing friction is delightful. With each of Reynolds’ attempts at chastising her, be it a scolding for spreading butter too loudly on toast, “it’s like you just rode a horse across the room!”, or him commending his own “gallantry” for eating her sub-par asparagus, Alma’s unashamed, simmering defiance is inspiring. Vicky Krieps entirely holds her own across from Day-Lewis, a dynamic entirely integral to their diegetic relationship. Their bi-polar romance seems to hit a crescendo of bitterness when a twist that makes all the sense in the world imbrues their cyclical music-box love. The period-drama is a genre that oozes lavish nimiety in terms of costume and mise-en-scène, however, the world of post-war fashion offers an unforgettable feast of excess. Found in meals, costumes, language and character there is something about Phantom Thread that is worryingly titillating, the type of excitement garnered only through the admiration of something truly awful. The film is a masterclass in putdowns, sharp as needles, grounding fleeting romantic notions of muses and love-at-first-sight in the longitude of harsh reality and forcing its characters to face up to their rash decisions and the consequences of their lifestyles. The film’s score, composed by frequent Anderson collaborator, Jonny Greenwood, is as delectable as any of the films visual feasts which range from elaborate meals to perfectly framed characters. Strings and piano that, at times, would be at home in a horror film weave their way through the film with the delicacy and strength of fine stitching, tightening the piece which has a relatively short runtime of around two hours, giving it the emphatic abruptness of a Reynolds Woodcock retort or the oppressive claustrophobia of a haute couture bodice. The House of Woodcock is a house of death but its residents are very much alive. Indulgent, selfish and in total need of one another Reynolds, Alma and Cryil will haunt its halls and my mind for a very long time to come. An absolute masterpiece.

(Release Info London schedule; January 25th, 2019, 63 - 65 Haymarket, Westminster, 20:00 PM) "Second Act" As Maya Vargas (Jennifer Lopez) celebrates her 43rd birthday, she has one wish. A promotion. After 15 years at 'Value Shop', the past six as assistant manager, she’s ready to run the big box store in Queens. Her resumé doesn’t scream upper management, but her track record sure does. She’s an innovator who listens to customers, knows what they need and finds a way to deliver. But 'Value Shop' hires 'the right man for the job', a man with an 'MBA', not 'GED'- certified Maya. Maya’s boyfriend Trey (Milo Ventimiglia) and best friend Joan (Leah Remini) try to boost her spirits, but Maya is frustrated as once again street smarts doesn’t equal book smarts. Was her entire future determined when she was 16, or can she actually reinvent herself in her 40’s? Maya’s prospects brighten when she lands an interview at the Manhattan consumer products firm, 'Franklin & Clarke'. When Maya’s friends show up to make breakfast before her first day at 'Franklin & Clarke', a spontaneous 'Salt-N-Pepa' dance party breaks out in the kitchen. Anderson Clark (Treat Williams) wants to meet her and invites his daughter Zoe (Vanessa Hudgens), a rising star at the company, to check out Maya, too. While Zoe is skeptical, Anderson is dazzled by Maya’s ability to think on her feet, not to mention her 'Wharton' degree, 'Peace Corps' service, 'Mastery Of Mandarin' and overall power player vibe. But unknown to Zoe, her father, and initially even Maya herself, those credentials were invented by Maya’s godson, who surprised her with a brand-new online identity for her birthday. Thanks to her years of experience working at 'The Value Shop' Maya lands the job, although she’s uneasy about the deception, and unsettled about her other secrets, she’s confident she can do the job. Her first day at 'Franklin & Clarke' pits Maya against Zoe in a big product development competition. 'Franklin & Clarke’s' heavy hitters align with 'Team Zoe', but Maya and her tiny crew of corporate misfits are determined to succeed. Maya Vargas, a born-and-bred Queens girl, is having her 'Is that all there's'? moment when "Second Act" begins. She's disappointed when we meet her first. Maya has ridden the bus to 'The Ozone Park Value Shop' in Queens for 15 years. Each day, she puts on her smock and name tag and handles the store’s business with a firm and friendly hand. She knows she has what it takes to be the boss. The problem is convincing the chain’s 'CEO' that she’s qualified. But Maya, still wrestling with choices made as a teenager, has lived with regret ever since, and it’s holding her back. The people close to her would say she’s suffered long enough. But Maya has never even told her longtime boyfriend about this part of her life, and keeping that secret from him adds to her burden. Maya really is an every person. We all have dreams and often don't achieve them all. Maya is a person who made certain choices because of things that happened early in her life. There's a lot of regret about how it could have been different. As she tries to climb the ladder and things don't go her way, she sees some of those past decisions as the reason. But then she gets to cross the bridge! With that crossing, she becomes 'Manhattan Maya'. The film shows how women support each other through thick and thin. Maya is destined to be bigger than her friends. Joan is focused on being a mom, but wants Maya to get her chance. She believes that out of all of their friends, Maya is the one who will make it. But when Maya starts to lose sight of who she really is, it’s Joan who keeps her grounded. Of course, not every woman is as supportive. Hildy (Annaleigh Ashford), the product development executive assigned to work with Maya, sees her as a rival. They’re supposed to collaborate and come up with a product together, but Hildy wants to be top dog and will do anything to get there, including stomp on her fellow lady. She’s also one of the first people to see through Maya, and question if something else is going on. Zoe, 'The CEO’s' ambitious daughter, has her guard up, too. Zoe is not Maya’s biggest fan when she arrives at 'Franklin & Clarke'. She’s another woman. Another woman is a threat. But gender is also the reason Zoe’s attitude quickly changes. To see another woman hold her own in a male-dominated space is something that most women look up to. Zoe respects Maya and through that, they form a connection that Zoe didn’t expect. Maya in Queens is a bit sassier than 'Manhattan Maya', with a big hoop earring and bigger hair. Attitude! Borough girls naturally know how they want to look because they’re exposed to a lot of street style. Maya becomes the chic girl in Manhattan, some silks, some softer silhouettes, without completely abandoning the original. Because you can't do that. It's not a lobotomy. The original has to remain there to be believable. You always have to consider what a garment is going to do in a scene. It's not only the look of something, you've to tell the story. It's not a fashion runway. It's interesting for people to see combinations they wouldn't have thought of. This film is about reinvention, because so many people are stuck in lives they don’t want dreaming of lives they do, only to realize they had the power all along to change. It's about a woman who feels she never got a fair shake. But then she gets an amazing opportunity, albeit not entirely honestly, that changes everything for her. Maya learns she does not have to be stuck forever. You can always reinvent. You can always make a change. You can always keep growing and to me that message has so much relevance for everybody, but especially for women. She gets to know what life is like when your dreams come true. And of course she has to deal with the fall-out of lies while achieving the goal. In one of the favorite scenes at Michael Jordan’s 'The Steak House N.Y.C.' at 'Grand Central Terminal'. Maya, Zoe and her dad are having lunch when Maya’s Queens friends, posing as old 'Ivy League Chums', pop by to check on their girl. The film gets all of the women together and we see them interact, and that’s when the real soul of the movie comes out. "Second Act" inspired many conversations about second chances and reinvention and not giving up. About women empowering themselves and each other. About not letting one event become your whole story. About going for your dream, no matter your age or background or zipcode. This movie itself is a reminder that everything deserves a second look, a second chance. It's coming to the world at a time where people need to be reminded you just have to get creative when you’re thinking about what you’re going to do with the next 40 years. "Second Act" always means the second act of the show, when all the good stuff happens. It’s where we back up the story; it’s where the hero confronts their biggest battles, and where we've the opportunity to make the biggest, boldest choices. The mantra for "Second Act" is the only thing stopping you is you. You don’t have to hide. You really can just let all those feelings go.

(Release Info U.K. schedule; January 26th, 2018) "Maze Runner: The Death Cure" In "The Maze Runner" Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) woke up as he was being delivered to "The Glade'. He had no memory of who he was or why he’d become a member of a community of young people; among them Minho (Ki Hong Lee), lead maze runner; Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), a good friend and advisor, Gally (Will Poulter), a leader and adversary and Teresa (Kaya Scodelario), the only female glader, with whom Thomas may have a potentially dark history. Together they're trapped, surrounded by 200 foot walls and an ever-changing maze. Bad turns to worse when 'The Gladers' finally escape 'The Maze' only to discover they're in the middle of a desolate wasteland called 'The Scorch'. In "Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials", Thomas and the surviving gladers met new allies while discovering clues about a mysterious group behind all of their tests, an organization known as 'WCKD'. With "Maze Runner: The Death Cure" the motives of 'WCKD' become clearer, Dr. Ava Paige (Patricia Clarkson), 'WCKD’s' executive director is close to what she believes is a cure for the disease known as 'The Flare', an infection that has decimated the world’s population. But the cure comes by sacrificing the few young people left in the world who are apparently immune. In order to free those who've been rounded up as test subjects, including his friend Minho, Thomas must now band together with fellow survivors, old and new, and take the battle to what may be the last remaining city and the final stronghold of 'WCKD'. He must break into the super-secure 'WKCD' headquarters and try to bring down the organization from the inside. Action reaches new heights in this mission-oriented third and final segment of 'The Maze Runner". "The Maze Runner" was the first of a trilogy of stories based on the James Dashner novels. In the original 'Maze Runner' the involuntary inhabitants of the mysterious encampment knows as 'The Glade' were surrounded by an ever-changing maze with 200 foot walls. They're a colony of young men with a singular goal; escape the glade by solving the maze. When Thomas showed up and, shortly after, 'The Glade’s' first girl inhabitant Teresa, everything began to change. The way out led them to the truth; they're members in an immense and cruel test. In "Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials" 'The Gladers', as they're now known, discovered that once out of the maze they're not the only participants forced to endure tests. There were in fact other mazes, other survivors and they were to learn of the organization that had selected them, 'WCKD'. Thomas, who had become the presumptive leader of the group, didn’t trust the message he was hearing that 'WCKD' is good. Breaking free from the compound where they’d been housed after being rescued Thomas led the survivors of the original maze and others he had encountered in the new facility out into 'The Scorch”, a desert wasteland that appeared to be all that was left of the world. Looking for a rumored safe haven, the group became trapped when Teresa, conflicted about 'WCKD' and it's true mission, gave up the hidden location of the surviving assemblage and a 'WCKD' resistance group known as 'The Right Arm'. Having been betrayed by Teresa, and vowing to save Minho, who has been abducted by 'WCKD', Thomas concluded 'The Scorch Trials' with a single declaration to kill Ava Paige. The woman who had become synonymous with the organization enigmatically named 'WCKD' had now become his nemesis. When "Death Cure" opens, it's clear the team have had time to come up with their plan. They're a different group, organized and on the offensive. It’s a plan so audacious it requires that they steal an entire moving train car in their attempt to save Minho. "Maze Runner: The Death Cure", picks up roughly six months after "The Scorch Trials" ended. In the final battle of 'The Scorch' the survivors of 'The Flare', a disease that has devastated the world’s population, have defined their purpose; to find a safe haven away from the influence of 'WCKD'. Uncertain if this last city had even survived, 'The Gladers' knew that somehow gaining entry would be difficult. To then break in to the 'WKCD' headquarters where Minho was being held, that was impossible. In the first movie the challenge was to solve the maze, to break out of 'The Glade'. A big part of the group, led by Gally, wanted no part of that. They looked at 'The Glade' as their home and they were safe. 'In Scorch Trials' we're out of 'The Maze', had a building to live in and were taken care of but there was a price to pay.  In "Death Cure", Thomas wants to break in to the place that caused all of this to save his friend Minho, which he promised he’d do. Most thought it was a crazy plan. The Thomas character is someone that takes that step forward into the unknown when everyone else takes a step back. It’s a film about not leaving a man behind. And that's Thomas’ journey. Newt is skeptical of it, so are some of the other 'Gladers'. You've a big choice to make when you’re going after one man who has been captured, what do you do with all of those other young people who you’re trying to save? How does that balance out? So it’s a conundrum of sorts. As the target of Thomas mission, Dr. Ava Paige sees the 'WCKD' agenda as a very challenging moral dilemma. She's someone who truly cares for the immunes but she has a drive to succeed that's above all else. It’s an almost heartbreaking relationship with Thomas. If there’s someone who can deeply affect and touch Ava, it’s Thomas. She goes on to explain how failure isn't something her character handles easily. And she has that very powerful line to Janson (Aidan Gillen) when she says, 'it’s not about giving up, it’s actually knowing when you’ve lost'. As much as all the characters have maintained the family bond through the first two films, this time with a direct assault on 'WCKD' the strategy has become one of divide and conquer, requiring the group to split into teams to become even stronger. She has a very strong agenda, obviously, and people’s feelings, thoughts, emotion are not a large part of her life. What's important to her is survival. As we moved through the three episodes, through the three installments, in this third one you see a slightly more personal side to Ava. You see how she lives in a way. You see she’s more affected by human contact or human interaction. Ultimately you find out in the end she really thought she's doing the right thing. Janson is an employee if you like, of the 'WCKD' corporation. But a very ambitious employee. He’s almost like a secret policeman or something. The Janson character is initially introduced into the story, or to the kids, if we can call them that, as providing a potential way out or maybe a good guy within this corporate prison environment. But it turns out he wasn’t that. We got to see that through the course of the film. At this stage in the story he's even more driven and ruthless and reckless and ambitious you know, with an eye running the show. Though Ava Paige is behind the ever-repeating message 'WCKD' is good there’s plenty of doubt about that in Brenda’s (Rosa Salazar) mind. She doesn’t believe for a moment that 'WKCD' is the altruistic organization they present themselves to be. They’re trampling on the people in order to make money while at the same time telling people we’re trying to help. They’re harvesting the serum from innocent children. They’re trying to capitalize on a very devastating epidemic. They’re not doing it for us, and they’re not doing it for the good of the people, and they’re not doing it to save lives, they’re doing it so that they can make a coin. In the first film, 'The Gladers' primary goal was to escape. In the second film, they're on the run, staying barely a step ahead of 'WCKD'. Now, as they turn the tables and are on the offensive they find help from an unlikely source; Gally. Thought to have been killed while turning against the others in the last moments before escaping 'The Maze', their old companion and Thomas adversary is on the forefront of the war against 'WKCD'. As many fans of 'The Maze Runner' novels know, Gally makes his surprise return in the third book. Gally was the one who, when back in the maze, never wanted to rock the boat. Now, he’s back and he’s a soldier leading the war against 'WCKD'. The others, especially Thomas, don’t trust him but now Gally wants to defeat 'WCKD', he wants to bring them down. As 'The Gladers' pursue their mission to rescue Minho, they also have a chance to save many of the other immune children captured by 'WCKD' and to be used as test subjects. The tests 'WKCD' is conducting are their attempt to see if the immunes might have what's needed to make a serum to cure 'The Flare'. The first film, with 'The Maze', was all cement and decay. The second story was the sand and rust of 'The Scorch' and this film, "The Death Cure", is a world of glass and steel. They each have their own tone and color palate. But it’s the world of steel and glass, a world that 'The Gladers' are not even certain exists that will become the target as they take the battle to 'WCKD'. The battle against 'WKCD' actually started at the end of 'Scorch Trials'. In the third book there’s this whole idea of a resistance, a group opposed to 'WCKD'. Having the warring factions show up at the end of the second movie is a slight deviation from the book. There are things that aren’t exactly like the book but they’re inspired by the books. The fans of the books are very loyal to the stories and very protective of them but some things just work better in a cinematic universe. The whole movie’s really a rescue mission and it’s a special sequence in this exciting trilogy. "Scorch Trials" started at the exact moment that the first film ended. With this film, it been about six months and you can see that these guys have been busy. They’ve taken that time to get organized, to come up with a plane and to go save Minho. You’re in a place where people still band together and they rise up. Where people have an interest in what’s going on around them and they say it and they vocalize it and they fight. People here, they will fight, they will rise up. Having rescued a train car full of young people, all immune to 'The Flare', headed for the test labs of 'WCKD', the ultimate goal is get everyone to the safe haven. Once again, it's a place that no one was sure really existed.   The locations are absolutely stunning and unique and you’re getting a little bit of a throwback to 'The Maze', 'The Grievers’ might make an appearance you get sort of everything. It’s a culmination of all three books and "The Death Cure" really brings it all together. It’s an amazing adventure. The design is fantastic. It’s very easy to act on those sets, you know. It’s not like, oh here’s a white wall and over there it just stops and there’s a bunch of people standing around. It really feels like a world that you can inhabit, like the real thing, because it’s all there. You know you can walk down that corridor and there’s another corridor and you can walk into that corridor and there’s a lab and then it brings you back to the other corridor. It’s quite easy to feel it. It’s not only giant but it’s also very specific in that it reflects a modern day dystopian western.

Working both as a prequel and as a sequel to the original 1972 masterpiece, The Godfather: Part 2 feels more as an operatic and more complete story of decay, sin and moral ambiguity within the Corleone mafia family. The two main storylines show the contrast between the two Dons, as we get an inside on how similar and different in the same time they are and how they manage to climb on the social class. Whilst Vito (in a beautifully nuanced performance by a young De Niro) has humble beginnings, starting as a store clerk, but through a sheer of circumstances manages to take his shot and climb, Michael continues his legacy with an iron fist and not taking any risks, ordering the hits on every family who try to make him an enemy: „If history has taught us but one thing is that you can kill anyone!” It’s here where the movie works as a Shakesperean tragedy, a story about a man who is winning everything, who ends up being at the top, but losing everything and everyone in the same time. Al Pacino’s magnetic and sometimes understated performance ranges from a flawed father and husband to a confident and untouchable mobster, a cruel Don feared by everyone around him. The scene in which he talks with his ageing mother about his fear of losing the ones he holds dear always strikes as the best and most truthfully humane, and represents the moral core of the story as it brings in context yet again the importance of family. This is why the ending, in which we see a solemn Michael, sitting in the chair, all alone, staring in the abyss is so powerful. Robert De Niro’s portrayal of young Vito Corleone is one of an ambitious and intelligent young man, that learns the value of respect and loyalty in a foreign country. While his narrative opens with the killing of his brother and mother, at the hands of the local sicillian boss, it also ends with his personal vendetta against him, and his success in launching the most powerful mafia family. So, if Michael’s story is one of a moral failure, Vito’s is one of triumph against all odds. It’s one of the many reasons why this film works so well even now. It’s almost a parody and an ironic look at the American dream. Copolla’s direction is subtle and epic in the same time, relying on scenes in which his characters act unexpectedly, with a lot of dark nuances in the color palette of the film’s latter half. He also manages to avoid exposition at all costs. The longest and the darkest in the trilogy, The Godfather: Part 2 is the best one, not because it’s bigger and broader, but because it’s bold and it takes risks, it expands its characters and universe while remaining true to them, and by the end you’re compelled by the magnitude and power of it. Daniel Craciun