One thing is for sure. If you ever decide to go into the advertising billboard business don't plan on using Ebbing, Missouri as your launch pad. They make would-be advertisers use giant sized billboards on back roads where no one will see them and where eventually they will fall into disrepair. This is where Mildred, (Frances McDormand) comes in. A curmudgeonly and waspish woman, who is seeking action from the local police in finding her missing daughter and, we must assume, her daughter's eventual killer. Mildred decides to rent the billboards to grab police attention and advertise in oversized black text the lack of police commitment. The numerous preposterous situations in this film can be attributed to a lethal combination of a writer who feels ill at ease with story telling and then fatally treats his words as holy writ. He should have had a strong director with him to flag up the flimsy logic and horrid clichés. A director who wouldn't let him get away with it. Unfortunately, when the two of them got together, their admiration for each other's work was so intense and resilient, they just couldn't bring themselves to openly question the other's thought process. But they must have both had their suspicions about each other because tanker loads of midnight oil have been burnt beavering away on adding bits to get the plot to catch up and explain itself. Sadly, this film lacks that thread of logic that must exist for an audience to truly believe in the plot. Logic should be the cornerstone. Give an audience a logical story and they will follow. Toy Story, Superman, etc. all fantasy, but all fiercely logical. In any event, both the writer and the director finally gave up on logic and relied instead on three huge, sleight of hand performances to cover any inconvenient truths. For a start it has no sense of location. There are few stores in this town. There are no grocery stores or McDonalds or anything - or if there are we don't get to see them. We just don't know where we are - or even in what time zone. But hang on, I'm forgetting that's not necessary because it's in the title. It's Ebbing, Missouri. And it's about Three Billboards. And they're outside town. Now, just like the lack of stores in Ebbing, the townsfolk are sparse and a weird bunch too. There aren't that many of them but all have presumably been extras in Westerns for most of their lives and as a result stand around on Main Street watching meekly as one of Ebbing's finest, a twerpy, semi-literate cop (Sam Rockwell) inflicts violence on the aforementioned, mild mannered citizens. But no one notices. No one complains. It's as though a part of this town has been set aside to allow a manic theatre troupe to indulge in a sub-culture of idiocy of truly Truman Show proportions. There's the obligatory drunk police chief - no wait a minute, that's Sam Rockwell, he's the drunk but he's not the chief. The police chief is Woody Harrelson and he has a terminal illness but other than that, only the scantest of other clues to his character. We know he is married to a young Australian girl (Abbie Cornish). Who says Hollywood can no longer contemplate a ludicrous age gap? But the Cornish character was presumably on a doomed domestic flight from Sydney to somewhere when she found herself stranded in the twilight zone that is Ebbing. Harrelson and Cornish have two children who are cute and play a curious fishing game by themselves on the edge of a lake. This allows their parents to treat themselves to some off screen hanky-panky and because of this, their children's safety is rather secondary. Harrelson's quiet performance, in a wonderful white shirt, has echoes of Jeff Bridges in 'Hell or High Water'. Although that's where the comparison ends. He really exists only in the mind of the director or writer, or both of them, to compose three hand written letters that will get our director or the writer off a troublesome hook and make everything right for everybody. Then, finally there's Frances McDormand as Mildred , our Three Bill Boards girl. Now, anyone who has seen Ms. McDormand in previous productions will have fond memories of Fargo and Blood Simple and Olive Kitteridge and so on. But, and let's be clear about this, Frances McDormand could waltz through this sort of script while asleep. On a stretcher. In the dark. A ground breaking performance it is not. It's as though she planned to try something else but, and Pavlov was right on this, as soon as an actor sees a red light and hears a bell many of them just can't help but deliver their stock performance. In McDormand's case it's from her Sour and Harsh canon and regrettably she will not develop beyond this now as an actress. So what does all this strange little film add up to? Probably, just like La La Land, it proves you can fool all of the people some of the time - even an Oscar jury. My memory of Three Billboards will be the indulgent script and lack of editing and Sam Rockwell's strange haircut and Frances McDormand's relentless bandana and strange haircut and Clarke Peters flashing his cop's badge a little too early - so when an elderly 'Sidney Poitier' shows up in town our surprise is muted. Oddly, and this is a clue to how a film can mask the insubstantial talent of the writer and director, the minor roles here only serve to amplify the massive theatricality of the principal performances and the production as a whole. And so it will fade away and get an Oscar for something and the game can go on.

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.

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?

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.

The monsters in horror films are rarely just monsters. Psychoanalysts thrive on the opportunity to analyse a horror film. Monsters are the Other that we expose in order to kill and reinstate normality. Monsters are the part we don’t like about ourselves. Monsters are communism, technology, gays, lesbians, depression, patriarchy, sexual abuse, our past – you name it. Sometimes the filmmakers are well aware of this and they shape their films with they want to convey, others don’t realise it until they read a criticism online. Nevertheless, if it can be explained on the screen, then the filmmakers have to accept it. How the films are analysed and interpreted are beyond their powers, and once it has been shown on the big screens, then it us up for discussion. Jennifer Kent wasn’t aware she was directing a film that presented a metaphor for depression, but in the end it is what she ended up doing. The Babadook (2014) became known for being a film to shine a light on women filmmakers, on subtle horror at a time when horror films were relying mainly on jump scares, and for exploring the undertones of depression in the narrative. Kent just wanted to tell a simple story about a boy that finds a book and ends up inviting a monster into his house. Once the depression metaphor was put forward as an interpretation of the film, it is almost impossible to watch it without finding clues and, honestly, it is hard to believe Kent didn’t think about it whilst making the film. The Babadook is a monster that lives inside the mother and turns her into a monstrous figure, making her violent towards her son. Even if it wasn’t Kent’s intention it was done well. The film was praised for its good representation of the mental illness, especially its ending, where the character of Amelia accepts the monster as part of her life and lives with it, instead of being in constant fight with it. She tames the monster and acknowledges its power, but she also nurtures it and moves on without letting it dictate her life. On the other hand, a film that deliberately wanted to create a metaphor for depression and backfired was David F. Sandberg’s 2016 Lights Out. Sandberg stated he wanted to portray the disease as he suffered from it and had seen it taking the best of people who were close to him. He turned the monster in his film into a vessel for depression, but the way he did it was painful to watch. Although it was a good film once we turn a blind eye for the problems, some are hard to ignore. The character of Sophie, played by Maria Bello, has to take care of her son, Martin (Gabriel Bateman), after the death of her husband. So far, the story is the same as The Babadook, but then we learn that Sophie had also abandoned her older daughter, Rebecca (Teresa Palmer), when she was a small child. The use of Sophie as reckless and terrible mother due to her depression is harsh. Moreover, the use of the word “crazy” is thrown around to justify Sophie’s behaviour and Sophie herself won’t take antidepressants because, as she says it, she is not crazy. To represent antidepressants that way when it already deals with preconceptions and it is a taboo in our society is negligent and ill-advised. In addition, blaming the mother and her depression for everything bad that happens in the family is beyond victim blaming. The only good thing about this narrative is Martin’s love towards his mother, who despite being put in danger still loves and wants to help her – The Babadook all over again. All of which could have been accepted if in the end we had been presented with an intelligent storyline as Kent did with The Babadook, but no, I was shocked to see that the old trope of “killing the monster to reinstate normality” was used. Sophie commits suicide to kill the monster (as it exists in her head) to protect her family, therefore conveying the idea that suicide is a good way out when it comes to depression to save others from the distress of living with someone who suffers from mental illness. That comes from a director who stated he wanted to talk about depression as his friend took his own life because of it. A noble attitude, but done in a bad way. Sandberg defends the ending by saying that it is not actually a happy ending as he has ideas for a sequel in which he plans to explore the effects of Sophie’s suicide through the eyes of her children, stating that they were not “saved” from her mother’s death, but deeply ruined. The film’s use of depression as a toxic burden on the family proves that the film should’ve stayed in the two and a half minutes format instead of creating a feature film and tainting the memory of a good scare. The Babadook and Lights Out have different monsters but similar undertones - Lights Out was intentional whilst The Babadook wasn’t. Both features were short films beforehand, the difference is that Monster, Kent’s 2005 short film, had more space to work and develop the not only the characters, but also the narrative, welcoming the interpretation of depression; whereas the fame of the short version of Lights Out should have been enough for the filmmakers since creating a longer adaptation only showed the limitations of the story, and it became the perfect example of a short film that should have remained a short, and the monster should have remained a monster.

There’s an old adage that says that movie’s are basically empathy generators’; their job is to present you with characters and circumstances that are unfamiliar to you, and would probably never happen to you, and make you connect with them and care about them, within a timeframe of two hours. The greatest movies do this so well that you don’t even notice it, you just find yourself crying with the film, laughing with it, cringing from it, and pumping your fists in the air for it, all because it put in the effort to make you care about the people in it. So, if a movie’s success is measured in how well it makes you care about the lives of the people in it, then “The Big Sick” is one of the most successful movies of 2017, because no other movie made me care, connect, and just plain feel for its characters quite like this wonderful, small, little miracle of a film. “The Big Sick” is based on the real-life romance of Kumail Nanjiani and Emily Gordon. It tells the story of how they met, how they fell for each other, the trials and tribulations they go through, and their eventual reconciliation. It’s a classic romantic comedy plot, filled with all the familiar tropes and beats that one gets used to seeing in this kind of film. But, the movie does something curious; as it unfolds this familiar tale of two young, struggling 20-somethings falling in love, it weaves in a whole host of other stories, the story of a group of young comedians who are helping each other succeed and trying to find their own unique voice, the story of an immigrant family trying to come to terms with its native identity and how it fits in the “melting pot” that is the US, and, most movingly, the story of an older couple that’s facing the prospect of their daughter dying, and the perspective that starts to offer them. Don’t be fooled, “The Big Sick” is a loaded film, deceptively weaving heavy and heady themes into a seemingly simple romance story, but always making sure to anchor that heaviness and thematic weight in the two utterly charming performances from Kumail (playing himself) and Zoe Kazan (subbing in for Emily). However, that’s not to say that “The Big Sick” is a tear jerker, filled with emotional monologues and teary confessions. It is, in fact, a remarkably light film; and most of the film’s most memorable moments come from the expert comedic chops of its cast (and the deft comedic writing of Kumail and Emily, both of whom have worked on some of the best comedy material of the past 10 years). This is a movie made up of small moments, of light conversations and little asides that reveal small but vital details about the characters that make them so relatable, so familiar, so lovable. By the end of the movie, you feel like you’ve known these characters your whole life, like you’ve lived with them, laughed with them, cried with them, shared these significant moments with them. It’s not just Kumail and Emily, it’s Emily’s parents (played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano, in what would, in any other film, be show-stealing performances), it’s Kumails family (including his father, mother, brother, and sister-in-law), it’s even his fellow struggling comedians who seem to serve as some sort of Greek chorus, always ready with a snarky or smarmy line about Kumail’s current conflict. “The Big Sick” is an oddity in terms of summer theatrical releases, it’s not a multi-million dollar blockbuster, it doesn’t derive its power from powerful world-ending moments of grandeur or from the sheer scope of its filmmaking. This is an intimate film in every sense of the word, a film that derives it’s emotional power from the normal, every day little problems that all of us go through, but in showing it to us through these characters, it gives us just as much emotional catharsis as a thousand apocalyptic epics, and it creates a movie that’ll stay with you long after the credits roll.

‘Manchester By The Sea’ absolutely floored me. Kenneth Lonerghan has written and directed a movie that is essential viewing. Through a beautifully written screenplay and performances that felt so real like you were experiencing these events with the characters, ‘Manchester By The Sea’ is not only the best film of 2016 but a really important one too. Our main character Lee Chandler lives a solitary life in Quincy, Massachusetts in Boston when he receives a call plunging him straight back to his old hometown Manchester in New Hampshire. We flick from the past to the present seeing Lee in a dramatically different light in each waiting with baited to breath for the revelation of what happened to him. How did this truly happy outgoing man turn into an empty shell? ‘Manchester By The Sea’ has some truly harrowing scenes that are not for the faint of heart even though it tries to balance it with some humour. I hope you decide to see it and stomach through though because it deserves it. While you could say that overall the plot moves at a slow pace not at one point was I disinterested or bored. I truly cared about not only what happened to these characters externally but how they affected each other positively or negatively as well. This is in large part due to the mesmerising performances given by Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Lucas Hedges and Kyle Chandler. Casey Affleck completely transformed into his role as Lee Chandler. If ever there was a time to say that he has finally escaped his brothers shadow, it is now! The nuances of his performance was breathtaking. I can’t talk about the other character’s plot without spoiling so I will focus on their performances only. Michelle Williams broke my heart with a truly memorable scene that will stay with me forever. I can’t overstate how much Lonerghan and these actors nailed relationships between real people and how much more tragically beautiful it made the film. Lucas Hedges has a great career ahead of him with this being undoubtedly a breakthrough performance. I can’t wait to see what he does next. I imagine he has all the choice in the world after that performance. Kyle ‘Chandler’ (the irony) has impressed before in the Netflix series ‘Bloodline’ and ‘Wolf Of Wall Street’ but I think this is his best performance to date. The cinematography was very interesting. During small conversations between small groups of characters the camera was very tight and personal but then when dramatic events would take place the camera was much further away giving shots an epic feel which only heightened the shocking scenes taking place. Jody Lee Lipes and Lonerghan did a great job capturing the feel of each scene. The soundtrack in ‘Manchester By The Sea’ was perfect and hit all the right emotional points masterfully. Rarely am I watching a film and thinking about the soundtrack and if I am it’s because it is either distracting or expertly woven into the film with precision and care. ‘Manchester By The Sea’ is beautiful and tragic both at the same time with enough humour to stop it being a miserable drag. The film balances all of this perfectly, presenting a portion of these characters lives truthfully and honestly. I cannot express how much I want people to see this film. In an industry full of cash ins and regurgitated plots we have already seen, cinematic experiences like this need to be applauded and appreciated.

(Release Info London schedule; February 9th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 18:30) "The Mercy" This is the incredible true story of Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth), an amateur sailor who competed in the 1968 'Sunday Times Golden Globe Race' in the hope of becoming the first person in history to single-handedly circumnavigate the globe without stopping. With an unfinished boat and his business and house on the line, Donald leaves his wife, Clare (Rachel Weisz) and their children James (Kit Connor) and Rachel (Eleanor Stagg) behind, hesitantly embarking on an adventure on his boat 'The Teignmouth Electron'. "The Mercy" is the story of Crowhurst's dangerous solo voyage and the struggles he confronted on the epic journey while his family awaited his return is one of the most enduring mysteries of recent times. Not long after his departure, it becomes apparent to Donald that he's drastically unprepared. His initial progress is slow, so Donald begins to fabricate his route. His sudden acceleration doesn’t go unnoticed and he soon emerges as a serious contender in the competition. Donald’s business partner, Stanley Best (Ken Stott)), had reminded him that he could pull out at any time, however, the consequences to his family from such a decision are unthinkable; Donald has given himself no other choice but to carry on. During his months at sea, Donald encounters bad weather, faulty equipment, structural damage and, the most difficult obstacle of all, solitude. One by one, his fellow competitors drop out until it's only Donald left to challenge Robin Knox-Johnston (Mark Gattis), who's first to complete the round trip. As the pressure from what awaits him back home increases, Donald faces his toughest challenge, maintaining his sanity. When he receives word from his press officer, Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis), of the recognition and celebrations awaiting him upon his return, Donald’s mind finally breaks.'The Teignmouth Electron' is found abandoned off the coast of 'The Dominican Republic'. Donald’s scrawled logs are inside, filled with ramblings of truth, knowledge and cosmic beings. Back home, his wife Clare is left without a husband, his children without a father. Donald Crowhurst was born near Delhi in British colonial India in 1932 to John and Alice Crowhurst. At the age of eight he was sent to an Indian boarding school where he would spend nine months of the year. Two years later, his parents moved to 'Western Pakistan'. After 'The Second World War", aged fourteen, Donald was sent back to England to board at 'Loughborough College'. His parents returned to England in 1947 when India gained Independence from Britain and the Partition took place. His father ploughed all of his retirement savings into an ill-fated business deal in the new territory of Pakistan. The Crowhurst’s life in post-war England was a far cry from colonial life. The lack of funds forced Donald to leave 'Loughborough College' at the age of sixteen once he passed his 'School Certificate', and sadly his father died in March 1948. After starting as an apprentice in electronic engineering at 'The Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical College' in Farnborough, Donald went on to join 'The RAF' in 1953; he learned to fly and was commissioned. He enjoyed the life of a young officer and was described by many as charming, brave and a compulsive risk-taker who defied authority and possessed a madcap sense of humour. After he was asked to leave 'The RAF', he promptly enlisted in the army, was commissioned and took a course in electronic control equipment. He resigned from the army in 1956 and went on to carry out research work at 'Reading University' aged twenty-four. Crowhurst is remembered as being quite dashing and he caught the attention of his future wife Clare at a party in Reading in 1957. Clare was from Ireland and had been in England for 3 years. Apparently he told her that she would marry an impossible man. He said he would never leave her side and took her out the very next evening. Theirs was a romantic, whirlwind courtship that took place over the spring and summer of 1957. They married on 5th October and their first son, James was born the following year. It was at this time that Crowhurst began sailing seriously. He secured a job with an electronics firm called Mullards but left after a year and aged twenty-six, he became 'Chief Design Engineer' with another electronics company in Bridgwater, Somerset. His real dream was to invent his own electronic devices and he would spend hours of his spare time tinkering with wires and transistors creating gadgets. He also found solace in sailing his small, blue, 20-foot boat, 'Pot Of Gold'. Crowhurst designed 'The Navicator', a radio direction-finding device for yachting and set up his company 'Electron Utilisation' to manufacture and market the gadget. Donald and Clare’s family expanded with the arrival of Simon in 1960, Roger in 1961 and Rachel in 1962 and they lived happily in the Somerset countryside. When 'Electron Utilisation' hit financial difficulty, Crowhurst was introduced to Taunton businessman, Stanley Best, who agreed to back the company and Best eventually sponsored Crowhurst’s attempt to circumnavigate the world in the trimaran 'Teignmouth Electron'. With the Empire gone, in 1960s Britain there developed a phenomenon where men sought adventure, recognition and heroism. Sending men to the moon was something Britain couldn’t afford, so instead, heroes came in the form of people like Francis Chichester who was the first person to tackle a single-handed circumnavigation of the world, starting and finishing in England with one stop in Sydney. Upon his return in 1967, Chichester was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II and instantly became a national hero. Capitalising on this wave of interest in individual round the world voyages, 'The Sunday Times' sponsored 'The Golden Globe' race, a non-stop, single-handed round the world yacht race. No qualifications were required for entrants but the rule was that they had to depart between 1st June and 31st October 1968 in order to pass through 'The Southern Ocean' in summer. The trophy would be awarded to the first person to complete the race unassisted via the old clipper route, of the great Capes; 'Good Hope', 'Leeuwin' and 'Horn'. The newspaper also offered a cash prize of £5000 for the fastest single-handed navigation. Nine sailors started the race, four retired before leaving 'The Atlantic Ocean'. Chay Blyth who had no previous sailing experience, retired after passing 'The Cape Of Good Hope'. Nigel Tetley was leading the race but sank with 1,100 nautical miles to go. Frenchman Bernard Moitessier rejected the commercial nature of the race, so abandoned it but continued sailing, completing the circumnavigation and carried on half way around the globe again. Donald Crowhurst’s 'Teignmouth Electron' was discovered mid-Atlantic, 1,800 miles from England at 7.50am on 10th July 1969 by 'The Royal Mail Vessel', Picardy that was en route from London to the Caribbean. On inspection, the trimaran was deserted and a subsequent 'US Air Force' search for Crowhurst followed to no avail. British sailor Robin Knox-Johnston was the only entrant to complete the race. He was awarded both prizes and subsequently donated his £5000 prize money to Clare Crowhurst and the Crowhurst children. Donald, the head of the family is an amateur sailor, an inventor, a dreamer and a fantasist, so when he sees a competition in 'The Sunday Times' offering £5000 to the first man who circumnavigates the earth single-handedly, without stopping, he dreams that he could do this. Chichester had sailed around the world recently, stopping once and he was knighted upon his return and became a hero. It’s a story about how boys and men become fixated with becoming heroes. Donald has a lot of madcap ideas which often didn’t get carried out, so at first when Clare hears he’s going to enter this race, it’s such a preposterous idea to her, because he’s not a professional sailor, he’s just pottered around. She believes he would actually do it. Slowly but surely it dawns on her that he’s getting closer and closer to actually going and there’s a moment where she asks him, are you really going to go, and he says yes. The question is, could Clare Crowhurst have stopped her husband from embarking on this risky challenge? Perhaps he would have been stoppable, but from my viewpoint, it’s a portrait of a marriage and a relationship and what would have happened had she stopped him from going? Would he ever have forgiven her? In a relationship, can you stop the other from living out their dreams? In this case, it turns out to be tragic decision. In the moment, she didn’t feel like she has the right to. She's in an impossible situation. It sort of becomes two films, the one at sea, where Clare and the children are not there, and then there’s the family home, waiting for news of her husband and their father who's becoming a national hero whilst he’s at sea. Clare has to deal with the press, with long periods of silence and Christmas and birthdays without him. She also has to deal with having no money to buy food or heat the house without him because Clare depended on Donald for money. Clare is a very progressive thinker. Most people would be aghast at the prospect of their husband setting off on this kind of adventure, but Clare understood how fundamental it's to his being and that casts a really interesting light on their relationship. What makes it so romantic is the fact that they’re separated because that’s what old school romantic with a capital ‘R’ means, something that’s unattainable, unfulfilled and broken. That’s why it’s tragic because they're yearning for each other while they're separated. At that time in history, men were leaving their homes and crossing new frontiers, be it in outer space or circumnavigating the world. Rodney Hallworth is a larger than life character, a former crime reporter for 'Fhe Daily Mail', he ended up living in Teignmouth running a local news agency and acting as PR for 'Teignmouth Council'. He offers himself up as Donald Crowhurst’s press agent. The story takes quite a dark twist with Hallworth. With the role he plays in embellishing what’s going on. He’s not complicit with what Crowhurst is doing, he actually believes he’s going round the world but, he’s not receiving enough information from Crowhurst so he starts to get a little creative and exaggerates the speeds and the whereabouts of Crowhurst on the map. This doesn’t help the world understand the real story, it doesn’t help Crowhurst’s family and it doesn’t help Crowhurst because Hallworth is reporting it as a certainty that Crowhurst has rounded the tip of Africa. Crowhurst hadn’t and therefore this made it increasingly difficult for him to give up and turn back. Hallworth is the man who pushed Crowhurst when the boat wasn’t ready to go and he's the man who says, you’ve got to go, there’s too much to lose. Crowhurst cites Hallworth many times in his log as being the main person he would be letting down, as well as Stanley Best who was his sponsor. He feels that his wife Clare would be more understanding but Hallworth wouldn’t. Hallworth also exhibited dubious, Machiavellian traits, not least when he went aboard the 'Teignmouth Electron' in 'The Dominican Republic'. He entered the cabin and found the logs and discovered the truth. He discovered the rambling, the diaries and the insanity and a very high likelihood of suicide so he ripped out the final two pages of the log, then negotiated the sale of the logs to 'The Times Newspaper', without Clare Crowhurst’s permission. Whoever he's, that's not cool. We can forgive him for some of his part in the story, but not for what he did at the end. Hallworth isn't completely the villain of the piece. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do and he exaggerates Don’s story as it’s being conveyed to him from the boat. He embellishes it and adds to the lie. He feels cheated and as a tabloid crime reporter, he feels he’s been had. So, his anger and indignation are personal but also professional. We can see where he's coming from at the end. Stanley Best is a shrewd, successful businessman who’d makes his money as a caravan dealer in the coastal town of Teignmouth, Devon. He's a very ordinary man of no distinction who grabs the opportunity to be part of something quite splendid. The relationship with Donald Crowhurst is friendly. Stanley likes him very much. It seems that Crowhurst is the kind of man anybody could like because he's charismatic. Stanley didn’t do anything just for the hell of it. He isn't a big risk taker. He likes things to be neatly sewn up. That contributed greatly to what could be considered a modern Greek tragedy in it's immensity. It would have been acceptable for Crowhurst to come home but Stanley Best put that pressure on him. Best blames himself in many ways but the family reassured him, that they didn’t hold him in any way responsible. The irony is the tragedy. Donald Crowhurst's story is an extraordinary and haunting tale of a man going to sea and the family he leaves behind. The film celebrates the beauty of being a dreamer, the beauty of thinking big, wanting great things and following one’s passion and one’s heart towards doing something incredible. Crowhurst’s is a real story, a true story, but it’s definitely a mythical story of the sea and it sort of seeped into the culture as an example of British amateur sailor over-reaching. The idea of hubris-nemesis is built into the story. It’s an absolutely fascinating and compelling narrative. A man has an ambition and ambition doesn’t end up ennobling him, it ends up corrupting him, and tragedy then ensues. It has a very interesting perspective on the unravelling of a human mind. It just gives you a sure foundation if people make these choices and you’ve to understand their story in a dramatic context. They’re real choices and you have to reckon with those and there’s something more persuasive about that than some fictional stories. There are always turning points that you look for in a true story as it gives you a larger insight into the human psychology and you can be constantly surprised by the choices people make. In our era, a true story seems to be one that people increasingly respond to. The film carries out painstaking research and delved deep into the heart and soul of what made Donald Crowhurst tick. Crowhurst has a series of failures, if you like, and he escaped the failure by rolling the dice bigger on the next adventure. He was a man of enormous energy and charm and that energy and charm led him into decisions like the ones he made in joining the race, for example. He had enormous self-belief as well, and people around him substantiated that. He managed to fund and build that boat, so there’s a danger of overlooking what he achieved in this story as well as what he didn’t achieve. He achieved enormous amounts. He was a fairly inexperienced sailor but he wasn’t as inexperienced as some people think he was. He hadn’t sailed the ocean properly, yet he built this very fast trimaran, but the boat wasn’t fully tested and finished. He made a pretty good go at sailing round the world; he stayed out in the ocean for the best part of seven months so all in all, he achieved much more than people ever thought he could, he just didn’t achieve what his objective was. It was a case of over-reach, it was hubris and that's what caused the tragedy of his demise. There are quite a few books out there and great raw materials that he left behind, his logbooks, his diaries and letters he wrote to his wife. He sings on the tapes, mostly sea shanties and he speculates about the state of the world, about politics, about his own life. It’s extraordinary really, some of that's a persona but some of it also is the truth. That’s the great joy of this kind of film, you get a chance to research and the more you know the more you want to know. The public persona Donald Crowhurst created through his tape recordings and the way he talks to his family and people on dry land were, increasingly divorced from what he was feeling and experiencing. In the film, he becomes primitive essentially. He’s stripped of civilisation and becomes much more elemental and that’s shown in his physicality, he loses weight, doesn’t wear as many clothes and starts to look like a vagabond on the boat. The mental journey is much more interesting than the physicality and the film brings that to the character. The sea is like a desert. It’s also mercurial, it has moods, it changes, and it threatens you. But, all you’re seeing is a horizon and a sky. The sea changes colour, it can be stormy and it has this sort of personality that can destroy you. The isolation is a huge part of what goes wrong in Crowhurst’s mind. Your brain chemistry changes when you don’t speak to people. When a real-life character is portrayed on screen, there comes a certain responsibility to the memory of the person and to the feelings of loved ones. "The Mercy" is a version of a story that we think has some truth to it. There’s no definitive version apart from the reality of what actually happened. You capture and distil it somehow into a dramatic form or a documentary form. There's a duty to respect that character and to be sympathetic. There’s a kind of Donald Crowhurst in all of us, we all dream of some kind of glory. In the culture we live in now, we’re encouraged to reach beyond our lot or our station. Crowhurst could have made it and it would be a very different story. It’s about somebody who is a dreamer and he gets caught up in a kind of white lie. Everybody exaggerates a little bit now and then to suit his or her story but obviously, this is a very extreme version of it, therefore it makes good drama. Donald Crowhurst is immensely human and relatable. He’s not a strange, un-understandable being. He’s very understandable. The essence of the film is celebrating him as a kind of romantic hero.

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

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

(Release Info London schedule; November 8th, 2019, Vue Cinemas, 3 Cranbourn St, Leicester Square, London WC2H 7AL, UK, 20:15 pm) https://www.myvue.com/film/midway "Midway" The story of 'The Battle Of Midway', told through the experiences of the 'WWII' leaders and sailors who fought it. The film starts from 'The Japanese' perspective. It introduces you to a world of culture, honor, and respect. We've an industrial tone for the scenes with 'The American' characters, and then this old world, a more traditional view that you can see in the richness of the colors of 'The Japanese' ships. They've a lot of wood components. Even on the bridge they've real cabinetry. It makes for a lot of brass and mahogany, and warmth, right down to the white gloves worn by the officers. It’s about the beauty of their ships. The Americans didn’t think about their ships as being beautiful, that way. It begins in December 1941 with 'Pearl Harbor' and ends in June with 'The Battle Of Midway'. It's the most dramatic six months in the history of warfare. "Midway" envisions a fresh look at this pivotal battle told for a new generation, with characters who share powerful bonds. The film follows three story lines, depicting three interwoven perspectives on the battle. “One is the pilots aboard the aircraft carrier 'USS Enterprise', mainly Dick Best (Ed Skrein), Clarence Dickinson (Luke Kleintank), and Bruno Gaido (Nick Jonas), who are historical figures. A second storyline follows the critical work of 'Naval Intelligence' officer Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson); a code breaker, Joseph Rochefort (Brennan Brown); and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Woody Harrelson) in 'Pearl Harbor'. The third storyline centers on 'The Japanese' officers, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Etsushi Toyokawa), and Japanese officers Tamon Yamaguchi (Tadanobu Asano), Kaku Tomeo (Nobuya Shimamoto) and Chūichi Nagumo (Jun Kunimura), who are historical characters, as well. Dick Best is the unsung hero of "Midway", a tough-as-nails Jersey guy, and a 'Navy' flyboy working his way up the chain of command as 'WWII' unfolds. A natural leader despite a tendency to get short with guys who aren’t as daring as he's, Best is a risk-taker whose flying skills are first rate; he's the one to fly with if you want to come back. Best is a true American hero whose exemplary performance, both leading his men and courageously flying his plane during 'The Midway' battle, resulted directly in turning the tide of war. There’s a real emotional journey for Best. You see several versions of Best throughout the story. First, there’s the cocky guy who turns off his plane’s engine to prove to himself he knows how to land without it. After 'Pearl Harbor', you see the relentless Best, who’s on a one-man mission to win the war. During the war, Best loses some pilot friends, which begins a dark night of the soul for Best, and we see him at his absolute lowest. Best only opens up to two people: his wife, Ann (Mandy Moore), daughter Barbara (Sarah Bublavy), and his closest friend, Clarence Dickinson. They help him overcome his losses and we ultimately see a Best with all of his old qualities and emotional literacy and intelligence. He's a true leader of his men. Dick Best has been overlooked, in a way. He's a humble guy, and Midway is his last battle because of an injury sustained while flying. In this story, Best stands for all those unsung heroes who fought for our freedom. What happened at 'The Battle Of Midway' changed the world, but this story is also rooted in a man whose strength and lifeline is his family. Edwin Layton is a 'Lieutenant Commander' in 'The U.S. Navy', whose job is interpreting intelligence information for military strategy. Layton works closely with Admiral Nimitz and a group of brilliant decoders, and soon discovers that 'The Japanese' are planning an offensive on 'Midway Island'. Though Admiral Nimitz, who commands 'Allied Air, Land And Sea Forces' during 'WWII', has received contradictory intel from 'The White House', Layton is willing to bet his life, and the lives of countless sailors and aviators that his Midway intelligence is correct. A man who takes his work to heart, Layton spends many long days and sleepless nights in the service of his country. Edwin Layton is an extremely accomplished intelligence officer in 'The United States Navy' who happened to have served in Japan, and is fluent in 'The Japanese' language. During 'Pearl Harbor', he's the lead intelligence officer assigned to the commander. He describes the weight that fell upon his shoulders after that intelligence failure and how he feels this obligation to try to make up for what has happened. Like many who work in 'Intelligence', he's very analytical. When you’re talking about 'Military Intelligence' in the 1930s, and eventually the ‘40s, they're many people who didn’t quite understand it because it's all so new. If you work in 'Intelligence', you're different from the average soldier or seaman. He knows exactly what he's saying, when he converses with Admiral Yamamoto, as he does early in the film. There’s not only a strength but also a globalist point of view when you've someone that’s stationed there that can speak with Yamamoto in his native tongue, knowing that Yamamoto speaks English. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz is given the position of 'Commander In Chief Pacific Ocean Areas', after 'Pearl Harbor', which a fellow officer calls, the most difficult job in the world. As Nimitz faces the entrance of 'The U.S.' into 'World War II', with fronts in Europe and 'The Pacific', he enlists the help of intelligence officer Edwin Layton to provide him with information so he can throw a punch to 'The Japanese' to let them know what it feels like to be hit. Nimitz winds up working closely with Layton, and despite pushback from 'The White House', Nimitz takes a chance on Layton’s intel regarding 'Midway Island', a seminal battle that changed the course of 'World War II'. Nimitz is an amazing figure in military history. He's a man who, at the beginning of 'The Second World War', is coming to a natural end of his career. But after 'Pearl Harbor', 'The Navy' realized they needed someone who could go out there, reinvigorate everyone and make them realize we can win this war. Nimitz is also an incredibly tough man. Notoriously, once when he's giving a tour of a submarine he gestured and a piece of equipment caught his thumb and tore part of it off. He insistes on finishing the tour before seeking medical attention. There’s this iron Texan core to Nimitz that makes him the perfect guy to rebuild a shattered Navy after 'Pearl Harbor'. After 'Pearl Harbour', there's a lot of pressure on 'The United States' to rebuild these ships quickly, and do what they could to become a power. Admiral Nimitz is the right man for the job. He's a relentless, hard-working, and thoughtful guy who makes critical decisions that changed the course the war. Wade McClusky is a courageous and tenacious risk-taker, who's in charge of the torpedo and dive bomber pilots on board 'The USS Enterprise'. McClusky briefs the men on their missions, giving them intel on what to expect from 'The Japanese' forces. In the cockpit, McClusky takes big chances that could either pay off, or land him scrubbing potatoes at Leavenworth. McClusky is an outstanding 'Lieutenant Commander' and a true hero who's fully prepared to go back into battle, despite sustaining an injury, until his commanding officer orders him to sick bay. Through his intelligence, courage, and sheer luck, McClusky makes a vital contribution to the victory at Midway. McClusky is a squadron commander and a gifted pilot. He decides, on a hunch, to turn and follow this Japanese destroyer that ends up heading back to the main fleet. If he has simply followed the route he's supposed to fly, the history of 'The Pacific War' would have been very different. McClusky is a little older than the pilots he’s in charge of. He’s been around longer and experienced much more than they've, and he leads by example. What McClusky does in a pivotal moment in 'The Battle Of Midway' makes him one of the heroes of the war. McClusky and his closest friend, Dick Best, find common ground through losing friends and understanding what the other is going through. As much as "Midway" is a film with huge set pieces and big airborne battles, it’s also about a brotherhood and the union of these pilots risking their lives on a daily basis. Courageous, resourceful, respected and beloved by his men, Jimmy Doolittle (Aaron Eckhart) is the leader of an Army bomber squadron. Admiral Halsey (Dennis Quaid) thinks Doolittle may be the best goddamned pilot in the world. Doolittle is planning a mission to attack Japan, which would be a huge psychological blow to the enemy forces, because 'The Japanese' believed their defenses are impregnable. Blown off-course mid-flight, Doolittle winds up bailing over China. Fearing his entire squadron has been lost, he makes his way through the countryside until he’s welcomed by a 'Chinese Major'. Doolittle is a daredevil and like many daredevils, he likes to push all kinds of boundaries. 'The Doolittle' raid is, militarily, not particularly successful. A handful of bombs are dropped but, strategically, it's of massive importance because 'The Japanese' high command has promised both the people and 'The Emperor' that it's impossible to attack Japan. This assault by Doolittle’s 'B-25' bombers proved that they're either incorrect or lying. It's a huge embarrassment that led 'The Japanese' military to decide that 'The United States' carrier fleet has to be neutralized as soon as possible, which led them into 'The Midway Operation'. Also, it's important from a psychological standpoint, both in making America feel like it has finally struck back on some level, and 'The Japanese' people realizing that it's high command is not infallible. Doolittle and his men knew they wouldn’t have the necessary fuel to return to the carrier. There are '72 Doolittle Raiders' and they all agreed to go on the mission, despite the incredible odds against it's success. Some of them ended up in the sea, many of them crashed, and some died. One team ended up in Russia and has to make it's way back. When 'The Chinese Military' finds out who 'The Doolittle' bombers are after they've crashed, and the mission they've just accomplished, they treated them like kings. They shepherded many of them through China, and then eventually back to 'The United States' Ann Best is extremely proud of her husband, and is an equal match for her husband’s brains and fiery personality. She’s also the one with whom he lets down his guard, and shows some vulnerability. Ann joins the other stoic, but worried, Navy wives when their husbands go off on the Midway mission. She’s strong and courageous. They've a young daughter and Ann is determined to keep her family together at a time when many husbands are encouraging their families to move away from the warfront. Ann and Dick are real partners in their relationship. There’s a deep mutual appreciation, and affection for one another. You’re not just seeing the heroics of these men. You’re getting a slice of their home life, with their families and wives, and a better understanding of what they’re fighting for and what’s at stake. Admiral William Halsey commands 'The USS Enterprise', an aircraft carrier stationed in 'Pearl Harbor'. As Halsey deals with the aftermath of 'The Pearl Harbor' attack and the encroachment of 'The Japanese' in 'The Pacific', he’s faced with the challenge of 'The U.S.' forces being outnumbered by Japan. He’s a stalwart leader who’s not afraid to do what’s necessary to get his best men in to do the job that’s required. Although Halsey is ill, he insists on continuing to work, until he’s ordered into the hospital by Nimitz. Halsey is no fan of 'The Army' brass and is known for taking matters into his own hands. He has his own style, and is brash. But his connection with his men makes him a great leader, particularly of so many inexperienced and young men, some of whom are little more than boys. They look at Halsey as a father figure who's going to get them through this. Bruno Gaido, a Naval radioman, is extremely brave, and very confident about it. He catches the attention of Admiral Halsey through an act of astonishing courage on a carrier, prompting Halsey to promote him immediately. During 'The Battle Of Midway', Gaido is forces to bail from his plane and winds up on the deck of a Japanese destroyer. Lieutenant Clarence Dickinson is a courageous, highly skilled dive bomber pilot, who almost died during 'The Pearl Harbor' attack but lives to fight another day. He’s a good friend of Dick Best, with whom he flies in formation. Though Best is frustrated with his own lack of advancement, Dickinson understands what’s holding Best back from being in command; an obsessive pursuit of perfection from himself and everyone around him. A seasoned pilot who doesn't like the odds of the upcoming Midway mission, Dickinson proves to be as fearless, focused, and effective as any hero of 'WWII'. The commander of the fighter plane 'Torpedo Six', Eugene Lindsey (Darren Criss) is Dick Best's superior officer, and he doesn't appreciate Best’s annoying habit of criticizing his pilots for being too slow, and challenging orders mid-operation. But Lindsey is a courageous officer who earns Best's respect by leading his squadron, despite being injured in combat. Lindsey did several tours and is stationed in various places in 'The United States'. He did a post-graduate degree in aeronautical engineering at 'MIT', when he was in his 30s. By the time we meet Lindsey in this film, he has a pretty storied life of being a man of the sea and a pilot. That kind of courage is pretty extraordinary and inspired a lot of these men at this point in the war. They're fueled by this very raw sense of retribution that needed to be gained after something as devastating as 'Pearl Harbor' James Murray’s (Keean Johnson) laconic North Carolina drawl frequently belies the terror he feels flying as Dick Best’s radioman. Murray doesn't have the same damn the torpedoes mentality as Best; he's frequently worn to a frazzle flying with the relentlessly risk-taking pilot. But Murray perseveres to fly with him because he knows that with Best’s skills in the cockpit, he has the greatest chance of making it home. As 'The Battle Of Midway' progresses, Murray's nerves go to pieces, and he asks Best to turn back. Exhausted and demoralized by the thought of going once more into battle, Murray receives an honest pep talk from Best, igniting his own heroism. Murray is Dick Best’s rear gunner and radioman. He’s juggling two jobs at the same time while being shot at by Japanese planes. Murray basically shoots at the enemy pilots and gives Dick Best the information he needs to safely find and destroy oncoming aircraft carriers and get home safely. He’s not into being a daredevil. Murray wants to do exactly what’s in the rulebook and stick to that. Murray’s an introvert and just wants to do his job. He’s not looking to win a medal, he’s just looking to do his time, to fight for this cause but not sacrifice himself. In the end he learns that he actually would die for his country and sees many of his friends perish. He definitely learns not to take it for granted. "Midway" is a true epic and it’s told at a certain level of scope that’s now become common in superhero and science fiction films. The film centers on 'The Battle Of Midway', a clash between 'The American' fleet and 'The Imperial Japanese Navy' which marked a pivotal turning point in 'The Pacific Theatre' during 'WWII'. The film, based on the real-life events of this heroic feat, tells the story of the leaders and sailors who used their instincts, fortitude and bravery to overcome the odds. It’s a real-life story of brotherhood and camaraderie, and the determination and sacrifice of real-life military heroes, to secure an American victory. Having been decimated by 'The Japanese' attack on 'Pearl Harbor' only six months earlier, 'The U.S. Navy' is desperately outmanned and outgunned heading into 'The Battle Of Midway'. 'The U.S.' military held on to one great advantage; it's intelligence operations and collective grit, are strongly underestimated. The film takes audiences deep inside the complex decision, making of 'The United States’ tactical command, and then straps them inside a bomber cockpit to experience the most visceral on-screen telling, of the greatest battle in 'U.S.' warfare history. These men faced down tyranny and fascism with their very own lives, strapped into planes known to be inferior to those of their enemies. "Midway" is the event that transformed the war in 'The Pacific', basically preserving democracy and freedom in 'The U.S.' and 'The Western World'. Because of them we live in a free world today. True life can sometimes be the most powerful storyteller. Young people today don’t always know the stories about those who fought for their freedom. That without the generation who fought in 'WWII', our world would be very different. There's a lot of hardship and a lot of people died for it, but they died for a reason. There's a real fight against fascism going on in the world. Today we sometimes forget about these things, but movies can serve as a vivid monument to them. "Midway" is an homage to all the sailors who lost their lives at Midway, both American and Japanese. The film honors that fight and those who gave so much. The scope of it and the changes that happened over the six-month period between 'Pearl Harbor' and Midway are some of the most compelling events in history. What really moved is the willingness, and the spirit, behind those who suffered from the attack on 'Pearl Harbor'. You can even see allusions of 'Independence Day' in this film. But most of all, it’s about the fight against an idea that's starting to consume the world at the time. Unlike science fiction, however, "Midway" is firmly based in historical facts, which reveal themselves throughout the course of the film. The film discovers this wave of new scholarship, where 'The Japanese' side of the story is finally being told in English. 'The Japanese' in this story are just as brave as 'The Americans', although with far more tragic outcomes. Politicians start wars, but never fight them. It’s the common soldier who ultimately pays the price. It's important to show how the Japanese fought as honorably as 'The Americans' in 'The Battle Of Midway'. That points to the film’s themes of loyalty, brotherhood, sacrifice and bravery, all of which transcend generations. "Midway" will transport audiences back in time. It shows an America that's not a superpower, and which has just come out of 'The Great Depression'. The country initially tries to stay out of a war but 'Pearl Harbor' changed all that. It's a simpler time, but it also is a time where you've to put your life in danger for ideals. This film isn’t just a tribute to the actions of the people who served in 'The Second World War', but also to the people who continue to put their lives on the line defending us. It looks back at a moment where there was a sense of patriotism and national unity, an understanding of our shared common values, why that’s special, and how, when we pull together, we can achieve something remarkable in the face of impossible odds. It’s a lesson for all of us about uniting in spite of our differences.

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.