Search Results

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

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.

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.

When a musical about circus performers set in the mid 1800-s opens with a song which sounds like it could be straight off of the 2018 charts, you can be fairly confident that you are in for an experience you will remember, for better or worse. You could probably say the same about a trip to the P.T. Barnum museum funnily enough and – like the museum – this movie features more than enough pizzazz to keep eyes glued to the attractions despite possessing something of a grimy underbelly. The Greatest Showman is director Michael Gracey’s feature film debut but it doesn’t feel much like it. Whether this is because he was wise enough to surround himself with experienced people, or whether It’s because he himself is particularly talented is anyone’s guess. But what is without question is that this movie had direction, the quality of which is obvious from every assured arc and sweep of the camera. Mechanically and stylistically almost everything here is on point. The songs are catchy as all hell, the choreography is always solid; occasionally wonderful, the costume design feels incredibly authentic, the editing shows some real flair for scene and location transitions and there are one or two genuinely stunning shots. The only mark against it here is a few uses of CGI which could charitably be described as ‘a little on the cheap side’. If you want a movie that provides songs which will stick in your head accompanied by all the stimulation that lights, colours and engaging camera work can provide then you will get what you’re after here. However - and it’s a pretty big ‘however’ - movies need to tell a story, and most of the narrative elements here are lacking. Chief among which is the fact that no one in this movie who hasn’t also played Wolverine gets to do very much actual acting. And listen, I like a good sized helping of Hugh Jackman in my movies; who doesn’t? He’s like Hollywood’s cool dad. But there are other characters in this movie and other stories waiting to be told, and for the most part they’re barely explored. Zac Efron (who is actually really good with what he is given) is set up in a potentially interesting love triangle with Zendaya, but her current partner at the start of the film (played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is - amazingly - unable to do much character work with the whole one line of dialogue he has. So what you end up with is a Zac Efron / Zendaya love story occasionally interspersed with cutaways of Abdul-Mateen looking unhappy for some reason. Character development, or the lack thereof, is a real issue. There are problematic elements of the story being told that are omitted or changed, presumably to make everything more palatable, although I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject. Barnum was, by all accounts, a bit of an exploitative bastard, so when the film tries to hammer home a poorly-judged message about the value of family and your roots in the final act it comes across as white-washing a fairly questionable character’s actions in service of telling a nice story. And it’s a bit of a shame that in 2018 a movie about weirdos and outsiders didn’t do more to compare the prejudice and judgement these characters faced to the experiences of those deemed 'abnormal' by today's society, especially since it had already bridged that gap with the stylistic choice of using modern music in a period film. However, I don’t want to criticise The Greatest Showman for what it isn’t. What it is, despite a script which keeps the narrative incredibly simple and takes the term ‘character development’ to mean that you’re only supposed to develop literally one character before stopping, is an incredibly fun movie. It doesn’t address the social issues it perhaps should, it doesn’t tell a story of any real substance and it doesn’t give it’s supporting cast enough to do, but when the lights come up and the music starts you might well find yourself forgetting any of that because the presentation is so exceptional. This is a wonderful musical, which fails only in the areas that many other (incredibly popular) musicals also have before it, and viewed as such it has to be considered a success for Gracey and co. Jackman's character at one point states that people come to see his shows for the pleasure of being hoodwinked, and that’s a mentality which would well serve people who view The Greatest Showman. You’re not coming here to see the presentation of an actual mermaid, you just want to be lied to for a bit. Here, it is possible to lose oneself amongst the bright lights and the dazzling musical performances. Escapism of this quality is rare, even if it fails to truly capitalise on it’s potential.

‘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.

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

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Ron Clements and John Musker direct Disney’s Oscar and Golden Globe-winning animated adaptation of the classic Hans Christian Andersen tale about a mermaid who defies her father and visits the surface of the sea, where she falls in love with a human prince. Disney animated features The Fox and the Hound and Oliver & Company didn’t do particularly well when they were first released but now are regarded as classics and I can understand why. When The Little Mermaid was released, it was a huge critical and commercial hit – the first big success that Disney had since The Rescuers 12 years earlier. The Little Mermaid is also credited with being the movie that started the Disney Renaissance and it is very easy to understand why. So successful, it spawned a direct-to-video sequel called The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea 11 years later and a direct-to-video prequel titled The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning 8 years after Return to the Sea. The movie also inspired a television series of the same name, a prequel detailing the events of Ariel’s underwater adventures before she encountered a prince. It’s also possible that a live-action version will be made and this will be absolutely fascinating to view and look forward to. The story of The Little Mermaid concerns Ariel (Jodi Benson), a 16-year-old mermaid who is struggling to get with her father King Triton (Kenneth Mars), who is the ruler of Atlantica. Triton strongly forbids her to go to the surface, because he strongly believes that humans are dangerous. However, one of her visits to the surface sees her meet a handsome prince and she falls in love with him. Ariel believes that humans are not that dangerous, so she is determined to become human. She strikes a dangerous deal with a sea witch named Ursula (Pat Carroll) and she becomes human for three days. But the plans for the star-crossed lovers go badly wrong, leaving Triton to make the final decision for his daughter. Jodi Benson gives a superb voice performance in her role as Ariel (what she is best known for) and she suits the role so well and also proves that she can sing very well too – she hits high notes to perfection. Jodi Benson is also good as Vanessa (Ursula’s alter-human ego). There is a very good voice performance to be had from Kenneth Mars in his role as King Triton, the ruler of Atlantica who makes his feelings very, very clear towards his youngest daughter. Samuel E. Wright is good as the crab Sebastian who has to keep an eye on Ariel’s every move, while Jason Marin is good as Ariel’s best friend Flounder the fish and Buddy Hackett suits his role as Scuttle very well – Scuttle provides the best moments of humour in the film, which is definitely a good thing because it means the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously. Pat Carroll voices the role of Ursula the sea witch to an excellent standard – she really does – giving the most memorable role of her career. Carroll said that she wanted to play a villain after playing a number of nice characters – this part was perfect for her. The direction from Clements and Musker is very good because they allow the facial expressions to be seen to a very strong effect throughout, most notably on Ariel and King Triton with the scenes that they share together, while the script is very well written by the two directors as they make the movie very easy to follow. The technical elements of the film are very impressive, with the set, cinematography, music, and visual effects standing out best – the set is very decent to look at; the camera makes very good use of the locations the movie uses and also captures the tense and dramatic moments well, getting the edge-of-the-seat status; the music is very enjoyable to listen to at all times – Alan Menken has done an absolutely terrific job with his score and he can be very proud of this; the visual effects are excellent, particularly with King Triton’s trident and the bubbles the movie uses (apparently over 100 bubbles were drawn – for an animated feature – this is very impressive). In terms of the songs the movie has, Part of Your World (which very nearly didn’t make the final cut) stands out very well as Ariel keeps on believing that she wants to be a human girl and the audience now knows exactly what dream she wants to achieve. Kiss the Girl is very enjoyable to very listen to when Ariel and Prince Eric are having a boat ride, while Poor Unfortunate Souls is good and sung very well by Pat Carroll. However, the best song in the movie, by a mile, is Under the Sea, sung brilliantly by Samuel E. Wright, where Sebastian desperately tries to convince Ariel that life is so much better for her Under the Sea (he does literally try everything to stop Ariel from getting into trouble from King Triton). In terms of the major awards, The Little Mermaid deservedly won Academy Awards and Golden Globes for Best Original Score (Alan Menken) and Best Original Song (Under the Sea – music by Alan Menken and lyrics by Howard Ashman), while Kiss the Girl was nominated in the Original Song category at both ceremonies. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association also nominated The Little Mermaid for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy and this nomination was deserved and I do feel that this was unlucky not have to been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. Overall, The Little Mermaid is one brilliant adaptation of the classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen that is guaranteed to bring a smile to your face.

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

(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.

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.