Search Results

(Release Info UK schedule; May 8th, 2020, Curzon Home Cinema) (Virtual Screening) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-the-whistlers-film-online "The Whistlers" 'The Romanian New Wave' goes global in 'The Whistlers', the latest eccentric yarn from director Corneliu Porumboiu. Not everything is as it seems for Cristi (Vlad Ivanov), a corrupt police inspector in Bucharest who plays both sides of the law. Embarked by the beautiful Gilda (Catrinel Marlon) on a high-stakes heist, both will have to navigate the twists and turns of treachery and deception. This twisty gangster noir opens on 'La Gomera', where Cristi is sent against his will. In a downright whimsical turn, he’s there to learn the region’s aboriginal whistling language, which he needs to pull off an elaborate plot right under the noses, or rather ears, of 'The Romanian Police'. As the film’s labyrinthine plot unfolds with clockwork precision, revolving, of course, around a stash of money, there are twists, turns, and double-crossings aplenty, involving not just Cristi’s also-corrupt superior Magda (Rodica Lazar), but also his mother (Julieta Szönyi), and femme fatale Gilda. A secret whistling language spoken on 'The Spanish' island of 'LaGomera' might just be what they need to pull it off. The opening scene, the almost triumphant arrival on the island of 'La Gomera', lays the foundations of the film; Cristi thinks he’s in heaven but soon discovers he’s bugged and under surveillance. He's in fact imprisoned by the gaze of others. Within the context of a very ambiguous police investigation, it's a story of a disillusioned cop, who shows up at 'La Gomera' to meet a woman and learn a whistled language. But things get more complicated and nothing goes according to plan. The policeman embarks on an initiatory journey, a kind of adventure with many turns and surprising twists. We don’t immediately understand that Cristi is wire-tapped and suspected by the police. His character does not lend itself to immediate identification, but the film gradually reveals his secret to us. Cristi is a complex character, initially thinks he’s controlling things but he’s mistaken because very soon he's caught in a storm, a vertiginous triangle. He's no longer the master of his fate. Cristi is disillusioned and elusive. He's no longer believes in his vocation, he starts to work with the mafia and to make money from drug trafficking. He’s a person who no longer believes in anything, in his professional life, his private life, and he seeks to escape all of this when he gets to the island of 'La Gomera'. As a police officer, he's part of the power structure and he thinks he’s in control of his life, but rather quickly he's caught up in a storm of events beyond his control. People talk a lot, ponder things, to try to define this revolution that eventually overthrows the power that's unshakeable for so long. In this film, the characters are caught up in a world dominated by strong opinions, where everyone wants to impose their point of view on others; it’s a permanent power play. In a dark world where everything must be negotiated, genuine communication functions better through a secret language that enables, for those who master it, the ability to extract oneself from the control of very tense human relationships, to be able to preserve a kind of sincerity. This secret language is crucial for Cristi, as he comes to use it for personal ends that have nothing to do with the criminal reasons for which he has to learn it. His seriousness in all circumstances occasionally makes him comical. Cristi is quite opaque and doesn’t show much emotion, but he shows his hand at a key moment; when he negotiates Gilda’s future with the mafia. He's madly in love with her. So we discover the truth about the characters only through their actions. Gina is the archetype of a woman. She betrays the men, turning against them. She's a lure, ambiguous and unsettling character who manages to manipulate others without them realising it. She succeeds in giving full weight to the scene of the kiss with Cristi, staged to dupe the police officers following them. It's a moment that reveals her power. She always knows how to play her different roles before the surveillance cameras and she masters some very tense and borderline situations. Gilda eventually escapes this constant roleplaying, gradually revealing herself to herself, and becoming a more real or realistic woman. All the while remaining a film character. Gilda is the femme fatale, and Magda, the prosecutor, Cristi’s boss, is a strong and cold woman in the style of Marlene Dietrich. The mafia boss Paco (Agusti Villaronga) avoids the cliché of 'The Mafiosi'. In the end, we understand that the strongest characters are the women around him; Gilda, Magda, and his mother. The women are pulling the strings to move the story forward. Here, we understand that he's being carried along by the women. In the end, his decisions are not his choices. It's a story with characters who lie, who play a double game. They believe they’re the masters of their fate. The principle of this film lies in transactions, including the transaction of words. The dialogues here are no longer discussions based on an idea but hard and fast exchanges, like ping-pong, blow upon blow. Each character is caught up in their professional role, the cops and mafia have a functional way of talking, there’s not much time for forethought because they’re constantly having to take action. In an increasingly controlled society in which everyone must play a role, a very old form of communication can allow people to escape it; to escape from this control and the constant power relations that determine the actions of each character. The characters are playing roles and the film plays with the codes of language and genre. The visual references follow this idea. Each character plays a role for others. Only Cristi’s mother has retained a kind of sincerity and realism. Each of the chapters bearing the name of a character who plays an important part in Cristi’s story arc. The film establishes distanciated, abstract aesthetic, to emphasise the idea of artifice and the roleplaying of each of the characters. This film is based on the whistled language 'El Silbo', practised on the island of 'La Gomera'. 'The Romanian' title refers to the name of this island in 'The Canaries', a place to get away from it all, a lost paradise. 'The French' and 'English' titles refer to the mysterious whistled language that exists in many different places in the world but whose roots are unknown. This island of 'La Gomera' is closely linked to the tradition of these whistles. The whistled language struck as a possibility for pursuing this theme differently. Adjective on language and the way in which it's used for political ends. The history of a secret language, used for criminal ends, is the core that determined the narrative style and staging. The language 'El Silbo Gomero' allows us to code spoken language, in a similar way to how film codes reality. The film plays with the codes of very different genres, from the detective film or film noir, to the western or comedy. 'The Romanian' auteur’s glossiest, most expensive production to date, "The Whistlers" nonetheless retains a eclectic sensibility and deadpan humour. Watching this deliriously enjoyable tale, you like the characters, you getting away with something. You’ll want to go along for the ride. The film creates an imbalance between heroic pretensions and the reality of things. This terribly serious side, in all circumstances, gives the film a touch of the absurd. "The Whistlers" is edgy, imaginative, and seems to deal with reality. It's a very dark film, a comment on human relations and today’s society.

(London Film Festival, October 10th, 2019, Embankment Garden Cinema, Victoria Embankment Gardens, Villiers St, London WC2N 6NS, UK, 17:0 pm) https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::permalink=officialsecrets&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::context_id= "Official Secrets" Based on Marcia's and Thomas Mitchell's book 'The Spy Who Tried To Stop A War', "Official Secrets" tells the remarkable true story of 'British Secret-Service' officer Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley) and her effort to stop an illegal war. In 2003 at her job as a 'British Intelligence Specialist', Gun comes across a disturbing email from 'The US National Security Agency' division chief Ken Macdonald (Jeremy Northam); a request for 'UK' assistance in blackmailing members of 'The United Nations Security Council' into endorsing an invasion of Iraq. The memo proposed blackmailing smaller, undecided member states into voting for war. Shocked, she makes a decision that will change her life and put her family in danger. Unable to stand by and watch the world be rushed into an illegal war, Gun makes the gut-wrenching decision to defy her government and leak the memo to the press. Leak the email to the press setting off a chain of events that exposes an international conspiracy and lands her in custody, charged under 'Britain’s Official Secrets Act'. That will ignite an international firestorm, expose a vast political conspiracy, and put Gun and her family directly in harm’s way. She risks everything to stop an unjust war. Her government calls her a traitor. A gripping true life political thriller of a spy gone rogue who risked everything to stop an unjust war.   An ordinary person who finds herself in an extraordinary situation. The courtroom in 2004, with Katharine Gun standing alone in the witness box, is where the narrative of "Official Secrets" begins, flashing back to the consequential events, for Gun and for the world, of the previous year. There comes a time when one must take a position that's neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it's right. Conscience, that still small voice we do not always listen to, but, when we do, banishes cynicism and raises us to a better, kinder place. When Gun is at home and calls in sick to 'GCHQ'; a moment later her husband opens the front door and the incoming daylight makes Katharine flinch. She’s so in the moment of what she’s doing, the reactions are fresh and not planned. The camera is tracking around her on an extreme close-up looking right into her face, asking her to take the time to struggle through the decision. In the hands of a lesser actor, that scene could be a little forced. But in Katharine's case, when she makes that decision to get up, you feel that you’ve lived that internal struggle with her. Katharine is amazingly sane. She's very clear about why she’d done what she did. She’s someone who decides to take this stand at considerable cost to her career and her personal life. Katharine is in a quite tricky position because if you question her on it, she still is bound by 'The Official Secrets Act'. Gun isn't a journalist. She navigates and endures the consequences faced by an ordinary person committing an extraordinary act. Gun beautifully captures the moral complexity and vulnerability of a high-stakes whistleblower whose fight against government misinformation remains unnervingly relevant. She allows us a unique look into the psychology behind her decision to risk both her family’s safety and her own life without always knowing why. The result is a portrait of human nature that focuses on what's best in all of us. Yasar (Adam Bakri) is Gun's husband. There's a genuine love between Gun and her husband, which is rocked after the scandal. As depicted in the film, Yasar is almost deported during the aftermath of the leak but saved at the eleventh hour. The emotional feeling of that reconciliation is what re-established their love, their connection, after he’d been pretty frustrated and thrown. She leaks the e-mail without telling him she's going to do it. Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes) has a very strong presence, which can be intimidating if he chooses it to be. Within a few minutes of talking to Ben, you feel the force of someone who will take on tough causes because there's an ethical urgency within his work. On March 2nd, 2003, British newspaper 'The Observer' published a front page article with the headline, 'Revealed: US Dirty Tricks To Win Vote On Iraq War'. This was mere weeks before 'The United States' would invade Iraq and topple the regime of 'Saddam Hussein', but journalists Martin Bright (Matt Smith), Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and Peter Beaumont (Matthew Goode) were detailing a blackmail scheme targeted at members of 'The United Nations Security Council' from five countries, coercing them to authorize the invasion. The breathtaking claims in the article, challenging the whole pretext for war, were based in part on a classified email that had been leaked from a 'British Intelligence Agency' called 'Government Communications Headquarters' (GCHQ). As a rigorous internal investigation began at 'GCHQ' to expose the whistleblower, a quiet young translator in her late twenties stepped forward to confess to the leak. Her name was Katharine Gun. Gun’s actions did not prevent the invasion of Iraq, which commenced on March 19th, 2003, or the huge loss of life that followed. In the American media, her story was only glancingly covered. In 2004, she went to trial, defended by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson. And remarkably, the charges against her were dropped, with many suspecting that 'Fhe British Government' risked exposure and embarrassment if it pursued a case against Gun, especially after the search for 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction' in Iraq had proved fruitless. Her story, however, is finally being told. '9/11', Osama, Bush, Afghanistan, Powell, 'WMD', 'OSP', Iraq, Obama, drone strikes, 'ISIS', Syria, refugees, Trump, walls, 'Fake News . It’s been a maddening, confusing two decades that has left many of us disillusioned, angry and uncertain. Can anyone be trusted? Is it all just too complex to fathom? Are the basic concepts of personal integrity and human decency, those simple ideals we teach our kids, dead? Is cynicism our only refuge? 'The UN' didn’t vote in favor of an invasion. Bush and Blair relied on false intelligence claiming Iraq had 'WMD' to justify going to war. Everyone knows that now. But imagine if they’d secured a 'UN' resolution authorizing war as they initially tried to do? There’d have been no need to rely on 'WMD . If 'The UN' had backed the war, Bush and Blair would have had perfect legal cover for their invasion. They’ve never been held legally accountable for their 'WMD' lies anyway. Katharine Gun leaks a top secret 'NSA' memo about an illegal spying operation designed to push the smaller, non permanent 'UN Security Council' members into voting in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "Official Secrets" dramatizes these real-life events and brings Gun to life as an ordinary woman in an extraordinary situation. By slowly revealing specific details and lingering on pivotal moments, the film creates an intense atmosphere that captivates you until the very end and begs the question; what would you do? Watching "Official Secrets" nvariably stirred up old feelings from 'The Iraq Invasion'. We're all saying how angry we're again about the whole debacle and how really it’s an open sore. It will make people realize how nothing much has changed. It’s been a continuum of the same for the last fifteen years and it’s a really shocking state of affairs. There’s a whole new generation who won’t have caught onto this yet, because they're under ten when it happened. Gun’s story and 'The Iraq War' itself has huge ramifications. This is a war that corroded all our major institutions, our judicial system, our political system, the intelligence services and the press. So it continues to have a major effect on our public life. What Katharine was revealing went beyond a simple piece of wrongdoing. What she was revealing was something wrong at the heart of our national and international institutions. As difficult as the process was 16 years ago, Gun is delighted that 'The British Government’s' lack of transparency will once again come under the spotlight when "Official Secrets" is released to audiences worldwide. It’s this whole paradigm of what's national interest? So much gets swept under that overall heading. Who's to decide what's in the national interest? It's a story about government transparency or lack of transparency, which is still resonant now.

(Release Info London schedule; October 29th, Picturehouse Central, Piccadilly Circus, Corner of Great Windmill Street and, Shaftesbury Ave, London W1D 7DH, United Kingdom, 18: 20 pm) (Release Info London schedule; October 29th, Clapham Picturehouse, 76 Venn St, Clapham, London SW4 0AT, United Kingdom, 20:45 pm) https://www.google.de/search?q=After+the+Wedding+showtimes+London&oq=After+the+Wedding+showtimes+London&aqs=heirloom-srp.. "After The Wedding" As if driven by an inescapable force, Isabel (Michelle Williams) has devoted her life to running an orphanage in a Calcutta slum. With funds running dry, a potential donor, who requires she travel from India to New York, to deliver a presentation in-person, contacts Isabel. At first balking at the demand of an uncommitted philanthropist, she relents, and travels to a city she deliberately hasn't returned to in over two decades. Once in New York, Isabel lands uncomfortably in the sight line of the orphanage's possible benefactor, Theresa Young (Julianne Moore), a multi-millionaire media mogul accustomed to getting what she wants. From the glittering skyscraper where she runs her successful business, to the glorious 'Oyster Bay Estate', where she lives happily with her artist husband, Oscar Carlson (Billy Crudup), 21-year-old daughter, Grace (Abby Quinn), and eight-year-old twins, Theo (Azhy Robertson) and Otto (Tre Ryder), Theresa's life couldn't appear to be more perfect and different from Isabel’s. But appearances are only skin deep and the two women have more in common than meets the eye. While Isabel thinks she'll soon be returning to her beloved orphanage, Theresa has other plans. She insists Isabel attend Grace's wedding at the family's estate. The joyful event becomes a catalyst for a revelation that upends the lives of both women, and the people who love them most. As if driven by some inescapable force, Isabel (Michelle Williams), an orphanage director in the slums of Calcutta, has devoted her life to caring for impoverished children. She's also become surrogate mother to a vulnerable seven-year-old boy, Jai (Vir Pachisia), with whom she shares such a deep emotional bond, that they're nearly inseparable. Despite years spent working with her colleague, Preena (Anjula Bedi), to scrape together donations, the orphanage is on the brink of bankruptcy. And just as the situation reaches it's breaking point, Preena receives a letter from a potential big donor, who requests that Isabel travel to New York to deliver a presentation in-person. At first balking at the demand of the as yet uncommitted philanthropist, Preena convinces her to relent, and Isabel travels back to a city she's deliberately been avoiding for over two decades. Once in New York, Isabel is as disoriented by the luxury of the hotel that's been arranged for her, as she's meeting the orphanage's possible benefactor, the glamorous, multi-millionaire media mogul, Theresa (Julianne Moore). From the glittering skyscraper where she runs her successful business, to the glorious 'Oyster Bay Estate', where she lives happily with her artist husband, Oscar (Billy Crudup), 21-year-old daughter, Grace (Abby Quinn), and eight-year-old twins, Theo and Otto, Theresa's life couldn't appear more perfect. But although their lives seem diametrically opposite, Isabel and Theresa are forces to be reckoned with, and have far more in common than they may ever know. While Isabel thinks she'll soon be returning to the orphanage, and her beloved Jai, Theresa has other plans. She invites Isabel to attend Grace's wedding to Jonathan (Alex Esola), a rising young executive at her company. Not wanting to feel any more displaced, Isabel demurs but Theresa, always in command, insists. Despite the veneer of joyfulness, the wedding exposes a long-hidden truth, ripping open an old wound, and exposing a new secret, which alters the course of all of their lives. Adapting Susanne Bier’s 'Danish' film of the same title, "After The Wedding" crafts an absorbing cinematic tale of secrets and intersecting lives. By cleverly changing the gender of Bier’s characters, the film offers an elevated take on the film’s melodrama, and tells a rich, emotional complex story about strong women, motherhood, second chances and fate. The film has two female leads. Between the dearth of significant, multifaceted leading roles for women, and the country's current climate regarding power dynamics and gender, the switch makes the story more current. Realistically zigzagging from extreme poverty in Calcutta to extreme wealth in New York is no small feat. The film creates the stunning visuals, that beautifully illustrated the chasm between the lives of Isabel and Theresa. The locations in New York are wholly emblematic of Theresa Young's life, and also stand in stark contrast with everything Isabel represented. She's a little bit painful. She has a deep loyalty to the children of the orphanage. 'Karaikudi' has it's own extreme challenges, which to the benefit of the movie, lent authenticity to Isabel's world of the orphanage and breathtaking colors. The conditions of the working environment are challenging. It's hot and unbelievably humid, but the film finessed it. There's a kind of luxurious look to the movie. The world that Isabel is thrust into, feels like something you want to be surrounded by. It's just beautiful and wide, and a little over exposed. It's very exciting to do such a deeply, intimate movie with this super wide scope feel. What makes a good father? The film reveals Oscar's inner turmoil. He has an intuitive understanding of how monumental things most often happen in small scale. The film's themes of what a parent wishes to pass on to their children, how they want protect them, and how they sometimes fail as parents, really resonated with both of them. Everything that's represented through a space is supposed to transform the audience, especially when it comes to Theresa and Oscar's estate. That house has to say everything about the characters. It focuses on tones that are neutral and soft; grays with blue and purple undertones. The goal is to keep it quiet but to include a layer of character dressing, because there's much in the script that's emotionally stirring. The film works with a new way to use white light and break it up into colors. You can do everything from subtly changing a character's features to creating more elegant shadows and reflections. Designing the costumes, the film remains alert to creating clothing that not only make the characters inhabit what they're wearing, but that what they're wearing belonged in the space they're living in. The space and the costume feel like one complete character. For Isabel's palette, the film uses only colors, textured fabric and garments that are sourced in India. Careful to not be heavy handed, the character's simple clothing is imbued with subtle indigos and turmeric. When creating looks for Theresa, Oscar and Grace, the film uses soft neutrals and sumptuous fabrics to convey quiet wealth, and the kind of moneyed comfort most often found in exclusive enclaves. Grace is marvelous. She's completely effortless, and open and lovely to watch. Even the costumes for Abby's elaborate wedding, which included a live fire-works display, take a backseat to the physical environment. While the wedding is richly detailed, the garden is the star of the location, so the film creates a story with the clothes, and the people at the wedding are an extension of the garden. We've many layers, and a plethora of different, three-dimensional, character perspectives. Al character's have a close familial relationships. They all embraces the conflict and the contradiction. They're happy with the endless peeling back of the layers of what could be going on. They strove to uncover the subtleties of how much these people are aware of their behavior, and how much of it's unconscious. So, it's an exciting opportunity to tell a story that takes on what it means for these women to make certain high-stake choices, and then have to deal with the many consequences of those actions. We've an intensive character development and a very modern way the high drama unfolded, to be compelling. It's a story that lives in the real world. The film explores that human frailty, and the joys derived from people we form relationships with over the course of our lives. At the end of the day, we’re all on this journey, but we don’t really have a choice about where it takes us fully. "After the Wedding" deals with the gray areas of life, and the idea that what's morally right or wrong can get muddied. We humans are nearly all guilty of manipulations both large and small, but even with the best intentions, bending the truth to fit your personal narrative often results in great damage.

Daddy can see us…when he gets here. But he’s already here. Do you fancy a movie along the lines of “Hush” but with people who aren’t mute? In short, a film in which there’s a lot of screaming. And should there be co-stars who are simply mown down with a wicked-looking ax as in every “Friday the 13th” episode? Then “He’s out there” might be something for you. However, if you are someone who expects a little explanation about why someone is terrorizing a family, then I’ll have to disappoint you. Why Laura (Yvonne Strahovski) and her two daughters Kayla (Anna Pniowsky) and Maddie (Abigail Pniowsky) were suddenly attacked by an unknown, still remained a question mark in the end. And again a cabin in the woods. “He’s out there” certainly isn’t a bad movie. The increasing tension ensures that you’ll be sitting on the edge of your chair. It’s a bit like “The wolf and the seven young goats“, only the wolf is a lurid disguised person and the 7 goats are played by two irritating screaming girls. Now such a disguise as the maniac uses is nothing new in the slasher genre. Jason Voorhees had a hockey mask. Michael Myers a scary rubber mask. Leatherface wore a mask made with the flesh of his victims. The perpetrator in “He’s out there” seems to be a cousin of “The Collector” in “The collection“. Almost an identical disguise and the same used clothes. A disappointing, simple, third-rate film.. I like to watch such a typical slasher full of screaming victims. The least I expect though is a surprising denouement or a unique thought up slaughter as in “You’re next“. But in this film, the standard list for slasher movies is neatly checked off and there’s no deviation from the standard formula. And then there’s also the fact that there are just a few victims and nothing (but absolutely nothing) of background information is shared. That makes “He’s out there” just a disappointing, simple, third-rate film. Even the end was so predictable that I had to sigh deeply. And to be honest, I also thought the denouement was a bit exaggerated. Let’s hope there won’t be a sequel. Is there something positive to report? Yes, there is. Yvonne Strahovski. And not only because she looks nice. She tries in a realistic way to give shape to a character who’s terrified and at the same time tries to protect her two panicky children. So expect a lot of hiding and running away while screaming. Kind of stupid though. Because the person who wants to hurt them, always knows where they are. “He’s out there” is like an ex-girlfriend. It was fun for a while, but then it turns out she wasn’t so special. And before you know it, you are glad you got rid of her. And in no time you are looking for someone else and you have forgotten about her. Let’s hope they aren’t planning to make a sequel. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB

here’s the trailer. the film is now playing here https://youtu.be/wgi6Pg4Mz84

The film starts near the end. Zain is being brought to court from a juvenile detention centre to sue his parents for having brought him into the world. When we see in lengthy flashback what that world was like for him, we are inclined to agree. Zain is supposed to be 12 years old, but looks a squalid age eight. His birth was never registered, he has never been to school. He, his parents and a crowd of brothers and sisters live in a Beirut slum called Capernaum. He works all day for Assaad a neighbouring store owner -- running errands, making deliveries, hauling stuff up long flights of stairs. As a business sideline Zain's family peddles Tramadol. One day Zain realizes that his beloved sister Sahar, age 11, has begun menstruating. He washes out her panties for her, steals sanitary towels for her, warns her not to throw the used ones out in case their mother discovers them. Of course she does. Sahar is married off to Assaad in exchange for some chickens. Zain runs away. He is befriended by Rahil, an Ethiopian illegal immigrant. She feeds him, washes him, lets him stay, and in return he helps look after her baby boy called Yonas. One day Rahil is picked up by the police and Zain is left looking after the baby. When he finds Rahil's home has been locked up with her belongings thrown out in the street, he finds his only option is to hand over Yonas to Aspro (who deals in false ID documents and is also a people smuggler). Aspro promises Zain he will find Yonas a wonderful home with wonderful parents. He also tells Zain he can help him leave for Turkey, or even Sweden. All he needs is some sort of ID. He returns to the family home in search of just that, not knowing that his parents never registered his birth. Besides receiving a beating, he finds out that Sahar is dead. She became pregnant, and then bled to death outside the hospital. The hospital would not admit her because she had no ID. Zain grabs a knife and rushes out to attack Assaad. So, here we have a fullblown melodrama: the poor with no future; an unscrupulous trafficker who robs defenceless babies and tricks young boys; a young girl who dies before she even has a chance to live. All narrated soberly, coldly, heart-breakingly. The final ending has a tinge of hope. Thanks to Caritas little Yonas is rescued before he can be shipped off to be sold and is reunited with his mother. Zain finally smiles into the camera as his photograph is taken for his much needed ID. He will never recuperate his childhood. He may begin to enjoy his youth. This is a powerful, deeply moving film. Nadine Labaki is an accomplished young actress and filmmaker, whose previous work has focused mainly on women, their lives, hopes and aspirations (Caramel, 2007; Where do we go from here? 2011), Here the theme is relentless, grinding poverty. In all his short life young Zain has never known anything but poverty, work, deprivation. He has never slept in a real bed. He is a survivor, a warrior, a master of making do, dealing with impossible difficulties, managing to go on living. Zain Al Rafeea is superb in the part, as indeed is the whole cast, mainly first-time actors. Christopher Aoun, a German-Lebanese cinematographer portrays with documentary-style veracity the grim starkness of this Beirut slum.

When I was younger I used to be a huge fan of Jackie Chan, from his cult classic 'Police Story' series of films to his entertaining action comedy capers 'Shanghai Noon' and 'Shanghai Knights'. As a young boy I always had a fascination with martial arts and Chan was among others such as Bruce Lee and Jet Li of my on screen idols. When I hit my mid teens, I dropped out of my Ta-Kwan-Do lessons and decided to focus on a new passion, writing. I still enjoyed watching martial art flicks but wasn't as obsessed with them as previously. As I got older, I became more interested in the film genres of crime and drama. So it was a surprise and a delight one evening, when I happened upon a Film4 Thriller/Drama called 'Shinjuku Incident', starring none other then Jackie Chan. Although Jackie has done a handful of more serious films, he is most well known for his jaw dropping stunts, hectic and masterfully choreographed fight scenes and comic, light hearted style of acting. This film however made me reconsider my opinion of the actor, as I found both the story of the piece and Chan's acting engaging and impressive. Although there is a small amount of fighting and martial arts, the film is more about Jackie Chan's character and the physical and emotional toll he suffers, throughout the course of the narrative. So, you can imagine my excitement, when I first heard news that Chan was bringing out another film with him in a serious role. Having watched the Netflix film, I can gladly confirm that this is one of Chan's best performances. He brings a lot to the role and his gravitas in his performance is consistent throughout. In a nutshell, The Foreigner focuses on Quan (played by Chan), who after the fatal death of his daughter in a London bomb attack, seeks vengeance and goes in search of the people responsible. At first glance, it would seem like your typical revenge flick, following in the same vein as such payback classics as 'Commando' and 'Taken'. What sets it apart though, is the political backdrop it is set against. The bombing is by a rogue IRA group and with it's detonation, both England and Northern Ireland are plunged into political chaos with the threat of a British Civil War from it's backlash. The character of Hennessy, played aptly by Pierce Brosnan adds another layer to the film and his relationship with the prime minister of England and his former IRA associates, prevents this from becoming just another box standard revenge fesh. Despite their being that added layer of depth with the political angle, I did spend the first fifteen minutes of the film, contemplating that the death of the daughter and the father's decision for revenge, could be seen as glorification. At the end of the day, parents lose their children all the time but in reality, they wouldn't turn into Rambo and simply go on a killing spree. Life doesn't work like that and in a way to highlight that in film can be seen as a bit insensitive to anyone, who has actually experienced this sort of thing in real life. If there had been one scene where he was mourning the death of his daughter and then suddenly on the hunt for the killers, I would have very much felt it was glorification. In terms of story and Quan's character though, it is a little bit more thought out then that. Whilst he does eventually go rogue and take matters into his own hands, there is a decent amount of time where we see Chan mourning for the loss of his daughter. During this period of grievance, his action in regards to the people responsible, is more realistic to what someone would do. He visits the Metropolitan police every day, pleading with them to find the people responsible. When that fails, he appeals to Hennessy, again very politely and humbly asking for him to help. It is only when these avenues of aid fail to help resolve the matter, that he decides to take matters into his own hands. Although, this can be seen in some senses of glorification, the way Quan's character is written and the way Jackie performs it, plus the later revelations of his past and backstory, makes it less insensitive. Quan, although out for revenge feels like a real person, not just a trained fighter with his finger on the trigger. Martin Campbell has always been a director who has struck me as possessing that ability to deliver slick, smooth and stylish action, whilst at the same time having main characters that have much more going on, then their prowess at beating the crap out of anyone. He also has a good track record for implementing the ripple effect fictional events have on the political landscape of that world. 'Casino Royale' has all the classic traits of a bond film. Fast car chases, epic fight scenes, corny one liners but it was the first bond film, where I felt they tried to explore Bond's emotions. Yes, he is a cold blooded killer but he also has compassion and a sensitive side. Campbell has done the same here. Quan is a trained killer, taking down his enemies one by one but he is also a grieving father trying to deal with a tragic loss. One of the things I very much liked about this film was how clever Quan is, in terms of his tactical planning and execution. They could have avoided all of that and relied on Jackie's mastery of martial arts. To have scene after scene of him working his way through room after of room of brutes, to get to his objective. Instead, Quan's character is more methodical in his approach. He sets traps, plants false trails and makes sure he is one step ahead of his foes, so his chances of prevailing in his outcome are far more likely.  This makes sense, as both Jackie and his character are much older, meaning that to physically have to fight would be harder and waste precious energy and strength. On the handful of occasions Quan is forced to fight, the sequences are devastatingly brutal. They play to Jackie's strengths with him using the environment around him to best his opponents but the close combat fighting is harsh in its delivery. Combine these two together and you have fight scenes, which are both realistic and impacting, whilst at the same time with enough flair to be surprising and entertaining. What is interesting about Quan as a character is that he doesn't actually kill anyone apart from those responsible. Admittedly, he does rough up those that get in the way quite a lot but he refrains from killing on several occasions, when it would be easier too. As I have mentioned before, Quan is calculating and objectionable. His morale compass stops him from killing Hennessy's men but it is also a clever power play. By using other techniques such as the threat of death or blackmail, he can get the information he needs and secure his own safety better. Following on from this, it was a strong decision on the directing and writing front, to shake things up a little bit in the last act of the film. Instead of sending more men to be outwitted, disarmed and knocked out by Quan, Hennessy sends his nephew, an ex soldier, who fought in Iraq. This stops it becoming too easy for Quan and adding a sense of new threat and danger to the story. Hennessy is an interesting and very well developed character. At first I found him rather dislikeable and then warmed to him and then later in the film, grew to really hate him. But what is clever about how he is written, is that there is no straightforward answer. He is neither good or evil. Hennessy hovers between, in a murky grey area, making it hard to form an decisive opinion of the character. The ones that surround him, particularly his ex IRA colleagues further add to this character's complexity and by the end of the film, I was faced with a character I strangely pitied in a lot of ways. Again though, his actions would then contradict with this and I would find myself at odds with the character again. Brosnan plays it very well, never revealing too much but hinting at possible secrets his character is keeping tucked away. The tension and pace is achieved remarkably throughout, juggling both what is happening on a personal level with Quan and Hennessy and the larger political game that is happening with the Northern Irish and English governments. Finally you have the perspective of the bombers themselves. These three story arcs interspersed with one another, make for an exciting watch and when the three story lines come together at the end, the climax is exciting and dramatic. This goes to show how important editing is in a film's delivery, showcased in both the splicing and cutting together of events, as well as the skill of the edits during the fight sequences. 'The Foreigner' takes an overused and predictable revenge plot device and instills it with new life. It does this in a number of ways. Firstly, it takes a political topic that is still very fresh in terms of British history and executes it well, through both it's character writing and strong acting from a plethora of well regarded and praised Irish actors. Alongside that you have Jackie Chan bringing something completely new to the table. Probably one of his best performances, Chan presents a character who is broken emotionally and later on in the film physically. At the same time, he delivers just the right amount of stunts and martial arts, which at the age of 60, is pretty damn impressive. Although it is a revenge film at it's core, there are enough twists and turns to stop it from becoming too predictable. The fight scenes are well thought out, packing a punch but with enough of a tactical approach to not appear totally ridiculous. If you are looking for a revenge film that stands out from the endless copycats of 'Taken', then 'The Foreigner' is well worth your time. It still packs all the punches but isn't afraid to explore it's characters and the larger political world that surrounds them.

These people… they’re blasphemers… a cult, a disease. Be careful. Be smart. Bring her home. The first thing that came to my mind while watching “Apostle“, was the movie “The Witch“. It takes place in the same time period. Here, too, an old-fashioned sounding English is spoken. And it’s also a religion-tinted theme. The biggest difference with “The Witch” is that I thought that one was rather boring and not a horror at all. It was more a historical costume drama. “Apostle” is, on the other hand, simply sublime. A mysterious film about religious madness. Not only content wise but also visually it all looks perfect And the facet of horror was indeed present. And no, not only because of the bloody and gore scenes. There’s only one thing that puzzled me afterward. What was it that the people of Erisden worshiped? Bring her back home. It all starts when Thomas Richardson (Dan Stevens) is asked by his father to rescue his sister Jennifer (Elen Rhys) from the grasp of an obscure sect. She’s kidnapped. And a large ransom is demanded. Thomas himself was once a sort of missionary spreading God’s word in the land of the rising sun. His experiences there, however, made sure that he got an aversion to everything that has to do with religion. Without further delay, he takes on the assignment to save his sister from the gang of fanatics and bring her back home. Two hours are gone before you know it. The running time of “Apostle” is 2 hours. Perhaps this is too much of a good thing for a horror with religion as a central topic. But believe me. Those two hours are over before you know it. Every sense of time is absent when viewing this captivating film. And this because of the excellent way of build up. The first hour you’ll be carried away in the enigmatic life on the island of Erisden. Beautiful images are interspersed with scenes from the daily life of this primitive living commune. Soon it’s clear that this sect developed a peculiar kind of faith with their own rituals (and despotic rules). Just as in any religion, a limited number of individuals rule and decide how to behave in this community. They are also the only ones who know what’s going on there. Bad harvests mean starvation. The reason why they abducted the daughter of a rich man is that their provisions are drastically reduced due to bad harvests and they are gradually heading towards a shortage of food. Prophet Malcolm (Michael Sheen) tries to turn the tide in a certain way but finally, he has to realize that he’s helplessly watching how his patiently built community gradually crumbles. Despite the sometimes rather barbaric punishments that have been introduced to keep the community under control, Malcolm seems to be a peaceful man who’s worried about the welfare of the islanders. More peaceful than some of his confidants who show a certain hunger for power and who, if the opportunity presents itself, try to claim leadership without delay. A lot of interesting characters. The characters Thomas and Malcolm are played in a brilliant way by Dan Stevens and Michael Sheen. Malcolm isn’t really a cruel despot, though he’s the driving force behind the terrible process of cleansing. And even though Thomas has to be careful while tracking down his sister, he immediately disobeys imposed rules and expresses his doubts about Malcolm towards the prophet’s daughter. Michael Sheen (who played a more funny role in “Passengers” as the robotic butler Arthur) and Dan Stevens were perfectly cast. I especially liked Dan Stevens (“Kill Switch“, “The Ticket” and “Beauty and the Beast“). Even though his grim and furious look started to get boring at a certain moment. There are also a few other characters that are worth mentioning. First, there are Bill Milner and Kristine Froseth who take care of the idyllic part. Then there’s Lucy Boynton as Andrea, the daughter of the Prophet. It’s not the most important role, but her appearance is in sharp contrast with the rest of the film. A dazzling beauty with a refreshing look. She looks like a fragile porcelain doll. And finally Mark Lewis Jones as Quinn, co-founder of this sect and in hindsight also a fanatic. Each and every one was an interesting character. A bit of suspense and a tad horror. “Apostle” is certainly not for sensitive viewers. Not that it ‘s really frightening (except maybe for the sewer scene). But there are some distasteful scenes that can be quite shocking for some. Especially in the second part of the film. It’s filled with sadistic torture practices where the accompanying sounds cause chills. This in contrast to the first part that you can call atmospheric. It’s difficult to label this movie with a specific film genre. But do you like a bit of suspense? A tad of horror? And pagan religious scenes? Well then, this folk-horror movie is definitely your thing. At least one of the better Netflix productions so far. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

I would have shot you in the dick, if the target wasn’t so small. “Guns Akimbo” is simply too absurd for words. It’s absolute nonsense and you shouldn’t take it too seriously. It’s simply “over the top” pulp and looks as if it’s based on some Asian comic strip. But believe me. This film is simply top-notch entertainment. A roller coaster that slowly takes a very steep run-up and then crashes into the depth with a breakneck-speed, shaking you back and forth. And this crazy, hyperkinetic ride lasts until the end. The action scenes with Nix (Samara Weaving) are equivalent to those in “John Wick“. Flashy editing. Blood splattering when bullets rip apart human flesh in slow motion. And all this under the guidance of an energetic soundtrack where you will hear amongst other “The Ballroom Blitz” from The Sweet. In short, I greatly enjoyed this film for an hour and a half. Once again respect for the actor Radcliffe. I have infinite respect for the actor Daniel Radcliffe. This guy could have benefited all his life from the “Harry Potter” stamp that they have tattooed on his forehead. It would have been possible to come up with a few sequels without any problems and without hesitation they could have exploited the success formula of the book series and film versions. He could also have demanded to be part of the “Fantastic Beasts and where to find them” franchise. But no. Instead, Radcliffe opted for not so obvious projects such as “Kill your Darlings“, “Horns” and “Swiss Army Man“. A homosexual-tinted film, full of literary blabbering on the one hand. And on the other hand a film about a friendship between a castaway and a corpse. It’s hard to say that these were commercially safe films that suit the fantasy-loving Harry Potter fans. And to avoid any misunderstanding. I was also enchanted by the Potter films (at least the first four anyway). Where did these freaking guns come from? So no magic formulas, mythological creatures and a Radcliffe with a wizard hat showing a boyish, shy smile. Nope, he’s a nobody in this flick. A nobody with a futureless job, who empties one beer bottle after the other while playing violent video games at home. And as a notorious online troll hunter, Miles (Daniel Radcliffe) cannot resist posting derogatory comments on the “Skizm” website and provoking supporters of this obscure platform. “Skizm” is an illegal website that organizes duels in real life where opponents try to eliminate each other. And this is thrown on the internet and followed by hundreds of thousands of fanatic fans and bettors. Obviously, the first movie that came to mind was “Death Match“. The organizer of all this is an ugly tattooed guy called Riktor (Ned Dennehy) who’s obviously completely nuts and is accompanied by a gang of weirdos whose muscle mass is noticeably heavier than the weight of their brains. And Riktor isn’t happy with the muscular language Miles places on his forum. And before the latter realizes it, he lies in bed with two automatic guns bolted to both his hands. And furthermore, he himself is a candidate for a duel between him and Nix. Over-the-top action. With this film, Daniel Radcliffe leaves his comfort zone for the umpteenth time and tries to show that he’s more than just Harry Potter. A bushy beard, constantly covered in blood and using a portion of self-mockery and humor, ensure that. Not to mention his clothing: a checkered dressing gown, boxer shorts, and fluffy giant slippers in the shape of tiger claws. For Samara Weaving, this is a little bit an extension of her role in “Ready or Not“. The same bloody and over-the-top situations. But here she got more of a Harley Quinn attitude. A disturbed, fearless person who’s extremely effective in terms of eliminating opponents. That her insane behavior was caused by an incident in her youth is briefly mentioned, but in fact, has no impact or significance. This mindless action film has only one goal in mind and that’s to show chaotic and limitless action. And all this topped with a sauce of humor à la “Deadpool“. There are quite a few hilarious moments in this film. The hand-mounted guns that cause problems for Miles to accomplish daily routines. Like for instance opening a door. Or making a phone call. And peeing is even a hazardous thing to do. The Australian-sounding hobo (Rhys Darby) was simply hilarious with his advice on suicide techniques and his Cypress Hill imitation. How he got Miles in that coat, however, remains a mystery to me. Wtf is Akimbo? If you can’t stand a chaotic storyline and you get annoyed when it’s a movie that’s plain predictable and that looks more like an exaggerated comic, then I recommend you avoid this one. Or you don’t take a too critical attitude and you simply undergo the film. Perhaps then you can appreciate the vibrant pace, the screamy images, the creative camera techniques and the complete insane undertone of this movie with a limited budget. “Guns Akimbo” is certainly not a film for everyone because of the video game-like mood and the raw sense of humor. And for those who want to know what the film title actually means: Akimbo is a combat technique in which two weapons are used, with one in each hand. Well, I had to look it up myself. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB

The Event took people we cared about, but it also left a part of them behind. Remnants. When I saw “Shovel Buddies” a while ago, I decided to add the item “Watch movies with Bella Thorne playing in it” to my to-do list. Now, I have a large number of to-do lists in the meantime. I could wallpaper my living room with it. In short, too much talk and too little action. I was pleased to see at the beginning of the film that she also participated in “I still see you“. The only thing that surprised me was her appearance. Not such an adorable, fresh looking, and stunning appearance as in the first mentioned film. No, this time she’s an alternative looking, rebellious goth chick with raven black hair and sturdy shoes on her feet. Such a type of girl you’d encounter in a pub full of smoke and doom music. The only thing missing was a piercing through her eyebrow and lower lip. Belle Bella Thorne. And yet you can catch a glimpse of that lovely face with those sparkling eyes through the mascara. I myself was such an alternativo in times long past and I knew girls who looked like this. But believe me. There were quite a few scarecrows between them who used the thick layer of make-up as a camouflage. Bella Thorne, on the other hand, remains a ravishing appearance. Maybe her lips look rather botox-treated. But otherwise she’s a very attractive looking young lady. Especially when she’s a wearing a T-shirt braless. But enough about Bella Thorne. There is also the movie. One day they were gone. Just like in “Shovel Buddies” we are dealing here with deceased fellow humans. Something Veronica (Bella Thorne) is confronted with in her daily life. And not only Veronica. People worldwide see the victims of a scientific fiasco in which a laboratory imploded. An implosion that made people disappear within a mile radius, after which they re-appeared as holographic images in society. Somewhat like the shadows that remained behind of the people who were present in Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the atomic bomb fell. I see dead people. So these aren’t phenomena as Cole could see in “The Sixth Sense” or Thomas in “Odd Thomas“. Cole and Thomas saw real spirits. In “I still see you” it’s visualized memories that appear daily at regular intervals, performing the same routine all the time. Until you touch them and they disappear with a plop. They are immutable appearances without consciousness that have no influence on daily society. Until one of them appears in the bathroom where Veronica is taking a shower. It tries to tell her something life-threatening is going to happen. I found a remnant in my soup. And that’s what’s similar to the aforementioned films. Namely that entities from the hereafter warn the main character that something is about to happen. Anyway, these appearances are part of today’s society. Kids at school are having lessons about these “remnants” as they are called. They are remains from the past. The only thing I didn’t understand very well, was the presence of people from an ancient past. Teenage girls will love it. I add “I still see you” to the list “horrors for teenage girls“. There’s certainly no trembling and shuddering while watching such films (such as in “Happy death day” or “Before I fall“). So, don’t expect screaming teenage girls running out of the movie theater. And there’s also a bit of romance in this movie so that this target audience can daydream a bit. At first, I expected an exciting film with paranormal and ghostly events. In retrospect, it’s sort of a Nancy Drew-like film in which Veronica tries to solve the mystery of a so-called serial killer with the help of fellow student Kirk (Richard Harmon), who’s really interested in these “remnants”. In the end, it was disappointing. Although the movie is filled with sometimes beautiful images and you can call the story highly original, it’s all in all a bit disappointing. The start was promising. But as the film progressed it all became rather superficial. And guessing the ultimate outcome wasn’t so hard either. “I still see you” is indeed a movie suited for teenagers who are sitting anxiously close to each other while watching. For me, it was just like watching a political debate. Always the same and nothing special. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Guillermo del Toro's visionary ideas of shine through in a beautiful love story in a Beauty and The Beast type fashion with the heroine falling in love with the beast. Del Toro's film is packed full of extraordinary colours - from the beautiful blues to the lavish greens, this is something not to be missed. The film is littered full of brilliant performances, from the dark Strickland played by Michael Shannon, The hilarious Zelda played by Octavia Spencer, the treacherous yet kind Robert Dr. Hoffstetler played by Michael Stuhlbarg who also recently put on an Oscar worthy performance in "Call Me By Your Name" and finally Sally Hawkins plays a mute cleaner named Elisa Esposito of which she gives the performance of her career portraying Elisa as a sly yet kind woman full of love. The visuals are stunning and Del Toro's mark unmissable as every single shot has his own signature written all over it, from the opening expressionistic scene as the camera takes us through an omnious water filled corridor to Elisa as she floats alone in her flooded apartment which is symbolic of a particular key scene later in the film. Del Toro has claimed a lot of his work with monsters has been influenced by Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" novel and the influence from James Whale's "Frankenstein" film is evident along with such films as Steven Spielberg's "ET". The Shape of Water is an outstanding piece of cinema diving into tones of melancholy, love and the supernatural that is made from pure passion - from director Guillermo del Toro as seen in his BAFTA ceremony speech, this is Del Toro's finest film. 5/5 Ben Rolph