Even if you never had to learn police work like the rest of us plebs, anybody with a TV knows that it takes three bodies to make a serial killer. You know what I’m saying, you’re just being pedantic. Take the brilliant movie “Se7en” and replace the two inspectors Somerset and Mills with a duo that can’t get along and where one of them is female, then you get something similar as “Charismata“. Only it’s far from brilliant in terms of acting and the narrative. And even though Mills was a bit cocky and a wiseass in “Se7en,” there was also mutual respect. That doesn’t really apply to Rebecca (Sarah Beck Mather) and Eli (Andonis Anthony). Eli is an arrogant and obnoxious guy who always sees an opportunity to belittle his partner. The movie is filled with unfriendly people. But honestly, most people in this film are blessed with an ugly personality. The two inspectors, who assist in the investigation, constantly spit sexist statements and never take Rebecca seriously. She’s the daughter of the commissioner. So remarks about her job being dropped in her lap, are commonplace. Even the pharmacists are terribly unfriendly and snippy. I’m starting to believe the U.K. is inhabited with bad-tempered and unfriendly people. But believe me, the constantly unfriendly atmosphere started to annoy me. First, it’s a genuine war-movie Also in “Charismata“, they have to deal with an insane serial killer. The victims follow each other rapidly. The one murder even more horrifying than the other. Unfortunately, the first one shown, is the only one that’s off the same level as those in “Se7en“. A dark room in a dilapidated building where the rats have feasted on a half-decayed corpse. This looked fairly realistic and horrifying. The satanic images and carved numbers in the wall make it mysterious. Unfortunately, the design of the following victims wasn’t so successful. They were just stand-ins covered with lots of fake blood. Probably the budget for special effects was already exhausted after the first corpse. Michael Sweet. Such a charming person. What are the most successful aspects of “Charismata“? First, there’s Jamie Satterthwaite, who plays the snobbish Michael Sweet. A yuppie and partner of a company trading in real estates. And their estates are mostly the location where a victim is discovered. Michael Sweet is for me the most sublime appearance in this movie. His charisma and mysterious smile. He’s as innocent as a lamb and laughs off every accusation. A character who could easily play the role of Bateman in “American Psycho“. Hallucinations? Or not? The next positive point in this movie is the way in which Rebecca’s mental instability is portrayed. The reason why she has a psychological problem is solidly substantiated. A messy divorce. A brutal ex. Selling her apartment goes awry. Unfriendly colleagues who treat her disrespectfully. And then also a stressful case with a serial killer with nauseating crime scenes as a result. Then there’s the fact that she takes antidepressant medication with a lot of alcohol. So it’s no surprise she’s having hallucinations. And those hallucinations are worked out magnificently. No exaggerated effects and some adequately executed scare moments. Or aren’t these hallucinations? It had potential. Is “Charismata” a decent film you should definitely watch? Looking at the plus and the negative points, you’d say that it’s well balanced. Such that it can be called an average film. Indeed. Even though the acting is sometimes of a “Coronation Street” level and the story is rather superficial, you can’t say it’s extremely bad. But that feeling is completely undermined by the terrible, meaningless ending. It’s flat n’inane beyond belief. The run-up to this wasn’t bad. It even became gross at a certain moment. But the denouement creates some forehead-frowning, after which you wonder why on earth you’ve watched it. It seemed as if the makers realized they needed an end and there was no creative inspiration left. Too bad, because the film surely had potential. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB

(Release Info U.K. schedule; March 15th, 2019: ● Everyman 96 - 98 Baker St, Marylebone, London W1U 6T, 10:15 AM ● Red Carpet Cinema, Barton under Needwood, Barton Marina, Staffordshire, DE13 8AS, 13:25 PM ● Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds, 73 Brudenell Road, Headingley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS6 1JD, 18:10 PM) "Ben Is Back" Nineteen-year-old Ben Burns (Lucas Hedges) unexpectedly returns home to his family's suburban home on 'Christmas Eve' morning. Ben’s mother, Holly (Julia Roberts), is relieved and welcoming but wary of her son staying clean. Over a turbulent 24 hours, new truths are revealed, and a mother's undying love for her son is tested as she does everything in her power to keep him safe. On 'Christmas Eve' morning, 19-year-old Ben Burns unexpectedly returns to surprise his family at their cozy suburban home. His mother Holly is thrilled to be reunited with her son but wary about his ability to stay clean, while Ben’s distrustful sister Ivy (Kathryn Newton) and common-sense stepfather Neal (Courtney B. Vance) fear he will wreak havoc on their lives as he’s done so many times before. After Ben launches a charm offensive that wins over his young half-siblings, Holly agrees to let him stay for the holiday on one condition; for the next 24 hours, she will personally monitor his every move. That evening the family returns from a church Christmas pageant to find that their house has been ransacked. Worse still, their beloved dog is missing. It’s a message that Ben’s past has caught up with him and old debts must be paid. Heading into the frigid night, Ben and his mother embark on a quest to recover the dog from whichever of Ben’s former associates may have taken him. Along the way, as he tries to make things right and she learns unsettling truths about her son’s life, Holly does everything in her power to keep Ben safe. "Ben Is Back" is an intimate look at a mother struggling to protect her son from himself. What happens in one day if a young man in recovery comes home when it’s probably too early for him to return. What it’s like to get to the point where you do these really harmful things to yourself just so you can get high. Going in and out of rehab, struggling. Have no business taking on a daily basis. What you didn’t realize is that it's just as prevalent, if not more, in suburban and rural parts of America. The film shows the contrast between Ben’s wholesome family life and the gritty subculture in which much of the film’s third act takes place. It's a homeless tent city. But the deeply conflicted look on Holly Burns face when she arrives home to find her oldest son Ben on her doorstep makes it instantly clear that this family faces a profound challenge of it's own, one that cuts across economic and social strata. That’s not to say that Holly does everything right. She makes a lot of questionable choices. But she never makes them with malicious intent. They always come from this aching hope to be a protector and a provider for her children. This mother who will not give up on her child no matter what. Ivy is not just be the bratty perfect sister. She’s disappointed in Ben but at the same time she loves her brother and cares deeply about him. That said the core of their relationship. Neal is Ben’s level-headed stepfather. He sees what’s going on in this family with the most clarity. He loves his wife and loves his family, so the question becomes; is tough love the best solution? Are we enabling Ben, or protecting him, or saving him? We've to make some very tough calls. "Ben Is Back", opens on a family that seems at first glance. Affluent, attractive and loving, with their talented teenage daughter singing in the choir and their adorable younger children dressed up for a Christmas pageant, the Burnses evoke a modern version of a 'Norman Rockwell' painting. Hedges compresses his story into a single 24-hour time frame, starting the movie on 'Christmas Eve' morning. The script really speaks to the myriad ways addiction can impact a family. This is a complex story about a flawed family of all shapes and sizes and the unique struggles they face. It's a funny tale of an imperfect family doing their best in an imperfect world. The film explores how one broken, hurting person can impact all the members of his family. It’s a thriller with lots of twists and turns, lots of surprises, lots of gasping. It's a riveting story of love, forgiveness and redemption. Home may be where the heart is, but it’s also the source of pain, confusion and psychological turmoil. One thing is certain; this will be a 'Christmas Day' to remember..Above all, "Ben Is Back" is a really good yarn and very moving. "Ben Is Back" forces audiences to put themselves in the position of a parent who would do anything to help their child, but doesn’t know how, or if, they can. There are a hundred different narratives for every family. But the one concept to put across in this movie is just to not give up on each other. It's a non-judgmental portrait of characters who are each suffering from a disease that’s often perceived as a moral failing. There's a stigma around people who struggle with addiction. The film creates some sense of understanding around how hard it's to be dealt that hand. Rather than offering simplistic answers, "Ben Is Back" aims for a nuanced look at how well-meaning people often respond imperfectly to situations beyond their control. The kind of movie where when you leave the theater, you feel more alive and more open to other people’s experiences and you’re reminded of the fragility and beauty of life.

(South By Southwest Film Festival, March 14th, 2019, Austin, TX, Zach Theatre, 2:00 pm) "Apollo 11" From director Todd Douglas Miller comes a cinematic event fifty years in the making. Crafted from a newly discovered trove of 65mm footage, and more than 11,000 hours of uncatalogued audio recordings, "Apollo 11" takes us straight to the heart of 'NASA’s' most celebrated mission; the one that first put men on the moon, and forever made Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin into household names. Immersed in the perspectives of the astronauts, the team in 'Mission Control', and the millions of spectators on the ground, we vividly experience those momentous days and hours in 1969 when humankind took a giant leap into the future. From director Todd Douglas Miller comes a cinematic event fifty years in the making. Crafted from a newly discovered trove of 65mm footage, and more than 11,000 hours of uncatalogued audio recordings, "Apollo 11" takes us straight to the heart of 'NASA’s' most celebrated mission; the one that first put men on the moon, and forever made Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin into household names. Immersed in the perspectives of the astronauts, the team in 'Mission Control', and the millions of spectators on the ground, we vividly experience those momentous days and hours in 1969 when humankind took a giant leap into the future. Miller works closely with 'NASA' and 'The National Archives' (NARA) to locate all existing "Apollo 11" footage when 'NARA' staff members make a startling discovery that changed the course of the project; an unprocessed collection of 65mm large format footage, never before seen by the public, containing stunning shots of the launch, the inside of 'Mission Control', and recovery and post-mission activities. The footage is so pristine and the find so significant that the project evolved beyond filmmaking into one of film curation and historic preservation. The other unexpected find is a massive cache of audio recordings, more than 11,000 hours, make by two custom recorders which captured individual tracks from 60 key mission personnel throughout every moment of the mission. The film creates a code to restore the audio and make it searchable, then began the multi-year process of listening to and documenting the recordings, an effort that yielded remarkable new insights into key events of the mission as well as surprising moments of humor and camaraderie. The digitization of the 65mm collection, as well as the re-scanning of 16mm and 35mm materials, is undertaken at 'Final Frame', a post-production house in New York City, which helped create a custom scanner, capable of high dynamic range scanning at resolutions up to 8K. The resulting transfer, from which the film is cut, is the highest resolution, highest quality digital collection of "Apollo 11" footage in existence. Constructed entirely from archival materials and eschewing talking heads, "Apollo 11" captures the enormity of the event by giving audiences of all ages the direct experience of being there. When John F. Kennedy pledged in 1962 to put Americans on the moon by the end of the decade, he described it as a bold act of faith and vision. "Apollo 11" bears witness to the culmination of that pledge, when America and the world came together in an extraordinary act of unity and resolve, to achieve one of the greatest and most complex feats in human history. A lot of films have been made about 'Apollo 11', the first mission to land humans on the moon, but what sets this film apart is the fact that this is history being made again, new footage that's previously unknown has been expertly restored and scanned at the highest resolution possible, presenting never-before-seen footage from what many consider the crowning achievement of humankind to date. We're able for the first time in history to get new glimpses and new information about how we landed men on the moon. The original source material was 70MM, which is the widest-format film you're going to find. The detail that's brought out is considerable, for example, there's a scene capturing the astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins suiting up for the mission. We knew that scene was filmed, but when it was shown to the public, it had been cropped to 35MM in order to match the other film that was available. Many scenes like this have been expanded to a widescreen view, and we see them in high-definition for the first time. For the viewing public, this means a more visceral, you-are-there feeling, including being in the room with the astronauts as they're getting ready that July morning. For historians, it's an opportunity to see the whole layout of what was happening that day, featuring details that weren't previously available. The fact that these new reels were discovered by coincidence sitting in 'The National Archives' so close to 'Fhe 50th Anniversary' of the moon landing makes for a wonderful discovery, giving us the ability to celebrate it properly. Originally 'NASA' held the footage in a storage facility but over the years it was transferred to 'The National Archives', where it was more or less forgotten. Some of the footage was prepared for a documentary released in the 1970s, but once again the footage was cropped. This is the raw footage as it was originally taken, and since 'NASA' didn't have the funds or interest to produce more material, it sat unused. Fifty years later, the possibility of finding footage we've never seen before is becoming more and more rare, if not impossible. Because it's such a famous, iconic event in history, one would think that all footage that was ever to be seen from it would have already been discovered. The audio footage is something we knew existed, it had not been lost to the years like some of the images, but we've only had access to it recently. When the astronauts went to the moon, there were several different tracks of audio, including the space-to ground audio, or the voice of the astronauts being broadcast to the ground, and the singular voice of the representative from 'Mission Control' being transmitted back up to the astronauts. There were other tracks that were known to exist which had not been released to the public, including the flight director's loop, featuring all the voices from 'Mission Control' consoles talking to him. In addition, there was footage of the astronaut's voices from space as well as the back-room audio loops coming from 'Mission Support'. 'NASA' made hours of this audio available, and the film remastered it and synching it up with available film footage. For the first time, you can watch flight controllers speaking from 'Mission Control' and actually hear what they're saying because the audio has been meticulously synched with the corresponding moment in time. There's spectacular footage of average Americans watching the launch from parking lots and Florida beaches. A film team from 'NASA' captured the estimated one million people who showed up for the launch, the most people ever to show up for an event like this. This was the same film team that was documenting the astronauts preparing for the launch, for a project named 'Moonwalk One'. While this footage had been previously released, it was cropped, sometimes dramatically, so we're seeing a much wider view than ever before, we've a fuller record of what was filmed, in the widest format and highest definition possible. We can see more details than ever before. Watching the crowds outside J.C.Penney and along the beaches, you can see how people dressed at the time, what cars they drove. You can even see the reflection of the launch in the sunglasses of spectators as they watch it take off. You experience a tremendous mix of feelings watching these scenes, which are almost hyper-real. In one sense you know you're watching footage that's 50 years old, it exudes that sense of age and time, but what's most striking is how state-of-the-art it looks, like it's shot with the highest-quality camera you can find today. We all know how the launch sequence is going to turn out, we know going in that they will make it to the moon and back, but you're on the edge of your seat all over again because it looks and feels like a live event unfurling in the present. It feels like something entirely new, even though this is some of the most famous historical footage ever recorded. The centerpiece of this movie is the moon landing, and the moonwalk. We're seeing these scenes presented in a new way. The space footage is not new, but it was treated like the rest of the film, scanned at the highest resolution possible and placed into the context of a movie that draws you forward through existing archival footage, not through someone looking back and describing how it occurred. A lot of documentaries have depicted the moon landing and the moonwalk using narration or talking heads, contemporary commentary, which frames the footage so it feels like you're watching history. Because this film is 'cinema vérité', you're watching archival material telling the story itself in an approximation of real time, the sensation is like watching it unfold for the first time. For the first time, this is bona fide footage that we've not seen before, so the discovery alone was exciting. Add to that the latest in film technology, the ability to present this footage in high resolution, and large format, which looks amazing on the big screen and almost beyond belief on in a large- format presentation. Simply being able to bring the mission back to life and see it on a scale this huge is probably the most exciting factor. Scanning the rows inside the launch control center, being inside the suit-up room with the astronauts, getting a wider and more audible perspective of 'Mission Control' during the launch, and being on board 'The U.S.S. Hornet' as the astronauts returned from the mission; you can even spot Nixon in the crowd here. We've photographic documentation from these aspects of the mission, and other 16MM film taken from different vantage points, but the fact that we're seeing this from a new perspective, with new details to catch in a much wider frame, with clearer resolution, these are the moments you long for in a movie like this. This mission was well documented but now you've the opportunity to pick out details that tell a whole new story. The race to the moon unfolded in what was a perfect storm of events in the late 1960s, if all those events did not occur, we probably would never have reached the moon. We didn't go because we're scientifically interested in the moon, we went because we're in a cold war with 'The Soviet Union' and it was a testament of our technological prowess that we could send someone to the moon; it might have unfolded differently if this happened during peacetime. This was the crowning achievement of a race between two world powers fighting each other in a way that no one was actually hurt. From a cultural standpoint, the moon has been a symbol of many different things to people throughout humanity, it has always been that unreachable world and we're fueled by the notion that if we can send a man to the moon, we can do anything. John F. Kennedy saw it as a political need in order to beat 'The Russians'. When he was assassinated it became the vision and goal fallen hero, and it was untouchable from a political standpoint because it would have been seen as stomping on the legacy of a slain president. This was the culmination of a goal set out by someone that Americans, and the world, looked up to. If anything is going to be remembered about 'The 20th Century', it's going to be the fact that we took our first steps on another celestial body, because this is the future of humanity, the promise of going further. 'Apollo 11' was only the first step. The mission of 'Apollo 11' is one of the greatest achievements in human history, hundreds of thousands of people spread across tens of thousands of companies all focused on putting the first humans on another world. At times it feels like the film has just as many moving parts. What started out as a simple editing exercise, the film tells the entire story of the mission using only archival materials, turned into a cooperative effort by an international team of experts to create the definitive work on 'Apollo 11' for the screen. The remarkable discovery of a cache of untouched large format film and audio recordings added another dimension to the project; it's more than just a film now, it's an opportunity to curate and preserve this priceless historical material. We remind us that great things can be accomplished when people unite for a common goal. Fifty years later we've changed focus. Our original visions of how to go into space were not to go directly to the moon, it had to do with what came later, which was to establish a space shuttle and space station, then establish ourselves in orbit and go out even further. But a confluence of events changed our priorities. We haven't been back to the moon since 1972, after the sixth moon landing, but we're on the verge of returning, not as singular nations but in privatized missions. We've come to the point where there are companies that are building the rockets that will take private citizens to the moon. Countries like China are sending rovers to the far side of the moon, were no one has ventured before, as recently as January 2019. Later this year, the first Israeli moon lander will be launched from 'Kennedy Space Center' here in 'The U.S.' So we're having a lunar renaissance in the way that we're having more and more countries and organizations sending missions to the moon. Meanwhile, 'NASA' is looking in coming years to send astronauts back to the lunar orbit in cooperation with it's European, Canadian, Russian and Japanese partners with the intention of pushing on to Mars. After 50 years, we're at a new crossroads where we're ready to travel beyond flags and footprints toward more permanent lunar settlement. Soon we'll have a lasting presence there, pushing out into the solar system with the goal of always having humans exploring space.

(Release Info U.K. schedule: ■ Saturday 16 March 11.00am - Oxford | Ripon | Soho | Victoria | Wimbledon ■ Sunday 17 March 11.00am - Canterbury | Colchester | Knutsford | Mayfair | Richmond | Sheffield ■ Sunday 24 March 11.00am - Aldgate | Bloomsbury) "At Eternity's Gate" A look at the life of painter Vincent van Gogh (William Dafoe) during the time he lives in Arles and Auvers-sur-Oise, France. On February 20th 1888, Vincent van Gogh arrives in Arles. Before that, he lived in Paris for two years, where he developed a thoroughly modern style of painting. During the more than fourteen months which he spent in Arles, he creates a multitude of paintings and drawings, many ofwhich are nowadays seen as highlights of late 19th century art. Tired of the busy city life and the cold northern climate, Van Gogh heads South in search of warmer weather, and above all to find the bright light and colours of Provence so as to further modernize his new way of painting. On October 23rd, Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) comes to Arles. The two artists live and paint together for two months. It's a time filled with great mutual inspiration, but in the end their characters and artistic temperaments clashed. On December 23rd, Van Gogh sufferers a mental breakdown, probably a first sign of his illness, and cut off a part of his left ear. Gauguin leaves, and Van Gogh’s dream of a studio with other painters is shattered. He spent some more time in the hospital after a second breakdown in February 1889. He continues to work in Arles for a few more months, but has himself interned voluntarily in the asylum in Saint-Rémy on May 8th 1889. It's a deep dive into the emotional core of Vincent Van Gogh. It's the story of a man who's foremost a human being. Vincent goes through this mix of creative explosion and personal implosion. He falls in love with 'The South Of France" all over again and take it in with all of his senses on overdrive. He's ferocious in his desire to touch God through color, through light, through perspective, through responding fully to the landscape and his surrounding world. He's trying to capture a reality that to him felt closer to God than what we normally see. When Vincent is communing with nature, he’s a rich man and it doesn’t matter if he’s sold paintings or not. Van Gogh has a depth afection for his brother Theo (Rupert Friend), the one person he could always talk to about art and life, in pleasure or despair. He cares for him in so many ways. It's a very loving relationship. And Theo sees in his brother what other people didn’t yet see, never wavering in his confdence of his brother’s talent. Vincent struggles in many ways throughout his life, which is evidenced in his letters to Theo. The story includes another 'immortal' painter; Paul Gauguin, who joined Van Gogh in Arles, becoming for a time his housemate. He's a central figure in Van Gogh’s later life. Much has been made of their tempestuous relationship, and it's role in Van Gogh’s apparent bouts of madness. What’s most in evidence is that Van Gogh and Gauguin both paint a lot in those weeks. Van Gogh paints from models, but Gauguin paints from memory and imagination. It's two diferent ways of seeing and we imagined how they might have talked to one another about those diferences. Gauguin is someone who recognizes an artistic and intellectual equal in Van Gogh. In most movies, Gauguin has been shown as sort of a jerk who couldn’t handle Van Gogh. Gauguin wrote some very beautiful things to and about Van Gogh after he left Arles. There’s a letter that Gauguin wrote to Van Gogh, when he's in the asylum saying he wanted to trade a painting with him. And that letter is really the best review that Van Gogh could get, because Van Gogh cared about what Paul thought. And the fact is that Gauguin cared about Van Gogh, too. This time Gauguin and Van Gogh spent in Arles has taken on such mythical proportions because the outpouring of creativity is so condensed and pressurized. Van Gogh is so alone much of the time, so locked in his own brain, that Gauguin in that moment is really almost a lifeline for him, the one person who could maybe understand some of what he's trying to do. When you see him out in that feld smiling while pouring dirt on his face, he's not a poor man. He's a man who feels he's in the right place at the right time, in complete connection with being alive. They’re literally sitting right next to each other, but Van Gogh is painting what he sees in front him in his own wild way and Gauguin is completely inventing something. They’re both grappling with what it means to be a painter and why they do things as they do. The film is a portrait of anybody who has ever sat down to create something, whether you’re a painter or not. In the film, Vincent’s audience is not born yet, but that doesn’t stop him from doing what he was compelled to do. This movie is an accumulation of scenes based on painter Vincent van Gogh’s letters, common agreement about events in his life that parade as facts, hearsay, and scenes that are just plain invented. The making of art gives an opportunity to make a palpable body that expresses a reason to live, if such a thing exists. Even with all the violence and tragedy that has been associated with Van Gogh’s life, there's no doubt, his was a life lived rich with magic, profound communication with nature and the wonder of being. His unique perspective is one whose belief and vision make visible and physical the inexpressible. This is not a forensic biography about the painter. It's about what it's to be an artist. Can a movie speak to, in it's own kinetic, time-altering way, the intense swirl of feeling and aliveness that goes into painting? When you stand in front of a particular work, each one tells you something. But after you look at 30 paintings, the experience becomes something more. It becomes an accumulation of all those diferent feelings put together. Each event you see happening to Vincent aggregates, it feels as if this entire period of his life is happening to you in a moment. Van Gogh in the last years of his life was totally aware of the fact that he had a new vision of the world, that he was no longer painting the same way as other painters. The film captures some things that have often evaded movies about artists. Van Gogh’s final days is a view into the artist unlike any other. This is a story that pursues what the act of creation, that visceral, searing magic that defes all words and obliterates time, feels like from the inside, the strenuous physicality of painting and the devotional intensity of the artist’s life, especially the way painters see. The result is a kaleidoscopic and surprising movie experience, one that becomes just as much about the role of the artist in the world, about being alive and reaching for the eternal, as it's about the beauty and wonder Van Gogh left behind, never knowing his profound impact. The Van Gogh seen in the film comes directly out of the personal response to his paintings, not just what people have written about him. The film does draw on letters, biographies, the legends we’ve all heard as well as the innumerable perspectives to the history. But at heart, this is a work of sheer imagination, an ode to the artistic spirit and to having a conviction so absolute that you must devote your life to it. It’s a film about a painter, Van Gogh, in which the fil tries not to provide a biography of Van Gogh, that would be absurd, it’s so well known, but to dream up scenes that might have taken place, in which Van Gogh might have participated, might have taken part, in the course of which he might have spoken, but which history does not record. The film goes beyond a classic biopic. It's truly a painter’s film, the vision of an artist giving us an insight into the process of artistic creation. If you look at Van Gogh’s paintings and drawings you see a view of someone who's far away from society but in the middle of nature. We needed to take his walk and follow his physically demanding path, in order to see what he saw. Silence is as important as dialogue, landscape as much as portraiture. As you keep walking you get pushed a little further and further, until you can see past what you thought you could see, and maybe even see what he saw. We all have a terminal case of life. Painting is a practice that in some ways addresses death, because it's related to life yet diferent from the rest of life, so it gives you access to this other place. Art can transgress death.

McCleary said you were brutal. I can be. I want you to hurt them. It’s not just the fact that defenseless young children are victims of unscrupulous people who use them in networks for pedophiles. The most disgusting aspect of this is that these circuits are visited by people who occupy important positions in daily life. Individuals who show a respectable and neat appearance to the outside world. But once they show up in this nauseating business, their fortune is their entrance ticket so they can abuse these innocent children. Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) is someone who wants to set things straight. Armed with a heavy hammer, he beats those perverts from their victims. But “You were never really here” is not just about the existence of children’s networks. The film also tries to paint a picture of the person Joe who is daily tormented by his own demons. Every time Joe gets on screen, you just feel that heavy burden on his shoulders. He’s suicidal and exposes a murderous resentment. And this because of a youth full of violence, which is sporadically portrayed in haunting flashbacks. But also because of his war record. His scarred upper torso is probably caused by these events. And perhaps mentally there are even more profound wounds. Hence his fatalistic attitude. A “Je mon fou” posture which makes him walk into a lion’s den without hesitation. And as a result, he also carries out life-threatening or self-mutilating actions. Pulling a plastic bag over your head isn’t exactly something normal functioning people do on a regular basis. It’s clear that PTSD also has something to do with this. Are you expecting to see explicit violence? You’ll be slightly disappointed. Violence is abundantly present but is always kept out of the picture in a strategic way. There are a modest number of bloody scenes, but predominantly the violent and repulsive images are kept out of sight. But don’t doubt it. Joe is an aggressive and insensitive (At least at that level) disposer of persons of poor moral character who’ll split the skull of these persons in two without hesitation. However, his last intervention sets an influential mechanism in motion where he himself threatens to become a victim. Perhaps for some, it’s a tad too arty and the speed of the film a bit too slow. Yet Lynne Ramsay knows how to make a stylistic revenge film. The entire film is filled with dreamy (almost hallucinatory) fragments and perfectly framed snapshots. A child’s voice counting down softly. The sinking of a human body into the water. A close up of dripping wet hair. Joe staring into the distance. The biggest part of the film is also filmed in a dark and murky set-up. Probably as dark as the deformed and pained spirit of Joe. The interpretation by Joaquin Phoenix is breathtaking. Maybe rough around the edges, but deep inside a softy. A man without too many words, with a raw personality and with an impressive beard. As he strolls through New York, he looks like a homeless bum on his way to the soup kitchen at some community center. In reality, he’s a man with a well-defined mission. “You were never really here” certainly doesn’t belong in the list of boring uniformity that’s lately being produced in Hollywood. The film is more a character study than simply a revenge film. It’s the kind of film that gets under your skin. I was a fan of Joaquin Phoenix anyway, but because of his undeniably fantastic acting performance in this film, he rises a bit more into the leading group of actors who are unmatchable in terms of acting. My rating 8/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

The Incredibles (2004) was a masterpiece in my in and truly set its self apart from most animated and superhero movies at the time. However, Incredbles 2 did not have the same effect: personally i believe that the film primarily sold itself on the well expected hype that would come from the fans of the first film along with all of the new viewers who were sold the film by all of the extremely positive reviews of the first film. Incredibles 2 relies heavily on the nostalgia of fans which disappointed me as it came across as lazy from a narrative point of view; while I believe that the animations were undoubtedly incredible (i couldn't resist) that isn't enough to distract from the rather lacking story line. While the first film felt fresh with a new perspective on the super hero genre, having them outlawed rather than praised and focusing on the effect that their city wide battles would cause on the real world, the sequel just felt like a slight rehashing of the original, with a twist added in that doesn't surprise nor shock viewers. Syndrome was an amazing antagonist: from his lack of actual super powers, to his somewhat realistic motivations, he was an all-round great character that people love to hate. Screenslaver, while also a fairly adequate antagonist, is less interesting due to a poor backstory that isn't covered too much, uninspired and unrealistic motivations and we don't get the sense that Screenslaver is as invested in their evil doings when compared to a maniacal villain such as Syndrome. We learn about how Syndrome tested and tinkered with his evil creations to achieve his goal and become the ultimate anti-hero, this gives the audience a better understanding of Syndrome and how motivated he is to achieving his goal. In comparison, Screenslaver doesn't get too much development, we don't get to see any progress of their evil plans, we don't get to see any past failed attempts, and we don't get to understand how their motivations lead to their plans. Overall i found Incredibles 2 to be unoriginal and a cash-grab if anything. I can definitely see that a lot of money, time and effort went into making this movie, especially the animation, but the story felt rushed and uninspired, i never truly related to the characters or felt for them in any way. I found the film to be enjoyable nonetheless however i believe the story and some of the characters needed to be improved upon and needed to be further developed.

Hey guys - check out our trailer for our "Who-dun-it" feature film. You can also visit www.stillwaterthemovie.com for more information. https://youtu.be/jTvlCvPPKdw

Originally uploaded about a month ago... Finally! Incredibles 2 hit the cinemas. I remember the first Incredibles being something I watched as a kid as much as I could (though it was dubbed in Turkish most of the time...) - but was the sequel worth the wait? Did I like it? Well, if you care to know... give the review a watch. :-)

Who are we? We can't protect them. For me, "Upgrade" deserves the title "Best SF of the Year". And unhesitatingly I call "A quiet place" the best horror of 2018. Even though it's more Science-fiction than horror per se. I've been watching horror movies all my life and have already finished a whole list. Frankly, I was terrified of creeps like Dracula and Frankenstein until I was about 14 years old. If I even had seen a small fragment, I would go to bed shaking like a leaf and I'dd crawl behind a giant teddy bear. In my youthful fantasy, this bear was my protection against the creatures of the night. And when I saw "Evil Dead" for the first time and, to my astonishment, watched it without too many problems (as if I was numb), I knew my fear of horrors had disappeared from the face of the earth. Since then, I watch a horror with a certain kind of indifference. Last week I saw the articles about the trailer for "The Nun" and the fact they've removed it from YouTube after jump-scare complaints and people saying it's too scary. At the end of the trailer, I wondered when it would start to be frightening. Well, never. But "A quiet place" ... that's a different story. You want scary? This movie is. It's not that I broke out into cold sweat constantly or that I wet myself because of the rising tension. But I admit. At a certain moment, I sat on the edge of my seat and the tense atmosphere, in the end, made me gasp for breath. I can't remember a film in which the constant threat and fear were so explicitly present. And the constant silence in this film is deafening. Yet a daring choice to use this necessary silence in a horror film where usually sudden loud sound effects cause a jump-scare. The scriptwriters of "A quiet place" didn't have a lot of work with dialogues in this film. For the greater part of the film, they used hand gestures and occasionally they were allowed to whisper. A necessity, otherwise you won't be having a long and prosperous life. Those things have ears my kids are missing. At the start, you're wondering (at least if you go in without any prior knowledge) why this family behaves in this way and what the result will be if they don't stick to the imposed rules. Believe me, you will soon find out. First in a really cruel way. And then through the sporadic displaying of news articles that Lee (John Krasinski) collects. In my opinion, the things that harass this family and react to any random sound are the most frightening creatures I've ever seen in a film. They are as murderous and cruel as a Xenomorph from "Alien". I looked breathlessly at the design and anatomy of these deadly creatures whose most important body organ is a freakishly large and sophisticated auditory organ. They made quite an impression on me. So fascinating. It's almost perfect. In retrospect, this film is almost perfect. On all levels. In terms of content, it's a brilliant story. The special effects are amazingly good. The acting is sublime. Each character delivers decent acting. John Krasinski as Paterfamilias and who acts as a protector for his family. And he also (in complete silence) tries to develop a working hearing aid for his deaf daughter Regan (Millicent Simmonds). Without a doubt, the best interpretation is delivered by her. And not only because she's actually deaf in real life and thus plays this role in a realistic way. But as part of the story, she captures the imagination the most. Emily Blunt plays the pregnant, caring mother Evelyn who's about to give birth. A happy event that brings the necessary headaches. And lastly Noah Jupe in a perhaps smaller role as the youngest son Marcus, but still of crucial importance. And then there's Cade Woodward. But unfortunately, his contribution was really short-lived. All of them deliver a top performance. Don't say I haven't warned you. So be warned. This brilliant film is an outright nail-biter and will make your blood run cold at certain times. And this thanks to the tight script and the scary atmosphere supported by a threatening soundtrack. Sometimes a horror cliché is used. In a world of silence, for example, an upstanding nail in the wooden cellar staircase will cause the necessary consequences of course. But that's the only thing, in a film which excels in originality. What you do realize after watching this film, is that we humans live in an extremely noisy world. And there's no "mute" button you can use when such creatures come to visit you. I bet it'll be quiet subsequently. No doubt about that. My rating 9/10

(Release Info London schedule; September 8th, 2018, Curzon Bloomsbury, 11:00) "The Rider" After a tragic riding accident, young cowboy Brady Blackburn (Brady Jandreau), once a rising star of the rodeo circuit, is warned that his competition days are over. Back home, Brady finds himself wondering what he has to live for when he can no longer do what gives him a sense of purpose; to ride and compete. In an attempt to regain control of his fate, Brady undertakes a search for new identity and tries to redefine his idea of what it means to be a man in the heartland of America. Young cowboy Brady Blackburn, once a rising star of the rodeo circuit and an uniquely gifted horse trainer, is warned that his riding days are over after a horse badly crushed his skull at a rodeo and put him in a three-day coma. Back home on 'The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation', South Dakota, Brady struggles with the physical and emotional complications of the accident. He is comforted by his inimitable little sister Lilly (Lilly Jandreau), who has 'Asperger’s Syndrome', while tensions between him and his gambling father, Wayne (Tim Jandreau), approach a breaking point when Wayne resorts to selling Brady’s favorite horse to keep their trailer home. With few alternatives and little desire for a different way of life, Brady feels a growing sense of inadequacy unable to ride and rodeo; the essentials of being a cowboy, and the defining elements in his life. Frustrated, Brady starts to drift away from his rodeo friends and spend more time with his friend Lane (Lane Scott), who's in intensive rehab after his once promising bull-riding career ended in a tragic accident. As time goes on, Brady can’t stay away from his horses. He decides to start riding and training them again. However, the complications of his head injury soon puts him in dangerous situations and eventually back in the hospital. After another painful loss in his life, in an attempt to regain control of his own fate, Brady recklessly returns to the rodeo. Locked in a battle he can’t win, Brady has to decide between healing with the help of his family and friends, or risking it all to keep the only sense of self he’s ever known. This film is about a group of Lakota cowboys living on 'Fhe Pine Ridge Indian Reservation'. Despite the fair complexion some of them have, they're born and raised on the reservation and are both 'Oglala Lakota Sioux" and bonafide cowboys. They wear feathers in their hats to honor their Lakota ancestry, Indian cowboy, a true American contradiction. Brady Blackburn is a twenty-year old Lakota cowboy. He's a member of 'The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe' and currently resides on 'Pine Ridge'. He's a saddle bronc rider and a horse trainer, who lives like a man of the land. He hunts on horseback, fishes in the white river, spends most of his days working with wild horses, breaking and training them until they're fit for selling. Like a fish to water, Brady seems to understand every movement of the horse, as if they're locked in some kind of telepathic dance routine. He's been doing it since he was eight years old, and it's miraculous to observe. On April 1st, 2016 Brady enters 'The PRCE Rodeo' in Fargo, North Dakota. He's to compete in the 'Saddle Bronc' section and feels confident after a string of successful rides during the season. But that night Brady is thrown off. The bucking horse stomps on his head and near fatally crashed his skull. Brady’s brain bled internally. He has a seizure and fell into a three day coma. It's about Brady’s struggles, both physically and emotionally, as he comes to terms with his injury. Brady now has a metal plate in his head, and suffers from other health issues associated with a severe traumatic brain injury. The doctor advises him to never ride again. If he hits his head again, it could be fatal. But Brady is back breaking wild horses in no time. Beyond the financial hardships that came with the injury, Brady’s response make think us about the psychological impact these injuries have on young men like him, what it must be like to live in the heartland of America, unable to match up to the ideal image of a cowboy, an image these young men have tried to live up to their whole lives. Everyone in the film comes from in and around the reservation. This includes Brady’s father, Tim, an old school cowboy who taught Brady all he knows. His bright and spirited little sister, Lilly, who has 'Asperger’s Syndrome', and expressed herself completely free of inhibitions. His rodeo friends, all sharing in Brady's hopes, fears and dreams, and one of his best-friends Lane, who's completely paralyzed after an accident that ended his promising bull riding career. Brady, who works as a professional horse trainer, trained horses for the first half of each day in order to have them ready for a horse sale. The film captures a lot of authentic footage of Brady training and interacting with horses, while fully taking advantage of the magical South Dakota sunset. The film captures moments in an organic yet cinematic way in order to further integrate a complete sense of reality into the narrative. Through Brady’s journey, both on and off screen, the film explores the culture of masculinity and to offer a more nuanced version of the classic American cowboy. It's an authentic portrait of the rough, honest and beautiful American heartland. Utilizing long, visually stunning takes, "The Rider" explores the prairies of the American heartland with urgency and authenticity while delivering an emotionally involving drama about an existential dilemma.