Search Results

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.

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

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

All right, I need you to loosen the guy up. He’s old, all right? Do not kill him. The only thing I wondered afterward was “Why for God sake was this movie made?“. I’m not saying that this was the most horrible film of the year. Or the most superfluous release ever. There were some positive things in it. And in a certain way, it was sometimes far from bad even. But in the end, it was only a simplistic storyline and little to nothing innovative. The only thing that stayed with me is that you got an unpleasant feeling while watching. The way Rainy (Guillermo Diaz) addressed and dealt with the kidnapped persons was rather intimidating. An agitated character who’s completely out of control after consuming some kind of soft drugs. You just felt that it was a difficult situation for Audrey (Tammy Blanchard) and her daughter Cheyenne (Onata Aprile). But that’s the only thing in this film that can be called exciting. For the rest, it’s quite weak. It’s all about water. Everything revolves around the claiming of water rights by Bobby (David Spade). Something his ancient grandfather failed in doing. And apparently, he can only achieve this by sending two vicious-looking characters to the elderly owner. To exert a little pressure. What Bobby didn’t know was that the latter had already died. The only ones they find in the old man’s house are the daughter Audrey and granddaughter Cheyenne. And the only plan that those two bums can come up with is to kidnap these two people who happen to be present. What follows is a precarious situation where one kidnapper (Dwight Henry as Jawari) tries to keep the other in line (clearly that these two bunglers don’t really know each other). And when someone unexpectedly shows up at the door, Ryan gets even more agitated. Some familiar faces. Apart from the lesser known actors, you will notice a number of familiar faces. The most well-known person is, of course, the comedian David Spade as the go-getter Bobby who apparently has to prove himself towards his grandfather Calvin (Bruce Dern, known face number two). Personally, I don’t think David Spade belongs to the crème de la crème when it comes to comedy. Usually, these are forgettable, nonsense comedies that are far from funny. I thought he’d make a funny comment at any moment. His contribution was reasonably mediocre. Bruce Dern’s acting was also fairly limited. Certainly compared to his part in “The Hateful Eight” as General Sandy Smithers. And finally, you’ll also recognize James Earl Jones in a tiny role as a sort of notary. Also an insignificant role for such a well-known star. A movie to forget about. What remains are the leads. Their acting is nevertheless of a reasonable level. For example, I found the interaction between Tammy Blanchard and Onata Aprile very convincing. Maybe at times, it was a bit overly sentimental and Cheyenne came across as inexperienced. But that didn’t really bother me. Also, the acting of Guillermo Diaz was generally good. He managed to picture Ryan as an unstable character. Although his frantic attempt to sound like an accomplished psychiatrist was a bit absurd. Unfortunately, this wasn’t enough to make it an interesting film. The motive itself was already far-fetched. The final denouement sounded even more nonsensical. Nope, “Warning Shot” certainly isn’t a great film. So, you don’t want to waste time? Better you skip it then. My rating 3/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn, BFI London Film Festival, Friday 08 October 2021 18:00 Curzon Soho Cinema, Screen 1) https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp "Bad Luck Banging Or Loony Porn" Emilia (Katia Pascariu), a school teacher, finds her career and reputation under threat after a personal sex tape is leaked on 'The Internet'. Forced to meet the parents demanding her dismissal, Emilia refuses to surrender to their pressure. The first lockdown ended in Romania at the end of May. The second wave of 'Covid-19' comes at the beginning of July. The number of cases is rising. How to interact with people. When we were young, we really admired all the crazy shoots we read about; "Way Down East", "Aguirre", "Apocalypse Now". We still admire them, but we're too weak. We should not risk the life or health of anybody when it comes to shooting. No film in the world is worth someone contracting even a common cold. All characters wearing masks. Wearing a mask in severe heat for 12 hours a day can be horrible. So, it's quite disappointing to have a few people every day taking off the mask whenever they can. We see it as a lack of respect, a kind of 'Fuck You', We don’t care about anyone else, we want to feel good even if we can infect you. This sometimes make the atmosphere tense. The masks are part of our daily life and the film captures this moment, to find the anthropological aspect of the mask-wearing. If you go down on the street during this time, the signs that remained, posters for concerts, empty restaurants, and so on and so forth are already signs of a non-existent reality. Cinema has this possibility to capture things, to capture the signs of the time passing, to make a capsule of the moment in many ways. It's about real-life stories from Romania and other countries, of teachers being expelled from schools where they're teaching because of what they're doing in their private lives; live-cam sex chat or posting amateur porn recordings on 'The Internet'. The discussions is so heabted, it makes us think that although the topic seems trivial and shallow, there must be a lot more behind it if reactions to it are so powerful. The film has three parts which engage each other in poetic ways, understanding poetic according to Malraux’s definition. Without doubt all true poetry is irrational in that it substitutes, for the established relation of things, a new system of relations. While the film title is mostly self-explanatory, it's subtitle, a sketch for a popular film, can benefit from an explanation. Malraux once noted that Delacroix, though affirming the superiority of the finished painting over the sketch, kept many of his sketches, whose quality as works of art he considered equal to that of his best paintings. The film looks like if it's form is left open, unfinished, like a sketch. The film could be easy like a summer breeze and because of it's tabloid-like topic. But it's not a real popular film. Only a sketch of a possible. What's obscene and how do we define it? We're used to acts which are much more obscene, in a way, than small acts like the one that set off the uproar we see in the film. The film clashes these two types of obscenity, and to see that the one so-called obscenity in the porn video is nothing compared with what's around us, but that we don’t pay attention to. The film tells a contemporary story, a small one, a little story. If history and politics are part of the film, that's because the story itself has a deeper meaning if we see it in a historical, societal and political context. Obscenity is the theme of this film and the viewers are constantly invited to compare the so- called obscenity of a banal amateur porn video with the obscenity around us and the obscenity we can find in recent history, whose traces are all around. So, the viewers should make this montage operation. Montage will be precisely one of the fundamental responses to this problem of constructing historicity. Because it's not oriented towards simplicity, Montage escapes theologies, and has the power to make visible the legacies, anachronisms, contradictory intersections of temporalities that affect each object, each event, each person, each movement. Thus, the historian renounces telling a story, but in doing so, succeeds in showing that history cannot be, without all of the complexities of time, all the archaeological strata, all of the perforated fragments of destiny. "Bad Luck Banging Or Loony Porn" delivers an incendiary mix of unconventional form, irreverent humor and scathing commentary on hypocrisy and prejudice in our societies.

(Release Info London schedule; July 11th, 2018, Picturehouse, 21:00) "Marrowbone" Four siblings seek refuge in an old home after the death of their mother, only to discover that the house has another, more sinister, inhabitant, in this haunting directorial debut from Sergio G. Sánchez. "Marrowbone" tells the story of Jack (George MacKay), Billy (Charlie Heaton), Jane (Mia Goth), and Sam (Matthew Stagg), 4 orphan siblings that only have each other and that face the threat of a voracious past, that doesn't let go and the promise of a future of light that doesn't really sets in. While they try to overcome that moment, they take shelter in a house, which actually is a great fiction that allows them to live under the mirage of being safe from that, which harms them. Jack, Billy, Jane, and Sam represent different way, sometimes opposed, sometimes complementary to face the trauma they've in common. That's why their inner relationships are so fascinating and complex. The main weight falls on Jack. As the older sibling, he faces the responsibility of looking after his siblings. He struggles with the usual concerns of a boy his age, his love for Allie (Anya Taylor-Joy), and the responsibility his mother has given him by asking him to keep the family together. He's a tortured character because he lives with anguish and emptiness in his memory and is constantly trying to close that hole. By contrast, Jane, the second sister, symbolizes goodness in the absence of the mother. Whenever there's a violent or negative instinct, Jane compensates. She fights for the brothers can leave behind their painful past. Billy, the third of the siblings, is perhaps the most troublesome. He represents courage, the bravery that Jack sometimes lacks. In return he has a tendency to rush and move towards the dark side. It contrasts with Jane, who leads the family into the light. Billy is therefore one of the most interesting characters in the story as it condenses the fears of the group, the fear with which they've to learn to live with. He's only a teenager who, like the boys of his age, wants to explore, feel free. A vehemence that given the peculiar situation in which his family is, turns out to be counterproductive and dangerous. The most obvious metaphor for summarizing Billy's character corresponds to that of a caged bird that's eager to fly.   The fourth brother is Sam. He's the youngest, so everyone feels they've to overprotect him by hiding the most scabrous aspects that have led them to their present situation, which is funny considering Sam is very conscious of what happens. In this sense, Sam is a fundamental pillar of the family. He tries to remain innocent before his siblings, as if he fears to put them in danger if he verbalizes everything he knows. It seems that his older siblings need to believe that he's more tender and naive than he really is. For them, his innocence is living proof that not everything is corrupted in the world. Allie is practically the only link they've with the outside world, the lens through which they observe what goes on outside the walls of their little microcosm. She's a bright, cheerful character that holds us to the story and the moment in which it happens. Allie represents the real world. Her life is radically different from the sibling's one. The romance between Jack and Allie accurately sums up the idiosyncrasy of both characters. It's teenage love shared by two young people who neither want nor have time to consider where it will lead.   There's another character that's also essential and has to do with the Asturias nebula. It's the house where the siblings live, the miniature universe that frees and cages them at the same time, and which, although in the film is located in a fictional point of Maine. The protagonists live in the world with their own rules, invisible to society that continues with their concerns on the other side. All this is very easy to convey thanks to the house they chose, because it's totally isolated, with no signs of modern life around it, as if the history had really run it's course without it. In addition to the house, it's also important the recreation of the town that Jack visits on occasions to run errands. This village is conceived in the film to aggressively contrast with the reality of the house. While this has barely evolved since 1931, when the house was closed, the village people live fully in the year that corresponds to them, 1969. It's a town that we don't see much in terms of footage, but the feeling that you are somewhere else has to be very fast. The chosen place is 'The Old Factory Of Arms Of Oviedo', which also has to be transformed to fit the geographical and temporary needs of the story.   "Marrowbone" is Sergio G. Sánchez's filmmaker debut. Up until now, Sánchez had been responsible for some of the best screenplays of recent Spanish cinema, praised for his ability to manage emotions and connect almost immediately with the audience. Especially well known are "The Orphanage" and "The Impossible". It's a complex story, with different time lines, with several twists. This idea of a novel in installments is not by chance. "Marrowbone" shares with this type of literature the presence of an independent universe, filled with secrets that entices the audience and invites them to stay and live inside. The odyssey of four siblings that cross the Atlantic escaping from a mysterious trauma with a life of it's own. The four siblings are flesh and bone people. One wants to stay and live with them, know their secrets and be by their side in their fears. A great deal of it comes from the special interest in childhood, youth and all which happens when their characters swim into the deep and dark water of adulthood. It's not by chance that "Marrowbone's" main characters are four kids that haven't yet reach adulthood. The same way "The Orphanage" and "The Impossible" placed the lights and shadows of childhood at the core. The film defends the importance of fiction as a medicine to cure deep wounds or even as shelter for a hostile reality we're not able to manage. It's a combination of fantasy and terror and drama genre. The film creates a cinema, which is analogous and supplementary, with obsessions and themes alike.   It's a subtle approach to the genre, without tightening the screws. The genre, as a way of reaching the truth, but not as a purpose itself. It's the kind of feature that's no longer done, that don't requires special effects or make up; terror is at the story's core and gradually consumes everything. Genre is a crucial and essential element that gradually sneaks under the door, always to help the characters, not the other way round. The fantastic element helps narrate the ordinary in an extraordinary way, as something that can't be, but it in the end, is. "Marrowbone" moves along different areas. A balance between drama and different elements of genre that adjust to the point of view of four siblings, full of life, but also with anxiety. And all of it, impregnated with a unique romanticism that tinges each frame. It's only logical that the family dynamics between the four members constitutes the cornerstone that articulates all the film. In "Marrowbone", all those principles take place simultaneously. We know something is happening beyond that surface of apparently calm images, and of course, we're willing to unravel it's deepest nooks We want to cross the threshold and dig into the story.   "Marrowbone" is a thriller that combines many elements, thriller, horror, love story and fantasy. The film invites the viewer to participate in the game, to actively participate and compose a puzzle. It's a classic movie of suspense, it seems like a movie from another time, away from the patterns of the current genre cinema. But for this not seem like an exercise of nostalgia, the film tries to narrate it for it to have a complex and original structure. Sanchez uses the simile of a Russian doll to define the structure of the film. This is not a classic story in three acts. The framework is more complex. Each time a new mystery is revealed it's as if we open one of these matrioshkas, the film changes and reveals a new identity. What begins as a story becomes a family drama, then to become a ghost story, then a psychological thriller and so on until finally to the last of those dolls that encircles the heart of the story that which surrounds the emotion of this fable. But once you know all the secrets, you can watch the movie again and understand it in another way. The most poetic, or fabled, side of history takes on a new meaning once you understand everything that's happening and you can see it again, taking a different journey with it's characters. It's cinema appeals to that apparently complete happiness, but incredibly fragile, in which you can get a glimpse of the cracks of growing up. It's a message directly to kids; telling them that once they cross that line, they're force to grow up, even though in essence, they're still children. In our cinema, the look is always connected to a kid's point of view. It happens in the films we've done together and it happens in "Marrowbone". The characters struggle between different worlds, they fight to remain in one, but they're destined to grow up and enter the other one. The phrase that the mother states, can also be understood like a hidden message for the audience. It's telling us that going through that threshold will take us directly to the film's mysteries, to a secret that promises to change us forever. A point of no return. A journey that has to do with the fantastical. It's a movie with a lot of heart, with a lot of spirit. The audience is going to find a very rich universe, full of nuances, with many turns and, above all, a lot of emotion.

The main character Maria is drowning in her complicated and unfulfilled life.Prepared to escape it all, by drowning herself in the sea, she ends up saving a man from drawning. There is a sense of mysticism intertwined with an undeniable reality conveyed throughout this bewildering film.

(Release Info London schedule; June 19th, 2020, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-on-a-magical-night-film-online "On A Magical Night" We meet Maria Mortemart (Chiara Mastroianni), a woman who's dissatisfied with her marriage after a heated argument with her husband Pierre (Anthony Devaux). After 20 years of marriage, Maria decides to leave her husband. She moves out for the night to stay in a hotel across the street from their home and settles in room 212 from which she watches her husband and reflects upon their life together. While mulling over her decision, various people from her past appear, offering their opinions. She's visited by her late mother (Marie-Christine Adam), her dead grandmother (Claire Johnston), Richard Warrimer (Vincent Lacoste), a younger, 25-year-old version of her husband, her husband’s first love Irene Haffner (Camille Cottin) and her many lovers, to berate her for a string of infidelities. In room 212, she reflects upon her marriage, gifted with the ability to see it all at once. There, she has a bird’s eye view of her apartment, her husband, and her marriage. In this comic romp, she confronts her past lovers and relationships on one magical night, fantasizing about the lives she could’ve lived and wondering if she’s made the right decisions. Inspired by Leo McCarey’s 'The Awful Truth', this is a playful, witty fantasy, served by stunning cinematography. From the very beginning, the story looks like a conjugal tale more than a report on couples. The film takes a familiar topic, a couple in crisis after many years of marriage, and revives it with abundant creativity and cinematic strokes of genius. 'Thus play I in one person many people, and none contented'. We believe that this 'Shakespeare' verse, that John Irving borrowed for the title of one of his novels, defines quite well the initial mystery in that story. Let’s pretend a woman, Maria, one night has the revelation that she has the gift of seeing how there are always more people around her than it seems. Her husband is also her young fiancé, and the teenager she did not know. Her rival Irene is also Irene the role model of her future life. Her lover Asdrubal Électorat (Harrison Arevelo) is all of her lovers in one person. Maria would be like a fixed star that would attract satellites around her that keep multiplying. The story follows the poisonous steps of this invasion and simultaneously builds with Maria the antidote to escape them. Let’s pretend that woman, Maria, experienced finding her voice among all the voices that block her. The more Maria would like to think about her life, the more her life turns out to be filled with protagonists who want to speak for her. Maria crosses a street, hoping for some perspective, to see herself from the outside, to see her apartment, her husband, her marriage from above. Yet now she's not facing loneliness, but the noisy group of people who claim they've suffered from her, her freedom, her desires. Among them, Maria is like a prisoner of more or less aggressive signs that she must interpret. And we don’t have much of an explanation for it except that they're shamefully sweet and exhaustingly kind; these four characters liked one another. In our great ideas about films and how cinema happens, we forget this essential, precious and rare element; the love that the characters feel for one another. The trust, the humor, the affection, the friendship between them. This film owes everything to the health, kindness, tenderness, wildness and delicate and benevolent warmth of the characters. As often, “On A Magical Night” proceeds from "Les Fleurs", which has not been shot, barely been written, but which is it's secret source. The story is set during 'The Occupation', then in 'The 50’s'. There's an imaginary painter, a piano, 'The Picardie' region, 'The Opéra Garnier' and two female characters who are keeping a secret that they could not access themselves. We find ourselves watching Leo McCarey’s “The Awful Truth”; Irene Dunne and Cary Grant as an infallible married couple after their divorce. It takes us to an overly solemn level. How many filmmakers have taken an interest in the subject of conjugal conversation? We're more and more distrustful of this importance, this sort of domination that some films command to cinema itself. "On A Magical Night” expresses in a sentimental and stubborn way, the attachment to fiction cinema where let’s pretend has more value than the let’s do it as it's. Here, fiction in the sense of enchantment. We've let ourselves been swept along it in a dance with forgotten steps, charmed by it's spells. And little by little, it appeared to us that it's not nothing, in this day and age, to claim the precious tools of acting, of metaphor, to favor the magic of backstage, of tricks, in a work that aims to make life happen during a film. We should not forget that we've been twenty-five and that we loved us madly when we was that age! For years, we've gotten our bearings in life from the love stories that punctuated it. It was back in the days of 'X' or in the days of 'Y', month-long or night-long romances seemed to be the highest points of our existence. As if romantic faithfulness allowed us to multiply projects. We're aware that it's arbitrary, and maybe irrelevant to bring up these two words, truthfulness and films. We're quite tempted to claim that loving lengthily has certainly allowed us to shoot often.

There are two things I love in life. Films. Football. To be precise, West Ham United. So when I saw a FILM that was set a FOOTBALL stadium, to be precise, WEST HAM UNITED’S old stadium I was so excited. My life was made. The only thing that could go wrong was how bad the film was. And fuck me, it went downhill as soon as the film started to play. A right pile of shite.  (for context with the rest of this review, West Ham are a terrible football team, just awful. So when I say, the film was as bad as the football that is normally played there you’ll get the joke) There’s a Russian revolution gone on. Two brothers are the leaders. One of the brothers realises its gone too far and leaves with the help of the British government and gets a new identity. Pierce Brosnan, he turns into Pierce Brosnan. We’ll come back to that. Dave Bautista is an ex army who is visiting his niece in London, he’s got tickets for the West Ham game, the last game to be played at the stadium. They go to the game together. Now remember the other brother, the one who isn’t Pierce Brosnan, well he is London to capture his brother. For some reason, instead of just getting him at his house, he decides to capture him at the football game. I know right, makes no sense. So he takes over the control room and tries to locate where he is sitting using some special face-recognition technology. At the same time, Drax’s niece goes missing so he goes up to the control to try and find her (the terrorists have killed the phone lines) and comes face to face and ends up killing them to save his niece.  📷Originally posted by gamorasnebula Now there’s a few stupid problems with the film that I can clarify as a football fan: 1) No way would Dave just be able to buy tickets to the last game at the stadium if he wasn’t a season ticket holder, or had a membership. Seeing as he hates England and football, its highly unlikely he would have one.  2) Erm, why are the away fans sitting in the old chicken run? We all know that they sat in the Trevor Brooking lower stand.  3) Honestly when I go to football stadiums I can’t even take the cap of my water bottle into the stadium. Seriously I have to take that off. Christ knows how them Russians got them flares into the stadium. 4) There is no way West Ham fans would let that massive flag block their view from the match. Any fans bring one of them into the stadium, they’d be bottled. 📷Originally posted by ultragooner89 This is the CAPTAIN. He’s like 5ft 4. Trying to take on a 6ft 4 bloke. What do you think the fans would do? Anyway. The film had a budget of £20 million, apparently. Which, for a Sky original film is a big budget. But I’m not too sure where that money was spent because the special effects were awful. It was so badly done. The shots were shaky, the green screen was obvious, the colour grading was horrible. It was so messy, more messy than West Ham’s defence. Ayo. The whole plot doesn’t really make sense. I have no idea why the Russians don’t grab the guy when he is at his home. If they know he will be attending the football game, they surely must know where he lives. But instead they do this where they are easily going to attract police attention. Which in the end they do. God its awful.  They acting is pretty woeful too, although I think this mostly comes down to the shoddy characters than the actors themselves. Dave Bautista neither has the charm of a Bruce Willis, nor the cold wit that Arnold Schwarzenegger so effortlessly oozes into his action roles. His niece, played by Lara Peake, who to be fair is pretty decent, but she isn’t from London and her accent is awful. You’re telling me the casting directors couldn’t find one East London actress? I think Pierce Brosnan lost a bet, or the director has got some dirty secret about him because I don’t know why he is in the film. It’s quite obvious he is the brother because we see him for one shot at the start of the movie and then not again until the final act of the film. And poor Amit Shah, who whilst likeable, falls foul of the racist abuse that comes from the white working class. It’s a classic trope that always pops up in football films. And whilst the writing uses his character to make fun of his religion, it also creates a barrier between the white working class as the film pokes fun out the far-right stereotypes that we are so use to seeing. White people running scared when a Muslim shouts ‘Allahu Akbar’.  Are there any good things about this film I hear you cry? Well, it was nice seeing the old stadium again. But thats purely from a West Ham point of view. It was good that the old bill punched that guy who called football, soccer. But thats purely from a football point of view. Oh there was a good scene when Dave is having a fight with a Russian and sticks his head in the boiling fat fryer and his face burns off. But thats purely from a sadistic point of view. 0/5  You know when I first started doing this I had a code for what rating a film should be. 1 to 5. 5 being to the best. 1, being the worst. I didn’t even account for 0. I didn’t think it possible for a film to not even score at least a 1 rating. All I can say is well done for creating a big pile of rubbish. Final Score 1 vs How many hours I’ve lost watching this, 1 and a half. 

Here is my review of Towering Inferno…sorry. Let me start again. Here is my review of Die Hard…sorry. Let me start again.  Here is my review of Skyscraper. I have no idea why I wrote those two other films that clearly have no relevance or similarity with the film I am reviewing.  📷Originally posted by justalittletumblweed Yes as Bruce rightly says, Skyscraper has joined the ‘there is a massive problem in a huge tower and a hunk of a man needs to fix it’ roll up roll up Dwayne Johnson. Move over Steve McQueen. Move over Bruce Willis. It’s time for The Rock to add his input. I mean, if Die Hard and Towering Inferno had a movie child it would be Skyscraper. Right, Dwayne is an ex army guy whose leg got amputated and he now works as an advisor on this new skyscraper, the tallest in the world. His family are in the tower whilst he is not in the tower. Terrorists come into the skyscraper and start a TOWERING INFERNO. Dwayne runs off a crane about 100ft in the air into the skyscraper, finds the terrorists and makes sure that they DIE HARD.  The film is a blockbuster dumb summer flick, there’s a few chuckles, there’s good action scenes. Is it gonna grip you? No. Is it a bit of fun? Yeah sure. It’s nothing new, it doesn’t add anything to the genre. It won’t stand the test of time like the other two films have when it comes to disaster/action films. It’s largely forgettable. Apart from the one scene where Dwayne jumps off the crane, there are no hilariously stupid scenes, you know, like in Fast and Furious eg the plane, the tank, the bank in brazil, the tower in Dubai. For me, that was the biggest disappointment. I went in knowing it was going to be dreadful, but was expecting big set pieces to rival F&F, alas, there was none. The cast were lacklustre which was a bit of a let down considering some of the actors in the film. The villain was useless, I didn’t feel threatened or scared of him. He was everything a villain shouldn’t be.  The only good thing was the representation of disabled people in the film. Seeing a guy who has a physical impairment on screen battling bad guys and saving the day is something very positive to see. Obviously there were a few criticisms of Dwayne being cast as he does not have an amputated leg, but the fact that there is that representation can only be a good thing if that continues.  2/5 Predictable, boring, pointless. Not much good about this. It’s a good summer flick, but you won’t come away wanting to see it again, or remembering it 30 minutes later.