★★★★ Directed by Gavin Hood Starring Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Aaron Paul & Barkhad Abdi Film Review by Chris Olson If you wanted to find a silver lining to modern global terrorism (and I think we all do), it’s that it has given us all a lot to think about. Politically, culturally, and socially, one of the most defining aspects of our lives over the last 15 years has been the proliferation of extremism since 9/11. Like it or not, most eras in history are inherently linked to a war or conflict and ours will be the War on Terror, which has dug deep roots and is here to stay for foreseeable years to come. The film industry, initially shying away from events, gradually became more comfortable tackling them, with films being based in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern locations which grew increasingly critical of the Western approach to handling the frankly impossible situation (Rendition, Lions For Lambs to name just a couple). A decade and a half on from the attack on the Twin Towers, and Gavin Hood’s film, Eye in the Sky, explores the seemingly detached nature of Western military strategy which utilises drone technology to take out high profile terrorists, and the multilateral issues this method raises. Taking place across several continents simultaneously, the plot of Eye in the Sky centres around a British Colonel (Helen Mirren) who is running a military operation in which she hopes to catch two high profile members of a terrorist organisation. Working with teams across the UK, the US and in Kenya itself, Mirren hopes she is reaching the culmination of six years of chasing, however, a drone pilot (Aaron Paul) muddies the waters, when he delays the strike by demanding a recalibration of the possible collateral damage. What ensues is a huge amount of “referring up” in order to get clearance for a strike. What is sensational about Hood’s film is that it achieves a glorious cinematic experience for viewers without showing them much more than heated discussions. Aside from some CGI drone shots and amazing bug-shaped flying cameras, the scenes take place in offices, cabins or hotel rooms - not exactly James Bond locations! However, the fierce, unrelenting tension which strings these locations together, which all derives from one central decision, makes this film more effective than the flashiest of globetrotting war movies or spy films. This is bolstered by a phenomenal script being delivered by some phenomenal performances. Mirren is a brutal revelation, offering up a portrayal of a character so driven by action and necessity that the political squabbling that comes from such warfare drives her to the point of outrage. She liaises with Lieutenant Benson (Alan Rickman), who are fantastic together in their restrained, yet obvious, dislike for red tape and political maneuvering. Other standout performances include Barkhad Abdi as an operative on the ground in Kenya who risks his life in almost every scene he is in. During one fantastic sequence he manages to elude a group of armed militants which is genuinely edge-of-your-seat stuff. In any film which hops between locations, there is always the risk of under-developing certain story threads or characters, and largely Hood bypasses this, keeping everyone in the same loop and managing to tell a cohesive and compelling narrative. The only slight disappointment audiences may have is in Aaron Paul’s pilot, whose rookie status and reluctance to follow orders in the gung-ho manner most of his American compatriots do, never gets fully fleshed out. That being said, Paul delivers a grounded performance which is still great. Thematically, Eye in the Sky asks more questions than it answers. Rather than telling a bread and water heroes and villains story, it offers up a plate of spaghetti mixed with a stew of a thousand ingredients, each one reluctant to be considered the main one, but all of which vital to the film’s success. By engaging in such a detached manner of combat, there is already a degree of relevancy to the movie, whose audience will have experienced watching the 24-hour news coverage of the war over the years. The quagmire of extremism itself has not exactly shrunk during the duration of this global conflict, and Hood’s film begs the question that are drone attacks saving lives and minimising casualties, or actually turning more people against a Western force which invades from the sky? Eye in the Sky also points an accusatory finger are commentators who relish the luxury of non-involvement, with Rickman’s beautiful delivery to a magnanimous politician who offhandedly denounces the whole operation as being disgraceful. Eye in the Sky stands up there with the best offerings from a genre so entrenched in our popular culture. A stark reminder of the relentless war being waged and the impossible decisions being made by real people. Regardless of your political leanings, it’s a film which deserves our attention for creating a discourse of where we are right now, what we should have learned, and how we can never stop evaluating what we do in the quest for peace. Click here for more Film Reviews #TheatricalReleases #filmreviews #filmreviewsUK #ChrisOlson #GavinHood #HelenMirren #AlanRickman #AaronPaul #BarkhadAbdi #WarFilms #WaronTerror

Directed by Paul Holbrook and Sam Dawe Starring Matilda Randall, Brian Croucher, Laura Bayston & Joe Sims Short film review by Sarah Smeaton This edgy short film is the epitome of what makes British film so outstanding and admired around the world. A brilliant story of a down-trodden, ordinary teenage girl shunned from the world by everyone around her. With nobody in her life seemingly understanding her, her only form of solace is in watching old cowboy and western movies. Right from the opening scene in A Girl and Her Gun, the cinematic technique of using small, otherwise insignificant, focus points is a captivating one. It’s these small details right at the onset without any initial focus on the surroundings that leaves us as the viewer begging for more. Creaking wheels on a wheelchair, the ticking of the second hand on a wristwatch and the clinking of handcuffs on a hospital bed. With such little information we’re already able to draw an immeasurable interpretation of what’s happening, and what’s more, directors Paul Holbrook and Sam Dawe have our attention focused exactly where they want it. Leading to the desire for us to keep viewing and to discover these characters as they beautifully unfold on screen. Joe Sims, who you’ll have seen from Broadchurch as Nige, plays the role of Clive here superbly. He’s equal parts loathsome, pitiful and aggressive. His complete disregard for ‘the girl’ and any feelings she might have escalate throughout this short film until we have a fantastic scene in which ‘the girl’ visibly realises that she’s had enough of being walked over and abused by so many people around her. There is a stand-out moment where ‘the girl’ catches Clive on the stairs in the process of trying to rape her mother. The situation in itself is disturbing enough to hold the viewer. The tension between these two characters, though, is palpable. Team this with the close-ups of only their eyes to show where their minds are at, the intense music interspersed with wonderful moments of silence and the sublime acting here, and what we have is one of the most gripping scenes you’re likely to see on screen. And I don’t say that lightly. I think what’s so clever about the screenwriting here is that everyone will, on some level, be able to identify with ‘the girl’, fantastically played by Matilda Randall in her debut role, and who reminded me of the unforgettable character of Mathilda (Natalie Portman) in Léon. Everyone will at some point have been pushed around by someone supposedly bigger or tougher than them, and no the answer isn’t with a gun, but we do come to the understanding that through her passion for cowboy and western movies, ‘the girl’ manages to claim her own identity back and stand up to the bullies in her life. Whatever questions of morality are summoned from this film, it is most certainly empowering in parts and gripping in others. A must see for any lover of British film. Click here for more Film Reviews #Shortfilmreviews #SarahSmeaton #filmreviews #ShortFilms #Britishfilmmaking #FilmreviewsUK

Directed by Dan Tonkin Starring Emma Richardson, John Robbins & Justin K Hayward Short film review by Chris Olson The role of the audience member has never been so pivotal than in this short film Survivor, written, produced, directed and edited by Dan Tonkin, in which crucial moments of the plot are decided by the viewer. Using the most modern of features, YouTube annotations, audience members are encouraged to select the direction in which the film will go depending on a “decision point” which the protagonist Tanya Hayes (Emma Richardson) faces. For example which weapon she will pick up, or a fight or flight moment with a hooded stranger. A difficult film to pin down in terms of plot, as there are several story branches which trail off depending on which route you take, but as a general synopsis, here goes. We are introduced to Tanya through a quick series of vital signs and military files which essentially let us know that her family are deceased and she is addicted to a drug called Peroxetine. Tanya then awakens in a wooded setting, unaware of how she got there and why. After being faced with several situations (and key decisions), it becomes clear that this is a training exercise run by Navy Seals in order to test Tanya’s capabilities, with an added psychological element. Tonkin’s short film delivers a unique cinematic experience which is breathtakingly engaging, it reinvents what you think you know about film storytelling and delivers something truly special. There is a relevancy to his approach, somewhere between gaming and viewing, which demands of the audience a degree of not only interaction but culpability. Having this much control over the outcome of the story is a completely different experience than simply watching the events unfold as the director intended, especially when the decisions are more than superficial elements. That being said, Survivor has some fundamental flaws. Much like a game, the script is hackneyed army gabble and feels like it was lifted from a Call of Duty of yesteryear, with Richardson grappling with the monotone dialogue with a bluetooth earpiece (Justin K Hayward) and a mysterious figure in the woods (John Robbins). Each scene feels like it is setting up the next decision, which the audience eagerly awaits without every really getting invested in the story. The score is also a haphazard mix of cliched army sounds and attempts at tension building, most of which were distracting from the intensity trying to be built in the story. The filming is very good, with some superb cinematography from DoP Russell Dean, who captures the stark isolation of Tanya’s situation with the acute danger she is experiencing. Tonkin uses a multitude of camera angles and set pieces to add pace to the film, so much so that is felt a little frantic and difficult to find a footing. Coming back to the “choice” element that this film posits, the theory that audiences are demanding more from their viewing experiences, it definitely holds water. For a long time, the gaming industries have offered players the opportunity to carve out their own series of events by making important decisions which alter the path for their hero. So why not film? Is singular narrative storytelling the only path for a filmmaker? Yes and no. There is a huge appeal to choosing which direction a story takes, some of which have already been mentioned. Films could have the opportunity to become even more of a personal experience, determined by a viewer’s own moral code or sense of adventure. However, the drawbacks include the loss of a cohesive plot and instead of feeling like you get more from a film, you actually end up feeling you missed out on multiple eventualities (I myself went back through the film, making different choices to see what I missed out on). Whilst Tonkin’s approach should most definitely be applauded for boldness and the fantastic aesthetic he achieves with Survivor praised, perhaps a simpler model would have been better as a prototype. It seems a shame that in the execution of a great idea, the fundamentals can be so overlooked. Furthermore, films with just one, vital decision to make, as opposed to several, could be amazing! The possibilities could be endless and a film’s impact could be more intuitive with a viewer’s sensibilities. Just think of all those movie deaths that could have been prevented!! We have more Film Reviews this way. #filmreviews #Shortfilmreviews #ChrisOlson #Filmmakers #Filmmaking #ShortFilms #SupportIndieFilms #UKFilmReview

★★★★ Directed by Jon Favreau Starring Neel Sethi, Bill Murray, Giancarlo Esposito, Sir Ben Kingsley, Lupita Nyong'o, Scarlett Johansson & Idris Elba Film review by Alexander Halsall The classic Rudyard Kipling Jungle Book stories have had a long, rippling effect on literature and on screen. A lot of people, like me, have happy memories of sitting down and watching an old VHS tape of the 1967 Disney classic animation. Remakes and reboots have been a controversial issue, over the last decade especially, however I’ve always believed that with the right approach and methodology no filmic concept should be dismissed out of hand, and there is always potential in rediscovery. Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is a man-cub raised by Raksha (Lupita N’yongo) among a wolf-pack led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito). He was brought to the wolves as a baby by the Black Panther Bagheera (Sir Ben Kingsley) who has since served as a guardian to the boy. During a water truce between the animals of the jungle the fierce tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) threatens Mowgli’s life. To keep him safe Bagheera agrees to escort Mowgli to a nearby man village. Along the way Mowgli must deal with a multitude of other jungle creatures such as the snake Kaa (Scarlett Johansen), Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken) and the free loving bear Baloo (Bill Murray). Director Jon Favreau, DOP Bill Pope and the numerous talented visual artists responsible for the design of the film should be applauded for the fantastic world they have managed to create. Crafting a completely digital living jungle is breathtaking enough but populating it with the amount of fantastically detailed environments and animals they have done is truly astounding. Neel Sethi is the only live action actor to appear in the film; however you immediately forget this thanks to the brilliant CGI The Jungle Book uses to conjure these creatures to being. Their lips sync perfectly with their speech and the movement whether crawling, walking, running or leaping is phenomenally realistic. The best work is that of the villainous Shere Khan, portrayed with brilliant menace by Idris Elba, whose beautiful design juxtaposes his aggression and ruthlessness. Neel Sethi, in his first ever acting role, does an excellent job as Mowgli. Considering he spent the entire film shoot on a green screen reacting to pretend animals he delivers a touching and heartfelt performance that matches up to the prolific ensemble. Everybody in the cast delivers, but Bill Murray’s Baloo steals every scene he’s in. One of the most popular and beloved Disney creations of all time, the role of Baloo was always going to be a difficult task but Murray’s combination of humour, and his relaxed, yet somehow powerful, line delivery have succeeded in bringing the character out of his animated ‘hibernation’ and back on the big screen to be loved all over again by young and old. The music is both nostalgically pleasing and impossibly triumphant, and how can anyone not like Christopher Walken as a giant monkey singing one of the jazziest songs of all time. There are a few narrative issues, problems with making the structure of the film work to be a successful collaboration of both Kipling’s story and the previous animated feature. But I’m not sure too many people are going to care thanks to the joyous romp that the film manages to be. In the end it is a delight to report that The Jungle Book is a visual masterpiece, a fond nostalgia trip and one of the best films of the year so far rolled into one. Knowing that Warner Brothers also have a live action adaptation planned for release in 2018, directed by Andy Serkis, they’re going to have their work cut out as the bar has been set pretty darn high, and I highly recommend a trip to the jungle as an (undeserved smirk) ‘Bear-necessity’. Click here for more Film Reviews #JonFavreau #filmreviews #TheatricalReleases #AlexanderHalsall #BillMurray #SirBenKingsley #LupitaNyong39o #ScarlettJohansson #IdrisElba #Disney #WarnerBrothers #Animation

Directed by Patrick Ryder Starring Aislinn De’Ath, Karen Brace, Robert Dukes, Elizabeth Cassidy, Lorna Waters & Paul Duncan Short film review by Chris Olson Gothic undertones in fairytales are commonplace, with children’s tales and folklore regularly dropping hints of life’s evils and nastiness whilst packaging it with heroes, princesses and happily-ever-afters. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs famously made use of a talking mirror to depict an evil queen’s insecurities and burning hatred, providing insight into the foundations of wickedness. Filmmakers Patrick Ryder and Robin Sasson, the minds behind this short film An Open Window, utilise a mirror too. Only this time it hangs not on the wall of a jealous step-mother’s castle that she usurped, but directly with our heroine Emma (Aislinn De’Ath) who picks up this dark object at a local antiques shop without knowing the true nature that hides within. The movie is set in modern Britain, and pitches its tent firmly in the genre of Chiller. A tense atmosphere of diabolical apprehension is built quickly and maintained throughout, never veering into distracting subplots or pointless exposition. The very nature of horror is unknown evil and the best films keep it that way! De’Ath’s character is allowed plenty of screen time to be wrung out with increasingly alarming developments, such as a trashed flat or a genuinely creepy figure (Paul Duncan) emerging into her living room from the aforementioned mirror, dressed like a ghoulish gimp. Certain sequences involving the two characters are utterly gripping, revelling in a sumptuous sinisterness. Ryder, credited as director and writer, has delivered some impressive short films in the past (Coffee To Go and Flux to mention a couple), and in An Open Window he proves himself to be a pair of very safe hands. Whereas many filmmakers of the genre attempt to rush their plots through with reckless abandon, seeming to have a desire to fire all their arrows in one sitting, Ryder and Sasson let their movie breathe, in particular when it comes to showing Emma’s descent into chaos. Shots of urban cityscapes and daytime peacefulness are used to juxtapose the nightmarish night time which Emma suffers through at the hands of this reflective wretch. A couple of scenes really let the film down, in particular in the antique shop where Emma is first given the mirror, and the subsequent scene where she tries to take it back. Both suffered from some wooden dialogue and melodramatic performances. That being said, Emma’s anxious conversation with a police officer (Robert Dukes) added some much needed balance to the proceedings as well as some intrigue. Like all good fairytales (and horror films) there are some interesting themes at work here. Emma’s unquestioning nature when offered a seemingly priceless antique at a bargain price reveals the danger of innocence, whilst her transformation is a warning of the loss of identity which comes through fear. Chilling and crafted with poise, An Open Window is made up of some fine filmmaking, but a few cracks here and there reveal a not quite perfect picture. Click here for more Short Film Reviews #Shortfilmreviews #filmreviews #ChrisOlson #PatrickRyder #ShortFilms #Chiller #Supernatural #Horror

★★ Director/Cinematographer/Editor: Aneek Chaudhuri Documentary Film Review by Andrew Moore Aneek Chaudhuri’s Comic Fingers is a documentary (of sorts) about Indian satirical cartoonist KV Guatam. The film muses over his life and career (with interviews and clips of his motivational speeches) set against the wider roles of cartoonists in the world today, their freedom of expression (without persecution) in the light of incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the rights/perception of women in India (and their safety). Additionally this is juxtaposed against grainy newsreel footage from the past and colour saturated images of more recent events, frequent colour and tonal shifts (alluding to the Indian national flag), montages and references to European auteur cinema in posters (Fellini, Tarkovsky and Eisenstein for example). To that effect it’s as much an experimental film as a documentary that’s further augmented by its use of background sound and editing techniques. That the film manages to make comment on the often dangerous role of satirical cartoonists in the world today, and the honour and courage the role entails (whilst also placing cartoonists in wider socio-political and historical contexts is of course to be commended), as are the serious issues of the curtailment of freedom of expression (illustrated in the reoccurring candle montages throughout the film). What I took umbrage with was that the experimental techniques often only served to take the viewer’s attention away from what was serious documentary commentary. I felt that it was only around the half way point that the film managed to acquire some real zest, substance and engender interest (which sadly dissipated again later on). Whilst I accept the film isn’t solely for them, a Western audience probably wouldn’t be so aware of the work of many Indian cartoonists and so surely employing experimental techniques in a documentary relating to them doesn’t work as an accessible introduction. This was a problem, I found myself wanting to discover more, starting to glean some information but then suddenly all the tonal shifts, colour saturation, focus changes and an often irrelevant background soundtrack constantly distracted. To give an example, having a French style ‘joie de vivre’ soundtrack when KV Guatam is making some serious points in discussion takes away any sense of gravity to the dialogue rendering it inconsequential. Whilst I appreciate that a wry observational humour is a central element of the satirical cartoonist’s comment I don’t think that has translated itself to this documentary in this respect. And given the already mentioned poignant candle voice over scenarios (which actually augmented the film) it formed an unhappy juxtaposition. I don’t see how a dart going through a pear in slow motion managed to give the film any further meaning! Ultimately it comes down to one thing, the subject matter doesn’t sit happy with the style the film has been shot in and I felt it tried to wear too many hats at once. The actual production values of Aneek Chaudhuri’s cinematography and editing methods used were excellent and I certainly give plaudits for being willing to tell a story in an innovative and experimental manner, but it’s just that some kind of central cohesion is missing. I’m not of course saying that a documentary about something serious can’t be observed from a different angle or to deal creatively with the treatment of actuality (just look at Joshua Oppenheimer’s excellent 2012 film The Act of Killing) but just that it has to have the ability to engage its viewer in its chosen subject matter and thus make further comment – isn’t this the nexus of the documentary form, it’s where it gets its legs! With Comic Fingers I felt the message became lost, not enough questions were asked and decent observations went awry, which is a shame because in the world we currently live in these are important themes for film to engage with. This way for more Film Reviews #filmreviews #Documentary #Documentaryreviews #AndrewMoore #Indiefilms #filmreviewsUK

★★★ Directed by Patricio Guzmán Starring Patricio Guzmán, Raúl Zurita Documentary Film review by Colin Lomas Water is the source of everything; our lives, our history, it has power, it is capable of sustaining life or destroying it, it holds communication from outer space and it defines our future. It is also the longest border to Chile, contrastingly one of the driest places on earth. These aquatic holistic musings are the basis of Patricio Guzmán’s latest part documentary, part spiritual investigation into what makes his homeland what it is. The first thirty minutes or so of The Pearl Button is an account of what the ocean represents complemented with beautiful imagery of the sea and ice-caps with poetic portrayals of the Andes semi-submerged geography. Although charmingly romantic, a simmering sensation of art-house dread starts to accumulate as the brain begins to wonder whether another hour of this is possible to sit through without cracking open the wine. Luckily however, fascinating interviews with surviving members of the original indigenous Chilean tribes break up the daydream-like ocean fascinations as the movie establishes a structure. The main turning point of the film is when Guzmán starts to document the arrival of Catholicism and the white Europeans to the country and their utter disregard for the indigenous people. ‘Indian hunters’ were paid ten shillings for every child’s ear they could deliver from the tribes. The shift in focus is intentionally punitive and everything suddenly takes on a much solemner tone. Humanity’s beauty and poetry is abruptly pivoted to humanity’s cruelty and malice, the extremes visually harmonised to the ocean’s comparative calm and ferocity. The title of the movie itself comes from the payment for which Jemmy Button, a native Yámana, received to travel to England as a freak show piece for a British naval captain. The concept of a tribesman travelling to London in the middle of the industrial revolution is so alien in today’s world that it’s almost impossible to contemplate or truly understand. Guzmán’s narration is almost hypnotic in its delivery and smartly complements both the holistic and the brutality of the story. Although the videography and cinematography are on occasion exquisite, there are times when Guzmán allows himself a little too much creative freedom and deviates into artful whimsy. These moments are relatively short however and manage to just about successfully weave into the documentary as a whole. The Pearl Button feels like an odd film to sit through at times as you’re not sure whether you’re watching an art-house documentary about nature’s beauty or a harrowing critique of humanity’s violence, but then that’s the point. It leaves you scratching your head but is powerful enough to truly get under the skin. Read more Film Reviews here #filmreviews #Documentary #ColinLomas #Documentaryreviews #PatricioGuzmán #UKFilmReview #WorldCinema #Arthouse

★★★ Directed by Tom Geens Starring Paul Higgins, Kate Dickie, Jerome Kircher Film review by Colin Lomas There are marketing companies who would charge you the price of a Jordan Belfort house party to come up with the best name for a movie. ‘You need something smart’ they would WhatsApp you from the break out canoe in their Shoreditch offices, ‘Relevant’, ‘Sophisticated’, ‘Serene’, ‘Something virtual for the Millennials’. But you know what? If you’ve got a film about a couple living in a hole, save the budget and the bullshit and just call the bloody thing what it is. Couple in a Hole, as you may have partially gathered by now, is about a couple living in a hole in the woods somewhere in rural France. The two are introduced during daily activities; John (Higgins), the hunter gatherer of the pair catching and skinning a hapless bunny for the pot, and Karen (Dickie), sitting in the hole stitching together furs into a rather fetching but doubtfully PETA approved patchwork blanket. On a rare excursion from the hole, Karen gets bitten by a spider and becomes ill, forcing John to travel into town for medication. Here he meets Andre (Kircher), the gentle local chemist who asks how they are getting on in the woods. It is at this point, with John telling Andre he has plenty of money and doesn’t need charity, that you realise the couple’s living accommodations are of their choosing. The key question then simply becomes ‘why?’. Why are they living in a hole? Why are they so close to town? Why is Karen so utterly afraid of the world? The rest of the film’s sole purpose is to gradually tease these answers out. Aside from the mysterious particulars of the living arrangements, the most engaging part about Couple in a Hole is the contradicting needs of the couple and the discord they create; John’s jovial persona longing for alternative company and Karen’s obsession with locking herself away from the dread of the outside world. Dickie plays the agoraphobic Karen to perfection. Her complete regression from life and emaciated appearance are startling, the occasional panicked emergence from the hole is breath-holding material. Higgins is perfectly cast as the friendly but uncompromisingly loyal and protective John; his approachable intelligence keeping the course of the plot credible and preventing things becoming too gloomy. Why, oh, why then Geens decided to end the film as he did only he will ever know. After being lovingly snuggled in the fur-lined blanket of John’s progression and Karen’s regression for an hour and a half, the last thing you would expect is the ending you unfortunately receive. It feels flustered, freaky and unrealistic (an impressive feat for a film about two Scottish people living in a hole in France) and undoes a lot of what has come before. Couple in a Hole works far better than it perhaps should and productions of such limited budget and scope should always be applauded. Although flawed in places and with that terrible ending, it is for the most part a legitimately enjoyable and captivating outing. #filmreviews #filmreviewsUK #ColinLomas #TheatricalReleases #TomGeens #PaulHiggins #KateDickie #JeromeKircher

★★★★ Directed by Kent Jones Starring Alfred Hitchcock, Francois Truffaut, Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Mathieu Amalric Film Review by Colin Lomas In 1966, movie maker and lynchpin of the French New Wave cinema movement Francois Truffaut released ‘Cinema According to Hitchcock’; a book based on a week-long set of conversations he had with Alfred Hitchcock about the craft of Hitchcock’s art as a filmmaker. Jones’ movie employs recorded dialogue from the interview alongside discussions with modern directors who relive their love and fascination of the book while delighting in explaining their affection for the films of both men. The list of directors heaping praise on Hitchcock here is impressive; Fincher, Scorsese, Anderson, Schrader, Linklater, Bogdanovich, Kurosawa, but possibly most remarkable is how diverse their respective styles co-exist within their shared influence. This perfectly demonstrates how the obsessive concentration on the detail from a man brought up on silent film simply transcends genre, the trick being in the composition and narrative. The basics are almost always the most crucial. Throughout the entire film, Hitchcock’s need to be appreciated as an artist and not simply a big-studio entertainer is heavily apparent. One of the reasons he responds so well to Truffaut is because the questions asked are always about the art of what Hitchcock has achieved; how a single look transforms a scene, how a close-up on an inanimate object is a genius misdirection, Hitchcock revels in explaining the minutiae and consuming the adulation. It’s often fascinating to hear a single two second clip of a movie dissected in such detail by so many of the contributors. It’s refreshing that although the book was fundamentally an interview with Hitchcock, Truffaut’s work gets a decent portion of the running time. This dual aspect narrative works excellently as it weaves the old with the new via the base premise of the interview. It’s likely that less of its audience will be familiar with the Frenchman than with The Master of Suspense and as such it acts as a decent introduction to a man many feel was the greatest filmmaker in French history. The comparison between the different approaches to creating a film is appealing too; Hitchcock the obsessive dictator, Truffaut the elastic improviser. One of the most interesting aspects to the movie is Hitchcock’s frankness, from his somewhat uncomfortable explanation of the sexual narrative of Vertigo, his worryingly forthright misogyny and his brutally low estimation of actors who he offhandedly likens to cattle. Hitchcock/Truffaut is a short movie, less than 80 minutes, and it feels and flows just right. Trying to achieve something distinctive in a documentary about a man who has had more critiques and biopics than most world leaders was a tough ask, yet Jones’ approach works just about perfectly. There won’t be any major revelations for Hitchcock aficionados here but the details of Truffaut will be enough to keep even the biggest Hitch fan-boy captivated. For anyone relatively new to Hitchcock or interested in experiencing a wonderful insight into the intricacies of filmmaking from two masters of the art, Hitchcock/Truffaut is a delight that should not be missed. More Film Reviews this way #filmreviews #TheatricalReleases #filmreviewsUK #FilmReview #ColinLomas #KentJones #AlfredHitchcock #FrancoisTruffaut #MartinScorsese #WesAnderson #DavidFincher #MathieuAmalric #Filmmaking #FilmmakerFeatures #filmmakers

★★★ Directed by Jacques Audiard Starring Jesuthasan Antonythasan, Kalieaswari Srinivasan, Claudine Vinasithamby, Vincent Rottiers Film Review by Colin Lomas In a desperate attempt to escape war-torn Sri Lanka, a Tamil fighter finds a woman and a recently orphaned girl to complete a valid family immigration unit with passports harvested from the recently dead. With his new identity Dheepan (Antonythasan) and his new fabricated wife Yalini (Srinivasen) and new nine-year old daughter Illayaal (Vinasithamby) travel by boat with the hopes of a new and better life in Europe. They settle in a grim council tenement in Paris controlled by gangsters where Dheepan is made janitor of one of the blocks. Yalini manages to get a job cooking and cleaning for the gentle dementia-suffering uncle of the leader of one of local gangs Brahim (Rottiers) and their new lives start to converge with the day to day existence of thuggery and drugs. The film follows the manufactured family as they begin to explore their new surroundings with only each other and the local drug dealers and gangsters for company. Srinivasan is superb as Yalini and you personally share her experiences as she evolves throughout the film, from the embers of a downtrodden war-victim to the initial sparks of a self-assured Westernised woman. Anthonyhasan’s Dheepan however feels constantly and frustratingly unexplored. There are flashes of passion here and there but the daily drudgery of janitorial duties doesn’t allow his character to flourish as much as you would hope. It’s also unfortunate that Illayaal’s character isn’t explored more as the majority of the empathy is with her; a bright friendly girl who has lost everything and thrown into a school where she can hardly communicate with classmates who shun her. After a couple of engaging exploratory scenes, she disappears entirely from the movie and doesn’t reappear until the end, an exasperating missed opportunity to truly build some compassion with her character. Rottiers is excellent as the fierce Brahim. There are great moments when his human side starts to surface as he chats to Yalini before he consciously tears himself back to his vicious gangster persona, which work superbly. The only constant throughout is the changing dynamics between the assembled family which at times is achieved well. Other possible storylines however are extinguished almost immediately and leave you wondering why they were included at all; Dheepan’s meeting with a Tamil leader working inside Paris, the lunchtime relationship he starts to build with the drug runners, all lead to nothing and feel a little senseless. There are moments of real creative flare in Audiard’s direction. As the credits fade away at the beginning, dots of light blur into view, reminiscent of a landing aircraft or an aerial cityscape, slowly dissolving into the heart-shaped flashing LED hats worn on the head of Dheepan and other immigrants illegally selling cheap plastic novelty goods on the streets of Paris. These moments are beautiful but far too infrequent to augment any creative sparkle to the movie as a whole. The ending gravely lets Dheepan down. All the respectable slow burning focus and underplaying of a narrative that could have easily been overblown and overtly violent is instantly lost in a rather unnecessary and unrealistic Rambo-esque shoot out in the final few minutes. What is most likely targeted as a reminder of Dheepan’s violent Tamil past sits awkwardly with what up until that point feels more like a kitchen sink drama, and grates clumsily against the rest of the film. It’s not unlikely that the awards reaped upon Dheepan are more due to the premise of the story rather than its execution. You can’t just throw a family of immigrants into a Parisian sink estate and expect a La Haine to fall out, and Dheepan suffers badly from a lack of self-identity. There really is a wonderful film hiding in Dheepan somewhere but regrettably it hasn’t quite found itself in time for its release date. For more Film Reviews - Click Here #filmreviews #filmreviewsUK #ColinLomas #JacquesAudiard #TheatricalReleases #Gangsters #Films #Cannes

★★★★ Directed by Jeff Nichols Starring Michael Shannon, Joel Edgerton, Jaeden Lieberher, Kirsten Dunst & Adam Driver Film review by Alexander Halsall Following the success of writer/director Jeff Nichols’s previous features Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter, and Mud is his first studio feature Midnight Special. Nichols is one of the most promising filmmakers to emerge in the last few years; he reunites with ever present actor/accomplice Michael Shannon in his latest feature. Roy (Shannon) and Lucas (Joel Edgerton) are on the run from law enforcement for “kidnapping” Alton (Jaeden Lieberher), Roy’s son. At first the circumstances are unclear, beyond knowing that Roy is trying to get Alton to a certain location in time for an unexplained event. Along the way they reconvene with Alton’s mother Sarah (Kirsten Dunst) whilst being pursued by the FBI, a religious cult that believe Alton to be some form of prophet, and an NSA agent (Adam Driver) who is drawn in to the investigation. The first act of the film is intentionally restrained, posing us more questions than answers. Nichols doesn’t let us know the whole story; he feeds us pieces throughout the narrative as we are left wondering what it is that makes Alton so special, and what circumstances have led Roy and Lucas into taking Alton. Michael Shannon is, as ever, impressive in his performance as a father on a mission to protect his son. In order to deliver his son to this undisclosed location we see Roy is willing to disregard nearly all other things, including his own self and those closest to him, in his efforts. Shannon’s control and use of physicality in his portrayal of Roy allows us to interpret his character through limited exposition. Edgerton and Dunst are both suitably able in their performances, neither are the focus of Midnight Special but both fulfil the needs of the narrative. The peculiar NSA agent Paul Sevier (Driver) is an interestingly contort character, managing to seem both eccentric and introvert in one fell swoop. He is an outsider in the manhunt of Alton, and through his investigation we discover the effects of the boy’s ‘gifts’ in a wider context. Jaeden Lieberher has a lot on his shoulders at such a young age, but he delivers a thoroughly convincing performance, and shows an impressive range in displaying the personal trauma of Alton, whilst his connection with his father is the heart and soul of the film. Shannon and Lieberher’s bond is one steeped in intensity of feeling, of minimal melodrama, and is what makes Midnight Special truly special. As the pieces are fed to you throughout the second act Midnight Special does become slightly less engaging, combined with a somewhat egregious sub-plot revolving around a religious cult that was somewhat unwarranted. Midnight Special evolves into a philosophical journey around the third act, trying to explore society’s perceptions of the unexplained, and the moral implications of fatherhood. Whether it juggles all this with complete success is debatable but that it tries to whilst still being an engagingly emotional sci-fi drama is an inspiring feat. Nichols continues to delve between philosophy and drama with success, and armed with the beautiful cinematography of Adam Stone and the oozing melodies provided by David Wingo’s score, he has again masterminded an exciting piece of cinema. Shannon continues to provide evidence, if more were needed, of his fantastic presence, range and control as an actor whilst his connection with the young Lieberher, a talented youngster, created a compelling drama to behold. Midnight Special doesn’t quite manage to balance all of its ideas, but through the talents of the cast and crew manages to be both beautiful and succinct, touching and graceful and more importantly well worthy of your time. Film Reviews #filmreviews #filmreviewsUK #AlexanderHalsall #InUKCinemasNow #MichaelShannon #JeffNichols #JoelEdgerton #JaedenLieberher #KirstenDunst #AdamDriver #FilmReviewmoviesfilmsshortfilmsindiefil

Directed by David Hennessy Starring Cai O’Leary, Mark Sweet, Susan Cummins & Rachael Holoway Short film review by Monica Jowett Short film The Right to Remain Silent is a surprising piece of filmmaking. Written and directed by David Hennessy, the film follows an unnamed man as he starts a six month prison sentence. The movie tells the story through the use of narration. Multiple voiceovers describe not what is happening on screen but the thoughts and feelings what the characters are going through. It switches between the prisoner (Cai O’Leary), the parents (Mark Sweet and Susan Cummins), or the girlfriend (Rachael Holoway). The changes in perspective are affecting, more so than if we were told the story through one person’s viewpoint. The dialogue is minimal and the story progresses through the narration. Everything is expressed by the on screen action which is running parallel with the narration. As we hear the thoughts of the characters through narration we get to know them more than if there was no voice-over, providing a depth to each character even if they are on screen for just a few seconds. The cinematography has been cleverly used to show the difference between life on the inside of prison and life outside. In the prison, everything is black and white, reflecting how the prisoner sees the same four walls every day, and has no colour or light in his life. Similarly it is the opposite on the outside, though still not as colourful as you would hope. The family and friends are in turmoil as well. The editing is quick. Each scene is simple, and follows the narration, but it is not slow. The ten minute film has a quick pace and fits a lot into the main body, yet it is not overcrowded. The fast editing helps this, as it cuts to each character clearly, so you follow the story. The themes of Hennessy’s film are clear. It is not often to see a movie that gives a variety of perspectives of what it is like being in prison and have someone close to you in prison. The Right to Remain Silent gives light to the anger, depression and anxiety everyone involved feels. The film continues on a dark path, and it shows how difficult it can be for inmates coming out of prison. The Right to Remain Silent is an interesting film in its use of narrative, cinematography and characters. In what could have been a miss, the film’s unique way of storytelling keeps you invested and fully connected to the characters. Click here for more Film Reviews. #Shortfilmreviews #filmreviews #MonicaJowett #RachelHoloway #filmmaking #ShortFilms