I call upon you, brought by leaves and seeds. Hear with my ears and speak with my tongue. I invite you to come. Pyewacket. If you’ve already read one of my reviews, you’d know I enjoy a low-budget, independent film occasionally. A film where you already know in advance that the special effects won’t be mindblowing. And also, mostly unknown actors are summoned. That doesn’t mean these films are unwatchable because of the amateurish camerawork. Nor is it that the acting is extremely bad. On the contrary. I’ve already enjoyed such creative, non-mainstream experiments. I also enjoyed “Pyewacket“. A simple horror story (even though you can discuss whether or not it’s a horror) in which black magic and satanism are the cause of a lot of misery. Yes. Again a cabin in the woods. You might have second thoughts about the impulsive behavior of Leah (Nicole Muñoz) who, after yet another dispute with her mother, goes into the forest and armed with a book about occultism and a few attributes performs an ancient ritual. A ritual to summon the evil spirit Pyewacket who might ensure Leah getting rid of her annoying mother (Laurie Holden). The fact that her mother might go through a difficult emotional phase, isn’t something Leah realizes. Leah being sorry afterward and suddenly noticing that her mother isn’t so bad after all. Well, I can relate to that. Who hasn’t been mad at his parents once, after the umpteenth discussion about random insignificant things? Soon Leah realizes that something dark and threatening is wandering around their cabin in the woods. Not scary and misleading. The film itself isn’t really frightening. There are some apparitions, a scared friend who wants to go home after sleeping over one night and a feeling of threat at certain moments. But you have to be really patient for that. Originality is also a term that doesn’t fit with this film. Once again the teenagers in this movie prefer alternative music with the accompanying black clothes and hairstyle. Archetypes that are often used in such films. The fact that some kind of expert shows up to explain it all and gives occult advice, is also nothing new. The strength of the film is its misleading character. I do like films where you have doubts about the true nature of the event. Is the malignant spirit effectively present? Or is it just a fantasy of Leah? Or is she emotionally unstable so she sees things? Stay away from things you’re not an expert in. In retrospect, I found that “Pyewacket” was really worth a watch. Not only because of the subject being used. But also because of the sometimes excellent acting of Nicole Muñoz. And to a lesser extent that of Laurie Holden. Muñoz her anger and regret felt sincere. More than that of Holden. And despite the fact that the creepy content is of a low level, I thought the dynamic in this movie was extremely successful. No, it’s not an extraordinary movie. The only thing one should remember is never to engage in things one doesn’t know anything about. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

You know that guy Paul Feig, the dude who has directed all them comedy films like Spy, Bridesmaids and Ghostbusters (the new one), well his newest film is a bit different. It’s a thriller film. It’s like Gone Girl meets Taylor Swift; there’s a big mystery but it’s super extra.  📷Originally posted by dailyswiftgifs Anna Kendrick is a super sweet, over the top do-gooder mum who befriends a chill, workaholic, style queen Blake Lively. It’s a complete contrast in mums but they form a friendship. Then one day Blake vanishes whilst Anna is looking after her kid. We know it’s not Blake’s boyfriend, Henry Golding because he’s in London looking after his mum. 5 days pass and then they find her in her lake, dead. Anna gets a little too close to her dead best friends husband AS YOU DO and then starts receiving mysterious phone calls from her dead best friend WHAT. So Anna does a bit of swooping about. You know, just the usual; breaking into her works office, visiting Blake’s ex, taking advantage of her dead best friends mum who has severe alzheimer's AS YOU DO. She finds out she’s got a twin WHAT. Blake comes back from hiding. She killed her twin. She then sets up her husband even though he’s done nothing wrong apart from sleeping with his dead wife’s best friend on the day you buried your wife AS YOU DO. Then we’ve got the big climax. Anna brings a gun to her boyfriend/dead (now not dead) best friends (probably not friends now as she slept with the hubby) and confronts the pair of them. Then there’s a bluff, then there’s a double bluff, then a triple bluff, a quadruple bluff and then the ending, I think. There might be another bluff.  📷Originally posted by magobjects It’s a good film, Paul Feig does his usual of showing strong women in his films who don’t have to just talk about men. This is a film about women and men are pretty weak in this film, it’s the women who rule the screen in this one. Anna Kendrick is pretty darn scary in it. Not least because of how cringe and nice she is, but how quickly she can turn it round and become quite psychotic. Blake Lively is rather bad-ass but again when it gets serious its quite shocking to see how it all plays out. A problem I found is that the comedy takes away the seriousness of the film. At times the film is very dark but the comedy, that normally works so well in Paul Feig doesn’t in a thriller. Spy films such as Spy, goes well with comedy, Archer and Johnny English two examples. The Heat, cop buddy comedy film, Turner and Hooch and Rush Hour. But thriller films, unless it’s a parody I don’t see how it works and in A Simple Favour it doesn’t. Which lets it down massively, because the film, when dark and serious works really well. But when it tries to be too funny feels like a dramedy. The ending really sums up my whole point here. The film is really let down by this ending which to me, seems like they didn't know how to end it, or didn’t want to so just made multiple plot points in the hope of confusing the audience. It’s a shame because if they stuck with one idea, and done one twist it would've made a whole better ending, and therefore a smoother film.  3/5 3 out of 5 may sound a bit harsh but the ending massively lets it down, it’s so extra and tries to hard too be a hybrid film. If they stuck to it being very dark the whole way through with a few comedy elements it probably would've worked. Alas, they did not. Ergo, the 3. 

Wind whistling through your hair. A dreamy haze of colourful buildings flashing by. The only audible sound, a pulsing heartbeat and steady whir of a bicycle as you careen through a bustling city. Cars and people, simply nothing but tiny, insignificant obstacles in your path. Flying. You are alive.  Within the first two minutes of Finlay Pretsell’s first feature-length documentary, TIME TRIAL, the award-winning director gifts his viewers with an unparalleled feeling of flight on the back of a bicycle. Told from a masterful perspective using point-of-view shots, TIME TRIAL takes the viewer along on the world’s most competitive cycling races, and reveals a personal depth to a gruelling sport most would not guess exists. This is a real, human tale, one that Pretsell describes as, “a tragic story…of the pursuit of life.” Armed with a tireless crew and a cyclist-turned-director who’s deep passion for the sport radiates throughout, the film tells the story of David Millar. Millar is an infamous British cyclist known for his rise to success, subsequent downfall, and eventual climb back to the top. TIME TRIAL follows Millar’s comeback to the competitive world of cycling, chronicling the last races of his career leading up to a final Tour de France. Unique in many ways, Pretsell provides us with an uncanny knack for moulding a harsh truth into a story of viable human resilience. He shines an unforgiving but complimentary spotlight on a man who has been beaten down by his own sport, but has refused to fall. David Millar is this very man and his story is a testament to the strength of the human spirit. Once revered and applauded by the cycling world, he was the first British cyclist to ever wear all Tour de France jerseys. His glory as a youth was snuffed out when he was banned from competing after being caught doping in 2004. In 2006 his ban was lifted and David returned, ready to prove himself a reformed man and worthy cyclist. A clean rider from that point forward, he went on to become one of Britain’s most successful cyclists in history. TIME TRIAL follows Millar in his early 40’s as he battles with the physical and emotional turmoil of a lifelong career inevitably coming to a close. “Roger – I dreamt I killed you.” David stumbles through a dark forest, as he voices a disturbing dream where he kills his best friend. Accompanied by an utterly haunting score crafted by U.S. composer Dan Deacon, it both chills and provides you with a moment of divine clarity. This is David at his best, vulnerable and open to us. This is when we realize that in spite of all his successes, David at his core is like the rest of us: just human. His dream recollection comes at a turning point in his journey, with David  beginning to question if he is still consumed with the same drive for something he has always loved. These rare moments of cinematic artistry and subject vulnerability are a staple of Pretsell’s directorial style throughout. The closing scene further emphasises this by engrossing the viewer in a mesmerising close-up of David dancing in a crowded club, set to a backdrop of muted technicolor.       With strikingly raw moments such as these, Pretsell conveys the pulsing fear, emotional conflict and eventual relief our rider undergoes. David is exhausted of his own addiction to racing but unwilling to stop his pursuit. Moreover, he is unable to force himself to put the brakes on a life he has always known. In an industry dominated by perfect protagonists, this portrait of David Millar shines through as refreshingly genuine. Millar is abrasive and weary in his approach, yet still manages to win the viewer over thanks to sheer honesty and tenacity of will. We the audience are connected to David and he to us. Perhaps the real beauty here is in the empathy he evokes in those watching – after all, haven’t we all been caught in the struggle between what we want and what we can actually do? The key to TIME TRIAL is a number of things. Hurtling us forward on a nearly 3D ride of what it means to be a professional cyclist, both in and out of the race, each lap pulls the viewer deeper into a beautifully simple storyline. Will David win his last Tour de France? Will he fully redeem his personal and professional image as a cyclist? Against all odds, will one man’s pursuit of passion end in tragedy, or success? Set to a moving score, with superb scenery and jaw-dropping cinematography that soars you along terrains of impossible climbs, TIME TRIAL navigates the ascent and descent of one man who simply refuses to stop. © Ayurella Horn-Müller. February 4, 2018.

Kill Bill Volumes 1/2 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ This is a tail of revenge, which is certainly a dish best served cold. The bride (played by Uma Thurman) arises after a 4-year, Bill induced coma. Being pregnant before the coma her baby is now ‘gone’ and using all her skills, given to her by Bill she must track down and assassinate all the members of her former assassin team known as the vipers. Her codename was the black mamba and living up to her namesake, she will quickly work her way up her list to Bill. This is the perfect setting for Q. Tarantino to work his magic. The questions on the tip of everyone’s tongues is 'does it live up to the scratch of other Tarantino movies' and even more so to develop that question, 'is it a Tarantino classic?'. Both very good, reasonable questions and I'll answer them with a reasonable response. Yes, in my opinion it does live up to his other work even surpassing the weaker pieces. Now the main question. The trick about this question is its trying to disguise how basic the question really is. Really what it's truly asking in his elegant way is 'is it a good movie?'. Yes! Yes! Yes! It’s not only just good it’s a brilliant movie in all respects. An action movie that creates levels of adrenalin not usually plausible to experience. Volume 1 This movies tone is set at the start of the movie as it zooms in on the brides, broken and busted face, in black and white (the prelude to sin city perhaps) and lingers just for a moment, then moves on to tell us the exposition of the story. A bride, who at her wedding, her entire reception is massacred including (so they thought) her. The scene instantly shifts to the bride and the first name on the list, Vernita Green (Vivicia fox). Let the action packed fight scene commence. The movie suddenly breaks up the fight scene when the bride’s foes daughter returns home. In this more superhero, comic book kind of universe Vernita (Vivica fox) can fire a gunshot without it causing a major disturbance. This movie is set in an alternative universe slightly altered from our own. Something sometimes forgotten about in this movie, but is not entirely surprising to hear, is how amazing the soundtrack to this movie is. With special mention to the brilliant Bang Bang by Nancy Sinatra which helps to evoke western themes in the audience, and the theme of betrayal. Bravo Tarantino, the music is brilliant as always. The casting was one of the best things about the movie. Lucy Liu (O-Ren ishi) was a brilliant touch this movie completely blowing critics and audiences expectations out of the water. I like many others expected her to rehash her character from Charlie's angels but as many others were, I was pleasantly surprised. There was one scene in the movie, O Ren Ishi had finally accumulated her way to the top, now she has nothing in her way. That is until one member of the council mentions her American-Chinese heritage. Poor choice. In response to this she takes out her katana and takes his head off showing she means business. Her performance was chilling but likable. Uma Thurman the stunning lead (the bride) has an amazing screen presence that really carries the movie and she has some acting chops to boot; a female equivalent to Keanu Reeves in the matrix. Also, just to mention his contribution to the movie Sonny Chiba (Hattori Hanzo) the legendary katana maker who made a sacred vowel to never make a weapon to kill again but will break this vowel in the casus belli of revenge. This first volume in Kill Bill chronology focuses on more eastern themes the way of the Samurai and its inevitable conclusion is the fight between the bride and O-Ren on Japanese soil. The Caucasian bride ironically revels in this atmosphere and theme. This leads to easily the best action scene in the movie as the bombshell blonde completely eradicates the Crazy88 gang and their master. Bloody. Gory. Tarantino at his best. Overall if I had to rate this movie standing on its own I would give it 4 &1/2 stars out of 5. It has all the ingredients of a Tarantino movie, the gruelling violence of which he's synonymous with, the chapter format, the aerial and boot camera shots, and an amazing soundtrack to boot; the perfect recipe for a Tarantino movie. One notorious problem with this movie constantly stated by not only critics but the casual viewing audiences is the quality of dialogue. Now don't take that the wrong way I'm not saying the dialogue was bad but compared to other Tarantino movies there is a lack of memorable dialogue. One reason for could be because Tarantino himself is an Oscar winning screenwriter and normally knocks the script out of the park, and in this movie, he was deliberately trying not to create any memorable dialogue. As strange as it may seem he was most likely just trying make an outright action movie and was focusing on the action elements of the movie compared to the narrative. However, there is one brilliant scene of dialogue in the movie between Bill and the bride talking about Clark Kent just to give some credit (It.’s in volume 2). You can tell they had a lot of fun writing that scene. One of the movies biggest strengths was its greats soundtrack. In such an exciting movie the soundtrack not only heightens the excitement, it even makes the gruesome gory action, seem less tragic and more comedic. On the topic of gruesome action, quick disclaimer: This movie is not for the squeamish or those faints of heart and without a doubt is Tarantino's most bloodstained movie. The gore in this movie is accountable for the best action in the Tarantino film collection and even excuses the ‘lacklustre’ dialogue a bit. The action completely outdoes most other action movies sequences and is in a league of its own. Volume 2 Kill Bill Volume 2 is all about the western movie genre in comparison the strictly eastern themes of Volume 1,; Volume 1 even including a long expositional 'anime' scene, which would give most high budget Japanese anime’s a run for their money. Volume 2 has all the typical features of a western including scenes of vast deserts and of course, the guns. The movie even mocks the bride’s inability to change to this new culture in one scene where it seems like she will successfully sneak up on Budd (Michael Madsen) Bill's brother and kill him with her katana, like in Volume 1. This inability to change ends her up in a wooden coffin, a shotgun shell in her chest, with nothing but a flashlight. This tense scene allows us to see her training scene with the great infamous master Pai Mei (Gordon Liu) and even showed her learning Bruce Lee’s prolific one-inch punch, which would come in handy later. We come face to face with our main protagonist Bill for the first time in Volume 2 as the movie recounts the wedding scene in full. The Bride goes out the reception and encounters her old lover Bill, playing his wooden pipe. The bride and Bill have some nice banter between them and you can believe that they were once a couple. The older spurned lover Bill almost seems to have come to terms with the bride’s decision to marry and sits down on the lonely bride’s side. As Bill goes to sit down Robert Rodriguez musical score outdoes itself and the tone suddenly shifts, we all know what will happen next. The chainsaw massacre begins, and the movie goes full circle. Moving on, on her list when the inevitable fight with Elle (Daryl Hannah) occurs later in Budd's trailer the bride uses one of her master’s old moves, quite poetically snatching out Elle's only eye while her master snatched the first eye out its socket many years before. The bride (whose real name was revealed to be Beatrix Kiddo) leaves to finish off her list. The movie finishes with the decisive battle of the movie’s namesake. The decisive battle which was more a duel of wits then a direct fight packed an emotional punch. Bill being the charmer as always doesn't take his own demise to heart (quite literally in fact). Again, her training with Pai Mei comes in handy as she's finishes Bill with possibly the coolest martial arts move in film history with an equally cool name 'the five-point exploding heart technique'. Bill stands up accepting his death and takes 5 steps, and the namesake of the movie is complete. Overall, I would say volume two is the better movie out of pair and can easily enough be enjoyed without watching the first volume. 5/5 This movie has always been heavily criticised and disregarded to the dark corner of Tarantino movies. The criticism towards this movie in many parts I feel were misguided. What critics and people alike don't understand is that this is a different type of Tarantino movie and deserves to be treated as such. I have tried to criticise both volumes as one whole movie, as they should be, and would readily recommend anyone to watch both volumes this way. If you prefer Tarantino's more plot and dialogue driven stories (as this movie is a story of revenge with action scenes built around it) then I recommend you watch Pulp fiction, however if action is your cup of tea I highly recommend this movie for what it is a great action film.

(Release Info London schedule; September 13th, 2019, Cineworld Leicester Square, 5–6 Leicester Square, London, WC2H 7NA, UK, 12:40pm) https://film.list.co.uk/listing/1368019-hustlers/ "Hustlers" Inspired by true events, "Hustlers" is a comedy-drama that follows a crew of savvy strip club employees who band together to turn the tables on their 'Wall Street' clients. At the start of 2007, Destiny (Constance Wu) is a young woman struggling to make ends meet, to provide for herself. But it’s not easy; the managers, DJs, and bartenders expect a cut, one way or another, leaving Destiny with a meager payday after a long night of stripping. Her life is forever changed when she meets Ramona (Jennifer Lopez), the club’s top money earner, who’s always in control, has the clientele figured out, and really knows her way around a pole. The two women bond immediately, and Ramona gives Destiny a crash course in the various poses and pole moves like the carousel, fireman, front hook, ankle-hook, and stag. Another dancer, the irrepressible Diamond (Cardi B) provides a bawdy and revelatory class in the art of the lap dance. But Destiny’s most important lesson is that when you’re part of a broken system, you must hustle or be hustled. To that end, Ramona outlines for her the different tiers of 'The Wall Street' clientele who frequent the club. The two women find themselves succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, making more money than they can spend; until the September 2008 economic collapse. 'Wall Street' stole from everyone and never suffered any consequences. Now, Ramona, Destiny, and two dancers who’ve joined their little family, the unstoppable Mercedes (Keke Palmer) and the young and innocent Annabelle (Lili Reinhart), look to turn the tables. They cook up an inventive scheme to get their lives back on the fast-track to success. The game is still rigged against them, so to even the playing field Ramona devises a special drug cocktail that leaves their customers helpless against the ladies charms. Nobody’s really getting hurt, they reason; it’s just like robbing a bank, except the men are handing them the keys. The foursome create a bond tighter than any family; until things get out of control. Destiny's mother abandoned her when she was very young, so she has trust issues. She hasn’t let a lot of people in. The lack of meaningful relationships with women in her family life makes Destiny's longing for female friendship so much greater. Destiny’s friendship with Ramona is the heart and soul of "Hustlers, while also being rich in nuance and surprises. Though Destiny enjoys the bounties coming from the group's larcenous schemes, she sees the true benefits as transcending dollars and material things. She just gets caught up in the loving feeling of family, the feeling of being a part of something. An us-against-the-world type thing. Destiny is a character who's deeply lonely, because of how our culture causes such loneliness. The color palette is muted, at first, as the film introduces to Destiny and experience the hardships of her day at the club. But after she meets Ramona and the other ladies, and they become a crew, the stripping comes alive and we add more and more color and glamour, especially in the private rooms, where the lap dances happen. Destiny is so beautiful because of her solitude, and the ways she tried to pretend her way out of it seemed counter intuitive, but also so very human. What Ramona is for Destiny reminds us of this quote from Patricia Highsmith’s 'The Talented Mr. Ripley', the thing with Dickie, it's like the sun shines on you, and it's glorious. And then he forgets you and it's very, very cold. When you've his attention, you feel like you're the only person in the world, that's why everybody loves him so much. Destiny's dream come true is for Ramona to love her. There's a big sister/little sister dynamic between Destiny and Ramona, even though their individual approaches to the world are very different. She further notes that Destiny’s motives can easily be misunderstood. You can look at her in different ways. She enjoys the money but is really in it more for the camaraderie than she's for the cash. Ramona is endearing but also complicated and damaged, and her ambition threatens to cloud her sense of morality and connection with Destiny and the rest of the women. She’s on a slippery slope and seduces people to her own agenda. Ramona is always reaching further than she should. Ramona is everything at once, the sun that shines brightly on you, but which can also burn you. She’s a 'Mama Bear' and 'Gordon Gekko', at the same time. That dichotomy is what makes her an anti-hero. Mercedes is fearless and always says what’s on her mind. She has a sense of humor about almost everything. She learns to depend on one another and know they’re in a tough spot that requires them to hustle. Yet they find a sense of hope together. Mercedes thinks of Ramona, Destiny and Annabelle as sisters. Mercedes is loyal and down for the ride, she’s definitely one of those ride-or-die type of people, but at the same time she’s not afraid to run when shit get crazy because she will always protect herself. Mercedes can always make Ramona laugh and bring her joy. She's also cool and put-together, even when trying to make ends meet and deal with a boyfriend who’s been imprisoned for much of their relationship. The youngest member of the quartet is Annabelle, a striking combination of innocence and allure. Your heart goes out to her. Annabelle is in an especially vulnerable place when we meet her; she’s living without her family, which has rejected her because of Annabelle’s profession; and trying to get by the best way she can. Her responds to Ramona’s motherly care and immediately bonds with her. Annabelle is the beating heart of the sisterhood, the one that they all love, and it's odd duck; and Annabelle has that lovable quality. One of Annabelle’s defining traits is her penchant for vomiting whenever she’s under stress. Diamond is lovable in a very different way. As embodied by the legendary rapper, singer, songwriter, Diamond is a tough girl from the Bronx who’s worked at the club for a year. She’s a little more hardcore and acerbic than the other dancers. Diamond doesn’t take shit from anyone, but, thanks to Ramona, she eventually connects with Destiny and joins the ladies in celebrating their new bonds. She even provides a hilarious lap-dancing lesson for Destiny. Liz (Lizzo) is an ebullient stripper and pole dancer. Tracey (Trace Lysette) is a dancer. Justice (Mette Towley) is the only stripper with a tagline all her own. Justice is served. She's a dancer known for her hypnotic and improvisational hip-hop moves. Another key figure in the story is neither a stripper nor a part of this newly-formed sisterhood. A reporter, Elizabeth (Julia Stiles), is chronicling the story of these women through interviews with Destiny and Ramona. Elizabeth is a reality check on the fantasy of what these women pulled off. It's a celebration of sisterhood, and what a tight-knit family of women have to do for a fighting chance. They're moms, friends, sisters, and daughters, who forge these incredible bonds that transcend their differences. These women did not invent the game; they just tried to level the playing field. It’s about right, wrong, and how far you’ll go to hustle for your dreams. Their struggles are 100 percent relatable. They want to take care of themselves and their families, and we wanted to make sure we brought that all to life. These girls are from different backgrounds. Each has her own baggage, traumas, family problems, and they find solace in being together through all of that. They provide a sisterhood for one another that looks like it won’t falter, even in a competitive and nasty world. These characters work hard hustling for their money to provide for themselves and their families. Their camaraderie is priceless and necessary for their survival, and that is something almost any woman can relate to. "Hustlers" digs into the stories of these women’s lives and shows the good, the bad, and the ugly. The outfits, designs, and period context play integral roles in shaping the characters and narrative. Audiences experience the world of these women’s lives, their journey, and level of sophistication, through the design of the sets and color palette. Usually, a club’s dressing rooms lockers store all the dancer's’belongings. But we see them prepare to go on stage, with all their makeup, garments, and grooming tools filling up the frame. Later, as the ladies become increasingly wealthy, the film removes much of the color, to heighten the contrast as they break through an economic barrier and a new level of sophistication. The scenes set in the gentlemen’s club are more visually dynamic, with reflections, color, and neon, giving it a little more life. There’s a family quality when Destiny, Ramona, Mercedes, and Annabelle are together; they could even be wearing pajamas. But for their male customers, they weaponize their style, using their hemlines, cleavage, whatever is available to them. We often see male action characters donning accessories like bullet-proof vests or wielding guns; the ladies accessories are just as formidable. The ladies journey of elaborate cons is their response to a broken system that has left them at the bottom of a patriarchal hierarchy that’s been in place since, well, forever. Their struggles to overcome and break through these circumstances resonate because, like everyone, they’re looking to take care of themselves and their families and live that 'American Dream' that feels out of reach for them and so many others. Their ingenious, if ethically questionable tactics include spiking the drinks of their targets, a never-ending stream of 'Wall Street Kingpins' who've long treated the ladies like their playthings. Moreover, these tycoons have long been making money off the broken dreams of everyday Americans, and, the ladies’ reason, it’s time to turn things around. Still, the quartet’s actions are not heroic. They're definitely anti-heroes and survivors in a game that's rigged. There’s a line in the film about how few men would admit they had been scammed by a woman. Their sense of pride prevents them from reporting it. These men aren’t interested in getting to know who these women are; they're more interested in making them into who they want them to be. These guys feel untouchable, and they don’t see it coming. Though these women work in a value system that can be insidious, we feel for the male characters as well, because they’re valued most for their wealth and power, as women are valued for their beauty. The system is broken for both. Looking at the era in which the story unfolds, the film explains that the high-flying early and mid-2000s saw the rise of gown clubs, where the dancers donned expensive-looking frocks. It was a time of 'Trumpian Faux' wealth and high golds. But after the stock market crash in 2008, they transitioned to character clubs, where each dancer played a role that worked best for her. If there’s a little space between two timeframes, you can appreciate period fashions. But since 2007 is so close to the present, it’s still embarrassing to dive back there and look at some of those fashions and hairstyles. It’s amazing how different the world looked even then, the eyebrows, cut of the trousers, earrings the size of dinner plates. So, we just decided to go for it and embrace it all. The truth is we’re all hustling, negotiating, striving to get through the day to win the battles we must fight. Women are constantly sexualized, but when they find a way to profit from that, all of the sudden it’s a problem. In movies, strippers are painted as throwaways or just background characters. The film leads to deeper conversations, about empathy, and about a specific occupation and those who work at it, most of whom have long been misunderstood or underestimated. "Hustlers" brings together a compelling mix of humor, spectacle, social commentary, and a group of disparate women who team up and look for ways to even the odds that are stacked against them. This city, this whole country, is a strip club. You’ve got people tossing the money, and people doing the dance. It’s about a relatable issue that affects so many. It's about greed, power, and 'The American Dream' and what a certain group of women, who work in a field where they're discounted, will do to achieve it. An amorality story about the slippery slope of the hustle. It’s a slice of life and a cautionary tale about what happens when your ambition is bigger than the reality of your situation. The film presents a world we may have seen in many movies and TV shows, but from a different perspective. It’s an epic mix of crime drama, stripper movie, and an exploration of the economic upheaval that upendied the lives of so many.

„Alice, Darling“ /01/20/23/ Genesis Cinema, 93-95 Mile End Rd, Bethnal Green, London E1 4UJ, United Kingdom, 15:20 · 17:50 Rio Cinema, 107 Kingsland High St, London E8 2PB, United Kingdom, 17:15 "Alice Darling" Alice (Anna Kendrick) in a woman pushed to the breaking point by her psychologically abusive boyfriend, Simon (Charlie Carrick). While on vacation with two close girlfriends, Alice rediscovers the essence of herself and gains some much-needed perspective. Slowly, she starts to fray the cords of codependency that bind her. But Simon’s vengeance is as inevitable as it's shattering, and, once unleashed, it tests Alice’s strength, her courage, and the bonds of her deep-rooted friendships. When the audience first encounters Alice, she's fully in denial about her fraught relationship with her boyfriend Simon and how damaging it's. Her slow burn realization of the harm it's doing to her and her participation in that reveals itself over time, but at first, it's a mystery, to the audience and to the character. When we meet Alice, she doesn’t really know who she's all. It's actually a really bizarre character to play because the whole point is that she’s sort of lost herself, and that everything in her focus, all her energy, is going toward being kind of small and flexible and to manage her partner’s potential reactivity. And the sense that if she’s just a little bit better, if she's just perfect, everything will be okay. That mindset slowly creeps in, and, before she knows it, she doesn’t recognize yourself. Only when she's with her close friends does Alice have a little more room to breathe. It’s interesting because she’s resistant to that at first, if she fully recognizes and accepts herself and then returns to her partner, she will be in serious trouble, and her carefully constructed if self-sabotaging world will come apart. Alice’s very different public and private demeanor offers existential clues into Alice’s authentic self, even when Alice is not quite aware or willing to accept who that's. This character seems fine on the surface, but obviously, you've little windows into her. A lot of the times that she’s in the bathroom, obsessively twirling and pulling her hair, it's clear she's in great distress about something. So how do you bring that out in a subtle way that tells you what’s happening inside the character? Alice presents as successful and secure, beloved by her boyfriend, her friends, herself. But slowly the enigmatic, self- destructive fissures appear, even as Alice refuses to address her mysterious downward spiral. She refuses to admit or confront it. Façade is all. We're with her, in her emotional perspective. The audience, like Alice, experiences the symptoms but not the root cause. But in this case, as in so many in real life, the character isn’t fully aware of what’s happening to her because it isn’t overt and because there’s a lot of gaslighting happening. The cause is a mystery, as much to her as to the audience; in many ways, Alice is an unreliable narrator. The literal and emotional journey of Alice, especially her complicated, inner turmoil that she cannot articulate but reveals in often self-sabotaging ways. There's a world where we understand that Simon will never change. He will leave this movie telling everyone he knows, ‘Yeah. I dated this girl who was crazy. She turned off her phone. I didn’t know where she was. I went to find her and her friends ganged up on me'. This is the sort of abuse that's very much under the surface but still very present and toxic and it's all too common, if not discussed or recognized fully. The hidden nature of Alice’s relationship with her boyfriend, Simon; his controlling, manipulative behavior; and Alice’s willingness to keep the by peace by accepting blame that doesn’t belong to her. Alice, incapable of facing her issues, sublimates and acts out her suffering in increasingly alarming and mysterious ways. Her polar opposite is her friend Sophie (Wummi Mosaku), a clear-eyed, emotionally centered warm soul with an altruisticr heart. She's the proof. People, but especially women, have a really hard time trusting that what they’re feeling is real and that there’s a temptation to show really overt acts or scenes that make you really understand that, okay, what’s happening is wrong. But that's not how it plays out all the time. To trust that the audience would come along with one character’s perception, flawed, personal and complex as it's, that being enough, is scary. Sophie is someone who's filled with love and enthusiasm, and she wants joy to surround the people that she loves and she just tries her best to do that, whether it’s through like baking or like hiking and kayaking or fireworks she plans for Tess’s (Kaniehtiio Horn) birthday. She wants people to feel loved and happy. It’s no accident that she works for a nonprofit! She's someone who accepts people for who they're, and doesn’t try and change them. Tess is loyal, bighearted, forthright, mischievous, blunt, kind, sometimes judgmental but ultimately forgiving. Tess is a brilliant artist but she’s not raking in the cash or the notices, in contrast with Simon, who's very successful. Tess has all of the best intentions. But we don’t think that she knows how to vocalize her feelings with sensitivity. She's brash and doesn’t exactly think before she speaks. Tess says what's on her mind and deals with the consequences later. And, in this case, her feelings about Simon and her best friend Alice are also influenced by where she's in her career, but ultimately it's motivated by her deep love for Alice. Honesty without compassion is brutality. Compassion without honesty is enabling. They haven’t figured out how to be compassionate and honest, Sophie for sure, and Tess definitely hasn’t figured out how to be honest with compassion. They're all in a transitional time, in their early 30s and going through their personal growth as people and friends and figuring out how to navigate all of it. The characters, their emotional and literal journey is recognizable and, unfortunately, in terms of Alice and her issues with her boyfriend, and her struggle to reconcile those with herself and her childhood friends. The film tells the story from the emotional point of view of the characters, particularly Alice, so audiences experience her self-destructive habits/reactions to her deep despair and low self-esteem as she does, not entirely sure from whence this comes because she isn’t capable of addressing her underlying angst. A particularly telling and disturbing routine is her incessant hair twisting and yanking of strands, a small but alarming physical manifestation of her inner turmoil. There's also something to the literal journey Alice and her friends take, from city to bucolic countryside, this change of scenery and vibe ultimately liberates Alice and her friends. "Alice, Darling" is a subtle, nuanced story about coercion and control. It's about female friendship and coercive abuse. It’s riveting tale, of course, but ultimately it's a story of female resilience and empowerment. What you can do very well in literature is describe what’s happening to somebody internally, what’s happening inside them. Sometimes in film it’s harder to bring something that’s nonverbal out. You need to see the lake from the hot tub and the herbs from the kitchen. There’s a whole bit of business with wood chopping. It's all part of the dance of designing the blocking and that interaction between direction, cinematography, and production design. Written by Gregory Mann

„Alice, Darling“ /01/20/23/ Genesis Cinema, 93-95 Mile End Rd, Bethnal Green, London E1 4UJ, United Kingdom, 15:20 · 17:50 Rio Cinema, 107 Kingsland High St, London E8 2PB, United Kingdom, 17:15 "Alice Darling" Alice (Anna Kendrick) in a woman pushed to the breaking point by her psychologically abusive boyfriend, Simon (Charlie Carrick). While on vacation with two close girlfriends, Alice rediscovers the essence of herself and gains some much-needed perspective. Slowly, she starts to fray the cords of codependency that bind her. But Simon’s vengeance is as inevitable as it's shattering, and, once unleashed, it tests Alice’s strength, her courage, and the bonds of her deep-rooted friendships. When the audience first encounters Alice, she's fully in denial about her fraught relationship with her boyfriend Simon and how damaging it's. Her slow burn realization of the harm it's doing to her and her participation in that reveals itself over time, but at first, it's a mystery, to the audience and to the character. When we meet Alice, she doesn’t really know who she's all. It's actually a really bizarre character to play because the whole point is that she’s sort of lost herself, and that everything in her focus, all her energy, is going toward being kind of small and flexible and to manage her partner’s potential reactivity. And the sense that if she’s just a little bit better, if she's just perfect, everything will be okay. That mindset slowly creeps in, and, before she knows it, she doesn’t recognize yourself. Only when she's with her close friends does Alice have a little more room to breathe. It’s interesting because she’s resistant to that at first, if she fully recognizes and accepts herself and then returns to her partner, she will be in serious trouble, and her carefully constructed if self-sabotaging world will come apart. Alice’s very different public and private demeanor offers existential clues into Alice’s authentic self, even when Alice is not quite aware or willing to accept who that's. This character seems fine on the surface, but obviously, you've little windows into her. A lot of the times that she’s in the bathroom, obsessively twirling and pulling her hair, it's clear she's in great distress about something. So how do you bring that out in a subtle way that tells you what’s happening inside the character? Alice presents as successful and secure, beloved by her boyfriend, her friends, herself. But slowly the enigmatic, self- destructive fissures appear, even as Alice refuses to address her mysterious downward spiral. She refuses to admit or confront it. Façade is all. We're with her, in her emotional perspective. The audience, like Alice, experiences the symptoms but not the root cause. But in this case, as in so many in real life, the character isn’t fully aware of what’s happening to her because it isn’t overt and because there’s a lot of gaslighting happening. The cause is a mystery, as much to her as to the audience; in many ways, Alice is an unreliable narrator. The literal and emotional journey of Alice, especially her complicated, inner turmoil that she cannot articulate but reveals in often self-sabotaging ways. There's a world where we understand that Simon will never change. He will leave this movie telling everyone he knows, ‘Yeah. I dated this girl who was crazy. She turned off her phone. I didn’t know where she was. I went to find her and her friends ganged up on me'. This is the sort of abuse that's very much under the surface but still very present and toxic and it's all too common, if not discussed or recognized fully. The hidden nature of Alice’s relationship with her boyfriend, Simon; his controlling, manipulative behavior; and Alice’s willingness to keep the by peace by accepting blame that doesn’t belong to her. Alice, incapable of facing her issues, sublimates and acts out her suffering in increasingly alarming and mysterious ways. Her polar opposite is her friend Sophie (Wummi Mosaku), a clear-eyed, emotionally centered warm soul with an altruisticr heart. She's the proof. People, but especially women, have a really hard time trusting that what they’re feeling is real and that there’s a temptation to show really overt acts or scenes that make you really understand that, okay, what’s happening is wrong. But that's not how it plays out all the time. To trust that the audience would come along with one character’s perception, flawed, personal and complex as it's, that being enough, is scary. Sophie is someone who's filled with love and enthusiasm, and she wants joy to surround the people that she loves and she just tries her best to do that, whether it’s through like baking or like hiking and kayaking or fireworks she plans for Tess’s (Kaniehtiio Horn) birthday. She wants people to feel loved and happy. It’s no accident that she works for a nonprofit! She's someone who accepts people for who they're, and doesn’t try and change them. Tess is loyal, bighearted, forthright, mischievous, blunt, kind, sometimes judgmental but ultimately forgiving. Tess is a brilliant artist but she’s not raking in the cash or the notices, in contrast with Simon, who's very successful. Tess has all of the best intentions. But we don’t think that she knows how to vocalize her feelings with sensitivity. She's brash and doesn’t exactly think before she speaks. Tess says what's on her mind and deals with the consequences later. And, in this case, her feelings about Simon and her best friend Alice are also influenced by where she's in her career, but ultimately it's motivated by her deep love for Alice. Honesty without compassion is brutality. Compassion without honesty is enabling. They haven’t figured out how to be compassionate and honest, Sophie for sure, and Tess definitely hasn’t figured out how to be honest with compassion. They're all in a transitional time, in their early 30s and going through their personal growth as people and friends and figuring out how to navigate all of it. The characters, their emotional and literal journey is recognizable and, unfortunately, in terms of Alice and her issues with her boyfriend, and her struggle to reconcile those with herself and her childhood friends. The film tells the story from the emotional point of view of the characters, particularly Alice, so audiences experience her self-destructive habits/reactions to her deep despair and low self-esteem as she does, not entirely sure from whence this comes because she isn’t capable of addressing her underlying angst. A particularly telling and disturbing routine is her incessant hair twisting and yanking of strands, a small but alarming physical manifestation of her inner turmoil. There's also something to the literal journey Alice and her friends take, from city to bucolic countryside, this change of scenery and vibe ultimately liberates Alice and her friends. "Alice, Darling" is a subtle, nuanced story about coercion and control. It's about female friendship and coercive abuse. It’s riveting tale, of course, but ultimately it's a story of female resilience and empowerment. What you can do very well in literature is describe what’s happening to somebody internally, what’s happening inside them. Sometimes in film it’s harder to bring something that’s nonverbal out. You need to see the lake from the hot tub and the herbs from the kitchen. There’s a whole bit of business with wood chopping. It's all part of the dance of designing the blocking and that interaction between direction, cinematography, and production design. Written by Gregory Mann

Do you have a film festival that you would like to chat about? Start a new topic and let everyone know the details. Encourage your friends and fans to leave comments and share the post.

(Release Info London schedule; June 30th, 2019, Electric Cinema, Notting Hill 191 Portobello Road, Notting Hill, W11 2ED, 10:00 AM) https://film.list.co.uk/listing/1296251-never-look-away/ "Never Look Away" Amidst the chaos of pre-war Germany, Kurt Barnert (Tom Schilling) based loosely on one of Germany’s most revered contemporary painters, Gerhard Richter, becomes fascinated by the art in the world around him. Kurt attends art school, where he meets and falls in love with fellow student, Ellie (Paula Beer). Kurt soon discovers that his family’s past is intertwined with Ellie’s in sinister and violent ways, just as art in Germany is entangled with the nation’s past. Ellie’s father, Professor Seeband (Sebastian Koch), a famous doctor, is dismayed at his daughter’s choice of boyfriend, and vows to destroy the relationship. What neither of them knows is that their lives are already connected through a terrible crime Seeband committed decades ago. Through the Dresden bombings, a job as a Soviet propaganda artist, and a move from 'East' to 'West Germany', Kurt strives to find his voice as an artist. The focus is an artist named Kurt Barnert. While Kurt is growing up during 'The Second World War', his aunt Elisabeth (Saskia Rosendahl) sparks his interest in art. She's freedom, art, beauty, extreme sensitivity, and madness all in one. After the war he studies first in Dresden, and later in Düsseldorf at the legendary art school 'Kunstakademie', where at the time some of 'West Germany’s' most important artists completely revolutionized their field. His love of Ellie Seeband leads to a confrontation with her father, the famous gynecologist Professor Carl Seeband, a staunch rationalist and perfectionist who despises everything that Kurt stands for. Kurt Barnert’s life makes it clear that we as humans have an almost alchemistic ability to make something good out of the difficult things in life that happen to us all. No less important a role is Ellie Seeband, the professor’s daughter, whom Kurt Barnert falls in love with without knowing who her father is and without knowing that they're bound by tragic circumstances in the past. The complete antithesis of Kurt is his 'father-in-law' Professor Carl Seeband. The character of Seeband is a dyed-in-the-wool 'Nazi' and witnessed the complete failure of this ideology and how it brings about his country’s collapse. He finds safe harbor in the next systems, however, and with his discipline, health, intelligence, and scientific expertise, remains unassailable. It's these qualities that also enabled him to conceal his guilt and save his neck. This gives him a feeling of superiority and a great feeling of security. This is why he finds it so inconceivable that his only child becomes involved with a powerless artist, whom he also deems frail and of mediocre intelligence. He opposes the relationship with every means available to him. Seeband is a monster. He's ice-cold and domineering. But what's truly monstrous about him is that he's convinced he's doing the right thing. There's no feeling of wrongdoing, no sense of guilt. He does what he does because for him there's absolutely no alternative. The clash of two men who at first glance have nothing in common, both brilliant minds but who could not be more different, and who also have completely opposing approaches to life and the world. The subject derives it's power from the clash of these two men, and the result is a story about the essence of inspiration and the power of art. For a long time the cinematic treatment of German history fixated on 'The Second World War', and naturally on the 'GDR' past. One of the things that particularly excited about "Never Look Away" is that the film covers several periods of German history and connects the developments in each. The film sheds light on these periods from the perspective of three human destinies; of the artist Kurt Barnert, the love of his life Ellie, and her father Professor Seeband. All three are invisibly bound by a dark family secret of which Kurt and Ellie are at first completely unaware. The story takes us through three decades of German history: war, destruction, reconstruction, Socialism, the young 'Freedom Republic Of Germany'. But the film’s focus is above all on the art of this period, on the work of our main character Kurt, and his path to finding his own personal style as an artist. What's the defining quality of the Germans? Where does art come from? "Never Look Away" is based on the work of German painter Gerhard Richter, whose life and work serve as one of the film’s many sources of inspiration. Inspired by real events, the film explores a subject matter that's both unusual and compellingly ambitious, spanning three decades of German post-war history in a suspense-packed drama. It also makes use of a sweeping historical backdrop to tell a highly personal and emotional story through the portrayal of three human destinies. A gripping drama and moving family story inspired by real events, by what it means to create art, and by the search for an artistic voice of one’s own. The images of Gerhard Richter are like memorable melodies that continue to dance around in our head. Like earworms. But in this case eyeworms. With the difference that they weren’t annoying, but a continual source of enrichment. It's a film about German art in the period following 'The Second World War'. "Never Look Away" explores the question of how great, genuine art is created. Art is one of the mysteries of human creativity. There's no formula that can determine why a work of art moves, shocks, or captivates us. This film is for everyone who might be a bit bored with the triviality of so much of what's seen in movie theaters today. The film creates a sense of true grandeur and capturing the audience’s imagination. "Never Look Away" is the best argument, the best reason for going to the movies.

Who exactly was Lee Israel? Leonore Carol “Lee” Israel, born in New York in December 1939, died in New York in December 2014. In the 1970s she began writing biographies, her first being about Tallulah Bankhead, in 1972. Her third and last biography was published in 1985 and concerned Estee Lauder. Unfortunately for Lee it came out at the same time as Lauder’s own autobiography and simply could not compete. The film Can You Ever Forgive Me? narrates an episode in the life of Lee Israel. In 1991 she lives alone with just an elderly, ailing cat called Jersey for company. She loses her job as a proofreader, for inappropriate language, and for drinking whisky in the office. She suffers from “writer’s block” as she attempts yet another biography, this time about Fanny Brice, a comedienne, singer and actress who died in 1951. She is three months behind in the rent. She turns up at a party given by her agent, Marjorie, who could not be less interested in what Lee describes as her “fascinating new projects”. To get her own back, Lee steals toilet rolls from the bathroom, and an overcoat from the coat-check. The outlook is depressing, to say the least. We next find her in a bar at four o’clock in the afternoon, alone, drinking whisky. And she meets Jack Hock, who is all that Lee is not. She is short and dumpy. He is tall and elegant. She dresses just to cover herself. He dresses to impress. She is unsociable, sullen, staves off any social contact. He exudes charm, will talk to anyone, makes instant contact. Neither of them has any income to speak of. One day, Lee Israel’s life takes a turn for the better. Doing a bit of research for her Fanny Brice biography, she comes across some letters signed by Brice herself. In a moment of inspiration she quickly hides them and manages to sell them in one of those New York bookshops dealing in rare books and unusual finds. Lee has discovered a new source of income: the market for letters written by celebrities. She starts on her new letter-writing career using a collection of old typewriters, one for each writer. These are not copies, fakes perhaps, but original letters Lee composes imbuing them with the very essence of the person she personifies. She researches her characters to reproduce each one’s writing style and manner of speech. Her favorite character seems to have been the writer and scriptwriter Dorothy Parker. The film’s title -- Can You Ever Forgive Me? -- alludes to Dorothy apologizing for her alcoholic behavior at some party. There is a moment in the film where we see Lee enjoying and reciting lines from The Little Foxes on TV (Parker wrote additional dialogues for this film). Dorothy and Lee had in common a huge capacity for alcoholic intake, a caustic sense of humor and a talent for scathing comments. Lee devotes the next year and a half to her letter writing business. She writes some 400 or more, from the most diverse celebrities, Edna Ferber, Noel Coward, and Dorothy Parker being only a few. To Lee this is the most creative, gratifying time of her life. For once she is happy, and manages to pay off her debts. Of course, rumours and suspicions eventually catch up with her. Her friend Jack makes use of his considerable talents of persuasion to sell the letters for her. As a last resort she takes to stealing and selling genuine letters, replacing them with fakes. The FBI is implacable. Lee receives a suspended sentence of five years, the first six months to be spent under house arrest. Jack, that good friend of hers who denounced her and collaborated with the FBI, is given a suspended sentence of three years. The film Can You Ever Forgive Me? is based on the book Lee Israel wrote concerning this episode in her life. Published in 2008 it was more successful than any of her biographies This is by no means a glittering super production. It is a loving reconstruction of New York in the last decade of the 20th century, reproducing some of Lee Israel’s favourite haunts: the bars she used to drink in, the renowned Bar Julius, the second hand bookshops she knew so well. It includes a lot of music and songs of the time, including one sung by a transgender singer (Justin Vivian Bond) In the Bar Julius, that well-known venue among the gay community of New York. The script by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty is agile, sparse, concise, with no unnecessary explanations and with not a dialogue too many. The two main actors, Melissa McCarthy (Lee Israel) and Richard E. Grant (Jack Hock), are extraordinary, portraying two solitary people who live precariously and survive miraculously. Melissa McCarthy started her professional life as a stand-up comedian, before beginning her film career, appearing basically in comedies. This time she has put together a character so complex, so intrinsically unpleasant as to be moving, tender, even likable. McCarthy’s version of Lee Israel is grumpy, thorny, bad-tempered, hopeless at personal relationships (she only gets on well with her cat, Jersey). In Jack Hock she finds a friend, she trusts him with her privacy, her secrets, and even lets him into her home – with mixed results. Richard E. Grant is a perfect Jack Hock: that happy conman dripping charm and charisma, oozing raffish elegance and juggling uncertain finances of a dubious origin. What a shame that though both actors were nominated, neither ended up winning an Oscar. This is Marielle Heller’s second full length film, her first being The Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015), dealing with a teenager’s first, and most enjoyable sexual experiences. However, she seems to have several projects in hand so hopefully we will soon hear more from her.

(Release Info London schedule; January 29th, 2021, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-assassins-film-online "Assassins" In 2017, Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of 'North Korea’s' leader Kim Jong-un, was assassinated in the bustling departures hall of 'Malaysia’s International Airport'. The spectacularly brazen murder happened in broad daylight, filmed entirely by security cameras. Footage showed two young women approaching Jong-nam from behind, covering his eyes with their hands, and pressing 'VX', the most lethal nerve gas on earth, into his eyes. He stumbled away and was dead within an hour. But if the murder was extreme, the story that came next was even more bizarre: The two women who killed Jong-nam claimed they had simply been hired to pull a video prank and had no idea what they're really doing. 'The Malaysian' government scoffed, arrested and imprisoned the women and put them on trial for murder, facing execution. But was their outlandish story actually the truth? And would anyone believe them? "Assassins" travels from the sanctums of 'Pyongyang' to the rice fields of 'Indonesia' and 'Vietnam' to the courtrooms of 'Kuala Lumpur' to tell an extraordinary tale of manipulation and subterfuge in the age of social media. A masterful investigation that offers an unprecedented look at the real story of Kim Jong-nam’s murder, "Assassins" is the wildly improbable tale of a calculating dictator, a nefarious plot, a very public murder, and two women fighting for their lives. Siti is represented by 'The Gooi & Azura' law firm. They've a contract with 'The Indonesian' embassy in 'Kuala Lumpur' so any time an 'Indonesian' citizen in 'Malaysia' is on trial facing the death penalty, they get that case. Doan’s situation is a little bit different. 'The Vietnam Bar Association' ended up hiring a team to represent her, three different lawyers in two different firms. Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, the main character in our film who’s her representative, is a big-time lawyer in Malaysia and in death penalty cases specifically. We feel that Siti’s and Doan’s lawyers don’t get enough credit for how brave what they're doing actually is. They're two of the only groups to publicly point the finger at 'North Korea' in a way that 'The Malaysian Government' would not, in the way that other foreign governments would not. It's almost as if nobody wants to take on that assertion, to say clearly that even if these women were the assassins, they're not the masterminds. Siti and Doan are from different countries, they've different backgrounds, they've different educations, it's really chilling, the idea of what might have happened to them. Worldwide almost everyone presumed that Siti and Doan were guilty, that they must have been part of this regime in some way, or that they're paid assassins. No one would ever jump to the conclusion that two people could be tricked into pulling off a major political assassination. Everybody on the ground thought that they're going to be convicted, the odds were so stacked against them. So the more we realized that they might be innocent and the further it got into the trial and the more likely it looked that they're going to be executed, the more heart-wrenching it's. Somewhat morbidly we assumed that because they're going to be convicted and sentenced to death. One of the more heartbreaking parts of the film is when Doan says that the world used to be pink to her and now she won’t trust people in the same way that she did. It’s so sad because that's robbed from her, why shouldn’t she be allowed to be trusting? But this film illustrates how dangerous the world can be if you're too trusting. Every time we follow the women at trial, day in and day out, the women are immediately escorted onto the elevator and up to the courtroom. And one day the elevator isn't there on time so the women have to wait a second and the camera is able to get this single shot of Doan clenching her fists with her handcuffs on. That shot gives us goosebumps because you can just feel what she’s feeling. Her hands are bound behind her and she’s feeling so much emotion and that’s how she expressing it, with these hands that she can’t move as she walks into a courtroom where she listens to a trial that’s not in her native tongue and faces the death penalty. The film creates a real sense of apprehension about whether Siti and Doan will be found guilty and put to death. The nexus of the film is the exploitation of young women. Even though this story goes in the most warped, bizarre, perverse direction, in the end these were women who were exploited because of the circumstances that they're in, who were vulnerable. And that's happening worldwide. Kim Jong-nam was assassinated in February of 2017. To go back and look at history, that was Donald Trump’s first full month in office. Most Americans, remember it as a huge news story the day that it happened, but very quickly it subsided in 'The American' news because so much of the airwaves were dedicated to Trump. The assassination became one of those stories that everyone remembers happened but they don’t remember exactly what happened. They remember bits and pieces, they remember that it was something sensational. People say, weren’t they female assassins? And then they've some crazy version of how the women killed Kim Jong-nam, and those stories are always very elaborate and wrong. We’ve heard poisonous lipstick, we’ve heard darts, we’ve heard guns; everything but what actually happened. We didn’t have that big-picture view of the arc of Kim Jong-un’s rise to power and what role Kim Jong-nam’s assassination played in that rise. There’s a theme to the whole story about vulnerability and the exploitation of young women; it’s almost as if they've to force themselves to be gullible because they’re so desperate to survive and find a way forward. Anna Fifield, who's the Beijing bureau chief of 'The Washington Post', published a book last year called 'The Great Successor', which is an amazing account of Kim Jong-un. We feel like he’s often seen as a caricature, he’s laughed at, Trump calls him 'Rocketman', and Anna’s book really traced his pathway to power in a way that treats him seriously. When we read her book, it's like a missing link from the film. The story feels so bizarre, and so distant that in a way your first thought is that you don’t relate to these women. And then as you dig deeper into it and you realize exactly what happened to them, you recognize that this could have happened to anybody, that this appeal of fame and opportunity and a better life, particularly when you're more vulnerable, could lead you to do things that others may see as ridiculous. When you’re hoping so much to find a better life for yourself and you’re presented with something that seems like it will give you that, of course you’re going to want to do it. And also they've seen it happen successfully to other people around the world, people who had found fame and fortune with social media and Internet opportunities. So it didn’t seem far-fetched that it could happen to them. What’s so interesting about it's that in the end it did bring them fame but for the worst possible reason, for a crime neither of them knew they're committing. To see them toward the end with all of these cameras is just so ironic because in a way that’s what they both wanted but certainly not under those circumstances. That's something that we're always batting around. And there’s going to be no answer. No one will ever know why it was done in such a spectacle. There are various theories around the personality of Kim Jong-un, who loves the world of pop culture and spectacle, that perhaps that world influenced the choice of the way to do it. The one common denominator that most people come to is that this murder was a message to opponents of the Kim regime that you’re never safe no matter where you're, that they can get you at any time. This murder is so brazen and so terrifying, done in a public space, all over camera, by people who might not even be assassins and in a way that would grab the headlines in a sensational way. It’s a warning to all of 'North Korea’s' enemies. Even though there are so many factors that implicate 'North Korea' and specifically Kim Jong-un, we can’t say for sure. Assuming he's responsible, he had so many ways and opportunities to kill Kim Jong-nam and yet he chose to do it this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwO4VhXHg1s&lc=z23aflugwrbruh03yacdp43b4q0jnkl2hovynbthgbpw03c010c