You never, ever take off your blindfold. If you look, you will die. Do you understand? Each year ends with a bang. You’ll have the end-of-year festivities and people party themselves into the new year. But when it’s about movies, this one created an end-of-a-filmyear-bang. Frankly, I didn’t expect too much of it. But maybe my prejudice about Sandra Bullock has something to do with that. I readily admit that I’m not really a fan of this actress. Is it her way of talking? Or her facial expression? No idea. But I have already avoided a lot of films just because of her being in it. But for her acting performance in “Bird Box“, she deserves a standing ovation. I admit Sandra Bullock’s acting is brilliant. Brilliant how Sandra Bullock plays her character, Malorie. A free-spirited woman who’s on her way to becoming a single mum. All indications point to her being a cynic who prefers not to have too emotional bonds with others. Even the way she talks about her unborn baby shows how aloof she is. Even the two children, with whom she makes the dangerous boat trip, are still called by the names “boy” and “girl” after 5 years. Is it pure selfishness? Or self-preservation? Or fear of commitment? Probably. But as the film progresses, you’ll also notice that she has other character traits that make her more human. She stands her ground, shows understanding, defends others and shows how vulnerable she is herself. So thumbs up for Bullock, even though she looks more and more like Michael Jackson. The threat, helplessness and fear. But it’s not just the acting of Sandra Bullock why this film entered my list “Best movies of 2018”. The film itself impressed me. It’s that constant feeling of threat, helplessness, and fear that you get while watching this film. Inevitably one will compare “Bird Box” with “A quiet place“. In this film, the survivors had to produce as little noise as possible, because those who have conquered our beloved globe have a pair of sophisticated ears. Every sigh or groan can, therefore, be heard by them over kilometers, with the result that the person who produced the sound can’t do this a second time. In “Bird Box“, looking is already fatal. That’s why a lot is being blinded with newspapers, curtains, and blindfolds. An advantage for the pregnant among the survivors. No problem to be noisy while giving birth. Look! Oops no, don’t. You can see this film as a fusion of “A quiet place” and “Cell“. Just as there’s chaos in “Cell” after a telephone signal has changed those who were on the phone into murderous psychotics, in “Bird Box” it’s when looking at something unknown that all hell will break loose. In this film, I found that moment more frightening and more breathtaking. When I watched “Cell“, I was slightly disappointed about that moment. Perhaps because I also read Stephen King’s book and King wrote it in such a brilliant and unparalleled way that it was impossible to film it. After the general mass hysteria where a lot of suicides are being committed, we see how a group of random people is entrenched in someone’s home. Soon they are confronted with the known problems. Their food supply is shrinking so they are forced to go outside to resupply. A hazardous undertaking that provides the necessary tension. There’s also the constant threat of falling prey to the unknown danger. Or people who seek help (or something else) knocking at their door. A lot of flashing back and forth. Most criticism will probably be given to the fact that the phenomenon that causes a global suicide wave can’t be seen at all. Apart from some wind, shadows, and leaves that appear to be floating motionlessly in the air, there’s nothing to see. Is it an alien invasion? A failed scientific experiment? A virus? A social media syndrome? No idea. And weird but true, even that didn’t bother me. It stimulates your curiosity and makes you feel the same way as the victims. A feeling of helplessness and fear of the unknown. During the entire film, it goes back and forth between past and present. Normally I’m not such a flashback-fan because this usually undermines the pace and mood of the movie. With “Bird box” I didn’t have that feeling and the subcutaneous tension remained constant. A must see. It’s clear this film competes for the title “Best film of the year 2018“. Sandra Bullock steals the show and is emphatically present in almost every scene. Also worth mentioning is John Malkovich as the sometimes hard-hearted cynic and pessimist Douglas. Such a person who immediately assumes that his country is in a state of war. So he’s constantly parading around with a gun. There is also Trevante Rhodes who is the absolute opposite of Douglas. A sympathetic fellow who’s helpful and shows compassion. And finally, the two young children who act so natural at certain moments. The moment when a terrible decision had to be made during the trip on the river, was touching and brilliantly acted. It’s kind of obvious. “Bird box” left a crushing impression on me. It wasn’t so exciting that I wanted to cover my eyes. But it was a close call! Indeed, a must see. My rating 9/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(Release Info London schedule; August 23rd, 2018, Picturehouse, 18:00) "Yardie" Set in ’70s Kingston and ’80s Hackney, "Yardie' centres on the life of a young Jamaican man named 'D' (Aml Ameen), who has never 88 recovered from the murder, committed during his childhood, of his older brother Jerry Dread (Everaldo Creary). 'D' grows up under the wing of a Kingston Don and music producer named King Fox (Sheldon Shepherd). Fox dispatches him to London, where he reconnects with his childhood sweetheart, Yvonne (Shantol Jackson), and his daughter Mona (Naomi Ackie) who he's not seen since she was a baby. He also hooks up with a soundclash crew, called 'High Noon'. But before he can be convinced to abandon his life of crime and follow the righteous path, he encounters the man who shot his brother 10 years earlier, and embarks on a bloody, explosive quest for retribution; a quest which brings him into conflict with vicious London gangster Rico (Stephen Graham). Getting the character of 'D' right is the key to making this movie work. Though now more relatable and sympathetic than he's in the book, it's still essential his on-screen incarnation is not only someone who could convince you he’d grown up under tough conditions on the gang-war-torn streets of Kingston, but who you could also relate to and empathise with, no matter your own cultural background. 'D' has a certain charisma in his eyes, but he also has a volatile and traumatised personality. The 'D' in the script has gone through some shit, so it’s not just about holding up a gun and screaming and shouting. 'D' is undeniably the heart of "Yardie". It’s hardly a one-man sbow. The first place we find 'D', of course, is Jamaica, during a very troubled time. Even today, some areas in Kingston, especially Trench Town, the birthplace of reggae music and Bob Marley’s hometown. After all, Trench Town is still considered one of the world’s most dangerous places, blighted by poverty and suffering frequent gun battles between it's rival gangs. The audiences can relate to the lead character of 'D'. His anger, his drive and charisma. The Rico character’s really central. You want him to be memorable. King Fox is a manipulative, imposing gang boss. He's quite a big, physical character. He's skinny and has a really interesting, singular, sculpted face. He can be genuinely very frightening, but not in a predictable, obviously gangster-y way. When we meet first Yvonne in the story, she's still a kid, trying not to get caught in the crossfire of King Fox’s ’70s turf war with rival gang 'The Tappa Crew'. Yvonne has something else going on. Of course she’s from Kingston, but she has an international appeal as well. Namely, the spontaneous street party thrown by 'D’s brother Jerry Dread meant as a way of quelling the gang war, but which horrifically ends with Jerry’s murder. The final piece of the casting puzzle js perhaps the hardest to find. On it's publication in 1992, Victor Headley’s 'Yardie' proved an instant cult hit. Put out by a two-man independent publishing operation called 'X Press', it was sold at clothing stores and outside nightclubs rather than in traditional bookshops, and through strong word-of-mouth shifted 30,000 copies. It was the first populist black title aimed at a black audience” in 'The United Kingdom'. It’s a page-turning novel full of twists and turns, with a compelling main character. It's a UK gangster story. And it explores a culture that everybody in England is a little bit aware of, but which this book really delved into. Adapted by Norman Brock "Yardie" is a story about a young man dealing with the trauma of losing a sibling at the tender age of 10. Victor’s novel captured the imagination and that of the many people that made this book a cult 80s classic. The script has all the attractive qualities of a genre movie. The film brings it to life in a unique way, in a way that's driven by 'D's experiences as a young 'BWOY' growing up in East London. The film crafts the visuals with every moment detailed in a way that the viewer leaves the film as if they're there too. It's about the trauma of 'D' to be the spine that connects all the limbs together, the violence, the love, the loss, the migration, the music, and attempt to deliver a layered portrayal of a young Jamaican man, someone you love or hate by the end but you do have an opinion on. Not only is it a period movie, set in 1973 and 1983, which required a lot of detail specific to a particular culture. "Yardie" is undoubtedly a tense, gritty thriller. It's something that sat in pop culture. The gangster element feels true to the world. The look and tone of this film is very cinematic. Obviously, Rasta culture is at the forefront, but it’s a vibrant, multicultural world. It gives you an insight and humanises these people. "Yardie" is a word that was coined by Scotland Yard about Jamaicans who came to England in the ’70s”. Drawn from the patois word ‘yard’, meaning ‘home’, it doesn’t just describe the notorious criminal element on which the movie focuses. Everybody got the banner. And a lot of black people in England were saying, ‘I’m a Yardie', and putting a Jamaican flag in their cars and stuff so they didn’t get attacked. Because Jamaicans were the feared black element among the prejudiced people in England at the time. So it has very negative connotations for most people who know it. But in the film we’re readdressing what it means. The point of film-making is to humanise the experiences of other people we would never meet, and people are gonna fall in love with the world in this movie. When the music drops, it’s gonna hit people in the most positive way, man. It’s just gonna warm up their spirits. "Yardie" is a gangster movie and a thriller. It's also, in some ways arguably, a musical, the film compares the toasting scenes with the rap battles of 2002 Eminem-starring movie "8 Mile". But as well as entertaining his audience, the film also wants to provide an insight into 'Yardie' culture. If you’re not so au fait with Jamaican culture, you’ll learn something from "Yardie".

(BFI London Film Festival, Compartment No. 6, Friday 08 October 2021 18:00, Curzon Mayfair, Screen 1) https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp "Compartment No. 6" As a train weaves it's way up to the arctic circle, two strangers share a journey that will change their perspective on life. Laura (Seidi Haarla), a young 'Finnish' woman, escapes an enigmatic love affair in Moscow by boarding a train to the arctic port of 'Murmansk'. Forced to share the long ride and a tiny sleeping car with Ljoha (Yuriy Borisov), a 'Russian' miner, the unexpected encounter leads the occupants of 'Compartment No. 6' to face the truth about their own yearning for human connection. The film is based on Rosa Liksom's novel, first published in 2010. It's an interesting story, but it’s a book. So the story spreads in many different directions, and for a film adaptation, that creates the question; which direction to take? The final film is more inspired by, rather than based on Rosa Liksom’s novel. The script changes the route, the decade and with that, the country changed from 'The Soviet Union' to 'Russia'. The film changes the age of the male character and his name from Vadim to Ljoha. The film begins with romance, including it's challenges and failings. But then moves in a completely different direction. In a way, the film starts when Laura steps on the train, but the film shows the complicate situation that she's escaping from. It's not about a narrative turn, it’s more about contrast. In the beginning she's disconnected, in the end she's connected. Basically in the beginning she would like to be like Irina (Dinara Drukunova), intellectual, a 'Muscovite'. The hero takes a long train ride to visit some ancient petroglyphs. She quotes a man she meets! To know yourself, you need to know your past. She would like to be an archaeologist who gets fulfilment out of these kind of things, petroglyphs and such. But is she really that person? Or is this just a stolen dream from a person she would like to be. 'Petroglyphs' are enduring marks from the past. Laura thinks that by seeing them she could make contact with something permanent. In a life that's nothing but a series of vanishing moments, she thinks this could make her feel good. But petroglyphs are just cold stones, you can’t really feel any connection through them. All we've is those fleeting moments, everything that matters is temporary. If we chase something eternal, we might lose what we've now. On the other hand, petroglyphs also represent a fear of death. We don’t want just to vanish forever, we want to be remembered. People make crazy statues and carvings to leave a mark on the world as proof that they existed. On the train she meets Ljoha, an annoying Russian miner who follows her like a shadow. She wants to know her past, and Ljoha is the embodiment of it. It’s unpleasant and banal, but it's what it's. Laura and Ljoha share something deeper than a sexual need. They're more like long-lost siblings. We like to think that they share the same unspoken feelings. It’s more like having the same kind of childhood than same idea of politics or whatever. And during this trip she realizes that she's actually more like Ljoha. Incorrect, clumsy, and lonely. They're connected on an emotional level, but not by sharing cultural touchstones. Laura’s journey speaks to a more universal, all-encompassing kind of love. What Laura and Ljoha experience during this journey, will also leave a deep mark in both of them. The film is interested in that hidden ground that lies behind our public persona. At the climax of the film these characters are free from these adult roles, they're like kids again, free. Encounters with the ‘Other’ is absolutely one of the main subjects at the heart of this film. Who or even what is he? He's the ‘Other’, but he's also a mirror to Laura’s own image that she tries to avoid. The story is equally about the encounter with the ‘Other’ and diving into your own inner self and attempting to understand and accept who you're. These are not two mutually exclusive themes, because when you meet someone new, there's the opportunity to re-start, to pretend to be something that you would like to be. Or a chance to open up, to learn something new about yourself. There's a certain kind of comfort in strangers. Depending on their gaze and presence of the 'Other', you either start to pretend or you might let go and finally just be yourself. We feel that, or parts of the world, are losing track of as a society. We're losing track on many levels, and this is one of those. This idea of meeting the ‘Other’ and resigning our own pre-determined ideas we've about each other is definitely one key to a better world. It’s no wonder that the theories of the ‘Other’ started to interest the world after the catastrophe of 'WW2' when we were also so strongly divided. The time when we encounter the ‘Other’ is the time when we become most ourselves. "Compartment No. 6" is an arctic road movie, perhaps it could be seen as a clumsy attempt to find harmony and peace of mind in a world of chaos and anxiety. The core of the story lies in the notion of acceptance. It’s a hard duty to accept that you're part of this chaotic world, and that you exist as you do. Road movies are often about freedom. In a car you can go where you want, every crossroad is a possibility. But we tend to think that freedom isn’t an endless number of options but rather, the ability to accept your limitations. A train ride is more like destiny. You can’t decide where to go, you just have to take what it gives you. It’s easier to deal with your personal emotions when there's certain distance. You go towards something strange, something that's only but a glimmer. It stays a mystery for quite a long time, but when you keep going, you start to find something that resonates in your soul. It’s a really unconscious process. When it’s ready, you might understand what's there that keep you going. 'Nostalgia' is the emotional experience, always momentary, always fragile, of having what you lost or never had, of seeing people you missed seeing, of sipping coffee in the storied cafés that are now hot- yoga studios. It’s the feeling that overcomes you when some minor vanished beauty of the world is momentarily restored. The film also establishes a different kind of on-screen couple. Audiences are overly conditioned to expect on-screen romance, or some kind of sexual tension. What really interested is the feeling that are beyond sexual tension. Romantic love stories are often too narrow, do they fall in love? If so, when do they have sex? This kind of storytelling is more about abusing the viewers voyeurism, it sells tickets, but is it really interesting. The film is more interested in those complicated feelings behind different kinds of relationships, We've to understand why we feel like we do. If it involves sex, fine, but that’s not the place to set the camera. Some people say it’s the darkness, the coldness of this part of the world. We don’t know. But there are the same dark souls everywhere in the world, and they like to laugh as well.

Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) is Colorado Springs first black cop and just the catalyst to herald a daring new mission for the sleepy precinct. Infiltrating the KkK. After Ron strikes up telephone contact through a, ‘Do you believe in White supremacy’ newspaper ad, he enlists Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) as his white avatar to meet with the Coloradan chapter. The film begins with an Americana style infomercial video, black and white aesthetic, White over Black meaning. Alec Baldwin channels his SNL take on Trump - the first but by no means the last skewering of the caustic man-child - as he offers ultra-right-wing Conservative rhetoric as The Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith’s landmark 1915 film that didn’t just advocate white supremacy but perpetuated it) is projected behind him, on him, through him. This scene sets the tone for Blackkklansman. Funny, frightening and fierce. Ron’s idealism and integrity are alluded to within his initially perfunct roles as a Police Officer filing reports and doling out profiles to his racist counterparts. He insists on black suspects being called ‘human beings’ and refuses to agreeably objectify an actress that his colleague is pining over in a magazine. Then comes the self-realisation of his character when, undercover in an excited crowd to gain intel on Corey Hawkins’ charismatic turn as Black Rights activist Kwame Ture, Ron finds agreeance with the man although his duty may deny him holding those views. This being a Spike Lee joint, it is rife with social commentary, polemic politics and scathing satire. He explores much in the two-hour run time, but a central question is, What would you do when faced with this systematic subjugation? Black people must always - lest they be labelled animalistic, sub-human, inferior - exude composure in the face of animalistic, sub-human, inferior behaviour. Even when that comes from cops. And yet, they still aren't allowed to meet the white yard stick they’re always measured against. Lee understands the hypocrisy of citizenry and the expectations toward black people, of course he does – check his filmography- but here he isn’t as much holding a portrait of racism as he is a glistening mirror. One with more stinging truisms than the that which is asked, Who is the fairest of them all? The answer is screamed throughout the film by slack-jawed, blindly ignorant supremacists. Amidst scenes of police brutality, cross-burnings and many a moronic meeting, rhetoric is shown as the villain. Words don’t have to be true to brutalise. It isn’t just racism against the African American peopple on show here, as is usually synonymous with portrayals of the KkK. Anti-Semitism is rife within the drooling rhetoric and is as timely a takedown as white supremacy. The tension of the film can often be found in the infiltration scenes of the Klan meetings. Driver’s Zimmerman is a secretive, apathetic Jew and only in having to fervently deny his heritage does he realise that he shouldn’t have to. As ever, it’s a pleasure to watch Driver. Zimmerman’s arc is as moving and empowering as Ron’s and the actor’s chemistry is charged with a quiet camaraderie and respect. Blackkklansman as a whole is a little imbalanced, in pacing and humour. Whereas some of the tension during the infiltration scenes is deftly managed, some feels too forced, tries too hard to make the audience gasp. There is plenty on show to do that and those scenes showcase weaker dialogue and erratic cuts attempting to juggle the shifting tones. This is a shame as Blackkklansman has the potential to be a masterpiece, but its second act is too rickety. It’s a good film but a great movie. There are shots that miss the mark and take you out of the story, and small conceits that delve into Sit-Com which this definitely is not. But there are three great scenes for every one that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Monologues and speeches from varied Black cast - verbal gems often pouring from Laura Harrier’s Patrice) contrast those of the bigoted Whites. Empowering where the Klan’s are defamatory. Unity over division. Beauty over ugliness. Equality not supremacy. The third act is titanic. Lee and Co. showcasing the other times times lacking balance and dexterity. The power of a movie is exposed in the Third. Not only within the movie itself but about the aforementioned The Birth of a Nation. Ron/Zimmerman’s initiation ceremony is intercut with a soft yet rousing speech from Harry Belafonte’s Jerome Turner, speaking on a lynching of a disabled friend as a child. This sequence is perfectly drawn out, taking its time with the hard-hitting beats and wringing them for emotional gravity. Whilst the Klansmen whoop and holler at the ritualistic screening of The Birth of a Nation - reminiscent of Jarhead’s soldiers getting riled up from Apocalypse Now but more sinister - Patrice and her fellow activists and Panthers listen to Turner contextualise the film, revealing its tragic impact on America, then and now. The influence of Film, how it can incite and empower, coax and deny, enrich and destroy, is showcased wonderfully in metaphor and, prodigiously in the form. Whilst Blackkklansman isn’t a masterclass in filmmaking, it is a masterful insight into a social history damned to repeat itself. From the same team as Get Out, the material mines a similar vein of bigotry, social hierarchy and racial prejudices. Whilst not as thrilling as its counterpart, Blackkklansman may stand to have a greater legacy. And if ever a film should be shown at the Whitehouse to exemplify a social climate for having its finger on the pulse, its this. Though this true story happened in the 1970’s, Spike Lee has stitched it into our conflicted times with many nods to Trumpian populist rhetoric but also a sobering ending, showcasing our real world. Flip the flag and raise your fist, its time to fight the power.

(Release Info London schedule; Sun Jul 11, Mon Jul 12, Tue Jul 13, Wed Jul 14, Thu Jul 15, Fri Jul 16, Sat Jul 17, Picturehouse Central, Piccadilly Circus, 13 Coventry Street, LONDON W1D 7DH, United Kingdom, 3:30 PM) https://www.picturehouses.com/movie-details/022/HO00010945/summer-of-soul "Summer Of Soul" The documentary is part music film, part historical record created around an epic event that celebrated 'Black' history, culture and fashion. Over the course of six weeks in 'The summer Of 1969', just one hundred miles south of 'Woodstock', 'The Harlem Cultural Festival' was filmed in 'Mount Morris Park' (now 'Marcus Garvey Park'). The footage was never seen and largely forgotten; until now. "Summer Of Soul" shines a light on the importance of history to our spiritual well-being and stands as a testament to the healing power of music during times of unrest, both past and present. The feature includes never before-seen concert performances by Stevie Wonder, Nina Simone, 'Sly & The Family Stone', 'Gladys Knight & The Pips', Mahalia Jackson, B.B. King, and 'The 5th Dimension'. A song isn’t just a song. It can capture a moment in time. It will tell you a story, if you look close enough. Stevie Wonder and David Ruffin, products of 'Motown’s Hitsville USA' system, each have a style intended to appeal to both 'Black And White America', and both are in the process of remodeling their careers in 'The Summer aof ’69'. Ruffin has recently parted ways with 'The Temptations' and is forging ahead as a solo artist, while Wonder is moving from the feel-good love songs of his earlier days to a politically tinged funk sound. Nowhere is the bursting of Wonder’s new identity feels more than in the film’s cold open, where he unleashes a drum solo whose every strike clears the way for the oncoming philosophies that would define his later career. Probably no artist encapsulated this period of transition more than the mix-gendered, mixed-raced race supergroup, 'Sly And The Family Stone', the only act to play both 'Woodstock' and 'The Harlem Cultural Festival', a fitting fact for a band that seemed to straddle the two separate worlds, and gives new definition to 'Black' artists. 'The Apollo 11' moon landing occurred on July 20, the same day Stevie Wonder, David Ruffin, and 'Gladys Knight And The Pips' take to the stage. Nina Simone deliverers a sharp edge in her fearless set, wherein she sings her anthem 'To Be Young, Gifted And Black' for one of the song’s first public performances. Of great importance is how the composition articulated the tenor of 'Black America' as it transitioned into 'The 1970s'. In 1969, vast socio-political headwinds swirling around the country came to 'Harlem’s Mount Morris Park'. During 'The 60s', 'Americans' witnessed 'The Vietnam War', a rising drug epidemic, and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy. Only a year earlier, in 'The Summer Of 1968', parts of 'New York City' went up in flames following the death of Martin Luther King Jr. While the film focuses on performances, "Summer Of Soul" uses past footage as a catapult for real-time change and reflection. Nearly overlapping with 'The 1969 Woodstock Festival' 100 miles away, these seminal 'Black' artists performed for over 300,000 people at a once-in-a-lifetime event. From 'June 29th' to 'August 24th', 'The Harlem Cultural Festival' played for six Sundays in 'Harlem’s Mount Morris Park'. Unlike that other music festival upstate, the footage from 'Fhe Harlem Cultural Festival' could not find a home that summer of 1969, and instead sat in a basement for over 50 years, keeping this momentous celebration hidden until now. The film seeks to recover the meaningful spirit of the past, when the biggest names in 'African-American' music, culture, and politics came together for six consecutive weeks for a landmark, transformational 'Black' cultural event. "Summer Of Soul" documents the moment when the old school of 'The Civil Rights Movement' and new school of 'The Black Power' movement shared the same stage, highlighted by an array of genres including soul, 'R&B', 'Gospel', 'Blues', 'Jazz', and 'Latin'. 'Blacks' have always been a creative force of our culture. But sometimes those efforts are easily dismissed. It goes to show that revisionist history and 'Black' erasure, be it mean, spirited or on purpose or by accident is very real. The initial directive for the festival was laid out by 'The City Of New York' to commemorate the one-year anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination under 'The Banner Of Black Unity'. 'New York City' had thrown smaller versions of 'The Harlem Cultural Festival' in ’67 and ’68, though the smaller events felt more like casual, block parties. But the festival in 1969 was supersized; some thought the expanded version was intended to divert the local population from additional rioting brought on by the anniversary of King’s death. 'New York City Mayor John Lindsay' walked the streets of 'Harlem' in a bid to quell the unrest, and became a key backer of the festival. The film represent the evolution of 'Black Music', not necessarily in a linear way: from it's roots in gospel, to the blues and feel-good soul, to the futuristic hybrid of soul represented by Sly Stone, through to the activist music of the late '60s'. “But gospel ended up in the middle because it’s importantly heavy, telling the story of 'The MLK' killing for instance. And the gospel in the middle becomes the pivot point or fulcrum where 'Black Music' and 'Black Identity' tip over into a new post-'MLK' world. After 50 years, are we truly back at square one with the exact same unrest, protests, deaths, shootings, and injustices? "Summer Of Soul".is a searing testament to the cyclical and constant nature of racial prejudice. The same urban decay inflicted upon Harlem during the 1960s exists in urban areas housing people of color across the nation today. There's simply too much happening off-stage, in Harlem, in New York, in America, for us to focus on just what's happening on-stage. Progress was being made in 1969, but there's still so far to go. The war on poverty, job equality education, all those things. To 'The Harlem Community', there were a lot more important issues than putting a man on the moon. The bedrock non-violent strategy of 'The Civil Rights Movement' receded to a charged 'Black Power' philosophy. 'African-Americans' transitioned from suit and ties to bell-bottom pants and dashiki shirts. Chemically relaxed hair gave way to natural afros. And younge 'African-Americans' began defining themselves separate from a white lens. The wider we zoom out, the more similarities we see with what's happening in America even today, 50 years later.

(Release Info London schedule; September 21st, 2018, Genesis Cinema, 21:10) "Climax" 1996, it's just last night. Only they're no cellphones or internet. But the best of  this morning’s music is already there. In France, "Daft Punk' releases their first record, 'La Haine' had just been released in cinemas, and the journal 'Hara- Kiri' is defnitively unable to revive itself. The Massacre of 'The Adepts Of The Solar Temple' is suppressed by the occult forces of the state. The film tells a sticky and haunting story. Selva (Sofia Boutella), David (Romain Guillaume), Lou (Souhala Yacoub), Emmanuelle (Claude Gayan-Maull), Gaselle (Giselle Palmer), Taylor (Taylor Kastle), Ivana (Sharleen Temple), Lea (Lea Vlamo) and Sara (Sarah Belala), a troupe of electro dancers, gathers in an isolated building to prepare a  performance. After their last rehearsal, chaos erupts. Starting from a page-long outline  allows to capture moments of truth and to convey in images this sequence of events  collectively. If you want dancers, actors or non-professionals to express themselves physically and verbally in a chaotic fashion, improvisation is essential.  As for the dancing the dancers are free to express themselves in their own language, often very close to the unconscious, revealing their individual interior turmoil. In dance styles like voguing, waacking or krump, the participants display their physical prowess with a jaw-dropping spontaneity. With the very best dancers, this becomes particularly dazzling. The scenes are shot chronologically to generate both a state of general trust and a spirit  of competition that drove the dancers  towards ever-more psychotic  performances. Contrary to more usual depictions of dance, in which every step is predetermined, to push the protagonists to simulate possessed states like those encountered in ritual trances. Although drugs certainly figure in the story, the idea isn't to depict altered states of perception subjectively through visual effects and sound, but on the contrary, to stick to an external point of view on the characters. To talk about dance is to talk about music. In order to respect the era in which the film is set, the music, whether electrifying or melodious, dates from no later than the mid-90s. Nourished by our multiple experiences of uncontrolled crashes and an atmosphere of delight, the improvisations of the dancers dazzled us. There are sometimes certain events that are symptomatic of an era. These events explode, spontaneously or otherwise, until they reach the law enforcement agencies; some then become information on a major scale. They take on a new dimension; they're magnifed, reduced, misrepresented, digested or not by those who disseminate them and those who receive them. Lives, glorious or shameful alike, end up on paper, then quickly disappear into collective oblivion. Existence is nothing more than a feeting illusion that each of us takes to the grave. When we read biographies, everything and it's contrary is stated. It’s the same whenever any affair or a news story is revealed. And the new communications channels that have spread during the last 20 years have rendered all objectivity even more illusory. Humans, like animals, are born, live and die leaving no more trace than the smallest daisy in the middle of a feld. Joys and pain, achievements and blunders, occupy a virtual perception, a present that doesn’t exist outside their memory. In 1996, a million stories hit the headlines, stories that are forgotten today, and tomorrow even more. Some of those born or alive that year are still among us. But of the great majority of those whose hearts have stopped beating, nothing remains; a name in a cemetery, or in an old newspaper lost in the depths of a cellar. At their most intense, the pleasures of the present allow us to forget this vast emptiness. Joy, ecstasies, whether constructive or destructive, act as an antidote to the void. Love, art, dance, war, sport seem to justify our brief time on earth. And there are those who dreamed of building a powerful and peaceful Europe while a barbaric war infected  it's interior. Wars create movement, populations change, as do beliefs and ways of living. And that which is called God will always be there on the side of the most powerful gun. The comma may move, but the essence of the  sentence will always remain the same.

The fifth instalment in this now boring and close to extinct franchise is given a new fresh level of fun from Spanish director J. A. Boyana. It’s certainly done things we’ve all seen before and there wasn’t anything new to add to the Jurassic franchise but it was an enjoyable and exciting film for dino lovers. The story is set 3 years after the chaos that occurred in Jurassic World (who could have guessed that would happen), the dinosaurs left on the island are about to go extinct, again, because of a volcano thats going to erupt. Which really makes you question the guy in charge of a location for this place. If he was only going to get 3 years from an island because they didn’t realise there was a massive volcano around he should’ve been sacked. Anyway, Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) wants to save them all and with the help of Sir Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), who was best buds with old John Hammond, and Eli Mills (Rate Spall) she goes back to the island with the wonderful Owen (Chris Pratt) to save all the dinosaurs including Blue, which is why Chris Pratt is going.  Anyway turns out Rafe Spall is stabbing the old guy in the back, or SPOILER suffocating him with a pillow, and is actually rescuing the dinosaurs so that he can then sell them off to multiple armies. So Claire and Owen head off with two young, friendly, one dimensional characters who are so so so dull. The volcano erupts, the bad guys get the dinosaur, the four guys head back. Before witnessing a sad dino get burned alive by the volcano, really wasn’t that sad but whatevs. Back at the old guys mansion and the dinosaurs start getting sold, we find out about this huge creepy ass dino that is super enhanced. The old guy granddaughter is actually his daughter who he cloned. Or something like that, its really not explained at all and makes no difference to the plot, really pointless and not needed. Old guy dies, dinosaurs escape and start causing havoc. End of film two.  Fallen Kingdom as a whole wasn’t a bad film, it was enjoyable in places in terms of it’s sets and action. The volcano scene was cool and the ending with the new killer dino. I’m genuinely surprised it had a 12a rating, I found it very thrilling and tense and it some scenes, bloody petrifying. If I was a 8 year old, like a lot of the audience are, that scene in the bedroom would’ve freaked me out. You know where the hand goes up to her face. That’s terrifying. The dialogue is cheesy throughout the film, especially between the two minor characters whose story arc is so obvious. The granddaughter being a clone seems so odd, and unless it plays a part in the next film I don’t really understand what the point was of it. It just seemed like a filler film for the the Jurassic World franchise, it’s quite clear the film-makers wanted the dinosaurs back to mainland as quickly as possible without much consideration for this film.  p.s How annoying was it that this hunk was such a key component in the trailer but then was in the film for like a minute at the start and beginning of the film.  3/5 It was a fun addition the Jurassic franchise but it really didn’t have any wow moments are do anything different that we’ve seen in the last 4 films. We’ll probably end up with some rampage style finale that will again, try and make us care about Chris Pratt being friendly with a velociraptor and honestly, I don’t know if I would actually care. You know what, I wouldn’t.

Avengers: Infinity War In my last Marvel film review of Black Panther, I expressed how over-saturated I was by the Marvel movies formula: a bit of plot set up then bish-bash-bosh things start hitting each other. We do get more of the same here, but I felt that there was actually a sense of threat. For once we got a good amount of the villain's back story so that almost was an origin story. This provided so much more gravitas to the situation to the Avengers and Earth are in then we ever got from Ultron in Age of Utron's (an "age" in that movie being redefined as a few days) portrayal. We get both a physical and emotional weight to the film's big bad- Thanos. Though an entirely CGI character, when he walked or hit something (or someone) you sure felt it. In previous Marvel movies I've sometimes found this to be lacking. I believe this would have been a motion capture performance from Josh Brolin, and if so he put in a stellar performance. If it wasn't motion capture, then bravo to the CGI team as we felt everything that Thanos did through his expressions. It is a testament to the directors (the Russo brothers- best known for other top rated Marvel movies Captain America's Winter Soldier and Civil War, and also for the TV series Arrested Development and Community) that we simply just didn't get the generic dead eyed power hungry villain that we get all too often (especially in DC movies). I thought the CGI work on Thanos' was excellent. You could see every muscle and hair which made him seem very, very real and to be afraid of. The heroes that we have seen team up before were split and mixed with each other to create fresh dynamics. Again to give credit to the directors, the overall balance of the sheer multitude of characters was done really well. For the heroes that got a lesser role, I think it was justified as either we haven't yet seen enough of them in the MCU to warrant a lot of screen time or we haven't had a lot of meaningful back story to their character to give enough emotional weight. This emotional weight being important as the film has relatively little time for plot explanation and understandably relies a lot on its actions set pieces, so if this weight was lacking, viewers may switch off or become numb to the whole thing. Of course we got the standard Marvel movies quick quips throughout- but i found that most of them hit home- and especially for the laughing seagull viewer that was sat behind me. Mr Seagull always particularly loved a Game of Thrones star's small role- which to be fair was fantastically done. I think the comic fan boys almost would have have gotten what they wanted from this film- especially the climax. But may have a similar little big problem with the film. This being that I don't understand the rationale for Thanos' plan. Its hard to explain without spoilers, but ultimately he has justified to himself into doing some horrific actions for the greater overall good, but unless I've misunderstood how the infinity stones work, with his power, he could do a simple good action for a greater overall good. Other than my little big problem, I think its a good film and holds together very well for such an epic coming together of so many characters. Though over 2 and a half hours, it speeds over an hardly stops for breathe. Well worth seeing, even if you've felt you've been bashed in the head too many times by the Marvel juggernaut.

A Quiet Place VERSUS Truth or Dare So let’s play a quiet game. Do you choose ‘A Quiet Place’ or ‘Truth or Dare’? Do you choose the film that earned its jumps scares, or the one that pumped up the volume whenever it wanted to make you jump? Do you choose the film that had a fairly original premise or the one with a clichéd narrative? Do you choose the film written and directed by Jim from The American Office, or the film written and directed by the guy that made the massive let down that was Kick Ass 2? A Quiet Place was a very, very good Twlight Zone-esque B-Movie that took a simple, easy to understand idea and took it as far as it could go. A family lives in a world where they can’t make noises over a whisper without creatures that sense their prey only through noise hunting them down. We are drawn into the quiet world and hold our breath when a character drops something by accident- this even in a cinema with a fairly talkative audience. Unlike the other film, A Quiet Place earned its occasional jump scare through plot alone. By this I mean that it didn’t have to turn the speakers up to eleven. In fact, it managed to achieve one jump scare by the simple shot of a babbling brook (not as scary as an A-Level exam on The Scarlet Letter though I promise you). On the other hand, Truth or Dare took a simple kids / drunken teenager game and turned it into a overly convoluted mess. The first third, to be fair, was set up quite well. Decent character building which then quickly turns onto the main plot. A group of teenagers play a game of truth or dare that soon turns deadly. But then the film lost hope in itself and gave up on its own simple rules. Starting making up its own rules to keep the plot going, and escalated far too quickly and without reason. I was expecting a bit more of over the top deaths associated with the Final Destination franchise but they were all quite bland really. Some horribly clichéd horror moments- I swear if I have to watch a character in the bathroom look down and then up at their own warped reflection in the mirror one more time I’ll have to choke myself in a bucket of Odeon’s overpriced, chewy popcorn! So if you like your horror movies, I urge you to go see A Quiet Place rather than Truth or Dare. Leave the latter for underage teenagers that snuck in so they can laugh away their terror or try touching that girl’s hand that they sit next to in maths.

Breaking In I went into this with low expectations. From the brief trailer I saw, I felt justified in assuming a formulaic family home invasion movie. Even the title ''Breaking In'' even suggests to this. But turns out I got two things wrong. For one, this is not a bog standard home invasion film, its flipped- the mother, Shaun (played by Gabrielle Union) is trying to break into her house, and second, it's certainly not bog standard. This film finally gives us a female lead that genuinely at no point does she do something stupid that inevitably leads to her dying or causing someone she loves to die needlessly. Actually, this character's intelligence and ability to handle herself physically is both a strength and a weakness of the film. It was highly refreshing to see a non-moronic person in this situation (i,e hey, lets split up from my friends and wander into the dark woods alone when I know there's a murder out there called Mr Killer Axe, or hey lets hit the bad guy down once then run away leaving him to kill me later...why not smash his head in you cretin??!! Anyway, I'm sitting in the cinema enjoying myself, watching this no bullsh*t character trying to get into the building where their family is held hostage by multiple villains, I realise what this film most closely resembles. DIE HARD. Yes, this is in fact a small scale version of the classic action movie Die Hard, with a female John McClane. She even loses her shoes at one stage! The antagonists' leader played by Billy Burke (apparently of Twilight fame), lets call him Hans, was the perfect foil to Shaun. He thinks logically and tries to anticipate and force Shaun into situations- like in a sick home invasion version of chess. Yeah so he and his cronies may be a little generic- yes they want ALL THE MONEY, but hey, this was easy to watch, no nonsense entertainment that didn't leave you screaming for villain to kill stupid ass protagonist who deserves to die. I've checked out a couple of the poor reviews of this film already and they seem harsh. Clearly they don't think that Die Hard is one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. If you've seen Avengers already and want to go see something that won't make you want to tear your eyes out like I assume 'I feel pretty' and 'Life of the Party' are, then go see Breaking In. Yippee ki yay!

Well, what do you do then? Well, that’s a secret. With “The Old Man & the Gun“, we probably say goodbye to a real film legend. According to some sources, Robert Redford wants to draw a line under his rich film career in a stylish way. In my opinion, he couldn’t have made a better choice because in “The Old Man & the Gun” he can demonstrate his charming side one last time. This 83-year-old actor conquered all the women’s hearts effortlessly when he was younger. And to be honest, he’s still got it. So don’t expect a gangster story full of violent bank robberies and wild chases. It’s reasonably friendly and cozy. You won’t see Forrest Tucker in the Top 10 of most notorious bank robbers of all time. It was probably not all that spectacular enough for that. So, no “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” or “Bonnie and Clyde” situations. But, you could call him the Houdini of detainees. According to Tucker himself, he broke out of prison 30 times. 18 Of them were successful. And the most notorious was the one from San Quentin State Prison in a self-built kayak. He was just enormously friendly. Apparently, from when he was young, Tucker had the irresistible urge to raid local banks. Probably that’s also the reason why his marriage didn’t last long and he disappeared into the night back then. Not to get a packet of cigarettes quickly but to satisfy that urge. Tucker always uses the same routine when robbing a bank. First, he asks for information real friendly. Or he tells the clerk he wants to carry out a bank transaction. And then asks the manager or counter clerk to empty the contents of the safe or cash registers and fill up his brown, worn, leather briefcase with it. He got away with it because they thought he was such a civilized, friendly and polite elderly man who always smiles. He’ll probably win the prize of “most charming bank robber”. No nerve-wracking action. Now you probably ask yourself: a crime movie about bank robbers without action-rich pursuits, psychopathic hostage situations, fierce gunfights and a number of victims. That doesn’t sound appealing or exciting. And yet it’s a pleasure to watch this film. And that because of the three interesting storylines where the emphasis mainly is on the relationship between the characters. A club of retired men. First, you have an old men’s club with Robert Redford, Danny Glover, and Tom Waits. A kind of tea party for old fellas who, instead of playing boule somewhere in a park during their retirement, prefer to roam the country and raid banks at random places. A friendly and easy-going little club that also prefers to reminisce over their lives at a bar somewhere. I particularly liked Tom Waits. A humorous contribution that shows that he’s not only a talented pianist. Danny Glover, I found again below par. Apparently, he’s the only one of the three where dementia had made its appearance. The older Sissy Spacek gets, the cuter she looks. Next, there’s the spontaneously growing relationship between Forrest and Jewel (Sissy “Carrie” Spacek), a widow who struggles to get by, loves her horses and spends her days at a ranch (even though her children think she should sell it). From the first moment that both meet, you just feel a certain tension. There’s that flirtatious behavior by Forrest and a shy smile from Jewel. Every time Forrest is in the presence of Jewel, you see that boyish behavior emerging for a while. And don’t you think that Sissy Spacek looks as cute as in “Carrie”. It seems to me that her nose is pointing up even more perky The robber and the detective And finally, there’s the confrontation with John Hunt (Casey Affleck). A police detective who coincidentally is present in a bank where Forrest, in an inconspicuous manner, commits a robbery. And then he really sinks his teeth into this case and is determined to catch this serial-robber and his companions. But the more he works on this case, the more his sympathy grows for this overfriendly criminal at retirement age. Robert Redford resembles Forrest. “The old man & the gun” isn’t an action-packed film. It’s rather a slow feel-good film, calmly telling the story of this unique bank robber. It doesn’t just feel like a film of a time long past. You can also see it. Maybe it comes across as old-fashioned. But it’s nicely old-fashioned. An atmosphere that fits Robert Redford perfectly. And in essence, Redford and Forrest are equal in some areas. In their whole life, they both never gave up on something they liked the most. And what they always liked to do, was done with the same dose of charm. I’ll certainly miss Redford’s charisma on the white screen. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB

(Release Info London schedule; June 14th, 2018, Vue Cinemas, West End, 12:20) "Hereditary"   When Ellen Leigh (Rachelle Hardy), the matriarch of the Graham family, passes away, her daughter’s family begins to unravel cryptic and increasingly terrifying secrets about their ancestry. The more they discover, the more they find themselves trying to outrun the sinister fate they seem to have inherited. Making his feature debut, director Ari Aster unleashes a nightmare vision of a domestic breakdown that exhibits the craft and precision of a nascent auteur, transforming a familial tragedy into something ominous and deeply disquieting, and pushing the horror movie into chilling new terrain with it's shattering portrait of heritage gone to hell. The Grahams are a seemingly ordinary, relatable American family plunged into grief in "Hereditary's" gripping opening minutes. Grappling with the loss of Ellen Leigh, Annie's mother and a cryptic matriarchal figure for the entire family, the Grahams process the death in disparate ways. When Annie attends a bereavement support group, we learn more about her late mother's life and heritage and Annie's feelings of alienation inside her own family. Annie is someone who has a lot of issues with her mother, but can't quite seem to get to the bottom of them. There are intimidations as to what Ellen was up to when she was alive, but Annie can't fully piece them together. There's probably a large part of her that doesn't want to know what her mother was doing. It's something she knows in her gut, but she has to deny it. If she looked straight at it, she'd be destroyed. A stay-at-home artist who's preparing for an imminent gallery show, Annie processes her angst by making art out of her life, miniature dollhouses depicting the Graham family's real-world trials and tribulations. She's creating these miniatures of real places and situations in her life, perfect little replicas that give her the feeling of having some control over her life and memories. Annie's husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) spends long hours seeing clients in his psychotherapy practice; teenage son Peter (Alex Wolff) is adrift in high school, and sneaking joints with his stoner friends. Younger daughter Charlie (Milly Shapiro), is remedial courses, bides her time brooding in the family tree house and quietly fabricating disturbing totems made from animal parts and household trinkets. Peter doesn't have a lot of direction in life. He has no serious interests and hasn't really formed a solid identity, but it becomes the bleak joke of the film that, by the end, he'll have been given a real sense of purpose. Charlie is tightly wound, extremely quiet and is crippled by social phobias. But there's more that's darkly off-kilter about her. As more is revealed, tbe Grahams come to feel like pawns beeing moved around by forces existing in the story's periphery. After introducing the Grahams, "Hereditary" teasingly shifts direction into the realm of a ghost story as Annie strikes up a friendship with Joan (Ann Dowd), a suburban housewife who's grieving the loss of her own recently deceased kin. She persuades Annie to join her in a séance, hinting at paranormal dimensions for the story's second half. With his debut feature director Ari Alster builds on a series of short films centering on domestic rituals and trauma, telling the terrifying story of an American family battling malevolent forces that seek to colonize it's bloodline. The film is a prolonged succession of misfortune that comes to resemble a curce, marks the arrival of a born auteur. This shattering debut transforms the domestic trauma into a work of operatic horror calling to mind classics of the 1960s and '70s. Leading with an elegantly fluid tracking shot that seamlessly fuses two distinct story worlds. The film becomes a sinister vision of a family living under a terrifying curse. This is the story about people who've no agency. The Grahams are like figurines in a maligned dollhouse being manipulated by outside forces. The Grahams house is much a character in the movie as the house's human inhabitants. This movie falls into tbe haunted house genre. The film avoids those clichés like the plaque. No creaking floors or weathered walls or Gothic architecture. The main rooms and hallways of the house and Charlie's private tree house takes on a greater role in the film's diabolical climax. Taking the cue from seemingly unlikely sources such as "Ordinary People", "The Ice Storm", and "In The Bedroom", searing dramas in which multigenerational families grapple with death, mental illness and emotional violence, Alster pushes "Hereditary" into the realm of supernatural horror. He fuses the substance of tbese emotional dramas with creative inspiration from iconic slow-burn shockers of the '60s and '70s, including "Rosemary's Baby", "Don't Look Now", and "The Innocents". The film shapes the story of a family that's literally cursed, suffering through a series of gruesome events revealed over time to be part of a grander Machiavellian scheme. The film's title takes on increasing chilling resonance as the story progresses, taking it's subject of lineage and bloodlines into the realm of supernatural horror and beyond. This is a movie about inheritance. The notion of having no choice in who your family is or what's in your blood. It's about the horror of being born into a situation over which you've no control. There's nothing more upsetting than the idea of being absolutely powerless. The film deals with sacred family ritual and traditions turned toxic, finding dark comedy and hysteria in uncomfortable yet recognizable subjects. The film puts a lot of those feelings through a horror movie filter, where the canvas demands a high level catharsis. And if you're making a film about life being unfair, the horror genre is a very unique playground for that. It's this sort of perverse space where life's injustices are more or less celebrated and even gloried in. In it's rigorous examination of free will and it's damning insistance that everything is ordained and inevitable, "Hereditary" takes a fantastic stance toward breeding and generation. The fact that the Grahams have no agency is a crucial point in this movie, and the feeling at the end is one of hopelessness and futility. It's a simultaneously intimate and large-scale horror film that absolutely refuses to let the viewer off the hook. The film stays with people for a long time, and provokes them to contend with something deeper and more primal, a feeling of something inescapable. "Hereditary" goes to places few audiences will anticipate. Carefully embroidered nightmares about the horrors of family life.