Search Results

(THE UNBEARABLE WEIGHT OF MASSIVE TALENT • THE PRINCE CHARLES CINÉMA • 7 Leicester Pl, London WC2H 7BY, United Kingdom • FRIDAY 22 APR 2022 3:15pm • 6:20pm • 8:50pm SATURDAY 23 APR 2022 12:30pm • 5:55pm SUNDAY 24 APR 2022 1:00pm • 3:40pm • 8:35pm MONDAY 25 APR 2022 3:30pm • 8:30pm TUESDAY 26 APR 2022 3:40pm • 6:15pm WEDNESDAY 27 APR 2022.3:30pm • 8:40pm THURSDAY 28 APR 2022 3:50pm 6:00pm) "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent" Creatively unfulfilled and facing financial ruin, the fictionalized version of Nick Cage (Nicolas Cage) must accept a $1 million offer to attend the birthday of Javi Gutierrez (Pedro Pascal), a dangerous superfan. Things take a wildly unexpected turn when Cage is recruited by a CIA operative Vivan (Tiffany Haddish) and forced to live up to his own legend, channeling his most iconic and beloved on-screen characters in order to save himself and his loved ones. With a career built for this very moment, the actor must take on the role of a lifetime. In the films screenplay, Nick becomes frustrated, and a little unhinged, when he loses out on a role that he was desperate to inhabit. Moreover, he’s financially strapped. Despite his better instincts, Nick reluctantly agrees to appear at the birthday party of a millionaire/Cage superfan, Javi, in picturesque Mallorca, Spain, for a cool payday of one million dollars. Upon arriving in Mallorca and being greeted personally by Javi, Nick is completely checked out until he discovers that he and his host have much in common and begin to bond. Javi even has an elaborate wax statue of Nick, which blows Nick’s mind. What brings Nick and Javi together is their love of storytelling. It’s the connecting fabric for them. Ultimately, this is a story about friendship and adventure, around a character. That’s not all they've in common. The wealthy man is just as neurotic as his guest of honor, and they both find themselves looking for inspiration from the actor’s famously bold, audacious characters. Nick’s screen persona is everything that Javi doesn’t dare to be. Javi is fearful of many things, so he lives his life vicariously through Nick’s bold performances. Nick’s visit inspires Javi to take risks in his own life. As it turns out, Javi is already taking great risks, the character also turns out to be an international arms dealer and crime boss, a man that the CIA has been monitoring and trying to take out years. As Nick gets close to Javi, the actor makes a key, if reluctant, player in a CIA operation orchestrated by agency operatives. To stay sane, and alive, Nick must inhabit some of his on-screen action-hero personas, especially when his wife Olivia (Sharon Horgan) and daughter Addy (Lily MO Sheen) become enmeshed in the escalating weirdness, adventure, and danger. In the movie, 'Nick Cage' is a fictionalized version of the star, imagined as a once-highly respected actor who has fallen on hard times and is craving a return to box-office glory and prestige. But his waning career is only one of his problems. The faux Cage’s megalomania has poisoned his relationships with his ex-wife Olivia and daughter Addy, though he can’t see it. And Nick is haunted by a shadow, 'Nicky,' also played by Cage, is a figment of the actor’s considerable imagination who bellows for a single-minded focus on movie stardom. Nicky has this lanky long hair, and he’s riding Nick about his career choices. Nicky steals the show. The fictional Cage is feeling unfulfilled and rejected, but nothing could be further from the real Cage, not least because the actor recently received some ogood reviews for his performance in "Pig". The real Nicolas Cage is nothing less than a screen legend. "The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent" builds upon that renowned work, while turning it upside-down, inside-out, and every which way. But why imagine an alternative existence for this Hollywood legend? The fictionalized version of Nick Cage is unbelievably talented and can do any genre. Nick has become something that transcends being an actor. He’s become a cultural figure. As culture gets stranger and stranger and fashion choices get more outlandish, you can trace like a direct line back to the patron saint of strangeness, Nicolas Cage. Just seeing his face makes people happy. That’s really interesting and makes him want to dig in further and find out who he actually is. It's a fantasy film culled from perceptions in the media and on the internet, as well as blips in my personal life that have gone public. It’s mixed with knowledge of interviews and things that have always interested us and draws us down this path. Essentially, the film is an imagination based on an interpretation of what Nicholas Cage life might be like. It's a a neurotic, high-anxiety version of Nick Cage. "The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent" is a sincere and hilarious love letter to Nicolas Cage, as you know and love him or not. The film shars a love of everything from "The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari" to "Paddington 2". It's a real head trip. Written by Gregory Mann

(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.

He’s no longer dormant. He only knows how to keep moving and to keep killing. And he will kill again unless he’s captured. Exactly 40 years ago the film “Halloween“, directed by John Carpenter, was released. A milestone in the slasher genre. It was in this film that Laurie Strode (a very young Jamie Lee Curtis) escaped from the psychopath Michael Myers in the nick of time. And so the legend about Myers arose. And now, 40 years later, the follow-up appears. To my surprise, this is already the 11th movie in the “Halloween” universe. No idea what happened in the other episodes, because I never bothered to watch them. And even though I feared this would simply be a continuation of the same concept (and it sure is) and that I would have a “haven’t-I-seen-this-before” feeling, I have to admit it. I kind of liked this movie. Old skool horror. Maybe this has to do with the nostalgic value of this film. Everything feels like the original film. The same creepy soundtrack is used. Even the font used in the credits has a nice old-fashioned look. Jamie Lee Curtis is also back again. Again it takes place in the Halloween period. And the masked Michael Myers bumps into fresh meat once more. And he’s eager to plant his butcher’s knife in their body. It feels like old-fashioned, old skool horror, as they appeared in the 70s. He’s coming back for sure. I only wondered about one thing. Was it really necessary to make a sequel to the famous first film? After all, you’ll know in advance that they are going to continue on the same thing and you can already predict which direction it will take. What gives new impetus is the older Laurie who has withdrawn into a house in the forest, protected by ingeniously invented systems and strategically placed spotlights. A kind of fort equipped with all sorts of gadgets to keep unwanted intruders out. There’s even a panic-room with a food supply enough to survive a 3rd world war plus an arsenal of weapons with which you can eradicate a whole flock of zombies. The reason why Laurie has installed herself in this way is of course Myers. Her paranoia about this figure hasn’t disappeared over the years and she expects that he’ll show up again someday. Extremely dangerous. Minimum security is enough. Films of this genre are usually richly filled with illogical reasoning and stupid behavior. For example, the extremely dangerous Michael Myers has been locked up in a highly secure establishment for 40 years. And during all those years, this psychopath hasn’t uttered a single word. The fact that a bunch of amateur journalists can talk to him for a moment, wouldn’t be admitted without additional measures in reality. They would be thoroughly searched so they couldn’t smuggle prohibited articles inside (like a mask for instance). But especially the fact that this notorious murderer is treated as an average patient during a transfer, could be called hilarious. An ordinary orange school bus with a few other detainees is used for this purpose. If it were me, he’d be captured in a block of concrete and he’d be guarded by a whole battalion of guards. I wouldn’t take the risk. As always, you as a viewer know what is about to happen. Not them apparently. A nerve-racking slasher. Well, fortunately, because otherwise, the movie “Halloween” wouldn’t be what we expected. A nerve-racking slasher in which Myers scares everyone by standing motionless and emotionless somewhere in a dark corner while observing. And everyone who crosses his path gets acquainted with the razor-sharp knife he carries with him. And as always, housewives, babysitters, and teenagers will be the victims. Unfortunately, all this didn’t have the desired effect on me. It wasn’t scary. Only the inevitable final fight provides the necessary tension for a moment. 10 More sequels? Needless to say that only Jamie Lee Curtis excels here as the stressed out grandmother who has been preparing for this confrontation for 40 years. The rest of the cast is secondary and the only reason why they are present is to raise the total number of casualties. Some characters are even annoying. And actually, it makes you happy that they are being murdered (like the bickering policemen who discussing their sandwiches). Apparently, Jason Blum wants to make 10 sequels of “Halloween“. I guess Jamie Lee Curtis won’t be in it. Because even though she still has the perfect feminine curves, she starts to look like a painting by Rembrandt. She’s slightly cracked and a cultural heritage. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB

(Release Info London schedule; November 14th, 2019, Everyman Broadgate, Finsbury Ave, London EC2M 2PF, United Kingdom, 21:00 pm) "Le Mans '66" From James Mangold comes a film inspired by a true-life drama about a powerful friendship that forever changed racing history. In 1959, Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) is on top of the world after winning the most difficult race in all of motorsports, 'The 24 Hours Of Le Mans'. But his greatest triumph is followed quickly by a crushing blow, the fearless Texan is told by doctors that a grave heart condition will prevent him from ever racing again. Endlessly resourceful, Shelby reinvents himself as a car designer and salesman working out of a warehouse space in 'Venice Beach' with a team of engineers and mechanics that includes hot-tempered test driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale). A champion British race car driver and a devoted family man, Miles is brilliant behind the wheel, but he’s also blunt, arrogant and unwilling to compromise. After Shelby vehicles make a strong showing at 'Le Mans' against Italy’s venerable Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), 'Ford Motor Company' recruits the firebrand visionary to design the ultimate race car, a machine that can beat even 'Ferrari' on the unforgiving French track. Determined to succeed against overwhelming odds, Shelby, Miles and their ragtag crew battle corporate interference, the laws of physics and their own personal demons to develop a revolutionary vehicle that will outshine every competitor. But their tireless efforts take a difficult toll; for these bold men, victory comes at a price. The film opens with Shelby’s victory at 'Le Mans' and his subsequent diagnosis, before moving forward in time to 1963, when 'Ford Motor Co.', once the industry leader, is trailing in sales behind 'U.S.' competitor 'General Motors'. 'Marketing Executive' Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) suggests that if Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) wants to appeal to the young people of the day looking to buy their first cars, the company should focus on speed, if Ford has winning race cars, their consumer automobiles would become that much more attractive by association. Since no company produced faster or sexier cars than Enzo Ferrari, an acquisition of 'The European' carmaker seems like the answer. An envoy of top executives is dispatched to Ferrari headquarters to negotiate the purchase of 'The European' carmaker only to return to Michigan empty-handed. Outraged, Ford immediately places his right-hand man, senior vice president Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas), in charge of a new high-tech race car division, 'Ford Advanced Vehicles', tasked with quickly building a car that will beat Ferrari at their own game, defeating them at 'The Mount Everest Of Motor Racing', 'Fhe 24 Hours Of Le Mans'. 'The FAV' team builds the exciting-looking 'GT40 Mark I', but it's first outing at 'Le Mans' in 1964 ends miserably. All three models fail to finish the race while Ferrari’s place first, second, and third. Finishing fourth is the 'Shelby Daytona Cobra Coupe', a fact that Ford II doesn’t fail to notice. Ford II hires Shelby to develop, test and ultimately oversee the corporation’s entire racing program, but Shelby’s lead test driver Ken Miles complicates the relationship. The outspoken Miles quickly makes an enemy of Beebe, who does his best to manipulate Shelby and box-out Miles at every turn. Still, against impossible odds and virtually non-stop corporate interference, Shelby and his team, which also includes chief engineer Phil Remington (Ray McKinnon), and young British mechanic Charlie Agapiou (Jack McMullen) build one of the greatest race cars ever produced; 'The Ford GT40 MKII'. The vehicle changed the perception of both Ford, and America itself, when it takes part in one of the most infamous racing showdowns in history, the 1966 running of 'Le Mans'. The most challenging sequence to capture by far is the restaging of the 1966 running of 'The 24 Hours At Le Mans' race. The last 40 minutes of the film is this race predominantly, and you really feel like you're hunkered down and living in the race. The film loves that idea of racing for 24 hours to start to dawn on you, to feel what that really would be like trying to drive faster than any man for longer than you ever can stay awake. The magic of that, of driving 200 miles per hour in the most cutting-edge race-car prototypes on a series of French country roads over and over again through day, night, rain, sleet, dawn, dusk, doing that for 24 straight hours in one vehicle seemed like the most powerful thing we could try to convey. The central drama turns on the heated relationship between renegades Carroll Shelby and Ken Miles. Like legendary car racer and sports car builder Carroll Shelby, whose creations included 'The Shelby Cobra' and 'Shelby Daytona', as well as modified race-worthy editions of Ford’s legendary 'Mustang' series, 'The Shelby Mustang' celebrity status stretches back decades. Shelby had been a great driver and had kind of hit the pinnacle of that. Because of this heart condition, he’d lost his great love. He does wear a cowboy hat, but he wears it selectively in key scenes where it intentionally is supposed to seem a bit over-the-top along with his crocodile cowboy boots. He's really on the cusp of fading into oblivion and just being another guy hustling trying to sell cars to people. This Ford opportunity is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for him. The stakes are incredibly huge for him as they're for Ken Miles. Miles drove tanks in 'World War II' before finding his way onto the race track. Shelby just feels Miles is indispensable to this mission, and Ken is known for not suffering fools. He's irascible and not afraid to speak his mind and did not want to just fall into step with everybody else. If he thinks an idea is stupid, he’d tell you, and he has very little political skill or diplomatic skill. In terms of costume, Miles spends much of his time wearing a racing suit and coveralls. They refer to him as a beatnik, even though he never dressed as a beatnick. And so he's a constant source of frustration to Shelby because he couldn’t get out of his own way. But Shelby really needed him to help build the car and to then subsequently drive it at 'Le Mans'. It's one of the most legendary tales in the history of motorsports. Carroll Shelby, working closely with his spirited test driver Ken Miles, develops a revolutionary car that bests a fleet of vehicles built by Italian racing legend Enzo Ferrari at the 1966 running of 'The 24 Hours Of LeMans'. This is the story of a group of unconventional thinkers who overcome incredible odds to achieve something extraordinary through sheer inventiveness, determination and force of will. The film offerers the opportunity to stage thrilling racing sequences that essentially puts the audience inside the cars with these fearless drivers, and the chance to chronicle the turbulent friendship between Shelby and Miles. Both had quite distinct, larger-than-life personalities, Shelby, tough yet eminently likable; Miles, prickly and unfiltered, but they're united by a passion for innovation and an abiding love for racing. Quite simply, Shelby and Miles are driven to excel, even if it means putting their lives on the line every time they got behind the wheel. They understand each other at the most profound level. When Shelby’s confronted with the fact that he can’t race anymore, he reinvents himself from a driver into a car salesman and designer, and Ken becomes a vessel for Shelby’s dreams. But Ken can’t quite filter himself or control himself in corporate situations or publicity situations. He just says whatever he thinks, so Shelby takes on this role of protector or spokesman for Ken. They've a very symbiotic relationship. One fills in where the other leaves off. Lee Iacocca, who, from his humble roots as the son of Italian immigrants in Allentown, Pennsylvania, becomes a legend in the automotive business, reviving 'U.S.' automaker 'Chrysler' during the 1980s. His strength comes from his intensity. It comes from his intellect. When he's at Ford, Iacocca has the presence of mind to understand that there's a whole generation of 17-year-olds with money in their pocket who are interested in rock ’n’ roll and sex and moving fast, and the stale, stagnant repetition of reproducing 1950s cars is failing Ford. Lee Iacocca is the flashiest exec on the team. He’s got a good shark skin suit, mohair suits, little slivery ties, ultra ’60s. Mollie Miles (Caitriona Balfe) is Ken’s wife, and mother to their young son, Peter (Noah Jupe). Even though she’s a stay-at-home mom in the film, she’s very much an equal partner in the relationship. She wears old 'Wranglers' from the 1960s and cotton sweaters or shirts. She's’s a little rough around the edges with his personality and his people skills may not be that great. But this is where their relationship is strong. She tells him when he needs to pull up his boot straps and to also encourage him. There’s this real sense that they’re a team who supports each other. Detroit auto legend Henry Ford II is 'The CEO Of Ford Motor Company' from 1960 to 1979. It’s a classic story of man versus machine, man versus man, and man versus himself. It touches upon a lot of the points of a sports story, but at the same time the historical story that’s being told here's a good one. A lot of the cars that we know now, and a lot of the advancements we’ve seen with technology, starts with this period. By contrast, they’re ample archival images of Henry Ford II available to create a full picture of the auto titan’s fashion style. The film outfits Ford himself in classic 'Brooks Brothers' suits. Old money, button-down shirts, blue blazer, it’s recreating what they really wore. And he always wore navy blue with plain navy blue ties. His clothes are very traditional. Leo Beebe, is 'The Ford Motors Company' executive who's given control over Ford’s racing program. He has a shadier color palette, a little bit darker, a little bit oiler. Like his father, Peter Miles is completely consumed with the sport of car racing. Peter is a happy boy, but he’s also a kid whose dad could die at any point in a race. From an early age, he’s been brought into the racing world and wants to be a racer when he’s older just like his dad. It’s all he’s ever known. Phil Remington is the chief engineer at 'Shelby American'. A technical genius who can fix or fabricate anything, Remington is a key partner to Carroll Shelby in helping develop 'The Ford GT40 MKII' that takes on Ferrari at 'Le Mans'. Charlie Agapiou works with Ken Miles at Miles foreign car repair shop in Hollywood before joining him at Shelby’s shop in Venice in early 1963. Ken is something of a father figure to young Charlie. The challenge is how to navigate this story so that audiences feel the love and camaraderie and energy of these drivers and designers and mechanics and pit crew, but it doesn’t depend upon a cliché kind of victory. Whereas the Ford executives are sort of cool, wearing blues, grays, silvers, the Ferrari people are more old world. Their wardrobe is primarily browns, creams, knit ties, vests. The film gets deep enough into these unique characters, the winning and the losing of the races is secondary to the winning and the losing of their lives. One can believe that they’re characters who represent the last of an old school, brave, humble, gracious, male prototype. This is an inflection point in both of their lives. The goal in an age of incredibly computer-enhanced action movies, is that there's something profoundly analog and real and gritty about the film and the sexiness of these beasts, the cars, their engines, the danger. These characters are riding in a thin aluminum shell at 200 miles an hour around a track. The miracle that's their daring and their survival under these circumstances is something that the film tries to convey. This film is about the epic rivalry between Henry Ford II and Enzo Ferrari and the scrappy team of upstarts that Ford hires to help him in his quest. Both the classic 1966 sports drama "Grand Prix" and Steve McQueen’s 1971 film "Le Mans" served as references. It's about characters striving for excellence, trying to push against the onset of corporate market-tested group-think. It’s an essential struggle in 'The 21st Century' in our country, the risk-taking and daring and leaps of instinct that are required to invent a lot of the things that define our country are things that we’re almost too frightened to do anymore. The film creates a naturalistic portrait of what life is like for Shelby and Miles. In a modern era when 'CG' spectacle has come to define many blockbuster films, it's critical to take a grounded approach to the action in "Le Mans ‘66" to both more accurately depict the 1960s and to help the audience understand what these drivers experienced as they're pushing themselves, and their cars, to the limit. This isn’t Carroll Shelby’s whole story or Ken Miles’ whole story. This is about a hugely defining moment in their lives that shaped all they're to be. People really connect with this idea of trying to do an excellent job at whatever your job is with the challenge of dealing with oversight and corporate management and the corporate tendency to round every corner that’s a little sharp and to soften any blow that could offend somebody. We all miss the world when it's just a little more raw and prone to taking a risk. The reason the story is so legendary is because these misfits challenged God and won, didn’t they? God was Ferrari. He was a monster, a Goliath of reputation and style, legendary in the racing community. And this little band of misfits, with Ford’s backing but in spite of Ford’s interference, they did it. This is an incredibly compelling film because it’s about the behind-the-scenes conflicts and choices of passionate, competitive, driven, larger-than-life people caught in the very moment the American landscape is changing from the optimism of the post war 1950s and early 1960s to the more cynical late 1960s and ’70s. The visual inspiration comes more from the films of the ’60s and ’70s, rather than contemporary interpretations of race car films, no exaggerated movement, keeping it intimate with the use of close-ups and always maintaining a character’s point-of-view. The film sticks to camera techniques of the period. The production design follows suit and is much in sync with realism and plausibility and keeping the audience in the magic trick of this world that has been created. You’re both hearing and seeing the bolts rattling in the chassis of the car. You’re feeling the vibration of the engine. You’re understanding how hard they’re pushing this vehicle and how close to exploding it's. Today, we've computer-aided design. We can postulate with much greater accuracy what’s going to work. There was no way with a pencil and an abacus you could know that. You just had to build the car and drive the car and see if it just blew up around you. It’s a big, emotional, distinctive theatrical experience that embraces all of the reasons we want to sit in a movie theater. We want to be invested. We want to be moved, to cry to laugh, to be inspired. This movie is all of that.

By Ahmed Ab From Marvel Studios, exclusively for Disney+, comes the all-new, original, live-action series Moon Knight, starring Oscar Isaac, Ethan Hawke, and May Calamawy. Moon Knight is due to premiere exclusively on Disney+ on March 30th, with weekly episodic releases. The story follows Steven Grant (Oscar Isaac), a mild-mannered man who lives a mundane life, plagued by blackouts and mysterious memories of a life somehow separate from his own. After one fateful encounter, Steven discovers that he has Dissociative Identity Disorder and shares a body with Marc Spector—a former mercenary and the ruthless avatar of Khonshu, the Egyptian god of the moon and vengeance. With their enemies converging upon them, Steven must learn how to adapt to this revelation and work with Marc. With other godly motives at play, the two must navigate their complex identities amid a deadly battle played out among the powerful gods of Egypt. In August 2019 at the D23 conference, Marvel Studios announced that a Disney+ series based on Moon Knight was being developed. In preparation for the series’ release this March, the studio assembled the cast and filmmakers for a press conference, streamed live to reporters across the world. On hand to take questions were actors Oscar Isaac (Steven Grant), Ethan Hawke (Arthur Harrow), and May Calamawy (Layla El-Faouly). Executive producer Grant Curtis, joined by executive producer and director Mohamed Diab, were both in attendance, alongside directors Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead. During the 40-minute press conference, topics ranging from performance methods to costume design were discussed, with the reporters in attendance hoping their questions would be selected following the brilliant reception to the first four episodes which were released to press all around the world. The project really took form when Mohamed Diab was brought on board as executive producer and director. Despite Diab receiving offers for high-budget movies in the past, one aspect that attracted him to helming Moon Knight was the Egyptology that was so integral to the series’ concept: “The other aspect that really attracted me was the Egyptian part of it”, the director says. “The present and the past, the Egyptology of it.” The importance of faithful Egyptian mythology in this series was reiterated by executive producer and Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige, who stated in the production brief: “We have fascination and reverence for Egyptian history… it was very exciting to take Moon Knight’s origin story, which is grounded in Egyptology, and infuse it with globetrotting adventure, intensity, and mystery.” Diab, the first Arab director to release a Marvel project, also saw this series as a tool to correct many of the past portrayals of Egypt in filmography that he feels are not representative of his, and many others, own experiences as Egyptians: “As an Egyptian, we always see us depicted or the Middle East depicted in a way that is – we call it orientalism, when you see us as exotic and dehumanized…”, he says. “Imagine Paris and you’re seeing Big Ben in the background. That’s how we see our country”. A part of Diab’s proposal to rectify this was the hiring of Production Designer Stefania Cella, who designed sets to not only be accurate to the spirit of Egypt but also convey the series’ themes of duality and identity, a feat most apparent in the Burial Chamber set. With much of the production taking place in Budapest, Hungary, many large-scale practical sets had to be built on soundstages. Even the museum scenes required an entirely original Egypt exhibit, an undertaking that took the art department several months to complete. Khonshu's on-set performance actor Karim El-Hakim corroborates the realism of the production design, joking that the team “brought Egypt to Budapest, down to the license plates, even the t-shirts – everything in Arabic”, the actor states. “It brought me back to being in Cairo. It was like a flashback; it was so realistic – the smells, the smoke, the cars, the tuk-tuks, even down to the food and the types of fruit that were on sale in our marketplace. It was really impressive”. May Calamawy also recalled the attention to detail Diab wished to replicate on-screen: “One of the main things he wanted was for people to watch and to not be able to tell at all...”, she says. “That was very important to him. It’s down to the newspaper clippings that have been torn on the floor; that’s the precision that we’re talking about”. Mohamed Diab spoke to his keenness to shoot practically and on location: “I’m all for reality”, he says. “I’m all for minimizing the green screen as much as possible, especially with a story that could be in the mind of someone”. As a testament to the effect of Diab’s methodology, it came as a surprise to a sample of the London-based reporters (who viewed the first four episodes) that the street scenes in London were recreated in a Budapest market street, which was altered to replicate a real-life Brixton street. When discussing the signing of Ethan Hawke as the series’ central villain, Diab spoke to the unorthodox means of developing the character of Arthur Harrow, revealing he implored Hawke not to read the script before signing: “When it came to the signing, Ethan is someone that is – everyone sees him as this great, legendary, independent film actor, and joining the superhero world is something big. So, when Oscar first approached him and then I talked to him about it, we pitched him the idea, but I told him please don’t read the script. Not that the script is bad, but when you work with him, you have to get from him. Like, I think Harrow is his son, in a way, it’s a ping pong between us all but definitely his son. So, to trust us and sign without -- he told me this was the first time in 35 years that I signed something without reading a script. And he did it.” As revealed in an interview by On Demand Entertainment during the Moon Knight UK Special Screening, Hawke actually rejected Marvel roles in the past, a fact which has only heightened fans’ expectations that after fourteen years, Arthur Harrow, the role Hawke finally accepted, must be incredibly special. Having followed up Diab’s comments regarding signing on blind, it appears the collaborative freedom between the actor, writer, and director to sculpt the story and character is what enticed Hawke to join the project: “In my whole experience, usually when there’s a huge budget, there’s a tremendous amount of fear. And the people in charge are incredibly controlling, and creativity is reduced. In my entire experience, with you Grant, and with Marvel, it’s the opposite of that. You guys have translated your success into confidence and the confidence to -- yes, we are going to cook in your kitchen, but if we stay in the kitchen, we can do what we want. And there was a lot of playfulness and a lot of willingness to fail and a lot of willingness to have bad ideas. Because you can’t find a great idea if we don’t say some dumb ones and make mistakes… And that’s what collaboration is… and that’s why you don’t sign on without reading a script. But I’m really glad I did because I think it’s better because of the way it evolved.” Hawke followed up to reassure prospective viewers he chose correctly, speaking about his experiences on set, and praising every department involved with the project: “As somebody who’s never worked on a Marvel film or series and hasn’t even worked inside this genre in any way, I’ve had the best production design of my life, the best costumes, the best craftspeople”, says the actor. “The cinematographers are incredible. I’m working with Oscar every day, and we have time to do it right. We have time to rehearse. We are trying to make five to six hours of really quality entertainment and that’s a heavy lift, but we have the tools that we need to do it.” A promising, compelling rendition of the hero-villain dynamic was expressed by the actor, speaking to past stories basing the villain’s conduct on mental illness, and how Moon Knight reverses this relationship, giving viewers something they haven’t seen before: “Well, the history of movies is paved with storytellers using mental illness as a building block for the villain. I mean, there are countless stories of mentally ill villains, and we have a mentally ill hero. And that’s fascinating because we’ve now inverted the whole process. And so now, as the antagonist, I can’t be crazy because the hero’s crazy. So, I have to kind of find a sane lunatic or a sane malevolent force. And that was an interesting riddle for me to figure out how to be in dynamics with what Oscar was doing. And Mohamed was really embracing his mental illness as a way to create an unreliable narrator. And once you’ve broken the prism of reality, everything that the audience is seeing is from a skewed point of view. And that’s really interesting for the villain, because am I even being seen as I am? … It’s especially interesting to take your hero and present him with a real source of pain in mental illness. It’s not a joke. He’s a guy who’s really struggling, and it’s very interesting to have a protagonist who’s in a tremendous amount of pain and who is not a classic hero…” In order to maintain an authentic and sensitive approach to the series’ exploration of mental health themes, the production sought consultation from Dr. Paul Puri, a board-certified psychiatrist, who is an Assistant Clinical Professor at UCLA and past president of the UCLA Psychiatric Clinical Faculty Association. Particularly, this focused on dissociative identity disorder, helping the filmmakers and cast understand the disorder and its implications. This expertise allowed Diab to, from a director’s perspective, convey mental health themes visually: “What got me excited about this opportunity is that this is a superhero that we haven’t seen before, someone who’s struggling with himself,” says Diab. “His inner conflict is actually visual. You can see his internal struggle. It’s a great room for character development.” As we learn in the synopsis and throughout the show, Steven Grant’s dissociative identity disorder mentally divides him from his Marc Spector persona, resulting in a pair of characters with polar opposite natures, necessitating two vastly different performances from Isaac. When questioned on how he achieved such a feat, Isaac shared his approach; Isaac’s brother (Michael Hernandez) would play opposite him, accent, and all, to give Isaac something to play off of. Having to perform each scene numerous times, switch around, and give two separate performances, became taxing for Isaac: “I really wanted to do a character study, a point of view experience, so you’re not sitting back and just watching the story unfold; you are within the eyes of Steven and experiencing this thing that’s happening to him. And it’s quite terrifying.” As exciting news to the audience, directors Benson and Moorhead maintained only the highest possible praise for the cast: “The most fulfilling aspect of making ‘Moon Knight’ for us was working with Oscar Isaac, May Calamawy, and Ethan Hawke”, the pair assert. “To witness Oscar’s perfectionism firsthand was an honor, to see May bring so much heart and humanity to this story was inspiring, and to learn from the wisdom, work ethic and performance mastery of Ethan Hawke every day was an experience we’d only ever dreamed of.” Marvel Studios’ Moon Knight is available to stream, exclusively on Disney+.

(Release Info London schedule; May 7th, 2021, Curzon Home Cinema) https://homecinema.curzon.com/film/charlatan/ "Charlatan" Jan Mikolášek (Ivan Trojan) is the epitome of a plomb and solidarity. He's talented, sensitive, assertive and enigmatic. In his youth and when he's older, regardless of whether he's in private or public, he's a man of action, reason and intuition. A faith healer. Just one glance at the urine bottle is enough for him to know what ails his patient. With fame comes fortune, and this at a time when 'Czechoslovakia' is a pawn in a game being played by the major power blocs. Protected and used by both 'The National Socialist' and 'Communist' regimes, he steps in wherever the system fails. But during the 'Post-Stalinist' years, the political climate becomes unpredictable and his special status is endangered. Along with his assistant František Palko (Juraj Loj), with whom, as the secret police are well aware, he has much more in common than herbal medicine, the charlatan finds his morals being put to the test. Few true stories tread the thin line between good and evil as precariously as that of Jan Mikolášek, a '20th Century' 'Czech' herbal healer whose great success masked the grimmest of secrets. Mikolášek won fame and fortune treating celebrities of 'The Interwar', 'Nazi', and 'Communist' eras with his uncanny knack for urinary diagnosis. But his passion for healing welled up from the same source as a lust for cruelty, sadism, and an incapacity for love that only one person could ever quell; his assistant, František. As a show trial threatens to pry open these secrets and undo him, Jan’s dichotomies are put to a final test, with the fate of his life’s only love in the balance. A personal tale as replete with twists as the century itself, and a reflection on the price one pays for single-mindedly following one’s calling. Based on the true story of Czech healer Jan Mikolášek (1889–1973), who dedicated his life to treating the sick using medicinal plants. He was a very famous healer, an unusual medicine man, who was using unorthodox methods of diagnosis and treatment. Throughout the war and turmoil of 'The 20th Century' he has to choose between his calling and his conscience. Those special skills made him not only well known but also rich. In 'Czechoslovakia' before 'World War II', he became some kind of institution and even during 'The German Occupation' he was able to preserve his status by healing high 'Nazi' officials. He was sure that it would not be different after the war. The communists who took power were also humans. And humans fell sick, felt hopeless and needed the doctor; a special kind of a doctor as well, when others cannot help. But the situation changed when his main 'Stalinist' protector died, and the regime decided to destroy him. He was too different, too rich, and too independent. "Charlatan" tells the story of Mikolášek’s rise and fall. Of his moral fall and of his constant fight with the darkness inside him. It's the story of the mystery of a man, of the mystery of his special gift, of the prize he was ready to pay for it; the story of the paradox of strength and weakness, of love and hate. To tell this story with an epic scope, dozens of years, three different regimes, two 'World Wars', but one, that feels, at the same time, extremely intimate. The film tries to find a sensual and minimalistic language. Static. Quiet. Spare dialogues. Hidden emotions. Extremely subjective passage of time; years are passing in few minutes, minutes are extended, feel like eternity. The film shows a human soul without entering into the depth of psychological analyses, express interiority through behavior. The faces of actors, the tension between the characters, their constant efforts to pass through the armors of each other are what drives the story forward; the background, the big History of 'The Twentieth Century' is reflected in their fate. "Charlatan" explores the link between the private and the political, and the relationship between the passage of time and the story of an unconventional individual.

An admirable attempt, but ultimately flawed. Thanos, heads for Earth in search of the missing infinity stones, leaving behind a heartless, empty trail of disappointment across the galaxy. Infinity War, for me at least, can best be described as a missed opportunity. A film that could — no — should have been great. An accumulation of 10 years of storytelling and character building...for this. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad film by any means and what it does right it does really well. And yes, I know there is a second Infinity War movie coming out next year (whatever it ends up being named), I just can't help but feel that this movie was a massive anti-climax. Avengers:Infinity War is big in every way. The running time is big, the cast is big, and the action is big. Unfortunately, bigger doesn't always mean better, and that is certainly the case here. Compared to some of Marvel's more recent releases (Thor: Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, etc.) Infinity War falls short in several ways. However, it is saved from falling into mediocrity by some excellent on-screen chemistry and superb super-hero match-ups. And this is Infinity War's greatest forte; its cast and the efficiency with which it handles so many big-name heroes on screen. The structure of the film allows for some unusual groupings (Thor and the Guardians being one of the most entertaining), and seeing these characters meeting and reacting to one another is an absolute treat. There are far too many actors involved in this film to be detailing everyone's performance, but I think it's fair to say that everyone was terribly good. Honourable mention goes to Tom Holland (Spiderman) and Josh Brolin, who worked really hard to make Thanos as intimidating, and as big a screen-filling a presence as possible. In many ways, Infinity War is Thanos's movie, and Josh Brolin is able to make it his own. Due to his performance, Thanos comes across as more than the usual zealot hell-bent on destroying the universe and more of a troubled soul who has been burdened with the knowledge that the universe can't sustain itself. Unfortunately, he never feels as intimidating as he should, due – in no small part – to the way the film is structured. I, like most people, knew going into this film that some of the characters would die. In fact, I was banking on it. The problem is, the film is set-up in such a way that any of the deaths can be rescinded on a whim, and as a consequence, none of the deaths really had any emotional impact. Clearly, I can't really elaborate on this point much more than I have thus far for fear of entering spoiler territory, but this made the movie feel cold-hearted and seemed like a missed opportunity for something special; a melancholic and poignant superhero movie. Visually, most of this film is fine. However, there is some unforgivably bad CGI to be found throughout. (Hulk fighting Thanos looked awful.) This has been a problem with Marvel films for some years now and really shouldn't be happening anymore. The problem Infinity War has is that it relies too much on CGI, which is a drawback when you're not that good at it. With Thanos and his "children" all being computer generated – something that works for Thanos, but is a bizarre design choice for the others – and the usual over the top leaping through the air and punching each other through walls, the movie promptly started to feel nauseatingly familiar. Verdict Regrettably, I can't go into any more specifics about the things that really bothered me in this film as I'd end up to my knees in spoiler creek without a paddle. But I think (for me at least) the film seemed like too much of the same, and far too many of the little annoyances Marvel films often accommodate, and far too long. The film does sort of take risks; killing a throng of characters that you'd perhaps not expect to see die, but ultimately, it's meaningless. I know this review has perhaps seemed unreasonably negative, and as such, I'd like to end on the more positive aspects. Infinity War was inevitably going to be an enormous undertaking, and on the whole, the Russo's have done a commendable job at keeping it all together. Particularly impressive is how they've handled so many different actors and their intertwining storylines. The humour is on par with what you might expect from a Marvel movie and works well throughout. The cast of characters are all brilliant, and Thanos is exemplary in every way; impressive for a CG creation. Maybe if I were more invested in the characters or the Marvel universe in general, I might have enjoyed the film more. There's no doubt in my mind that for its main audience, the film will be seen as a remarkable success. Should you see this film at the cinema? Absolutely! Would I buy it on release? Probably not. 7/10

Director: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo (Contains small spoilers) Hearing the news that the latest superhero franchise, Avengers: Infinity War, has broken the Box Office opening-weekend record, Avengers: Infinity War has clearly been a much highly anticipated movie for many, and with this comes the question on everyone’s lips; does this film live up to the hype? The Good: So many characters. With the majority of superheroes from different worlds appearing in this movie one would be bound to find joy in seeing their favourite character(s) work and interact alongside other heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and seeing how new relationships are quickly formed and developed. My particular favourite pairings were Iron Man and Spiderman teaming up with Dr. Strange, and Thor teaming up with The Guardians of the Galaxy. These interactions created many humorous moments, a necessity the audience needs for a broadly dire, tense situation. With so many heroes, one would assume that not everyone would play an important role. This was not the case. Although some characters had more screen time than others, the film made every role significant. Everyone had a part to play and every hero had their time to shine. As for the villains, well, maybe with the exception of Loki (Thor) and Eric Killmonger (Black Panther), Marvel has been accused of producing lacklustre ones, but here, Thanos‘ and his meddlesome crew make up for that. It is not necessarily their demeanour that is frightening, but their actions driven by their motives. They are deadly, and when Thanos says he wants to get rid of half the population in the entire universe, he means it. Fun and action packed. Right from the get-go, a real sense of urgency and danger was presented, and one could feel the impending threat upon the lives of all characters throughout the entirety of the film. The fighting and action scenes were fun and enthralling. From Wanda and Vision’s fight and flight, to Iron Man, Spiderman, Dr Strange and The Guardians of the Galaxy fighting Thanos, to the final Wakanda battle scenes, not one surpassed the other. One noteworthy scene was when Wanda, Black Widow and Okoye (Black Panther’s Bodyguard) teamed up to take on the only female villain.  This briefly evoked resonances and continued the actualisation of female empowerment that the “Black Panther” film successfully portrayed. Emotional. Accompanying the action were emotional character developments, particularly the relationship between Thanos and Gamora.  We learn a great deal about both their pasts and the events that drives them.  We are encouraged to understand their motives and state of mind, and thus, are more emotionally attached to them, though they are seen as evil and cold. Emotional scenes were few, but when they did occur, they were powerful. They pulled at the very heartstrings of what makes most of these characters so likeable, and it is these scenes that prevent this movie from being just a typical action flick. The Bad: Jump to the future. There were a few pieces missing, or at least part of the story we didn’t get to see. The biggest example occurs at the beginning.  We somewhat start from where Thor: Ragnorok left off. Thanos is aboard Thor’s ship trying to get to the Space gemstone Loki holds. We see dead bodies everywhere, so it is assumed that a battle of some sort has occurred.  But we didn’t get to see this, and so we did not get to see the characters we liked in Thor: Ragnorok, such as the humorous Korg, and the brave, yet drunkard, Valkerie. Another example is the fact that we see Thanos with the purple Power gemstone. The last time we saw this gemstone was in the safe hands of the Xandar government in The Guardians of the Galaxy, but we are only briefly told that “two weeks ago” Thanos stole the gemstone and, while he was at it, demolished the planet. One tiny part of the storyline which was overlooked was the love interest between Wanda and Vision.  Although emotionally rooting for the pair, not to actually see their relationship develop from the start made any feelings for them seem forced.  As someone who has developed a great interest in the MCU and its characters over the past decade, I want to see every important thing that happens to them, and I mean EVERYTHING. So not seeing Wanda and Vision throughout the course of their relationship meant that their fate at the end of the film had less of an emotional impact than it should have done.  Perhaps there will be more footage in an extended Blue Ray Disc, but one likely reason for the edits is because.... The Film is two and a half hours long. Understandably, because of the huge impact that forgoes in the storyline, and the involvement of so many superheroes, this film had to be enduring and expansive. For some, sitting through a two and a half hour film may be uncomfortable, and while I admit that the film dragged just a teeny tiny bit, I had so much fun with this film that the majority of the two and a half hours flew by. No Hulk. Technically they still had the Hulk, but it was in the form of Bruce Banner. Huge fans of Mark Ruffalo would be pleased to see more of him on screen, but for those who wanted to see the green skinned monster, disappointment. Furthermore, no Hawkeye or Antman. Their absence was briefly explained, but one would expect that during this universal annihilation they would turn up at some point. The ending is not the end. We all know that this is a two-parter, so we all have to wait another year for the conclusion. The consolation is that we have other superhero films to enjoy until then: Deadpool 2, Antman and The Wasp, and Captain Marvel (and to an extent The Incredibles 2). So did this film live up to the hype? For me, it did. Just about. With new and old characters intertwined, an immense storyline, big action sequences, all mixed with a drop of emotional nuance, this film will bring so much joy to young kids and make most adults feel like a kid again. Definitely go see it, but be warned; its a long rollercoaster ride.

A jawsome but forgettable summer blockbuster Jason Statham battles a 70-foot prehistoric shark after scientists working out of deep-sea research facility, Mana One, accidentally awaken it from the ocean depths in this, the summer's major popcorn flick — bloody scientists! A "does what it says on the tin" kind of film, The Meg harbours no surprises: there's no deeper meaning to be found here, no emotional poignancy to observe. What there is, however, is almost 2-hours of non-stop shark-on-Statham action. Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds, but I found it rather entertaining. Statham's character, Jonas, is joined by Lori Taylor (Jessica McNamee), as his ex-wife, Suyin (Bingbing Li), as Jonas' love interest, Zhang (Winston Chao), her father, and Mac (Cliff Curtis), an old friend, amongst others. The cast, on the whole, is fine, with Rainn Wilson's, Morris – the millionaire financier of Mana One research station – and Ruby Rose's, Jaxx – the stations' engineer – particularly finding their own niche. Jason Statham is clearly having fun in his role, and to his credit, he never takes any of it too seriously; managing to deliver his lines in a humorous and comically well-timed manner. Taking itself too seriously, however, is a problem the film and several of the actors suffer from occasionally: whether this is a case of actors misinterpreting a scene or an issue with the script itself I wouldn't like to say, but it is a problem at times; resulting in more than a few eye-rolling moments. There are plenty of narrative issues present also: aside from a derivative plot, the film suffers from a plethora of plot holes and its inability to decide how to represent the titular creature: should it be a monstrous killing machine, like in Jaws, or merely as an animal, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, similar to King Kong. In the end, Megalodon comes off seeming more monstrous, which is fine, but the film's earlier indecision on the subject leads to the movie feeling disjointed in places. Visually, The Meg is typical of the genre; perfectly adequate special effects, but lacking any of the visually stunning set-pieces, vistas, or "eye-protein" present in so many other releases. The Megalodon itself looks very impressive though, and for a movie of this type that's really all that matters. Verdict There's really not an awful lot to say about The Meg, it is what it is, and if you've seen any of Jason Statham's previous work you likely know what to expect. And whilst the film is deeply flawed, there's good fun to be had in the 113-minute runtime: the gags are well-delivered, the dialogue is delightfully cheesy, and the visuals are pleasing. There's nothing controversial about The Meg, there's nothing remarkable about it either. It is then a perfectly average film, one which I suspect at the end of its cinematic release will be quickly forgotten, but not before accumulating a healthy profit. 5/10

(Release Info London schedule; July 3rd, 2019, Curzon Aldgate, 2 Goodman's Fields, Canter Way, Whitechapel, London E1 8PS, United Kingdom, 8:50pm) https://www.curzoncinemas.com/aldgate/film-info/midsommar "Midsommar" Dani Ardor (Florence Pugh) and Christian (Jack Reynar) are a young American couple with a relationship on the brink of falling apart. But after a family tragedy befalls Dani, grief keeps them together, and Dani invites herself to join Christian and his friends on a trip to a once-in-a-lifetime midsummer festival in a remote Swedish village. What begins as a carefree summer adventure in a land of eternal sunlight takes a sinister turn when the insular villagers invite their guests to partake in festivities that render the pastoral paradise increasingly unnerving and viscerally disturbing. From director Ari Aster comes a dread-soaked cinematic fairy tale where a world of darkness unfolds in broad daylight. Dani is a young American woman navigating personal loss as her relationship with her boyfriend Christian crumbles. At the outset of "Midsommar", Dani’s relationship is on the rocks, as Christian selfishly places his academic pursuits and male friendships before Dani’s emotional needs. Then tragedy strikes. She suffers a devastating loss and becomes orphaned, left with nothing in the way of family except Christian. The closest person to her is this guy who's on the brink of leaving her. He’s decent enough that he doesn’t leave, given the situation. But it’s a matter of duty for Christian, and Dani is well aware of not being embraced by his friends. Those friends include Josh (William Jackson Harper), a 'PhD' student whose interests lean toward anthropology and folklore; Mark (Will Poulter), a caustic and chauvinistic goofball with negligible boundaries; and Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren), a Swedish exchange student who has invited his friends on a summer trip to his ancestral home in remote Scandinavia. After initially concealing the trip from her, Christian feels pressured to invite her along, much to the chagrin of his close-knit boys club. Josh, Mark, and Pelle simply want to cut loose with their own kind, threatened by anything that will distract them from their personal and selfsh goals, whether it’s furthering their academic glory or getting laid in Sweden. Eventually Christian caves, inviting Dani on the trip. She accepts a false invitation, knowing Christian’s friends don’t like her, and from here the movie becomes a question of how this toxic dynamic will resolve itself. He’s staying in the relationship out of obligation, and she’s clinging to him as a result, sensing he wants to leave, but also knowing she can’t survive on her own. They’re at a standstill. Their relationship should have ended a long while ago. Despite circumstances and the need for comfort, it continues. Complicating the dynamic is an unspoken academic rivalry between Josh, a natural-born scholar utilizing the trip to do research for his 'PhD' thesis on Pelle’s ancestors, 'The Hårga', and Christian, who doesn’t seem to have a genuine affinity for academia. The film establishes a quiet tension between them that explodes when Christian decides he's also going to write his dissertation on the customs and rituals of 'The Hårga'. As multiple relationships unravel over the course of the film, it becomes clear that everyone in this boys club is just out for themselves; they’re not even true friends to each other. From it's inception "Midsommar" is a horror movie, instead viewing the project as an epic adventure unfolding in a strange hermetic world. When 'The Americans' enter this landscape, they walk through pearly gates into a new realm. Arriving in Sweden, Dani and company travel to remote 'Hälsingland', where Pelle’s tribe is in the midst of celebrating a purification ritual occurring once every 90 years. Joining 'The Americans' are Simon (Archie Madewke) and Connie (Ellora Torchia), British travelers of color, an important clue to one of "Midsommar’s" more sinister undercurrents. After consuming psychedelic mushrooms, the new arrivals journey into the forest, eventually wandering through a wooden portal into what appears to be a shimmering fantasy world. It's a journey into the heart of darkness as an American couple, Dani and Christian, find themselves unexpectedly drawn into the world of a mysterious and dangerous primeval cult during a vacation getaway with their friends in a bucolic, hidden Swedish village. As Dani journeys from emotional neediness to questionable empowerment, the film examines a rich array of ideas, from personal fidelity to social influence to cultural legacy. Lying at the heart of "Midsommar" is the ancestral 'Hårga' village, a series of rustic buildings including a bunkhouse, kitchen, and temple set across a vast field nestled beneath an idyllic tree-lined ridge. As the outsiders acclimate to their new surroundings, participating in meals, ceremonies, and dances with the sixty-odd members of the tribe, they come to discover a close-knit, seemingly benevolent and even jubilant cult of revelers, each clad in customized white linen uniforms bearing runic symbols. But amidst the glaring and relentless sunlight, things soon take a darker turn. A young woman who travels to the ends of the earth, only to find herself indoctrinated into a chilling pagan cult. What appears to be a sunny paradise populated with friendly villagers frolicking in nature quickly shifts towards something sinister. As Dani battles her own inner demons, and Christian plunges deeper into the mysteries of 'Hårga' in the hope of achieving academic glory, the couple find themselves submerged in values, traditions and rituals that are disturbingly different from their own. It's a story of a woman who's losing her mind and her bearings, and it's very interesting to put her in a stressful situation where the sun is always up, and there’s no distinguishing between night and day. There's thematic resonance, given that Dani is not really directly examining her situation. Arriving near the end of the film is another engrossing and evocative piece, depicting Dani as she participates in 'The May Queen' festivities, alongside young women from the village who compete for the honor of being crowned 'May Queen'. They dance in tandem until they collapse one by one from exhaustion, and only the winner remains. "Midsommar" has always been a kind of horror movie about codependence. A dark fairy tale about a grieving woman who becomes transformed in a landscape of ancient pagan rituals, "Midsommar" centers on Dani’s gradual indoctrination as she pulls away from Christian and the turmoil of her past, toward a new life in a new family, inside a distant tribe and culture that's distinctly matriarchal. The film begins in the world of men, as Christian and his fellow academics jockey for professional success while making crude sexual jokes about the women in their lives, Dani among them. But as it opens up into the world of 'The Hårga', the story becomes increasingly female-dominated, culminating in a fertility rite that's among the most powerful and timely screen images in recent memory, a defiant statement on female agency in a time when men still routinely attempt to control women’s bodies. There’s a balance between men and women in 'Hårga', but women clearly have more power. Some of the guys in the movie are jerks. That said, this eventually reveals itself to be a story of female empowerment, albeit one that's bittersweet and not exactly clear-cut. Dani is empowered; but she’s also not. As 'The Americans' are guided through the archaic customs of 'The Hårga', Dani receives acceptance, empowerment, and even deification among the people of Pelle’s tribe, finding herself reborn through their ancient rituals. She begins to allow herself to hurt and feel all the overwhelming emotions she has been suppressing. It’s the first time she listens to her pain, and accepts it. It’s a perverse wish fulfillment story. It’s like this warped, fantastical version of what you might see and hear in a rural 'Hälsingland' village during a midsummer festival. On the costumes you see a combination of 'The Runic Alphabet and 'The Affekt Alphabet'. As a character grows up in the cult, he or she's assigned a specific rune, which corresponds with their unique background. 'Hårga' swoops in to give Dani what she's missing in her life and also take away what she hasn’t had the courage to eliminate. Dani, gets a taste of 'The Hårga’s' true motives, to surreptitiously recruit select outsiders into their customs and way of life. It’s no coincidence that several characters, including Josh, Simon and Connie are people of color stumbling into the overwhelmingly white environment of 'Hälsingland'. But it’s Dani and Christian, white 'Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans', who are initiated into the darker mysteries of 'Hårga'. In "Midsommar", the true villain is not the villagers themselves, who are merely acting out the same rituals they've for centuries, but rather their ideas, values, and customs, which find a new home inside Dani as the story reaches it's incendiary climax. That Dani finds herself empowered and transformed by these outmoded traditions is what lends the film it's unique power and horror; we don’t often sense poisonous ideas circulating in the world until they're already planted inside us. Once they take root, it can be too late. This film is based on James George Frazer’s 'The Golden Bough', a globe-hopping anthropological study of paganism as it yielded to 'Christianity', to the spiritual traditions of philosophers such as 'Rudolf Steiner'. We get a grasp on how people in rural and religious Scandinavian communities lived, from 500 years ago up until the present day. The film looks at the natural elements, how people took care of nature, including plants and animals, as well as the structural elements and the art that surrounded them, including wall paintings. Culture is very strong in these parts, we get a sense of how they communicated, which is more often than not through music. As we move darker, we find ourselves immersed in more nefarious customs, including Viking torture methods. Juggling darkness and light. The screenplay inserts a group of modern young Americans into the alien environment of an eerie cult performing a once-in-a-millennium series of rituals during a summertime festival in remote northern Sweden. The film concocts a tale of escalating horror and dread that unfurls in glorious, unrepentant daylight, during a time of year in Sweden when nightfall never completely arrives, plunging the outsiders into an additional layer of disorientation that, as "Midsommar" reveals it's deeper mysteries, coalesces into a hallucinatory freak-out. We've to look at it like an anthropologist might approach 'Candy Land'. In "Midsommar", every shot is a puzzle, with all parts moving individually, eventually becoming an entire field of orchestrated parts. Being part of the imagination is terrifying, and just as exciting. The initial image that sort of catalyzed "Midsommar" involved the sacrificial burning of a temple. Fitting the ‘breakup movie’ into a new setting, putting an operatic spin on the rote sort of cathartic ending we’ve seen in those movies before, you know, where the jilted protagonist burns the box containing all the items Dani collects over the course of the relationship she’s finally liberated herself from. So that by the end, even though this tribe remains a mystery, it’s also intricately defined. "Midsommar" pushes the horror genre in new and unpredictable directions. An apocalyptic adventure on a grand scale. The film constructs mesmerizing and unique world from the ground up, replete with it's own language, history, mythology, and traditions. It's a dark and hallucinatory fairy tale that's as thought provoking as it's viscerally disquieting.

(Release Info London schedule; April 28th, 2019, Electric Cinema, Notting Hill 191 Portobello Road, Notting Hill, England, W11 2ED, 10:00 AM) "Woman At War" Halla (Halldóra Geirharðsdóttir) declares a one-woman-war on the aluminium industry. She's prepared to risk everything to protect the pristine 'Icelandic Highlands' she loves. Until an orphan unexpectedly enters her life. Halla is a fifty-year-old independent woman. But behind the scenes of a quiet routine, she leads a double life as a passionate environmental activist. Known to others only by her alias 'The Woman Of The Mountain', Halla secretly wages a one-woman-war on the local aluminium industry. As Halla’s actions grow bolder, from petty vandalism to outright industrial sabotage, she succeeds in pausing the negotiations between 'The Icelandic Government' and the corporation building a new aluminium smelter. But right as she begins planning her biggest and boldest operation yet, she receives an unexpected letter that changes everything. Her application to adopt a child has finally been accepted and there's a little girl waiting for her in Ukraine. As Halla prepares to abandon her role as saboteur and saviour of 'The Highlands' to fulfil her dream of becoming a mother, she decides to plot one final attack to deal the aluminium industry a crippling blow. "Woman At War" is a classic narrative film with a clear story-arc for the main character. Actually it almost irritates how politically correct everything seems today. But that could maybe change tomorrow. In this case, Halla’s character comes organically through the story and what the drama of telling that story demands. Halla is a common name in Iceland, and one that carries with it quite a lot of historical and cultural reference. Halla and Eyvindur were the last outlaws in Iceland’s history, who are still famous for surviving on the run in the highlands for over 20 years back in 'The Seventeenth Century'. They're real mountain people, sheep thieves and rebels, and many stories have been told about their exploits and struggles. Around a century ago 'The Icelandic' poet and playwright Jóhann Sigurjónsson wrote a play about them, 'Eyvindur Of The Mountains' that reached the international stage and toured successfully in several countries. And exactly 100 years ago in 1918 Victor Sjöström, a Swedish filmmaker. made a film out of the legend called "The Outlaw And His Wife", in which he played the lead role himself. So the name 'Halla' does come with some nice baggage, at least for Icelandic audiences. This movie is meant to be a heroic tale set in a world of imminent threat. A heroic tale told as an adventure. A serious fairy tale told with a smile. The hero serves in this world as a kind of 'Artemis', the protector of the untouched and wild. Alone, facing a quickly changing planet, she assumes the role of saving mother earth and it's future generations. The point of view is very close to the hero’s, which is how and why we access her inner life. The hero is a musician. The hero is saving the world. The film has music. The musicians performing the music are visible. They're the inner forces that are battling within the hero’s soul. But there are certain things you've to do, even if they're dificult and dangerous. Otherwise you're not really a person, just a little shit. This is a film about a woman striving to be a real person. The ancient Greeks believed that creative individuals were possessed by a demon or rather that they're followed by a demon who inspired them with good ideas. That’s why Socrates genius was down to his good demon. A daimon could therefore be a muse of sorts, whispering good advice into the hero’s ear. In Rome this idea was transferred to the genius, which each individual had as a kind of guardian angel, following him from the cradle to the grave. Some Romans were less fortunate than others when it came to their genius and would blame it for their mishaps and bitter fates. And just like a Greek chorus they can address the hero as well as the audience, and emphasise important decisions with a powerful dance act. But there's another reason why to make the performance of the music visible, and that has to do with the idea of alienation. This idea goes back a long way in the history of theatre and show business. You could say that every time a musician is on camera playing the score, the film puts inverted commas around the scene, reminding us that we're right in the middle of a fiction and that behind all the pretence is some message or conclusion that the audience member must come to based on the spectacle. You could say that through this device comes to an agreement with the audience about what sort of film this is and what laws it abides by. Perhaps we need a creative helping hand to be willing to submit ourself to that sort of a tale. "Woman At War" shows humanity on the losing end of an efort to tame or dominate nature. It's a radical failure or foolishness. It’s very clear that nature’s rights should in fact be considered on the same level as human rights, and that’s a thread runs through the film. It seems evident that nature’s rights should be strongly protected in all constitutions and by local and international laws. We need to collectively realize that untouched naturehas an intrinsic right and necessity to exist, regardless of our human needs or our economic system. A more rational system in which we humans, if we wanted to spoil or use unblemished 'Nature' for our own needs, we would need to go through a process, maybe something like a trial, in order to be allowed to do that. These issues are really about the common good and the long-term interests of our existence as a whole. Just like the ability to take a person’s freedom away and keep them inside a prison for life. Now is the right time to look at this kind of approach. Add to this the strange paradox in some of our societies, 'The State', which in democratic countries is an instrument created by the people for the people, can be so easily manipulated by special interests and against what’s obviously the common welfare. When we look at the big, existential environmental challenge we face, and what has been happening, this becomes crystal clear. It can also sometimes be a good breeding ground for comedy, but in many other countries there's only tragedy. It even seems that state-power in certain countries is actively fighting for the other side. Until we come to the situation where the environmentalist becomes an enemy of the state.

(Release Info London schedule; October 18th, 2020) (Curzon Victoria, 58 Victoria Street, LONDON SW1E 6QW, United Kingdom 14:00) (ODEON Covent Garden, 135 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON WC2H 8AH, United Kingdom, 14:30●17:30) (Vue Cinema London - West End (Leicester Square), Leicester Square, 3 Cranbourn Street, LONDON WC2H 7AL, United Kingdom, 15:00) (Curzon Soho, 99 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON W1D 5DY, United Kingdom, 15:00) (ODEON Luxe Haymarket, 11/18 Panton Street, LONDON SW1Y 4DP, United Kingdom, 15:30) "I AM Greta" The story of teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg is told through compelling, never before-seen footage in this documentary following her rise to prominence and her global impact as she sparks school strikes and protests around the world. Starting with her one-person school strike for climate action outside 'The Swedish Parliament', the film follows Greta, a shy student with Asperger’, in her rise to prominence and her galvanizing global impact as she sparks school strikes around the world. The film culminates with her extraordinary wind-powered voyage across 'The Atlantic Ocean' to speak at 'The UN Climate Action Summit' in New York City. In 2018, 15-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg held a school strike outside her country’s 'Parliament' building in Stockholm. At first she sat alone, handing out information and answering questions from passersby. Slowly, others began to join her, and within months she had sparked a worldwide movement. "I AM Greta" offers a personal and inspiring glimpse inside Greta’s path to becoming an internationally known environmental activist. Shot in the style of cinéma vérité and with support from 'The Thunberg' family, cameras capture Greta’s meetings with government leaders, headline-making public appearances, and global protests. But they also depict Greta’s life outside of the moments visible on news channels worldwide; laughing at home with her family, writing impassioned speeches, and trying to handle the mounting stress of nonstop travel, public scrutiny and becoming the face of the climate change cause. Greta, who has 'Asperger’s Syndrome', impresses everyone from 'UN' delegates, to 'Pope Francis', to 'Hollywood A-listers' with her intricate knowledge of climate issues and unwavering dedication. However, as Greta’s celebrity grows, so does her frustration with politicians who don’t heed her warnings about climate change. As someone who thrives on routines and appreciates solitude, the unpredictable schedule and global visibility takes it's toll. Greta’s father, Svante, travels alongside his daughter and becomes deeply concerned by the hateful words, and even death threats, aimed at her by pundits, politicians and climate-change deniers. The film culminates with Greta’s arduous two-week journey by sailboat to 'The UN Climate Action Summit' in New York City, where she’s greeted by crowds chanting her name. Today, her 'Fridays For Future' movement has organized climate strikes on every continent except 'Antarctica'. When we first meet Greta, she's plans to do a sit-down strike to protest for the climate because she feels that no one is doing anything. The national election is coming up in Sweden and she wants to show how important this issue is. People start to stop by and ask questions, and she's very articulate. After three weeks, she decides to continue past the election, striking every Friday. Suddenly, the movement is starting to spread to other parts of Sweden. In the beginning, it's so hard to know. Is Greta going to be a lead figure in this movement, or is this film going to be more about the movement? She has this special perspective on the world. She isn't interested in always framing things nicely and being polite. Some moments aren’t easy to watch, like when Greta is having a tough time toward the end of the boat trip or when she’s reading hateful comments made about her on social media. The film captures the fullness of how it feels being Greta and being an activist dealing with this very hard issue. It’s incredible to see Greta evolve from her one-person protests in Sweden into a global icon. It’s timing, in the sense that the world has waited for someone to express frustration on the topic of climate change for a long time now. Nothing has happened, this panic is rising. And as you see in the film, she has this way to express it that just syncs with where climate change is at the moment. The years of constructive, creative, happy thinking, we’ve those years, and we’ve those figures. Now we’re moving into a period when the situation doesn’t look like that anymore. Anyone who watches the film can understand that young people aren't school striking just for fun. They're protesting because we don't have a choice, but sadly we're still stuck on square one. The changes and the level of awareness needed are nowhere to be seen today. All that we ask for is for our society to treat the climate crisis as a crisis, and give us a safe future. The film shows just how far that's from happening right now. It shows that the urgency of the scientific message isn't getting through. The world is waking up, and change is coming whether you like it or not. It’s a movie which brings you into the eye of the storm. Of course the movement has been affected by not being able to strike, Greta and her peers are very keen on following the scientific advice and have thus not done physical demonstrations. However we believe that the long term effect of what we now see with the response to 'Covid' is that young people will find that suddenly there's a crisis reaction and billions of euros and dollars available but for years they have been told that the climate crisis is too expensive and hard to deal with. Again the political system shows that it works short term and betrays future generations which can lead to even stronger reactions from activists in the future. Sometimes it’s good to see the world in black and white, because that’s how you can really see what’s uncomfortable. After seeing this movie, people get some extra respect for people that are different and people that have that style of saying what they think and pointing at problems instead of just shoving them under the carpet. We should embrace these people, because we need them to show what’s wrong. Also, the film highlights the growing gap between worsening climate impacts and warnings from scientists on the one hand, and the words and actions of world leaders on the other.