Well it’s finally here, the film all fanboys and girls have been waiting for. The film that has taken Marvel 10 years to get to, and probably about £5 billion worth of profit that they’ve taken from the hands of poor innocent children. You know how people complained about Lord of the Rings and said there were too many endings, well I’m complaining about the multiple beginnings in this film. I think IW starts from Thor: Ragnarok or maybe Spider-Man: Homecoming, possibly Black Panther and even Civil War. See what I mean, this timeline is so confusing. The film starts on Thor’s ship where he saved the Asgardians from their doom. Only for them to be doomed by Cable…I mean Thanos, who turns up causing all sorts of mayhem. Thanos is introduced well, straight away we see that he is a clever, strong and formidable foe and this sets him up for the rest of the film. Thanos wants the Infinity Stones because he wants to control the universal population, if he kills half the population then the other half can live happily because there will be enough resources to go round. Pretty drastic right, sounds like it will be a policy in the next Tory manifesto. Thanos is a good character, certainly one of the better villains in a Marvel film and is played brilliantly by Josh Brolin. He brings so much weight and reality to the role and despite being a super bad guy who brings the character to a very emotional level. By the end of the film he has all the stones, which is kinda crazy right considering he didn’t have any before the film started. We’ve spent 10 years waiting for this film and getting to know all these stones and then in the space of 2 hours he has all of them. Like come on! As every superhero and their mother was in the film there wasn’t much chance for character development with the noticeable exception of Gamora, who, confronts her adopted step-dad and calls him out for the mental abuse he caused when she was a child. Jheeze, I didn’t know this was a Woody Allen biopic. Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is again hilarious as the dopey yet lovable Peter Quill who is the sole reason why there is a part two. You know what is dumb, the ending. The ending is stupid. I hated the ending. I would’ve been happy with some of the little side characters who have little relevance to the plot dying. That wouldn’t have bothered me. I would’ve been happy if Iron Man or Captain America died because the team would’ve been down, and then in part two they have to rally together and avenge the death of them. That would’ve been cool and interesting because that would show balls as Marvel don’t show their heroes dying because it’s a franchise and needs to make money. It would’ve been believable. You know what wasn’t cool. Everyone dying that same stupid pathetic way that Voldemort died in Harry Potter. People came out of that cinema saying ‘I can’t believe Spiderman and Black Panther are dead’ ‘How can they kill Stan’ ‘Hurry I need a wee I’ve been waiting 10 minutes for that stupid post credit scene’, as if Marvel would kill off two characters who raked in fortunes at the box office. Now it’s obvious that they’re not dead, but are like trapped in that soul stone thing and that they’ll use the time stone to go back in time. Seriously, I would’ve really loved this film if not for that ending. 4/5 The last three Marvel films released have been their better ones, and this certainly adds to that list. Despite its longevity and woeful ending it will keep every Marvel fan happy with its Whedon-esque jokes, the plentiful amount of action and the mash-up of the different characters.

(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

(London Film Festival, October 20th, 2018, Curzon Soho, 15:15) "Blaze" "Blaze" is inspired by the life of Blaze Foley (Ben Dickey), the unsung songwriting legend of the Texas outlaw music movement that spawned the likes of Merle Haggard and Willie Nelson. The film weaves together three different periods of time, braiding re-imagined versions of Blaze’s past, present and future. The different strands explore his love affair with Sybil Rosen (Alia Shawkat); his last, dark night on earth; and the impact of his songs and his death had on his fans, friends, and foes. The braided storyline terminates in a bittersweet ending that acknowledges Blaze's profound highs and lows, as well as the impressions he made on the people who shared his journey. The primary strand follows Blaze’s last night on earth, where he performs live at 'The Outhouse', a famous bar and music venue in Austin, Texas. At this authentic country music club, seeped in history and alcohol, at the age of 39, he finally records as many of his breathtaking songs as his limited resources will allow. These songs, ranging from soul crushing introspections to goofy political ditties, end up scoring both his life and the film. This final chapter of his life is full of friends, depravity, and a darkness, that descends and casts a shadow over his tragic final hours and all who witnessed it. The second strand explores his love affair with Sybil Rosen, which significantly informs his personal and professional journeys. Their romance begins in Georgia in the early 1980’s, in a tree-house, where creativity and confidence grow in equal measure. Their relationship weathers disapproving parents, an abortion, and a fledgling artistic identity, but eventually they decide to see if it can survive the real world. The couple takes a leap of faith and leaves their paradise in the woods by hitchhiking their way to Austin. Their next home is a dirty yellow apartment that becomes a lonely abode for Sybil as Blaze travels and plays music in empty bars in no-where USA. At Blaze’s urging, they migrate to Chicago, where the weather mirrors their chilled love life, fraught with the challenges of his unsatisfied expectations and depressive demons. The third strand is set a few years after Blaze’s death, during a radio interview with Zee (Charles Adam) and Townes van Zandt (Charlie Sexton), Blaze’s fellow friends and musicians. The tension between the two is exposed as the reveal stories from their shared past with Blaze, which more often than not, are as dark as they are funny. Allegiance is called into question, along with the notion of a shared history, all working towards answering the question: what it means to be a legend. The braided storyline terminates in a bittersweet ending that acknowledges Blaze's profound highs and lows, as well as the impressions he made on the people who shared his journey.    "Blaze" is based on the memoir 'Living In The Woods In A Tree: Remembering Blaze Foley' by Kevin Triplett. It's the story of a consummate American songwriter, flawed, misguided at times, but pure in his intention and compassionate to his core. Blaze Foley was emotionally honest, his voice just laid your heart wide open. His first tunes recalled the gospel hymns he sang as a child. Inspired by John Prine, Merle Travis, and Woody Guthrie, among others, he borrowed from all kinds of music, folk, country, rag, punk, the blues. He was an Americana artist before the genre existed. He was a rambler. Stage fright, anger, and alcohol came too. In 1989 he died. This is how legends got born. And what's the legend? It’s the homeless troubadour refusing to bend to the demands of success. It’s the champion of the downtrodden, the bellicose drunk, the gentle giant children adored. But mostly it’s the music, so direct and authentic it feels as if he's singing about you personally, wrapping your life in melodies that can heal. It sounds simple but really, it’s a powerful thing to be seen. We understand our sensitivities as possibilities, not liabilities. We want to believe that the world’s brokenness, and our own, could be made whole through art.   Blaze Foley is 'The Snuffleupagus' of the outlaw country music scene. This film is a country western opera. The film aspires to be about creativity, and where it intersects with romantic love as a healthy manifestation, and where it intersects with narcissism as it’s negative manifestation. To separate the film and the film’s music is impossible. The film is about the music. And country music at it's simple best has an ability to penetrate. And people are always trying to make our whole generation feel like we need to specialize and excel in one area, but all these different art forms; writing, acting, singing, dancing, painting, photography, etc. all have way more in common than they're different. We've shaped one another in regards to the way we think about acting & movies. The film is extremely interested in a nonlinear relationship to time. How often moments that feel singular have their origin years before and their resolution years later. There’s a great mystery around human creativity; what it means to us, where it comes from, where it goes.  

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to carry on reading this, about a film starring an absolute nutter, in which he tries to kill himself by jumping from helicopters and other modes of transport, to stop a nuclear bomb, but in all fairness, ends up being a being a pretty decent action film.  📷Originally posted by mastersofthe80s Yep, everyone’s favourite Scientologist returns as Ethan Hunt in film number 6 of Mission Impossible. It’s a very good film, I don’t remember seeing 5, these films just blend into one big mash up of Tom Cruise running around saving the day now. But you didn’t need to see 5 to see 6, it was pretty self-explanatory about the recent events, who the bad guys were, and there is a lot of exposition to give newer audiences an idea of what is going on. So the story itself was rather good, it didn’t feel dragged out (despite being nearly 2 and a half hour long) nor did it skip over the narrative and just get to the action. There were enough twists and turns to keep you guessing, although it is pretty obvious what the main reveal is.  The action scenes are very impressive. You know how you normally watch a film and you can pretty much guess that there is a stunt double or a huge green screen backdrop being filmed somewhere in Luton, well in Mission Impossible, I genuinely don’t have an idea anymore. I mean there’s no way that Tom Cruise, the actor, the megastar, the millionaire would willingly dangle from a helicopter by himself. I know there are supports and stuff (I think) but who knows what could happen. I know the man is absolutely nuts, and that Scientologists probably don’t believe in gravity or death but I was seriously impressed watching the stunts. Fair play to the guy. The epicness of each action scene was an improvement on the previous one, and technically it looked stunning. I don’t really get excited about stunts now because they are all pretty much the same, few booms and a bit of fire but this was another level of craziness.  📷Originally posted by gothamsreck0ning We have to talk about this guy. Firstly, look at all that masculinity. How incredible that the more masculine he is e.g. reloading his guns to punch someone, the more prominent his manly features are. LOOK AT THE BEARD! Honestly I’ve been looking at this for a solid 5 minutes and I can’t quite get over how hilarious this looks. How does the beard change like that? Could it be an accident with the lighting? Is it because he puffs out his cheeks therefore showing more beard from underneath? Who knows. But we do know that he doesn’t kill the guy, but his recent comments about the #metoo movement probably has killed his chances with women. Who am I kidding, look at the man, he looks like a bloody God. I feel sorry for him because he has come under a lot of stick with what he has said, it’s quite clear what he has meant to say but unfortunately it’s come across in a bad way. He’s worried about flirting with women in case they don’t want a flirt and it then makes him look like a bad guy. Look mate, just don’t be a creep with women, that’s all women want. Just respect them, talk to them without being weird, don’t grope. We all like a cheeky flirt Henry, especially me wink wink. Just kidding, I don’t fancy people who can magical grow a chest pocket out of thin air.  4/5 You know, I went into this film after an incredibly long, stressful and frustrating shift at the cinema where I work and I really wasn’t expecting a lot. I was hoping for some decent action film that has got some good moments, nothing special but something that passes the time. And I was pleasantly surprised that it had some very good moments that turned out to be a very good action film.

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

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.

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

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; Curzon Victoria, 58 Victoria Street Westminster, London SW1E 6QW, The Courier, Fri 13 AUG, 11:00 15:30 21:00) https://we-love-cinema.com/cinemas/386-curzon-victoria/ "The Courier" "The Courier" is a true-life spy thriller, the story of an unassuming 'British' businessman Greville Wynne (Benedict Cumberbatch) recruited into one of the greatest international conflicts in history. At the behest of 'The UK's MI-6' and Emily Donovan (Rachel Brosnahan), a 'CIA' operative, he forms a covert, dangerous partnership with 'Soviet' officer Oleg Penkovsky (Merab Ninidze) in an effort to provide crucial intelligence needed to prevent a nuclear confrontation and defuse 'The Cuban Missile Crisis'. On 16, October 1962, President John F Kennedy is handed high-altitude photographs taken from 'U-2' planes flying over Cuba that shows 'Soviet' soldiers setting up nuclear-armed missiles on the island. 'The United States' have been tipped-off that 'The Soviet Union' is putting nuclear warheads on 'The Caribbean Island'. 'The Cuban Missile Crisis' sees the world on the brink of nuclear war. Greville Wynne has a sense of humour, doggedness, and an unexpected strength. This guy goes on an extraordinary journey. From being an ordinary businessman, one who's quite severely dyslexic, almost to the point of illiteracy, to being a conduit for 'The West' to get the most important bit of secret information during 'The Cold War' and 'The Cuban Missile Crisis'. It's about an everyday guy in the centre of that world with all these thrilling elements and this massive global political backdrop while it’s about him and his family, and he ends up trying to save the world. Wynne’s mission is to make contact with a 'Soviet' military intelligence colonel named Oleg Penkovsky. They strike up a significant friendship. Penkovsky likes him and trusts him. And Penkovsky sees that loyalty returned when Wynne tries to help him escape. Wynne returns to Moscow even after being warned that he would put himself in peril by doing so. Wynne decides that he has to help his friend Penkovsky escape. 'The KGB' catches Wynne trying to help his friend, and he's arrested on 11 May 1963, and subsequently is sentenced to 8 years in jail. And then we get the tragedy of this very ordinary man being stretched to the limits of his endurance, physically and mentally in a 'Russian Gulag'. What he endures is all the more incredible considering he isn't a trained spook and he has no background or inclination to do the work he's asked to do. He's released from jail in exchange for the spy Gordon Lonsdale (Jonathan Harden) in 1964. The prison experience changed Wynne. He falls into a state where his mental health is challenged. He becomes an alcoholic and leaves his wife. He lost his business income and so, needed money. Then there's the secrecy that's part and parcel of espionage so 'MI6' never acknowledge his work even after he's released. 'The British' government never publicly acknowledged anything he did or thanked him for what he has done. "The Courier" culminates with Wynne shaven-headed and alone in prison. The film hints that even when he's released all will not be well. He's a broken man no longer at peace with himself. Oleg Penkovsky is a legendary source that 'The Americans' have in 'The Soviet Union'. Penkovsky, codenamed 'Hero', is a 'Soviet' military intelligence colonel during the 1950s and early 1960s. Born in Vladikavkaz in 1919, his father died fighting as an officer in 'The White Army' during 'The Russian Civil War'. He has to hide parts of his past because he's related to a man who's the enemy of 'The Communists'. He has to carry this on his back. Penkovsky is able to detract attention from his family history by proving his belief in the cause by joining 'The Soviet' army. He's very well respected in the military world but after the war, no one cared about this anymore. He has all of these medals, but he's just a high-ranking bureaucrat. This guy is fearless, narcissistic and self-obsessed. He’s like a forgotten actor who wants to have a big comeback. His ego is also what make Penkovsky think he could get away with being a whistle-blower. He's convinced that this would never happen to him because he thinks he's too smart and by the time 'The Soviets' would find out, he would already be living in Montana, in 'The United States'. The friendship with Wynne blossoms so quickly because they've shared experiences. They understand how much they both risked. There's a need to give each other support. It's quite interesting the idea that if you've someone and you do have a family and it matters to you, how do you manage when a big chunk of your life is off-limits. One of the things that push Penkovsky and Wynne together in the film is that they both share this problem. Sheila (Jessie Buckley) is Wynne's wife. There's hardly any information about Sheila at all. Sheila has to constantly keep a lid on her emotions. There are a lot of suppressed emotions in the sixties, especially a housewife who's unhappy and unfulfilled in life. Everything is smoke screens and smiles behind pained eyes. Basically, lots of quiet moments which are interrupted with sharp sips of martinis. Emily, 'The CIA' operative comes up with the idea of using Wynne to get information out of Moscow. She's a composite of a few of the real-life 'CIA' officers who worked the Wynne and Penkovsky operation. Emily is fictional, in the sense that at the time, the officers who worked on this operation are all men. Being a woman operating in a very patriarchal world, Emily has to be very strategic and clever to get her own way. Emily needs to use plenty of wiles to manipulate the men around her. Her male superiors need to believe that they're calling the shots even when they're implementing plans conjured up by Emily. Is it patriotism alone? Is it a desire to prove her worth in a male-dominated world, or even a male-dominated profession? Did she have a personal connection to this war that drove her? To get what she wants, Emily must appear non-threatening. That’s largely a period thing, but also a battle that women still fight today. Emily believes that she’s the smartest person in the room or at the very least, she has something valuable to This film is about the history of 'Russian American' espionage. There’s a long history of successful great 'Cold War' thrillers, the difference here's that rather than being about inscrutable people with inscrutable motives it has a clear emotional heart, and it's essentially about a relationship between two men who did something extraordinary. In October 1962, 'Soviet' ballistic missiles were being deployed in Cuba. President Kennedy demanded their removal. When Khruschev refused, both sides began preparations for a nuclear war. For 13 days, a policy of brinksmanship saw the world facing the threat of nuclear war. The world was going to end. People crowding into churches who had never been to church. This sent many around the world into a state of panic. The world sort of held its breath, it’s not just a fight between two countries, it’s every country in between them that would be affected. The film incorporates the crisis into the screenplay. Just trying to get a sense of that fear and helplessness that people felt that the world might end and there's not a 'God' damn thing we can do about it. You had ships sailing to Cuba with missiles, you had 'The Americans armed and ready and you had everybody hovering over buttons and codes. It only takes a few hotheads in charge of the codes, a few polarised opinions and people shutting off and not having a dialogue for catastrophe to happen. A generation had passed since the end of 'The Second World War', and new functional architecture had been appearing around the globe. The clothes were changing, but the swinging sixties had yet to arrive. The film shows the competition between 'The Soviet Union' and 'The United States'. Both superpowers were pursuing initiatives trying to demonstrate that their way of doing things created a better life for their citizens and more advanced technology. There's this big epic feeling of the architecture during that time because of the competition between the two countries, particularly in the sixties with 'Brutalist' architecture and 'Soviet' architecture. There was no nuclear war that such a scenario was not only feasibl but that many feared it would be inevitable. "The Courier" seems to be part of our history. The drama feels immediate and visceral. In the past four years, with Korea, Trump, China, and the pulling up all the old nuclear treaties between Russia and America, "The Courier" feels a little bit urgent in a rather scary way.

(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.