Search Results

‘Batman’ has undergone a number of different approaches throughout the years, in terms of comics and films. With cinema there is a large collection of styles, ranging from the camp and comedic Adam West classics, to the slick and smooth Nolan Trilogy. Well, it might have been re-imagined this time round in one of the most surprising but effective culmination of styles. On the surface it may seem a bit odd. A crime fighting fictional vigilante in a bat suit alongside a real life Victorian Ripper. But in a lot of ways, they are a perfect match. They both operate in the shadows, they both wear masks and they both exist in poverty stricken cities, where crime and evil run riot in the streets. There is also the detective element. Many focus on the physical prowess of the caped crusader but we must not forget his aptitude as a crime solver. With Gordon, Bullock, Harvey Dent and Batman himself trying to put the pieces of the Ripper puzzle together, it stops it from becoming too solely ‘Batman’ orientated. Although one of the Warner Bros Animated films, it is not suitable for kids. As I mentioned before, there are many reincarnations of ‘Batman’. Some kid friendly, others more adult. This is the latter of the two. It couldn’t really not be, when it’s main focus is ‘Jack The Ripper’. The broody, dark and atmospheric setting of Gotham seems even more poignant with the influence of Victorian culture. The swirling fog, dark alleyways and imposing architecture merge well with the themes of ‘Batman’ and the city of Gotham itself. One of the reoccurring themes in the ‘Batman’ universe is that of orphans. Bruce Wayne is the obvious one. But there is also Dick Grayson, Selina Kyle and Poison Ivy. That fits in perfectly to the Victorian setting, as street urchins and orphans were a common occurrence. Work Houses and orphanages were standard practice. This is but another example of how these two worlds blend together adequately. The script has been tweaked with a Victorian flair, which is a delight. Especially when you have a fancified version of Jim Gordon telling his wife he will be with her directly. Costume design has been altered slightly. In particular Selina Kyle pulls off a dress and corset combination, made all the better by her accompanying whip. Batman’s suit is not too altered but it has a more steampunk feel to it with its gold buttons, formal shirt and more traditional mask. There are a few other character tweaks. Harvey Dent for example has a curly moustache and comb over hair. His character also mirrors Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, another Victorian classic. Poison Ivy is an exotic dancer, tying in more with the ‘Jack The Ripper’ angle. Dick, Jason and Tim, the three Robins are depicted as ‘Twist’ inspired pick pockets. These reinventions of the characters are ingenious, as it serves to cement the two styles. The inciting incidents when occurring are both exhilarating and unique. Most of them involve Batman squaring up against Jack The Ripper. They are you’re standard fisticuffs and roundhouses but the backdrop is what sets them apart. One of the confrontation occurs in a slaughter house, an ideal selection for obvious reasons. Another is a chase scene across the roofs of Gotham. Just the image of The Ripper’s shadowy outline being pursued by The Batman’s even more defined black outline, sent goose bumps down my spine. There is also a zeppelin, a signature of Victorian steampunk and a fairground, more familiar with the ‘Batman’ canon. This attention to detail reinforces the themes and style of the film, giving viewers a visual narrative of its own. In most adaptions of ‘Batman’, there is a large emphasis on bat gadgets and tech. One might think this poses a problem this time round, as it is more Victorian inspired. Luckily, the creative team have found a way around that. For example Batman is famous for having a bat cave, always located underneath Wayne Manor. This time round his hideout is in the attic, or as my fiance cleverly pointed out ‘the battic’. Although this is a break in tradition, I found the whole concept refreshing. It also fits in more with the period, as many Victorian London houses were built with attics. He doesn’t have a bat-mobile for obvious reasons but he does have a crazy steampunk bat bike with various pistons, motors and cogs. Also, there is more of a challenge for Batman in the Victorian inspired setting, as finger prints aren’t considered legitimate evidence. This forces Batman to find other ways to solve his mystery. ‘Batman Gotham By Gaslight’ is a gamble. It takes two beloved and very distinct worlds and brings them together. It is a tall task, trying to introduce The Ripper into the ‘Batman’ universe with all its history and style, whilst still remaining at its core distinctively dark knight. Fortunately it pays off, delivering an end result that provides something fresh and new but at the same time familiar. It is a reinvention of ‘Batman’ as we know it but then reinvention is what ‘Batman’ is all about. There are so many versions and takes both in comics and film, that it gets away with it. Visually it is stunning with the cities’ dark alleyways, high rooftops and abandoned buildings. Facets that are present in both Gotham and Victorian London. In fact there are so many similarities between the two, that after a while you forgot that it is even different. You accept it as commonplace that the world created is the genuine article because it is convincing. The characters are still the same at there core but they are tweaked to give them a Victorian flair. Being focused on ‘Jack The Ripper’ and his murders, this version of ‘Batman’ is largely focused on his skills as a detective. I found this refreshing, as a lot of the recent ‘Batman’ films have been more focused on the fighting and gadget side. The twist of the piece took me by surprise. I am normally able to predict the shock reveal but they did a good job of misleading the viewer on this one. If you are a fan of ‘Batman’ or a fan of Victorian steampunk and The Ripper you’re in luck. And if like me you are obsessed with both, then it is a dream come true.

It’s intense. The infinite horizon. After a few days, I feel reborn. You know, just you, the wind and the sound of the boat cutting through the ocean. When you compare “Adrift” with the movie “All is lost“, where Robert Redford sailed across the ocean on board of a huge sailboat, you’ll notice some similarities. First of all, you can expect some idyllic footage once again. The words horizon, the setting sun, and sails that blow in the wind can be used to compose a corresponding sentence. In both films, it’s an upcoming storm that ensures that the spotless sailboat is reduced to floating wreckage. And then you see an admirable struggle for survival. These being the similarities, isn’t surprising. What else did you expect in a film about a shipwreck? Similarities and differences. However, there are also some significant differences. Differences which make “Adrift” a more interesting film. First, let’s talk about the conversations. In “All is lost” there are as many dialogue lines as you encounter traffic lights on the ocean. None! But then again, Robert Redford was drifting all alone while Tami (Shailene Woodley) and Richard (Sam Claflin) had each other. If there would be no conversation at all, you could say those two Globetrotters weren’t really meant for each other. And the trip across the Pacific would have been boring as hell for both of them in that case. The most obvious difference is the gender of the person who does everything to survive. And finally, there’s the psychological aspect that reminds you immediately of “47 Meters down“. Before you know it, the storm is over. The film can be divided into two chapters. One part before and one after the storm of course. Don’t expect an apocalyptic drawn-out part with a ferocious ocean that throws the boat around like a walnut after which it finally crushes it like a coconut by a heavy stone. Otherwise, you’ll be disappointed. The devastating storm itself is extremely short. The part that was given a lot of attention, is about Tami and Richard meeting each other. And on the other hand, the terrible period on a destroyed boat with a limited supply of food and something to drink. And as a vegetarian, it’s even more difficult For Tami. Because catching a fish causes her to gag instead of being happy. If I’d be in a similar situation, I would throw away my morals instantly. Lots of flashbacks. In terms of content, both parts were interesting enough. Only the romantic stuff was a bit too much of a good thing. I understand they tried to show the contrast between the pleasant and the difficult moments. And then there’s the least successful part for me. The alternation of fragments from the two different time lines with the help of recurring flashbacks. Just when you are empathizing with the dramatic part of the story, in which Tami tries to cope with the situation and does the impossible to cheer up the badly wounded Richard, they jump back to a romantic scene with those two lovebirds watching a beautiful sunset while drinking a Cuba Libre. Even though these are sometimes scenes with beautiful images, I thought it slowed down the pace and decreased the tension. After every flashback, I thought to myself “Show up, you damn storm. Where are you?“. But once this terrible event is over, it’s still a fascinating film with a well-thought-out twist. Don’t watch when you’re about to go on a boat trip. “Adrift” isn’t a bad movie. Or you hate romantic issues. Or you instantly get seasick when you look at a sailboat. What impressed me the most was the interaction between Shailene Woodley (who effortlessly transcends her acting level from “Divergent“) and Sam Claflin. Their love relationship felt convincing and realistic. No fake moments. They were two wandering souls who met each other by chance and together undertook this adventurous trip. They aren’t married yet and already they experience what it means to be together for better or for worse. The film is based on true facts. Mostly the result is a mocking chuckle when I read this. But for me the result was an enormous respect for that young girl who experienced this disaster. Tami Oldham is living proof that one should not talk about the weakness of women. She proves that women can stand their ground in certain circumstances. “Adrift” shows that the term “Girlpower” is not an empty concept. Only one advise. Best not watch this movie when you’re planning to take a boat trip in the near future. I’m sure you’ll start that well-deserved holiday with trembling knees. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Have you ever watched a film and constantly questioned every single thing that you are watching? Have you ever watched a film and afterwards thought to yourself ‘did that really happen?’? If not, then please watch Venom so you know what I am talking about. Right about now you’re probably reading a lot of different things about Venom. The critics have absolutely slammed it. Some have gone as far as calling it Catwoman bad. Fans, on the other hand like it. So what is it? Well, it’s not Catwoman bad, but it is pretty awful. You know things are bad when everyone associated with the film tries to not be. Whether that be through a review embargo, Tom Hardy saying the best bits were cut, Riz Ahmed just calling it fun, or the Marvel logo not being hugely present at the start of the movie. 📷Originally posted by queeniecatart As films go, Venom is very bizarre and I don’t really know how to start this or structure it. I think that’s a similar problem the film faced. OK we’ll start with the casting. Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock was a huge mistake for me. Superhero films, through all their faults that I find with them normally cast brilliantly. Robert Downey Jr is Iron Man. Chris Evans is Captain America. Chris Pratt is Star-Lord. What I mean is that the actor is that character. RDJ is cocky and knows it. Evans is the responsible, social justice hero. Pratt is a prat. But Tom Hardy playing an awkward, emasculated, week male is not Tom Hardy. Tom Hardy is buff. Tom Hardy is macho. He wasn’t convincing playing the role of Eddie Brock because he is not that character. So that change to Venom was unimpressive. Now, Topher Grace, who played Venom in Spiderman 3, an under-appreciated and actually good film, would have been a much better choice in this role. He is all the characteristics for the Eddie Brock/Venom role that an actor like Tom Hardy isn’t. Also, his voice was annoying and was bugging me after 10 minutes. Michelle Williams, poor Michelle Williams. What an actress. She is incredible. But my god did this film not do her any justice. Poorly underused. A positive though was the villain. Riz Ahmed did have enough screen time and he was a slight anti-hero. He wanted to save the world but at any cost.  📷Originally posted by bustedphotographer Has anyone seen Big Mouth? If you haven’t, watch it! If you have, you will know that Venom sounds exactly like the hormone monster. Am I right? The symbiote attaches itself to Tom Hardy and starts to talk to him. But it’s very odd. Venom will say one word to say what he wants ‘food’ ‘hungry’ and it was really out of the blue and in the same voice as the hormone monster. It was so bizarre! Also, at the start of the film Venom wants to destroy the earth. But after meeting Michelle Williams it changes its mind and wants to save the Earth from Riot (the other symbiote that escaped). My guess is that it saw how desirable Michelle Williams was and thought ‘wow, Eddie gets to have sex with THAT, we want some of the action’ so decides to stick around. As a plot twist, that’s pretty mental. It’s also bizarre how when Eddie turns into Venom he becomes huge and muscular. When Riz Ahmed (who is a very skinny actor) turns into riot, he becomes huge and muscular. However when Michelle Williams turns into Venom it becomes this sleek, stealthy, highly sexualised alien creature. Erm, hello toxic masculinity?! What’s that all about? Why can’t female Venom be buff, why is she sexualised so much. Is it to please the male gaze. I know there are right freaks out there who think that Venom is sexy, but I do think that. Again, another odd moment.  📷Originally posted by baelzemon Sexism and joking aside, Venom doesn’t do its 15 rated film any justice. Deadpool is a 15 and he is swearing all over the shop. I was expecting a really dark and violent film that pushed the boundaries of Marvel film-making. But it didn’t. There was no gore or bodies being ripped apart, to be honest there wasn’t really much action at all. The end fight scene was shockingly short, luckily there wasn’t much of a build up to it wasn’t that disappointing but still, it would’ve been cool to see a big boss battle. I found it quite disappointing and this was after seeing the trailer and my expectations being massively lowered.  1/5 Unfortunately Venom for me massively flopped. I’d still urge you to go see it because you’ll either won’t care from a fan side and will enjoy it. Or you’ll find it so bad (like I did) from a critic side that you’ll enjoy watching a load of rubbish. Hey, I’ve just realised. This is the superhero version of The Room!

(Release Info London schedule; January 15th, 2020, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-mlk-fbi-film-online "MLK/FBI" "MLK/FBI" is the first film to uncover the extent of 'The FBI's' surveillance and harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Based on newly discovered and declassified files, utilizing a trove of documents obtained through 'The Freedom Of Information Act' and unsealed by 'The National Archives', as well as revelatory restored footage, the documentary explores the government's history of targeting 'Black' activists, and the contested meaning behind some of our most cherished ideals. Featuring interviews with key cultural figures, including former 'FBI' Director James Comey, "MLK/FBI" tells this astonishing and tragic story with searing relevance to our current moment. This documentary is about 'The Civil Rights Movement' to date. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the most iconic symbols of civil rights in 'The United States'. In 1987 and 1988 Dr. King went to Chicago to bring 'The Movement" from 'The South' to 'The North'. It's a wake up call to know that Dr. King wasn't always loved and embraced by 'The American' public. It's a continuation of our understanding of the contradictions in terms of how King is looked at today by most Americans, and how he was really looked at back then. One of those interesting things in the film is when Beverly Gage mentions the fact that there was a poll taken after King and Hoover met, the only time they ever met, about who was more popular. Hoover was much more popular than Dr. King. Most people forget that now, because Hoover is looked at as a pariah, but most Americans back then thought he was a hero. We embraced 'The American' notion of what 'The FBI' was all about. Watching 'The FBI' show on television, watching an old movie from 1959, Jimmy Stewart. 'The FBI' were heroes; beating the gangsters, fighting communism. 'The FBI' was so frightened and afraid of this man they're willing to go to any lengths to destroy his reputation. Something people overlook, is that the civil rights movement was not just Dr. King. America always has to create one person who takes us to the mountaintop, when there were lots of foot soldiers in 'The Civil Rights' movement who got us to the ‘64 and ‘65 'Civil Rights Act', 'The Voting Rights Act', Fred Shuttlesworth and Ralph Abernathy and Dorothy Cotton and Fannie Lou Hamer, there were so many people, it wasn’t just King. He’s been made into the titular head. There’s more than one way to look at Dr. King, and at 'The Movement'. There's a very important distinction at the end of the film that 'The FBI' wasn't a rogue agency. King was pitted against the entire power structure of the government, in that 'The White House' was privy to the surveillance. But it goes back to this decision that was made in 1992, that in twenty-five years some of the documents collected by 'The Congressional Committee' investigating assassinations would be unsealed. Because they investigated both Kennedy and King's assassinations, when documents are released about one, there's always the other. 'The Congressional Committees' all knew about it. Nobody stopped it. So it was something that went just beyond 'The FBI-Headquarters' and the suspicion of King in the halls of power persisted for so long. You know, Reagan didn’t even want to sign the holiday into law. We know, of course, there were allies in 'The Movement' who might be tipping off 'FBI' agents about King’s plans, but the new discoveries make it plain how coordinated and vast the bureau’s sources were. You get to a point where, on the night he died, for example, they’re not even tapping his phones anymore, they've such good informant coverage. All the same, it’s important to note that, given Hoover’s motives, you can never take anything that's in these files, even once they're declassified, at face value. One must always remember the source; where it comes from and why. What happens to people who are very important in our history is that over time they're revisited. A great example is how we grew up thinking Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Now, we learned over time that Lincoln didn’t initially want to free the slaves. It just became something that was necessary to win 'The Civil War'. In some ways he wasn’t 'The Great Liberator' or 'The Great Emancipator'. But has it really tarnished his reputation? Not really. You know, he's still considered one of the great American presidents. So the fact that we've known this already about Dr. King, that he was not a monogamous man, that he was a human being like everybody else. It's always interesting to learn the true story behind these organizations that we mythically make so heroic. The film looks at the complexity and the accuracy of 'The American' landscape in terms of the federal government. This film is a wakeup call for America, to understand how complicated this notion of being American is, and how complicated 'The FBI' is today.  It’s eerie how similar the crisis over 'Black' safety inequality in the period covered by the film feels today. And 'Civil Rights' issues are once again at the fore of 'The American' consciousness. We're a country that's always constantly struggling with the issues of race, because this country is founded on the backs of slaves. We've what we call a tipping point and a reckoning in America with Trump in office, with 'The Black Lives Matter' movement and the protests after the murder of George Floyd and the horrific murders that are taking place in this country. So it's extremely timely. But this film will always be timely, because America and the issues of race never leave. 'Black' men being murdered in the streets of America, by the police, is endemic. It happens every damn day. The work of administrations is to say there's chaos in the streets, get your weapons out because America is going to fall apart, it happens not only in 'The Republican' administrations, but it happens in 'Democratic' administrations. This is not unusual, but it's like a huge avalanche now.  What Dr. King went through and what America's going through today is so connected. The importance of protesting speaks directly to what's happening in the streets of America today. Because this is America, quite honestly, and unless we've a real revolution, it's going to be the same cycle over and over and over again. Above all, it's what this story tells us about the American character. Especially right now.

(Release Info London schedule; September 7th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 64 - 66 Redchurch, 18:15) "The Seagull" One summer at a lakeside Russian estate, friends and family gather for a weekend in the countryside. While everyone is caught up in passionately loving someone who loves somebody else, a tragicomedy unfolds about art, fame, human folly, and the eternal desire to live a purposeful life. The estate is owned by Sorin (Brian Dennehy), a retired government employee, and his sister Irina (Annette Bening), a legendary actress of the Moscow stage. Irina is imperious, narcissistic and selfish, and anxious about holding on to her star status and the affections of her younger lover, Boris Trigorin (Corey Stoll), a successful writer of short stories. Irina constantly belittles her aspiring writer son Konstantin (Billy Howle), perhaps because his existence as a grown man reminds her that age is catching up with her. While he adores his mother despite her cruelty, Konstantin acts out his insecurity and anger by rejecting both her style of theatre and Boris’s writing, declaring them old-fashioned and banal. A dreamer, Konstantin declares he will create bold and superior new forms of theatre and literature. Konstantin, who grew up on the estate, is head over heels in love with Nina (Saoirse Ronan), a beautiful and naïve local girl who dreams of being an actress. Nina is flattered when Konstantin gives her the starring role in his newly written play, but soon after encountering Boris, she rejects Konstantin, and pursues the handsome and famous writer instead. Masha (Elisabeth Moss), the forlorn, black-clad, self-medicating daughter of Sorin’s estate manager Shamrayev (Glenn Fleshler) and his wife Polina (Mare Winningham), suffers an unrequited love for Konstantin, who insensitively spurns her. She scorns the insipid schoolteacher Medvedenko (Michael Zegen), who refuses to be discouraged by her rejection and accepts any crumbs of attention she drops him. Polina aches for the charismatic country doctor Dorn (Jon Tenney), who, pays her some attention, but still relishes the connection with Irina with whom he had an affair years ago. The elderly Sorin, long past any hope of romance, lives in a languid state of regret over roads not taken. Adapted from Anton Chekhov’s classic play "The Seagull" explores, with comedy and melancholy, the obsessive nature of love, the tangled relationships between parents and children, and the transcendent value and psychic toll of art. The story of “The Seagull” follows the tangled relationships of a group of people who assemble at a provincial lakeside estate and farm owned by Sorin, a retired civil servant and his sister, Irina, a celebrated Moscow stage actress. Irina and her younger lover, Boris, a successful writer, have come to watch a play written and directed by Irina’s son Konstantin and performed by his girlfriend Nina, who lives nearby. Desperate to get out of his mother’s shadow and win her love, Kontantin acts out by attacking her and Trigorin’s work as lifeless and old-fashioned. His abstract and symbolistic play, which he sees as a higher form of theatrical expression, is rejected as pretentious by his mother, and as impenetrable by Trigorin. Even his beloved star, Nina, is unimpressed by the work, and soon her affections drift from Konstantin to Trigorin. Despite everything, Irina is fully human because you can see all of the pain and the fear and the vulnerability there. She’s also incredibly funny. Almost against your will, you enjoy and appreciate the wit of her cruelty. Irina is a passionate woman who's trying to get every last drop out of life that she possibly can. She’s always trying to move toward joy and love and connection, but she doesn’t always get there. She didn’t achieve the stature that she wants. That’s part of what all of us who are trying to do something creative live with; how long will I get away with this, and is there something that’s gonna come up and take everything away? She feels good about herself until her son attacks her and then suddenly that part of her that's wondering where it’s all gonna go suddenly roars to the front of her consciousness and she’s confronted with her own vulnerability. She feels threatened and so she lashes out. Konstantin has been starved of his mother’s attention his whole life, as her first love has always been the theatre. He has genuine talent, however his ego has been damaged beyond repair. Irina will never take him seriously as an artist or a peer. Konstantin starts to do what a lot of young artists who aren’t recognized do, he denigrates the world that has rejected him. He wants to create new forms and make a new theater that has nothing to do with his mother. He's deeply in love with her and also hates her with great vehemence. As for Irina, that like all actresses, she wants to hang on to her youth for as long as possible, and as long as she has a 20-something son hanging around her, then she’s older in the eyes of that community. And now that Irina’s second love, after the stage, is unquestionably Boris, Konstantin channels his frustration with his mother into hatred of her lover. Boris Trigorin isn’t quite 40 and is already famous and wealthy and successful as an artist, so to Konstantin, he poses even more of a threat. He has an almost compulsive need to observe and filter that observation to language. He’s got this detachment, this desire to break outside of that detachment and just be a part of the world. A lot of tension in him is his inner fight between wanting to really participate in his life and in the world, and wanting to retreat from it. Nina is the daughter of a wealthy neighbor who has remarried and disowned her financially and emotionally. She enjoys coming to Sorin’s house, appearing in Konstantin’s play, performing in front of his glamorous mother and the famous writer Boris Trigorin. This starts her fantasizing about the possibility of becoming an actress like Irina. Nina is a bit of a dreamer. She’s someone who's stuck in one place and yearns for something different. To her, like a lot of people, acting and the theater offer something exciting and new. She seems full of life, but Nina is a sad girl, actually. Boris’s desire for a renewed engagement with life is stirred when he encounters the brimming youthfulness of Nina. He feels attractive in a way that Irina never could make him feel. He has something to say, and he’s not familiar to her, so that mystery that he has excites her. And of course he can make that dream of acting come true for her. Infatuated with Nina, Boris approaches Irina and asks her to set him free. He’s convinced it’s going to be easier than it turns out to be. He's shocked at the level that she humiliates herself and begs him. He makes his argument with such reason and kindness. There’s no cruelty in it. Of course, it’s deeply cruel in the way that we've to be with each other sometimes. Boris’s request reveals Irina’s true fragility in a more stark way than any other time in the film. Her power is perforated by the potential loss of Boris. But then you watch her will her power back and manipulate him to stay. It's a defining moment of who this woman is. Boris gives in easily, but his assent may be less than meets the eye. He's supremely conflict averse. He gives in, but then twenty minutes later he’s making arrangements to meet Nina. He desires a life where he can be completely honest, but that’s just not available to him. Masha is the black-clad, snuff-taking, heavy drinking daughter of Sorin’s estate manager Shamrayev and his wife Polina. Masha is the most modern of the characters. She’s a real badass. She can be angry and stubborn one minute, and then the next dissolve into tears, and then make a joke. There’s something wonderfully Bette Davis about her. But at the same time she’s the most self-aware character in the play. She has accepted that she’s not going to be happy; that’s just the way things are gonna go. The main reason for Masha’s sadness is that she's helplessly in love with Konstantin, who won’t give her the time of day. She's miserable because she does believe in love, and does believe in true love, and knows it’s not gonna happen for her. At the same time, Masha brushes off the schoolteacher Medvedenko, in a way not altogether different from the way Konstantin treats her. She sees this man who she doesn’t believe is as smart as her, and she cannot respect him because of that. Medvedenko has done something completely unforgiveable, which is that he isn’t Konstantin and he never will be. Sorin has spent his life working in a government office and now, with his health fading, pines over the paths he didn’t take in his life. Sorin is kind and wise, a good friend to Konstantin. "The Seagull" is something that gradually deepens into an increasingly complex metaphor as the story unfolds. We first encounter it when Konstantin literally shoots a seagull. Konstantin is mortified that his play didn’t go over well; and so devastated by Nina’s preference for Boris over him, that he shoots a seagull and lays it at Nina’s feet as a demonstration of how depraved she has made him. Later, after Boris and Nina have spent an afternoon on the lake, Boris comes up with an idea for a story; a young girl who has spent her whole life on the shore of a lake, a lake that she loves, where she feels happy and free like a seagull. And by chance, a man comes along, and with nothing better to destroys her. While Nina doesn’t hear the last words of Boris’s story idea, when she returns to the house years later, she refers to herself as a seagull. By that point, she has completely fallen apart. She’s gone mad. In her mania, she connects her situation to the seagull that Konstantin shot. It's such a careless act in the hands of a man and she feels that a similar thing has happened to her. That’s the only sort of scenario she can use to make sense out of what happened to her. But Nina doesn’t just call herself a seagull; instead she alternates back and forth between calling herself a seagull and an actress. She’s been told so many different things about herself, that she doesn’t quite know what to believe, but she’s very good at holding onto hope, and that’s what keeps her going. Everything she has to hold onto now is this dream that she has and the purity of that. She’s trying to remind herself that she’s got a purpose other than to be that girl that Boris destroyed or that seagull that Konstantin shot. She’s still got a spark, she’s still alive, and she still has a purpose; the hard work and craft of acting. In October of 1895, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, a doctor and popular Russian writer of short stories and novellas, began work on a play. His previous theatrical work, 'The Wood Demon', had been so roughly panned by critics that he had previously declared he would never write anything for the stage again. When “The Seagull” opened in 1896, the naturalistic style of his writing was so contrary to the melodramas of the time that the first night was a legendary debacle. The play was trying to do something surprising and new; to show people behaving in naturalistic ways, to eschew histrionics and telegraphed emotions for something more nuanced; to allow the actors to truly live inside the characters they were playing, and to introduce the concept of subtext to world drama. It's life itself onstage, with all it's tragic alliances, eloquent thoughtlessness and silent sufferings. Chekhov didn’t live to see cinema emerge as an important global art form. He would never know how significant his contribution to writing and acting would be. The sort of everyday life that is accessible to everyone and understood in it's cruel internal irony by almost no one. It’s a comedy with three female roles, six male roles, four acts, a landscape, much conversation about literature, little action, and five tons of love. The audience talked loudly and jeered the play, rattling the actress who played Nina so much that she lost her voice. In the first act something special started, and a mood of excitement in the audience seemed to grow and grow By the third act the booing was so intense that Chekhov fled the theatre and retreated backstage. The critics savaged the play. Today he's universally recognized as one of the greatest and most influential playwrights in history. 'The Seagull' is a game-changer. You would be hard-pressed to find a drama scholar today who doesn’t think that it marked the beginning of what we call modern drama. No one had even attempted this kind of psychological naturalism. It's a new way of showing behavior that seems very contemporary to an audience now. The camera can capture subtle gradations of emotion and experience in ways that are impossible to do in theater. Cinema can control time differently, and the viewer can experience the actions and reactions of characters in a very particular order. The yearning for love, yearning for connection, yearning for immortality, trying to figure out what it means to live a full life; these are central questions for human beings. "The Seagull" doesn’t necessarily give answers but it asks the question; how do we live our lives? The film remains relevant to audiences for over a century because some things, like the contradictory way human beings feel and behave, never really change. Most of us don’t live on estates with servants. The actual moment to moment reality of the story is not what our every day contemporary life looks like. But our own relationships have in are experienced in very much the same way, and that’s what makes the play, and the film resonant. All of the feelings that the characters have insecurity, fear, hope, longing, and unrequited love; these are human, timeless. These characters express a huge range of emotions. The severe narcissism of Irina; the tragic consequences of irresponsible adult behavior and it's impact on youth are particularly relevant right now. The fact that Nina comes to understand that it’s not about fame, but it’s about endurance, is a huge lesson in life. The film reminds us of the value of art and dreams and how they can elevate one’s experience of the world. It's about love and that’s the subject in which we’re all the most interested in the end. If you’ve ever fallen in love, or had your heart broken, or fallen into a misguided passionate romance, it’s very easy to get swept up in the story of "The Seagull". We’re so capable of such generous behavior towards each other, and such terrible, awful behavior towards each other, and we so easily fall in love with the wrong people. The film shows the glory and the messiness of what it means to be a human being.

Desire is an intriguing game and the first chapter of this interesting series. The game takes a click and point style mechanism, and you must move through the story with various characters. Play more game on basketball legends. It is an emotional story, and you will find yourself wrapped up in the events that unfold. You have to solve a myriad of puzzles and also interact with different people. This is a fantastic and immersive game and is available on all devices including smartphones. Controls A story-filled point and click game Visual novel style Many puzzles to solve People to interact with Black and white background

Get out of the way kids, get to the back of the line, this is my time! I’ve waited 14 years, 14 long years. The anticipation, the excitement, the hope, the suspense. It was all there. All 22 of my years had these emotions. The 8 year old boy inside me who saw the first one was on the edge of his seat. Was it all worth it? Ehhhhh. I’ll be honest, the first Incredibles was brilliant, it wasn’t one of my favourite Pixar films, but it was real good. An animated film about superheroes at an age when I was so into Spiderman, this was my film, and as a kid I loved it. The more Pixar films I’ve seen since, the further down it’s gone on my list off favourite Pixar films. So I was excited to see it, but not over the top that will make this an impartial review. 📷Originally posted by imdcathsmeow This film continues straight from the first one, The Underminer destroys the city despite The Incredibles and Frozones best intentions to save it. The Government aren’t happy that they get involved and don’t revoke the law that prevents superheroes from being in the public eye. Frozone makes a contact with a super rich guy and his sister who wants to change that. Elastigirl becomes the poster girl for this and leaves Mr Incredible to be a house husband which he struggles with. The Screenslaver is the villain who turns and controls people using tv screens. Long story short, The Incredibles saves the day. I don’t want to ruin too much.  This instalment is top stuff, it’s action scenes flow beautifully, the comedy pours out at every necessary moment. Jack-Jack completely steals the show, the scene where he is fighting the raccoon is brilliant. I laughed in the cinema, that’s very rare for me. There is enough there for me, as a sort of adult and fan of the previous film to be happy about, but also new fresh stuff that would make a new fan equally content with.  📷Originally posted by thekidd-n-side However I do have some criticisms with the due, nothing technically because it is wonderfully made, the colours, the sets, the pacing, the mise-en-scene is crafted superbly. It’s beautiful to look at, but that is the mark that Pixar films have set recently. As an audience we shouldn’t expect less than perfect from Pixar. The criticisms I have is that the film has too many messages that aren’t really explored. Normally Pixar films deal with a key issue that is explored but it is normally resolved. Bug’s Life - Class. Wall-E - Environmental issues. Inside Out - Mental Health. With Incredibles 2 however, gender issues, justice system and technology advancements are explored and act as issues that are explored within the film but they really come to nothing.  Mr Incredible struggles with not feeling like a man because he is doing a role as the parent that historically been a womens job. He is the not the bread-winner, he doesn’t feel like a man because he doesn’t have a job. Gags are made throughout the film about this and in the end we really don’t see an acceptance of him being happy that his wife, love of his life is in the spotlight and getting the credit that she wouldn’t get as a mother. I shan’t go into details further about this, nor the other things I noticed because I realise that this is predominantly a kids film. Pixar do normally set a standard when it comes to important issues in their films, whilst their films are entertainment sometimes they can be a key lesson. I just feel that the messages they were putting across were too many, and not integrated into the film like they usually were.  4/5  A Pixar film that doesn’t flop, what a lovely surprise. A brilliant addition to the collection. It doesn’t have the emotional impact that has set Pixar apart from other animated films, nor do it’s messages draw a spotlight on a key messages as well as others have done. It’s great fun, beautifully made and full of action and laughs. Not exactly Incredible, but pretty close.

Dreams give us hope. And if we don't have hope, then what's the point in living? After reading the synopsis of this movie, your reaction will probably be the same as mine at that time. "Jesus, not again another post-apocalyptic film in which the world's population has been decimated to a handful of survivors, while the earth's surface is plagued by bloodthirsty zombies or warlike aliens who are fed up eating salt-less potatoes already for years and start to plunder our natural salt mines here on earth". Well, in essence, it sort of comes down to that, but the apocalyptic part isn't really noticeable. You won't see any zombie or alien. Then again, the epidemic that caused the extinction of the world's population, has broken out 25 years ago. Perhaps that's why the emphasis here is on the survivors instead of the Apocalypse itself. The world was flooded with zombies. Or not? Anna (Lulu Antariksa) is such a survivor. She's 19 years old and therefore hasn't really experienced the happening. She lives secluded in a fairly protected domain (although a wooden fence is not really something that could stop a zombie stampede) along with her deathly ill mother and her brother David (Roshon Fegan). But after a while, she stays behind all alone when her mother dies a natural death and her brother falls into the hands of a stranger who whistles like a cowboy. At first, it's not clear in whose hands he has fallen. Afterward, you'll come to know that there are wandering groups that are called "berserkers" and that hunt other people for supplies. What people should really be afraid of in this dilapidated society, remains a mystery throughout this movie. The world is ruined. Let's get religious. So, don't expect something similar to "How it ends". It's more like "Holy ghost people". The day Peter (Colin O'Donoghue) apparently accidentally turns up at Anna's house, it seems as if he has a way out to a more worry-free life for Ann. He's the co-founder of a religious commune that offers protection and friendly companionship. Something Anna needs, now that she's alone and lonely. The calmness and kindness that Peter exudes (as befits a true spiritual leader) convinces her. She didn't know there were some flies in the ointment. Eventually, it seems like she was invited for very different reasons. And before she realizes it, she finds herself in a similar situation. Kind of imprisoned. Only at a different location. It's the end of the world as we know it. "What still remains" isn't an exciting film with nerve-racking confrontations and fierce life-and-death battles. It's rather a socio-drama and a "coming of age" in a world that tries to get back on its feet. It's a story about trust and mistrust. And, of course, the revival of isolated communes where individuals position themselves above others in a certain way, in order for them to sail a safer course. That there's a religious aspect, is quite logical. In the face of adversity, there's always that moment when people start focusing on a higher power. The fact there are clever people who then misuse this in their favor and come up with their own form of religion, is also not earth-shattering. The most positive aspect of this film is the interplay between Lulu Antariksa and Colin O'Donoghue. For the rest, it brings nothing new and you get an I-have-seen-this-already feeling. Only I caught myself humming "It's the end of the world as we know it". Only the phrase "And I feel fine", felt out of place. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB

(The Nest, 2021 | 1h 47m | London, Fulham Road Picturehouse, 142 Fulham Road, Sun 22nd Aug @ 14:00) https://we-love-cinema.com/movies/49401-the-nest/ "The Nest" Rory (Jude Law), an charismatic ambitious entrepreneur and former commodities broker, persuades his American wife, Allison (Carrie Coon), and their children Benjamin (Charlie Shotwell) and Samantha (Dona Roche) to leave the comforts of suburban America and return to his native England. He relocates his family to England with dreams of profiting from booming 1980’s London. Sensing opportunity, Rory rejoins his former firm and leases a centuries-old country manor, with grounds for Allison’s horses and plans to build a stable. But as his wife, Allison, struggles to adapt, and soon the promise of a lucrative new beginning starts to unravel, the couple have to face the unwelcome truths lying beneath the surface of their marriage. The family buckles beneath an unaffordable lifestyle and increasing isolation as they head toward a seemingly inevitable breakdown. "The Nest" is set in 1986 to explore the link between America and 'The UK'.  Pre-financial crash, the emerging global market, and London at the height of deregulation. The film wants to intrinsically link the celebrated values of the time, such as risk and ambition, to the issues at the core of the family’s conflict. It's an era of capitalist opportunism that promised plenty, and Rory sees it as a way to have the life they always dreamed of. But the move to England quickly erodes the equality that Rory and Allison have in America, and Allison’s identity is subsumed by being his wife. They slip into traditional gender roles, propping each other up in co-dependency. As he tries to face his past she becomes the silent enabler, succumbing to his mythomania, all at the cost of her family’s wellbeing. Within this setting the film reflects on personal experience to create an unsettling, naturalistic family drama that explores how a move across 'The Atlantic' uproots the dormant truths that lie beneath this family’s dynamic. Within the family, the priority is to explore a marriage in a truthful way. Rory and Allison are a complex couple, deeply in love and attracted to each other, they've a seemingly equal partnership that is slowly unmasked as a co-created myth. Their individual dualities make them both perfect partners and polar opposites. They're respectively plagued by aspirational values of the society around them, and the duty handed down to them by previous generations. The film contemplates the corrosive value system of the 1980s and it's human toll, as it spreads like a sickness nobody realized is there. Rory is it's embodiment; the unrepentant capitalist for whom wealth and status become the measure of self-worth. This moral poison enters his home, sending everyone down their own self-destructive paths. Growing up between America and England in the 80’s and 90’s, you experienced a stark difference in atmosphere between the two places that has long stayed with us. We always feel the contrast provides a haunting tonal shift in a film and this backdrop sparked the conception of "The Nest". Blurring social critique and character drama, "The Nest" reflects on the moral and spiritual emptiness of an unselfconsciously aspirational society, one in which we forsake everything to get what we want, even when we no longer know why we want it. "The Nest" explores themes of masculinity, gender roles, family structure, and 'The American Dream' by examining a family at a very specific time and place that's both a unique moment in history and one that reflects today.

To utilize a tesseract… all you need is to tap into the right frequency. You just need your mind. I’ve never tried L.S.D. in my life. But while watching this confusing and psychedelic-looking movie, I thought my wife used some exotic spices in my dinner I’d just eaten. After a while, I still didn’t know what this movie was about. It’s something about space traveling with use of the 5th dimension where one moves through the universe by using just his mind. Mr. And Mrs. Murry (Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw), two scientists, worked on this for years and are convinced it’s possible. Until one day Mr. Murry actually disappears without a trace and leaves his family behind. What? Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who? And before they know it, three eccentric-looking, fairy-like women show up. They are called Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) and Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling). The three are a sort of space police who heard a cry for help and moved quickly through the universe to the spot where Meg (Storm Reid), daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Murry, lives. And together with her brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and Calvin (Levi “Better watch out” Miller), Mr. Popularity at school, they’re off on a rescue mission. Tv makes women look chunkier. Look at Oprah Winfrey what a movie does. This rescue mission leads them from one obscure and bizarre place to the other. From the colorful planet Uriel, where Mrs. Whatsit turns into a fluttering carpet with a face that looks like a gigantic sprout after she has conversed with a whole bunch of flying flowers. And they talk in color. For real? Yes really. Next, they arrive in a gloomy, dark world covered with clouds, with strangely stacked rock formations. Worlds with immensely sheepish creatures on stilts. And a spreading black smoke called Camazotz. Apparently, this cloud represents evil. And it’s spreading rapidly in space. And all this can be seen in the company of a huge, giant Oprah Winfrey. Whether this has been done intentionally to justify her body weight or it’s described like that in a book by Madeleine L’Engle, where this film is based on, I really don’t know. But it looked absurd anyway. Wasn’t it a bit exaggerated? “A wrinkle in time” is a fantasy movie, with a gang of children on an adventure in deep space. It reminded me sometimes of Wonka’s chocolate factory where every room was a new surprise as well. Only this film is not the same as its other Disney predecessors. Even though every Disney production is clearly aimed at a younger audience, there was always a bit of magic that appealed to adults as well. To be honest: I always have and still can enjoy a Disney movie. Well, this is the first film of them where I can’t agree with that fact. I was really annoyed at certain moments. The cacophony of colors and the absurdity of places where they traveled to, felt really exaggerated. The moralistic messages are a bit exorbitant and theatrical. Sometimes it was a bit too obvious. Or did the makers feel the need to give the youth of today an educational kick in the pants to draw their attention to those certain values in life again? A lesson about good and evil. And furthermore, being different doesn’t mean that you are an outsider and that it’s not normal to be scorned by others. Big spectacle. No, this Disney film wasn’t my cup of tea. I even thought it was just plain boring. Despite the fact the cast is filled with some famous stars, the acting itself was sometimes even laughable. Even a bonding with the characters was missing. So I really didn’t care in the end whether they would be catapulted through the universe or not. The only one of the three cosmic goddesses who could charm me was Reese Witherspoon. And that because of her brutal attitude and a big mouth. Maybe fans of the book will be excited while watching this film. If, however, it was the intention to proclaim the message about goodness and equality, it might have been better if they didn’t make a spectacle out of it. My rating 2/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(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.

(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.