Search Results

(London Film Festival, October 11th, 2019, Vue West End, 3 Cranbourn St, Leicester Square, London WC2H 7AL, United Kingdom, 18:00 pm) https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::permalink=givemeliberty&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::context_id= "Give Me Liberty" Victor (Chris Galust), a hapless young 'Russian American', drives a handicapped transport in Milwaukee. He shares an appartement with his grandfather Steve (Steve Wolski). Already late on a day when street protests break out, Vic reluctantly agrees to ferry his grandfather and a dozen elderly Russians to a funeral, but they’re distressed when he stops first in a predominantly 'African American' neighborhood to pick up Tracy (Lauren Spencer), a black woman with 'ALS'. On the verge of being fired, Vic’s day goes from bad to worse. The central character is a driver in Milwaukee who would be driving around a number of people with disabilities or people from just different walks of life. The medical transport driver job has a lot of hilarious, touching, wonderful, moving stories. And that's the starting point of the story. A wild slew of hilarious characters, combining comedy and investigation; almost like a detective story and love story and road movie with the main character driving the van, but some revisions later it became a day-in-the-life of this character Vic. He possesses this animal charisma that translates into any culture. He's formidable physically. Dima (Max Stoianov) is basically a fighter with a one-million-dollar smile, who walks into the room and just charms everyone. He has the physique of a boxer, boxer charisma, all the qualities of a person who would charm every member of the audience within five minutes. And being from a Russian, or 'Soviet', background. We just didn’t know where to turn. All of a sudden, we're receiving headshots of metrosexuals from New York who just want to look tough with a three-day stubble but nothing else to show for themselves other than clearly going to the gym every day and mixing it with yoga. We just didn’t imagine at the time how we would gather the right professional talent from all over the nation, given our resources and given our task. It’s probably easier to write characters than to find them sometimes. Set in Milwaukee, with locally cast non-actors, the film creates a genuine atmosphere of chaos without having the entire production fall apart. A group of non-English-speaking octogenarians, people with disabilities, a multi-ethnic local non-professional cast, and a few Russian-based actors. Let’s top that off with a 'VAN', the film’s main location, crammed with cast and crew location that doesn’t stop cruising at 40-75mph through America’s most-segregated city. To sum it up, in order to create the right sense of chaos in film, a form of controlled chaos needed to be invented; the kind that would allow us to be blessed with the spontaneous and the sublime. It’s refreshing to set a movie in an American city that isn’t Atlanta or Louisiana, or whichever state is currently offering the best tax incentives. The city of Milwaukee is very inspiring. People outside of Milwaukee can't wrap their heads around Milwaukee either. But it's an interesting city in many respects. It’s the backbone of America. It’s a historical American city. It’s a segregated city with a lot of ethnic history that retains it's authenticity in 2018, which can’t be said for a lot of cities in America. It has it's own character, it's own mood. It's seasonal changes. There’s a quiet beauty to it, which is not as obvious as, say, New York, for instance. A raw, inventive 'Day In The Life Story' about marginalized characters encountering literal and figurative roadblocks. A charming, comedic look at ordinary people and a rigged system, "Give Me Liberty" has a flavor of 'The Czech New Wave', using a supremely light touch, wry dissent, nonprofessional actors, and unscripted moments. It's heart and soul rests in wonderful moments of impromptu interaction that are so genuine and contain a universe of compassion and understanding. "Give Me Liberty" deals with the concept of 'The American Dream". Those who are really happy to announce the death of 'The American Dream' fundamentally don’t care about it and do not understand it. Certain political issues are touched upon without being touched upon. We're talking about things without talking about them. And this is great that this question is there. 'The American Dream' is not something that's here waiting for you. 'The American Dream' is something that people who come to America must bring with them. 'That’s 'The American Dream'. So if you come here and say 'The American Dream' is gone, well then you didn’t bring it with you. Because 'The American Dream' is only dead if it’s dead within you. It’s not out there, it’s not sitting there waiting to be grabbed. In this sense, we're all idealists. We really believe in this country, as imperfect as it may be, as every country is. Certain things we strongly dislike, certain things we admire. It’s a wonderful place. 'The American Dream' is a big part of the foundation upon which the house of 'Give Me Liberty' is built. It's this concern for the idealism, the fading of which we lament in America. And it comes through in a subtle way, that this is part of the palette of America today; we've people from different walks of life, of different colors, of different ages, of different desires, in this small van, shuttling through one of the most segregated places in America, through a turbulent time of an extreme liberal and conservative divide, and yet none of it's there on that shuttle. What we've on that shuttle is just a motley crew of humanity! A motley crew of humanity who finds their common denominator. Whether it’s at the cemetery, you know, they’ve gotta go to the cemetery, they’ve gotta go to 'The Eisenhower Center', they’ve gotta go to all these places, but they end up sitting at the same table celebrating life and embracing it as it's. Because at the end of the day, as pathetic as it may seem, as infused with pathos as it may sound, it’s about honoring people in the frame, people who are trying to the best of their ability to live their lives with dignity. But what we've today is nothing short of destiny. We need to be practical, but we also cannot negate the spiritual side of this profession. We respect it a lot. We understand that things like inspiration, the metaphysical tissue of the matter, they’re important! To deny it, to not acknowledge that, would be foolish.

(London Film Festival, October 13th, 2018/Picturehouse Central, 20:45) (Release Info London schedule; November 6th, 2018/Picturehouse Central, 18:30) "Wildlife" Fourteen-year-old Joe (Ed Oxenbould), is the only child of Jeanette (Carey Mulligan) and Jerry Brinson (Jake Gyllenhaal), a housewife and a golf pro, in a small town in 1960s Montana. Nearby, an uncontrolled forest fire rages close to the Canadian border, and when Jerry loses his job, and his sense of purpose, he decides to join the cause of fighting the fire, leaving his wife and son to fend for themselves. Suddenly forced into the role of an adult, Joe witnesses his mother’s struggle as she tries to keep her head above water. But Jerry can't deal with his new, secondary role. He takes on a badly paid job fighting fires in the neighbouring hills, which fuels the conflict at home. Joe can only watch helplessly as his family seems set to self-destruct. Awakening her fiery spirit and charm, Jeannette convinces the local 'YMCA' to give her a job as a swimming instructor. Joe, for his part, lands a gig at a local photography studio. Too prideful to look for work in town, Jerry instead joins in fighting the nearby wildfires. Alone for the first time in years, Jeannette finds herself with more independence than she can deal with. When she's befriended by one of her students, she begins to question her circumstances and her choices. Cautious and curious, Joe must learn how to navigate the complex dynamics of adult relationships and decide what to make of the woman who used to just be Mom. As simmering tensions begin to boil, the Brinsons must decide if their family is worth saving. "Wildlife" is elegantly adapted from Richard Ford’s novel of the same name. Actor Paul Dano makes an impressive debut as a filmmaker and Carey Mulligan delivers one of her finest performances to date as Jeanette, a complex woman whose self-determination and self-involvement disrupts the values and expectations of a 1960s nuclear family. It's about a kid seeing his parents change and their marriage break, and through his parent's failures, having to grow up. It's a coming of age story for all three: mother, father, and son. While it's about struggle and heartbreak and disillusionment, it's a film guided by love. It's a family portrait as a means of acceptance, and of letting go. With precise details and textures of it's specific time and place, "Wildlife" commits to the viewpoint of a teenage boy observing the gradual dissolution of his parent's marriage. This is a film about family. There's an extraordinary amount of love. There's also incredible turbulence. "Willlife" opens a window to that duality. It's an uncanny feeling of sharing an inner life with this book. Establish your own values, means, goal; leave the book behind so it doesn’t get in the way, and where it’s safest. The film explores feelings, ask questions about family and parents. To explore a loss of hope, a family unraveling, and then finally surviving. How even when the worst thing happens, we can still survive. We can still be family. We may never be the same, but we still have love. And we still have our lives to live. Cinematographer Diego Garcia's clean aesthetic, the film's authentic period design and Dano's precise, mannered direction ground the film in time and place, bringing focus to the characters. Dano chooses for his version a coming-of-age story, set in the postwar 'American Midwest', told through a feminist lens. The film strikes the meaning and the cost of 'The American Dream'. "Wildlife" paints a portrait of a family and an America ready to explode. "Wildlife" is made with a sensitivity and at a level of craft that are increasingly rare in movies.

Boy meets girl, they fall in love. A concept older than any medium of storytelling, with hundreds and thousands of books and films that rely on this premise. The Quebecois filmmaker Pascal Plante is one of many who told this story in his feature film debut that has already been shown at several film festivals between Buenos Aires and Edinburgh. Les faux tatouages tells the story of the hardcore punk fans Théo and Mag who live in Montréal and meet after a punk rock show on Théo's 18th birthday. After discussing some music they go to her place and have sex which is only the beginning of a love story whose ending seems already predestined. The premise is one that we've seen a good number of times before, so it's the delivery that counts. And this film delivers on many different levels. This starts in the first scene which has stunning visuals and sound design, and it sets the standard for the rest of the film. It is not only a love story but at the same time a film about music, and the music in the film, mostly by Canadian musicians, works in every scene, sometimes aggressive, sometimes breathtakingly beautiful. The film is a special treat for all fans of punk rock because they will not only know what Théo and Mag are talking about when they first meet, they will also recognise the band shirts Théo is wearing and the vinyl covers on Mag's wall, from Patti Smith over The Clash to The Pixies. The love story itself is very simple. The way glances and touches say more than thousand words, just like opposed to that, the silly talk that only people can understand who have been helplessly in love before. Both elements are there and in its authenticity the film reminds of Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise, one scene in particular when Mag is playing a song on her guitar for him and all the emotions are in the way he looks at her during the song. The characters in Fake Tattoos have a past, and they have a future too, together or not, but this film takes place in the NOW. While it's obvious that there's darkness in Théo's character and in his past it is never really revealed, even though the film gives some hints about what might have happened. It's not relevant, what matters is the brief relationship that the film focuses on, a relationship that isn't called by its name and gets an expiry date in the beginning. The film is deeply melancholic and optimistic at the same time. It feels very personal and Pascal Plante shows a lot of love - not only for his characters but also for music, punk rock in particular. Both Anthony Therrien and Rose-Marie Perreault give great performances and the beautiful script, the camera work and the sound design contribute their part to form one the most genuinely lovely films of this decade. Every punk rock fan, or every fan of little indie love stories should watch this if they get the chance (hopefully this film will get a decent release). The only thing that could be criticised is that the film might sometimes be a bit too self-indulgent in portraying the romance of Théo and Mag but everybody with feelings should be at least slightly moved by that anyway.

"The Stones And Brian Jones"     Featuring revealing interviews with all the main players and unseen archive released for the first time, "The Stones And Brian Jones" explores the creative musical genius of Jones, key to the success of the band, and uncovers how the founder of what became the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world was left behind in the shadows of history.   "The Stones And Brian Jones" uncovers the true story and legacy of Brian Jones, the founder and creative genius of The Rolling Stones. When Brian Jones left The Rolling Stones in 1969, he had been a burden for a few years. A loose, unpredictable cannon. Jones surely couldn't have imagined that seven years earlier. The guitarist was the founder of the band, in the beginning the indisputable leader and even the main showpiece, although he wasn't the lead singer. But he had charisma and sex appeal to spare. Alcohol and drugs undermined his reliability, however, and by the mid-1960s Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were the creative core of the band. As a schoolboy aged 14, filmmaker Nick Broomfield met Brian Jones, by chance, on a train. Brian was at the height of his success, with the world at his feet, yet just six years later he would be dead. The documentary looks at the relationships and rivalries within The Rolling Stones in those formative years. The Stones and Brian Jones, which is filled to the brim with archival footage, from the problems Jones had with his parents over the many children with various children to his turbulent relationship with Anita Pallenberg. It explores the iconoclastic freedom and exuberance of the 60s, a time of intergenerational conflict and sexual turmoil which reflects on where we're today.   Featuring revealing interviews with all the main players and unseen archive released for the first time, the film explores the creative musical genius of Jones, key to the success of the band, and uncovers how the founder of what became the greatest rock & roll band in the world was left behind in the shadows of history. The Rolling Stones were a major influence in music business. Brian and Mick were heroes of the day, their rebellion and breaking of the rules were a great inspiration to us. The documentary is an opportunity to look at that formative growing up time until the shock of Brian’s death in 1969, the darkest moment in the history of The Stones, when things changed. For decades among the foremost names in documentary (more recently for 'My Father And Me', 'Marianne And Leonard: Words of Love', 'Whitney: Can I Be Me, Tales of The Grim Sleeper'), director Nick Broomfield studied at the National Film School under Professor Colin Young who had a great influence on his work, encouraging participant observation, as well as introducing him to filmmaker Joan Churchill. Together Nick and Joan made several films "Juvenile Liaison", "Tattooed Tears", "Soldier Girls", "Lily Tomlin" as well as "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer". The film is influenced by the observational style of Fred Wiseman, Robert Leacock and Pennebaker, before moving to the more idiosyncratic style.   Written by Gregory Mann

When I finished watching Vice, my first thought was: Oh-my-goodness, I wonder if Dick Cheney and his family sued the producers. Later I realized that a lot of Cheney's fundamentalist views, strategies and actions, had come straight out of his autobiography. What's more, many Americans approve of his actions, think of him as a national hero, An American version of Horatio Nelson, perhaps. So much for British naivety! My next Oh-my-goodness moment was when the false final credits came onto the screen. I wondered whether I had dropped off to sleep for a moment, lost some crucial point. Were the Cheneys really spending their golden years breeding golden retrievers? How quaint. But no. VICE is clearly divided into a first and second part, and the false credits mark the division. The first half shows Dick Cheney growing up in Nebraska, a typical middle class youngster from the midwest, getting drunk, flunking school, being scolded by Lynne his then girlfriend, soon to become wife, accomplice, partner, soulmate. He sobers up, marries Lynne,cuts down on the booze, develops a taste for pastries and an expanding belly. He climbs the political ladder and also becomes immensely rich as CEO of Halliburton. The second half is triggered by THE PHONE CALL: an invitation to talk about becoming George W.'s running mate, as Vice President of the USA (notoriously a nothing job). Cheney accepts, but on his own terms and becomes the most powerful VP in history. His are the major strategical decisions, it is he who maneuvers the US into invading Iraq. He lays blame where no blame is due, makes and breaks careers, hires and fires at will. To portray this power game, director Adam McKay (The Big Short, 2015) opts for good, fast dialog (with the exception of a curious bedtime, Shakespearean-type repartee between Mr. and Mrs. Cheney) and a generous injection of humor . Otherwise Cheney would be just too scary. Perhaps the film is a little too long, a little too verbose, takes too long to get going; the second half is faster, more interesting than the first. But as a whole it is entertaining, and gives a idea of what was going on behind the scenes in the United States government, both before and after 9/11, 2001. Christian Bale as Dick Cheney is as impressive as he is unrecognizable. He grows his character from callow youth, to smoothly accomplished politician answering to some superior officer, to Vice President Richard Cheney, answerable to none. Bale's Cheney is cold, calculating, enigmatic. His face is a mask. He is like a sinister octopus, with tentacles everywhere. Amy Adams is no less formidable as the formidable Lynne, the perfect American wife always standing by her husband, defending him, applauding him, accompanying him. The rest of the cast is little short of outstanding: Steve Carell is Donald Rumsfeld, Sam Rockwell is George W., Lisa Gay Hamilton is Condoleezza Rice, and so on. All are extraordinary. The cinematography by Australian Greig Fraser is efficient and gives an idyllic tinge to the scenes of family life with the Cheneys (making Dick Cheney himself an even more sinister character!). So, VICE for all its shortcomings, its verbosity, its occasional flabbiness, is well worth seeing, both for the outstanding acting and as a social document.

Director: David Leitch (Contains Small Spoilers) Amidst the array of superhero movies this year, Deadpool 2 offers a unique perspective in the genre with its humour, style, and the characterisation of its protagonist. Like the first, Deadpool 2 brings calamity, witty lines, R-rated sequences and dialogue, and the breaking of the fourth wall which made the first film so popular. So how does this film compare to the rest? The Good: Ryan Reynolds. Like the first encounter, Ryan Reynolds plays Deadpool with such ease. Many would find it hard to find another who could play this fun, cheeky anti-hero as well as he does, and it it would seem that the role was made just for him (ignoring his first attempt in Wolverine Origins). After learning that Reynolds half-scripted some of the lines, it is clear he is whole-heartedly devoted to the role and will inevitably keep playing Deadpool if a strong public need still requires him to do so. Domino. Unlike many of the other new characters who were brushed aside, Domino (played by Zazie Beetz) became the latest of likeable badass heroes. What seemed to be an endorsement and extension of female empowerment seen in Black Panther, introducing Domino into Deadpool 2 was a clever move. Her power, being ‘luck’, meant that CGI was not needed (i.e. no power lasers, steel body, etc), but what it did mean was that we got to see cool, fun action and fighting sequences that looked extremely impressive. Although we didn’t learn much about Domino, her presence and involvement was vital in bringing something new and refreshing into the franchise. Action. Loads and loads of action. Action scenes made this film so much fun to watch, and although CGI realism were a hit and miss in some places, overall the fighting scenes were thrilling. Some of the best action scenes involved Josh Brolin as Cable who was superb for a man who just entered his fifties. Also playing Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War, Brolin has had a great year and has made himself more known to a new, younger generation. The Bad: The Storytelling. Like the first, the weakness in Deadpool 2 lies within the storyline and the telling of. In the first instalment we get to see the necessary origin story, but in the final chapter it becomes a mundane adventure of “kill the baddie and save the girl”. In Deadpool 2 the story was slightly more complex, but it never really felt as epic as the storyline may suggest. Deadpool has to save a boy with relentless fire power, A.K.A Firefist, from killing the guy who has been torturing him from a young age. If the boy succeeds in his vengeance then his taste for blood will lead to an apocalyptic future. We know this because the boy is the reason why Cable, a soldier-type ‘villain’, has traveled through time. In the future, Firefist has killed Cable’s family, so to stop this from happening Cable travels to the past with the intent to kill the boy. The problem with the movie is that we don’t really get the sense of what the future looks like with only the movie giving the audience a few second glimpses. If we take X-men: Days of Future Past as another example with a similar storyline, we see and get to explore a dystopian future caused by the actions of one mutant - Mystique. We therefore understand the urgency of what is at stake. But in Deadpool 2, this understanding is non-existent. We don’t even get the chance to know Cable’s family which would have made the audience more sympathetic to him and his cause, and this leads us to the fact that the film suffers from a..... Lack of Emotion/Too Much Humour. Some of the most poignant and memorable scenes were those that were stripped down to its heart. Throughout, Deadpool is in emotional pain due to the loss of his girlfriend. Seeing him meet his girlfriend in the ‘afterlife’ were truly outstanding moments and gave a massive contrast to the ‘over-the-topness’ abundance throughout the film’s entirety. But these scenes were too few for me to really care about him or any other characters. When things did get ‘real’, we really never got the chance to feel what we should be feeling, because Deadpool always had to throw in a quip or jibe. Some of the seriousness of what was actually happening were brushed aside by a joke or some other form of humour: Colossus trying to comfort Deadpool, Firefist’s anger, Cable’s ferocity and intensity, Deadpool’s sacrificial finale, all were extinguished by Deadpool’s whimsy wisecracks. Of course, this is typical of the character, but it prevented the movie from being elevated to more than just your average superhero action film. Introduction to New Characters (Major spoiler here). As fore-mentioned, the introduction to Domino gave the film a breath of fresh air. But there were other characters who were introduced that could have done the same. When Deadpool decides to get a team together to help him on his quest to save the boy, a hilarious sequence of interviews of willing and potential members takes place. Unfortunately for them, apart from Domino, they are all abruptly killed off, so some hardcore comic-book fans may be left disappointed that the film didn’t get to explore other characters such as Shatterstar. For me though, the biggest disappointment was killing Terry Crews. I had no idea he was in this film, and when the film sets up the notion that Terry Crews is a superhero, I got so excited. But he dies within 10 minutes and so my excitement was short-lived. Furthermore, the sequel again invites along the same two X-men characters, but by the end of the film we still really didn’t get an in-depth look at their backstory. Only Colossus seemed to have done something useful (fighting Juggernaut), but what the film doesn’t seem to understand is that Colossus isn’t always made of steel and that he can transform back to his human body, so it would have been interesting to see what his human physical qualities are. The other X-man, Negasonic Teenage Warhead (whose name I had to Google), didn’t really do anything, and I was left still confused about what her powers are. We find out that Negasonic has a girlfriend who also has super powers, but we only get to see a glimpse of what she can do for only a few seconds towards the finale. Then there’s the Juggernaut. Yes, he is definitely an improved version from the Juggernaut in X-men 3, but his CGI look was still too CGI and I would have liked to know more about his story and his background. Instead he was a side character only used to get Colossus, Negasonic and her girlfriend more involved in the movie, as opposed to using a character to progress the story in a meaningful way. So, should you go see Deadpool 2? Sure. It’s definitely an enjoyable movie. Is it great? Not really, especially when you compare it to Avengers: Infinity War, released only a couple of weeks before Deadpool 2. Some might find this comparison to be unfair, but Marvel has set the bar for storytelling, character sympathy, and pure ‘epicness’. If Deadpool is going to continue to involve other super-powered heroes, it needs to develop them and build a rapport between them and the audience. The film also needs to let emotional moments be emotional, and not let humour get in the way of allowing the audience to be more responsive to sentiment. Rating - 6.5/10

Jonas said something attacked them. Something big enough to destroy a new submarine. I’m happy I’ve watched this movie on the big screen. On the silver screen, the Megalodon (hence the title “The Meg“) was even more impressive. But that’s the only thing that can be said about this film. Every film with a shark as the main subject that suddenly transforms into a psychopathic, bloodthirsty hunter, is of course mercilessly compared to the film of all films “Jaws“. A milestone in this genre and unbeatable. Give “The Shallows” and “47 Meters down” a chance and you’ll notice that you watch it rather apathetic without any sense of tension. If you want to stand out in the shark genre, you can throw in some tornadoes so sharks move around in a strange way. By air that is. In case of “The Meg“, they brought in a prehistoric shark who managed to swim through a sort of natural barrier in the ocean. If you want to exceed “Jaws“, you make it all even bigger and more impressive. But apart from the gigantic dimensions of “The Meg“, this film was nowhere truly gigantic. No fun, Statham no fun. I was looking forward to seeing “The Meg“, even though I knew it would be a fiercely exaggerated and brainless spectacle. The fact that Jason Statham plays in it was good enough for me to give it a try. You never get bored with Statham. And it’s always fun to see him kick someone’s ass. I was curious to see how he would handle this giant shark. That was the first thing I was disappointed with. It looked as if they had made a serious Statham out of him. No dry humor and witty one-liners. All the familiar humor gone. And probably they also threatened to wash his mouth out with soap every time he would start to swear and say the “F” word. Statham the deep-sea diver who’s pining away somewhere in an Asian bar because he’s feeling guilty about abandoning his former crew on the bottom of the ocean. And afterward, there’s also something romantic between him and the Chinese oceanographer Suyin (Bingbing Li). And he also takes care of the lovely daughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). Can it be cornier? This shark ignores all the tasty snacks. Yes, it can be even cornier when the giant shark also starts to behave civilized. Admit it. Don’t you think such a mega-shark is constantly hungry? So when he ends up near an overcrowded beach with an immense amount of young people splashing in the salty water, wouldn’t you expect a bloodbath with an unprecedented number of torn teenage bodies? It’s not that I look forward to such a scene, but you expect that a little bit anyway. Again this was a disappointing feature. I even began to doubt the proper functioning of the natural radar system of this giant shark. And furthermore, there was only one moment I almost jumped out of my skin when an innocent young whale bumped into a window. That says a lot about the eeriness of this movie. Show no mercy, sharky. Isn’t that what you want to see while watching a movie like this? The increasing tension and the redeeming end in which the endangered characters kill that vicious animal. You sigh with relief as you see the dismembered carcass of the shark sink to the bottom of the ocean. And you feel sorry for the attacked victims. In this film, it’s the other way around. I almost cheered the moment the most annoying character in the film saw the giant, razor-sharp teeth of the shark in close-up. In fact, I hoped that “The Meg” could somehow return to its natural habitat, after which mankind would finally realize not to break the rules of Mother Nature every time. And that final fight was like the battle between Achab and Moby-Dick. The popcorn was for free. All in all, this wasn’t really worth a visit to the cinema. I’m already glad they made a mistake at the candy stand and gave back too much cash, so the candy me and my wife bought was almost for free. The popcorn tasted twice as good during this popcorn film. And mind you, not because of the movie. It had nothing to do with that. In retrospect, “The meg” was a mega disappointment. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

The thing about getting older is looking back, it doesn’t matter how old you are, life always feels the same length. Like both forever and not very long. You’ve just seen “Uncut Gems” and you feel the nerves raging through your body after watching this ultra-nervous film? Well, I recommend you to watch the film “Colewell“. Believe me. After watching this film, you’ll feel completely relaxed again. There are no situations full of agitated behavior. No feverish activity. Everything is calm and peaceful. This cozy and pleasant film progresses at a leisurely pace. Like the gently rippling water in a quiet stream. Just about the pace of someone in old age who performs the same ritual every day and eagerly awaits his well-deserved retirement. Only Nora (Karen Allen) was not yet ready for that well-deserved rest that is now being forced upon her. The same routine every morning. Nora is an older lady who runs a local post office in the small village of Colewell, somewhere in Pennsylvania. And trust me on this, when I say you can admire her morning routine several times. A morning where she will check the chicken coop for freshly laid eggs. And every time she checks the state of one of the laying hens because it’s upset because of newly added fellow hens and thus refuses to squeeze such a fragile object through her poopybutthole. Then it’s time for breakfast (with a firm omelet made with fresh eggs) and a getting dressed ritual before she opens the door of the post office (located at her place) to welcome the villagers. Everything is performed dutifully and meticulously. And I’m sure she did this from day one. A changing world. “Colewell” is about aging and the preservation of certain values of life. At the same time, it’s also about the fear of losing these certain values. And the rapidly changing world around us. When a decision is made to forget about certain post offices and integrate them into the larger whole, Nora sees those values disappearing like snow in the sun. The day after she’s being confronted with this terrible decision at the US Postal Service headquarters, she sinks into an emotional pit and consciously skips her daily rituals. As if it all no longer matters. The choices that were proposed to her are both not adequate solutions for her. Relocating to a larger city to work there at the post office. Or retire. Both are alternatives that Nora disregards. The post office has a social function. The post office in Colewell has an additional function. It’s the meeting place for the local population. There’s gossiping, stockings are knitted, food is exchanged and life stories shared. In short, it’s the heart of a community. And the members of this community are heartbroken when they are told that their beloved assembly point is about to disappear. Initiatives are being taken to turn the tide and efforts are being made to safeguard Nora’s workplace. But as soon as they realize that this is a futile effort, everyone accepts the situation and the social contacts move to other locations. To the dismay of Nora. Do you want an action-rich movie? Skip this one. “Colewell” is endearing, serene and melancholic at the same time. A subdued drama about how it feels to grow older and then suddenly realize that your functional role has been played out and two arrogant younger people say this without hesitation in your face. Or you’ll be flexible or you pack it up and make room for the future generation. A realistic character study, without frills. But not entirely. The moment Ella (Hannah Gross) shows up at Nora’s place, realism turns into vagueness. It’s not really clear whether this is Nora’s free-spirited daughter or a figment of Nora’s imagination representing the younger Nora. Anyway. Do you like action-rich movies that are nervewracking exciting? Well, I suggest skipping this one. The easy-going nature of the film may well get on your nerves. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB

(Release Info London schedule; December 8th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 12:00) "The House That Jack Built" America in the 1970s. We follow the highly intelligent Jack (Matt Dillon) through five incidents and are introduced to the murders that define Jack’s development as a serial killer. We experience the story from Jack’s point of view. He views each murder as an artwork in itself, even though his dysfunction causes problems for him in the outside world. Despite the fact that the final and inevitable police intervention is drawing ever nearer, which both provokes and puts pressure on Jack, he's contrary to all logic set on taking greater and greater chances. Along the way we experience Jack’s descriptions of his.personal condition, problems and thoughts through a recurring conversation with the unknown Verge (Bruno Ganz), a grotesque mixture of sophistry and an almost childlike self-pity, and in-depth explanations of, for Jack, dangerous and difficult maneuvers. Architect turned serial killer. Jack is a serial killer who accumulates bodies in a walk-in freezer while he tries to build his dream house. Meanwhile, he dialogues with the voice of his conscience, and makes more and more clumsy mistakes in his crimes. He leads us through his thought processes behind his increasingly more depraved acts of murder which he names 'incidents'. Lady 1 (Uma Thurman), Lady 2 (Siobhan Fallon Hogan), Lady 3 (Sofie Gråbøl) and Simple (Riley Keough) are all in the rank of unfortunate women who encounter Jack on his way. As he retells his crimes to mysterious Verge as if they're all individual works of art in themselves, the audience is invited to question the nature of artistry, where it's limits lie and when is far too far? Verge challenges and explores Jack’s stream of consciousness through a recurrent dialogue. Lars von Trier returns to the director’s chair to present the world with his most daring and provocative work to date, "The House That Jack Built". It's an overflowing, twisted, very black comedy with which he returned to Cannes years after being declared persona non grata because of his controversial statements. For many years he made films about good women. This is a film about an evil man. This time the topic of discussion is violence and art, and violence as art. It's a dark and sinister story, yet presented through a philosophical and occasional humorous tale. And with pitch black humour and undeniable cinematic vision, the film delights in taking us there. All is mixed with paintings, images from his own films and those of others, animated interludes, Glenn Gould and even images, yes, of the holocaust. The greatest cathedrals have sublime artwork hidden in the darkest of corners for only God to see.

"The Old Oak" (Picturehouse Fulham Road)     The Old Oak is a special place. Not only is it the last pub standing, it is the only remaining public space where people can meet in a once thriving mining community that has now fallen on hard times after 30 years of decline. TJ Ballantyne (Dave Turner) the landlord hangs on to The Old Oak by his fingertips, and his hold is endangered even more when the pub becomes contested territory after the arrival of Syrian refugees who are placed in the village. An unlikely friendship develops when TJ encounters a young Syrian with a camera, Yara (Ebla Mari). Can they find a way for the two communities to understand each other? So unfolds a deeply moving drama about loss, fear and the difficulty of finding hope.   The ex-mining villages are unique. Sitting at the top of the village looking out over the rolling hills. A young mother had walked her child to primary school, come back home, and then hung herself.  This image and imagining her haunted us. Wandering around many of these villages it's striking to see the older members of the community who were miners, or family of miners. One remarkable older lady in her nineties was a nurse and tended the wounded (one was her neighbour’s father, who still to this day lived next to her) from the Easington mining disaster of 1951 in which 83 miners died.  Listening to vibrant people like her, and others who were involved in the miners’ strike in 1984, bore testimony to a powerful sense of community spirit, cohesion and political clarity which contrasted with the hopelessness of many in the present. It becomes apparent that the past ie a character in the film.   How did a once organised working class with militant unions end up in the world of TJ, the main character in the film. He’s a good man. Ex– miner, his father was killed in a mining accident and as a consequence of that his mother bought The Old Oak pub. She’s been dead 20 odd years and he wanted to help his mother, but his marriage has broken up, he’s living in the poverty zone and the pub is struggling, as are most of the village pubs around. It’s the only public space left in the village. Because of what’s happened to TJ, he’s lost. He had been an organiser in the village – previously he ran football teams; everyone knew TJ. But because of what’s happened to him he’s just been beaten down and he’s withdrawn into himself. Then one day, some Syrian families move into the village. And that’s where the story of TJ in this film starts.   TJ’s life did not happen by accident but by a series of political choices. It seems to us The Old Oak had roots stretching back, that might help us untangle many of the conflicts and contradictions of the present. It begs the bigger question of how hopelessness, unfairness, and lack of agency in our lives, play out in how we treat each other. This is how the character Yara comes in and helps us open up the story. She’s a refugee who came here with her family. She doesn’t know where her father is because he was taken to prison and that was the last she heard of him. And we know real people who still don’t know anything about their fathers, where they're. Yara wants to make life here easier and more friendly and to forge a friendship between the two communities. She's brave. She stands up for herself. She’s also sociable. She’s trying to see hope through the ugliness and unfairness of the world. The camera gives her hope. That’s very similar to what TJ’s role is, building bridges. You feel empathy towards Yara because she faces a lot of racism. Most of them were detainees in Syrian prisons and were tortured for doing nothing. But in the story of the film, they're not focusing on what happened in Syria.   Laura (Claire Rodgerson) is an old family friend of TJ’s. They used to be activists together, probably doing anti–austerity stuff. Then TJ has kind of lost his way but Laura has kept on fighting for the community while trying to build a family and hold down a job. When the Syrian families arrive she wants to be a positive force to bring the communities together. An irreverent force of nature, is how she was described in the script! She doesn’t take any shit but just believes that the community can be better. She’s a fighter. And she hasn’t given up like TJ. That’s we like in real life, you can’t just give up and accept the fate that’s been dealt to you by the powers that be.   The Northeast in particular is a really segregated place. There’s this idea from the Blair age of ‘problem communities'. It’s not problem communities, it’s problem systems, problem scapegoating and problem dumping. It’s a complex film, because normally in films you're dealing with one community. Here, we've two communities. We've to the local families and the local pub goers, and then within the pub group, we've people who are in favour of the refugees being here, and we've’vepeople who are against. It’s a complex tapestry of characters and people and families.   Photography is the thread that stitches the locations and the characters and all the narrative together. It’s the device that links Yara to her history, to her present, and to her exploration of a new place and a new people. It gives her the licence to look and see. And then photography is also the device of how we self–select. It reflects what we choose to see and what we choose to remember. Because what we don’t see, we then start to fill in with our imagination. So photography in the film is the prompt to what has happened, what is happening, but also what isn’t there. The film shows the pain that Syrian families must go through. It’s not easy to move your life from one country to another.   Written by Gregory Mann

(Release Info London schedule; May 29th, 2018, Curzon Soho, 18:20) "Double Lover" Crafting a deliriously cinematic web of suspense, shock, eroticism, and power dynamics, director François Ozon returns with "Double Lover". Chloé (Marine Vacth), who works as a guard at a museum in Paris, seeks to shore up her resiliency and enters psychoanalysis. In Paul Meyer (Jérémie Renier), the sensitive patient finds a caring psychiatrist who helps her overcome bouts with depression. Following the end of the treatment, both realize that they've fallen in love. A new chapter begins for Chloé when she and Paul move in together, yet Chloé soon comes to believe that Paul is keeping a secret. She impulsively visits another psychiatrist, Louis Delord (Jérémie Renier). Spiraling emotional and sexual stakes will push all three of them to extremes, forcing Chloé to take action in order to solve a mystery and save herself. It's an intense exploration of a woman venturing into dangerous romance. This movie is an adaptation of Joyce Carol Oates novel 'Live Of The Twins'. The book has a precise writing style, keen psychological observations, complex characters, and smart storylines. The book tells the story in a more realistic way. The film explores the American author’s themes of neuroses, sex, and the dark side of split personalities. The film follows Chloé’s therapy the same way a psychiatrist might listen to his patients, in a floating way. The visual effects and changing viewpoints in the first sessions almost play against the dialogue. Initially Chloé sits monologuing about her dreams, her feelings and emotions, her family; and the audience should listen carefully in these first 10 minutes. J.C. Oates’ book focuses on the young woman caught between two men. It's important to place Chloé at the center of the movie. Chloé interacts, from the opening scene, in surprising ways with older women. Each of them holds importance in her journey. These women can all be seen as mother figures. At the beginning of the film, Chloé mentions an absent mother during her session with Paul. She expresses herself very differently, depending on which man she’s with. When it’s Paul, she’s well-behaved and reserved. When it’s Louis, she reveals herself as more daring and provocative, even as she lets herself be dominated by him. Chloé’s evolution can be seen in how she chooses to dress, and how she expresses her femininity. Sometimes the rest an absence of femininity. Encyclopedic knowledge isn’t what leads her to the truth. Chloé is riddled with contradictions. She's never clear and yet she’s always transparent. She’s very alive in all circumstances. The film embodies Chloé’s truth and evoke the realism of each situation, bearing in mind the complexities of hernpersonality. There's a secret within Chloé; she seeks the key to unlock it, and we’re right there with her on her quest. The starting point for Paul and Louis is simple and binary; good guy/bad guy. It quickly becomes apparent that the trickier role of the two is actually Paul; he triggers the imagination. The Louis character can be seen as an avatar allowing Chloé to live out the desires and fantasies she forbids herself from experiencing with Paul; it’s as though her love for Paul were preventing her from satisfying a more uninhibited sexuality. In any love relationship, even a happy one, there's an element of frustration and a need for a mental space where fantasies can express themselves. Our partner can never satisfy all of our desires; we often need something more, or different. Paul comes across as a good psychotherapist whose exchanges with Chloé ring true. Louis, on the other hand, makes outrageous claims while transgressing all the rules and framework of psychoanalysis. It’s as though Louis were saying out loud everything that went unsaid with Paul, and saying it brutally; with no taboos or superego. Everything relating to the two men is conceived in mirror images, especially the décor. Paul’s consulting room is comfortable and inviting, with leather furniture, plush carpeting, and warm colors. Louis’ consulting room is glacial with marble accents, cold colors, and fake flowers. As for the mirrors themselves, Paul’s are horizontal and Louis’s are vertical. Paul and Louis have different sensibilities, but they both have something to hide, especially from Chloé. Paul and Louis add up to a complete man. Paul is attentive, an intellectual a good listener, gentle, reassuring; you can lean on him as a paternal figure. Louis is more animal, arrogant, violent, unruly, sexually ravenous. They represent two opposing male archetypes, but each of them responds in his own way to Chloé’s desires. Louis is more subtle in his relationship with Chloé. With "Double Lover" François Ozon returns to digital and Cinemascope, aiming for a sharper, more contemporary image that's at times almost surgical but always aesthetically pleasing. The film plays with symmetry, reflections, and geometry. The film creates the impression that something is being built, that a brain is developing a thought. "Double Lover" is continuously surprising, ingeniously imaginative, always ahead of the awed and astonished viewer. Like a dream it unfolds, always hovering at the brink of nightmare, resolved finally in an illumination that's as dramatic as it's unexpected. We're made to realize, in retrospect, that we've inhabited an intensely explored erotic mystery; only when the mystery is solved. This film is about our need for the imaginary in order to cope with reality. "Double Lover" provides a path back to reality; with something that exists yet is even more fantastical and monstrous than what we’ve seen up to that point, plunging us into the abyss of what nature is capable of doing to our bodies. There's a serenity at the end of the film. This ending is either positive or negative; it's brutal and unrelenting, like sexuality, the subconscious, and desire. We all share the desire to pursue a sex life outside a romantic relationship. Everyone, whether they're in a relationship or not, needs their own space of freedom; a secret garden. The film is a love story that asks questions that are essential to all couples. How do we imagine our partners? What are our expectations of them? How far are we willing to go in accepting their mysteries, or are we trying to figure out what they might be hiding inside? "Double Lover" also explores fantasies that some of us may, or may not, have a hard time accepting; and explores the degree of sexual freedom we allow ourselves to feel with someone. Maybe you can't have everything with just one person. That doesn’t mean you've to go looking elsewhere, but what do you do with your frustrations and desires when they start to take over?