Search Results

(Release Info London schedule; April 11th, 2019, Cineworld Leicester Square, 5-6 Leicester Square, 12:50 15:40 18:30 21:20) "Hellboy - Call Of Darkness" Hellboy (David Harbour), is back, and he’s on fire. From the pages of Mike Mignola’s seminal work, this action packed story sees the legendary half-demon superhero called to England to battle a trio of rampaging giants. There he discovers 'The Blood Queen', Nimue (Milla Jovovich), a resurrected ancient sorceress thirsting to avenge a past betrayal. Suddenly caught in a clash between the supernatural and the human, 'Hellboy' is now hell-bent on stopping Nimue without triggering the end of the world. 'Hellboy' is an imposingly tall half-demon with red skin, shaved horns and a tail. He's a flawed and deeply conflicted character. He's not a superhero who’s always looking to do the right thing. 'Hellboy' is a big, six-foot-three fella with an amazing voice and those eyes that just captivate you immediately. He’s a freak, a weirdo and he’s humiliated by human beings. He's a force of nature, and you feel that through the character. The character is more accessible, more grounded, more emotional and empathetic, along with his trademark, deadpan sense of humor. There's no real normal in this world. Nimue, 'The Blood Queen', is 'Hellboy's powerful nemesis. 'The Blood Queen' is a total presence herself. You feel it in every beat of every word she says, every moment she takes, every look she gives. Her points are valid, but she’s defeated. For 'Hellboy', Nimue is more than just a supernaturally powerful witch. He learns she has a deep connection to his past. As an adversary, she’s incredibly challenging for him because of the issues she raises about who he really is, why he’s here and what he could become. In regard to understanding his identity, it’s like she’s sitting on one shoulder and Professor Trevor Broom (Ian McShane) is on the other. Nimue exploits that connection, and Hellboy’s own doubts and insecurities, to try to seduce him into joining her. She says to him, 'you’re one of us'. She wants to know why he’s trying to live like a human, to get these people who hate and fear him to accept him. She tells him, 'you could be a hero in my world'. She wants his strength added to her kingdom, to make it their kingdom. Professor Broom is 'Hellboy’s' adoptive father. 'Hellboy' has a close but complex relationship with his dad. It’s sort of them against the world. It’s been rough and tumble between them. 'Hellboy' didn’t grow up playing 'Monopoly' with his father, it's more that he taught him how to fight a five-eyed monster and take him out with a melon baller. He has protected him, but when he goes, 'Hellboy' will have to be a fully realized human being, to take on the human world, as well as the human-monster world. 'B.P.R.D.' Team commander Major Ben Daimio (Daniel Dae Kim) is a taciturn and secretive ex-soldier-turned-agent. He's 'Hellboy’s' complete opposite in many respects. There's something about Daimio that’s a bit of a mystery. There's unknown history about 'Hellboy' too, but what he's is right there for everybody to see. These two become foils, which is a nice texture for the film. For Daimio, it's about putting your problems and issues aside and staying with the mission. That’s not a bad way to be. In the comic Daimio and 'Hellboy' never shared a page, but bringing him into the story feels organic because he’s a fantastic character and in some ways a mirror for 'Hellboy'. 'Hellboy' also gets support in his fight against Nimue from his young friend Alice Monaghan (Sasha Lane), whose life he saved when she was a baby. The film wants Alice to be more of her own character, to have a strong voice. She's definitely not the damsel-in-distress kind of girl. She’s very much her own person. She has this great, cool vibe, and she’s been through so much. 'Hellboy’s' connection with Alice is integral to the story. It’s not romantic, but it’s definitely kind of a soul-mate thing. Because of who they're, and how they feel different from everyone else, they might feel the pull to just take the easy route, the dark one, but together they keep trying to fight the hard fight rather than just give in. Fifteen years after the first feature based on Mike Mignola’s 'Hellboy' comic book series, the time is right to reimagine the film franchise. The landscape of the horror-action-fantasy genre has changed dramatically in the ensuing decade and a half. Recent big-budget comic-book-based titles demonstrated that moviegoers are ready to embrace flawed superheroes and antiheroes and edgier, 'R-rated' storylines. There's an opportunity to push the movie in a more mature direction; more graphic, more visceral, more exciting, and thematically, a little more adult. After all, 'The Hellboy' books suggest an 'R-rating', the film is a bit more faithful to the comic books. Published over more than 20 years, 'The Hellboy' series boasts the most issues under the direction of one person among all currently published comic book series. The film is based on 2010’s 'Hellboy, Volume 9: The Wild Hunt', an anthology that includes issues of the series, as the central thread of story. In addition to being an exciting, high-stakes action epic, 'The Wild Hunt' reveals 'Hellboy’s' dramatic origin story. The film also pulls from other books, including a memorable sequence inspired by 'Hellboy' in Mexico, along with some material written specifically for the film. It's important for us, and for the fans as well, to really stick to the roots and origins of 'Hellboy'. It feels almost like a biographical or historical movie. While many of the scenes and much of the dialogue comes directly from the comic books, "Hellboy" is an amalgam of the series storylines rather than a direct adaptation of one of the books. The film also expands the scope by bringing 'Hellboy’s' world fully into 'The 21st century'. Even when they’re set in present day there’s kind of a feel of ancient times or a bygone era. It's important to give this film a contemporary feel and a contemporary setting that really grounds it in the now. So in addition to the forests and other primal settings from the comic books, the story takes place in contemporary urban London. The structure of 'Hellboy’s' face is always about the comic book illustrations. The jaw and the brow and the hardline aesthetic, that's the jumping off point. But, in taking the design into reality, the film moves from a comic world to a real world. The result is probably scarier, because he’s no longer a fire-engine-red cartoon character. He has hair on his chest and arms, back and tail, and scars, he has the body of a 'MMA' fighter. The fights are crazy. There's really a sense that things are being killed, giants or monsters, and heads are being chopped off. You’re bathed in their blood, and you’re feeling the complex emotions of actually cutting the heart out of another being. All of that goes toward the issue that 'Hellboy' is a killer, truly, a weapon. When you see Hellboy, he’s the only red in the frame. When he’s not in frame, something else is red, a fire, 'The Blood Queen’s' costumes. All of the rest of the colors are these muted tertiary colors. There are suits of armor on stands, guns, muskets, swords. Then, the further you get into it, the strangeness is incrementally cranked up. A few occultist things scattered about. Then, even further in, there are trophy heads from their hunts. The film mixtures human and animal forms, including a skull with spider's legs. It notches up to a 12 on a one-to-10 scale of weird. At times, translating the comic’s '2D' illustrations to 'The 3D World Of Cinema' required some thoughtful modification. 'Hellboy' is more horror-centric, 'R-rated' sensibility, with a mix of serious genre chops, spectacular characters, interwoven plotlines and big action set pieces. The film is set squarely in our world, rather than have it be fantasy with a capital ‘F'. It delivers a darker, more grounded version of 'Hellboy'. It’s a huge emotional journey for 'Hellboy', a journey of discovery, and then just literally, we’re going darker; bloodier, more violent. But it’s not a matter of throwing in things that don’t belong. It's always a case of, when in doubt, go back to the source. Out of all of the film’s intricate sets, is the climactic sequence between 'Hellboy' and Nimue, set on 'Pendle Hill', the site of England’s most notorious witch trials in 'The 17th Century'. There are some scenes viewers might expect would be shot on a set, but when 'Hellboy’s' standing on a hill with 'The Blood Queen', you don’t imagine the landscape has been created. When fantasy is a little more grounded, it feels stranger, in a way. It’s like if you saw a giant or a monster in your house. It’s the balance of something that’s out of place that makes it look weird and scary. The film marvels at his character’s longevity and expresses his gratitude to fans for their continued interest in 'Hellboy’s' adventures. To see that character embraced like it has been for something like 25 years is pretty great. Audiences walk away feeling they've seen an original "Hellboy" movie. Having a tail is definitely not all it’s cracked up to be. The tail is a pain in the ass. You all think you want a tail. You really. Don’t want a tail.

(BFI London Film Festival • Peter von Kant Sunday 09 October 2022 • Curzon Mayfair, 21:00 Tuesday 11 October 2022 • BFI Southbank, NFT1, 12:40) "Peter Von Kant" Peter Von Kant (Dennis Ménochet), a successful, famous director, lives with his assistant Karl (Stefan Crepon), whom he likes to mistreat and humiliate. Through the great actress Sidonie (Isabelle Adjani), he meets and falls in love with Amir (Khalil Ben Gharhia), a handsome young man of modest means. He offers to share his apartment and help Amir break into the world of cinema. For Fassbinder, the world of fashion was merely a context. Petra’s work is not developed or analyzed. We only know that she's successful, that she needs to draw new designs, and that her assistant is there to help her. His work is how he meets others, discovers them, elevates them. Amir reveals himself before the camera, not just to Peter but also to the viewer. Suddenly we see him differently, he becomes an actor, which also makes us doubt his sincerity. Is his story true, or is it merely calculated to move Peter, to stimulate his desire to create? When Peter seizes the camera, his appetite to film Amir is clear. That movement plunges him into the creative desire of Pygmalion for Galatea. Sidonie is also a variation on the theme of Pygmalion and his muse. Peter loves and hates her simultaneously. 'I preferred the actress to the woman', he says. In Fassbinder, the character is merely a confidante; a best friend for Petra to bounce of off. We imagine Peter as a big drama queen, always making too much of things. In the Fassbinder film there's a queer side, with the women overplaying their femininity. Peter is forever drowning in his emotions. He’s excessive, overly emphatic. And more often than not, he’s high on alcohol or drugs. The trick is to embrace the theatricality of the character. The color and stylization work characterizes his final period on material from his first period. Peter wants to take Amir in, protect him, be his Pygmalion. Peter falls in love not just with Amir but also with the creature he could shape Amir into. And when Amir ultimately escapes him, Peter is riddled with jealousy. And again, all his theories about freedom in relationships come tumbling down. When Peter meets Amir, there’s a sexual fantasy for sure, but he’s also found someone who is as alone as he's, whose life is broken. Beyond the physical and sexual attraction. Peter ends up alone, but he has his memories of Amir on film. Exploring the theme of love through the prism of cinema is moving, especially right now, with changing attitudes towards going to the movies, falling theatre attendance, the emergence of platforms. This film "Peter von Kant" is perhaps more optimistic than Fassbinder’s. Though Peter ends up alone and isolated, his eyes are open to his films, his imagination, fiction. He films Amir, he records his love. Creation and cinema save Peter. The film is an adaptation of 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant'. Fassbinder originally wrote the story for the theatre. He made it into a film in 1972 when he was just 25 years old. He had recently discovered the Hollywood melodramas of Douglas Sirk, and used all the theatrical and cinematic artifices and mannerisms at his disposal to film his play about emotional dependence and the impossibility of loving as equals. Fassbinder’s body of work, philosophy and vision of the world have always haunted us. His unbelievable creative energy fascinates us. The film centers around one of Fassbinder’s passionate love affairs. In 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant', Fassbinder had turned his own unhappy love affair with one of his favorite actors, Günther Kaufmann, into a lesbian love story between a fashion designer and her model. The character of Karl is inspired by Peer Raben, who composed music for Fassbinder’s films and was also his assistant. The film trades the world of fashion for the world of cinema and changes the gender of the three main characters. It's a way of betraying Fassbinder the better to find him, in a universal tale of passionate love. The story is more relevant than ever in the way it questions the power dynamics of domination in the creative arts, the Pygmalion/muse relationship. 'Water Drops on Burning Rocks' was consciously very theatrical, with an ironic detachment reminiscent of Fassbinder’s cinema. This film wants to inject more empathy into a new version of 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant'. Maybe with age and experience we understand Fassbinder better, the way he sees life, creation and love right down to it's most monstruous aspects. Fassbinder is not a loveable filmmaker. His films are not loveable. But we feel a wide range of emotions towards Peter. To hate him one minute and find him touching, grotesque or endearing the next. He blends the intimate and the political in the most naked of ways, both literally and figuratively. The effect is at once pathetic, sincere and devastating. There’s also a dash of boulevard in Fassbinder’s work, but it’s more Brechtian, there’s more distancing. The film wsnts to highlight the emotional power of the text, bring the character's humanity and feelings to the fore, leave behind Fassbinder’s little theatre of puppets in favor of flesh and blood characters. The bitter tears in Fassbinder’s play and film are artificial, which is what makes them beautiful, both theatrically and cerebrally. Written by Gregory Mann

In some ways Alice shares a lot of the same DNA with some of Scorsese's more recognisable films from the 70's - there is support from Harvey Keitel and a young Jodie Foster, (indeed in watching this again recently you are reminded just how intimidating a screen presence Keitel was and how much charisma teenage Foster possessed) there is a great soundtrack and the film creates a distinctive world for its characters to inhabit; However, this road movie really is a departure for Scorsese from the films that would come to define him. Ellen Burstyn plays Alice, a recent widow and mother to a precocious son. Following the death of her husband Alice is freed from an unhappy marriage and she and her young Son Tommy pack up and take to the road to travel to Monterey, California, the only place where Alice ever felt truly happy. Alice wants to make it as a Singer but along the way, in order to make ends meet, she is forced to take a waitressing job in a small town where she befriends another waitress, Flo (Diane Ladd) and falls for a local farmer (Kris Kristofferson). The dialogue is snappy and it clips along at a nice pace. Alice is sharp witted and her exchanges with her son Tommy give the film a real sense of warmth and convey that they are in it together. Burstyn and Ladd are great on screen together and after a frosty to start to their friendship their relationship is utterly believable and, rarely for a 70’s New Hollywood film passes the Bechdel test with ease. Burstyn is fantastic as Alice, a Woman in her mid thirties who married young and chose the wrong man. After her husband’s death she is left penniless with a wise-cracking son to care for. Her performance manages to convey a compelling blend of world weariness and worry for the future with a spirit and optimism and great humour. The romance with Kristopherson feels a little forced and it may have made for a more compelling story if they don't end up together but rather Alice finds happiness in her independence, that being said, it is interesting to see a gender reversed 'manic pixie dream girl' archetype playing out on screen. This was Scorsese’s first major movie following the unexpected success of his breakthrough hit, Mean Streets. He was referred to Burstyn by Francis Ford Coppola who was looking for an up and coming director to bring her vision for Alice to the screen. The fact that this is someone else’s artistic vision brought to life by Scorsese makes this an interesting film to watch in the context of his wider career. The direction is simple but effective, there are one or two visual flourishes that Scorsese fans will recognise as his but this is clearly Burstyn’s film. The combination of these two creative influences gives us a film that is full of Scorsese’s trademark vibrancy and energy but is also a thoughtful and nuanced exploration of a Woman attempting to make sense of her situation and forge her own identity. As a viewer we root for Alice each step of the way and by the end of the film are left more confident that wherever she lives she has what she needs to be happy.

(Release Info London schedule; July 13th, 2019, Curzon Cinemas, Second Floor, 23 The Broadway, Wimbledon, London SW19 1RE, United Kingdom, 6:45pm) https://www.curzoncinemas.com/wimbledon/film-info/pavarotti "Pavarotti" The filmmaking team behind the documentary "The Beatles: Eight Days A Week" turns to another musical phenomenon with "Pavarotti", an in-depth, no holds barred look at the life, career and lasting legacy of the musical icon. Dubbed 'The People's Tenor', Pavarotti was the rare combination of personality, genius and celebrity and he used his prodigious gifts to spread the gospel of opera as entertainment; and something to be enjoyed by all music lovers. Through the sheer force of his talent, Pavarotti commanded the great stages of the world, and captured the hearts of audiences everywhere. Featuring rare interviews with his family and colleagues, never-before-seen footage, and state of 'The Art Dolby Atmos Sound', this look at a remarkable man and musical giant is directed by Ron Howard. The movie opens with one of the most astounding, dream-like clips of all. The year is 1995 and the place is Manaus, Brazil, in the thick of 'The Amazon Jungle'. Here, in the mysteriously magnificent little opera house known as 'Teatro Amazonas', where Caruso himself once sang, Pavarotti is seen in his sweatpants, pouring forth with total abandon before a mere handful of passers-by. Shot by flautist Andrea Griminelli, who was travelling with Pavarotti at the time, the clip has never before been shared publicly. You see him trying to capture what his idol Caruso must have felt singing there. Here's this earthy, happy-go-lucky character who relished the good things in life with vivacious humility. But here also is a man battling the intricacies of massive superstardom, sky-high expectations and turbulent relationships, all underscored by Pavarotti’s growing sense of responsibility that he has to find a way to use his voice and power for something more satisfying and more lasting than mere fame. Much of the rare footage came directly from the personal collection of Nicoletta Mantovani, Pavarotti’s wife at his death, the mother of their daughter Alice and head of 'The Pavarotti Museum' in Modena. Nicoletta sort of becomes her husband’s videographerand it just so happened that this is the era when good video cameras are becoming available. She interviews him from time to time and it’s very fortunate, because Nicoletta captures him in a period when he has so much wisdom and perspective to share. And of course, he's open to talking with her in ways he would never talk to the host of a morning show. This footage is incredibly important to the film, because that’s where you really get to see his playful side, what a charmer and goof he could be. He thinks of himself as a peasant who has worked his way up to giving all that's in his soul and all that has been built into his character by life. Nicoletta gives the audience access to all of the archives that they've at 'The Pavarotti Museum'. And she also introduces us to his first family; his first wife Adua Veroni and their three daughters, Cristina, Lorenza and Giuliana Pavarotti. Having a famous father is not easy for anybody, whether they're a pop star, movie star or opera singer, and you get to see that. Luciano Pavarotti was born in Modena, Italy on October 12th, 1935, on the eve of 'WWII', the son of father who was a baker and amateur tenor. The first act of his life is going from a village teacher in Modena to becoming an unexpected success in the opera; the second act is 'The Three Tenors' era of his life when he experienced both incredible fame and self-doubts; and the final act is 'The Pavarotti And Friends Period', where he was raising money for children’s charity and expanding out into collaborations with artists of all kinds, bringing opera to new places and people, fulfilling his dream. Mesmerized by his father’s voice and that of his idol, Enrico Caruso, he sang throughout his childhood. Encouraged by his mother, who heard something unusual in her son’s timbre, Pavarotti only began to seriously study music after winning a regional singing competition. He made his stage debut as 'Rodolfo' in Puccini’s 'La Boheme' in 1961, impressing early on with his intuitiveness and natural ease. Pavarotti began recording for 'Decca' in 1964 and in a period of six creatively fertile years, he recorded some11 operas and 'The Verdi Requiem', which remain mainstays of his legacy. Throughout the 60s, Pavarotti slowly, carefully built his reputation not only for an increasingly impeccable tone and committed performances, but for the boundless joy and zeal for life that came through in both his singing and persona. He became known by concert-goers around the world for his star-making partnership with the beloved soprano Joan Sutherland, aka 'La Stupenda' as their affection for one another imbued their performances with intense energy and romance. In the 1970s, Pavarotti found himself at the acme of his vocal powers and showmanship, transforming into a major international superstar and media darling. At a time when opera itself seemed to be declining in influence, he continued to rapidly rise, giving epic performances on world stages while charming late-night talk shows with his down-to-earth sense of humor, beaming smile and cooking skills. One night in 1973, when his life-long pre-show nerves brought on a bout of sweating, he carried a huge white handkerchief on stage, soon to be an instantly recognized, signature trademark. By the 80s, he was the highest paid singer in the history of opera. As he entered the 90s, Pavarotti’s collaborations with 'The Three Tenors' would fill arenas and result in the bestselling album in classical music history. One of the most captivating moments in the film centers around footage of Pavarotti meeting Princess Diana in 1991. It proved to be a watershed. Not only did they become fast friends, it also seems evident he saw in her a model for how celebrity could propel good works for the world. Luciano’s relationship with Princess Diana was pivotal and as the film begins to explore the footage you can see it. He was enamored with her, but it wasn’t lust. It was a mutual admiration. She taught him in a way that there could be a tremendous sense of satisfaction from not just supporting causes but really working hard at it and devoting yourself to it. He carried that with him the rest of his life. In 1998, Pavarotti was appointed a 'UN Messenger Of Peace' and in 2001, he was awarded 'The Nansen Award from 'The UN High Commissioner For Refugee' for his unmatched fundraising and volunteer efforts. From 2001 to 2003, he hosted 'Pavarotti And Friends' in his hometown, annual benefit concerts with some of the biggest names across the spectrum of entertainment, including pop and rock. Going beyond performances, director Ron Howard combes the archives for dozens of interviews Pavarotti did for television talk shows and news magazines looking for highlights. Then, he conducts a comprehensive 53 new interviews in New York, Los Angeles, Montreal, London, Modena and Verona from April 2017 to June 2018. This series of conversations brings in the perspectives not only of wives, family members, students and fellow performers from both opera and rock, but also the managers, promoters and marketeers who helped to etch the unusual trajectory of his career and take opera to places it had never gone before. Each one is a revelation, opening up new avenues into Pavarotti’s most hidden doubts, trials and desire to reconcile his outsized ambitions with ordinary love and life. Who wouldn’t be drawn to a creative powerhouse who etched out his own unique place as the rock star of opera singers, a giant who bridged high art and pop culture as if such borders were illusory? Where did this tremendous artistry come from? It doesn’t only come from the remarkable voice. It has to come from the heart. That’s the only way you can create performances so true that they resonate forever. The human voice is the centerpiece of the movie. It's the greatest tool musically there's. Nothing crosses all disciplines in music and all touchpoints with human emotion like the human voice. What was it about Pavarotti’s voice that touched so many? Certainly, he had an astonishing reach. Early in his career, Pavarotti stunned operagoers by exquisitely, and seemingly easily, hitting all nine high Cs in 'Donizetti’s La Fille Du Regiment'. Most tenors transpose the note to a more mortal yet still highly challenging B-flat, but not Pavarotti. With that string of 'Cs', he made opera history and was thereafter dubbed 'The King Of High Cs'. But there was more to it than technical facility, more to it than even that crystalline ping and honeyed sweetness in his voice that critics hailed. There was also in his demeanor and tone something ineffable that elevated the spirit, a kind of inner vitality, a generosity and warmth that baked into the skin of the listener like the sun. He had an ability to do something many others were not able to do with their voices, to transcend their genre. He had that magical ability to create a universal experience for people across the world. His voice is about those universal emotions we seek in all great painting, music, food, love and compassion. In the documentary, Luciano Pavarotti is seen as he’s never been seen before; in a ravishingly intimate close-up that delves behind the glory of his music and the heat of his charisma to uncover his private human struggles, humor and hopes. Echoing the universal themes that have kept opera relevant in 'The 21st Century'; love, passion, joy, family, loss, risk, beauty; the film weaves a story of a man discovering, wrestling with and ultimately learning to harness the monumental enormity of his gifts. The tale of a small-town man sent on a meteoric trip to the heights of fame, trying to figure out how to bring all his roiling emotions, nerves, dreams and love for others along for the ride. To this day, people struggle to define it. But the film sets out here to uncover the man, finding an unceasingly fascinating human being formed from contrasts, mixing child-like lightness with a deep soul, a strong loyalty to his peasant upbringing and that enigmatic X-factor that drives some to the skirt the edges of human possibility. He's a testament to the power of living your life with passion and unabashed commitment to what you love. The film is a drama punctuated by passionate arias and highlighting the contrasts of larger-than-life spectacle with raw, everyday humanity. Generous and egalitarian as he was, Pavarotti was as complicated and contradictory as any human. He had his share of scandals, marital troubles and prima donna moments, and some critics and opera lovers were disappointed by what they saw as his compromising the delicacy of his art to the demands of popularity. Like any person who achieves the most surreal heights of global fame. But he also came to see his fame as a tool to etch out something larger than himself. One of his most ambitious goals was to broaden the reach of his art so that more would fall in love with opera. The film rides a fine line; authentic enough for Pavarotti aficionados to cherish and welcoming enough for those who are new to the man and his music. To him, opera was the music of the people, of all people; because it's rife with all the beauty and messiness of everyday life. They’re a form of expression that can hit you on a whole other level of emotional connection. It doesn’t matter who you're, the purity of that just moves you.

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

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

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

(Glasgow Film Festival ● Select event time ● Here are a list of days and times at which this event will take place ● March Mon 07 Screening time 20:30 ● Tue 08 Screening time 15:00) https://glasgowfilm.org/glasgow-film-festival/shows/benedetta-nc-18-1 "Benedetta" In the late 17th century, with plague ravaging the land, Benedetta Carlini (Virginie Efira) joins the convent in Pescia, Tuscany, as a novice. Capable from an early age of performing miracles, Benedetta’s impact on life in the community is immediate and momentous. Benedetta is a 17th century woman who has acquired real power, both in her convent of 'Theatine' nuns and in her town of Pescia. Benedetta is famous as a saint and as abbess of the convent. She reaches positions of power through her talent, visions, manipulations, lies and creativity. Whatever the means, she manages it in a society and era totally dominated by men. Women counted for nothing, except male sexual gratification and reproduction. They held no positions of power. What does physical climax bring her? Benedetta has a strong belief in Jesus, and she's also looking for power. She's not all sweetness and altruism. She takes sexual pleasure without giving it. The issue of love intersects with that of faith. The film shows the conflict between faith, in the private sphere, and clergy, as a component of a system of power. The theme is an intrinsic part of Benedetta’s story. If you take a closer look at her case, she's clearly a fervent believer. Her visions of Jesus may have been authentic, while also being a means to obtaining what she wanted. Benedetta truly believe she's Jesus’s bride. Every time, she sees him as a shepherd guiding his flock, in keeping with the imagery of St. John’s Gospel. From the moment Bartolomea (Daphne Patakia) joins the convent, roughly sixty minutes of the film are devoted to the gradual crystallization of their lesbian love affair. After Bartolomea slips a finger into her lover’s behind for the first time, She sees Jesus, who tells her that she must resist Bartolomea and stay with him. At that point, Benedetta is still deferring to the religious orthodoxy of the time. She obeys Jesus and abides by the rules. She even punishes Bartolomea by forcing her to plunge her hands into boiling water in a demonstration of tough love. In the end, the erotic attraction is too strong. And then Benedetta has another vision, in which Jesus tells her that the previous apparitions were a false Jesus, an impostor. Benedetta’s visions take her in opposite directions depending on the circumstances! Later, another vision has Jesus ordering Benedetta to strip naked, saying there's no shame in it. Benedetta’s visions provide what she needs. She has her own private Jesus constantly at her side. Of course, that Jesus is a creation of her brain. It’s Benedetta’s psyche generating the visions, but she genuinely believes in them. Benedetta dreams up a Jesus who permits her to have sexual relations with Bartolomea. Benedetta is no saint, either. She reaches a point where she cannot bear dissent. There are also some very funny notes; when Felicita (Charlotte Rampling) asks Benedetta if Jesus gave her advice, she replies, 'No, he didn’t mention you!' It’s important not to forget that the film is funny. Bartolomea is direct and frank, tending toward how a modern young woman might express herself with regard to sexual desire. She was the victim of rapes within her family. In western Europe, notably in the Netherlands, where there are no longer very many believers, Bartolomea is most likely seen as more sympathetic. It's not the case in other parts of the world, where there are strong religious movements, such as the United States with it's evangelicals. People like them would probably empathize more with Benedetta than Bartolomea. It’s interesting to note that the evangelical concept goes back to the Middle Ages. The man as head of the family, the wife secondary and only there to satisfy the man. To see that concept in 2021 is very surprising. Moreover, that concerns every religion. Bartolomea and Benedetta use a statuette of the 'Virgin Mary' as a dildo. It’s more than an object, it perfectly encapsulates the conflict between Catholic taboos and sex, between body and mind, which is present throughout the movie. For Bartolomea, it's just an object. For Benedetta, the object is of high symbolic value, but she abandons that on her journey to love. There's a shot where Benedetta and Bartolomea are performing forbidden sex acts, while in the background, the statue of the Virgin Mary is illuminated by a candle. That shot sums it up; let’s ignore rules and taboos, let’s do what we want. In the book, Bartolomea is the main witness at Benedetta’s trial. She tells the inquisitors that she's abused by Benedetta, who forced her into sexual relations. That’s one of the major changes the film makes in comparison with the book. Bartolomea doesn’t seem to believe in Benedetta’s love. It’s like a disavowal for her, as if she were not loved enough. It’s difficult to shine a light on the person whose love is real, and the person whose love is not..Christina (Louise Chevilotte) is another interesting character. When she becomes aware of Benedetta’s manipulations, she denounces her because, for Christina, it's blasphemy. Soeur Felicita, the abbess, retorts, however, that Christina is blaspheming by refusing to believe Benedetta. Once more, who's right and who's wrong? Except that Christina was not there to see Benedetta’s manipulations. She's caught in her own trap, in her own lie, even though she's basically right. The religious authorities are happy to think of Benedetta as a medium, a prophetess, and it’s dangerous to go against the deep power doctrine of the Church. So, Christina is compelled to self-flagellate half-naked, and then she commits suicide. She cannot live with the shame. It all comes from her initial lie. To qualify that, Christina is the most realistic, the first to realize that Benedetta is inventing her visions and manipulating everyone around her. By lying, she digs her own grave, which is tragic. It also shows the reach of the deep power of the religious system. The abbess is very authoritarian, but she uses her power with discernment in the context of the times. Felicita is not a believer, except perhaps when death is approaching. She's a politician who respects extant power structures because it’s in her interest to do so. She denounces Benedetta in the end, but not out of religious conviction, rather for revenge after her daughter’s death. Benedetta drove Christina to suicide. Basically, none of these characters are completely sympathetic! But if you observe the behavior of present-day politicians, they’re not always very likable either. 'The Nuncio' (Lambert Wilson) is a dangerous, threatening character. After Christina’s suicide, there's no menace from within for Benedetta. 'The Nuncio' can be charming, unctuous, smiling. But he's still a man of power. The popular uprising is not in the book. To maintain the narrative tension, the Nuncio has to be intelligent and motivated by the desire to defeat Benedetta. The film is based on Judith C. Brown’s book, 'Immodest Acts: The Life Of A Lesbian Nun In Renaissance Italy'. Judith C. Brown stumbled across the story while researching another project in the archives in Florence. She opened up a box, and found the minutes of the trial of Benedetta, which took place in the early 17th century. She was impressed and intrigued. It’s a rare document. There are no other known trials of lesbians in the history of Christianity. In the original document, the clerk of the court is shocked by the sexual details described by Bartolomea, the nun who slept with Benedetta, that he could hardly write! He left blanks, scratched words out, rewrote them. Bartolomea is very explicit in her account of how they licked each other. The script is a superb balance between religion, sexuality and the Church’s political scheming. The film never says if Benedetta is a slightly deranged mystic or a manipulator, or both. Right to the end, the film maintains the uncertainty about her deepest nature. Two truths coexist, and the film does not say which is the real truth. You've to accept that some facts can be seen from two different perspectives. There's an assimilation to Arnold Schwarzenegger's dream about reality in "Total Recall". You see a good example of those dual realities later in the movie, when the plague hits; Benedetta tells the crowd in Pescia that Jesus will protect them, then she orders a soldier to shut the city gates, instituting a sort of lockdown! It once more shows her dual nature as a believer and politician. The Church does not prohibit sexual relations, except for members of the clergy. We humans are, fundamentally, animals, right? We've a body and instincts. Benedetta does not resist the call of the flesh, but why would she resist it? Science tells the truth, legends tell stories. That’s how we see it. The film shows what religion prohibits, especially with regard to sex. The hypocrisy and corruption is at the heart of the religious authorities. It's a film about freedom that's very relevant to the times we live in. Not all mystics believed in Jesus as a means to obtaining positions of power, but mysticism is often the only way for a woman to climb the social ladder. The issue of blasphemy is also shifting, ambivalent, with the accusation bandied about between characters. Yes, blasphemy works both ways. Religion forbids things, as if it's possible to lock away impulses, desire, urges and the unconscious in a little box. Except it doesn’t work like that. It’s important not to reduce the dildo to an immature prank, the desire to shock. History advances and evolves over the centuries, but it's always subjected to contradictory currents and the advances of civilization. You think that freedom has been won, but no, we get the feeling that a period movie always resonates with the present. We should be happy that in the partisan times we are living in, this film blurs boundaries, with mystery. And it's a film of powerful cinematic convictions. Written by Gregory Mann

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

(MONDAY 23 MAY 2022 • 8:15pm • Prince Charles Cinema • 7 Leicester Pl, London WC2H 7BY, United Kingdom) https://princecharlescinema.com/PrinceCharlesCinema.dll/WhatsOn?f=16659095 "Boyhood" (2014) Filmed over 12 years with the same cast, "Boyhood" is a story of growing up as seen through the eyes of a child named Mason (Ellar Coltrane), who literally grows up on screen before our eyes. Single Mom Olivia (Patricia Arquette) and Dad Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) charts the rocky terrain of childhood. Snapshots of adolescence from road trips and family dinners to birthdays and graduations and all the moments in between become transcendent, set to a soundtrack spanning the years from Coldplay's 'Yellow' to Arcade 'Fire's Deep Blue'. "Boyhood" is both a nostalgic time capsule of the recent past and an ode to growing up and parenting. It's impossible to watch Mason and his family without thinking about our own journey. "Boyhood" takes a one-of-a-kind trip, at once epic and intimate, through the exhilaration of childhood, the seismic shifts of a modern family and the very passage of time. The film tracks 6 year-old Mason over life’s most radically fluctuating decade, through a familiar whirl of family moves, family controversies, faltering marriages, re-marriages, new schools, first loves, lost loves, good times, scary times and a constantly unfolding mix of heartbreak and wonder. But the results are unpredictable, as one moment braids into the next, entwining into a deeply personal experience of the incidents that shape us as we grow up and the ever-changing nature of our lives. As the story begins, dreamy-eyed grade-schooler Mason faces upheaval, his devoted, struggling single mom Olivia has decided to move him and older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater) to Houston, just as their long-absent father Mason Sr. returns from Alaska to re-enter their world. Thus begins life’s non-stop flux. Yet through a tide of parents and stepparents, girls, teachers and bosses, dangers, yearnings and creative passions, Mason emerges to head down his own road. Who are you going to be when you grow up and what’s your life going to be like? As a kid, of course, everything feels much more simple and now there’s so much more that we can see now about how dense and complicated this family’s relationships are. Sister and brother is a really kind of awkward relationship when you’re a kid, and we've that in the beginning because we're more stand-offish with each other at first, and there's more a feeling of rivalry. But that changed a lot as we get older. A dynamic sense of motion underlies the structure of "Boyhood", allowing the audience to be acutely conscious of time’s trajectory and time’s pull, even as they are caught in the grip of the day-to-day events unfolding throughout Mason’s youth. There's a sense that Mason’s life could take any infinite number of turns from this point forward, but all we know for sure is where he has been. "Boyhood" is almost just as much a view of motherhood, as the dance between mother and son plays out while Mason begins in all kinds of ways to assert his independence. Olivia is flawed, and she could be seen as passive at times, but we also consider her a brave mom, a woman who's always trying to balance her own passions with doing the best that she could for her kids. For example, the scene late in the film where Olivia watches Mason going off to school is really quite the opposite of that same scene in our life when we went off to school, but we also remember it being very intense and heavy, and it seemed that Olivia’s is an equally human and valid kind of reaction. Olivia’s interactions with men, with her children’s father, Mason Sr., as well as a series of challenging, at times abusive, partners she takes up with along with the way, revealing as they do the way we all struggle to really see other people for who and what they're. With Mason Sr., she has sort of put him in this permanent box labeled irresponsible and she sees herself as the only one who has done the hard, day-to-day work of raising these kids. But, of course, she also never sees her ex when he's with the kids, or what kind of father he's really like. She thinks she’s doing what she should be doing for her kids, looking for a stable situation for them, but she can’t see, not the way we can looking back at it, that she's sometimes wearing blinders. Despite the blinders, despite the inevitable stumbles and dangers, Olivia is rewarded with two intriguingly strong, sensitive young adults who really do seem ready, as ready as any of us ever are, to take on the modern world. Movies have always been about playing with time , about trying to snatch the moments that relentlessly flow through our daily lives and etch them to where we can get some perspective; or about diving into the mythic, dream-like dimensions where time is put through the blender. Even so, nearly all fictional movies are, by practical necessity, made over a period of weeks or months. But could a contemporary drama be made over a far greater stretch, say in the time it takes for one little boy to evolve, year-by-year, shift-by-shift, into a young adult. It's a movie about the singularly private emotions and hard-to-describe experience of childhood, but childhood is such vast territory. It's like taking a great leap of faith into the future. Most artistic endeavors strive to have a certain amount of control but there are elements of this that would be out of anyone’s control. There are going to be physical and emotional changes and that's embraced. Over a very extended range, beyond the life of most stage, film and television characters, going further and further as they revisited them anew each year in shifting circumstances. It's not only about leaping, but also about staying patient, taking the long view, which is not Hollywood’s standard modus operandi. The "Before" series explored the impact of time on everyday lives,revisiting the same couple at three diverse junctures in their unfolding relationship, but it did so in a very different way from "Boyhood". Of course, one insurmountable problem of time is that it operates in concert with things like chance and uncertainty. People sometimes hear the idea and think ‘oh, it’s like a documentary’ or it’s similar to Michael Apted’s 7-UP. But this isn’t a documentary, it’s a narrative film made over 12 years, which is something quite different. It’s rare to see someone trying to use the medium in a new way, to explore time in a new way. Seeing the film for the first time is an emotional, even cathartic, experience. Written by Gregory Mann

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