Search Results

(Release Info London schedule: Saturday 27 April 11.00 am - Canterbury | Knutsford | Richmond | Ripon | Soho Sunday 28 April 11.00 am - Colchester | Mayfair | Oxford | Sheffield | Victoria | Wimbledon) "Vox Lux" "Vox Lux" follows the rise of Celeste (Natalie Portman) from the ashes of a major national tragedy to pop superstardom. The film spans 18 years and traces important cultural moments through her eyes, starting in 1999 and concluding in 2017. Beginning in 1999 with a violent mass tragedy, a teenaged Celeste (Raffey Cassidy) is rushed to the hospital, barely surviving a harrowing encounter. With her loyal sister Eleanor (Stacy Martin) by her side, she recovers. After singing at a memorial service, Celeste transforms into a burgeoning pop star with the help of her songwriter sister. The duo puts their grief to song, composing a memorable ballad sung by Celeste that becomes an anthem to an ailing nation. Her parents hire a scrupulous manager (Jude Law) to take her under his wing. Under his tutelage, her career skyrockets to superstardom, with all the vice that comes along. Celeste's meteoric rise to fame and concurrent loss of innocence dovetails with a shattering terrorist attack on the nation, elevating the young powerhouse to a new kind of celebrity; American icon, secular deity, global superstar. As the film enters it's second phase set in 2017, Celeste has grown into her early 30s. She's mounting a comeback after a scandalous incident that derailed her career. Though praised by legions of fans, her private life has been plagued by scandals and addiction, a strained relationship with her sister, and a teenage daughter of her own that she neglected to raise. As the launch of her grand opus looms, she must confront another act of violence. Touring in support of her sixth album, a compendium of sci-fi anthems entitled 'Vox Lux', the indomitable, foul-mouthed pop savior must overcome her personal and familial struggles to navigate motherhood, madness and monolithic fame in 'The Age Of Terror'. The film incisives a character study with a mature sense of style all his own. It's protagonist is a pop star called Celeste and it chronicles key events and cultural patterns that have so far defined the early '21st century' via her gaze. Celeste becomes a symbol of 'The Cult Of Celebrity' and 'The Media Machine' in all it's guts, grit and glory. Her music is a great luxury. But there's a difference in the sort of eco-system that comes, that grows around a pop star. Or if they had been present, in the case of a memoir, has her memory of past experiences not betrayed her? The character feels attacked. So, she lashes out at absolutely everybody. In the scene with her and 'The Journalist' (Christopher Abbott) both have extremely valid perspectives and points of view and she’s mostly in the wrong, in fact. In that moment, the most important thing is not when she says to the journalist, 'You’ve got nothing to be proud of. I don’t share that sentiment remotely'. The most important thing is when she goes, 'You’re right, you’re right', and that’s the reason that moment appears in the film, because she’s consoling herself by basking in a lie, to try to comfort herself. The character of course has a few of those moments where she’s a bit 'Trumpy’ and that’s one of them. And also, this character is suffering with 'PDST'. She’s not really designed to be a monster at all. She’s as much a victim of the era as she's a leader of the era. The film is very much about the fact that 'The 20th Century' was marked by the turn of the banality of people and 'The 21st century' will be defined by the pageantry of people. The film’s themes and the character are intrinsically linked, and so, she’s not a monster. It's about the questions around the psychology of what violence does to individuals and to mass psychology, to group psychology; certainly because of being from a place where people have encountered it for so long. But, unfortunately, it’s been a phenomenon now that, in 'The United States', we experience regularly with the school shootings, which are a type of civil war that we've in 'The US', and of terror in 'The US'. And the psychological impact of what that means for every kid going to school every day, of every parent dropping their kid off every day, and how small acts of violence can create wide-spread psychological torment. There’s a great moment in the film where she says, 'Let’s make it we'. So, her trauma becomes a collective trauma. "Vox Lux" is based on Robert Musil’s book 'The Man Without Qualities', which is about a character whose sort of on the periphery of major events, during the fall of 'The Astro-Hungarian Empire'. There’s an omniscient narrator (William Dafoe) that’s sort of sardonic and the film applies this Robert Musil-style and tone to something contemporary. The film is the continuation of "The Childhood Af A Leader", but on the other side of the century; an historical melodrama set in America between 1999 and 2017. The film connects the life of the protagonist to some major historic events. 1999 was 'Columbine', then we see 'The Twin Towers' in 2001. But this film definitely represents a more corporate brand of fascism. But yeah, we've to see them as being linked in a way for structural reasons and the fact that they're both fables that are sort of defining moments of an era. One in the early part of 'The 20th Century' and this one in the early part of 'The 21st century'. "Vox Lux" demonstrates a more transparent contract with the reader than the traditional historical biography because one is able to access the past without questioning the author about how they could provide such a detailed account of an event without having been present for the event themselves. Featuring original songs by Sia, "Vox Lux" is an origin story about the forces that shape us, as individuals, nations, and gods. The film guides into fearless places in the name of art, finding beauty in the ugliness of the world and daring us to pay attention. It’s a piece of art that's really more of a portrait, and more of a reflection of our society; the intersection of pop culture and violence, and the spectacle that we equate between the two. It's a statement or send an important message to 'The US' about their gun control policies. It makes people feel things that they recognise and that they can see some of things that we’re facing in our society right now. "Vox Lux" chronicles moments that defined 'The 20th century', the last twenty years. We’re all been through a lot. But the truth is, it’s quite a difficult film to speak about because it isn't an attempt to create.anything which is too didactic. It's something that's supposed to be a sort of fable or a poetic rumination of what we’ve all been through for the last twenty years. We live in an age of anxiety. We feel like we’re having more sleepless nights than ever. The film is sort of born of that. It's designed to be where we could all come together and think about it together collectively.

(Glasgow Film Festival: Film At Home; Wed 24 Feb to Sat 27 Feb) https://glasgowfilm.org/glasgow-film-festival/shows/minari-n-c-15 "Minari" It’s 'The 1980s', and David (Alan S. Kim), a seven-year-old 'Korean American' boy, is faced with new surroundings and a different way of life when his father, Jacob (Steven Yeun), moves their family from 'The West Coast' to rural 'Arkansas' in search of their own 'American Dream'. David and his sister Anne (Noel Cho) have mixed feelings about this move; at first excited by their new mobile home, they soon grow bored being in a backwater. His wife, Monica (Yeri Han), is aghast that they live in a mobile home in the middle of nowhere, and naughty little David and Anne are bored and aimless. When his sly, equally mischievous grandmother Soonja (Youn Yuh-jung) arrives from 'Korea' to live with them, her unfamiliar ways arouse David’s curiosity. The arrival of their foul-mouthed, but incredibly loving grandmother brings new energy to the family dynamic, but Jacob’s determination to make it as a successful farmer throws the family’s finances, and it's relationships Meanwhile, Jacob, hell-bent on creating a farm on untapped soil, throws their finances, his marriage, and the stability of the family into jeopardy. Amidst the instability and challenges of this new life in the rugged 'Ozarks', "Minari" shows the undeniable resilience of family and what really makes a home. It all begins as recent 'Korean' arrival Jacob whisks his family from 'California' to 'Arkansas', determined to carve out the rugged independence of farm life, even if it's one on shaky ground in 'The US' of 'The 1980s'. While Jacob sees Arkansas as a land of opportunity, the rest of his clan is flummoxed by their unforeseen move to a new life on a pint-sized piece of land in the far-flung 'Ozarks'. But it's two unlikely family members at opposite ends of the spectrum, wide-eyed, unruly seven-year-old David; and his equally defiant, just-off- the-plane-from-'Korea' grandma Soonja, who start to forge the family’s new path. In the midst of profound change, they clash at first, but soon discover the imperfect but magical bonds that root the family to their past as they reach towards the future. Jacob takes deep pride in his self-reliance while his wife Monica pragmatically tries to keep family life intact amid the chaos Jacob has whipped up with the move. Oldest sister Anne rapidly gains savvy and responsibility as she's handed big, unasked-for responsibilities, while David mischievously tries to repel his newly arrived grandmother Soonja, who upends the fragile peace with her foul-mouthed but perceptive commentary. Then there’s the humor and humanity of Jacob’s employee Paul (Will Patton), a fervent 'Pentecostal' in a perpetual state of repentance. He has a more unusual vision for his life. You root for Jacob because he’s doing this terribly risky thing, taking his family to this crazy place without even consulting them and putting them on the edge of disaster. You could easily despise this guy and not trust him at all. We've to understand of what it’s like to be Jacob, to be thirtysomething and to have kids relying on you but also have this fire to pursue your own ideas of success and happiness. Jacob holds firm to the idea that ultimately David and Anne will benefit from his dream, once the dust settles. But while Jacob’s wife Monica admires his aspirations, that doesn’t mean she can easily embrace life in an 'Arkansas' trailer in the middle of nowhere. She’s anxious about the family’s isolation, and about where her own life and marriage goes from here; even as she transforms their trailer into a place that increasingly feels like home. As "Minari" builds, David witnesses his father’s dream waver on the edge of absurdity, then near catastrophe as it seems the family’s future might literally go up in smoke. David offers an impish, joyful way into complicated memories, but he also offered something else, that open, awed-by-it-all spirit that can illuminate the beautiful strangeness of life. With his lack of language for what it means to be an immigrant, David becomes a conduit for the feeling of an entire unmoored family trying to find their bearings. Conjuring David’s boyish exuberance, angst, and cheekiness is a particular revelation, merging the child and parent within him. There’s a dance going on where David is a creation of two opposing things; out inner memories of being scared, excited, and curious as a kid. An important part of Anne’s character is that she’s serious about caring for the people she loves, There are so many little moments, like when Jacob’s digging the well and David’s sits there looking bored. The film’s momentum completely opens up when Soonja arrives. She’s vulgar and has a wicked sense of humor, but what we find interesting is that quite often salvation comes from someone like that. Somehow, she might embody ideals of tolerance and love more than anyone. For all the tumultuous changes in David’s life, nothing sets off more sparks than the arrival of Soonja, who, much to David’s abject horror, moves into his bedroom, making them instant rivals. To David, Soonja can’t possibly be a real grandmother. She certainly doesn’t bake cookies or tenderly dote. She smells weird, gets a kick out of teasing him, and is as foul-mouthed as anyone he’s met. Nevertheless, in ways David cannot immediately see, he and Soonja share much in common; both are spirited rebels, both are physically vulnerable, and both are linchpins of the family, with Soonja connecting them to where they’ve come from just as David points to an unseen future. And when David pulls a boyish prank on Soonja, hoping that will make her go away, it instead binds them closer as David realizes Soonja understands him better than he could have known. Salvation is more directly sought by the family’s invaluable neighbor, who lends Jacob the help he needs to tend to his crops. This is Paul, a completely committed 'Pentecostal$ who speaks in tongues but doesn’t say much about the reasons he's driven to make so many amends. Even as the ferocity of Paul’s faith is a mystery and at times an affront to Jacob, no one in David’s family can quite shake the strange, poignant beauty of Paul’s kindness to them. The film uses the intensity of Paul’s belief as a means to reveal who he's as a person. Paul is always an important character. The companionship he finds with Jacob speaks to how two people can come from entirely different backgrounds, yet find a closeness rooted simply in shared work. Like Jacob, Paul’s a man living in the gaps. He's alone, misunderstood, and burdened. Jacob relates to that intrinsically, even if he sees himself as a man who believes only in science and hard work. They both have their beliefs, but at core, they’re just two lonely dudes trying to do their thing, which is their connection. Jacob and Paul discover they can simply be themselves. As 'The Arkansas Dream' threatens to dry up and upend each member of the family, the film explores how a family navigates not only the very specific dilemmas of assimilating into rural America but also broader questions of elemental humanity, the gaps we all wrestle with between family ties and independence, faith and skepticism, feeling like an outsider and yearning to belong. Though each character has their own comic plight, there's no judgement or satire. Too often you see people in American films speaking English who would not in their real lives. But the more authentically a film depicts the details of how people really live, the more meaningful it's. There’s a dissonance to speaking 'Korean' at home that you can’t get at any other way. Two human beings trying to exist together is difficult enough, but when you add the pressure that they’re under there are going to be cracks. Just as working his own patch of land is the lure for David’s father to head for Arkansas, so too is the power of the land woven throughout "Minari". This family might speak 'Korean', but their fates are as tied to the potential and peril in 'The American' soil as the characters in John Ford’s "Grapes Of Wrath", George Stevens’ "Giant", William Wyler’s "Big Country", or Terrence Malick’s "Days Of Heaven". There’s a constant level of risk in farming that so few movies let you feel. Named for a peppery 'Korean' herb that thrives best in it's second season, "Minari" is a tender, funny, evocative ode to how one generation of a family risks everything to plant the dreams of the next. The film unspools with all the vividness of a lived memory. While in it's basic outlines "Minari" might seem to be a story we know; a tale of immigrants making a go at their own vision of 'The American Dream; the film brings a fresh and illuminating take. For within the film’s at once playful, powerful, and candidly detailed family remembrances comes a larger story: the impact of the journey on a new generation of young 'Americans'. It's a deeply personal immersion into reconciling two worlds, with boundless affection for both. There’s so much more drawing us together as human beings than the superficial categories we have created. For some, "Minari" might be a chance to see a 'Korean American' finally telling the story, but we've find these characters mean just as much to people from 'Arkansas', or from 'New York', or anywhere. Loving people is a lot of work, and things will go awry at times, but at the end of the day you have that love and it’s real and so meaningful. All people have their masks, all people have their triumphs and their failings.

(Release Info U.K. schedule; February 26th, 2019, Everyman Mailbox Birmingham, 116 Wharfside Street, The Mailbox, Birmingham, West Midlands, B1 1RF, 19:00 PM) "Serenity" The tranquil cerulean waters of a tropical island are known as a vacationer’s paradise, but not to Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey), a scarred fishing boat captain who earns a living by taking obnoxious tourists game-fishing aboard his twin-engine boat christened ‘Serenity'. To make it worse, 'Serenity' docks in a beachside village called 'Plymouth' whose residents relish a little too much in staying on top of everyone else’s business; an annoyance to someone like Dill who makes it a habit to keep to himself. Dill’s only true companion is his first-mate Duke (Djimon Hounsou), an islander with an ingrained sense of responsibility that's only cultivated with age and hard-work. The two men could make a profitable living if it wasn’t for Dill neglecting his customers due to his obsession with catching a blue fin tuna that continuously eludes his grasp. After another vacationer’s excursion goes awry, Duke reminds Dill that if he intends to salvage their business, he has to give up on his blind obsession of capturing an elusive tuna and give the customers what they want; an escape from the realities and stresses of life. Dill refuses to listen to his friend’s wise advice and instead drowns his sorrows in booze at the local bar or in the arms of Constance (Diane Lane), who offers him solace as well as cash when he can’t quite make ends meet. One day, out of the blue, Dill’s ex-wife Karen Zariakas (Anne Hathaway), who abandoned him years earlier for a wealthy man with suspicious business practices, appears on the island. She reveals that her life has not been idyllic and that their teenage son Patrick (Rafael Sayegh) has become withdrawn, spending all his time playing video games. On top of that, her husband Frank (Jason Clarke) physically abuses her, and she's worried about Patrick’s safety. She wants Dill to take Frank fishing, get him drunk, and push him overboard for the sharks to feed on his corpse. In return, she will pay him ten million dollars. Dill balks at her proposition and refuses to agree. But as visions of his son begin to haunt him and Frank displays his true colors to Dill, Dill starts to re-think Karen’s proposal, despite Duke pressing him not to give in to temptation. What complicates things even more is the appearance of an odd traveling salesman named Reid Miller (Jeremy Strong) and the eerie feeling that the locals know more about Karen and her scheme than they should. While Dill weighs Karen’s unseemly proposal, he slowly begins to realize that things are not all they seem; and uncovering the mystery will determine what he decides to do next. 'Fishermen' are quite obsessive about catching fish, and this film is about someone who’s obsessed about catching a particular fish. Baker Dill is slightly heightened, larger than life, he's a sort of character that doesn’t give off himself too readily, someone who’s closed in. Dill is a guy who has had a life, he was in the army, and he’s washed up on this amazing paradise island, but we need to feel that this is a guy who has really lived a life. He’s not trying to hide from what has gone on in his life, but he certainly wants to protect other people from what was within him. Dill believes that he’s making the choices, and then slowly begins to wonder, ‘Am I actually making these choices or are these choices being imposed upon me'? On the surface it’s about a man who's obsessed with catching a fish, but underneath this storyline are themes of how our realities are created and the power we've in the choices we make. For the character of Dill, the film is inspired by ideas of classic masculinity going all the way back to Bogart or Brando. It's really about playing with the level of truth and grit and masculinity and a refined sensibility. But as the story progresses you realize might be a very truthful reflection of the life that he’s living. Karen is a mother who on the surface seems very gentle and meek, but who underneath is very much a warrior. She's defined by the love for her child and that every decision she makes is for his wellbeing. She presents a lot of questions in how she presents herself, always elegantly, always meticulously. There's a very serious question throughout the movie as to who Karen is. With that audiences would be looking towards Karen’s clothes for answers as to who she really is and what her motives really are. One of the most fun parts of the job is figuring out when to provide clues and figuring out when to make sure that there were no clues. Frank is a character that we hear a lot about before meeting him, so the audience’s expectations are going to be pretty high. By the time we meet him, as a designer, get to sort of play into the audience's expectations of who this man is, and it turns out that he’s quite a snappy dresser. Frank is always impeccably put together, and his costumes are essential to helping audience understand him as a character, the world that he comes from, and the world that he expects to always play around him. The character of Duke is actually based on a real person. He's the first mate on the boat. Duke is the emotional, spiritual core of the movie. He's a man whose entire appearance has to convey his humility and his simplicity, but also to play with color in a way that makes Duke one of more vibrant figures in "Serenity". He's really saturated. Duke is an incredibly important counterbalance to the kind of washed out world that the movie creates. "Serenity" is set somewhere in the tropics on a fictional island called 'Plymouth'. 'Mauritius' is sort of undiscovered in terms of movie making because it has only recently opened up it's doors. In other words, 'Mauritius' could be 'India', 'The Caribbean', 'Africa', or it could be 'France' depending on where you're and in terms of the ethnic make up of the people. Everyone is here, everyone is mixed and everyone seems to rub along together nicely. Being in 'Mauritius' is a huge factor in understanding the looks of 'Plymouth'. The characters are on a tropical island in the middle of 'The Indian Ocean'. It’s incredibly beautiful, the ocean is crystal blue, the weather is heavenly and the sand is powdery white sand. The people of 'Mauritius' are very specific. They're incredibly generous and peaceful. In seeing the way they dress, living a true island life, has definitely informed my understanding of how life might be on 'Plymouth'. The film incorporates 'Mauritius' and the understanding of some of the character’s attitudes, relaxing things a little bit and dialing back any contemporary references. When you’re here, you realize that on an island you’re living in your own world. Shooting on a boat is very difficult, as it's very slow and expensive, and there are issues with weather and inconsistencies in the light as well as the water. The unique advantage of shooting in 'Mauritius' is that it’s a volcanic island surrounded by a reef. However, because Mauritius reef gives a lagoon effect that's only two meters deep, it almost entirely mimics the physical characteristics of a tank Effectively, you've this gigantic tank and the reef acts as the line between the still water and the ocean water, which is exactly how you shoot in a tank. We're in a fictitious tropical location, and we don’t know where that place is narratively, but the film uses 'Mauritius' and all it's physical attributes to build that world. It’s an intriguing mélange of the actual appearance, what you can see on the screen. There's the real level and there's the subconscious level and there the deep level. Mauritius offered up a lot of opportunities because of the isolation of the island. It means that it has got a lot of intensity, from the mountains you see behind the rivers, to the coastline, and then the beautiful cities and shorelines, and the fishing. The film works with bold colors, but to control it so it isn't garish. The sunlight is very strong and the film deals with a lot of primary colors. Overall, it’s about retaining some of the beautiful primary aspect to the island, but just taking the edge off that so it’s not an oversaturation. While not a traditional noir thriller, "Serenity" certainly pays homage to classic films of the genre as well as literature. In terms of dialogue and setting and mood, it's a conscious nod to Ernest Hemingway and Graham Greene, absolutely. It also references to some of the classic movies of the ‘40s and ‘50s. What's really fun about designing consumes for "Serenity" is that there's a duality to all the characters, to their stories, to their world and their understanding of their predicaments. The film approaches it from the truth that the characters found themselves in and also the archetypes that would have informed the way the characters like these may have been seen in movies of the past, including especially the classic noir movies. It's really using the classic noir movies, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, and asking how they might be translated into a contemporary esthetic. At first glance "Serenity" is the story of a fisherman’s obsession with catching a fish, but the film wants audiences to see it on a deeper level; people can choose to view it as a conventional thriller or they can choose to view it as something else. The film is interested, on various levels, in good people doing bad things for a good reason, which is what happens in this film. It's also about the idea of choice and free will, it’s impossible to resolve whether we've them. Because once you’ve made a choice, that’s it and that choice, is it always going to be there or did you choose it? You know, a fable has a moral to the end of the tale and the film deals with the game of life, and the long-term view of what it's to win and connections that go beyond life and death, love and the end of love.

(Release Info London schedule; September 26th, 2018, Gate Theatre, 18:30) "The Wife" After nearly forty years of marriage, Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) and Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) are complements. Where Joe is brash, Joan is shy. Where Joe is casual, Joan is elegant. Where Joe is vain, Joan is self-effacing. And where Joe enjoys his very public role as 'Great American Novelist', Joan pours her considerable intellect, grace, charm, and diplomacy into the private role of 'Great Man’s Wife', keeping the household running smoothly, the adult children in close contact, and Joe’s pills dispensed on schedule. At times, a restless discontentment can be glimpsed beneath Joan’s smoothly decorous surface, but her natural dignity and keen sense of humor carry her through the rough spots. It’s 1993, and Joe is about to be awarded 'The Nobel Prize' for his acclaimed and prolific body of work. Joe’s literary star has blazed since he and Joan first met in the late 1950s, when she was a demure Smith student and he, her married creative writing teacher. From 1960 to 1993 to our present vantage point of 2018, we observe Joan and Joe Castleman in the context of their times, and ours. En route to Stockholm for 'The Nobel Prize' ceremonies, Joan and Joe are accompanied by their son David (Max Irons), an aspiring writer in his twenties who feels that Joe belittles his work. Sulky and resentful, David wears his wounded heart on his sleeve. There’s another man on board who also wants something from Joe; Nathaniel Bone (Christian Slater), a journalist who plans to write the definitive biography of Joseph Castleman, authorized or not. To crusty, arrogant Joe, Nathaniel’s just a pest to be brushed off, but to Joan, making an enemy of Nathaniel is a risky matter. As always, she’s the conciliator between Joe and David, Joe and Nathaniel. Amid the nonstop round of ceremonial festivities in Stockholm, Joan and Joe are swept into familiar, long-worn roles; Joe is flattered and schmoozed, while Joan stands by his side wearing her quiet smile and flinching only slightly at 'no, Joan’s not a writer. As we see in flashback to Joan and Joe’s early days in the late ‘50s, Joan not only had her own writing aspirations, she had the talent and the looks to capture the attention of her teacher, Joe. A caustic encounter with Elaine Mozell (Elizabeth McGovern), an embittered novelist, gives Joan a warning preview of the obscurity awaiting the lady writer, no matter how talented. As Joan and Joe embark on a love affair, it fits a certain literary template of the time; she’s the well- bred WASP-y daughter of bland privilege, he’s the scrappy Jewish striver with the Brooklyn accent and the edgy stories to tell. With Joe’s first marriage busted up, they live the bohemian life in a 'Greenwich Village' walk-up. Joan gets a job at a publishing house, encountering enough casual sexism to squelch her own ambitions but spotting a chance to forward Joe’s career as the next hot young discovery. Thus is established the self-sacrificing partnership that continues right up to the Nobel gathering decades later. Another familiar, long-worn dynamic plays out in Stockholm as Joe is trailed by an attractive young woman photographer assigned to document Joe’s every public moment. Joan recognizes the predictable progression of flirtation and indiscretion that she has stoically overlooked through so many years of Joe’s serial infidelities. This time, Joan’s had enough. Serving Joe notice that she wants no place on a pedestal as his passive muse; matching wits with a prying Nathaniel Bone; letting her own grievances flare, for once, instead of smoothing over everyone else’s problems; Joan finally reaches for self-determination. The Castleman marriage and literary legend will never be the same. What are the compromises that we make in a marriage and a great partnership? Are there secrets that we keep as a couple that are legitimate? As a husband, how do you respect and love your wife? "The Wife" examines forty years of give and take between literary lion Joe Castleman, and the person who knows him best, supports him steadfastly, resents him deeply, and possibly loves him anyway; his wife Joan. The character of Joan Castleman is a deeply contained, elegant and shy woman who has taken the back seat to her brilliant husband. Joe’s anger and narcissism and infidelities are driven by inadequacy and insecurity and feeling emasculated. Through different times and different mores; from the 1950s and ‘60s of the Castlemans’ youth, to the 1990s of their mature relationship and it's high-profile crisis moment at 'The Nobel Prize' award ceremony, and up to our current-day perspective, we observe two talented and ambitious lifelong partners reckoning with power dynamics between men and women that continue to bedevil us today. It’s a timeless but also very timely subject. Could we possibly sustain the kind of bargain that Joe and Joan Castleman sustained for forty years? Whatever our contemporary take may be on the sexual politics at work in the Castleman marriage, it’s all about the grey areas. This isn’t an easy black-and-white story. Ultimately, it’s about power, the power that Joan gives up and finally reclaims. It's hard for us to imagine what it's like to be in that world where women weren't expected to achieve high things the way men were. Joan may be part of the generation of our mothers and grandmothers, but her struggles with creativity, motherhood, and fulfillment ring out clearly to us today. She has the soul of an artist, the curiosity, the focus, the wildly fertile imagination. But her lack of confidence is part of the cultural climate. "The Wife" is adapted by Jane Anderson from the Meg Wolitzer novel of the same name. Meg’s novel tells a story that's so subversive about what it means to be a female writer. Our industry is now willing to embrace films that are driven by a female protagonist. "The Wife" interweaves the midcentury story of the couple’s youthful passion and ambition with a portrait of a marriage, thirty-plus years later, a lifetime’s shared compromises, secrets, betrayals, and genuine, mutual love. It's the story of a long, complicated marriage affords great actors the chance to reflect all the knots and nuances of their brainy, funny, perplexing, deeply compromised, but deeply compelling characters. This film is like music; two instruments playing a duet. The story unfolds in various timelines, often in flashback, and in three different locales. You've a puzzle to solve, how much are you influenced by reality and the recreation of a period, and how much can you explore it, and then make it your own. At times we’ve tried to absolutely replicate certain things, and other times we’ve just taken it as a guide, then we've gone off and done what we want. So much talent marshalled to tell a story about so much talent has yielded a film to admire. The film conveys the dance of marriage, the compromises made, the agonies lived through, and the familiarity of two people who've known each other intimately for a very long time, but they also address some fundamental, pressing questions about men, women and power.

(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

You can eat cookies till you throw up, for all I care. You’ll see… things are…quite different here. Have you seen “Goosebumps” where Jack Black plays the leading role as well? Well, you can expect almost the same thing. A kids-sized horror film. And I had the same feelings about it after a certain amount of time. Namely that it’s all a little bit over the top. Probably it wasn’t the intention to make it too scary. It should all be about magic and mystery. And it sure was the first half. I admit I have a weak spot for such type of movies. “The House with a clock in its walls” reminded me of the wonderful “Harry Potter” movies. Here too it’s about an orphan boy who ends up in a foster family and apparently has magic powers in his DNA. Lewis (Owen Vaccaro) himself looks like Henry from “The book of Henry“. Also an outsider with aviator glasses on. But halfway the movie derailed a bit and felt rather exaggerated, absurd and grotesque. Shit, there’s that lion again. As I mentioned earlier, the first part is highly entertaining. Lewis is being introduced. He meets uncle Jonathan Barnavelt (Jack Black) and his neighbor Florence Zimmerman (Cate Blanchett). And of course, there’s this huge Victorian-looking house with its ghostly contours. As a spectator, you notice there’s something very unusual going on and certain ordinary things come to life (and in normal circumstances they never do). Something that Lewis only discovers afterward. We then see Lewis attending his new school and how he befriends Tarby (Sunny Suljic), the popular boy who briefly raises Lewis’s popularity. All this is brought with the necessary humor and is highly entertaining for young and old. Even the presence of Jack Black was bearable. I’m not really a big fan of Black’s humor. Usually, it’s bland and ridiculously exaggerated. That is why a similar scene with a lion-shaped-bush with stomach problems is being used three times. Bland, trite and exaggerated toilet humor. Puking pumpkins? Let’s use the umbrella. But in general, it was still enjoyable. What amused me the most was the constant bickering between Uncle Barnavelt and Mrs. Zimmerman. That never really got boring. And then suddenly those puking pumpkins (and boy this was bad looking CGI) and a bunch of puppets shows up. Also, you’ll witness the resurrection of the evil Warlock Isaac (Kyle MacLachlan) and his illustrious wife Selena (Renée Elise Goldsberry). And finally, everything revolves around a very well hidden clock somewhere in the house of uncle Barnavelt. Although he’s a talented wizard and Mrs. Zimmerman a famous sorceress, finding this clock seems an impossible task. Even uncle Barnavelt is forced to use other tools to look for it. Like a huge pickaxe, for example, with which he starts to demolish walls in the middle of the night. And the way they handled this clock-problem, in the end, was also an easy solution. Apparently, the scriptwriters were exhausted and a little uninspired. Most positive was Cate Blanchett. No, I wasn’t really impressed. Visually it looked sophisticated and extremely well-taken care of, but it never was as magical as “Harry Potter“. Cate Blanchett was perhaps the only highlight in this fantasy film for kids. It was as if she tried to be the new Mary Poppins with her behavior. Maybe this movie is perfect to stimulate the fantasy of 8-year-olds. Though they must endure the hyperactive behavior of Jack Black. Is it because of the awkward way in which horror director Eli Roth tackled this project? Or is it due to Jack Black’s lackluster humor? Or was it the laser beam-shooting umbrella of Cate Blanchett used? No more fantasy-movies for kids. Anyway, my interest disappeared and made way for annoyance and lots of headshaking. The only thing I was hoping for was that the damn clock that posed a threat to our universe was found as quickly as possible. And that the other books written by John Bellairs aren’t used for a motion picture as well. After “A wrinkle in time” and this movie, I’m going to avoid fantasy films for children. Enough is enough. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

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