(Release Info London schedule; February 21st, 2020, Curzon Soho, London W1D 99 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5DY, 6:45 pm) https://film.list.co.uk/listing/1425630-vivarium/ "Vivarium" Gemma (Imogen Poots), and Tom (Jesse Eisenberg), a young couple, are in search of the perfect starter home. When their mysterious local estate agent (Mark Quigley) informs them of a new housing development, somewhere between suburban 'Ireland' and 'The Twilight Zone, the enigmatically named 'Yonder', they ignore their initial reservations and decide to check it out. In a quiet neighborhood, he leads them to house number 9 and disappears. Soon, they realize that they're in an infinite space filled with identical houses, and that any attempt to escape will lead them right back to number 9. But this cautious couple should have listened to their instincts, quickly finding themselves unable to escape the seemingly endless maze of picture-perfect streets. As the weeks pass, they're forced to accept that they're trapped inside this manufactured utopia. Then, one day, a surprise package is about to arrive at their doorstep with a baby boy (Senan Jennings) inside. Invoking both the mind-bending weirdness of a classic Tom discovers that the soil of 'Yonder' is made from a seemingly artificial substance. He starts to dig a hole. He becomes obsessed. Digging makes him feel as if he has a purpose, but the hole just gets deeper and deeper. Tom hears noises at the bottom of the hole. He digs further. Tom’s physical and mental health deteriorates further. Tom attempts to harm the boy, but Gemma intervenes. Gemma attempts to understand the couple’s predicament by engaging with the boy. She discovers that he's incapable of imagining things. Tom’s emotional distance pushes her closer to the boy. One day the boy vanishes, only to reappear with a strange text book. Gemma asks the boy who gave him the book. To show her, the boy takes on a disturbing physical form. Time has passed. Gemma and Tom have grown weaker. The boy (Eanna Hardwicke) has grown into an adult. Gemma and Tom reunite in their fear of him. The boy leaves the house every day and Gemma and Tom do not know where he goes. While digging, Tom finds a withered corpse in a body bag. Tom weakens to the point of death. Gemma begs the boy to help. The boy provides them with a body bag. Tom dies and is flung into the hole. A vengeful Gemma attempts to kill the boy. He escapes into a bizarre, subterranean corridor. Gemma follows and tumbles through parallel homes where other young couples live lives of similar despair. Gemma is spat back out into number nine. After a final act of verbal defiance, Gemma dies. The boy buries her in the hole with Tom and leaves 'Yonder'. He becomes an estate agent, replacing Martin (Jonathan Aris). The idea of owning your own home has become like a faery tale. Insidious advertising promises ideal living, a fantasy version of reality that we strive towards. It's the bait that leads many into a trap. Once ensnared we work our whole lives to pay off debts. The social contract is a strange and invisible agreement that we flutter towards like moths to a flame. Natural areas are destroyed to make way for rows of identical houses, mazes for an atomised society to live out their days. We eat processed food wrapped in plastic. Media competes with parents to set strange new agendas in the minds of children. The dream of owning a home can soon turn into a nightmare. Consumerism is consuming us. "Vivarium" is fed on these ideas. It amplifies and the ordinary through a sci-fi lens. It's a surreal and twisted tale that's darkly humorous, sad, frightening and weirdly satisfying. "Vivarium" is a surrealistic, dark, but humorous film that lures us into a unique space and captivating experience. It's an eerie portrait of domestic life that poses questions of class and gender roles, even as it sucks the audience into it's hellish suburban maze. The nightmarish jaunt up the property ladder is as thrillingly provocative as it's wickedly enjoyable. Audiences get a kick out of it and it lingers in the mind.

"The Royal Hotel"     Americans Hanna (Julia Garner), and Liv (Jessica Henwick), are best friends backpacking in Australia. After they run out of money, Liv, looking for an adventure, convinces Hanna to take a temporary live-in job behind the bar of a pub called ’The Royal Hotel’ in a remote Outback mining town. Bar owner Billy and a host of locals give the girls a riotous introduction to Down Under drinking culture but soon Hanna and Liv find themselves trapped in an unnerving situation that grows rapidly out of their control.   The film is inspired by the feature documentary 'Hotel Coolgardie'. It's the story of two young Scandinavian women trapped in an Australian mining town. This clash of cultures feels like a way into a broader discussion about drinking culture and gender dynamics. There’s a part of us that understands that pub world and a part of us that's terrified by it. "The Royal Hotel" feels like an opportunity to do that by putting the two lead characters into a remote community, exploring how these two women navigate an unfamiliar and antagonistic environment, far removed from the urban existence they're used to. "The Royal Hotel" explores Hanna and Liv's experiences within the intense and volatile setting they find themselves in, while also delving into the underlying factors that contribute to its hostility. Hanna doesn't want to be there in the first place and she's feeling vulnerable most of the time, while Liv is more inclined to say ‘lighten up, it's not that bad…it’s just the culture'. With these two characters the film shows the subtleties in the way that women respond in these kinds of circumstances. The film wants to tell this outback story, through a female gaze, to turn the tables on a genre that's traditionally been very male, and to use the masculinity of that world as the fuel for the story, and to be able to examine some of the complications around male culture, but it feels reductive.   The central dramatic question of this film is not will they get out? It’s ‘should they?’ It's a much more subtle question, because it goes to the heart of this very masculine culture and what's unacceptable within that culture. It's a film that builds slowly and inexorably to the question of should they leave. It's about the way people respond to trauma. There's one way where you can be very on high alert, very fearful, or the other way, where you just dive in and drink it all away. The ending is a provocation. It generates conversation around what's acceptable within our culture and when we should stand up for ourselves and take a stand. And it’s a situation that's all too common for young women going into environments where they've little power; where they can start doubting whether their version of reality is the real version and start being co-opted into a culture that is making them feel like they're the ones who are crazy.   "The Royal Hotel" is set in a mining town and not a farming community so we were quite specific about what the landscape should look like. Mining towns are set up to support industry and are mostly filled with fly-in fly-out workers from interstate. The film wants the set to feel normal and inviting in the way that pubs quite often do, but it feels cold or menacing. This place is a threat. While the film has nods to thriller and Western genres, it cannot be readily characterised as a genre piece. Certainly, it's like a nightmare and at times we're almost verging towards horror, but you can not describe this as a genre film. The trick of it and the balancing act within it's that you're observing real behaviours, but you're coming at it from a particular perspective and by ramping up certain key moments you're heightening tensions within it.   Written by Gregory Mann

(Release Info London schedule; February 17th, 2020, Prince Charles Cinema, 7 Leicester Pl, London WC2H 7BY, United Kingdom, 9:00pm) https://princecharlescinema.com/PrinceCharlesCinema.dll/WhatsOn?f=15507148 "Come To Daddy" Norval Greenwood (Elijah Wood) is a 'Los Angeles DJ' who receives an invitation to visit his father Brian (Stephen McHattie) after a lifetime of estrangement. The sincere invitation sends 30-­­something Norval to his estranged father with hopes of reconciliation. Norval is a privileged man-­­child arrives at the beautiful and remote coastal cabin of his father, who he hasn’t seen in 30 years. Once Norval arrives at Brian’s isolated seaside home, he discovers that reconnecting with the cynical old man; and fitting himself into his dad’s messy life; won’t be easy. He quickly discovers that not only is dad a disapproving jerk, he also has a shady past that's rushing to catch up with him. Now, hundreds of miles from his cushy comfort zone, Norval must battle with demons both real and perceived in order to reconnect with a father he barely knows. Hope turns to panic, as he uncovers his father’s shady past and is forced to face his inherited demons. Norval is a peculiar character, a somewhat pretentious 'LA' export with a carefully cultivated look; monk cut, pencil mustache, draping layers, wide-­­brimmed hat, limited edition gold phone designed by 'Lorde'. He describes his career in the music industry in the most self-­­congratulatory terms. He's not someone you can pigeonhole. He's a DJ! He produces blazing beats. He tinkles the ivories. He promotes high-­­profile events pertaining to music and the performance of music. He’s maybe kind of an asshole. Norval’s look is crucial to the story, as it firmly establishes the character as a fish out of water in his father’s remote, rural setting. We've to find the authenticity behind Norval’s wilder characteristics. He keeps the emotional truth of that alive, as well; whilst also telling a pretty bloody, funny, genre tale. The isolated house, it’s going to make such a great juxtaposition for the character’s isolation. This is very much a father and son story, and even though it draws pretty freely on what actually happened, that the very core of the movie comes from a son’s love for his dad, and their relationship, and everything that entails. Like the best stories, "Come To Daddy" springs from a deeply personal place. It's really driven by an epiphany after Brian's dying, and just thinking, ‘oh my God, life’s short. Get your act together. The passing of a parent is life-­­changing under any circumstances, but the film expériences the loss in a rather more unusual way. Is it really a good idea to bring the body back after embalmment to spend some time with the grieving family? Living with your father’s corpse for a week in his house. For much of the week, Norval is alone in the house with the body resting in an open coffin, as he sleeps in his father’s bed and wears his clothes. Strangers come and go, paying their respects to a man who sounded nothing like the man Norval knew. They speak about their shared past with him and mentioned faraway places and strange anecdotes, stories from people he had never heard of. It seems to us like they're talking about someone else. During the week, Norval endures dark, intense dreams, and his mind starts playing tricks on him. He returns to his childhood bedroom, surrounded by a lot of bric-­­a-­­brac of his past. It's a strange time. Reading a lot of Roald Dahl's 'Tales Of The Unexpected' and watching many ‘70s 'Giallo' movies. And drinking copious amounts of Rooibos tea, often up to five bags per cup. It feels like a wild amalgam of sly thrillers like Mankiewicz’s "Sleuth" (1972), and Lumet’s "Deathtrap" (1982). Well, that’s really phenomenal and crazy and weird; and right up our alley. This is the exact kind of thing that we’re drawn to, which is kind of off-­­center, kind of weird, kind of dark, kind of funny. Because as many strange, surprising places as "Come To Daddy" goes, it all comes back to that personal core, to that cathartic, eureka moment when your father died. As sons, we always have unfinished business with our fathers. But what happens if that unfinished business comes looking for us? The music of "Come To Daddy" is inspired by 'KPM' stars like Barry Morgan and James Clarke, David Shire’s 'The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three' and Jerry Goldsmith’s 'The Mephisto Waltz'. The music really revolves around Norval and his dad. To speak to that sense of a child's impressions of their hazily remembered father, the film uses a beachy motif derived from play-­­along backing loops recorded in the ‘70s for 'The Mattel Optigan' home organ. This stuff is contrasted with a lot of bass instruments, again to reflect Norval's feelings about his dad, electric bass and contrabass, often combined, as well as the bassier woodwinds using lots of extended techniques that really get close to the player's mouth, and so go to a much less musical and more visceral, almost creepily human, place. That equilibrium between emotional honesty and darkly funny violence makes for an atypical tone distinguishing "Come To Daddy" from many other contemporary films. The film breaks through those expectations and have the audience unsure of where it's going, from dysfunctional family reunion to psychological mindgames to possible supernatural overtones to a wildly over-­­the-­­ top comedic thriller. Psychologically-­­driven chamber piece films, often out of 'The UK' in the ‘60s and ‘70s, are all part of the film’s narrative 'DNA', including "Sleuth" for the cat &mouse twists, Glazer’s 2000 film "Sex Beast" for the jarring lead antagonist and turns from comedy to violence, Losey’s 1963 thriller "The Servant" for the mindgames with those we’re inavoidably linked with, Friedkin’s 1968 adaptation of Harold Pinter’s "The Birthday Party" for the pitch-­­black comedy of menace, and Peckinpah’s 1971 "Straw Dogs" for the simmering violence awakened in the lead. The film is a tribute to this type of cinema. Gritty, character-­­based thrillers that were literate and laced with pitch-­­black humor. The film creates a Pinter-­­esque tale that will immediately drawn in viewers, but then playfully keeps switching gears on them. Just when they've a handle on everything, we chicane again. "Come To Daddy" is a thoughtful, character-­­driven thriller spiked with uncommonly dark comedy and more than a few outrageous turns. One part a retro, ‘70s, 'British' exploitation chamber piece, one part 'J-­­Horror' misdirect and, finally, a full-­­throttle, get-­­in-­­your-­­face revenge thriller. It’s a virtuoso high-­­wire act that will play to the fervor of a raucous midnight crowd, or to the more genteel sensibilities of a Sunday afternoon matinee.

(Release Info UK schedule; January 17th, 2020, Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, Glasgow, G3 6RB, 13:30 19:30) https://film.list.co.uk/listing/1447804-a-hidden-life "A Hidden Life" Based on real events, "A Hidden Life" is the story of an unsung hero, Franz Jägerstätter (August Diehl), who refused to fight for 'The Nazis' in 'World War II'. When the Austrian peasant farmer is faced with the threat of execution for treason, it's his unwavering faith and his love for his wife Franziska (Valerie Pachner) and children that keep his spirit alive. "A Hidden Life" is based on the true story of Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian peasant farmer, who refused to take the oath of allegiance to Hitler during 'World War II', sacrificing everything, including his life, rather than to fight for 'The Nazis'. Born and raised in the village of 'St. Radegund', Jägerstätter is farming his land when war breaks out. Married to Franziska, the couple are very much in love and involved with the tight-knit community. They live a simple life in the fertile valleys and mountains of upper Austria, with the passing years marked by the arrival of the couple’s three girls Maria (Sarah Born), Rosalia (Karin Neuhäuser) and Aloisa (Franziska Lang). When Franz is called up to basic training, a requirement for all Austrian men, he's away from his beloved wife and children for months. Eventually, when France surrenders and it seems the war might end soon, he's sent back home. His mother and sister-in-law Resie (Maria Simon) come to live with them, and for a while things seem to go on as normal. Instead of retreating, the war escalates, and Franz and the other men in the village are called up to fight. The first requirement of a new soldier is to swear an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler and 'The German State'. Despite pleas from his neighbors, fellow soldiers and commanding officers, Franz refuses the oath; objecting to Hitler and 'The Nazi Regime'. With his quiet act of resistance he asks the question, if leaders are evil, what does one do? With a sense of personal responsibility and the inability to do what he believes is wrong. Meanwhile Franziska is left to deal with the aftermath of his decision. Not only is she now the caretaker of the family’s farm as well as her three young daughters, she's iostracized from her community. Fear of Hitler forces once kindly neighbors to turn their backs on 'The Jägerstätter Family'. Wrestling with the knowledge that his decision would mean arrest and likely death, Franz finds strength in Franziska's love and support. He's imprisoned, first in Enns, then in Berlin; and waits months for trial. During his time in prison, he and Franziska write letters to one another and give each other strength. After months of incarceration, the case goes to trial. Franz is found guilty and sentenced to death. While Franz’s faith drives him to resist taking the oath to Hitler, representatives from religious, civic, government and military institutions plead with him to disavow his beliefs and swear his allegiance, even if he's disingenuous, in order to save his life. Franz continues to stand up for his beliefs and is executed by 'The German State' in August 1943. His wife and three daughters survive. The relationship between Franz and his wife Franziska endures. The film portrays their bond as deeply as Franz’s devotion to his cause. At every turn Franziska is there for Franz; strong, unfaltering and supportive of his path while raising their daughters and running the farm alone, eventually with help from her mother-in-law and sister. Franz Jägerstätter is born on May 20th, 1907, in the Austrian village of 'St. Radegund'. His mother is an unmarried farm servant, Rosalia Huber (Jasmin Mairhofer). His father died in 'The First World War'. Franz’s formal education is slight and brief. From 1913 to 1921 he attends the one-room school in 'St. Radegund', where a single teacher taught seven grades. At a given time, there are about fifty to sixty children in all. But one sees from his writing that he's a quick learner with a well-organized and independent mind. Franz’s birthplace is as inauspicious as his education. The village of 'St. Radegund', on the 'River Salzach , is on the northwestern edge of Austria. The village, with a population of about five hundred, appears only on the most detailed maps of Austria. Mozart’s 'Salzburg" is to the south, 'Linz' to the east, 'Vienna' much further east. The closest major German city is 'Munich'. Hitler’s birthplace, the Austrian town of 'Braunau', isn’t far from 'St. Radegund'. Franz grows up mainly among farmers. 'The Jägerstätter' farm is one among many in the area. It's a region in which 'Catholicism' is deeply embedded. The idea of not being 'Catholic' is, for nearly everyone Franz knows, as unthinkable as moving to another planet, though he has a cousin who becomes a 'Jehovah’s Witness'. One reads in the accounts of saints lives how pious some of them are from the cradle to the grave. The stories local people tell of Franz as a young man go in the opposite direction. In his teens he isn't hesitant to get involved in fistfights. He enjoys all the pastimes that his friends enjoyed. Along with all his neighbors, he goes to church when everyone else did, but no one would have remarked on his being a saint in the making. In 1930, at age twenty-three, Franz works for a time in the Austrian mining town of 'Eisenerz'. Returning to 'St. Radegund', Franz surprises his family and neighbors by arriving on a motorcycle he has purchased with money he earned in the city. No one else in the area has a motorcycle. The most important single factor attributed to bring about a change in Franz is his marriage to Franziska Schwaninger. Nearly everyone who lives in the area saw this as the main border-crossing event of his adult life. Franz is a different man afterward. Franziska is six years younger than Franz. She's very strong having been brought up in that area. She comes from a deeply religious family; her father and grandmother are both members of 'The Marian Congregation'. Her grandmother belonged to 'The Third Order Of St. Francis'. Before Franziska’s marriage, she has considered becoming a nun. After a short engagement, the two marries on April 9th, 1936. Franz is almost twenty-nine, Franziska twenty-three. It's a happy marriage. In one of his letters to Franziska during his period of army training in 1940, he mentions how fortunate and harmonious have been their years of marriage. Years after her father’s death, 'The Jägerstätter’s' eldest daughter, wondering aloud whether she would ever marry, recalls her mother warning her that married couples often fight. They've three children, all daughters; Rosalia in 1937, Maria in 1938, and Aloisia in 1940. There's not a marriage out of touch with the world beyond their farm. Franz and Franziska are attentive to what's going on just across the river from 'St. Radegund' in Germany. On March 12th, 1938, 'The Eighth Army' of 'The German State' crosses 'The German-Austrian' border. Assisted by 'The Local Nazi' movement and supported by the vast majority of the Austrian population, German troops quickly take control of Austria then organized a national plebiscite on April 10th to confirm the union with Germany. With few daring to vote against what have already been imposed by military methods, 'The Annexation' of Austria by Germany was even ratified by popular ballot. Austria, now an integral part of 'Nazi-Germany', ceased to exist as an independent state. Well before 'The Annexation', Franz has been an 'Anti-Nazi', but the event that brought his aversion to a much deeper level is a remarkable dream he has in January 1938. Perhaps it's triggered by a newspaper article he has read a few days earlier reporting that 150,000 more young people have been accepted into 'The Hitler Youth Movement'. In his dream he sees a wonderful train coming around a mountain. This train is going to hell. The train, he realizes, symbolized the glittering 'Nazi Regime' with all it's spectacles and it's associated organizations, 'Hitler Youth' being one of the most important and spiritual corrupting. In 'St. Radegund' it's widely known that Franz, ignoring the advice of his neighbors, has voted against 'The Annexation', but, in the reporting of the new regime in Vienna, Franz’s solitary vote was left unrecorded. It's seen as endangering the village to put on record that even one person has dared raise a discordant voice. After all, as Franz is painfully aware, even Austria’s 'Catholic' hierarchy had advocated a yes vote. Afterward 'Cardinal' Innitzer (Thomas Prenn), principal hierarch of 'The Catholic Church' in Austria, signed a declaration endorsing 'The Annexation'. Having become citizens of Germany, every able Austrian is subject to conscription. Franz is called up in June 1940, taking his military vow in 'Braunau', Hitler’s birthplace, but a few days later he returns to his farm, as farmers are needed no less than soldiers. Franz realizes that a return to the army is not possible for him. Even at the cost of his life, he would have to say no. Franz readily talked about his views with anyone who would listen. Most often he's told that his main responsibility is to his family and that it would be better to risk death in the army on their behalf than to take steps that would almost certainly guarantee his death. While he would certainly do what he could to preserve his life for the sake of his family, Franz notes that self-preservation did not make it permissible to go and murder other people’s families. He points out that to accept military service also means leaving his family without any assurance he would return alive. Franz even managed to meet with the bishop of Linz, Joseph Fliesser (Michael Nyqvist). Franziska is in the adjacent waiting room. When Franz comes out of the bishop’s consulting room, Franziska recalls that he's very sad. They don’t dare commit themselves or it will be their turn next. Having gone through his training, nearly two years went by without Franz’s receiving a summons to return to the army. Throughout that period, each time mail is delivered to 'The Jägerstätter' farm, both husband and wife are in dread. Finally on February 23rd, 1943, the fateful letter arrived. Franz is ordered to report to a military base in 'Enns', near 'Linz', two days later. At the station in 'Tittmoning', Franz and Franziska could not let go of each other until the train’s movement forced them out to separate. Franz is already two days late for his appointment at 'Enns'. The following day Franz is placed under arrest and transported to the military remand prison in nearby Linz. No one knows better than Franziska how carefully thought out is the position Franz is taking. Even so, it's impossible for her not to encourage him occasionally to search for some alternate path that might not violate his conscience but perhaps would save his life. In the army base at 'Enns' people traps him by means of trick questions and so as to make him once again into a soldier. It's not easy to keep his conviction. It may become even more difficult. Without warning, on May 4th, 1943, Franz is taken by train to the prison at 'Tegel', a suburb of 'Berlin'. Here Franz would spend the last three months of his life in solitary confinement. On July 6th, 1943, a brief trial occurred. Franz is convicted of 'undermining military morale' by inciting the refusal to perform the required service in 'The German Army'. Franz is sentenced to death. On July 9th, 1943, Franz and Franziska have a last meeting. On July 14th, 1943, Franz’s death sentence is confirmed by 'The German State War Court'. During his time in 'Berlin', Franz was permitted to write only one letter to Franziska each month, plus a fourth that was written on the day of his execution. The four letters bear witness to his extraordinary calm, conviction, and even happiness. On August 9th, 1943, Franz is taken to Brandenburg where, at about 4:00 p.m., he's killed by guillotine. He dies with no expectation that his sacrifice would make any difference to anyone. He knows that, for his neighbors, the refusal of army service is incomprehensible, an act of folly, a sin against his family, his community, and even his church, which has called on no one to refuse military service. Franz knows that, beyond his family and community, his death would go entirely unnoticed and have no impact on 'The Nazi' movement or hasten the end of the war. He would soon be forgotten. Who would remember or care about 'The Anti-Nazi Gesture' of an uneducated farmer? He would be just one more filed-away name among many thousands who were tried and executed with bureaucratic indifference during 'The Nazi Era'. The film is set in 'St. Radegund' where the events depicted actually took place, including certain interiors of 'The Jägerstätter' house, which has over the years become a pilgrimage site, as well as by 'The Salzach' river near 'St. Radegund' and in the woods below the house. 'St. Radegund' is a small village of 500 people in 'Upper Austria', near Salzburg and 'The German Border', in the same province where Hitler was born and spent his early youth, not far from Berchtesgaden, his mountain retreat during his years as head of 'The German State'. The clock visible on the wall of 'The Jägerstätter' living room is the one that Franziska is listening to when, at four in the afternoon on August 9th, 1943, at the very hour of Franz’s execution, she remembered feeling her husband’s presence. The bedroom is theirs and looks as it did then. Her embroidery still hangs on the walls. Franz and Franziska’s three daughters, Maria, Rosalia and Aloisa live in, or near, 'St. Radegund'. The story plays in churches and cathedrals, farms with real livestock, orchards, up mountains, in fields and along rural pathways. Nature and the natural environment are part of the subtext and the locations provided us with a foundation to build up from. In addition to his work as a farmer, Franz Jägerstätter serves as a sexton at the local church. He cleanes, rang the bell, and prepared weddings and funerals; without compensation and in addition to his duties as a farmer. The family’s various pursuits required a wardrobe that reflects not just their interests but their economic status. There's always imagination with costumes. But in this case, the most important part is getting as close to the reality as possible. The historic background of the story requires modern buildings and signs of contemporary life. The film draws on actual letters exchanged between Franz and Franziska while Jägerstätter was in prison. The collection was edited by Erna Putz and published in English by 'Orbis Books'. Some lines have been added to the letters, and sometimes the letters are paraphrased. The story was little known outside of 'St. Radegund', and might never have been discovered, were it not for the research of Gordon Zahn, an American who visited the village in the 1970s. Franziska passed away in 2013, aged 100. Today, the fields around 'St. Radegund' are covered in corn, a crop that's not grown at the time, as well as with power lines and modern houses, some immediately adjacent to 'The Jägerstätter’s' own. "A Hidden Life" primarily uses natural light, turning to artificial illumination only on rare occasions. Changing lighting conditions requires a continuous attention for stop changes to ensure proper exposure. For all the other sets, including the prison cells, the film works with the sun, adjusting the schedule to the appropriate time of day. The film is shot digitally on 'The Red Epic Dragon' camera system. The camera is selected for it's ability to handle stark contrast within a scene, preserving details in both the highlights and shadows of the image, while still maintaining realistic color. The film focuses on the emotional journeys and crises of conscience of the characters, the music reflects their story. The solo violin throughout the film embodies the connection between the two main characters. It’s an extraordinary, enduring love story that investigates human reactions and motivations and just how far people will push for their beliefs and conscience. It asks hard questions; do you've the right to hurt people that you love in service of the greater good? Ultimately, it's a timeless story of devotion, love and forgiveness. People relied on each other, and at that time that also means that you could not break out and be different. You've to toe the line. For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in the unvisited tombs.

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

(Release Info London schedule; December 16th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 10:00) "Papillon" Based on the books 'Papillon' and 'Banco', "Papillon" follows the epic story of Henri 'Papillon' Charrière (Charlie Hunnam), a safecracker from the Parisian underworld who's framed for murder and condemned to life in the notorious penal colony on 'Devil’s Island'. Determined to regain his freedom, 'Papillon' forms an unlikely alliance with quirky convicted counterfeiter Louis Dega (Rami Malek), who in exchange for protection, agrees to finance 'Papillon’s' escape. In the glamorous world of Paris in 1931, safecracker Henri 'Papillon' Charrière (Charlie Hunnam) steals a small fortune in diamonds for local gangster Castili (Christopher Fairbank). Though he avoids detection, 'Papillon', whose nickname refers to the butterfly tattoo on his chest, makes one critical mistake; he withholds a jeweled necklace from the unforgiving crime boss and gives it to his girlfriend Nenette (Eve Hewson) instead. In retaliation, Castili frames 'Papillon' for murder, earning him a life sentence at the infamous penal colony in 'French Guiana'. On a ship bound for the remote South American prison, 'Papillon' meets meek currency forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek), who's sentenced to life for producing counterfeit bonds. There, amid thousands of violent convicts awaiting their fate, the two men reach an agreement; 'Papillon' will protect Dega and the stash of money he has hidden. In exchange, Dega will finance 'Papillon’s' eventual escape plan. Upon arrival, the shackled prisoners are met by Warden Barrot (Yorick van Wageningen), who explains the prison’s draconian rules; solitary confinement for anyone who attempts to escape; the guillotine for murderers. As they struggle to survive the nightmarish conditions, which include tropical illness, savage beatings, forced labor and public beheadings, 'Papillon' and Dega enlist the help of inmates Celier (Roland Møller) and Maturette (Joel Basman) to stage a daring escape during a torrential rainstorm. Despite their best efforts, the plan results in 'Papillon' being sent to solitary confinement for five grueling years. Emerging as a mere shadow of his former self, 'Papillon' is transferred to 'Devil’s Island', where he finds Dega waiting for him. Surrounded by prisoners who’ve been driven mad by their time in solitary, the two friends contemplate the hopelessness of their situation. But 'Papillon’s' relentless desire for freedom will not be denied. Louis Dega is arguably the most colorful role in the film. Louis is a character almost everyone will identify with because he’s someone who’s finds himself in a surprising place he knows nothing about. He’s been thrown into one of the most deplorable and miserable circumstances on earth, and has to fight his way through to survive. One of the coolest things about 'Papillon' and Dega is the way they push and pull at each other. In some ways they’re true polar opposites, and that's what helped their relationship grow into what you see in the film. The character's relationship is extremely significant to the story. If that chemistry doesn’t work, the film won’t come off the way it needs to. 'Papillon' allows the audience to see exactly how someone can snap. Not only how they can physically break, but how their mind can deteriorate as well. These two unlikely friends become so reliant on each other that a genuine love evolves between them. And that love allows them to understand not only the other person, but themselves as well. But it’s about the relationship that’s created between 'Papillon' and Dega, who initially hate each other, but who become entirely dependent on each other by the end. 'Papillon' starts as this young, ambitious, egotistical man, and he ends up a completely different person. The film’s emotional journey of self-discovery expects moviegoers around the world. Nenette (Eve Hewson) is an enigmatic French prostitute who romances 'Papillon' before he’s sentenced to life in prison. Nenette is a tragic soul beaten down by life in the Parisian underworld, She’s a smart, interesting person in the way she approaches her ambitions and dreams. She’s not a delicate flower. She’s a fighter. Although Nenette isn’t sentenced for any of her crimes in the film, the character exists in her own personal prison. Nenette and 'Papillon' are partners in crime, like 'Bonnie and Clyde'. She’s desperate to escape Paris because she doesn’t want to be a prostitute anymore. Her ambition is simply to survive, which is in keeping with the theme of the film. For 'Papillon', survival means getting out of prison. But for Nenette, her prison is a life of prostitution. One of the most important characters in the film is 'The French Guiana Penal Colony' itself. Vividly described by Charrière in his novels, the location’s nightmarish qualities needed to be abundantly clear to audiences if the film is going to have the desired effect. Remarkably, there’s a fair amount of documentary footage on the subject. A great deal of history has been written about the penal colonies. In many ways, the penal colony described in Charrière’s novel resembles a Dante-esque version of 'Hell On Earth'. This isn't a summer camp in the jungle. This is a very rough place that stood for more than 80 years. So to tell the story convincingly, the film creates something that's as terrifying as the one that actually existed. For example, the jail that 'Papillon' is sent to in Paris is very different than the prison ship that takes him to 'French Guiana'. And the prison ship is very different than the penal colony in the jungle. Each one has it's own style and personality. The film captures a sense of compression, like the belly of a beast. There’s an element of rebirth when Papillon and the others are spat out onto the beach at the end of their sea journey. The prison ship has so much texture everywhere. It's dark and greasy, and there are fires burning in the background. It gives an intensely claustrophobic feeling. Although it's cold on set, you’d still sweat inside that ship somehow. Few topics have made for more gripping cinematic drama than true tales of incarceration. From the 1932 classic "I Am A Fugitive" to the 1962 biopic "Birdman Of Alcatraz", moviegoers have thrilled to stories that depict real-life prisoners struggling to survive the brutality of institutional confinement. Filled with shocking details about life in one of the world’s most hellish environments, Charrière’s autobiographical novel became a global bestseller when it was first published in 1969 and remains a modern classic in the genre of prison literature. Amid so many acclaimed titles, perhaps none has captured audience's imaginations the way the 1973 prison adventure "Papillon" has. A box-office hit starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, the film was based on the critically-hailed memoirs of Henri Charrière, a French thief who was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to life at the notorious 'French Guiana' penal colony in 1931. Based on the epic true story, "Papillon" is a thrilling adventure and a powerful portrait of the resilience of the human spirit, even in the face of utter inhumanity. The story of "Papillon" is set between the years of 1931 and 1945. Whenever you tackle a remake or a reimagining of a classic, one of the biggest hurdles is trying to differentiate it from the original without losing the integrity of the story. The solutithe idea of this film is really to capture an overarching life story rather than to just focus on the escape. The focus is not just about the prison and wrongful incarceration. It goes much deeper than that. Although Charrière’s tale is widely regarded as one of the most exciting prison stories of all time, the new adaptation of "Papillon" transcends it's genre. This film is about much more than trying to escape 'Devil’s Island'. It’s about trying to escape yourself and your past. That's the true appeal of "Papillon". Essentially, it’s a story about understanding one’s true self. The result is a stark portrait of unimaginable pain that will likely move many viewers to tears. "Papillon" contains all the elements necessary for a gritty prison thriller set in one of the world’s deadliest places, but it also includes something else; humanity. There’s plenty of visceral action and compelling drama, but it’s mainly a story of friendship. It’s about people being kind to each other in a very difficult and violent place, and it’s a testament to man’s will to endure. Sadly, much of "Papillon" is still relevant today because many men and women are incarcerated under horrific conditions, and isolation is used as a way to torment them. It’s happening all around the world at this very moment. The emotional depth is one of the favorite aspects of the film. "Papillon" is the chance to revisit the topic in a historical context, while focusing on what makes it relevant to today’s world. On the surface, it’s a thrilling adventure film.

(The Banshees of Inisherin • 2022 ‧ Drama/Comedy ‧ 1h 54m Showtimes London • Fri 21 Oct, Sat 22 Oct, Sun 23 Oct, Mon 24 Oct, Tue 25 Oct, Wed 26 Oct Thu 27 Oct, ODEON Luxe, 400 m·24-26 Leicester Square, LONDON WC2H 7JY, United Kingdom, 12:00 • 14:45 • 17:30 • 20:15 Leicester Square, 400 m·Leicester Square, LONDON WC2H 7NA, United Kingdom, 12:30 • 15:10 • 17:50 • 20:30 Vue Cinema London - West End (Leicester Square), 500 m·Leicester Square, 3 Cranbourn Street, LONDON WC2H 7AL, United Kingdom, 12:45 • 15:30 • 17:45 • 19:45 Picturehouse Central, 600 m·Piccadilly Circus, 13 Coventry Street, LONDON W1D 7DH, United Kingdom, 13:00 • 15:35 • 18:10 • 19:15 • 20:45 Curzon Soho, 650 m·99 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON W1D 5DY, United Kingdom, 12:00 • 15:40 • 17:50 • 21:20 ODEON Covent Garden, 800 m·135 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON WC2H 8AH, United Kingdom, 14:30 • 17:30 • 20:30) "The Banshees Of Inisherin" Set on a remote island off the west coast of Ireland, "The Banshees Of Inisherin" follows lifelong friends Pádraic Súilleabháin (Colin Farrell) and Colm Doherty (Brendan Gleeson), who find themselves at an impasse when Colm unexpectedly puts an end to their friendship. A stunned Pádraic, aided by his sister Siobhán (Kerry Condon) and troubled young islander Dominic (Barry Keoghan), endeavours to repair the relationship, refusing to take no for an answer. But Pádraic’s repeated efforts only strengthen his former friend’s resolve and when Colm delivers a desperate ultimatum, events swiftly escalate, leading to disastrous, anarchic consequences. “The Banshees Of Inisherin" is the story of an island, the small group of people on that island, and two friends who early on in the film are forced by the decision of one friend to go their separate ways. The other friend finds that particularly hard to deal with. The story opens with Pádraic walking happily around the island of Inisherin where he lives with his sister, Siobhán. Pádraic is a sweet, mild mannered, happy-go-lucky guy. Every day, Pádraic and Colm meet at 2pm to go for a drink in the only pub on the island. It’s a daily routine. On this particular day, however, everything changes. Colm ignores Pádraic when he calls. Colm starts acting very strangely and starts avoiding Pádraic. Colm doesn’t answer the door, which is how we start off the journey. That’s how it begins, with the shutting of a door against a good friend, for no apparent reason. Pádraic is initially surprised, then shocked, and eventually heartbroken. He’s also confused, since Colm has given no particular reason for the breakup. These two men have been friends for their whole lives..Why did Colm torpedo his friendship with Pádraic, was it something that Pádraic said, or did? Is Colm depressed? Should he respect Colm’s wishes and back off? Or should he try to change Colm’s mind or change himself? Within the first six minutes of the movie, the plot is in place. Pádraic can't understand why Colm doesn't want to be friends with him anymore and won't accept it. It’s similar to the feelings you feel when you've been dumped in a relationship. You think, ‘So did you ever like me, or was I imagining that we were in love'? We've to .understand the tough line that Colm, the breaker-upper, has taken, or do they identify with the nice person who's broken hearted. But Colm has his reasons. He doesn’t want to waste his time anymore. He wants to devote himself to artistic enterprises, music or thought. Pádraic is the fallout from that decision. Until this point things have been easy going. But Colm is older than Pádraic by 15 or 20 years. Colm identifies that time is precious and he sees Pádraic as a waste of time. It's a.smart way of playing with those feelings that everyone has in terms of a loving couple, heartbreak and rejection, but doing it with friends so there's a comedy element to it. Colm decides to embrace art and creativity as the most important thing in life and it leads to hellish consequences. The Irish Civil War was a tragedy, that’s the context here. Through examining it and trying to understand how things can get dragged out of shape, maybe we can face it down and not take that path. Do you devote yourself totally to life as an artist? Is work the most important thing? Does it matter who gets hurt in the process? It's a debate that isn't answered by the film. As Pádraic continues to prod Colm for a response, the situation escalates. Colm comes to a place where unless he does something very drastic, he's not going to be left alone. He threatens to cut his fingers off unless Pádraic leaves him alone and allows him time to create. Colm is curious in his mind and he’s a little bit intense. He reckons he has 12 years left, for no particular reason. He’s not ill but he knows his time is finite and he wants to leave a legacy. His art becomes his main priority. Colm’s quite sophisticated in his mindset. It’s a bit like a nuclear deterrent. Symbolically, he’s threatening to destroy his own gift of musicianship. Colm sees it as a badge of commitment. Pádraic shares a home with his younger sister Siobhán. It's coming up on eight years since their parents have died, so there's nobody else living here, apart from Pádraic’s miniature pet donkey Jenny, who Pádraic keeps sneaking into the house. They're close as siblings, so when Colm shuns Pádraic at the start of the film, Siobhán is perturbed. Siobhán is, perhaps, the wisest voice on the island. She realises the limitations of this community. It's inward-looking and resentful attitudes will eventually drag her down. She has ambitions that extend beyond the island, but she's also acutely aware that Pádraic needs her. Siobhán has been through a lot and so there's this sadness and loneliness to her. She's stuck. Pádraic drives her a little crazy, like a sibling would, yet she's motherly to him. She calls things out in the way that probably only a woman can. Her voice, wisdom, and enormous heart take you beyond the island and in a new direction. Colm’s artistic dilemma is reflected in Siobhán, whose life is consumed by reading, cooking dinners, and loneliness. Colm, perhaps, represents a struggle that Siobhán may find herself in within a few years. However, what's taking place on Inisherin, the division between Pádraic and Colm, and the growing rifts with other people on the island, mirrors what's occurring on the mainland. There are allegorical aspects to the division between both sides in the Irish Civil War. Then the islanders become involved. There's Peadar Kearney (Gary Lydon), the local cop whose dislike of Pádraic and his sister intensifies after his separation from Colm. Dominic Kearney (Barry Keoghan), the policeman’s son, is another person who's affected by this schism between the two men. Dominic is smart in his innocent, childlike sort of way. He has feelings for Siobhán, but she's the only girl for miles. Dominic bears a lot of that sadness and horror, as a lot of kids did in Ireland in the last century..The fictional island of Inisherin has a single pub run by Jonjo (Pat Shortt), whose best friend Gerry (Jon Kenny), is normally in residence. The pair provide a brilliant commentary on Pádraic and Colm’s declining friendship and subsequent duelling. Jonjo isn’t a mediator, but he tends to be there when some of the key moments happen. The pub is a major character in the story. It's yellow, bright. It has a red floor, which is an old oilskin from a sailcloth, and a black ceiling. These are strong colours for a period film. It's a multi-character piece and there are many strands that go through the story. Colm is the only character who wears a coat. The coat is light enough to blow in the wind and has elements of the American Western. There’s discord and madness, loss and suffering, and some laughs along the way. There’s something rotten in the community. All the characters are bananas. They're mad in their own unique ways; archetypes brought together to create a certain amount of chaos, but not chaos for the sake of it, and not just dark moments or themes to titillate and shock. The film is set in 1923 when Civil War was raging in Ireland. The fictional island of Inisherin is not affected but there's tension across the water on the mainland. Cannon roars and gunfire can be heard some nights and so we're very aware on the island that there's a civil war taking place. But we're also kind of shielded from it by virtue of being out of the way and a coastal outpost. The Irish Civil War was waged from 1922 to 1923, following the War of Independence and the establishment of the Irish Free State, which created an entity in one half of the country that was separate from the United Kingdom. Two opposing groups, the pro Anglo-Irish Treaty provisional government, and the anti-treaty Irish Republican Army (IRA), fought for dominance. They're not bothered about the war. It's like they're a separate little country, a separate little everything. The civil war was a catastrophic fallout that can emerge from a struggle for freedom. In the case of the Irish conflict, brother would be cast against brother, and friend against friend. Historically, it ended in horrific atrocities. The film does not adhere to the strict boundaries of history. Instead, it is it's own self-contained fantasy, a mythical place, a streak of madness permeating it's bones. The period setting of Banshees, 1923, leant itself to the idea of a Western. Shooting through doorways and that kind of John Ford-ian trope is something we explore in the storyboarding. The story lent itself to this idea of two almost lone gunmen falling out and getting into tiffs at the local saloon. The explorations of fidelity, separation, loneliness, sadness, death, grief and violence. Violence begets violence. The story is dark enough anyway, but the film wants the visuals and the locations to be as cinematic as possible. The mountainous geography of the island impacts the story. These looming mountains have a lot of tragedy behind them. It’s been informative, in terms of the broadness of Irish life. Everything is a little bit shabby and sad. The scale of this movie is massive. Filmmakers don’t usually try to send an audience away sad. But that's part of it, a about Ireland at that time and maybe about life. 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.

"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

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

I Am a Ghost was directed by H.P Mendoza, which is a name most people have never heard. However, he became popular on the indie film circuit when he wrote a script for the 2006 film Colma: The Musical. Since then, he's been involved with a few films, but the most well-known of them all is I Am a Ghost. Made on an extremely low budget and fiercely hard to get hold of until the widespread availability of online streaming, the film was made popular by its premise - what if the ghost was the one being haunted? However, after the initial excitement of there being something new and innovative out, word of mouth made I Am a Ghost a cult classic. It was spoken about on film blogs by film critics, but it is a film which was very much touted by seasoned horror fans, not an unreasonably large marketing budget.  Emily (played by Anna Ishida) haunts a Victorian house in an unknown time period. She goes about her daily life, minding her own business, until one day she hears a voice that seemingly comes from nowhere. It turns out to be the voice of Sylvia (Jeannie Barroga), a psychic who makes a living exorcising spirits from people's houses. Because of that, Sylvia has to help Emily come to terms with the fact that she's dead and help her move to "the other side." The film cost $10,000 to make, and a lot of that was raised through Kickstarter. I Am a Ghost could never have a mainstream release. It's a film that starts with 15 minutes of near-silence; a loop of scenes, each one with an incredibly small variation. Emily feels restless, and so do we. However, just as the audience is about to give up, the story begins to reveal itself and the film kicks into gear. I Am a Ghost, for its budget, is a remarkably well-made film. The lighting isn't the sharpest (although it is functional), but the sound design is brilliant and there is some very impressive make-up design. In fact, the thing this most reminds me of is David Lynch's brilliant short-film series The Alphabet. This is an extremely experimental film from start to finish, and although it has a short running time of 76 minutes, it is one that rewards concentration and patience. On the surface, it's a ghost story, but the entire basis of the film is effectively a conversation between a therapist and patient, and a young woman's attempts to reconcile with her own death. The best thing about this film - and it's the best thing about all abstract films - is that it perfectly straddles the line between the metaphorical and literal. It also doesn't skimp on the horror elements. The end of I Am a Ghost is dark, gory and threatening, and I think it will satisfy the fans who were expecting something visceral. Horror films this unique and exciting are genuinely rare, and it is one of the most interesting horror films I've seen in years. It's ambitious, daring, experimental, and delivers an emotional and an intelligent payoff. It's available to stream on YouTube for £2.50-£4.50 and is well worth the rental price. If you're a horror fan, do yourself a favour and check this

(Release Info London schedule; Sat May 29, 2021, Curzon Soho, 99 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON W1D 5DY, United Kingdom/Sun May 30, 2021, Curzon Victoria, 1.1 mi·58 Victoria Street, LONDON SW1E 6QW, United Kingdom/Mon May 31, 2021, Curzon Bloomsbury 0.9 mi·The Brunswick, LONDON WC1N 1AW, United Kingdom, 11:00 AM) https://www.google.de/search?q=the+killing+of+two+lovers&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgVeLVT9c3NEwrKjQ0tjAw28SkzsXrWlqUX5Cq75Ofl5KfJ8UGoZW4eJl4_ZxEvbex7tNiKs2-wMS4iFWyJCNVITszJyczL10hP02hpDxfISe_LLWoGAApYU7zWgAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYofGNmeLwAhULhf0HHQI2AsEQxyZ6BAgFEAo&biw=640&bih=287#wptab=s:H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgVeLVT9c3NEwrKjQ0tjAw28SkzsXrWlqUX5Cq75Ofl5KfJ8UGoZW4eJl4_ZxEvbex7tNiKs3excTllpmTG5KZnJ1acoGJcRGrcklGqkJ2Zk5OZl66Qn6aQkl5vkJOfllqUbFCcUZ-eUlmbmoxAG2UKhBxAAAA (Release Info UK schedule; June 4th, 2021, Curzon Home Cinema) https://homecinema.curzon.com/film/the-killing-of-two-lovers/ "The Killing Of Two Lovers" Local odd-job handyman David (Crawford) is trying to keep it together. He and his wife, Nikki (Sepideh Moafi), are going through a time of transition and allowing each other space to figure out whats they want from life and from their relationship. But there's one major issue; David doesn’t want space. Forlorn and frayed, the conflicted David is devastated when he learns that there may be another man sharing his wife’s bed. He just wants things to get better, and he plays along with Nikki because he suspects it’s the only thing that may keep them and their four kids together. His reluctant consent allows him to still visit his four children Jesse (Avery Pizzuto), Alex (Arri Graham), Theo (Ezra Graham) and Bug (Jonah Graham), while holding Niki to mandatory date nights in hopes of fixing their marriage. Now living with his Dad (Bruce Graham), his mental health begins to deteriorate and paranoia consumes his sense of hope, forcing him to confront personal demons in order to save his family and future. He's hotheaded, jealous, and terrified of losing his family. An explosive combination in a claustrophobically small town where private lives seem impossible to preserve; leaving him with only one possible solution. In general, people in life are more complex than we paint them out to be. We don’t know if anyone is inherently all evil or inherently all good. There's a complicated aspect of that. It's really exciting the way we approached it. And for David there's no life outside of his family, so he’s trying to wrap his head around how he will even continue if things go south. His job is a means to an end and he even says, 'I wish I could have had the children and stayed home with them'. David is losing his family and trying to figure out how to fight for them while at the same time giving his wife this room that she’s asking for, which is extremely scary for him. Niki is really in love with two people, which is so complicated to understand when you’re told as a young child that you’ll grow up to get married and only love one person. In the film Niki is loving two people and on top of that her career is blossoming, which is something that was unexpected when she took a job just to take a job and then all of a sudden realized she’s really talented and has skills. And for Derek is interested in settling down and that in his mind, he thinks he may be able to be a part of these children’s lives. He’s dealing with the complicated aspect of loving a woman who has children and a husband, but may be willing to take on all these responsibilities for how much he loves Niki. Then you take all these people who've good intentions in this small town environment and it gets incredibly complicated. The three main characters, David, Niki, and Derek (Chris Coy), continually surprise the audience with the duality of their behavior. We all understand betrayal, we all understand sadness, and if you've a child in your life you understand that love is unlike anything else in the world. It's a gift to be a dad and to have an opportunity to show this thing that we've inside of us just naturally. We never know why David and Niki broke up, we find them just as David is beginning to understand that his wife is sleeping with someone else and this is really all happening for him, he may not be at his dad’s for just a brief stint. The most pivotal moments of the film are defined by epic long takes and stunning wide shots. Think about the rocket scene, it’s like a photograph, framed from the position that Niki would be in if she's taking a picture. What this does is allow us to be in the moment and have all the elements within that moment be rooted to that period of time. The rocket scene, again, is a great example of a memory that would occur. What would the kids remember? How would David and Niki remember this argument? And the other aspect with this shooting style is that, when you film longer takes, you don’t allow the audience to relax, you remove the breathing room that multiple cuts often provide. "The Killing Of Two Lovers" is a story about a father going to pick up his kids who gets into an altercation with his wife’s boyfriend. It's about the period of life that we're in right now. We've seen the marriages of several friends and family members end in recent years and it gets us thinking about our male friends who really define themselves as good fathers and enjoy being fathers. Losing the everyday experience of putting your kids to bed, or sitting on the couch and watching TV with them, caused a few of them to start acting out of character, which is so interesting to us; to see the way in which they responded to this aspect of their life change. The film explores this kind of experience through a character like David because that it’s something you don’t understand until it happens to you. It's also about the idea of masculinity and the role it would play in a situation like this, when a man is fighting for his desired life while at the same time trying to respect his partner, which is a complicated thing to explore in-and-of itself. 'Kanosh' is a town of only 300 people, and it’s a tight-knit community, but houses are dying within that town. Every other block there’s a house falling apart. The landscape is perfect as a background for a marriage, because the onset of marriage is always very beautiful, but the nitty gritty is always more complicated and tight. The possibility of having that background against this intimate town while dealing with a failing marriage would be really valuable. Kids like movies, but we like the organic nature of their touch. The way that they climb over each other and the way they comfortably interact with each other, there’s an element of realism that you can’t really get if you cast actual actors in those roles. It allows us all to live free in the moment and to truly buy into the circumstances. The film is.a transfixing drama without a wasted word or a single inessential scene. It's an absolute marvel in execution that combines the naturalistic, languid life of a one-street town with the simmering suspense of a thriller. Each scene of 'Lovers' threatens to explode as it dives deeper into a torn soul just trying to do the right thing.