Search Results

(London Film Festival, October 7th, 2019, Odeon, Tottenham Court Road, Central Cross, 30 Tottenham Court Rd, London W1T 1BX, UK, 15:10 pm) https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::permalink=jojorabbit&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::context_id= "Jojo Rabbit" "Jojo Rabbit" is a 'World War II' satire that follows a lonely German boy Jojo Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis) as whose world view is turned upside down when he discovers his single mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), a young Jewish girl, in their attic. Aided only by his idiotic imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler (Taika Waititi), Jojo must confront his blind 'Nationalism'. Based on Christine Leunens novel 'Caging Skies', first published in 2004, the story begins in fictional 'Falkenheim'. In this quaint town under 'Nazi' rule, the end of the war is rapidly approaching. However, in 10-year-old Jojo’s bedroom, anticipation is mounting. For today, he finally has the chance he’s been waiting all his 10 years for, to join The Hitler Youth'. To Jojo, so credulously gullible and susceptible to the pervasive propaganda that surrounds him, it feels like his first opportunity to do something big and important, to help protect his single mother he loves beyond anything, and maybe even to feel like he belongs. To sooth his insecurities, Jojo brings along an outsized imaginary friend; a clownish, hare-brained apparition of Hitler, who with all the emotions of a child dispenses advice Jojo might have sought from his absent father. With Adolf in his head, Jojo feels invincible. But in fact, Jojo’s troubles are just beginning. Humiliated and nearly decapitated in 'The Hitler Youth' camp, his frustration only grows deeper. Then, Jojo makes a discovery that slowly, yet radically, transforms how he sees the world. Chasing what he believes to be some kind of phantasm, he finds instead that his mother has been hiding a 'Jewish' girl in the wall at terrible risk to them all. The shock nearly undoes him, here's the danger he’s been warned about living in his own home, under his own nose, mere feet from where he regularly confides in his imaginary friend Hitler. But as Jojo endeavors to keep tabs on the mysterious Elsa, his fear and vigilance grow into something even Adolf cannot seem to fathom. For the more he gets to know Elsa as a person, the more she becomes someone Jojo can’t imagine allowing anyone, including his 'Nazi' idols, to harm. While "Jojo Rabbit" is very much a comic allegory about the costs of letting bigotry take hold, whether in your bedroom or a nation, Jojo also takes a very real journey as a child coming-of-age. For in finding the courage to open his mind, he discovers the power of love to change your path.   Jojo is a very, very conflicted boy, so that's a big challenge. When you first meet him, he truly believes all the propaganda he’s seen. All Jojo knows about 'Jews' is from propaganda and the teachings at school which says they've got horns and devil tails and they're monstrous creatures. But you also see that he’s just a sweet kid who doesn't really know what he's talking about! He’s looking for something in 'The Nazis' that's missing in his life. His father is gone, and his mum is busy with things she doesn’t talk about, so he has no one except his imaginary friend, and he imagines that the only one who can really help him is Hitler. Jojo is a mix of blind gusto and untamed emotions in stride. He has that sparkle in his eye and the extreme enthusiasm for life. He mixes anger, anxiety, discovery and other subtle emotions into the humor. He reminds people of the harrowing history of bigotry, and how deeply it can affect not only entire societies, but especially children. Jojo’s awakening seemed to mirror how the world reacted after 'WWII'; stunned by a collective human loss of innocence, then uniting to affirm that hateful ideas would never again be allowed to take hold like that. As bizarre and unexpected as it's to interact with Hitler, some of the most demanding scenes come as Jojo wrestles with how to react to Elsa, who he truly believes has devilish powers. Yet, even Jojo cannot keep up his suspicion of Elsa for very long. While at first, he merely keeps her secret for fear of his mother getting arrested, the more he gets to know Elsa, the more he can’t resist what starts to feel like an authentic, eye-opening friendship that's rocking his world. In many ways, Elsa has all the bravery and sense of dignity Jojo only dreams of having. In spite of everything he thinks he’s supposed to think, Jojo really starts to like her. It’s quite confusing for him; how can he have such affection for Elsa despite his strong beliefs? It makes him question everything, even Hitler.  Elsa is basically living in a cave, almost starving and all alone, so it's difficult to find such strong feelings and go on pro-'Nazi' rants at her. At first, you don't really know if she's a monster or a ghost. You don't know who she's or what her intentions are.  You’re in Jojo’s point of view, so you start off with a fear of Elsa. But then, like Jojo, you see more and more of who she's and all that she's going through. As Elsa and Jojo start to see each other more clearly, outside of all the propaganda that surrounds them, they develop a relationship almost like a brother and sister. She's mysterious to entice Jojo to want to know more, but with a humanity that strips away Jojo’s illusions and confronts him with the discomfiting fact that everything he’s been led to believe about 'Jews' is all a terrible lie. Elsa’s situation is so vulnerable the whole way through, trapped in this small crawlspace, but the film wants to counter that by showing that Elsa is actually stronger and fiercer than anyone. She's a girl who isn’t a victim at all and definitely doesn’t see herself that way. The character of Elsa represents nothing less than the hope and resilience of humanity when confronted with unbridled hate and evil. She doesn't want pity, she just wants to be able to live her life without all this crap happening. Elsa transforms Jojo in spite of himself. The film likes the dynamic where, contrary to what Jojo expects, Elsa holds most of the cards and calls the shots. But also, they're in a 'Catch-22' that binds them together because both face terrible stakes if their secret gets out. Also vital is creating all 'The Nazis' in the film to be ridiculous and mockable, full of all the same flaws and quirks as the rest of us, which makes their participation in the fascist realm that much more of a chilling warning of how easily malevolent ideologies can take root on a large scale. This is especially true of Jojo, who initially reveres what he sees as Hitler’s might, until he sees in Elsa and his mother a principled strength that's so much greater. It's important that Jojo be clearly seen as a 10-year-old-boy who really doesn’t know anything. He just basically loves the idea of dressing in a uniform and being accepted. That's how 'The Nazis' indoctrinated kids, really, by making them feel part of this really cool gang. It's about the idea of seeing the madness of war and hate, something grown-ups very much manifest, through the eyes of a child. Adults are supposed to be the people who guide children and raise them to be better versions of ourselves.  Yet when children look at us in times of war, adults seem ridiculous and out of their minds.   You’ll go to Morocco, take up lovers and make them suffer, look a tiger in the eye and learn to trust without fear. That’s what it's to be a woman, or at least what it could be. You don’t get to see the full extent of their relationship, but Rosie Betzler is someone that’s saving her life and putting a lot on the line just to have Elsa in her house. Elsa feels admiration and a longing to establish a relationship, a longing to have a mother and someone to speak to. The film turns Rosie not only into a single mother, but also a defiant woman who decides that so long as ideals of empathy and tolerance are being pushed to the margins, she will work fearlessly to uphold them. Contrary to Jojo, she sees all too clearly the poisonous world Hitler is forging, so her natural response is to help, as she says, by doing what she can, which in her passionately practical way is a lot. But that also means hiding the truth of her life from Jojo to keep him safe, while hoping her little boy comes to his senses. She's really strong solo mom who's trying to save her son and others from this horrible situation, but at the same time trying to retain Jojo’s innocence. She's trying to balance her need to live boldly and be true to herself while doing all she can to keep Jojo safe through loss and peril. Being a mother is a big part of her identity but it's just one part. She also is full of fervor and ideas and the film wants her to have all those different shades so that she might feel really full of life. Rosie is unabashedly imaginative, poetic and romantic and at the same time, she's this very grounding force for Jojo. She's fighting for 'The Resistance' and is really a very modern woman. She's such a bright light in this very dark time. Even though Rosie is a dreamer and a bit of a comedian, she's also very pragmatic. Very much part of being a parent is that constant balancing between your practical, responsible, adult side and the side who can create a magical world for your kids. She's truly the strongest character in the film. Adolf Hitler (Taika Waititi) is really recent in terms of human history and we’ve got to keep talking about it, because the dynamics that caused it aren’t going away. He’s a figment of Jojo's imagination so his knowledge of the world is limited to what a 10-year-old understands. He’s the little devil on Jojo’s shoulder, basically. He’s also a bit of a projection of Jojo’s heroes all combined, including his father. Jojo’s fantasy version of Hitler is hardly the historical figure. Instead, he’s a loony, larger-than-life mashup of Jojo’s own impulses, desires, things he’s read or overheard and his yearning for a father figure. Jojo’s version of Adolf can actually sometimes be quite nice, which might seem a bit weird because he's Hitler, but at other times he's properly scary. He’s very light in the beginning, like Jojo, but by the end of the film he's just this sad, sad despot. Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell) is the cheekily imperious trainer of 'Hitler Youth Troops' who's at various times Jojo’s idol, nemesis and confidante. He has one eye, zero faith in the military command and a growing number of secrets. Captain Klenzendorf lives in a world of his own. He has all this flamboyant creativity that we want to give expression to at the end, when he explodes onto the scene.   Providing deadpan comic relief throughout "Jojo Rabbit" is Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson), the instructor who teaches the girls how to perform their womanly duties in war time but dreams of joining the frontlines herself. Fraulein Rahm follows in this tradition, ever-willing to believe every absurd 'Nazi' myth that makes the rounds. Despite her satiric portrait of a woman who questions absolutely nothing she hears, Fraulein Rahm is representative of many German women who took lead roles in the war. She serves in every way she can; teaching girls their womanly duties, giving Jojo physical therapy, then manning a machine gun. Perhaps the most hilariously dark and frightening character of all in Jojo Rabbit is Captain Herman Deertz (Stephen Merchant) of 'The Falkenheim Gestapo', who meticulously investigates reports of hidden 'Jews' and resistors. The character reminds people of just how outrageous cults of personality can become. There's something laughable about the worship of this little man with his little moustache who looks like an angry accountant and that’s one of the things that the film plays with. There’s a sense of how people can be swept up by, for lack of a better word, bullshit. It’s something still resonating right now. We still see people all over the world being up in these things, especially when there’s a uniform and an identity involved, so it seems well worth satirizing.   'The Hitler Youth' was first created in 1922 to indoctrinate kids and teens into 'Nazi Ideology' and train them to ultimately be tools of war. This gives us a sense of just how dark the reality of Jojo’s world is, no matter how much he just wants it to be a glorious adventure, as any 10-year-old would. What 'The Nazis' did to children was really awful. They wanted to have an army of fanatics to help them take over the world. Nazis' were parodied on screen as early as the 1940s when they're still very much a global threat, with the key being that the last laugh was always on them. Both during and after the war, Hitler was routinely mocked because it was a way of people dealing with the horror they're seeing. If you can reduce Hitler to something laughable, you win. The book is more of a drama, though it has comic moments. The film has more fantastical elements and obviously more humor, creating a kind of dance between drama and satire. The film creates something like a jazz riff on Leunens book, whipping up the structure of her story into an antic allegory of how fear mongering can take root in naïve mind, and how love can come out of left field to topple down the walls we put up against other people. If the book is a classical, panel painting, the film is more like Picasso’s 'Guernica'.   Like the story, the design of "Jojo Rabbit" presents the world through a 10-year-old’s confined but vivid lens, full of bright colors and bucolic beauty even amid the oppression and destruction of 'Nazi Germany'. At that age, you remember everything but with a kind of brightness to it all. Everything looks like a Spring morning. The film has all those 'Neorealist' qualities where there are sunny and charming moments but also very dramatic moments, and the mood can go from funny to tragic in a snap. That era between 1930 and 1945 was actually a revolutionary one for style in Europe, despite the war. In a lot of 'WWII'-era films, everyone dresses in brown and gray and it just feels kind of sad and dated. But if you look at the fashions of the time, though, there's really lots of bright color and high style. It's an era that in most people’s minds unspools in black-and-white. To see that world in color, the way Jojo, Rosie and Elsa would have experienced it, gives it a whole new dimension and aliveness. We've seen so many muted period films from 'WWII', whether in black & white or in more somber colors, that we're shocked to see such a vibrant spectrum of color.  But that's the reality and once the film decides to reflect this, it's an idea that circulated through the set design and the costumes and helps to set the tone for the story. At Jojo’s age things are a little more rosy-tinted and the world seems bigger and more amazing. So, the film recreates this feeling, the feeling we all have in childhood, but within 1940s Germany. For most of the film, we’ve been in Jojo’s imagination, with his playful view of war, but when the battle hits the town, we’re suddenly struck with the reality of what war really is. The frightening atmosphere and noise of it feels very real. In some ways it feels very visceral and real, but the film also creates something that becomes a kind of magical and surreal moment in the film. As the events in the film grow darker, so too do the colors. For the happier, more playful moments in the film, we've a diverse palette of oversaturated colors.  Then, the film tapes those off as more drama comes into play. Most of the film takes place in 'The Autumn" so we've lush greens sprinkled with gorgeous reds, oranges and pinks into the street scenes. However, hidden deep within the lightness of the house is Elsa’s dark, cramped space behind the wall, which forges an opposite feeling, mirroring the nearly unbearable tension under which she's forced to live. Rosie’s look has to be so distinctive that the audience recognizes her, in a flash, in the scene that's a devastating emotional turning point of the story. The butterfly seemed to express who she's, and the film uses a very distinctive pair of shoes, which stand out for a lady in that era. It's more powerful when you just see the shoes and make the connection to the butterfly in this moment. The camera always tries to make sure the audience is aware of Rosie’s shoes. For example, you really notice them when she’s dancing by the river in that light moment. The best comedy has always come out of the hardest human situations and 'Nazi Germany' is one of the hardest situations in history. "Jojo Rabbit" offers a sharply funny, yet profoundly stirring, child’s-eye view of a society gone mad with intolerance. The film makes a powerful statement against hate with this pitch-black satire of 'The Nazi Culture' that gripped 'The German Psyche' at the height of 'WWII'. It's a story almost too appalling to approach with sober solemnity, that of a boy who, like many at that time, has been brainwashed into absolutely gung-ho devotion to Hitler. He then mines from it a dark, mesmerizing comedy that ultimately unravels the toxic ideas of 'Anti-Semitism' and persecution of the other. Balancing on a comedic high-wire, the film mixes the fury of satire with an insistent sense of hope that fanaticism and hate can be overcome. The film follows very much in the footsteps of Mel Brooks, Charlie Chaplin, Ernst Lubitsch and Stanley Kubrick to name a few. The script has a charged, satirical edge in the vein of say "Dr. Strangelove" and other black comedies that confront heavy subject matters by making them very funny. "Jojo Rabbit" is a fresh way to re-visit the most unsettling of topics through the paradoxically moral force of out-and-out parody. But much as the film owes to its bold forbearers, The film feels very much of our times, with it's deeply human characters whose blinded foibles might amuse but whose inner predicaments are deadly real and pointedly relevant right now.     The film opens a comfort zone but also any notion that stories about 'The Nazi Era' have been played out, especially when the lessons of those times are so urgent right now. With 'Nationalism', 'Anti-Semitism' and other forms of religious and racial intolerance on the rise, the stakes of grabbing people’s attention felt sky-high. The film brings the audience in with laughter, and once they’ve dropped their guard, then start delivering these little payloads of drama that have serious weight to them. Even if you don’t see them right away, you’ll feel them. It’s after the laugh that the strings start to be felt, drawing one’s consciousness to things that aren’t quite right, aren’t entirely funny, into deeper, more complex emotions, amongst these, the realization of the absurdity of the situation, and the tragedy and pain. In the end, as much as "Jojo Rabbit" showcases the tragically absurd realities of authoritarianism and nationalistic fervor, as well as the personal wages of prejudice and hate, the film equally reminds us of our human connection and the simple responsibility we all have to do what we can, including simply trying to be good to one another. This feels like exactly the right time to tell this story, because this is a case where you don’t want it to be too late to tell it.

Our newest film critic gives his verdict on IT GIRL in this Vlog film review. Check it out and SHARE with the world. If you are interested in doing a Vlog film review, feel free to use the community forum to post your own. It can be of any film you like, simply upload to your YouTube channel and use the video link option in the post to enter. UK Film Review.

There are two things I love in life. Films. Football. To be precise, West Ham United. So when I saw a FILM that was set a FOOTBALL stadium, to be precise, WEST HAM UNITED’S old stadium I was so excited. My life was made. The only thing that could go wrong was how bad the film was. And fuck me, it went downhill as soon as the film started to play. A right pile of shite.  (for context with the rest of this review, West Ham are a terrible football team, just awful. So when I say, the film was as bad as the football that is normally played there you’ll get the joke) There’s a Russian revolution gone on. Two brothers are the leaders. One of the brothers realises its gone too far and leaves with the help of the British government and gets a new identity. Pierce Brosnan, he turns into Pierce Brosnan. We’ll come back to that. Dave Bautista is an ex army who is visiting his niece in London, he’s got tickets for the West Ham game, the last game to be played at the stadium. They go to the game together. Now remember the other brother, the one who isn’t Pierce Brosnan, well he is London to capture his brother. For some reason, instead of just getting him at his house, he decides to capture him at the football game. I know right, makes no sense. So he takes over the control room and tries to locate where he is sitting using some special face-recognition technology. At the same time, Drax’s niece goes missing so he goes up to the control to try and find her (the terrorists have killed the phone lines) and comes face to face and ends up killing them to save his niece.  📷Originally posted by gamorasnebula Now there’s a few stupid problems with the film that I can clarify as a football fan: 1) No way would Dave just be able to buy tickets to the last game at the stadium if he wasn’t a season ticket holder, or had a membership. Seeing as he hates England and football, its highly unlikely he would have one.  2) Erm, why are the away fans sitting in the old chicken run? We all know that they sat in the Trevor Brooking lower stand.  3) Honestly when I go to football stadiums I can’t even take the cap of my water bottle into the stadium. Seriously I have to take that off. Christ knows how them Russians got them flares into the stadium. 4) There is no way West Ham fans would let that massive flag block their view from the match. Any fans bring one of them into the stadium, they’d be bottled. 📷Originally posted by ultragooner89 This is the CAPTAIN. He’s like 5ft 4. Trying to take on a 6ft 4 bloke. What do you think the fans would do? Anyway. The film had a budget of £20 million, apparently. Which, for a Sky original film is a big budget. But I’m not too sure where that money was spent because the special effects were awful. It was so badly done. The shots were shaky, the green screen was obvious, the colour grading was horrible. It was so messy, more messy than West Ham’s defence. Ayo. The whole plot doesn’t really make sense. I have no idea why the Russians don’t grab the guy when he is at his home. If they know he will be attending the football game, they surely must know where he lives. But instead they do this where they are easily going to attract police attention. Which in the end they do. God its awful.  They acting is pretty woeful too, although I think this mostly comes down to the shoddy characters than the actors themselves. Dave Bautista neither has the charm of a Bruce Willis, nor the cold wit that Arnold Schwarzenegger so effortlessly oozes into his action roles. His niece, played by Lara Peake, who to be fair is pretty decent, but she isn’t from London and her accent is awful. You’re telling me the casting directors couldn’t find one East London actress? I think Pierce Brosnan lost a bet, or the director has got some dirty secret about him because I don’t know why he is in the film. It’s quite obvious he is the brother because we see him for one shot at the start of the movie and then not again until the final act of the film. And poor Amit Shah, who whilst likeable, falls foul of the racist abuse that comes from the white working class. It’s a classic trope that always pops up in football films. And whilst the writing uses his character to make fun of his religion, it also creates a barrier between the white working class as the film pokes fun out the far-right stereotypes that we are so use to seeing. White people running scared when a Muslim shouts ‘Allahu Akbar’.  Are there any good things about this film I hear you cry? Well, it was nice seeing the old stadium again. But thats purely from a West Ham point of view. It was good that the old bill punched that guy who called football, soccer. But thats purely from a football point of view. Oh there was a good scene when Dave is having a fight with a Russian and sticks his head in the boiling fat fryer and his face burns off. But thats purely from a sadistic point of view. 0/5  You know when I first started doing this I had a code for what rating a film should be. 1 to 5. 5 being to the best. 1, being the worst. I didn’t even account for 0. I didn’t think it possible for a film to not even score at least a 1 rating. All I can say is well done for creating a big pile of rubbish. Final Score 1 vs How many hours I’ve lost watching this, 1 and a half. 

(Release Info London schedule; June 19th, 2020, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-on-a-magical-night-film-online "On A Magical Night" We meet Maria Mortemart (Chiara Mastroianni), a woman who's dissatisfied with her marriage after a heated argument with her husband Pierre (Anthony Devaux). After 20 years of marriage, Maria decides to leave her husband. She moves out for the night to stay in a hotel across the street from their home and settles in room 212 from which she watches her husband and reflects upon their life together. While mulling over her decision, various people from her past appear, offering their opinions. She's visited by her late mother (Marie-Christine Adam), her dead grandmother (Claire Johnston), Richard Warrimer (Vincent Lacoste), a younger, 25-year-old version of her husband, her husband’s first love Irene Haffner (Camille Cottin) and her many lovers, to berate her for a string of infidelities. In room 212, she reflects upon her marriage, gifted with the ability to see it all at once. There, she has a bird’s eye view of her apartment, her husband, and her marriage. In this comic romp, she confronts her past lovers and relationships on one magical night, fantasizing about the lives she could’ve lived and wondering if she’s made the right decisions. Inspired by Leo McCarey’s 'The Awful Truth', this is a playful, witty fantasy, served by stunning cinematography. From the very beginning, the story looks like a conjugal tale more than a report on couples. The film takes a familiar topic, a couple in crisis after many years of marriage, and revives it with abundant creativity and cinematic strokes of genius. 'Thus play I in one person many people, and none contented'. We believe that this 'Shakespeare' verse, that John Irving borrowed for the title of one of his novels, defines quite well the initial mystery in that story. Let’s pretend a woman, Maria, one night has the revelation that she has the gift of seeing how there are always more people around her than it seems. Her husband is also her young fiancé, and the teenager she did not know. Her rival Irene is also Irene the role model of her future life. Her lover Asdrubal Électorat (Harrison Arevelo) is all of her lovers in one person. Maria would be like a fixed star that would attract satellites around her that keep multiplying. The story follows the poisonous steps of this invasion and simultaneously builds with Maria the antidote to escape them. Let’s pretend that woman, Maria, experienced finding her voice among all the voices that block her. The more Maria would like to think about her life, the more her life turns out to be filled with protagonists who want to speak for her. Maria crosses a street, hoping for some perspective, to see herself from the outside, to see her apartment, her husband, her marriage from above. Yet now she's not facing loneliness, but the noisy group of people who claim they've suffered from her, her freedom, her desires. Among them, Maria is like a prisoner of more or less aggressive signs that she must interpret. And we don’t have much of an explanation for it except that they're shamefully sweet and exhaustingly kind; these four characters liked one another. In our great ideas about films and how cinema happens, we forget this essential, precious and rare element; the love that the characters feel for one another. The trust, the humor, the affection, the friendship between them. This film owes everything to the health, kindness, tenderness, wildness and delicate and benevolent warmth of the characters. As often, “On A Magical Night” proceeds from "Les Fleurs", which has not been shot, barely been written, but which is it's secret source. The story is set during 'The Occupation', then in 'The 50’s'. There's an imaginary painter, a piano, 'The Picardie' region, 'The Opéra Garnier' and two female characters who are keeping a secret that they could not access themselves. We find ourselves watching Leo McCarey’s “The Awful Truth”; Irene Dunne and Cary Grant as an infallible married couple after their divorce. It takes us to an overly solemn level. How many filmmakers have taken an interest in the subject of conjugal conversation? We're more and more distrustful of this importance, this sort of domination that some films command to cinema itself. "On A Magical Night” expresses in a sentimental and stubborn way, the attachment to fiction cinema where let’s pretend has more value than the let’s do it as it's. Here, fiction in the sense of enchantment. We've let ourselves been swept along it in a dance with forgotten steps, charmed by it's spells. And little by little, it appeared to us that it's not nothing, in this day and age, to claim the precious tools of acting, of metaphor, to favor the magic of backstage, of tricks, in a work that aims to make life happen during a film. We should not forget that we've been twenty-five and that we loved us madly when we was that age! For years, we've gotten our bearings in life from the love stories that punctuated it. It was back in the days of 'X' or in the days of 'Y', month-long or night-long romances seemed to be the highest points of our existence. As if romantic faithfulness allowed us to multiply projects. We're aware that it's arbitrary, and maybe irrelevant to bring up these two words, truthfulness and films. We're quite tempted to claim that loving lengthily has certainly allowed us to shoot often.

(Release Info London schedule; July 23rd, 2019, Curzon Soho, 99 Shaftesbury Ave, Soho, London W1D 5DY, United Kingdom, 9:00 PM) https://www.curzoncinemas.com/soho/film-info/marianne-and-leonard-words-of-love "Marianne & Leonard: Words Of Love" "Marianne & Leonard: Words of Love" is about the beautiful, enduring love story between legendary folk singer Leonard Cohen and his Norwegian muse Marianne Ihlen. The story begins on 'The Greek island of Hydra' in 1960, where Leonard, then a struggling and unknown fiction writer, and Marianne, a single mother with a young son Axel, become part of a community of expat artists, writers and musicians. The film follows their relationship from the early days on 'Hydra', a humble time of free love and open marriage, to how their love evolved when Leonard becomes a successful musician. She's an enormous influence on him. Marianne and Leonard’s is a love story that would continue for the rest of their lives. Along the way we learn of the tragedy that befell those that could not survive the beauty of 'Hydra', the highs and lows of Leonard’s career, and the inspirational power that Marianne possessed. This are magical moments of life. Never-before-seen footage shot by legendary documentarian D.A. Pennebaker make for a unique portrait of an idyllic 1960’s bohemia. Marianne had been visited the year before by D.A. Pennebaker, who had filmed her with her young son, and very much impressed her with the joys of documentary filmmaking. It's D.A. Pennebaker’s footage of Marianne, shot all those years ago, that's used in the film. D.A. Pennebaker, Marianne, and Leonard have remained the greatest of influences. It's on 'Hydra' in 1968 that director Nick Broomfield, then aged 20, first himself meet Marianne. Under 'The Greek' moon and stars she introduces him to Leonard Cohen’s music and encouraged Nick to make his first film. As she's with so many artists, Marianne is an enormous influence on Broomfield, who direct many documentaries about iconic music legends including Whitney Houston, Tupac Shakur, Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. It's a time that left a lasting imprint on both Marianne and Leonard, whose friendship would last another fifty years. Marianne and Leonard went through many highs and lows. Bonded for life, even though drifting apart, they died three months apart in 2016. This touching documentary illuminates tender aspects of the enduring love between the Canadian musician and his Norwegian muse, who gained immortality through his songs 'So Long Marianne' and 'Bird On The Wire'. This Marianne is Norwegian Marianne Ihlen, his lifelong muse with whom he started an intense relationship in a time of free love. Nick Broomfield, director of documentaries such as 'Whitney: Can I Be Me', 'Biggie & Tupac' and 'Kurt & Courtney', follows their unconventional relationship from the early days in idyllic Greece. Along the way we learn of the tragedy that befell those that could not survive the beauty of 'Hydra', the highs and lows of Leonard’s career, and the inspirational power that Marianne possessed. In later life when Marianne lay dying, Leonard himself old and sick wrote to Marianne. 'Know that I am so close behind you that if you stretch out your hand, I think you can reach mine, I've always loved you for your beauty and for your wisdom, but I don't need to say anything more about that. Endless love, see you down the road'. Does love have to be conventional? "Marianne & Leonard" is a beautiful illustration of the twists and turns of a complicated relationship that has produced some of Cohen's most famous songs. Archive material and some recent interviews tell the story of the interrupted yet never ending love that began on the island of 'Hydra'. Cohen was mostly a writer at the time, the songs came later, when the melancholy poet evolved into a prominent musician. When Cohen became famous, and Ihlen became known as his muse, their relationship suffered and they lived apart more than they lived together. Still, their connection remained strong, even after Ihlen returned to Norway. A love story that defies conventional structure and slides back and forth in time within a rough chronology.

(Release Info London schedule; August, 12th, 2018, Red Cinema, 12:20) "Beirut" Caught in the crossfires of civil war, 'CIA' operatives must send a former U.S. diplomat to Beirut to negotiate for the life of a friend he left behind. In 1972 Beirut, American diplomat Mason Skiles (Jon Hamm) hosts a cocktail party accompanied by his wife and Karim (Yoau Saian Rosenberg), the 13-year old Lebanese orphan whom they hope to adopt. The festivities are disrupted when Mason’s best friend, CIA Agent Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino) arrives with startling information about Karim. Seconds later, terrorists attack the party with tragic results. Ten years later, Mason, now an alcoholic working as a mediator for labor disputes in Boston, gets approached by a stranger in a bar, who hands him a passport, cash and a plane ticket along with an urgent invitation from mutual friends that he travel to Beirut. Reluctantly, Mason arrives in Beirut only to find that the formerly picturesque city on the sea has become a violence-ridden warzone. Mason soon discovers the real reason he’s been called back. 'CIA' and 'Embassy' officials Donald Gaines (Dean Norris), Gary Ruzak (Shea Whigham) and Ambassador Frank Whalen (Larry Pine) explain that terrorists have kidnapped a CIA agent. Mason’s mission; negotiate a swap for the release of terrorist leader Abu Rajal (Hicham Ouraqa), believed to be imprisoned by Israeli secret police, in exchange for the American. Navigating the rubble-strewn city with the help of his Embassy-assigned handler, savvy cultural attaché Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike), Mason secretly meets with the kidnappers and uncovers clues that help him unravel competing agendas advanced by Israeli military boss Roni Niv (Alon Aboutboul), 'Palestinian Liberation Front' minister Bashir (Ahmed Said Arif) and corrupt bureaucrats. Confronting ghosts from his past, Mason faces a formidable question; who do you trust in a world where the truth emerges only when it’s convenient, or profitable? A taut action thriller from director Brad Anderson, Beirut takes an unflinching look at the cost of freedom. Mason Skiles is a communicator rather than just a terminator. He’s not some guy who solves everything by throwing a magic hammer or casting a spell or doing things that don’t really exist in life. As a negotiator, Mason’s gift is that he’s able to talk to people not in a backhanded or sneaky way but by basically saying, 'you've something I want and I've something you want'. We've to find that place where we both leave something on the table and ideally, each of us gets a little of what we want. When people live in a country not their own they need to have tremendous respect for local culture and local politics to understand what’s actually happening on the ground. He’s a facilitator. He wants both sides to win. He’s not there to undermine the other government at all. There’s a great deal of respect and intelligence that goes along with that approach. When we first meet Mason, he seems to have it all together, trying to do good things in the world. He's extroverted, almost like he’s showing off. That’s why the film puts him in party duds with the off-white suit. This cocktail party is his territory. He's in control. Then, in a few terrifying seconds, Mason’s life falls apart. It takes a while for Mason to pull himself out of this profound tragedy. Ten years later, Mason’s outfits signal his slide into alcoholism as a demoralized, backroom labor negotiator. It's important to create a disheveled, deconstructed type of mishmash of different things in order to communicate the fact that Mason’s life is falling apart. Then when he comes back to Beirut, the audience focuses on the character and plot more than his wardrobe. There’s one shot midway through the film where Mason’s dressed in an Oxford shirt and loafers while he walks through a deserted city square that’s just been completed destroyed. That’s the kind of contrast that's really exciting, as a way to show Mason’s alienated state of mind. When he goes back to the place where it all happened, that’s where Mason begins to find some happiness and his place in the world. When you think about the terrorism and fundamentalism and the political intractability in Beirut, which is all still sadly true today, it’s important to look at the reasons behind all that. How did we get here? In addition to Beirut’s politically charged themes, the film looks forward to exploring the personal trauma that lends depth to Mason’s journey. Sandy Crowder’s job description as a keeper of secrets impacts the character’s personal life in compelling ways. She can’t really trust anyone so Sandy doesn’t let people get too close. She’s sort of a proto-feminist who’s there for the adrenaline rush. It's a tough world for women in the agency in the ’80s. There were very few female agents. There are 14 pay grades within the CIA and most women hit the ceiling at around level seven. She’s defined by her actions. Sandy’s decisions under pressure eventually affect the outcome of the whole story and that6s pretty exciting. She comes in as this mystery person in the second act, so it's interesting to forge the relationship between Sandy and Mason. He doesn’t really know this person but he has to trust her. That dynamic dovetailed very nicely with the film’s political nature and intrigue as the film figures out where the story is leading and why. 'CIA' agent Gaines (Dean Norris) is a guy, who represents a hardball approach to international problem solving. You need both the carrot and stick. You hope Mason can make diplomacy work but you always need somebody like Gaines so you've the heavy hand of 'The CIA' backing it up. Shifty political operative Gary Ruzak (Shea Whigham) loyalties are to the president. He’s very much a company man who’s in Lebanon to fix this situation before it goes bad and he’ll make a deal with the devil if necessary. Big political themes don’t get addressed very often in movies anymore. This movie deals with something important rather than just having the action element or a comic-book element, which seems to be the tenor of most large-scale movies right now. At the time, Beirut is a hot topic because Tom Friedman’s book 'From Beirut To Jerusalem' has just come out. "Beirut" has a historical setting, it feels true to life without actually being a true story. The fictional script based around facts on the ground including the 1984 kidnapping of 'CIA Station' Chief William Buckley. It's all very garish and gothic, not too clean like an American movie but more European style. Against the backdrop of a politically dysfunctional Lebanon, the film strives to develop the interior psychology of his hero in the manner of master spy novelist John Le Carré. His books were extraordinary, although they didn’t always make for good movies because they're so hard to condense. And then the idea of a character like Mason, who’s faced with great disappointment; that’s very much a John Le Carré thing. Mason is a character in need of redemption, which is also true for Jason Bourne and Michael Clayton. "Beirut", is about people trapped inside a political situation, while at the same time Mason is forced to confront his past and his own weakness. But "Beirut's" fictionalized portrayal of U.S., Israeli and 'PLO' scheming in 1982 Lebanon ultimately proved too hot to handle. The problem is that the script is accurate. 'The PLO' didn’t have exemplary behavior. Israel did not have exemplary behavior. 'The U.S. State Department' did not have exemplary behavior. Nobody looked good at that moment in time except for the hero of this story. The script is still very intense but the political radioactivity has completely subsided. There’s not much argument anymore about what happened in Lebanon in the winter of 1982. It’s also an emotional journey about characters in this war-torn part of the world who are trying to find some goodness or something hopeful that they can hang onto. Thrillers today tend to be violent, over-the-top action movies or else they rely heavily on some kind of technological solution, whereas "Beirut" is very human. A period thriller loaded with resonance for contemporary audiences, "Beirut" revisits the roots of 'Middle Eastern' terrorism as a backdrop to a timeless story about one man’s quest for peace. Audiences who see "Beirut" will become interested in some of the history that the film touches on. It's about the idea that one person can make a difference, however small. In a bad situation, you've to suit up and try to make things better. "Beirut" also invites audiences to experience an exotic locale teeming with intrigue. The film creates this smoky, dirty, grimy, beautifully tattered world. In the end, if people walk away with questions about America’s involvement in Beirut in the ’80s, that’s great. The film leads people trying to learn more about this time frame, that’s fantastic. But it’s really more about the sensual experience of the movie and putting the audience into this world, in all it's screwed-up glory. The character’s willingness engages in dialogue stands in stark contrast to the current political climate. Everything’s so polarized now that you can’t say anything for fear of being a traitor to your party or a traitor to your country or a traitor to your religion. It seems like we only have the capacity to see things in black and white, but the world doesn’t exist in that color scheme. If we’re not talking, we’re fighting, and that doesn’t seem to be a very legitimate way to move anything forward. So honestly, that’s the message people take away from this movie; instead of fighting, maybe talking works a little better.

Early Man is the new stop-motion, clay animation film from Aardman Studios. If you're familiar with the studio's previous films or series you likely know what to expect. By continuing the studio's affinity towards good humoured, layered and utterly charming animated films that can be enjoyed by the whole family; Aardman has created another classic! Early Man follows, Dug and his tribe of stone-age people as they're driven out of their home by the despicable, Lord Nooth and his more advanced city of bronze ("Ze age of stone is over!"). After being evicted to the volcanic badlands and realising that fighting is futile, Dug discovers his ancestors had a love for a game the bronze people call...football. With the help of Goona – a bronze city resident with her own desire to play football – Dug sets about training his tribe in an effort to win back his home and save his people from slavery or destruction. Featuring a concoction of some of Britain's finest talent, Early Man is as wondrously voice-acted as it is animated. Eddie Redmayne, as Dug – our lead, and the stone age tribes more plucky character – gives a typically excellent performance; as does Maisie Williams as the tough, want-to-be football player, Goona. Dug's best friend and sidekick, Hognob – lovingly grunted by Nick Park – is a delight to watch, and serves as a reminder of how perfectly Aardman can develop speechless characters that are equally as emotive and understandable as others. Rob Brydon also deserves credit for his hilarious, albeit limited role as the mimicking messenger bird; a bird that frequently brings bad news or angry messages to Lord Nooth, from his wife, Queen Oofeefa. Contributing some of my favourite scenes in the whole movie; watching as the messenger bird struts around the table, yelling and throwing fruit at Lord Nooth – as his wife would, had she been there – never got boring and had me in fits of laughter long after the scene had ended. The rest of the cast is made up of an eclectic group, including the likes of: Timothy Spall, Richard Ayoade, Mark Williams, Johnny Vegas, Miriam Margoyles and Gina Yashere. All of whom do a superb job at creating side characters that never feel like a carbon-copy of another, or unimportant; imprinting each with their own personal flair. It's Tom Hiddleston who really steals the show for me, however. Playing the tyrannical Lord Nooth, Hiddleston gives us the perfect mixture of the evil villain and the campy bad guy (think Victor Quartermaine - Curse of the Were-rabbit); with the most extraordinary French accent, I might add! The animation and humour on display are typical for Aardman, and for a legitimate reason. They're good at it. Really good at it. Mixing a Punch and Judy style slapstick, hilarious puns ("Go on then! Show us your tackle!") and intelligent cultural jokes is no straightforward task; and yet, Aardman rarely put a foot wrong. The combination of clever and funny off the cuff puns and jokes regarding British culture (Dug kicking the ball over the fence and having to ask for it back) will ensure there's plenty of laughs for adults. The more physical look of the animation, silly slapstick, and cheery style captures the interest of children; truly, a film for the entire family. Handmade plasticine models provide the basis for the movies painstakingly made animation. CGI is also used to add certain visual flourishes, but mostly to create the movies backdrops. Although CGI is used more than ever now; Early Man nevertheless manages to hold onto the down to earth, thumbprint look, and style that so defines Aardman Studios. Verdict Early Man is a beautiful and laugh out loud funny animated movie from Britain's best known, and most loved animation studio. By sticking to their tried and tested formula, Aardman can sometimes seem unadventurous; but why change something that works so well? The pick-a-mix bag of gags and jokes ensures that there is something for every member of the family; no matter the age. For me, Early Man did its job; it had me smiling from the get-go, and I didn't stop laughing until the movie finished. Although primarily about football – not a subject I have any interest in, or much knowledge of – the movie managed to keep me hooked, and I never felt like I was watching a film I just didn't get. Although not one of their best works (for me that's Curse of the Were-Rabbit), Early Man is nevertheless a wonderfully charming, and funny piece to join Aardman's already marvelous back catalogue. I've seen the movie once so far, but fully intend to see it a couple more times; to look out for the no doubt copious background gags I missed the first time around; something you can always rely on with these films. I challenge anyone to go see this movie and not come out of it smiling and feeling even just a little better about things. 9/10

All right, I need you to loosen the guy up. He’s old, all right? Do not kill him. The only thing I wondered afterward was “Why for God sake was this movie made?“. I’m not saying that this was the most horrible film of the year. Or the most superfluous release ever. There were some positive things in it. And in a certain way, it was sometimes far from bad even. But in the end, it was only a simplistic storyline and little to nothing innovative. The only thing that stayed with me is that you got an unpleasant feeling while watching. The way Rainy (Guillermo Diaz) addressed and dealt with the kidnapped persons was rather intimidating. An agitated character who’s completely out of control after consuming some kind of soft drugs. You just felt that it was a difficult situation for Audrey (Tammy Blanchard) and her daughter Cheyenne (Onata Aprile). But that’s the only thing in this film that can be called exciting. For the rest, it’s quite weak. It’s all about water. Everything revolves around the claiming of water rights by Bobby (David Spade). Something his ancient grandfather failed in doing. And apparently, he can only achieve this by sending two vicious-looking characters to the elderly owner. To exert a little pressure. What Bobby didn’t know was that the latter had already died. The only ones they find in the old man’s house are the daughter Audrey and granddaughter Cheyenne. And the only plan that those two bums can come up with is to kidnap these two people who happen to be present. What follows is a precarious situation where one kidnapper (Dwight Henry as Jawari) tries to keep the other in line (clearly that these two bunglers don’t really know each other). And when someone unexpectedly shows up at the door, Ryan gets even more agitated. Some familiar faces. Apart from the lesser known actors, you will notice a number of familiar faces. The most well-known person is, of course, the comedian David Spade as the go-getter Bobby who apparently has to prove himself towards his grandfather Calvin (Bruce Dern, known face number two). Personally, I don’t think David Spade belongs to the crème de la crème when it comes to comedy. Usually, these are forgettable, nonsense comedies that are far from funny. I thought he’d make a funny comment at any moment. His contribution was reasonably mediocre. Bruce Dern’s acting was also fairly limited. Certainly compared to his part in “The Hateful Eight” as General Sandy Smithers. And finally, you’ll also recognize James Earl Jones in a tiny role as a sort of notary. Also an insignificant role for such a well-known star. A movie to forget about. What remains are the leads. Their acting is nevertheless of a reasonable level. For example, I found the interaction between Tammy Blanchard and Onata Aprile very convincing. Maybe at times, it was a bit overly sentimental and Cheyenne came across as inexperienced. But that didn’t really bother me. Also, the acting of Guillermo Diaz was generally good. He managed to picture Ryan as an unstable character. Although his frantic attempt to sound like an accomplished psychiatrist was a bit absurd. Unfortunately, this wasn’t enough to make it an interesting film. The motive itself was already far-fetched. The final denouement sounded even more nonsensical. Nope, “Warning Shot” certainly isn’t a great film. So, you don’t want to waste time? Better you skip it then. My rating 3/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(London Film Festival, October 13th, 2018, Prince Charles Cinema, 18:15) "Bad Reputation" A look at the life of Joan Jett, from her early years as the founder of 'The Runaways' and first meeting collaborator Kenny Laguna in 1980 to her enduring presence in pop culture as a rock ‘n’ roll pioneer. When a precocious 13 -year-old girl in a sleepy suburban town put a 'Sears Electric Guitar' at the top of her Christmas list in 1971, no one could have predicted how the gift would change the course of history. Joan Jett wants to make some noise. She wants to start a band. An all-girl band. Never mind that the only viable path forward for aspiring female artists in the male-dominated music industry was as a singer-songwriter on an acoustic guitar. Jett wants to plug in, and nothing is going to stop her. Following the break- up of 'The Runaways', Jett met songwriting partner and producer Kenny Laguna, and formed 'Joan Jett & The Blackhearts'. After being rejected by twenty three labels, Laguna and Jett formed 'Blackhearts Records', selling records out of the trunk of Kenny’s Cadillac. Then, 'I Love Rock n Roll' went number one all over the world. The friendship and tenacity exhibited between Jett and Laguna proves to be both entertaining and inspiring. Jett ’s relentless passion for music and her revolutionary spirit has allowed her to defy great odds and find success, credibility and respect among her peers. Joan Jett is an originator, an innovator, and a visionary. As the leader of the hard- rocking 'Blackhearts', with whom she has become a 'Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame' inductee, she's had eight platinum and gold albums and nine Top 40 singles, including the classics 'Bad Reputation", 'I Love Rock 'N' Roll', 'I Hate Myself For Loving You', and 'Crimson and Clove'. Her independent record label, 'Blackheart Records', was founded in 1980 after she was rejected by no less than 23 labels. 'Blackheart' is one of the longest running indie labels and continues to give voice to new bands. Jett has acted in movies and television, including 1987's "Light Of Day", and in a Broadway musical, 'The Rocky Horror Show'. She has appeared on such television shows as 'Oprah' and 'Law and Order'. As a producer, she has overseen albums by 'Bikini Kill', 'Circus Lupus', as well as 'The Germs'. Her music has become a permanent force in mainstream culture. A version of 'I Hate Myself For Loving You' was reworked for 'NBC's Sunday Night Football' theme song. Her music is heard in countless films and TV shows including 'Easy-A', 'The Runaways', 'Shrek' and 'Baby Mama'. Since co-founding 'The Runaways', the pioneering all-girl punk quintet, at age 15, Jett's determination and drive have kept her in the public eye. Jett and 'The Blackhearts' released their latest record, 'Unvarnished', in 2013 and continue touring the globe to throngs of adoring fans. Joan Jett has spent her lifetime breaking barriers and challenging expectations, this is, after all, a woman who's both a spokesperson for 'PETA' and a devoted supporter of 'The US Military'. She's fought hard for all of her historic accomplishments, yet she remains humble and appreciative.   Kenny Laguna has been in the music industry as a musician, songwriter, singer, and producer, for nearly five decades. His resume is as diverse as his talents, including 'Bubblegum', 'Punk Rock', 'Indie Rock', and 'Blue-Eyed Soul'. He has produced the soundtrack to 'The Andy Warhol' movie "Lonesome Cowboys". He's Joan Jett's longtime producer, songwriting partner and partner in their label, 'Blackheart Records'. Starting at the tender age of 12 years old, Kenny was playing keyboards for New York radio high school hops, for twenty dollars a day, when he was recognized by an industry bigwig. This led to other doors that Kenny kicked open, and eventually he found himself producing and playing in 'Bubblegum' bands like 'The Ohio Express'. By 1972, Kenny had played and sung on over '50 Billboard Top 40' hits. After the demise of 'Bubblegum', he was given the opportunity to produce for 'The Who's' label in London, which would prime him for the next phase, 'Punk Rock'. Soon after that, Kenny was asked to help write and produce six songs in 8 days with a young singer named Joan Jett. Her former band, 'The Runaways', had broken up, but they're still contracted to do a project that was yet unfinished. Kenny and Joan immediately found they're kindred spirits, and have collaborated on every Joan Jett album and hit ever since. Kenny wanted to help Joan get a record deal, so they submitted 'I Love Rock N' Roll' and 'Bad Reputation'. They're turned down by every  one. Despite this, they didn't give up; Kenny and Joan manufactured the record, 'Bad Reputation' and sold the album from the trunk of 'Kenny's Cadillac'. This was the beginning of 'Blackheart Records'. 35 years later, 'Blackheart' is still the home to Joan Jett and 'The Blackhearts'. Kenny served as 'Executive Producer' of 2010's, 'The Runaways', bringing the story of the band to life on screen. After 35 years of creating music together, he and Jett are still touring the world, writing and recording new music. Kenny Laguna's vast career is a testament to his talents and tenacity. His body of work is as diverse as his talents. His lengthy career has been driven by passion for what he loves to do best; create music.   Carianne Brinkman spent her first 5 years traveling all over the world with rock n roll bands and then retired from the tour life to start kindergarten. Having grown up in the music industry, she was destined to follow in the formidable footsteps of her father, Kenny Laguna, a music business legend, and her adopted aunt, Joan Jett. After attending college, she joined the family business, 'Blackheart Records', and began to plot how to bring the label into a new era. 'Blackheart' was started after 23 labels rejected Jett and Laguna, before they found success with 'I Love Rock n Roll'. Brinkman rebranded 'Blackheart'' to reflect Jett's authenticity and rock n roll spirit. The label has become one of the longest running and most respected indies. By bringing Jett's catalog into the digital space, and focusing on Jett's unique brand and influence, Brinkman helped propel Jett from rock star to icon. In addition to infusing new life into the over 35 year old label, by signing and championing unique and diverse artists, she has been an integral part of Joan Jett's management team and was key in ushering in a new era for Jett. Jett credits Brinkman as the secret to her current success. After 13 years as 'SVP Of Blackheart', Brinkman began to expand into film. She was an associate producer of the 2010 film, 'The Runaways'. "Bad Reputation" chronicles the life of Joan Jett, from her early teenage years as founding member of The Runaways to her enduring presence over four decades later as a rock ‘n’ roll icon. Joan is so much more than "I Love Rock 'n' Roll." It's true, she became mega-famous from the number-one hit, and that fame intensified with the music video's endless play on 'MTV'. But that staple of popularity can't properly define a musician. Jett put her hard work in long before the fame, ripping it up onstage as the backbone of the hard-rock legends 'The Runaways', influencing many musicians-both her cohort of punk rockers and generations of younger bands-with her no-bullshit style. The film gives you a wild ride as Jett and her close friends tell you how it really was in the burgeoning '70s punk scene, and their interviews are laced with amazing archival footage. The theme is clear, even though people tried to define Jett and keep her stuck to one hit, she never compromised. She will kick your ass, and you'll love her all the more for it. The film shows the evolution of a young girl with a radical notion that girls could play electric guitars into a woman whose place in history will be marked by perseverance, authenticity and incredible rock n roll. Jett’s activism and commitment to all living beings are captured in her work on behalf of animals rights, travels to warzones to entertain the troops. Her humanity and candid reflections reveal a side seldom seen of the seminal rock star. Joan Jett is the essence of rock and roll. A dark and dingy club filled with the hormonal roar of longing and desperation and fuck yes. A stadium filled with hundreds of thousands of fans with their fists in the air. A dyed in the wool musician working on a song alone in her bedroom who won't let a lick or lyric rest till it's just fucking right. A machine who has such perfect timing that she don't need no stinking click track. An alley cat whose iconic howl is either mother's milk or a call to arms or both for millions of people all across the world. An atomic, three chord burst of guitar that's a thousand punches in the gut. A poet who speaks screams whispers of things that go bump in the night with such insight and finesse that the pain somehow just goes away. The highest of all hi-priests and priestesses who preside over a ritual that's still the gold standard for all art forms when it comes to moving masses. A fight against injustice of every stripe. A voice for the voiceless. A champion of champions and defender of the underdog. A feminist manifesto in the flesh. A paver of ways for little girls all acrothink pink was their color and even for those who did. A defiant, never-say-die general and foot soldier who tore down the old world patriarchy so that little girls could plug in and play it loud.

Jason Statham and a massive shark.  5/5 It’s Jason Statham and a massive shark. Seriously though what more would you want from a film? It’s Jason Statham and a massive shark. Look, if you was expecting an oscar worthy movie that was going to be challenging, insightful, intelligent then get out, this is some B-Movie, blockbuster trash, it’s trash, it’s complete trash. But my god this is a brilliant steaming pile of trash. 📷Originally posted by theshawbrothers Jason Statham is an ex-rescue diver, after a mission goes wrong where he encounters Meg, has to leave two of his friends behind to save 11 men, he retires. Fast forward 5 years and Dwight from The Office has spent a tonne of money on this underwater research facility that is exploring the depths of the ocean. The scientists have found a strip of science stuff that is blocking some sort of underwater world that is untouched by humans. They send a crew down there but their sub gets attacked by Meg and needs saving. Jason Statham comes along and saves the day. However, Meg manages to get out of the layer of science stuff (it couldn’t before because the layer was too cold, however because of the ships heat it now can) and starts to cause a right nightmare in the normal ocean. Jason Statham and his crew try to find a way to capture it, they do but it turns out to be baby Meg. Big Meg kills a couple of the crew and then makes his way to the beach. Kills a couple of people on the beach and then Jason Statham stabs it in the eye, takes a massive chunk out him. Blood comes gushing out, little sharks come out and eat Big Meg. Bit like Scar in Lion King, but in water, and sharks, and not digitally animated, and not as good.  Gripping stuff right there, am I right? What do you expect from the guy who directed the National Treasure films? To be fair, this movie is a whole lot of fun. Sure, the dialogue is a bit iffy, it’s a bit all over the shop and at times it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Jason Statham saves the crew and then gets accused by the female lead (Li Bingbing) of not saving the guys life who sacrificed himself. And then the scene after she’s flirting with him. What’s that all about? Where’s the consistency? The humour is really cringe, you know it tries to be funny but it fails a lot. A couple of the stereotypical black jokes and the film mostly tries to use Rainn Wilson (who was Dwight) as the comic relief as nostalgia to his Office role. It just doesn’t work.  📷Originally posted by dailydwight What does work is the action, it’s good shark vs Jason Statham shenanigans. It’s fun to watch, a massive shark being a nuisance and eating people, what’s more fun is the attempts to catch it and the method in doing that. Jason Statham out in sea trying to plant a tracker on it. Or Suyin Zhang (Li Bingbing) tricking it by going in a shark cage. Which, although can’t be smashed because of what it is made from, can fit inside its mouth because it’s a FRICKIN’ MEGALODON. 2/5 Look it’s good fun. That’s what I can say. It’s a good blockbuster flick. It’s worth paying the £11 at the cinema just to hear Jason Statham say ‘oh my god, it’s Megalodon’. Brilliant. That will be up there with ‘No, I am your father’. At the end of the day though, it is Jason Statham and a massive shark.

Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Mundane Movie If you are looking for a true, faithful and accurate adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s brilliant source material then Guy Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ is not for you. With Robert Downey Jr as the protagonist, the once respected detective is now a crazed madman crossed with some kind of wacky action hero. It is hard to tell what kind of character Holmes is in this oscillating confusion of film and I’m not too sure the director knows either. Throughout, the film fluctuates back and forth between action, comedy, mystery and crime. These tones aren’t balanced well at all and are instead clumsily juggled by a blindfolded dimbat of a director. Speaking of clumsiness the main character is constantly falling over and dropping things as if he is Mr Bump from the Mr Men. This cartoonish and silly depiction of Sherlock Holmes strips the character of all reputability. Then at other points in the narrative the same detective is a strong and brave action hero who uses methodical scientific processes to fight street thugs. Holmes spends more time using his intelligence and deductive ability to beat up criminals instead of actually solving crimes like he’s supposed to. The action scenes are another weak component as they are mostly a mess of CGI explosions, which made me feel like I was watching a trashy Michael Bay blockbuster instead of a mystery thriller. These special effect shenanigans don’t even add any high stakes as the protagonists easily walk them off as if they were simply a mere inconvenience. This reoccurring trope of ‘plot armour’ turns the once relatable characters into invincible superheroes who the audience cant connect with or relate to. The removal of high stakes cancels out any tension or fear, which are fundamental emotions in crime cinema. The bipolarity of the film and its characters fails to allow for any emotional connection to be made with it, as there is nothing whole to connect with. Both of the protagonists who we are supposed to root for are dislikeable. Holmes is a lunatic who carries no charisma and is mainly just an arrogant idiotic douchebag. Nobody seems to like him not even his only friend Dr Watson. Played by Jude Law, Watson is to put it simply, very boring. He serves one purpose that is to complain and look annoyed. To be honest I don’t blame him as if I was an acquaintance of Downey Jr’s Sherlock Holmes let alone share an apartment with him I would find it unbearable. Instead of professional partners Sherlock and Watson are instead more like squabbling siblings with no sense of brotherhood, chemistry or comradery. The antagonist of the film is another mundane element that adds nothing of interest at all. Blackwood as played by Mark Strong is nothing but a generic one-sided villain who is evil just for the sake of it. He doesn’t seem to have any real motivation or reason for his wickedness except from that the script wills it so. Strong attempts to present him as terrifying vampire like adversary but instead comes off as frivolous. Blackwood’s plan is a grand convoluted scheme, which involves black magic and taking over the world (muhahahahaha). Yeah I know, it’s as ridiculous as it sounds. I can’t help but wonder what happened to the small, niche and actually interesting schemes of Holmes’s opponents that made Doyle’s stories so fascinating. Another uninteresting component is the set and mainly the colour pallet used. The mess of dark grey ashy buildings in nearly every shot may convey Victorian London effectively but feels lifeless and uninspiring as nothing new or exciting is bought to the table. The film attempts to distract the audience from this with very weak attempts at ‘comedy’. Every single ‘joke’ falls completely flat and I genuinely can’t remember a single time I laughed during my viewing experience. I couldn’t even chuckle at how bad the comedy is. The only laughable thing about the film is the film itself. The one part of this film that evokes actual positive emotion is the fantastic score by Hans Zimmer. Hans perfectly captures the essence of 19thcentury industrial London with the strings and percussion giving an eerie, dark but powerful feel to this dim, drag of a movie. Every positive part of Sherlock Holmes (and there’s not a lot of them) is completely outshone by the BBC series ‘Sherlock’. Comparing the two live action adaptations really highlights everything wrong about Ritchie’s attempt at bringing Doyle’s iconic character to the silver screen. The series has the perfect balance of action, comedy, mystery, crime and enjoyable but accurate characters all whilst taking place in the modern world. The 2009 Sherlock Holmes lacks all of this and is probably why I found myself falling asleep before I even reached the 3rdact (I’m not even joking). If you really want to watch a satisfying and well-made version of Doyle’s stories then please stay far far far away from Guy Ritchie’s insulting mess of a movie also known as ‘Sherlock Holmes’.

If something happens to my daughter I’ll kill you. You and your boss. Just when you think that an icon such as Jean-Claude Van Damme is becoming a caricature of himself and in danger of sinking into oblivion, he surprises you with such a part as in this film. The “Muscles from Brussels” got under my skin with his integer and sensitive acting. No bulging muscles and a long stretched primal cry accompanied by a grimace. He already demonstrated this in the 90s extensively. The years he peaked with classics such as “Bloodsport“, “Double Impact” and “Sudden death“. In those days you couldn’t come in a video store without a combative JCVD staring at you threateningly from the shelves. Unfortunately it went from bad to worse. And he hit rock bottom with the film “Alien Uprising“. What a crap movie this was. Unworthy of Jean-Claude Van Damme. Jean-Claude really acts magisterially. Van Damme proves in “The Bouncer” (original title “Lukas“) he’s capable of doing more than just effortlessly cracking coconuts between his two muscular buttocks. Verily, he even shows here some acting talent. Not that he has to grasp deeply in his box of tricks. All he has to do is stare gloomy and tired. And occasionally he needs to handle a situation emotionlessly as the bouncer in less kosher establishments of Belgium’s nightlife. Well, someone who hates Van Damme would say that. I thought it was magisterial what he demonstrated here. He plays an old man who knows the ropes. Such an individual who doesn’t shy away from a brawl with other mean-looking fellows, as a job application. Someone who carelessly licks his wounds and puts a firm bandage over his wounds and then moves on to the order of the day. In short, a tough guy. A tough guy living a tough life. And yet this bad-boy has a golden heart. The way this single father takes care of his 8-year-old daughter Sarah (Alice Verset) is endearing. Lukas experienced some major setbacks in his life. Things he still hasn’t recovered from. And the fact that it doesn’t go smoothly financially, only makes it more difficult. A regrettable accident in the club where he’s working as a bouncer causes additional problems. In such a way that he also takes up a job at a nightclub where it’s not only dark for the clientele (so they can discretely do their thing). But also they carry out activities which shouldn’t be noticed by the authorities. French, Flemish and English. Well, it’s Belgium. “The Bouncer” is not an action-packed film. In the end, it’s rather depressing. Grayish back streets, dark clubs, and brutal crime. That’s what you get served. I myself am not so familiar with the region where this all takes place. The Brussels region isn’t a known area for me. Because of the mix of languages (Dutch, French, and English), the film also got a more international character. And the recruitment of Kevin “Revenge” Janssens and Sam Louwyck, the two companions who hire Lukas as a bodyguard, gave it a Flemish cachet. I myself am not such a big fan of home-grown films. But cinematographically this was of a completely different level. A gritty movie with no splits. “The Bouncer” is a straightforward film in which clichés aren’t avoided. Jean-Claude Van Damme shines in this film. He’s constantly in the picture and carries this movie effortlessly. No, don’t expect him to demonstrate that he’s a master in combat techniques. Lukas is a sturdy, tough guy who can throw punches and can take punches effortlessly, but he won’t do splits in this gritty film. The acting of the two criminals is also far from bad. Especially Sam Louwyck is pretty intimidating. The conversations between him and Lukas are extremely successful. Kevin Janssens’ hairstyle stands out most. Could you talk about a rebirth of Van Damme? Who knows. Maybe I should give “Black Water” a chance, even though I’m sure I’ll be disappointed. My rating 6/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here