Search Results

(Glasgow Film Festival ● Select event time ● Here are a list of days and times at which this event will take place ● March Sun 06 Screening time 20:20 ● Mon 07.Screening time 15:00) https://glasgowfilm.org/glasgow-film-festival/shows/red-rocket-nc-18 "Red Rocket" "Red Rocket" in a magnetic, live-wire performance. It's a darkly funny, raw, and humane portrait of Mikey Saber (Simon Rex), an uniquely 'American' hustler, and a hometown that barely tolerates him. Mikey Saber is illuminating the hustler’s code, or something akin to it. Maybe it’s an overall philosophy of life. Maybe it’s just a way of explaining his character. Whatever it's, there’s a truth to it. Some people, if there’s a bottle thrown into a crowd, they’re going to get hit in the head with it every time. Other people step in shit and come out smelling like roses and nothing ever happens to them. Mikey’s just one of those guys. He doesn’t think about the future. He doesn’t care about ramifications. Flat broke and scheming, Mikey is back home in his tiny town of Texas City, T after a Los Angeles flame-out, hoping to move back in with his estranged wife Lexi (Bree Elrod) and mother-in-law Lil (Brenda Davis). They shouldn’t let him in, but they do. Mikey’s a man-child, constantly sugarcoating things for his own mental state. He’s feeding his head with positivity because he can’t really face the negative place he's in. It’s literally the only way he can cope. Everything is always somebody else’s fault. You see a lot of 'America' in that. That’s definitely an 'American' characteristic, somebody who's striving for success and it doesn’t matter who’s left trampled on the sidelines. You see it in "There Will Be Blood" and "The Wolf Of Wall Street" too, these ruthless guys who exploit to get to the top. The film uses comedy to a degree to soften Mikey, to show how one could be attracted to him. The central character is a distinctively American figure; a confidence man, an irrepressible optimist and a total grifter. Like snake-oil salesmen and Ponzi schemers, Mikey earns his living as a specific kind of freeloader, feeding off other people’s false hopes and real work; a suitcase pimp. It's a total revelation for the character. Since leaving the adult movie industry herself, Lexi has retreated to their hometown and slipped into drugs, but Mikey’s return sparks in her a mass of conflicting feelings, not all of them negative. She can see through the bullshit and can identify it immediately. But she's also a woman who's very lost and feeling trapped and addicted. Sometimes when you love someone, it can cloud your judgment and you can fall back into bad habits easily. Lexi’s character is crucial to the design of the film. She’s a keyhole into Mikey’s past and also, potentially, an opportunity for his redemption. Forgiveness may be off the table, but there’s a thaw. Still, Texas City doesn’t really know what to do with Mikey, this oddball former resident and washed up pseudo-celebrity riding around town on a borrowed bicycle. He’s un-hirable, unmanageable and largely irredeemable, especially to Lexi’s no-nonsense mother Lil, Significantly, "Red Rocket" is about Mikey’s eventual comeuppance at the hands of a community of women who grow tired of the hustles he believes he’s pulling off at their expense. Leading that charge, and quick to see through him, is Leondria (Judy Hill), a pot-supply kingpin. A dark comedy with a keen attention to the dynamics of sex and power, "Red Rocket" works on it's own terms as a high-wire balancing act and mesmerizing character-driven drama. Intriguingly, though, we sometimes hear snippets of a very different off-screen drama; a careful listener will realize that the film, about a malignant narcissist on the outs, is set during the fateful summer of 2016. "Red Rocket" is a product of bold thinking and even bolder resourcefulness. An exhilarating realm of dark comedy, stylistic ambition, and pure off-the-grid adventurousness. It's a film that turns on a pin from live-wire comedy to quiet poignancy and back again, a movie as big and complex as the character at it's center. Rarely explored on film, much less on TV or in literature, the suitcase pimp is a male hanger-on, often a loosely employed boyfriend or husband, who manages a more popular female porn star, grooming and using her. Their lives are all about exploitation and using the women they’re with. The women make thousands while the men are making hundreds at best. So they've to live off the women, financially. There’s a self-denial, a holier-than-thou attitude, an obliviousness, an ignorance that these guys have. Because that’s how we think the magic happens in life, when you don’t have any expectations and you just go. And that’s what happened with this movie. It’s the full spectrum of our obscene, over-the-top culture, a culture of excess. written by Gregory Mann

Why Hide? (Newcastle Film Festival) A derivative, clichéd and low brow attempt at a comedy horror. This film stole from (the makers might say paid homage to) the original Evil Dead. We got similar jokes to Shaun of the Dead (in this case, a cricket bat is replaced by a 9-iron as a comical weapon) but "Shaun" respected the genre it was poking fun at more. I was also reminded of a lesser known British comedy The Cottage but I can't put my finger on why. A lot also seemed stolen from the Conjuring and Insidious films. I.e. creepy inexplicable set pieces which tended to end in a loud bang. There was also one scene I'm fairly sure was ripped straight from the god-awful Insidious: The Last Key. On a side note, it's also a bit awkward when the director brings his own intoxicated crowd (I assume some of the film's actors and the director's mates) to the film who then woop and laugh loudly at every low brow "joke" while the rest of the audience sit in silence. Oh that guy is camp...ahahahah (always hilarious :/)... oh look at that overweight guy running around in his white pants hahaha.... *sigh*. The effects of the creature weren't bad considering this was a low budget production, but it was never quite clear to me what the creature was or what it could do, which removed any kind of fear for me.

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

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

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

There is a fundamental incompatibility. “Zoe” is not just a film about artificial intelligence and the influence it will have on our society. It also shows how artificially our society will be in the future. A world where feelings are reduced to figures and where pharmaceutical concoctions provide a short but intense expression of love. Both with disastrous results. Couples who are madly in love, without any major relationship problems, grow apart very quickly after hearing the final score of “The Machine”. A percentage that indicates how much chance there is that their relationship will succeed. Couples who are about to split up can take advantage of Benysol to experience those feelings of falling in love again. Which in turn leads to the trade of this product in an illegal circuit, as these feelings have an addictive effect. The film “Zoe” was fascinating, intriguing and touching at the same time. A film that kept me busy the days after I saw it. I don’t have that often. A.I. is sexy. “Zoe” is a mixture of “Her” and “Ex Machina“. “Her” was also about the love between a person and a non-human entity. Here it was a computer program that communicated sensually and seductively using the voice of Scarlett Johansson. Just because of the sexy voice I would fall in love with this artificially intelligent creature consisting of program lines. In addition to the development of a relationship test program and pharmaceutical love potions, Cole Ainsley (Ewan “Lo Imposible” McGregor), an engineer and expert in the field of A.I. who works at “Relationist”, managed to construct lifelike androids. Artificially intelligent beings that function autonomously. Just like Ava in “Ex Machina“. Only less futuristic and equipped with all elements such that there is no distinction between them and a human being. Cole himself is divorced and stares every night at his computer screen in search of a possible matching partner. I wonder if his loneliness and lack of female companionship cause his imagination to go in a certain direction, which then manifested itself in the design of these “synthetics”. Because his creations are equipped with a voluptuous bosom. Just like Zoe (Léa Seydoux). Falling in love can be hard sometimes. The film is pretty slow. There are many moments with a distant and preoccupied Zoe or Cole. Zoe tries to fathom her raison d’être and experiences a personality crisis, asking herself who she really is. Cole is caught in his emotions when it’s about Zoe. He’s intuitively attracted to her but his sense of reality about the person Zoe bothers him. Perhaps because of that, you feel there’s a certain kind of distance between these two individuals. An insurmountable obstacle with disastrous consequences for both. The result is a flee in self-pity for the one. And even doubting the meaning of existence for the other. But not only the romantic problems are central here. Also, the interaction of “Synthetics” with their immediate environment and other similar designs is being covered. And the associated well-known phenomenon of a piece of electronics developing a feeling of life and a consciousness is highlighted as well. Some brilliant acting. I thought the two protagonists played a sublime role as opposites. Perhaps some will say there that there was absolutely no chemistry between them. But wasn’t that the point? It shows how love sometimes has to overcome difficult obstacles. And how ultimate love will circumvent all obstacles. In that respect, their acting was perfect. But especially Léa Seydoux fascinates. The way her mood changes, is wonderful to see. One moment she looks like a teenager whose young life is filled with puppy love and therefore she flutters through the scenes. The next moment she’s hurt and looks like a hopelessly lost young woman, full of doubts who plunges into a chaotic love life. It was a pleasant surprise to see Theo James appear in this indie-SF. And to be honest, I found his character more interesting than the one he played in the “Divergent” story. And last but not least, you can also admire Christina Aguilera as a lifelike inflatable doll that entertains lonely fetishists. “Zoe” is an extraordinary film. Well, I really liked “Zoe“. It’s a beautiful film and a bit of a relief after a number of less successful films. But I’m guessing you figured that out already, after reading this long lyrical review. Even though I feared it would be a boring average movie at the beginning. The different story layers fascinated me and kept me riveted to my screen. It’s an extraordinary film pointing out that future relationships with artificial beings will be more complex than the human relationships as we experience them today. Sure enough, I could predict in advance how it would end and what a final picture we would get with Zoe in close-up. But, for once, that didn’t really bother me. My rating 7.5/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

"Monica"     "Monica" is a portrait of a woman who returns home to the Midwest for the first time in 20 years to confront the wounds of her past. Reconnecting with her mother Eugenia (Patricia Clarkson) and the rest of her family for the first time since leaving as a teenager, Monica (Trace Lysette) embarks on a path of healing and acceptance. Monica is reunited with her family for the first time since her youth. Uncertain if her mother will recognize her, Monica moves into her childhood home, hoping to heal the wounds of the past and forge a new path of forgiveness and acceptance. Exploring the universal thematic dichotomies of aging and beauty, rejection and alienation, the film details Monica’s world and state of mind, the pain and fear, the needs and desires, of a woman whose journey ultimately illuminates the human condition. The film delves into Monica’s internal world and state of mind, her pain and fears, her needs and desires, to explore the universal themes of abandonment and forgiveness.   Monica is a film about family, abandonment, and acceptance. It’s also a film that centers a Trans-woman character. Monica has been on her own since her mother dropped her off at the bus station as a teenager with only 5 minutes to spare and the message, 'I can’t be your mother anymore'. We don’t follow Monica during those early teen years, and that time is only hinted at. We meet her as an adult, but one that still carries that wound of early abandonment that we get the first taste of very early in the film when she calls Jimmy (Joshua Close). Jimmy is a man we never see who we only know through her attempts to contact him, but we see and hear the need to try and keep him in her life, to not be left behind by him. Then Monica receives a call she never thought she’d receive, not from Jimmy, but from the sister-in-law she never met, asking her to come back home to help care for her mother, who's losing her memory along with her health. The film never denies how difficult it's for Monica to return to the scene of her trauma but also doesn’t deny her the joy of forging new relationships with her niece and nephews.   It also doesn’t give an easy resolution to her relationship with her mother, whom she now has to mother, who denied her mothering when she still needed it. Her mother doesn’t recognize her right away like she secretly hoped. Though that may have been the only way for them to find a healing place, because Eugenia is not the same woman anymore that abandoned her, and that might be a way that helps Monica heal a bit from the pain of abandonment and finally call out Jimmy. And in the end, Eugenia does accept Monica as family, whether she finally recognized Monica as her daughter is not fully answered, but we think she did, even if it’s not voiced. The film does a good job of balancing the moments of joy with moments of sadness. From the topic, you might not expect there would be laughs, but there are plenty during certain scenes in the film particularly at one move during a solo dance scene. There are also moments that just makes us smile while watching. The film ends with a scene of Monica’s nephew signing the US National anthem at school graduation. It's a moment of healing and catharsis.   When your mother becomes sick, this confront you with your past and the psychological effects of abandonment. Treading between the interior and exterior, the emotional and physical, Monica explores the complexities of self-worth, the deep-rooted consequences of rejection and the lengths we go to heal our wounds. Through a cinematic language that stems from the juxtaposition of the aesthetics of intimacy and alienation, the film delves into the emotional and psychological landscape of Monica to reflect the precarious nature of self-identity when challenged by the need to survive and ultimately transform.   Written by Gregory Mann Starts Tuesday, 12 December 2023, 18:15 Rio Cinema 107 Kupland High Street London E 82 PB

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

Director: Rian Johnson (Contains Mild Spoilers) I have never been a huge fan of any of the Star Wars episodes, but I have always appreciated how groundbreaking the first films of the franchise were back in the seventies and eighties. The consensus for the mid-2000's revivals is that they were abysmal, but like most 'western' societies these days regarding opinions on certain matters, there seems to be a division about how great these latest Star War movies really are. Most loved the nostalgic feeling that 'Force Awakens' brings, whilst others, like myself, thought that nostalgia was a polite way of saying that the film didn't bring anything new and just copied the same old ideas that came before, such as the underlining story of the Death Destroyer (ok it's a lot bigger now, but so what?). There were interesting questions like, 'why did Finn turn good?', "why is Rey so powerful?", "who is Snoke?". Any exploration of these questions could have potentially elevated this average film to a great one. Instead, many audiences who loved the film concentrated on the visual aspects rather than the storyline, script, and characterisations. But this is a review about 'The Last Jedi', and the point I am making is that when audiences are grateful that a movie is better than what has come before, that does not mean that the movie itself is great, and when audiences say a movie is great when in fact it is nowhere near greatness, i.e. 'Force Awakens', then the film makers are going to say, "O.K. audiences don't care about storyline, or themes, or character significance, they just want to see Star War visuals that remind them of the good old days". This is obviously an exaggeration, but there is consequential truth to this when you watch the recent 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'. Firstly, there is no character development from 'Force Awakens' in this film whatsoever. Who is Snork? Who is Rey really, and why is she so Powerful? Who are her parents? In conjunction, new characters felt pointless, particularly the forgettable Asian girl, Rose. As a British Asian, I am highly disappointed that this character is such a bore. Secondly, there are so many odd plot lines that make no sense. Why wasn't Po (the pilot) told the evacuation plan? This would have saved the trouble of Po leading a rebel force against the leader with purple hair. Why did that lady with purple hair have to stay behind in the big ship? When she was left alone all she did was stand around and do nothing, plus, surely they could have made a droid push any buttons if needed. When they were evacuating, why didn't the enemy spot them? You could argue they were too far away too be seen, but when they eventually fired at them, they seemed to hit a small ship every time. Why did Finn and the forgettable Asian girl Rose go to that gambling planet? They didn't achieve their mission, so that plot had no effect on the storyline whatsoever. Again, if they were told they would be evacuating to the nearby planet they wouldn't have gone to that planet in the first place (and could have saved us thirty minutes of screen time, but more on that point slightly ahead). If Luke didn't want to be found, why did he leave a map of his location in 'Force Awakens'? Admiral Leila used the force to return to the ship from outer space, but why, when the door opened, no one was sucked out into space? If there is no gravity in space, how do space bombs drop? SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!!! To make things worse, this film is over two and a half hours long!!! And if you really think about what happens in the film, nothing really happens. The big ship is stuck in space because they ran out of fuel, Rey is stuck on an island, and the only thing that does happen (Finn and Rose sneaking off to a gambling planet) turns out to be completely irrelevant to the outcome of the story. Two and a half hours long!!!! This storyline would be suffice, and even entertaining, for a 40 minute Star Trek T.V. episode, but for a full length film? I don't think so. It wouldn't be fair not to say nice things about the movie.  The visuals and cinematography were great. The interactions between Rey and Kylo Ren were dramatic and compelling.  Daisy Ridley who plays Rey did a much better job (her mouth less-resembled Keira Knightley). But that was it for me. So, if you are reading this, please, do not judge a film by its visuals alone.  Do not let nostalgia become the reason why a film is a good film.   If you tell film makers that their average film is a great one, then all that will lead to is a pile of mundane, soulless cinema, hence, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi".  Expect more in your films.  As a paying customer, you deserve it. Film Rating: 4 out of 10 P.S. If you are a fan of Star Wars, I highly recommend the animated series Star Wars Rebels.  It is full of interesting developing characters, a well thought out storyline, and music and visuals typically seen in the movies. See, I'm not a Star Wars hater really.

Maybe it’s time for someone like me… to come over there and wipe that smug grin off your face. You know what’s fun sometimes? Haphazardly starting a film without knowing what it is about and afterward admitting you were pleasantly surprised. That’s my experience with this film. A film with a bit of suspense and tension. And thanks to the short playing time you don’t have the feeling it was a waste of time. Even though it isn’t a blockbuster. It’s also the first time that I didn’t feel sorry for the two teenagers Sam (Gregg Sulkin) and Brady (Garrett Clayton). In this movie, these two spoiled, annoying brats reap what they have sown. And the whole time I was expecting the rest of the gang to pop up suddenly and announce it was all one big joke. Extremeprank calls. Like many others, I found the two main actors irritating. But then you have to admit their acting was masterful. Because wasn’t that the whole point? After all, they are two obnoxious young boys who pull pranks on others. They make extreme prank calls. The only thing I couldn’t believe was the fact that those pranks were watched so massively after posting them online. Is that a reflection of what our society is evolving into? A society where gloating is self-evident? A mid-level psychological horror. “Don’t hang up” is a low-budget film. That’s noticeable. Everything takes place mainly in the parental home of Sam. The camera work is uncomplicated but to-the-point. Besides a camera moving through the set in a penetrating way, it generally looks mediocre. It gets bloody in this film, but the used “practical effects” don’t look spectacular either. And yet this film was worth a watch and can easily be added to a whole series of other films from the same mid-level. Yes, I have gloated. Because of the short playing time, the pace is swift in this movie and you don’t have to wait long before the unwanted caller turns up. And still despite the pace, one manages to increase the tension gradually. The sinister caller has a rather frightening voice (a Jigsaw-like tone), which in turn makes it extra creepy. His technological omnipotence was slightly exaggerated though. And despite the fact that it’s about pretty arrogant and unsympathetic youth, I found the friendship and expression of sacrifice commendable. But all in all, I couldn’t avoid to gloat and a convincing inner “Yes!” resounded at the end. My rating 6/10 More reviews here

Wow. You’ve given each other the perfect male fantasy. Sex without emotional attachment. Fascinating. That’s the best description for this film. “Jonathan” is not an easy movie and it excels in monotony. But give this not so action-packed, one location situated film a chance and maybe you’ll discover how unparalleled and brilliant this film is. The starting point is actually dead simple. Those who already experienced the concept of living together, know that this only has a chance of success if appropriate agreements are made and complied with. This is to ensure that nobody makes the other’s life unnecessarily miserable. which could lead to a breakup. In the case of Jonathan (Ansel “Baby Driver” Elgort), it’s a bit more complicated. Because the person he lives with is his twin brother John who shares the same body. Aha, this is something like “Split“? No, not entirely. It’s less intense and it shows in a realistic way what a split personality is. So no frightening personality changes or “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ” behavior. Excellent performance. First of all, I would like to praise the excellent acting of Ansel Elgort. Even though I realize this isn’t so obvious, it seems to be a piece of cake for Elgort to play the two totally different personalities. Jonathan is the more disciplined twin brother. A perfect hairstyle and decent clothing show he’s the one who follows the rules. This means he manages his allocated time of the week optimally. He works at a distinguished architectural firm where he does his job perfectly. The cooking and household tasks are done neatly. And he reports conscientiously what he did all day with the aid of the camcorder before he crawls into his bed at an exact time to make room for the other twin brother John. No girlfriends. John is the indifferent one. A relaxed-looking pack rat who doesn’t want to live strictly according to the imposed rules. A night owl who enjoys the nightlife where he can meet other people and seduce feminine beauties. He’s someone whose video messages never sound too businesslike and who exudes an enormous “Je mon fou” mood. John is the rebellious personality who enjoys life. Until Jonathan gets suspicious (there’s this constant feeling of fatigue) and hires a private detective (a brief cameo by Matt “Walking out” Bomer), after which he finds out that John isn’t really keeping his end of the bargain. He conceals certain developments and breaks the main rule: no girlfriends. Having sex isn’t the problem, but having an emotional bond is out of the question. It’s all about inner struggle. “Jonathan” shows the interaction between two good friends. Jealousy and protecting his own territory causes complications and leads to a struggle between two people. In Jonathan’s case, it’s about an inner struggle. Something everyone has experienced once already. Only such a quarrel isn’t so obvious for Jonathan cause physical contact is impossible. What they get, is a war of words with the use of the camera. Or just simply, the absence of any sign of life, such that one of the personalities stays behind helplessly. The only moral support Jonathan has is Dr. Mina Nariman (Patricia “October Gale” Clarkson). She took Jonathan in when he was young and introduced structure in his life. She discovered what was wrong (Single body, multi-consciousness) and separated their lives with the help of a kind of timer. Interesting, fascinating and captivating. “Jonathan” is an interesting and fascinating indie-SF. Probably it’s a bit boring for some because it mostly takes place at one and the same location. And a large part of the film consists of video recordings of the two persons. But to be honest, it was captivating and I was curious how this unique conflict would end. There was, however, one particular thing I broke my head about. If the surgery which Dr. Nariman performed when Jonathan was 9 years old, went off seemingly hassle-free, why not apply this to all personalities? Wouldn’t this be the solution to avoid this unique and complicated situation? Or was Jonathan simply the umpteenth guinea pig? But besides this remark, I thought it was a top film. Definitely recommended for film lovers who love a clever psychological thriller with SF elements in it. My rating 8/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

So it's finally here! DC's Justice League is undoubtedly one of the most in demand graphic novels to be brought to life on the silver screen to join the DCU (DC Universe). After the huge success of Wonder Woman earlier this year, Justice League and the team behind it had a lot of pressure to get this film just right. Synopsis In Batman vs Superman, we saw the man of steel take his final breath at the hands of Lex Luthor's creation, Doomsday. We now see the return of Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) along with many others of the population of planet earth learning to live in a world without Superman (Henry Cavill). Crime rates have risen and people have lost all hope. Bruce and Diana soon realise that there is a much greater evil heading their way. Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds). The two heroes unite once again to seek out others to form a team so they can save the world. After all "You can't save the world alone". With some help from Bruce's butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons) and some Wayne Enterprises technology, the two heroes set out to recruit the nerdy loner that is Barry Allen (Ezra Miller) , also known as The Flash, half machine half man hybrid Victor Stone/Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the one and only Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa), the sea king we all know to be Aquaman. Review The first thing we see in the film is a video recording of Superman being interviewed by a child asking him about being a superhero. The recorded video (filmed before Superman's demise) shows a very close shot of our hero trying to answer questions before then pausing while the camera is still rolling, leaving us as the audience to sit and focus on Superman's face while deep in thought. This is where my first critical thought came into my mind. While watching this I was sat thinking to myself "Has Superman had botox?" Yes you will probably know what I am about to say as it's been all over the internet and in a lot of articles in magazines and pretty much every other review. The terrible CGI in an attempt to cover up the actor's moustache. I'm sure many of you will know that during the time Henry Cavill was shooting scenes for Justice League, he was also bound to another contract at the same time. In this other contract he had been instructed not to shave off the moustache. So the 'brilliant' CGI team behind the Justice League were left to manage the situation. Well....They didn't. You can even see the outline of the amazing moustache if you look close enough. It did make me chuckle. I try not to critisize CGI too much in films as I know it takes a lot of hard work to be able to achieve great CGI results for films, games etc and I also know that it's something I'd be completely useless at. But unfortunately this was so hard not to miss. This awful attempt to cover up some facial hair was the one talking point that took over the entire film in all media. Which in my opinion really isn't fair. Just because the graphics in this instance may have been a bit of a blunder, it doesn't mean that the whole film was ruined. So lets discuss the heroes that form our favourite DC comics team. We had previously seen plenty of Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman from previous films (Man Of Steel, Batman vs Superman and Wonder Woman) so we already know what we feel about those actors in those roles. Personally I think those three couldn't have been cast any better. I really like Ben Affleck's Batman. When he was first cast I was a little unsure, but he is actually now my favourite version of the Gotham hero. It was great to see a lighter side to the man behind the Gotham bat, a rather amusing example of this was when meeting Barry Allen the youngster asked Wayne "So what's your superpower?" To which we see Affleck's character reply with the simple response "I'm rich." What was great about Batman/Bruce this time around was that the audience got to see much more of the bond between him and household butler Alfred Pennyworth (Jeremy Irons). The two men were often sharing scenes in the batcave working together at the helm to keep the team together and remain focused on their mission. We even saw them sharing a little banter such as Alfred commenting of the severity of the impending attack on earth by saying "one misses the day when one's biggest concerns were exploding wind up penguins" A very clever nod to the well known batman villain Oswald Cobblepot or better known as The Penguin. Justice League was completely dominated by the amazing Wonder Woman. She was awesome! I loved her in her own film and even more so in this one, not only because she was an absolute force to be reckoned with while in battle, but also because we got to see a more vulnerable side to Gadot's amazon princess. After seeing her at the beginning of the film fighting crime in a bank and working in a museum talking to a colleague saying she was doing "nothing very interesting" over the weekend, we then learn that she is afraid to lead and take charge when given the opportunity to do so. She is hiding behind a lot of raw emotion and dealing with her inner demons following the death of her love Steve Trevor (portrayed by actor Chris Pine) in her own debut film. Yet we still see Diana at her strongest in this film. Her courage to fight to protect the ones she vows to protect sees her through. She also becomes the voice of reason and takes on a mother figure role when the new recruits join the Justice League. She does so by helping them to build up their confidence to be able to fight alongside her and Batman. Particularly when we see her reaching out to new league member Victor Stone. Stone, doubts himself in many ways after being rebuilt as a machine by his father in an attempt to save his life after an terrible accident some time ago. Later on in the film Diana mutters under her breath "I work with children" which is of course, her stating the obvious lack of maturity from her 'co-workers'. As I have already mentioned him let move onto Cyborg. This version of Cyborg/Victor Stone is portrayed by Ray Fisher. Fisher is an American stage actor who is best known for his comedy role in 'The Good, The Bad and The Confused'. We saw a brief introduction to Cyborg in a small snippet of video footage within the Batman vs Superman film. Now this is the one character I was least looking forward to seeing in the Justice League film. I love the graphic novels but Cyborg is not a character I can favour. So I did have very little expectations for this character. I really was proven wrong. Fisher's version of the well known comic book hero was rather captivating, his back story is well known but it was quite emotional to see it in more depth in this film. Not only did I learn to like the character of Victor Stone but I also really enjoyed Cyborg too. We see so much more to the character than ever before with his abilities to become a computer and also a weapon. It's quite interesting to see how he learns bit by bit to control his not so human half with cannons for hands and being able to fly I think Cyborg will be an interesting hero to watch grow over time. Especially as his own solo film has now been announced. Let's move onto The Flash. Barry Allen himself. I love this character and again when Ezra Miller was cast as the scarlet speedster for this film, I did feel my mood drop a little. The only film I had seen Miller appear in before this one was the Harry Potter spin off 'Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them'. Which he was great in but wasn't The Flash that I wanted to see on the big screen. Not only that, my biggest reason for originally doubting him in this role was because the announcement of his casting was around the same time that Grant Gustin's version of Barry Allen had just hit our tv screens in the CW series 'The Flash'. I loved Gustin's version of the flash immediately and found it hard to accept someone else (Other than John Wesley Shipp) filling those speedy shoes. Again I was completely wrong about my concerns with this casting choice. It actually turned out that I thought that Ezra Miller's flash was brilliant! His version of a young, inexperienced and immature Barry Allen was just what the film and the DC universe needed. He brought a lot of the comedy value to the film with statements including him telling Bruce Wayne that the flash suit was for his extreme ice dancing hobby and shouting out rather loudly "Oh awesome, that's the Bat signal! That's your...! oh shh (holds finger to mouth) sorry, that mean's we have to go now" while talking to Bruce and Diana after seeing the call for Batman for the first time. Unfortunately this is where I have to refer to the not so great CGI. The flash's suit looked awesome and battered like it was still a working progress which was great to see. But on the other hand, when watching scenes of Miller's Flash in battle or even just running, the effects really let him down. It was pretty clear that a treadmill was used during the filming of his scenes, which yes is fair enough, but it just didn't look like much effort had been made at all in covering that up. Also I remember watching one scene where we see him running and his legs are flaying around everywhere, which was actually quite amusing but not very professional for a huge film such as this one. One other complaint that I have about the Flash was a scene was completely cut which the audience had seen in the trailer for the film. This was a scene where Barry Allen is appearing to gently touch a glass panel which then shatters in front of him due to the effect of the speed force within his body. This can be said for quite a lot of the scenes that the trailer had promised us. Many were removed from the theatrical cut. The last of our new heroes is Jason Momoa's Aquaman. Also known as Arthur Curry and the King of Atlantis. I think Momoa is great at what he does, but he does appear to be a bit of a one trick pony, playing similar roles on screen. The badass, the hard man, the one you really don't want to get into an argument with. It was great to see him speak with a light hearted american accent as he is mostly known for speaking Dothraki in his role as the very serious Khal Drogo in the TV series Game Of Thrones. I have read the Aquaman comic books and I am quite fond of them and he is nothing at all like the Arthur Curry that I know and love. The thing with this character is that he is often portrayed as rubbish or weakest member of the Justice League and I think because of this they wanted him seen in a different light for the film. A beefy, tribal tattooed, long haired ladies man type of specimen. Yes Aquaman can be appealing on the eye I suppose and he is somewhat muscular and to be honest I liked the metallic suit. I can see why they chose this appearance for Aquaman in this film because of those reasons but that does not explain the country bumpkin (sorry, not politically correct I know) phrases and mannerisms of Momoa's sea king. I mean is he a cowboy dressed as a fish or is he the king of Atlantis looking to work on a cattle ranch in his spare time? (No offence to cattle ranch workers or home owners at all, you all work very hard, but this is not Aquaman!). I really liked seeing Jason Momoa in a comedy type role in some scenes of the film, it makes a change from what we are used to seeing from him and this was great, but why on earth was he made to say "ma, maaaaan!", "Yeeeeee Hoooooo!" and "Dressed like a bat, I dig it" when seeing Bruce Wayne in his suit for the first time. It's not all negative for Mr Curry though. He shares a scene underwater in Atlantis with his soon to be queen Mera as they fight the villain Steppenwolf to protect the mother box that is hidden under the sea. I thought Amber Heard looked amazing as Mera. She looked almost identical to her animated counterpart in the books. Her character is not one to be messed with so it's good to see her warning Aquaman of the seriousness of the situation and how important it is for him to step up as the king of Atlantis. His first scene where we see him in action as Aquaman was fantastic. We see him use his trident to stop an impending flood of water heading towards the rest of the league while in a tunnel during battle. What an entrance! I am very intrigued to see how Momoa's character will develop in his own standalone feature and despite the quirks I wasn't so keen on during Justice League I actually did like the character. I may have rambled on a fair amount about our newly formed team of heroes but I can't forget the smaller characters either. As mentioned previously in my review it was great to see more of Irons' Alfred but also the return of JK Simmons as Commissioner James Gordon. Unfortunately there still wasn't enough of him though. One moment that I thought may have been significant in the film was when Gordon can be seen discussing a big case with another officer explaining that he will deal with it. Why this particular officer? Why not have it said behind closed doors? Could this be the introduction of detective Joe West? The adopted father to Barry Allen from the comics. We will have to wait and see in the Flashpoint movie. Another background character included Amy Adam's Lois Lane, a front runner in Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman but we saw a lot less of the daily planet reporter this time around. The most memorable scene we see her in is when she is brought in by Batman as "the big guns" to calm a newly resurrected Clark Kent. So the villain of this film. Steppenwolf. The god in search of his beloved motherboxes to bring them together and then destroy the planet. Voiced by Ciaran Hinds the character wasn't brilliant. He looked the part with his horns on his helmet very much like Ares who we saw in Wonder Woman. But there's not much more that I can say about him. His minions which were flying creepy looking zombie soldiers did most of his work for him in finding the mother boxes. Every now and again we'd see Steppenwolf actually fight his own battles. Plus the big showdown at the end. The only point where this villain stood out for me was at the beginning of the film where he is seen taunting the Amazons in Themyscira. And that's not for anything that he did or said, but at that point I really loved the scenes where the Amazon women are in battle with him and his flying zombies. The scenes were so thrilling and well choreographed that it really grabbed my attention. Other than that I thought that Steppenwolf was a bit of a 'meh' character. Lastly I want to mention about the films end credit scenes. SPOILER ALERT! There were not one but two end credit scenes. The first we didn't have to wait too long to see. It showed Superman and The Flash standing on what appeared to be a runway joking with each other about which one of them is the fastest. They are then seen speeding off into a blur before the scene goes black. Roll on some more credits and we get the big one! This scene I did actually know about before going to see the film and it was one I was so excited to see on the big screen. As it started I sat in my seat flapping my hands with excitement like a performing sea lion as I continued to watch. The scene starts with an officer in a prison walking up to a cell which was for Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenburg) only for the officer to find a crazy mad man in Luthor's place. We then see a boat with people on board only to then see Lex Luthor and some of his guards talking to someone about a plan to destroy our beloved heroes. And who was he talking to? Slade Wilson in full costume! Deathstroke himself! Many people have been waiting for the appearance of this character for quite some time. Particularly fans of the CW's Arrow. The TV series based on the life of Oliver Queen as the Green Arrow (played by Stephen Amell) has already seen one version of Deathstroke which is a character that many grew fond of. We have seen the portrayal of the character from actor Manu Bennett in this series so people are rather intrigued to see just how the role will play out with the casting of Joe Manganiello. Only time will tell. Lets round this up then. I really loved this film, I liked the story, the characters, the costumes and if it were just based on that I would be giving Justice League a full score of 5 out of 5. But because I was able to find a fair amount of flaws and let downs with it I am not able to give it a top score. It is definitely one that I do recommend to watch and I cannot wait to be able to own it on release to go with the rest of my nerdy comic book film collection to be able to watch it time and time again. This review is currently on my own review website https://kasimmons8.wixsite.com/therealviewroom