(The UK and European premiere of "Mary Queen Of Scots" will be on Monday, December 10th, 2018 at 'Cineworld Cinema', Leicester Square, London, 7pm). UK release on January 18th, 2019. (Release Info New York City schedule; December 5th, 2018, The Paris Theatre) "Mary Queen Of Scots" A Queen who lost three kingdoms. A wife who lost three husbands. A woman who lost her head. 'Mary Queen Of Scots' (Saoirse Ronan) spends her childhood in France and is meant to become also 'Queen Of France'. However, her ailing husband dies and the young widow returns alone to Scotland, a country devastated by war. Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie) has just become 'Queen Of England', for Mary she's like a twin sister to whom she can open her heart. Mary weds again and gives birth to an heir to the thrown. Her second husband, Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden), proves to be a weakling. When Mary finds the love of her life, 'The Earl Of Bothwell' (Martin Compston), she has Darnley murdered and marries Bothwell. Horrified by this deed and the blind passion that motivated it, both the nobles and the people of Scotland spurn her. To avert a bloody battle, Mary is compelled to give up her beloved Bothwell. In desperate straits, she turns to Elizabeth I for help. In response, 'The Queen Of England' imprisons her. After 19 years spent in a golden cage, Mary finds release at last; Elizabeth I sends her to 'The Block'. From the day she was born, Mary Stuart’s hand in marriage was coveted with such rough wooing that her mother sent the five-year-old 'Queen Of Scotland' to France as the betrothed of Dauphin François (Adrian Lester). Mary and François grew up almost like siblings at 'The Luxurious French Court' and were married when Mary was 15. Elizabeth I was crowned 'Queen Of England' at the same time. Mary reaches out to her cousin Elizabeth I, as if she were a trusted twin sister to whom she can open her heart. And yet, urged on by 'King Henry II Of France' (Kadiff Kirwan), she also lays claim to 'The English Throne'. Shortly there after, upon the death of Henry II, François and Mary become 'King And Queen Of France'. Mary’s reign as 'Queen Of France' comes to an abrupt end after only a year, upon the death of the sickly François at the young age of 16. Having lost her claim to 'The French Throne', 18-year-old Mary decides to return to Scotland. She accepts her fate with courage and determination. Life in Scotland is very different from what she has been accustomed to; the climate is rough and the customs are coarse in a country beset by poverty. In addition, Mary is confronted with the extremely explosive situation of a nation divided between 'Protestants' and 'Catholics'. As a Catholic, she faces the hostility not only of 'The Protestant Leader' John Knox (David Tennant) but also of her brother 'Earl Of Moray' (James McArdle) and she's reviled by her people as an unmarried French whore. She finds consolation and support in the four companions of her childhood, 'The Four Marys', in Rizzio (Ismael Cruz), 'The Puppeteer', who becomes her political confidant and advisor, and in 'The Earl Of Bothwell', the only Scotsman, it seems, to respect her. But Mary is a survivor. The royal blood in her veins lends her the strength to brave her opponents. She wants to unite her people; tolerance is her highest priority. So much so, that she even hazards the blatant hatred of her adversaries. It soon becomes clear that Mary must have a husband. Even Elizabeth I takes action by recommending her own lover, a suggestion indignantly rebuffed by Mary. In fact, having fallen in love with another Englishman, handsome Lord Darnley, she proudly defies Elizabeth I and her brother Moray by rashly deciding to get married. Ambitious, zealously anti-Protestant, refusing to be reined in by 'The Queen', Darnley rapidly proves to be a grave menace to the already precariously balanced relationship between 'Catholics' and 'Protestants'. Whatever faith Mary, now many months pregnant, may still have had in Darnley evaporates when he allies himself with Moray and has her confidant Rizzio brutally murdered before her very eyes. Mary is devastated. Skilfully masking her feelings, she successfully persuades Darnley that she has forgiven him but turns her back on him, the moment she has him under control. With a heavy heart, she entrusts her son to one of 'The Four Marys', to protect him from Darnley’s wayward behaviour. In the meantime, even Moray has become wary of him and warns Mary that he must be kept in line. Learning that Bothwell has been seriously injured, Mary realizes that the word friendship alone no longer applies to her feelings for 'The Loyal Earl'. The inevitability of her love for him sends her spiralling into despair and she too falls ill. She senses that she will pay for her passion with her life. Bothwell and Mary have recovered; they stand face-to-face at long last. Mary succumbs to her feelings; after the first night spent with Bothwell, she throws all precaution to the winds and chooses to remain with him. At the baptism of her child, she's quivering with excitement because Elizabeth I has announced that she will be present. The time has come for the sisters to embrace. They will meet in person for the very first time. But, once again, Mary's hopes are dashed. Elizabeth I has sent a deputy with the gift of a golden baptismal font. Despite her profound disappointment and rage, Mary still feels bound to Elizabeth I by unfathomable ties. Darnley, now suffering from syphilis, does not attend the baptism. In his stead, Bothwell is there at the table next to Mary. Moray and Bothwell make plans to eliminate Darnley. Mary does not get involved but neither does she interfere with their plans. Shortly afterwards, the house in which Darnley is being cared for goes up in flames. Mary, already pregnant with Bothwell's child, struggles to simulate shock and dismay. Only a few weeks pass before she decides to marry Bothwell. Aghast at this deed driven by blind passion, the nobles and the people turn against her. The people demand that she punish Bothwell; even Elizabeth urges her to do so. Mary cannot bring herself to take action against him. Her love for Bothwell is too great; she's too happy with him. Moray abandons her; he and his entourage depart for Italy, far removed from the impending catastrophe of a civil war. Bothwell has recruited an army but it's ranks are daily dwindling. Royal jewellery is melted down to pay the soldiers. On the morning of the battle, the hopelessness of Mary’s situation is patent. Vastly outnumbered by 'The Army Of The Lords', she's asked to surrender and dismiss Bothwell. She has no choice; there's no other way out. She sends Bothwell away. While gazing after him, the blood runs down her between her legs. In utter despair, Mary appeals to Elizabeth I for help. 'The Queen Of England' responds by having her imprisoned, ostensibly for murdering Darnley, but actually in order to eliminate a legitimate contender to 'The English Throne'. After 19 years in a golden cage Mary finds salvation on 'The Block'. Mary's youth in France is important to understand the luxury of the surroundings she grew up in. It shows the contrast to Scotland, the poor, war-torn country that she voluntarily chose to return to, after her first husband died, not because she's homesick but because she's their legitimate 'Queen'. She feels she has the right to marry the man of her choice and to mete out less punishment than called upon by custom. Above all, there so one objective that she pursues with bewildering tenacity, she wants to unite 'The English Crown' and 'Scottish Crown', effectively uniting England with Scotland, 'Catholics' with 'Protestants', and ultimately herself with her cousin Elizabeth I So intensely does Mary embrace this extremely personal idea of unification that she's blinded to political and social realities and incapable of considering the consequences of her actions. The uncompromising pursuit of her inner goals, however, don’t seem to lead to a more fulfilled life or greater freedom. Instead her freedom is increasingly curtailed and she's more and more isolated. Her inner drives prove fatal to her goals. Socially ostracized, ever more lonely, we see Mary in solitude, straying about in empty halls and courtyards. Crazed she gallops across fields, compelled to follow the same path, desperately seeking a way out. The smaller Mary's world becomes in her confinement, the more it revolves only around her. Here, a third stylistic device comes into play; Mary's thoughts, moods and emotions begin to acquire shape through the imaginary presence of her 'counterpart', the absent Elizabeth. Mary interiorizes 'Queen Elizabeth' and makes her part of herself to such an extent that one might even say she has become her alter ego. The letters she writes and never sends to Elizabeth are now soliloquies and the omnipresent portrait of 'The English Queen' in her chambers turn into mirrors. Although the real Elizabeth never accepted any of Mary's repeated invitations to visit Scotland and despite 'The English Queen’s' attempt to bridle Mary by choosing a husband for her, Mary persists in her vision of Elizabeth as a kindred soul, who empathizes with her state of mind. The puppet show, both as a product of Mary's imagination and as a skit staged for the public by her confidant Rizzio, adds an additional insight into Mary’s perception of her relationship with Elizabeth. The puppets are moved by only one puppeteer and are incapable of being anything but enemies. Never does Mary's antagonist react directly, never do we learn whether Mary’s opinion is shared by her English rival. And we realize that the end is inevitable, to Mary being executed makes sense emotionally; there's no other way out. In the final scene, she turns to the camera and addresses words of farewell to her cousin Elizabeth. Mary and Elizabeth relationship is crucial to the film. There's no separate, self-contained Elizabeth in the film; she's essentially part of Mary, almost like her shadow. In that respect she's an inner figure, especially since Mary never saw her. She has only portraits and reports and formal diplomatic relations. Both women suffered an exceptional fate. Elizabeth went directly from prison to 'Queen Of England'. Mary went from 'Queen Of Scots', and briefly 'Queen Of France', to prison. Both have a strong will and a horde of nobles hovering around them and trying to tell them how to rule. Mary is the more old-fashioned queen but the more modern woman; Elizabeth is the manager and unable to bear children. They both knew that there's a woman on the same island, struggling with similar problems. They're related and at the same time rivals since Mary, influenced by her French relatives, has laid claim to the English crown as well. Their relationship is always very ambiguous and Elizabeth is the most important person in Mary's life. The presence of Elizabeth and Mary's longing for her sister’s real presence are vital to the narrative of the film and it’s embodied in the combination of Mary’s inner voice and the puppet shows. You can interpret their relationship classically; two Queens who are very close, who are in conflict and never meet. Her life takes a dramatic turn in a very short time. The film shows the beginning and end of her life. But also psychologically as Mary's inner struggle with her own being and who she's. That's very important, so it's a constant struggle to figure out how to do that without having to retell the whole story. The film focuses on those two dramatic, eventful years in which she falls in love with Darnley and precipitously marries him, witnesses her confidant Rizzio being murdered before her eyes, does nothing about the conspiracy against Darnley and finally marries Bothwell. It's like a volcano, with one explosion after the other, and it's just too much to weave into one storyline. Dramaturgically, therefore, the film treats the events like earthquakes that start out being barely perceptible and then suddenly erupt. Along with Mary, we're suddenly faced with unexpected situations. Having lost everything, including the crown, she can no longer face Elizabeth as an equal in rivalry, so that life has become meaningless. The end of 'Mary Queen Of Scots' once again reveals the extraordinary nature of this historical figure; even in death, she remains true to her inner logic and her own will. "Mary Queen Of Scots" instantly conjures opulent costumes, bloody battles and passionate love affairs. Mary Stuart’s story exerts an enduring fascination. She has been the subject of countless theatrical adaptations; she figures in series that immerse us in the life and times of her age. Her story has been interpreted time and time again; it has been examined from untold perspectives. It tells of a 'Scottish Catholic Queen' who considers herself the rightful 'Queen Of England' and is executed at the age of 42 by 'The Protestant Queen Of England' after years of political intrigue and imprisonment. The contradictory judgements and reactions provoked by the drama of Mary's life in her own time are still the subject of speculation today. Crucial to the film is the inner life of this historical figure. Mary intuitively struck a chord in us as someone we can relate to not in terms of her blue blood but because of her personality. It's not about a specific culture or country. She's a European heroine caught between 'Catholic France' and 'Protestant Scotland'. We're presented with the psychogram of a woman torn by ambivalence and driven by passion, a psychological treatment that reads Mary as a modern figure. The film gives us an intimate insight into a woman who does not conform, who has an iron will and steadfastly refuses to bow to conventions and expectations, a woman who does not yield to social pressure but answers only to herself and her own inner laws. She actively embraces the responsibility entrusted to her as 'Queen', boldly making decisions and taking action in a male-dominated world. With indomitable, emancipatory will, she confronts the powerful lords around her, never doubting the strength of her authority as a woman. Following the advice received from her stepfather, Henry II, in 'The Gardens Of The French Court', she tries not to succumb to her feminine instincts and her friendliness. With her deep, guttural voice, she leaves no doubt about how she perceives her role as 'Queen'. She's not obsessed by power; on the contrary, she's almost naïve and childlike in the unremitting pursuit of her ideals. Mary is neither a saintly heroine motivated by her Catholic faith to do good, nor is she an ambitious Queen obsessed with power. She's shown as an independent spirit, who obeys her own inner drives. Mary Stuart is a woman whose true life experience is compressed into the briefest of moments, for instead of being able to act out an entire life, she said confined to the ardent space of a single passion. Operating on several levels and employing several means, the film concentrates first and foremost on Mary's physical presence. In long takes, we're given time to read and understand the expressions on her face; defiant, stubborn, flushed with emotion, but always intense, open and communicative. We see her wildly galloping through a raw, forbidding landscape, horse and rider fused into one. On another level deserted landscapes suddenly appear, mirroring Mary's state of mind. The camera moves at eye level through foggy, bleak scenery redolent with surrealist symbolism. A single, dirt-spattered horse, the edge of the ocean, convoluted paths through labyrinthine undergrowth and fade-ins of complete blackness echo 'The Queen’s' moods and emotions. The genre hasn't really moved forward in any way over the past 30 years. The film generates a cinematographic feel for the era, which means, for instance, using lots of natural light, light candles or daylight, or gentle camera work with a handheld camera shooting at eye level. A preindustrial narrative style where we watch the characters and rest on their faces just a little bit longer to capture the full effect. We see traits in Mary and that aren't terribly en vogue anymore today. She’s looking for something unconditional. We live in an age where the focus is on getting a return on your investments. That doesn't interest Mary; she throws herself into life with a passion. That's a quality that has been overshadowed in an age of totally connected, postmodern individuals. The archaic nature of being human is important in developing her character. It's not surprising that we hear less about Mary today than about her adversary Elizabeth. Elizabeth is like a modern manager who has sacrificed her personal life for the greater good because of her love of the people. Mary figured prominently in 19th-century literature and music but she has never really come into her own in contemporary cinema. There are a number of TV series about Elizabeth in which Mary plays a supporting part. She represents values that we need to defend because they're fundamental human qualities: profound, unconditional commitment instead of concentrating on the quantifiable results of everything we do.

Scott Pilgram Vs The World is a Edgar Wright cult classic starring Michael Cera as Scott Pilgrim, a loser who plays base for a band started in a living room with some friends. Now off the cuff nothing really special about what I’ve just described right? Wrong, upon first view, the opening credits hints at exactly what type of movie you are about to watch. We are introduced to Scott (24 yrs) via a highly inappropriate romantic relationship with 17 year old school girl Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). She seems to adore Scott and his friends comment of his decision to date a high school girl following his previous failed relationship, we’ll speak on that later. As the opening scene introduces us to his band (Sex Bob-omb) we witness the stylistic choice Edgar Wright chooses to use for this film. Based off a comic of the same name by Bryan Lee O’Malley, Wright emphasises on comic style imagery, scene transitions and character direction to make it feel as if you were reading a comic book rather than watching a film. As mentioned earlier, the opening opening scene transitions from sex bob-omg simply rehearsing one of their songs into it being the theme song for the opening credits. I am a big fan of Wright’s direction style with his filmography including some of my all time favourite movies (Cornetto Trilogy, Attack the Block), but on this occasion I truly believe he was able to find a perfect balance of comedy with total insanity. The premise of this movie is Scott who is currently in a relationship with Knives meets Ramona Flowers, a delivery girl with a weird taste in hair dye, he becomes infatuated with her and ultimately woo’s her with his strange ways. Unbeknown to him, Ramona has 7 exes, and in order for Scott to truly be with her, he must overcome them, via combat. As Scott encounters all 7 exes, he is faced with having to dig deep and find something within himself to overcome each obstacle. The film follows the narrative in from the comics, with Scott having to fight both male and female exes, and the fight scenes are styled as if you were playing a fighting game like Tekken or Street Fighter, with Scott earning points for combos, there being a consistent trend of someone shouting ‘Fight’ prior to the beginning off every bout and Scott earning a reward if when he defeats each opponent. Wright is able to fuse the comical elements, expertly delivered by Cera, with the dramatic plot of Scott’s fascinations with Ramona, the first fight includes a sing and dance number, something that would seem preposterous on paper but turned out great and fitted with the narrative of the insane world Scott has been thrown into. At first all that is happening seems to confuse Scott and he shows no seriousness towards what is happening, but as he begins to understand that in order for him to get his girl, this is what he must do, we begin to see a shift in Scott from a goofy character to one determined to win at all costs. The film starts to slow a little bit towards the middle of the second act , in which Scott has to fight a movie star, a lesbian ex lover, a super hero vegan, twins who happen to be DJ’s and the final ex Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman). Some would ask what exactly it is about Ramona that makes Scott willing to go so far to get her, and from their on screen chemistry, it doesn’t exactly scream comparable. Ramona is often very introverted, mild mannered and quiet, the contrast of Knives, not Scott’s ex, who is outspoken, animated and naive to say the least. This decision to have both women in Scott’s life be the antithesis of each other is a ploy used by the screenwriter to explore Scott’s mental state, dos he want to stay a child, living a stone’s throw away from his childhood home, sharing a mattress with his best friend or does he want to ‘grow up’ an repeated rhetoric lambasted at him by his sister and close friends? This film examines at what point we all must develop an inner monologue about who we are and set standards for ourselves as we look to grow and develop as individuals. By the end of the movie, Scott is tasked with facing the final ex and the ‘Boss Villian’ in gaming terms, Gideon Graves. Graves has somehow been able to manipulate Ramona into dumping Scott and and returning to him, along with signing Sex Bob-Omb (minus Scott) to play for him. It seems like Scott is lower than ever, but the third act delivers Scott’s redemption as he able to harness not the power of ‘Love’ (He tried that and had to restart the level, another game reference), but the power of ‘Self respect’. At the end of the movie and comics Scott ends up with none other than Knives, as he comes to understand that although their relationship may have seemed inappropriate on first glance (Age difference), Scott was enjoyed being with her, he enjoyed quoting obscure facts nobody cared about, he enjoyed playing video games with her and he loved the fact she cared so much about his ambitions to be part of a great band. Whereas, with Ramona it was just an obsession with a girl he had no real connection or compatibility with. Scott Pilgram Vs The World poses that same question to the viewer, are you someone willing to stick with something that might seem inconvenient to you at the time or are you willing to sacrifice your happiness for what you would perceive as a more overtly satisfying relationship in which compatibility is out of the question? The witty dialogue and comedic moments shine at the hands of Edgar Wright and for me its no surprise this film in the last 7 years has build a massive cult following. Although not a smash in the domestic box office, racking in just over $31M from a $85M budget, it has since garnered the acclaim it rightly deserves with many praising Wright for his forward thinking and stylistic decisions. I would suggest giving this movie a watch with some friends and can guarantee a laugh, if not a cheer for our nerdy protagonist. Check out the trailer for Scott Pilgrim Vs the World below.

The horror experience that silenced an audience It's well recognised that in horror, both silence and sound can be equally terrifying. This is a dynamic A Quiet Place plays around with extremely well, following a family trying to stay alive as sounds sensitive creatures stalk them. It's a risky move for a first-time horror director, as films with a singular central premise tend to live or die by how consistently they are implemented. It's difficult to get right and easy to slip-up; creating inconsistencies that can completely derail a movie. John Krasinski clearly has a keen eye for detail, and I made sure to take note of as many of the sound related specifics I could; but not once did I spot something that took me out of the experience. That's what this film was for me, a true cinematic experience. "An afternoon showing of a film like this should be pretty quiet" - I told my partner (with no pun intended), as we stood in line for tickets, undeterred by the crowds of people whom I assumed had children with them. As we got seated in one of the larger screens at our local cinema; waiting for the film to begin, it became apparent I had been mistaken. Near to capacity, the screen was very busy and loud. Something that had troubled me having known about the movie's reliance on sound, or the lack of it. Phones beeped, people chirped, the cinema snacks rustled and crunched, and I despaired. Finally, the lights dimmed, the screen did that weird stretchy thing, and the film started. Then, silence. Within seconds, utter silence. The opening scene: an abandoned supermarket with little other than crisps left on the shelves and the Abbott family carefully, and quietly scavenging for supplies. The leaden nature of the film was apparent immediately, and the severity of the consequence of making any sound was made horrifically clear soon after. The Abbotts, in general, seem to have adapted to this new-found need for silence better than most. Thanks – in no small part – to their daughter being deaf, an important plot point, and meaning they can communicate through sign language. Never before have I been in a screening for a movie that had the audience so united in fear of making any noise themselves. The feeling of dread and distress I felt watching this film hadn't been so jarring since my first viewing of (Ridley Scott's.) Alien. It was Brilliant! The cinematography here is excellent, with both panoramic and close-up shots being used to ruthless efficiency to create a sense of eerie loneliness and claustrophobia. It's a really clever pairing that works well in horror if applied correctly. The vast openness of the landscape creates the illusion of freedom and opportunity, their situation dictates otherwise. Much like in Alien – which used the vast openness of space and a spaceship with incredibly narrow corridors to create the same ambience – the family are little better than prisoners, being unable to travel far, or anywhere unfamiliar; it's just too risky. The soundtrack is also outstanding and is particularly important in a movie like this. Mixing understated, mood-setting music with many natural, ambient sounds is something Crimson Peak did extraordinarily well; A Quiet Place follows suit. The cast is superb. John Krasinski and Emily Blunt as husband and wife – Lee and Evelyn Abbott – both give (perhaps unsurprisingly), excellent and genuine performances. Their relationship as a married couple is never in doubt - perhaps because they are actually married? Special mention should unquestionably go to young Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe – Regan and Marcus Abbott – however, who are exemplary in every aspect of their performances. This is the first time I've seen either of them on screen, and I can't wait to see what they've both done before, and what they'll both do in the future. These two are definitely ones to watch. Verdict "I was never a horror movie guy" - says John Krasinski, which makes this movie's success all the more impressive. After adapting the screenplay and deciding to direct the film, John watched several modern horror movies; Crediting "Get Out", "The Witch" and "The Babadook" as "influential with how people do tension and terror." I agree. But, the film also borrows heavily from classics like Alien, Jaws, Rosemary's Baby, and The Birds and it really shows. A Quiet Place is a masterclass of suspense and edge of your seat horror, and it draws you in and clutches you from the very first scene; not letting go until well after the end credits roll. 10/10

How is it possible for a franchise to just outdo itself and improve upon each new instalment? The only other one that comes close is The Fast and the Furious (2001 - ). Tom Cruise and the directors he picks for each new entry deserve massive amounts of praise for continuously blowing expectations out of the water and delivering exciting, daring moviemaking. For a sixth film to not only be this good or even the best in the franchise, but one of the bets action movies ever made is remarkable. Basically this review is going to be nothing but heaps of praise for a movie that left me wholly satisfied and engaged every one of my senses. When I first heard that Christopher McQuarrie, director of the previous instalment Rogue Nation (2015), was to return for this film I was a little concerned. The rotation of a new director is what has made each of these films so distinct and brilliant each time and with the same director returning I was worried that the enthusiasm and passion may lessen and result in something disappointing. This is what happened when Sam Mendes blew everyone away with Skyfall (2012) and then failed to reach the same heights again with Spectre (2015) for James Bond. After watching Fallout it makes perfect sense why McQuarrie returned here as it is very much a direct sequel to Rogue Nation. Having this chance to continue the story he helped craft in the previous film definitely gave McQuarrie the time to improve his craft. Just looking at this film is beautiful, from the cinematography to the directing, the tense nature of the action scenes and the story that never slows down or gets boring, everything is perfect. It goes without saying that Tom Cruise himself deserves a lot of praise too as he if the driving force behind these movies. Without his commitment, dedication and just how much he cares about this franchise, it’s possible that this franchise would have never survived past the second film with someone else involved in the lead role. By now most know just how crazy Cruise is when it comes to the stunts and how much he puts his own life in danger for our entertainment, but you can’t deny the results. In terms of acting performance, he’s rivalled here by Henry Cavill as CIA assassin, August Walker. Cruise and Cavill share much of the first hour together and the two are electric together, playing off each other with a spark that ignites in some terrifically choreographed and brutal action scenes, the bathroom fight in Paris for one. Not to discredit the rest of the cast though, Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames are in reliably good form as the comedic duo of the film, Benji and Luther. Rebecca Ferguson makes a welcome return as IIsa Faust, continuing to be the best female character of the entire franchise and Sean Harris as antagonist Solomon Lane has officially become the best villain of the franchise. Having these films be centred around Ethan Hunt and his team is what gives the films their heart and the reason the action scenes are always so exciting, because they are always character driven. The final result of Fallout is an insanely tense and often heart-pounding action thriller that draws upon aspects of every Mission: Impossible, but is something entirely unique and special. It’s an experience that I feel is missing from the cinema nowadays. As much as I love superheroes and impossible things brought to life with CGI, it’s exhilarating when a Mission Impossible film comes along and shows us all how it’s done with real stunts, real locations and very real injury. Special mention must go to the composer here who has provided the best music for the series so far, as well as the opening credits which were by far the most exciting they’ve ever been. The camera captures everything so perfectly that everything looks so crisp and clear, with action scenes that are tense, brutal and immersive. There are even emotional moments that caught me off guard that really make you realise just how far we’ve come with some of these characters. Fallout has a prefect mix of everything that makes a truly great film and one I’m afraid not enough people are going to see. The franchise really has made each film better than the last except M:I 2 (2000) and it’ll be hard to keep the quality the same from here, but if they want to try a seventh time then they should definitely go for it.

Go ahead and take her. She’s all yours. But I’ll tell you this. She got a dark side… Darker than hell. I admire the phenomenon called Nicolas Cage enormously. Every film with him (and nowadays it’s a lot every year) is a mandatory watch for me. I really can’t let a single Cage movie pass by. Even though I know that more than half of them are of a dubious level. And some downright bad. And yet there are sometimes gems in between. Now, “Grand Isle” certainly isn’t the pinnacle of his film oeuvre. It’s rather mediocre. The run-up is promising. The concept had potential. And Cage is having a blast with his role that fits him like a glove. Add to that a bitter Milf, a young handyman whose hormones are going berzerk and “Frasier” as a biased, god-fearing detective who would prefer to put the suspect on a stake, and you still have enough material to make something out of it. It all looks reasonable. Until halfway somewhere. And then the movie transforms to the level of an average C film. Unfortunately, the presence of such a cult figure as Cage couldn’t change that. Alcohol and a Nam past. Bad combination. And to think that a white fence is the beginning of all the misery for Buddy (Luke Benward). Such an innocent item with far-reaching consequences. The way in which this fence was damaged, on the other hand, is not so innocent. Not difficult when the owner of the house is an ex-marine with a serious drinking problem. Walter (Nicolas Cage) is a bitter, fatalistic persona. A bit of a crazy person who still can’t get over the fact that he got wounded in Vietnam in a ridiculous way and returned home while his platoon went on a mission the next day. The disappointment was immense. Even knowing that the entire platoon got eliminated completely a few weeks later, the disappointment about a missed opportunity remains. This pent-up anger in combination with excessive alcohol consumption makes him an unguided projectile. His mood, grumpy reactions, and downright aggressive attitude make him an unpleasant person. Let’s seduce the handyman. Walter also doesn’t treat his other half kindly. She’s a mature diva whose body shapes are extremely well preserved and whose libido clearly hasn’t disappeared yet. And let that be exactly what Walter fails to deliver. He won’t even budge when she shows up in a transparent nightgown with erotic underwear underneath it. A disinterested look and another sip of a glass of whiskey are the only reactions. It’s not without reason that this hot woman sets her sights on the young, muscular handyman. A handyman with a sex life on the back burner since his lovely wife gave birth to a cuddly daughter. And just when you think it’s going to be about a dangerous triangular relationship where the psychopathic-looking husband wants to initiate a lynch party, the young handyman sits at the police station, face bloodied, trying to prove his innocence in a murder case. Perfect part for Cage. Indeed, Walter is really the kind of character that has Nicolas Cage written all over it. The manic mood. Maniacal laughter. Medium length, greasy hair, and a rough stubble beard. The constant drinking and the half-awake state he’s in practically all the time. And it’s not the first time Cage played such a person. In short, it feels familiar to see him that way. The most interesting interpretation, however, is that of Kadee Strickland as the voluptuous Fancy. Every time she’s in the shot, you simply feel the erotic tension increase. Her sultry voice and sensuous appearance ensure she demands all the attention. Unfortunately, Luke Benward could not compete with these two heavyweights. And although he actually plays the main character, it felt like his part was less important. A half-decent, half-finished flick. As I said before, the format of the film is only half successful. It seemed to be heading in the direction of a “Basic Instinct” -like, erotic thriller. Only the eroticism and the thriller section remains below par. And you get a rather absurd conclusion. Also, the dark secret of this demonic couple is presented so casually that its impact is negligible. And let’s not forget about the intervention of the police. You really can call this part quite ridiculous. Furthermore, the movie is peppered with improbabilities. Such as that small detail from the testimony that cannot even be verified immediately. But still, it ensures that the biased inspector makes a 180-degree turn immediately. It’s amazing how someone’s beliefs can change so quickly. And the end of the film is simply terrible. Apparently even the marine uniform Cage was wearing, was also completely wrong. Again proof that quantity and quality aren’t related. If you are an immense Cage fan, you should watch it of course. Unfortunately, “Grand Isle” isn’t really grand after all. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB

If you could have just said, “I’m sorry”, or faced up to what happened. Maybe then we could do something with this. But you can’t take responsibility for anything! So now I can’t accept… And I can’t forgive because… Because nobody admits anything they’ve done! “Hereditary“. A film I was really looking forward to and expected a lot from. Unfortunately, it was kind of a disappointment. If it would be a psychological drama that concentrated on the traumatizing effect after the loss of a relative with a labile mother as a result, I would have liked it. The fact Annie (Toni Colette) doesn’t have a stable and healthy mind is actually not that surprising. Not with a psychotic depressed father who starved himself. And a schizophrenic brother who hung himself in his mother’s bedroom. And a dominant mother figure that, in my opinion, couldn’t think clearly. Annie’s mother isn’t really clearheaded when you see the diorama with Annie breastfeeding her daughter. At least if this diorama displays how it happened in reality. And they generally do. A person would go nuts for a lot less. Terrible sadness and mourning. And Annie also goes completely through the ribbon after the terrible accident that happens to her daughter Charlie (Milly Shapiro). A strange little girl with a downright peculiar appearance. A regrettable and mind-boggling accident. And her brother Peter (Alex Wolff), can hardly be blamed. Maybe he should not have left Charlie on her own that night. Leaving her so he could smoke some weed with a nice girl from his class, isn’t only bad for his health. It also results in this dismal accident. An impressive moment of acting and at the same time a heavy emotional event that’ll get under your skin. No, this film isn’t about scary and blood-curdling scenes. Not initially, that is. It’s the grief for those who died, that makes the most impression. You’ll be struck by an uncomfortable feeling when you hear Annie screaming and crying. A sound like nails on a chalkboard. And you’ll feel sorry for Peter who doesn’t know what to do with his sorrow. Not an easy movie. “Hereditary” isn’t an easy movie. Emotionally you are dragged back and forth. Just like the members of the Graham family. A mother who has been traumatized by her past. Husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) who looks at everything in a passive way and actually has no idea sometimes how to deal with the situation. And the son Peter, whose bond with his mother comes across as reasonably dysfunctional, tries to soften his frustration by using mind-altering substances. And then there’s Charlie. A little girl who clearly lives in her own universe. And above this dislocated family the spirit (Not literally! Or maybe it does.) of a seemingly tyrannical and dominating grandmother floats around. A woman who also had an unhealthy interest in the occult. Scariest movie in years. Don’t make me laugh. “Hereditary” knows how to keep the suspense alive in a smart way. The mysterious mood is constantly present. It’s also a terribly slow film with an enervating soundtrack in the background. At a certain moment, you don’t know what makes you nervous the most. The whole atmosphere or the slow pace. What I do hate a lot, is the exaggerated hyping of movies like “Hereditary“. According to their crafty marketing department, this would be the most terrifying horror film of the last 50 years. Even scarier than “The Exorcist“. This ought to be correct if you read the press releases. People are fainting and are leaving the theater massively because it’s so scary. Maybe that’s why you’re feeling tense. Even when the movie just started. Trust me. Apart from a few explicit graphic shots, it’s all reasonably suggestive. “Hereditary” is again such a horror movie with a double meaning. A movie that pushes your feeling in a certain direction and finally has such a twist that you are totally lost. A film that simply begs for a re-watch so you might discover the missed hints. And that, fellow moviegoers, is something I never do and I’m not planning to begin with in the future. Highlight: the acting of Toni Collette. Don’t get me wrong. This is a gem when you look at the cinematographic part and the acting. The way in which everything is depicted is simply fantastic. Sometimes it might be a bit exaggerated so that you get a multitude of painfully slowly zoomed in images. But in general, it’s a pleasure to watch and a continuation of the wonderful footage from the intro. Toni Colette plays a major role in this film (with the dinner scene as highlight). It’s certainly not easy to play such a tormented soul. A beautiful performance delivered by this actress (even though she already convinced me of her acting talent in “Miss you already” and “Please stand by“). And it remained mysterious and ominous until it escalated at a certain moment and evolved into a sort of “The Lords of Salem“. And when you reach the end you’ll probably conclude that it’s indeed advisable to watch the film again so you can rediscover certain clues. But again, that’s not my cup of tea. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB

You’re the one doing it all. You’re not a robot. In my film review of the movie “The Hollow Child“, I started again with a plea about trailers and I summed up the reasons why I avoid them. I saw the trailer from “Upgrade” by chance at the beginning of this year. Believe me, I was ecstatic and enthusiastic. “I HAVE to see this movie“, I thought. There are trailers that look inviting and afterward, the film looks very disappointing. But “Upgrade” certainly doesn’t belong in this category. On the contrary. This is one of the best films of the year for me. An excellent SF provided with a wonderful concept and which gradually switches to a tough revenge film. For me, it was an exciting mix of “Robocop“, “John Wick” and “Demon Seed“. “Robocop” because of the cybernetic aspect. “John Wick” because of the extravagant violent part. And “Demon Seed” because of the overall moral of the whole story. A successful cocktail that results in a titillating film. STEM means voice in Flemish. Coincedance? “Upgrade” tells the story of Grey Trace (Logan Marshall-Green), an old-skool-styled guy who is restoring old-fashioned Pontiacs and who’s horrified by everything that’s related to high-tech stuff. The evening Asha’s (Melanie Vallejo), his wife, fully automated design car malfunctions and crashes, they are being attacked by some violent gang. The result is a lifeless girlfriend and Gray having a shattered spine. And that’s when the millionaire Eron (Harrison Gilbertson) appears and presents his latest revolutionary chip STEM. An artificially intelligent microchip that functions as a superior brain so the paralyzed Grey can lead a normal life again. And even more. Let’s twist again. When you’re able to watch this movie with the necessary skepticism and you don’t take it too seriously, then this B-movie styled, action-packed SF is a welcome change and a way to de-stress after a hard day’s work. The story itself can’t be called groundbreaking or original. It all seemed a bit too predictable even to me. There’s only one thing I hadn’t seen coming. And that’s the final twist. What a pleasant surprise that was. The action is finger licking awesome. And when you like neatly-filmed action scenes, then you’ll enjoy this flick as well. The confrontations in “Upgrade” are such that I gladly re-watched the same scene over and over again. Not because I enjoy seeing bloody, horrible scenes. But because the choreography looks extraordinarily good and in a certain way, they managed to provide it with the necessary humor. The tilting camera. Grey’s surprised face. And the way the bad guys are killed. It all looks damn perfect. Just go watch this top-notch movie. I can’t think of anything bad about the acting. Logan Marshal-Green knows amazingly well how to show different emotions. From helplessness to bewilderment and purely evil. The entire pallet of emotions is shown. And the opponents all look fearless and ruthless. Equipped with ingenious cyber-like assault weapons and futuristic deadly gadgets (even an innocent sneeze is deadly). The only thing I was annoyed about is Gray’s way of moving. Although he was told at the beginning that he wasn’t really a robot, his body moves like a purebred Robocop. But that’s the only remark I can think of. My advice is to go and see this highly entertaining cyberpunk SF as soon as you can. Just do it! My rating 9/10 More reviews here

Either I’m pissed off my chest mate, or that’s the biggest fucking boar I’ve ever seen. In 1955 we had a giant octopus in “It came from beneath the Sea” and last year we had the giant shark in “The Meg“. And in between, we were treated to a manifold collection of giant animals. There were also enormous ants (“Empire of the ants” from 1977), a big ass spider (“Big ass spider” from 2013), a giant snake (“Anaconda” from 1997), a monkey (“King Kong” from 1976), a crocodile (” Rogue ” from 2008), cockroaches (“Bug” from 1975) and wasps (“Stung” from 2015). And after doing some research you’ll notice there are more films about huge animals. Perhaps the makers of this film thought they had something original when they came up with a whopper from a wild boar. And to be honest, I thought so too. Turns out there are other movies with a frenzy boar, such as “Razorback“, “Pig Hunt” and “Chaw“. For starters, it isn’t as bad as Lake Placid: Legacy. I was convinced that this film could never be as bad as “Lake Placid: Legacy“, where a big crocodile was chasing a group of young people. This was really a crap movie. A completely ridiculous story, stupid acting and a monster that’s hardly shown on the screen. All in all, a waste of my already scarce time anyway. About “Boar” I can only say that the acting was generally not too bad. The boar was sufficiently visible. And there were even some funny moments in it. But to claim that this was one hell of a movie is also a bit exaggerated. It was full of improbabilities. And the story itself was also rather simplistic. Wow, and you expect the boar being gigantic. Wait till you see Nathan Jones. The story is set in Australia. The fact that the Australian production house Slaughter FX released this film (in the past they also released “Charlie’s farm“) made me feel hopeful. Frankly, I think most Australian horrors are sublime anyway. Maybe it has something to do with that beautiful Australian accent. It makes me instantly happy. So you’ll hear the stop word “mate” regularly here. There was no indication that the Monroe family their holidays would turn into a real nightmare. Debbie (Simone Buchanan) and her American husband Bruce (Bill Moseley) are on their way to Debbie’s brother Bernie (Nathan Jones). Together with the rest of the family. If you already think that the size of the wild boar is going to be impressive, then you’ll certainly be impressed by Bernie’s height. What a giant. He looks like a kind of Obelix who likes to eat such a wild pig for breakfast. So I was looking forward to a “Clash of the Titans”. Apparently, Slaughter FX are fan of Nathan Jones because he was also allowed to take on the role of Charlie in “Charlie’s Farm“. It’s even mentioned briefly in this movie. How come it got so big? Let’s talk about the subject: the gigantic wild boar. If you set up such a typical monster film as “Boar“, then you know in advance that you won’t get a phenomenal and astonishing story. The only thing that counts in such films is: how frightening and horrible is the huge monstrosity that kills so many innocent people and in what a horrible way they are slaughtered. The rest is secondary. Furthermore, you need to empty your head and don’t ask too many questions about the hows and why. Because it all remains a mystery. Is this wild boar so gigantic because of the consumption of large quantities of truffles or acorns? Or did it roll in a pool of chemically polluted mud? Or did a hunter shoot a load of lead in its buttocks after which the beast got so mad it took on such a grotesque form? Or is the beast coming from the underworld? I have no idea. The boar sometimes looks ugly? But what you can say is that the creature does have some remarkable skills. It turns out to be an expert in camouflage because nobody has ever seen the monster roaming around. And I thought Australians were outdoorsy who are connected with nature and spend a lot of time in the bushes with the local wildlife. Furthermore, the boar has an ingenious GPS system because it always appears in the right place at the right time. The biggest disappointment, however, is the visualization of the creature. It’s clear they used a model for the close-ups. A kind of XL Muppet of the Muppetshow. And on rare occasions, the digital version is used. But those images are extremely bad. Only when you see the monstrous head with gigantic tusks full of mucus, blood, and mud this pig looks frightening. And you can expect a few bloody, gory slaughter scenes when this monster tears up his next prey. You love movies with giant creatures? Oh well, try it. “Boar” is not of a high level and has its weak moments, but this is compensated by its uncomplicated goriness and sometimes awkward humor, such as the clumsy doings of Ken (John Jarratt) and Blue (Roger Ward) or the embarrassing behavior of Bruce (Bill Moseley). The most annoying aspects were the exaggerated flirting of the two youngsters Ella (Christie-Lee Britten) and Robert (Hugh Sheridan). And of course the bad CGI. This ensures that the film doesn’t rise above the average. But do you like a monster movie from time to time, you can still enjoy it when you see Miss Piggy roaming around. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB

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

Dreams give us hope. And if we don't have hope, then what's the point in living? After reading the synopsis of this movie, your reaction will probably be the same as mine at that time. "Jesus, not again another post-apocalyptic film in which the world's population has been decimated to a handful of survivors, while the earth's surface is plagued by bloodthirsty zombies or warlike aliens who are fed up eating salt-less potatoes already for years and start to plunder our natural salt mines here on earth". Well, in essence, it sort of comes down to that, but the apocalyptic part isn't really noticeable. You won't see any zombie or alien. Then again, the epidemic that caused the extinction of the world's population, has broken out 25 years ago. Perhaps that's why the emphasis here is on the survivors instead of the Apocalypse itself. The world was flooded with zombies. Or not? Anna (Lulu Antariksa) is such a survivor. She's 19 years old and therefore hasn't really experienced the happening. She lives secluded in a fairly protected domain (although a wooden fence is not really something that could stop a zombie stampede) along with her deathly ill mother and her brother David (Roshon Fegan). But after a while, she stays behind all alone when her mother dies a natural death and her brother falls into the hands of a stranger who whistles like a cowboy. At first, it's not clear in whose hands he has fallen. Afterward, you'll come to know that there are wandering groups that are called "berserkers" and that hunt other people for supplies. What people should really be afraid of in this dilapidated society, remains a mystery throughout this movie. The world is ruined. Let's get religious. So, don't expect something similar to "How it ends". It's more like "Holy ghost people". The day Peter (Colin O'Donoghue) apparently accidentally turns up at Anna's house, it seems as if he has a way out to a more worry-free life for Ann. He's the co-founder of a religious commune that offers protection and friendly companionship. Something Anna needs, now that she's alone and lonely. The calmness and kindness that Peter exudes (as befits a true spiritual leader) convinces her. She didn't know there were some flies in the ointment. Eventually, it seems like she was invited for very different reasons. And before she realizes it, she finds herself in a similar situation. Kind of imprisoned. Only at a different location. It's the end of the world as we know it. "What still remains" isn't an exciting film with nerve-racking confrontations and fierce life-and-death battles. It's rather a socio-drama and a "coming of age" in a world that tries to get back on its feet. It's a story about trust and mistrust. And, of course, the revival of isolated communes where individuals position themselves above others in a certain way, in order for them to sail a safer course. That there's a religious aspect, is quite logical. In the face of adversity, there's always that moment when people start focusing on a higher power. The fact there are clever people who then misuse this in their favor and come up with their own form of religion, is also not earth-shattering. The most positive aspect of this film is the interplay between Lulu Antariksa and Colin O'Donoghue. For the rest, it brings nothing new and you get an I-have-seen-this-already feeling. Only I caught myself humming "It's the end of the world as we know it". Only the phrase "And I feel fine", felt out of place. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB

This film was brilliant, but did it live up to the hype? I went into black panther expecting little, this is comparable to films such as Ant Man and Dr. Strange, both of which I was pleasantly surprised by, I feel this is because they were unknow, almost like underdog heroes when it comes to the MCU. For me black panther started off a little slow, granted it was necessary for the story development and did show off some of the power and gadgets they have to offer. The moment Michael B. Jordan made his appearance was where things started to get exciting. Seeing him playing the role of antagonist was amazing, the way that killmonger was played, in my eyes, was perfect, the way he looks, his story of vengeance, his attitude towards Wakanda and how he feels it develop the world. A great rival to the black panther and the Wakandan throne. Now, having praised the primary villain, I need to comment on Ulysses Klaude. The most useless character in this film... not at all needed. I understand he provided a bit of comic relief, and I’m not going to deny he was slightly entertaining but personally I would have liked to have seen more development of killmonger than Ulysses, thankfully he doesn’t last too long. Having said this, I do think that the casting featuring some of the better young talents featured in black mirror, Danial Kaluuya and Letitia Wright, was outstanding, when they were on the screen they stole the show. Shuri, played by Letitia, provided huge amounts of humour, but also showed how strong she and all the females of Wakanda were, very empowering. Martian Freeman, I’m not going to say a lot about him, however I think what they've done here is take a character who for the most part was disliked in Civil War, and made him much more likeable, just developing him a bit more. Even if I still can't get past the terrible accent. The special effects featured in this, in one word, outstanding. I think that they did a brilliant job of making this visually stimulating city, hidden under a mountain, showing Africa as we know it but having huge developments, sky scrapers and huge technological advancements. Despite there being these huge structures and it almost being like a first world country, they did a remarkable job of portraying the culture over there, from the costume design to the amazing sound track Having praised the actors and SOME of the characters, I still feel that this film was missing a lot, considering the film was over 2 hours long, not a lot really happened. and the first half was pointless because it was about Ulysses, a side villain, who end up dying anyway. After that pointless side quest the main story starts and just feels far too rushed. Everything happened over the space of about half an hour. I came out satisfied with this film, you don’t go into a MCU film expecting an Oscar nominated film, despite this film being nominated. It was fun, like all Marvel films and fitted into the Cannon quite well. I like Black Panther as a hero and look forward to seeing him in Infinity War. like a lot of films, it sometimes takes time to appreciate aspects you don't see at the time of watching, engrossed in the story. Like the amazing colours, music and effects it brings, not to forget how amazing the characters were. Sure, it lacked a bit of substance, but I can get over that by knowing how as far as visuals are concerned it was a masterpiece. If anything, id argue that this is underhyped, some people just can't reflect and see this for the artwork that is it. At the end of the day id give Black Panther 8/10.

(Release Info U.K. schedule; May 9th, 2019, Picturehouse Exeter, Bartholomew St W, Exeter EX4 3AJ, United Kingdom, 12:00 pm) "High Life" Deep space. Beyond our solar system. Monte (Robert Pattinson) and his daughter Willow (Jessi Ross) live together aboard a spacecraft, in complete isolation. A solitary man, who uses his strict self-discipline in a shield against desire, his own and that of others, Monte fathered the girl against his will. His sperm was used to inseminate Boyse (Mia Goth), the young woman who gave birth to the girl. They're members of a crew of prisoners; space convicts, death row inmates. Guinea pigs sent on a mission to 'The Black Hole' closest to Earth. Now only Monte and Willow remain. And Monte is no longer the same. Through his daughter, for the first time, he experiences the birth of an all-powerful love. Willow grows, first of all into a young girl and then into a young woman. Together, father and daughter approach their destination; the black hole in which time and space cease to exist. Monte is part of a motley crew of convicts sent in a spaceship to seemingly exploit an energy resource from a 'Black Hole'. But they're the ones exploited as guinea pigs for sexual experiments by their medical officer Dr. Dibbs (Juliette Binoche). Dr. Dibs is a sort of 'Strangelove' in space, slightly crazed and dangerous. And it's wild to see Willow learning to walk in the corridor of the spaceship, because those truly were the baby's (Scarlett), first steps, taken in front of a camera. At the end of the day she's happily cooing and walking. It’s one of the favorite scenes. That's where we see on Monte's face that his beauty doesn’t get in the way of his goodness. Or rather, that his goodness is beautiful to see. The other crew members are Tcherny (André Benjamin), Nansen (Agatha Buzek), Chandra (Lars Eidinger), Mink (Claire Tran), Ettore (Ewan Mitchell), Elektra (Gloria Obianyo). All of them are wonderful individually and collectively. The same thing about them all; rebellious, broken youth. What unites them is that they’re a group of delinquents, from the community of men and women on death row. In exchange for so-called freedom, they agree to be sent into space to be used as guinea pigs for more-or-less scientific experiments on reproduction, pregnancy, birth; under the strict supervision of a doctor who also has a serious criminal record. It’s a prison in space, a penal colony where the inmates are more or less equals. A sort of phalanstery where no one is really giving orders, even the woman doctor, whose task is to collect sperm like a queen bee. The queen bee is in charge, but the real leader, the only absolute and imperceptible commander, is the spaceship itself, programmed to lead them all to a 'Black Hole', to infinity, to death. A sort of squat house, drab, dirty, poorly lit. There's a main corridor and cells on both sides. On the floor below are a medical lab, a morgue and a greenhouse garden. That earth is their Earth, the only thing that reminds them that they're earthlings, men and women of the earth. For the doctor’s lab, the film shows the same simplicity, the strict minimum; test tubes, a few instruments, a chair for gynecologic exams. None of the typical science fiction props, laser guns, disintegrators, teleportation devices. The same goes for weightlessness. There's no need for weightlessness because the spaceship is accelerating close to the speed of light. Terrestrial gravity, gravity in every sense of the word, reestablishes itself, because gravity is the effect of acceleration. All these men and women have in common is the English they speak. It's the only international language, along with Russian, that's spoken on modern-day space missions. Although soon people will be speaking Chinese in space. English, or more precisely the American English spoken in the film, serves another purpose. There's a flashback in the film that could be considered explanatory. The scene is shot on the roof of train on the frontier between Poland and Belarus. On this train are stowaways, hobos, some of whom we may recognize from the space station. Is it their past? It's more like a melancholic allusion that can evoke not only 'Kerouac’s On the Road' but also those convoys of outsiders and misfits that cross America from east to west. Train, bridge, forests. Other colors which contrast with film’s main palette. In point of fact, that scene is shot in 16mm, not in digital, which tends to rub out nuances. On the computer screens in the spaceship, we see three images from Earth. A random rugby match, an old documentary and a home movie. The documentary is a piece of 'In The Land Of The Head Hunters'. It's not an image of piety, compassion or nostalgia, but one of extreme sadness. What has become of them? Down what fatal rabbit hole did they disappear? These three groups of images, pixelated by the spaceship’s computers, are like archives of times past that can never be regained. Every passenger on the spaceship dresses similarly, in a sort of work uniform with the number 7 on it. 7 is the number of the spaceship. It’s like it is tattooed on their bodies. It implies that this spaceship is one in a series. At an important moment in the film, spaceship 7 docks with another spaceship, number 9, in which the only survivors are dogs; unless it's part of different experiment for dogs only. The film shows this encounter with animality, a mirror of our own, a challenge to our pseudo humanity and the ghoulish fate we've set aside for our so-called pets. The first living creature sent into space was a Russian dog Laïka, who didn’t survive her return to Earth. Sexuality is very present in "High Life" but is treated funereally. Sexuality, not sex. Sensuality, not pornography. In prison, normal sexuality isn’t really on the agenda. But if the prison is also a laboratory destined to perpetuate the human species, sexuality becomes even more abstract, if it's just to reproduce. If the men have to set aside their sperm for the doctor, yes, they get to cum, but for science. Before 'Christianity', marriage served one purpose; procreation. Sexuality is about fluids. As soon as sexuality stirs within us, we know it’s all about fluids: blood, sperm. We've to reduce the sex act to masturbation, more or less technically assisted by the Fuckbox fitted with a dildo for Dr. Dibs, who gives it her all, but in total solitude. This scene is, in part, dark and useless. But what's useful, in the end? Trying to cum isn’t useless. All of her strength is in her back. Later, she goes at night to steal the sperm of Monte, who's knocked out by sleeping pills. It’s a robbery. And definitely a rape. But we see Monte moaning, comatose but not in pain. It’s the story of a man alone in space for the rest of his life, with a baby most likely his, who will become a young woman and eventually his femme fatale, if ever he makes up his mind; this sort of knight, this 'Perceval', this scout of another story, to break his vow of chastity. This is what happens at the end of the film when the young woman, who has no other man on hand, who doesn’t even know that this man his handsome because she has never had anyone to compare him to, makes the first move. We're approaching the forbidden planet, the absolute taboo. A girl is also a woman. Incest is the quest for the ultimate in sex, because it's forbidden. What would you expect from a space opera directed by Claire Denis? Well, everything. "High Life" does to sci-fi what Denis "Trouble Every Day" did to vampire films; it’s a radical interpretation where the filmmaker subverts tropes and genre while preserving their very essence. The film explores Denis favourite themes, bodies and outsiders, which are desired and rejected at the same time. Mind-bending and very organic, "High Life" is a crossover between "Solaris" and "Alien", but without needing any monster. The shape of spaceship 7 doesn’t correspond to typical science fiction criteria. The spaceship looks like a box of matches. But it’s not a whim or a fancy. Not to play the astrophysicist card. When you leave the solar system, there's zero resistance, so the spaceship can be any shape as long as it's equipped with an energy source to keep it moving. The missile-like aerodynamic shape becomes useless or absurd. It’s above all a fascinating work on on how to keep one's humanity in the space void. The film recalls a country where the death penalty still exists, i.e. certain states in 'The US'. The characters are presented as men and women without a past. There's an earlier version of the script that referenced their former lives. The film makes a point of not over-fictionalizing the characters; they've all probably committed terrible crimes, but we don’t pursue it. Their history, collective or individual, takes place in the present and; who knows? In the future, even if for most of them the future will take the form of a cemetery under the stars. They all are contemporary community, utopians, hippies of a special sort, who've gone from juvenile detention centers to prisons and who do not want to live in any society other than their own. Desire and solitude, that’s the main theme. More or less. But above all, "High Life" is not a science fiction film even if there are healthy doses of fiction and science thanks to the precious participation of the astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau, specialist in astroparticle physics and black holes. The film takes place in space but it’s very grounded. It's a film about despair and human tenderness. About love, despite everything.