Search Results

Director: Ryan Coogler (Contains mild spoilers) In under one month Black Panther has taken over $1 Billion dollars at the International Box Office, a huge feat for an all black cast; Hollywood, in the recent past, would never have considered the idea that black people being represented on the big screen in such a way could ever grab the attention of a worldwide audience. It is old out-dated ideas like this (ironically, as will be discussed, the main theme of Black Panther) that make the success of the movie grab the headlines and the attention of the media as it did, which was equally matched by the huge hype and anticipation. Whatever the reasons for this global phenomenon, it should hopefully pave the wave to secure more diversity in an industry where diversity should have happened a long long time ago. A sidestep continuation to Captain America: Civil War, we see Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), AKA T'Challa, take on the throne of Wakanda, a fictional African nation invisible to the outside world. The film introduces a country that adhesively follows strong traditions (first notably seen by the incredible and colourful costume and set design), whilst possessing new, modern, highly-conceited alien technology (new to us anyway), and this visual concept becomes the overall theme of the movie - old ideas vs new ones. Whilst the first chapter of the film is sluggish with its introduction of Wakanda and its traditions (one notably being the coronation ceremony and the ritual combat that challenges the rule of the throne), as well as T'Challa, we get to know some of the lesser known characters of the Marvel Universe - in particularly the women. Not only can we see this as a film for black kids growing up with a hero to identify with, but another film (the other being Wonder Woman) where little girls (and boys) can be inspired. Black Panther has an array of bad-ass, strong female characters. Okoye, (Danai Gurira), is head of the Wakanda Special Forces, sworn to protect the king at all costs. At times, she and her soldiers seemingly took the form of an all Grace Jones’ army, an actress who many probably saw for the first time take on a strong black female role in Conan The Destroyer and A View To A Kill. Okoye becomes of great interest when her traditional values is challenged when the new king comes into power. She loves and respects T’Challa, but her love for him cannot overwrite the ways of Wakanda law, and thus, decides to make a heartbreaking choice to stay and protect and advice the new king. T'Challa's younger, humorous, very likeable sister, Shuri (Leitita Wright), is head of the alien technology progress, and brings a James ‘Bondesque’ sonority by providing her brother with new gadgets aiding his quest to take down Ulyssess Klau (Andy Serkis). Her demeanour and personality brings a necessary humour to a film that is driven by deep, serious, dark undertones. Opposing Okoye's traditional values is the restrained love interest of Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o) who represents the template of what the future of Wakanda should be; a country that preserves its traditions, but looks outwardly to others in desperate need or to those who wish to establish a more unified international community. All women fight. All women protect the king. All women are women you do not want to mess with. In a time of The Harvey Weinstein scandal, its a message thats very well-timed and very much needed. In the middle of the film we learn through the main antagonist, Eric “Killmonger” Stevens (Michael B. Jordan), AKA N’Jadaka, that T’Challa’s father’s past decisions, which were based on old traditions, led to the uprising aggressions of Eric. T’Challa has to face the fact that his father made great consequential mistakes, and that it is Wakanda itself that has brought on its own destruction. This leads to questions about what sort of king T’Challa wants to be. On one hand, through tradition and keeping themselves to themselves, Wakanda has survived and prospered. On the other, with a fast changing world, new enemies and new forms of attack can not always be tackled alone. In general, the film is a great watch and a must see for reasons already stated. Chadwick Boseman, like his character T’Challa, had a heavy weight on his shoulders taking on a historic, highly anticipated role, who played it with great authentic regality. However, perhaps due to the amount of hype, the movie felt a little bit lacklustre (stressing a little bit). Furthermore, Marvel films have an infamous plague of lacklustre antagonists, something Black Panther is not immune to. Eric is an interesting character and we do identify and sympathise with his cause, but we only get to really meet him half way through the movie where most of his back story is explained rather than shown. For example, he makes a very compelling speech about how Wakanda has just stood by in its riches and prosperity whilst other black people all over the world have suffered. American Slavery, The Civil Rights Movement, #Black Lives Matter, Charlottesville, Rodney King, Stephen Lawrence, are just a few images that spring to mind. We do get a brief encounter in the beginning mirroring the kidnapping of Nigerian women by Boko Haram, but seeing more visuals like these would have helped the audience identify the drive and motive of Eric’s assailments even further. Eric also reveals that his scars - which lay inherent all over his body - symbolises every person that he has killed. Again, some form of visuals of his bloodshed would have helped enhance his ferocity and skill as a fighter and killer and make him seem even more deadly and threatening. Similar problems could also be said about Ulyssess Klau, the South African smuggler who was the first outsider to enter Wakanda and the first outsider to escape it. His likeable, animated, over-the-top character was somewhat problematic. As the main antagonist for the first part of the film, he inadvertently took away most of the ‘bad guy role’ time from Eric. At the same time, his departure half way in the film meant we didn’t really attach ourselves to his character, and thus, our time with him felt insignificant and ineffective. There is also the questionable role of Everett K. Ross (Martin Freeman), a CIA agent previously seen in Captain America: Civil War. After being injured, the only way to save him was to take him to Wakanda. Okoye reminds the king that this practice is not the Wakanda way, but with opposing arguments from Nakia, T’Challa reluctantly brings him to his homeland. A character like Everett would have conventionally given exposition, helping the audience understand the world a lot better. But his introduction to Wakanda occurs more than half way through, and by this time we have seen most of Wakanda already. Everett does help in the final war scenes, but that did not help his role feel any less pointless. Most hardcore comic book fans will know that Everett was an important character and key ally to Black Panther in the novels. Everett’s creator, Christopher Priest, said to newsarama.com in 2015 “...in order for Black Panther to succeed, it needed a white male at the centre, and that white male had to give voice to the audience's misgivings or apprehensions or assumptions about this character... I think that his stream of conscious narrative is a window into things I imagine many whites say or at least think when no blacks are around; myths about black culture and behaviour.”. It is a shame that the film did not come anywhere close to functioning Everett’s character in such a way. Other characters like W’kabi and Zuri (played by Daniel Kaluuya and Forest Whittaker respectively) were fine in their roles, but their roles were too small for actors with such high authority and calibre. Special effects were a fairly disappointing spectacle. The final panther fight scene had a lot of problems with realism, whilst the vibranium nano bots that seemed to be the solution to all problems felt uninspired and unoriginal, failing to take advantage of an opportunity to create something different and out-of-this-world with the alien tech. Although the film does not quite live up to the hype, and despite some minor flaws, Black Panther proves to be a force of paving the way for other minority groups to break into the big Hollywood scene, and justifies the notion that more diversity in film can mean global success. With its underlining themes amalgamated with wonderful cinematography, colourful costume and set design, acting, compelling action scenes (those set in South Korea were highly entertaining), Black Panther makes a great watch and should bring some joy to those of all ages and especially to hard core Marvel fans. Not as good as some of its Marvel predecessors such as The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America: Civil War, and even most recently Thor: Ragnorok, what the film does that the other Marvel films do not, is challenge Hollywood myths and ideology, inspiring and giving hope that a different, brighter, outward looking world is forthcoming. (Film Rating: 7/10)

(Dog' showtimes in London Today 23 FEB Cineworld Leicester Square, 5-6 Leicester Square, 12:50 15:20 17:50 20:20 Vue Cinemas - West End 3 Cranbourn Street, Leicester Square, 14:45 17:30 19:00 ODEON Luxe Haymarket, 11/18 Panton Street 15:30 18:00 20:30 Vue Cinemas - Piccadilly (Apollo), 19 Lower Regent Street, 15:15 18:00 Everyman King's Cross, Handyside Street, 11:15 18:15) https://we-love-cinema.com/movies/59945-dog/ "Dog" "Dog" is a buddy comedy that follows the misadventures of two former Army Rangers paired against their will on the road trip of a lifetime. Army Ranger Jackson Briggs (Channing Tatum) and Lulu (a Belgian Malinois dog) buckle into a 1984 Ford Bronco and race down the Pacific Coast in hopes of making it to a fellow soldier's funeral on time. Along the way, they II drive each other completely crazy, break a small handful of laws, narrowly evade death, and learn to let down their guards in order to have a fighting chance of finding happiness. "Dog" is about a road trip that a guy takes with a dog. But more than all of that, it's a movie about the uncanny ability of road trips to go awry in the craziest possible ways and how animals can be healing, even when relationships with them aren't unconditionally effortless. So perhaps, it's that easy to describe it, a road trip that a guy takes with a dog, in the end, they rescue each other. This dog in particular, an anxious, boisterous Belgian Malinois named Lulu. Lulu is the main character in the film. Lulu is a war hero, who worked with her handler Riley Rodriguez (Eric Urbiztando), who served in the Army Rangers with Jackson Briggs for many years. But for a road trip movie to have the perfect tinge of Americana, you first need the perfect car. A sleek, vintage, blue ’84 Bronco to hit the highways. Sadly, Rodriguez has passed, and it's up to Briggs to pack this dog into his ’84 Bronco and drive her down the Pacific Coast to Rodriguez's family in time for the funeral in Arizona. Briggs, however, has no interest in this trip, after a traumatic brain injury, his interest lies in getting back to active duty. The only way to make that happen? To do his C.O. a solid and get Lulu to the funeral on time. Driving a dog to a destination? How hard can it be? Pretty difficult, it turns out. No road trip movie is fun without antics, have you ever taken a road trip with no antics? It's impossible. Malinois, they love to tear stuff apart, and we've a sequence where the dog escaped from her cage and she's destroying the insides of the car. She chews up the seats. So, needless to say, it's his worst nightmare that this dog just treats it with utter disrespect. A car has always got to get destroyed on the road. It's not a road trip if it's not. "Dog" certainly lives by this adage. But along the way Briggs and Lulu bond in an unexpected way, even through adventures with ornery pot growers, a car break-in, and a luxury hotel con. Lulu needs a comfortable bed, so says a pet psychic they meet on the road. Needless to say, Lulu and Briggs both bring a lot of emotional baggage on this trip. Lulu also comes with an owner's manual, which is something most people in the military actually create. They can range from a simple book of all their military paperwork to a beautifully designed scrapbook, filled with mementos. For Lulu, this was a book full of letters written by Rodriguez to her and DVDs that calm her anxiety down. Though Briggs mocks it at first, he grows to embrace its highlights getting to know Lulu through Rodriguez's eyes. Along the way they encounter outlandish characters who not only bring comic relief to Briggs's mission, but teach him about trauma, healing, and bonding. Meeting a lot of eccentric people. Mean locals. Why are the locals so mean? You're bringing them business. South Park did something good with theis cliche. We don't care much for your kind round here. Gus (Kevin Nash) and Tamara (Jane Adams) are cannabis farmers who create some real drama for Briggs. While Gus initially mistakes Briggs for an interloper, Briggs ultimately befriends the couple. What makes a good road-trip movie. The roots of the genre go back to classical literature such as “The Odyssey” and “Don Quixote". In case you don't know, a road movie is a film genre in which the main characters leave home to travel from place to place, typically altering the perspective from their everyday lives. What are some common elements in the genre you can think of that are done to death or are just plain cheesy and annoying? The story for "Dog" is initially inspired by the documentary 'War Dog: A Soldier's Best Friend' (HBO, 2017). The Rangers do very specialized things, so they've these walls up, but a dog can come in to the room and turn hardened soldiers into these puppy dog sort of loving guys. Belgian Malinois are also known as Dutch Shepherds, and most people associate them with military, Secret Service or Navy SEALS. Road movies are our favorite kinds of movies..They make you feel something and expose you to new ideas and places and wild characters. Casting a movie is never an easy task, but how do you audition for a co-star when it's a four-legged friend? For "Dog", that means working with three dogs, Britta, Zuza and Lana. The three dogs are wonderful, like really great acting. And watching them act is magical for everyone. There's a certain irony in bonding with an animal just so you can both act like you're not bonded. In dog movies, typically the way you see an animal is in an insert shot. There's a trainer right off camera doing something so the dog does a specific behavior and then you cut back to the action. Characters are on a quest for something or someone and what happens, is that they discover themselves along the way. The idea of a road trip is to expand your consciousness. The road picture is like that, going from place to place, meeting all sorts of people. It’s a cliche, it’s about the journey, not the destination. There's nothing new under the sun. It's a completely different world, but at the same time, feels very natural, because it's very military in the way it's chaotic but everyone seems to know what they're doing. The movie wants to capture the personality and the spirit of the Rangers and their dogs as well. Don't worry about tropes and clichés. You need to have the cliches that define road movies in the script, otherwise it wouldn't really be a road movie. And that's the guiding spirit of the movie. Written by Gregory Mann Personal Note: This winter, homebound with writing deadlines, I watched “Paris, Texas” again. This time, undistracted by the road, I turned my focus to the narrative and the characters. At the end, I wept. .

Now to finally review my Number 1 favourite film of all time. There is a reason why Shame is my favourite film and takes my number 1 spot, but I’ll get onto that later.  First a little summary of what the film is about.  We follow Brandon who is a sex addict living in New York. Portrayed by the brilliant Michael Fassbender. The film is a character study into the mind of a sex addict and the effect it has over the person in general. A study shows that sex addiction can have negative impacts on the person it's affecting. Either in social, financial and work life. A sex addicts main thrive is to constantly pleasure and feed there need. Releasing endorphins in the brain. The way this inflicts on there life in general is by the means to fulfil that addiction. Financial wise, they waste their money buying porn and paying for prostitutes. Work wise it can inflict on their job. If they are caught watching or having porn at work it is bordering on being fired. In social life it can impede on their relationships. A sex addict will struggle to maintain a romantic relationship with a partner. Ever needing to feed their desire will strain their relationships.  Now sex addiction on a whole is a very touchy subject to work on. I should know, I wrote and directed a film on the cause and effect of Sex addiction and child abuse. 'Where Demons Hide'.  The research was long and tedious. Finding people who would openly talk about their addictions was very difficult to ascertain. Only by going to AA meetings and talking to therapist did my actor portraying a sex addict find the reality of the addiction.  However my film was set in the UK, I experienced first hand the struggle that the crew of Shamehad in finding the correct source material and research. That's why Shame is based in New York as apposed to the UK. People in New York were more willing to open up and talk openly about their addictions in order for the crew to tell a realistic story and representation of the condition.  Anyway, what has all of this got to do with Shame?  The character of Brandon portrays all of the aspects that the effects of Sex addiction has on you. He watches porn at work and nearly gets caught. However he has such a good relationship with his boss that it's passed off. His boss knows that being with and around Brandon allows him to pick up girls, so he brushes the whole thing under the carpet. Brandon's social life is affected. He tries to start a relationship with a co-worker, but because of his addiction and how he is used to sex with hookers, he can't get little Brandon to work. This doesn’t help his self-esteem over his whole situation either. Above all Brandon's personal life is inflicted. When his sister comes to stay at his flat Brandon has to cope with his addiction conflicting with his chance to have a normal life. His sister coming to stay really kick-starts his desire to rid himself of the addiction. But like with any addiction, the withdrawal is the hardest part. There is a brilliant sequence near to the end of the film titled Unravelling, which really gets into the mind-set of the withdrawal effect and how it messes with your mind, conflicting your thoughts and your actions. Unravelling your life until your unsure of what you must do.  Now I mentioned this was my favourite film. You might find it weird how I can re watch a film about sex addiction over and over again. That's because it's more than a film about sex addiction. It's a character study. It's a film that gets down to the very roots of what makes us human. Why our actions affect others. The what if's. The looming question to what could my life could be like if I just decided to act?  Shame really expresses all of that to its audience. Not just with Brandon, but all the other characters in the film. They have believable traits that relate to Brandon's state of mind. His sister is the part of Brandon that want's to break free and have a normal life. His boss is the part that want's him to continue and indulge in his desire. Even the city of New York feels like a character in this film. It feels alive.  If you notice when watching Shame there is a sense of power to the locations that Brandon is portrayed in. His apartment, his work place, the hotel room he hires and the restaurant where his sister sings. They’re all high up above the city. What this suggests to me is a metaphor of how the addiction affects Brandon. A feeling of Highness. The addiction makes him feel high and feel in power. By being positioned high above the city this gives that power of being above other people. It's where he feels in control. However when he is below on the streets this is where he is less in control. On the subway where we start the film, he see's a woman on the train and tries to follow her and ends up loosing her. He runs along the streets in order to vent off his addiction. Most of the Unravelling sequence takes place at street level. And above all he breaks down emotionally at the docks. The street level is where the addiction is not in his control. New York feels alive because of this very reason.  The cinematography is beautiful. Steve McQueen is an artist. And Sean Bobbitt really expresses this art style. By having shots linger and hold on situations and characters really draws you into their state of mind and brings reality and realism to the scene. It makes you more immersed in what is going on and makes you connect more with what you are viewing. The way Steve McQueen and Sean Bobbitt chose to portray New York was a brilliant decision. Actually going out and identify what colours New York actually holds and expresses really helped bring the city to life. By far one of my favourite pieces of the film is the Soundtrack. There are only 3 pieces of scored music by Harry Escott. Tracks titled "Brandon", "Unravelling" and "End Credits" These pieces of music are so powerful they really help convey the essence and the message of what the film is about. The choice to use the Goldberg Variations by Glenn Gould was also a fantastic choice. Having classic music as powerful as that really helps express Brandon's state of mind. And let us not forget Carey Mulligan's brilliant and moving performance of Frank Sinatra's 'New York, New York'. Now in my mind I would say that this film is a cinematic masterpiece along side Mr. Nobody. However that's solely my opinion. My preferred films are Drama and films that focus on character study. This may not be the film for you. It's defiantly not one to watch with you parents. But it is a film that has heart and above all has a message. A message that is not to fear the unknown. If you have an addiction that is affecting your life, don't shut people out. Let them help you fight it. Because of that message, this is why Shame is my favourite film.

After having hearing only the good stuff about the fan film with Nathan Fillion, known as the actor born to play Nathan Drake of the 'UNCHARTED' game series, I had finally come to submit to my own curiosity. The film is 14 min long, and features Nathan Fillion of 'Firefly' and 'Castle' fame (his immense popularity within fandom-community not withstanding) takes on a well fitted role of Nathan Drake, a known explorer, historian and thief in style of Indiana Jones, but funnier. Nathan, along with his long time partner in crime, Sully, are once again on a hunt for yet another sea-fairer treasure - with Drake once again finding himself captured by an opposing side, needing to get out of the situation with secrets and himself in tact. Right off the bat I can say that the production value, is very much in tact. Yes, you can see hole in the budget - the security guards are remarkable in their non existent acting and every now and then the set is a bit bare - and yes, the secondary roles are incredibly stiff in their delivery. However, the editing is crisp. It is Clear. It is artistic and yet not painful, for example character reveal of Drake is both typical but not obnoxious. I did not feel like shouting "I know whom he is!", as I usually do with these type of cuts. When the sets do have significant to the story, they are well lived in and have good attention to detail, as far as props are concerned. The one action scene (a staple of the games) is done both in the spirit of the games but in Drake himself. Nathan Fillion, true to form, does a great job filling the shoes of Drake as the character, as well as North Nolan, the actor voicing him in the Naughty Dog series. Steven Lang off 'Avatar' and 'Don't Breath' is both character accurate in bringing Sully into live action, yet spicing him with his own on-screen charisma. The same cannot, I repeat CANNOT be said for the secondary characters! The secondary acting painful to sit through, and the corresponding info-dump is not helping the situation. At all. Except for El Tigre. El Tigre is awesome. But, in full seriousness unless you are an actor yourself, I don't know weather you would notice in the first place. Let me know, because I honestly don't have a clue. Finally, my evaluation of the motion picture: The film is well maid, well edited and well shot. The principal actors are delivering their characters and their line delivery, the action is well done (considering the budget) and the throwback to the game play is well welcomed. Also, it's for free on YouTube. I'd say it is well worth 14 minutes of you life. Especially if you love 'UNCHARTED', or Nathan Fillion. Final verdict: watch it, it's for free. UNCHARTED - Live Action Fan Film (2018) Nathan Fillion You can fins this on: YouTube

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 Song of the Sea is by far one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. It holds emotion in its backgrounds and wonderful colours. Most have never seen animation like it. Song of the Sea holds an element of wonder combined with sadness. It shows both the loss and gain of hope within a character's facial expressions. For example, when Saorise (one of the main protagonists, the selkie) falls ill - they manage to include lines, implying that she's tired. The way this is animated can suggest this is for children, including that the protagonists are only six and (roughly) ten or eleven, but it is not a children's film. The film battles with issues that most children would not be able to comprehend. Added to the Irish folklore, it's overwhelming. The film forces you to pay attention, just so you understand what is going on. It shows us what is beyond our imaginations. Some even suggest research before you watch it, which is a valid point to make. Characters have their own muse, with the father (Conor, voiced by Brendan Gleeson) having sadness, Saorise (voiced by Lucy O'Connell) has a muse of temptation. She struggles to hold back from the ocean, she finds it difficult to stay by her brother; forcing him to tie her by a leash. Ben (voiced by David Rawle) has an ongoing theme of envy, jealous, for his sister. Feeling as if she's praised more, being spiteful towards her for a long duration of the 93 minutes. Furthermore, the emotion. It can sometimes be difficult to convey such feelings within a voice and a drawing. There is a certain scene where Conor is in a pub, drinking a Guinness (adding to the ongoing Irish theme), and you can see his inner torment. Not necessarily from himself but from the lighting of the pub. It's dark, golden light reflecting off some places but not massively. It's dark enough to tell us that he's grieving, black lights connoting it heavily. Saorise is mute. She can't speak. All of her emotion, sickness, is conveyed through her face. For an animator especially, it's difficult to show how she feels within a scene. The storyline relies completely on her. Song of the Sea is execellent in showing her joy when she's swimming with the seals. Her eyes hold wonder and hope within them, it's incredibly clever. Ben, however, speaks as much as he can. Coming across as incredibly spiteful towards a lot of people, seeming very irritating. We learn that Ben is extremely envious of his sister, feeling as if she's more than he is. On her birthday, he's extremely rude towards Saorise and his grandma. The grandma, in fairness, isn't too nice herself. There is one thing that kept me from giving this a full five stars. Song of the Sea has plenty of unexplained plot-holes. At the end, the people and I who watched it had mountains of questions we wanted to be answered. For those with little to no explanation of Irish folklore, we don't understand how or why their mother leaves and why Saorise falls extremely sick. Overall, Song of the Sea is a brilliant watch. It's exceptional at showing the struggles of, even after six years, a grieving family and unexplained disappearances of their mother. For those who have expereinced losing a parent, not even from death, it shows the upset and gives a soft, delicate, punch to the heart. It is certainly not a children's film. It holds issues close that today's kids would not grasp. With visual aspects conveying emotion greatly, Song of the Sea smashes your expectations of thinking it's an animated children's film. It tackles myths and real issues in a way animation has only done a few times.

(Release Info London schedule; December 23rd, 2019, Hackney Picturehouse, 270 Mare St, London E8 1HE, United Kingdom, 20:30) https://www.picturehouses.com/movie-details/000/HO00010390/ip-man-4-the-finale-plus-q-a "IP MAN 4" Mixed martial arts superstar 'Ip Man' (Donnie Yen) is back for the final installment of 'The Ip Man Universe Franchise' in "Ip Man 4: The Finale". 'Ip Man' reprises his role as the legendary 'Wing Chun' master in the grand finale of the revolutionary martial arts series. Following the death of his wife, 'Ip Man' travels to San Francisco to ease tensions between the local 'Kung Fu' masters and his star student, Bruce Lee (Danny Chan), while searching for a better future for his son Ming (Jim Liu). From the action visionary behind "Kill Bill" and "The Matrix", witness the heroic sendoff to the saga that inspired a new wave of martial arts movie fans. Donnie Yen ignites the screen in a return to his iconic role of 'Ip Man', the real-life 'Wing Chun Kung Fu Master' who mentored Bruce Lee. A kind father, a gentle and caring husband, a just and involved citizen. 'Wing Chung' legend 'Ip Man' is a brave and righteous national hero and martial arts master who has impacted an entire generation. A 'Grandmaster Of Wing Chun' from 'Foshan', 'Ip Man' spent his heydays in Hong Kong. He survived 'The Japanese' invasion of China and endured the injustice of colonial Hong Kong but still managed to defend Chinese dignity through martial arts. Not only is he a highly respected martial artist but also a family man devoted to his wife and children. After his wife’s death, he and his son gradually grew apart. While looking for a school in America for his son, he encounters racial discrimination. The injustice faced by overseas Chinese prompted him to take on the responsibility of a martial artist once again. A 'Tai-Chi' expert who emigrated to San Francisco with his father as a young man, Wan Zong Hua (Wu Yue) has started a new life abroad and has put up with years of racial discrimination and injustice. He set up 'The CCBA' in Chinatown to unite and help fellow overseas Chinese. But when Bruce Lee defies the rules of Chinatown and starts teaching martial arts to foreigners, enmity developed between Wan Zong Hua and 'Ip Man'. The grandmasters also failed to see eye to eye on the issue of national spirit. When 'The U.S.' Immigration gives him undue trouble, he decides to fight back. Deeply influenced and inspired by 'Ip Man', Bruce Lee is an arrogant and gifted boy, a practitioner pursuing perfectionism and a rising star. In addition to 'Wing Chun', he also practiced other martial arts styles and is actively promoting Chinese martial arts. He invites 'Ip Man' to watch him perform at 'The International Karate Championship' in America. He starts teaching martial arts to foreigners and published manuals on Chinese martial arts in English. In doing so, he offenders 'The CCBA' but he receives endorsement from 'Ip Man' regarding his martial arts philosophy. The film uses 'CG' techniques to revive Bruce Lee on the big screen. All rights are generally divided between his surviving brother, Robert Lee, for the work Bruce Lee completed before his marriage; and the late Linda Lee Cadwell, Bruce Lee’s widow, for the work that Bruce Lee completed after his marriage. Bruce Lee remains to be 'Master Ip Man’s' most accomplished disciple, and the film presents the best visual representation of Bruce Lee for this installment of 'The Ip Man' films. Hartman Wu (Van Ness) is a 'Chinese-American' officer of 'The U.S. Marine Corps'. He takes an interest in Chinese martial arts after reading Bruce Lee’s book. He becomes Bruce Lee’s protégé and wants to incorporate Chinese martial arts into the hand combat training of 'The Marine Corps'. But his white supremacist commanding officer Barton Geddes (Scott Adkins) is repulsed by the idea and caused a series of conflicts between east and west cultures. He arranges for 'Ip Man' to fight Barton to prove that different cultures have their own merits. As hand combat instructor of 'The U.S. Marine Corps', Barton is a white supremacist who subscribes to 'American Imperialism'. He vehemently stopps Hartman from bringing Chinese martial arts into 'The Corps' and orders Collins to defeat the representatives of different martial arts sects and mercilessly beat up Wan Zong Hua as a manifestation of white supremacy. When he personally takes on 'Ip Man', he finally got a taste of his own medicine. Outsourced 'Karate' instructor for 'The U.S. Marine Corps', Collins Frater (Chtis Collins) is a firm believer that karate is invincible and sneers at Chinese martial arts. On Barton’s order, Collins shows up in 'Chinatown' on 'Mid-Autumn Festival' and defeats the representatives of different sects. He’s ultimately defeated by 'Ip Man'. Practiced by 'Ip Man' in the film and in real life, 'Wing Chun' is initially derided as only being suitable for girls. They change their tune quickly, however, after seeing the ferociousness with which 'Ip Man' effortlessly defeats opponents. Accounts on the origin of 'Wing Chun' differ, but the most common version names southern 'Shaolin' nun 'Ng Mui' as it's founder. While visiting 'Foshan' in 'Guangdong' in the late 'Qing Dynasty', 'Ng Mui' came across 'Yim Wing-Chun', the beautiful daughter of a tofu vender who was often harassed by local gangsters. To help her defend herself, 'Ng Mui' then taught her select moves that were suitable for girls. Being a talented learner, 'Yim Wing-Chun' soon gained a grasp on the essence of the moves. She developed a series of moves for practice and named them 'Wing Chun'. Developed as a method of self-defense for women, 'Wing Chun' is a practical school of boxing characterized by it's tall and narrow stance, relaxed softness, and directness of action in contrast with the low and wide stance and high-impact moves of other schools. Toward the end of the reign of 'Emperor Jiaquin', 'Master Yim' married 'Leung Bok-Sau' and taught him all she had learned. Leung eventually taught 'Wing Chun' to 'Wong Wah-Bo' and 'Leung Yi-Tai' on a boat in exchange for the manual of the six and a half point pole, which has since become an essential weapon used by 'Wing Chun' practitioners. 'Wong Wah-Bo' passed his 'Wing Chun' skills to 'Leung Chun', a respected local doctor with a very good reputation, extensive social network, and a passion for martial arts. Despite his wide exposure in martial arts, he was hardly satisfied with his skills until he learned 'Wing Chun' from 'Wong'. Recognizing the superb tactics and mastery of power and stance in 'Wing Chun', 'Leung' put his heart into it and mastered 'The Siu Nim Tau', 'Chum Kiu' ('Seeking Bridge') and 'Bil Jee' ('Darting Fingers') forms, as well as wooden dummy boxing, the six and a half point pole, and eight slashing knives. He also put 'Wing Chun' to practical use and gave local bullies and gangsters a hard time. 'Wing Chun' became well-known in 'Lingnan' as a result, while 'Leung' acquired fame as 'The King Of Wing Chun'. However, being a philanthropist, 'Leung' spent most of his time on his medical practice instead of 'Wing Chun' teaching, and only 'Chan' and 'Leung Bik' learned 'Wing Chun' from him. Although the legend was known by many, it was only practiced by a few and was therefore regarded as a mystery. Living in 'Chan' village in 'Foshan', 'Chan Wah-Shun' worked as a money changer in his youth and was known as 'Money Changer Wah'. He frequently visited Leung’s clinic for work and eventually became 'Leung’s' pupil and learned the essence of his art. After the death of 'Leung', more and more people approached 'Wah' for guidance on 'Wing Chun'. 'Wah' then quit his work as a money changer and concentrated on 'Wing Chun' teaching. He was the first 'Wing Chun Master' to establish his own wushu school. Apart from boxing sequences and individual moves, 'Chi Sau' ('hand-sticking') is another important element of 'Wing Chun' that requires extensive training to master. One-on-one coaching is required and 'Wah' was obliged to keep only a few pupils and charge expensive rates. Therefore, most of his pupils were boys from rich families and 'Wing Chun' acquired a reputation as boxing for rich boys. Among 'Wah's' pupils were 'Ng Chung-Sok', 'Ho Hon-Lui', 'Lui Yu-Chai', his own son 'Chan Yu-Gum', and 'Ip Man', his last pupil, who would eventually turn 'Wing Chun' into one of the most popular Chinese martial arts. 'Ip' joined 'Wah’s' wushu school at the age of seven. Then an old man, 'Wah' was very fond of the boy and taught him with great devotion. After the death of 'Wah', 'Ng Chung-Sok', his first pupil, took very good care of 'Ip' and continued to guide him in his practice. After three years of hard work, 'Ip' had learned the essence of 'Wah's' skills. Relocating to Hong Kong to pursue his studies, 'Ip', then 16 years old, met 'Leung Bik', the second son of 'Leung Chun'. 'Ip' then studied under 'Leung Bik' for three years. It proved a great opportunity for him, and Ip saw great advancement in his skills. Upon his return to 'Foshan', 'Ip' supported the cause of justice with his expertise in martial arts and once again brought great fame to the art of 'Wing Chun'. However, with the invasion of 'The Japanese', 'Ip' fled with his family and did not have a chance to teach. After 'The Sino-Japanese War', 'Ip' revisited Hong Kong and settled down to teach 'Wing Chun'. After painstaking scouting, he found a teaching job at a restaurant employees union on 'Tai Nam' street in 'Sham Shui Po' with the recommendation of his friend 'Li Man', and took up a career in teaching. Well-educated in western science and reason, 'Ip' taught 'Wing Chun' in a scientific manner, stressing the importance of logic, line, and angle of attack, control of force, and psychology, among other things. He also abandoned the traditional way of teaching and encouraged learners to look further than specific moves and instead try to grasp the essence, and strike as their hearts pleased. Ip taught differently according to the abilities of each pupil, ensuring each of them learned efficiently and developed their own talents. The art of 'Wing Chun' flourished with 'Ip’s' new way of teaching. Unlike many other teachers, 'Ip' encouraged his pupils to engage in combat with outsiders in order to understand their own weaknesses. This helped spread the name of 'Wing Chun' throughout the city and attracted many talented young people to 'Ip’s' school. The late kung fu superstar, Bruce Lee, who introduced Chinese martial arts to the world, was one of them. 'Ip' spent a lifetime teaching 'Wing Chun' and many of his pupils enjoyed great success, gaining enormous fame for the art of 'Wing Chun' in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and 'Southeast Asia'. With his invaluable contribution to the development of 'Wing Chun', 'Ip" came to be regarded as one of the greatest masters by 'Wing Chun' practitioners. From a method of self-defense for women, 'Wing Chun' developed into a powerful practical combat martial art over several decades, and from it's origin in 'Foshan', it has established fame and a keen following in different corners of the world. Highly regarded around the world, it's now the most popular form of 'Chinese Wushu' among foreigners. There's an agreed account on it's origin and development; founded by 'Yim Wing-Chun', the art took roots in the hands of 'Leung Chun' and blossomed under 'Ip Man'.

Rudyard, there are no people living in this forest. Do you see any animals? There’s no flora with any color, nothing to allure insects! Are you someone who prefers to spend his free time in his perfectly tended garden? Is your lawn as if a delegation from the International Golf Federation could arrive any minute to ask if it could be used as a “green” at a next golf championship? Do you spend hours in your garden staring at freshly planted and potted flowers and plants? Are you an expert in fertilizing, scarifying, digging, pruning, grafting and draining? Well, I guess this film is really suitable for you. Because “Flora” is actually nothing more than a nature film that every botanical film viewer will be excited about. Do you know which film quote always came to me? “Run, Forrest, Run!“. Only here the main characters are running away from a forest. They might have used the following alternative movie title: “Attack of the killer pollen“. That about covers it. It really looks like the 1920s. “Flora” certainly isn’t a bad film. But for those who don’t see themselves as purebred nature lovers, this film may seem terribly boring. What they managed to do, is to show a decent image of the 1920s. I found the props and atmosphere perfect. All the pieces fitted. The oldtimer, the costumes, and the used music. Perfectly chosen. Everything seemed innocent and frivolous in those days. The naivety and insufficient knowledge are portrayed in a proper way. The resources available to the six scientists are fairly limited. Plants are cataloged in notebooks. Illustrations are made with the use of a whole array of colored pencils. No electronic worksheet and digital camera as one would use in the present time. You won’t see the main characters wandering around with a tiny headphone connected to a compact MP3 player. No, here they are lugging around with an impressive gramophone with a huge horn. Before you know it, an old-fashioned foxtrot echoes through the forest after putting on such a fragile record. The footage and acting look great. Unfortunately, it’s slow and superficial. Praise for the creators of this indie-horror. Because despite the extremely limited budget, film-technically it looks fab. Even the for me unknown actors made themselves meritorious in the field of acting. Admittedly, sometimes there was a touch of overacting. And they tried to bring drama in a forced way. But this was certainly not irritating. Unfortunately, it was all fairly superficial with a painfully slow pace. It seemed after a while that the entire film consisted of exploring the surrounding nature. And yes, the discovery that no living organism can be detected in the surrounding area can easily be called troubling. But it’s never really exciting. Nail-biting boredom. Trust me, I’m not someone who only associates horror with gory slaughter and diabolical entities. And also, a forest in a horror movie isn’t automatically linked to a lonely, deserted wooden cabin. Or a wandering, bloodthirsty creature that suddenly shows up from behind a tree and rips you into pieces. So all the praise to try a different idea and for once think out of the box. However, I don’t think this symbiotic fungus that kills every human and animal life is something that ensures it to be a movie with nail-biting suspense. All in all, the starting point of the film wasn’t bad when you talk about originality. But apart from some beautiful nature shots and moments in which the dialogue seemed interesting, it’s all relatively boring and monotonous. My rating 3/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(Glasgow Film Festival: Film At Home; Fri 26 Feb to Mon 01 Mar) https://glasgowfilm.org/glasgow-film-festival/shows/my-wonderful-wanda-ctbc "My Wonderful Wanda" Wanda (Agnieszka Grochowska) nurses Josef (André Jung), 'The Patriarch' of the wealthy 'Wegmeister-Gloor' family. When an unexpected complication arises, family secrets come to light and arrangements are made to try and appease everyone in this biting family drama. "My Wonderful Wanda" is an ensemble film, it’s about parents and children and what members of a family can do to each other. It’s not only Wanda who wants to be treated with respect and dignity; each member of the family longs for that as well. Wanda is the protagonist, she’s the catalyst for the developments and changes in the other characters, but these are just as interesting: a prosperous family gets themselves a cheap carer for the head of their family, but everyone in the family avails of her assistance to their own ends. Telling this story in all it's consequences allows for varying perspectives and surprising plot twists. In the end, Wanda has indeed helped the family, but to a much greater extent than they've imagined. And her relationship with her own family in Poland has also benefited from these events. The film portrays Wanda as a victim. Wanda is being exploited, of course. But she also goes along with it even to the extent that she secretly sleeps with her patient for money. So she can’t view herself as a victim. Wanda is exploiting the family, too. And what’s more, she gets along well with Josef. It’s simply a deal that brings her added value. Her conscious trading of 'sex for money' paradoxically lends Wanda power. Portraying her as a victim would’ve been too easy and also would’ve made it impossible to show her contradictory and strong aspects. Wanda thus turns the tables on the exploitation/subservience, above/below issues. The house has to display the family’s prosperity without seeming ostentatious or off-putting. Content-wise the film sees the location as an island, a metaphor, the story could take place anywhere where people are wealthy and able to isolate themselves. Family, you can’t live with them, you can’t live without them. Family is a motif we return to again and again. What's it about this strange microcosm, this genetically random family unit in which you feel secure or maybe even restrained? Family is a very broad narrative field, and everyone can feel their way into it somehow because everyone has family. 'The Wegmeister-Gloors' are put to the test, cracks appear, and unpleasant facts come to light. All it's members are forced to be honest with each other. This is liberating, at times funny, yet also very painful on occasion. The family almost falls apart; but for this is nonetheless a film about getting closer. "My Wonderful Wanda" thematizes the current issue of care migration. The outpatient care market is booming in 'Switzerland'. Agencies apply phrases like 'cheap, caring, warm-hearted, and there for you round the clock' when brokering staff from 'Eastern Europe' to care for the elderly in their residences rather than in a home. Increasingly often, over-qualified women from 'Poland' and 'Hungary' are commuting monthly between their own families and 'Swiss' households. The film is interested in what happens when a complete stranger gains deep insight into a family’s structure, and the inevitable intimacy that ensues. The model is often referred to as a winwin situation; relatives in need of care don’t have to be placed in a home, the family saves money, and the carers earn much more here than in their homelands. But this view is too one-sided. We’re ignoring the fact that these women have private lives, their own families, a daily routine they've to give up, and that money nonetheless remains scarce back home. So the benefits are very one-sided. What has to happen for these parties to meet on equal footing and for these exchanges to become fair? But there's also room for funny or absurd moments. There's room for imagination and suggestions. So not a classic social drama, but rather a 'comédie très humaine'. And the narrative tone is dry and sober to avoid moralizing.

● (Release Info London schedule; February 28th, 2020, Empire, 5-6, Leicester Square, London WC2H 7NA, United Kingdom, 11:20 · 14:20 · 17:20 · 20:20) ● (Release Info London schedule; February 28th, 2020, Picturehouse Central, Piccadilly Circus, Corner of Great Windmill Street and, Shaftesbury Ave, London W1D 7DH, United Kingdom, 15:20 · 18:30 · 21:25) "Dark Waters" "Dark Waters" tells the shocking and heroic story of Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), an attorney who risks his career and family to uncover a dark secret hidden by one of the world’s largest corporations and to bring justice to a community dangerously exposed for decades to deadly chemicals. Corporate environmental defense attorney Rob Billot has just made partner at his prestigious Cincinnati law firm in large part due to his work defending 'Big Chem' companies. He finds himself conflicted after he’s contacted by Wilbur Tennant (Bill Camp) and his brother Jim (Jim Azelvandre) ,two 'West Virginia' farmers, who believe that the local 'DuPont' plant is dumping toxic waste in the area landfill that is destroying their fields and killing their cattle. Hoping to learn the truth about just what's happening, Bilott, with help from his supervising partner in the firm, Tom Terp (Tim Robbins), files a complaint that marks the beginning of an epic 15-year fight; one that will not only test his relationship with his wife, Sarah (Anne Hathaway) but also his reputation, his health and his livelihood. Based on 'The New York Times Magazine' article, 'The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare', by Nathaniel Rich, "Dark Waters" chronicles the one-man crusade that sought justice for a community exposed for decades to toxins in it's own backyard. Defense attorney Rob Bilott has just made partner at his prestigious Cincinnati firm in large part due to his work defending some of the biggest names in 'Big Chem'. When two small-town 'West Virginia' farmers ask for his help investigating the local chemical plant for purportedly killing their livestock, he balks, explaining that he represents chemical companies, not plaintiffs. Yet, something about their story stays with Rob, especially when he realizes one of his fondest summers as a boy was spent at a neighboring farm. During a drive to the area, Rob’s observations don’t quite align with his memories; there's something beneath the surface of this corner of 'Hill Country'. He also realizes that nearly everyone in the community owes much to the local chemical plant in Parkersburg, operated by 'DuPont'. 'The Tennants' believe that whatever 'DuPont' is dumping in their landfill is polluting their creek and has wiped out their herd of nearly 200 cattle. Still, many of their neighbors cling to the idea that the company continues to look out for them, as it has seemingly done for years. Supported by his supervising partner in the firm, Tom Terp, Bilott uses his intimate understanding of how chemical companies work. He files a complaint, undertaking a targeted suit that will uncover just what's happening in Parkersburg. Thousands of personnel hours and years later, Bilott finds that his obsession to ferret out the truth has not only jeopardized his family, particularly his relationship with his wife, Sarah but also his reputation, his health and his livelihood. Just how much is he, and by association, those around him, prepared to lose to bring the truth to light? What's the price for justice? "Dark Waters" tells the unbelievable 'David vs. Goliath' story of an attorney with unwavering conviction who fought for decades to obtain justice for a community victimized by a corporation driven by greed. It all begins on January 6th, 2016, when 'The New York Times Magazine' published Nathaniel Rich’s riveting chronicle of the work of Cincinnati attorney Rob Bilott. Employed at the law firm of 'Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP', Bilott becomes an unlikely crusader who bravely uncovered the dangers of a chemical that had been contaminating for years; and to punish one corporate giant responsible for marketing it's uses. 'The Tennants', a family who had farmed the same sprawling property for generations, begin losing their cattle in startling ways. The animals, once docile like pets, turned ugly and aggressive. Lesions covered their hides, their eyes are rimmed with red, white slime dripped from their mouths, their teeth blackened. When one black calf died, it's eye is electric blue. Convinced that the cause is toxic runoff from the nearby 'Dry Run Landfill', where 'The Washington Works' factory, owned by 'DuPont', disposed of it's waste, Wilbur Tennant sought answers for years to no avail. Desperate, he finally turns to Bilott, who had spent time as a child near 'The Tennants' farm in 'Parkersburg, West Virginia'. Bilott helps figure out what should be going into the landfill and look at the permits; he finds out what chemicals are actually going in and what might be exceeding their limits. After nearly a year, Bilott discoverers just what they're dealing with; an unregulated chemical that didn’t fit into that word. The substance in question is perfluorooctanoic acid or 'PFOA', which dates to 1951, almost two decades before 'The Environmental Protection Agency' was established in 1970. Unfortunately, a lot of the federal rules and statutes that started coming out in the 1970s were primarily focused on new chemicals, things that were being produced and generated after that point in time. By 1990, the company had dumped 7,100 tons of 'PFOA' sludge into 'Dry Run Landfill'. From that point on, Bilott makes it his mission to secure justice not just for 'The Tennants', but also for anyone who had been exposed to 'PFOA; or forever chemicals as they’re called, since they don’t break down and stay in the subject’s system. In "Dark Waters" it's all anchored in the character of Rob Bilott, the unlikely hero par excellence, whose presumptions about corporate practices are turned on their head in his discoveries about 'DuPont". Mistrustful, unpartisan and constitutionally guarded by nature, Rob Bilott, like most classic whistleblowers, is already a solitary figure when the story begins. He’s a man caught between two worlds; he has roots in small-town 'West Virginia', where he spent portions of his childhood, but he’s also an attorney at one of Cincinnati’s most high-profile corporate law films charged with defending clients from lawsuits, not filing suits against them. He's living in a class that's's above the one he grew up in, and there are class clashes going on within his family. All of this makes for a balancing act; he's straddling this echelon of lawyers who are all really well-bred and well-schooled, and he's not really a part of that. And then there’s this schism of plaintiff/defense attorney. All these dichotomies is why Rob Bilott is able to bring down one of the biggest corporations in the world. The more you can layer in those complexities, just the better story it's, and the greater achievement it's when our hero does what he set out to do. At the outset, Rob really believes that corporations are people and in the concept of their self-governance. He reasons that this must be some simple oversight. What ends up happening is he uncovers this contamination and cover-up, perpetrated by 'DuPont' and spanning 40 years. Wilbur Tennant is tough. Even when Rob has completely put his job and reputation and family and mental health on the line to take on this case, Wilbur isn't content to just get a settlement from 'DuPont'. He wants the truth to get out. He wants this to be known to the world. Wilbur has a very simple life and a very strong moral understanding and balance of what’s right and what’s wrong. He’s passionate and fiery. There’s a simplicity to that; it’s foundational to his and the overall story. He has a natural human reaction to being lied to, to being wronged. His life has been completely upended, if not destroyed, by the corruption of this company. He sees this wrong done not just to him, but an entire community and the natural world. His only response is to take on this entity more powerful than himself. And true to form, the events that unfold only further that isolation. That this isolation, this stigma, is mirrored in the story’s precipitating force, Wilbur Tennant, and can be seen spreading across the network of interdependent players, crossing class differences, afflicting public life, family life, church life in it's wake, describes it’s unique insidious contagion. Despite these bonds, taking on powerful interests will shrink your world and rattle your faculties. Sarah is a very specific. She understands that her husband’s passion and commitment to this case is important to support, but it takes a great toll on the family. Sarah is vivacious, powerful. She has so much strength, and she’s full of contradictions. You can’t tell everything about her just by one aspect of her. Rob finds an unexpected source of support for his quest in his supervising partner at 'Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP', Tom Terp. Although the two weren’t necessarily close friends, Terp admired Bilott’s work ethic, and his initial reluctance over Bilott taking 'The Tennants’ case gave way when he was presented with evidence of wrong-doing. As Rob’s boss, he conveys what’s at stake for Rob. This is nothing less than his standing as a partner. He also very subtly provides a moral compass when he permits Rob to take on the case. You get the sense that what’s central for 'Taft' is the law. The law needs to be respected, and if that starts to get messed with, as lawyers, even corporate defense attorneys, they’re not going to stand for it. So, in very economical strokes, Tom represents those two possibly opposing forces. Tom Terp is the exception to the rule in corporate culture, which tends to protect itself. People don’t usually cross lines, generally. They tend to remain silent or willfully ignorant of information that might challenge their worldview and their power structure. Tom is someone that dared to go against that. He isn't a knight in shining armor. He's a man faced with an illegality that was undeniable, and he chose to go against his company’s culture to hold 'DuPont' accountable, not an easy thing to do. Phil Donnelly (Victor Garber) is a company man, in thrall to his own conviction. Other attorneys enter the picture, including plaintiff’s attorney Harry Deitzler (Bill Pullman). Harry is a bit brash, he’s a big personality. But he's a strategist with tactics. Harry is a version of an ambulance chaser, personal injury lawyer. Harry had been on 'The Parkersburg City Council' for 12 years. He has the ability to bring people together from all sides; that makes him a perfect candidate to be on the legal team. Darlene Kiger (Mare Winningham) served as lead plaintiffs in a 2001 class-action lawsuit against 'DuPont' over dangerously high levels of 'PFOA', also known as 'C8', in 'The Parkersburg' region’s drinking water supplies. She brings her grounded wisdom, warmth and gravitas to the character. She's very brave, to take this stand amidst gossip, stares and comments, in a community indebted to 'DuPont'. James (William Jackson Harper) is a junior associate at Bilott’s firm who believes the attorney’s work should cease. He's someone trying to climb the ladder in this corporate defense world that's now suddenly in ethically murky waters, we’re looking to prosecute the very people we serve. James role is to actually push to shut the case down. He thinks it’s a dangerous violation of their ethics to pursue this. It becomes divisive for the character, and for some others within the firm. This is the late ’90s, early 2000s. It’s still a really ambiguous time period that we all kind of remember but have forgotten at the same time. Who had what technology, like which cellphones? Televisions? What would be on desks in lawyers’ offices? It’s also interesting because 'Taft', as with other big firms, were beginning to brand themselves, advertising for legal services. So even they're switching tradition. There’s a lens we view society through, which picks up people’s differences within class structures, but we want to concentrate on the humanity that runs through everyone. We’ve been watching the environmental mandates for water, air, endangered species, and of course climate change be systematically unraveled, and so everything is at stake right now. The ultimate message is that we need each other. No one else is going to do it for us. No one else is going to make the world a better place. It's us together. And this story about water transcends all political divides, ideological beliefs, sex, race, religion. The film tells a gripping story based on the explosive exposé that uncovered an urgent public health crisis and corruption at the highest levels. We all know inherently how important it's for us to have clean water, and it's by framing these massive problems in these kinds of ways that we will see real positive change in the world. It’s a tremendous opportunity to be able to make people understand the nature and extent of this public health threat. But not only that; how does something like this happen in 'The United States'? In what we should be thinking of as the most sophisticated country on earth, how could a massive worldwide contamination problem like this not only occur, but originate here in 'The United States'? This film can convey to people in an understandable way that not only is this happening, but how it happens. Like most people we're astonished and outraged by the story Rob Bilott, the tenacious corporate defense attorney, unwittingly uncovers; the story of 'DuPont' and 'Teflon'. It clearly describes a recent, ongoing saga of corporate abuse with searing cultural and political relevance. Certainly, abuses of power, threats and cover-up, whether corporate, industrial or governmental, will be revealed. In fact they're the narrative expectation, often looming offscreen in advance of the stories. But the whistleblower film’s true focus is on the little guy, his process, and the peril, psychic, emotional, if not mortal, faced by that individual who stands up to the truth. This specificity of time and place can be feel in a visual language in which a cool observational style links the contrasting locations in an attempt to underscore their interdependence. What emerges is a complex, at times contradictory American landscape, though one in which the lines of economic power are clearly drawn; even as they're confronted with their limits. It's often as a result of these contradictions, or improbabilities, that 'The Wilbur Tennant Case' and the historic class action that followed could ever have been waged. The unlikelihood of a corporate defense attorney working for the chemical industry reversing his sites and taking on a corporate behemoth like 'DuPont' is precisely what provided Rob with the kind of time and resources required to succeed. So without the medical monitoring ruling in 'West Virginia', or the dual-state strategy linking Ohio law with 'West Virginia', it’s hard to imagine any of these remarkable outcomes; or the world ever learning about the dangers of forever chemicals like 'PFOA', lurking in every corner of our lives. Rather than concluding with the rewards of a win, it depicts the act of fighting as on ongoing condition, a primer for living imperfectly between knowledge and despair. In "Dark Waters", what begins as a regional and national contamination of air and water systems results in a global contamination of human bloodstreams, in effect, materializing our interconnectivity as residents of the planet, if not the unelected victims of capitalist and ideological systems. But in the massiveness of this manmade catastrophe we're invariably linked, and our knowledge and awareness are what connect us to one another, in what's both an unending struggle for justice and a fight for our lives.

(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.

Gladiator II (2024) Savage. Silly. Spectacular. More than two decades after the original won ‘Best Picture’ at the Oscars, Gladiator II injects the world with some good old-fashioned anabolic steroids. As with any illicit steroid use, this is not to be encouraged and produces some very mixed results.   Director Ridley Scott’s storyline picks up about 20 years after the original Gladiator’s fateful clash between tough but traumatised Maximus and self-pitying Commodus. We follow Lucius Varus, the young boy who accidentally gave the game away about Maximus’ imminent coup in Gladiator. After watching his hero suffer the consequences, it turns out he went full witness protection programme. New city, new name, new…muscles? That’s right, the skinny kid got jacked.   When Lucius’ (Paul Mescal) home is conquered by the ever-expanding reach of the Roman Empire under General Acacius (Pedro Pascal), he is enslaved and forced to fight. Lucius’ owner and sponsor, Macrinus (Denzel Washington), sets him on a recognisable journey from small-time desert arena to the bright lights of Rome’s Colosseum.   Twin Emperors and total psychopaths (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger) are ruling the roost, while Lucius’ mother Lucilla (Connie Nielson reprising her role) is still stuck doing what she can to survive. She’s also dating Pedro Pascal’s character, which in any other circumstance would mean she’s thriving. The future of the empire is at stake but a furious and vengeful Lucius must reckon with his past if he is to seize his destiny.   It’s so difficult to overstate how much this film amps everything up, that to understate it would feel out of kilter with the movie. An exercise in subtlety can be found by comparing to Emperor Commodus’ clammy and unwell aesthetic in Gladiator. That wouldn’t be enough for the twin emperors in Gladiator II, who have instead powdered their faces white and used red eye liner for their own imperial brand of conjunctivitis chic.   The comparisons keep flowing, invited by the film constantly and lazily dishing up throwbacks to the original. In Gladiator, Russell Crowe’s Maximus is mostly quite muted. He is softly spoken and rarely expressive, but it works. Skip ahead to this sequel, and it’s difficult to pin down any personality at all for Mescal’s Lucius. Meanwhile Nielson’s Lucilla, who could have brought continuity to the franchise, feels lacklustre and a little bit lost.   While the turbocharged plot left little time for nuanced character development, it’s not all bad. Denzel Washington steals the show as the wily Macrinus. Washington’s unparalleled charisma and on-screen presence keeps the audience invested in what could otherwise be quite dull scenes, and not for the first time (see: Training Day, Inside Man, Equaliser or basically anything he’s in).   But the chemistry between the other characters was at times so stilted that even Pascal seems to struggle. If you’re looking for the fiery excitement of his Game of Thrones performance as Oberyn Martell, then look elsewhere.   To give the actors a break though, these problems might have something to do with the writing. From Tacitus to Virgil, the dialogue is like a greatest hits of bumper sticker Roman philosophy. Dialogue made up entirely of ancient clichés and stoic maxims would be a challenge for any performer to land, and the emotional depth of the film suffers for it.   But if lack of character development leaves a sour taste in your mouth, fear not, you can always wash it down with bucket-loads of blood. Gladiator II as an action spectacle does not disappoint, with adrenaline-fuelled violence hacking and slashing its way into every other scene. The use of beasts in grand set pieces is certainly entertaining, if implausible. If this film goes on to win any accolades at all, the stunt actors deserve the lion’s share.   The music is also compelling in those moments where it does not lean too heavily on the original soundtrack. Composer Hans Zimmer gives way to Harry Gregson-Williams, whose use of choral music is particularly divine in adding much-needed tension. The problem is there are just too many throwbacks for this to be considered a standalone film, which presents a double-edged sword. You have to watch the original Gladiator to fully appreciate it, but in watching the original Gladiator you exclude yourself from appreciating it much at all.   In ancient history, an arrogant emperor looked back on his reign and boasted that “I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble”. Sadly, between Gladiator and Gladiator II, an arrogant producer has taken a masterpiece of marble and transformed it into common brick.   One day Hollywood will have matured enough to sensitively reimagine sequels or remakes. One day filmmakers will ask themselves if they’re using CGI because they should, or just because they could. One day the colosseum will rise again to a gripping storyline. That day may come. But not yet, not yet.

(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