Search Results

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

"Ferrari"     It's the summer of 1957. Behind the spectacle of Formula 1, ex-racer Enzo Ferrari (Adam Driver) is in crisis. Bankruptcy threatens the factory he and his wife, Laura (Penelope Cruz), built from nothing ten years earlier. Their volatile marriage has been battered by the loss of their son, Dino, a year earlier. Ferrari struggles to acknowledge his son Piero (Giuseppe Festinese) with Lina Lardi (Shai lens Woodley). Meanwhile, his drivers’ passion to win pushes them to the edge as they launch into the treacherous 1,000-mile race across Italy, the Mille Miglia.   Passion, ambition, power, the characteristics of Enzo Ferrari racecars came from within the man himself. From the beginning, they began to dominate the competition and fire imaginations worldwide. Born in Modena, Italy, the former racecar driver and team manager formed his own company in 1947. Built with almost no funding, Ferrari’s first car in its sixth race won the Rome Grand Prix. By 1957 the world’s greatest racers were vying for seats in Ferrari’s. Enzo and his wife, Laura, re-invested heavily in the racing division. As a result, by 1957 insolvency was stalking the factory. Meanwhile the tragic death of their only son, Dino, to mluscular dystrophy in 1956 has further shaken their rocky marriage. Dino was their center and future; now gone. Both grieve differently over the devastating loss. Meanwhile, Piero Lardi, Enzo’s son born in 1945 from his liaison with Linda Lardi, now seeks the acknowledgment of his father. Together they constitute a second family of which Laura is unaware until it’s revealed. As crises and revelations converge, Ferrari wagers all on winning one race, the supremely dangerous 1,000-mile race across open roads called the Mille Miglia.   We all know it’s our deadly passion, our terrible joy. But if you get into one of Ferrari cars, and no one is forcing you to take that seat, you get in to win. Enzo Ferrari is one of the most famous, yet inscrutable and complex men of the 20th century. “Ferrari” moves behind the inscrutable image of the iconic Enzo Ferrari. Based on Brock Yates 1991 book 'Enzo Ferrari: The Man, The Car, The Races, The Machine', the film is a character study. There's no equilibrium in his life, and that’s the whole point of Enzo Ferrari, because that’s more like the way life actually is. Ferrari was precise and logical; rational in everything to do with his factory and race team. In the rest of his life he was impulsive, defensive, libidinous, chaotic. The story is not a typical biopic. It seizes on the four months of Enzo Ferrari’s life, in 1957, when all the conflicts and fortunes, the drama of his and Laura and Lina’s lives come into focus. All the hurdles he faced in the mid-1950s, when motorsports was becoming a glamorous, international phenomenon. There's further duality in Ferrari’s life; his wife, Laura, was a woman hardened by struggle, grief, petrified love, and from being a woman involved in a business dominated by men.   An early deal with Ferrari meant that Laura is a 50/50 partner in the Ferrari factory, which became even more complicated when the couple’s personal life became messy and cold, and Laura’s savvy business instincts emerged as one of the few avenues of control she had. The power Laura had over the Ferrari company would anger Enzo, and yet, when his engineering staff once threatened to quit if Laura continued to make production visits at the factory, Enzo fired all of them, the world’s greatest automotive engineers, on the spot, immediately, out of solidarity with Laura. Still, Laura is invested in Enzo’s success and the Ferrari team’s wins on the track. Meanwhile, Enzo met, Lina Lardi, whom he had met in a factory his native Modena, Italy, during World War II, anchored his life. When their son Piero was born in 1945, Lina raised him in Castelvetro. She was a post-war Italian single mother focused on what was right for her child despite his being born out of wedlock at a moment in history, and in a country, that didn’t accept divorce. It's about providing a safe space for her son to feel like he belonged in a world that, during that time, especially in Catholic Italy, told anyone under those circumstances that they didn’t belong.   If Enzo Ferrari’s life was bifurcated into chaos and control, his life with Lina Lardi was a cause for one while embodying a desire for the other. When their affair began during the Second World War, Lardi had been working at a coachbuilding factory in Modena, and as Prime Minister Benito Mussolini’s fascist policies and World War II ravaged Italy, Ferrari and Lardi’s relationship grew. In the disarray of post-war Italy and the hardships that followed, Lardi raised their son, Piero. Lina is a woman at the crossroads of two lives that existed outside of her own, and she was a bit helpless in that situation; all Lina could do was show support and love for her son and the man that she loved. In Lina’s most forthright moment in the film, she confronts Enzo on his hesitancy to acknowledge Piero with his last name (due to Laura’s legal maneuvers and Italian cultural considerations, Piero was not able to be acknowledged as a member of the Ferrari family until after Laura’s death in 1978). The complexities and emotions involved were tumultuous, but Lina’s view is that what matters most is what’s best for Piero, and that has loved by Enzo as his son.   The difficulty of having two families, and two homes, one filled with grief over the loss of a son who hadn’t lived past the age of 24, the other focused on making a 12-year-old boy’s life free from pain and want, crashes into Enzo Ferrari’s pursuit of engineering perfection. He sees all too clearly the risk of losing all he’s built, either to companies like Fiat and Ford who were looking to buy him out, or through personal issues that threatened to overtake his life’s work. In 1957, Ferrari was going broke; the company’s passenger car sales had dwindled as competitors began breaking his cars speed records, making it harder to secure funding. All of that fueled Ferrari’s competitive nature even more. Ferrari would take a huge gamble with the fortunes of his company by entering the 1957 Mille Miglia, the famous 1,000-mile, open-road endurance race through Italy that had begun in 1927. Thirty years after its inaugural race, it was about to collide with a form of blind ambition Ferrari isn’t ready to be accountable for. His aim, going into this dangerous race, is to put together a multigenerational, flashy driving team that would attract financing to keep the Ferrari factory in business, and which would allow Ferrari to maintain control. But the cost would be high.   Moving to the racetrack, chief among the team of drivers surrounding Enzo Ferrari would be Alfonso de Portago (Gabriel Leone), whose horrific crash in the final stretch of Italy’s Mille Miglia, which killed de Portago and nine spectators, would for decades overshadow the legacy of the race and be part of the reason it ended in 1957. Eugenio Castellotti (Marino Franchitti) dies while attempting to reclaim Ferrari’s speed record from Maserati. Sound is also crucial in the de Portago crash sequence. At the moment of impact, the sound almost disappears, leaving a dull, closed-ear vibe to the sounds that follow. The concept is to have the impact noises as the car is plowing into the pole and through the crowd diminish over time. Piero began working with his father in the late 1960s and collaborated with the company’s Formula One teams, as well as in the concept and production process, and other aspects of production. When Enzo Ferrari died in 1988, Piero inherited his father’s stake in the company. Piero served as president of the Ferrari company until 2015.   There's the world of Enzo’s more intimate, domestic life, at home with Laura or in the countryside with Lina, and then there's the world of racing. The former would be a more classically composed aesthetic, while the latter would be filled with visceral, dynamic energy often through handheld camerawork. Italian Renaissance painting is so informed by architecture and the natural light that Italian architecture of that period lends to a space. It’s all this single-source, directional lighting from the windows. As for the color palette, the yellows, oranges, pale greens and terracotta/ochre hues of Northern Italy set the template. The concept is to slash through that palette with the bright, primary red of the cars, signifying aggression and energy in the face of the more austere aesthetic elsewhere in the film. The cars are kinetic, they’re full of agitation. The film wants to show the experience of what it's to drive one of those cars and to be in a tense race, trying to master the forces. It's, by design, a counterpoint to the formality of the dramatic, dialogue-filled scenes. There are incredibly powerful human moments, then we’re roaring around Italy with drivers flirting with death. In so many places around the world, it’s still a very similar situation, working from the shadows and not being acknowledged for what they do, not being valued. It’s as if youve mild chronic pain, only it’s emotional, but it's important for us to see that represented in many ways, but especially physically. Life is asymmetrical. Life is messy. Life is filled with chaos.   Written by Gregory Mann

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

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

(Release Info London schedule; September 21st, 2018, Genesis Cinema, 21:10) "Climax" 1996, it's just last night. Only they're no cellphones or internet. But the best of  this morning’s music is already there. In France, "Daft Punk' releases their first record, 'La Haine' had just been released in cinemas, and the journal 'Hara- Kiri' is defnitively unable to revive itself. The Massacre of 'The Adepts Of The Solar Temple' is suppressed by the occult forces of the state. The film tells a sticky and haunting story. Selva (Sofia Boutella), David (Romain Guillaume), Lou (Souhala Yacoub), Emmanuelle (Claude Gayan-Maull), Gaselle (Giselle Palmer), Taylor (Taylor Kastle), Ivana (Sharleen Temple), Lea (Lea Vlamo) and Sara (Sarah Belala), a troupe of electro dancers, gathers in an isolated building to prepare a  performance. After their last rehearsal, chaos erupts. Starting from a page-long outline  allows to capture moments of truth and to convey in images this sequence of events  collectively. If you want dancers, actors or non-professionals to express themselves physically and verbally in a chaotic fashion, improvisation is essential.  As for the dancing the dancers are free to express themselves in their own language, often very close to the unconscious, revealing their individual interior turmoil. In dance styles like voguing, waacking or krump, the participants display their physical prowess with a jaw-dropping spontaneity. With the very best dancers, this becomes particularly dazzling. The scenes are shot chronologically to generate both a state of general trust and a spirit  of competition that drove the dancers  towards ever-more psychotic  performances. Contrary to more usual depictions of dance, in which every step is predetermined, to push the protagonists to simulate possessed states like those encountered in ritual trances. Although drugs certainly figure in the story, the idea isn't to depict altered states of perception subjectively through visual effects and sound, but on the contrary, to stick to an external point of view on the characters. To talk about dance is to talk about music. In order to respect the era in which the film is set, the music, whether electrifying or melodious, dates from no later than the mid-90s. Nourished by our multiple experiences of uncontrolled crashes and an atmosphere of delight, the improvisations of the dancers dazzled us. There are sometimes certain events that are symptomatic of an era. These events explode, spontaneously or otherwise, until they reach the law enforcement agencies; some then become information on a major scale. They take on a new dimension; they're magnifed, reduced, misrepresented, digested or not by those who disseminate them and those who receive them. Lives, glorious or shameful alike, end up on paper, then quickly disappear into collective oblivion. Existence is nothing more than a feeting illusion that each of us takes to the grave. When we read biographies, everything and it's contrary is stated. It’s the same whenever any affair or a news story is revealed. And the new communications channels that have spread during the last 20 years have rendered all objectivity even more illusory. Humans, like animals, are born, live and die leaving no more trace than the smallest daisy in the middle of a feld. Joys and pain, achievements and blunders, occupy a virtual perception, a present that doesn’t exist outside their memory. In 1996, a million stories hit the headlines, stories that are forgotten today, and tomorrow even more. Some of those born or alive that year are still among us. But of the great majority of those whose hearts have stopped beating, nothing remains; a name in a cemetery, or in an old newspaper lost in the depths of a cellar. At their most intense, the pleasures of the present allow us to forget this vast emptiness. Joy, ecstasies, whether constructive or destructive, act as an antidote to the void. Love, art, dance, war, sport seem to justify our brief time on earth. And there are those who dreamed of building a powerful and peaceful Europe while a barbaric war infected  it's interior. Wars create movement, populations change, as do beliefs and ways of living. And that which is called God will always be there on the side of the most powerful gun. The comma may move, but the essence of the  sentence will always remain the same.

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.

I don’t know what you’re fucking saying, I don’t understand. What an impressive film. You won’t get a feeling of excitement or relaxation after watching it. It’ll rather leave a bad taste in your mouth. It was as if the smell of blood, rancid food, vomit, and sweat has nestled itself in my nostrils. I had this annoying, uncomfortable feeling afterward. I’m convinced there are other places in this world where you don’t want to end up and which aren’t good for your health, both physically and psychologically. But the Thai prison Klong Prem seems to me the most damned and inhumane place on our planet. A place where you stop being a person and where you try to survive in any way you can. I’m strongly in favor of setting up an exchange program for prisoners worldwide. In such a way that prisoners from wherever, get the chance to taste the prison climate of these regions. I’m sure many will start realizing how privileged their treatment is in this part of the world. Who knows, maybe even a few will come to their senses. Is there a translator in the house? “A prayer before dawn” feels like a documentary. It’s as if the camera is filming over the shoulders of Billy Moore (Joe Cole) all the time, a Brit who’s a boxer in Thailand and is being arrested for selling drugs. The nightmare in which he’s imprisoned for three years and the daily struggle in this hell hole is the basis for his book that he publishes later on. It’s titled “A prayer before dawn: A nightmare in Thailand“. Don’t expect long dialogues. Or you are someone who understands Thai quite well. That alone would drive me crazy already. The endless whining and shouting of those tattooed, golden-toothed Thai criminals. You have no idea what they are talking about. You can only guess whether they ask a very ordinary question or threat you. Brutal, intense and realistic. The number of films that take place in prisons is almost infinite. But there are none so realistic and painful to behold as “A prayer before dawn“. Even “Brawl in Cell Block 99” doesn’t seem to be so brutal and intense, despite the extremely violent images. Why? Because “Brawl in Cell Block 99” is a fictional story. The story about Billy Moore shows an unambiguous, unvarnished picture of his struggle for survival and his perseverance to maintain himself in this barbaric environment. A story about how an individual has to push his limits both physically and psychically. A black and white portrait with a thin dividing line between life and death. One moment you see how Billy almost kills a fellow prisoner at the request of a corrupt guard. The next moment you see a tender moment between him and the transvestite Fame (Pornchanok Mabklang). A moment to catch your breath after all the brutal violence. Top notch acting. Even from those ex-prisoners. The acting of Joe Cole is extremely convincing. You can simply feel his fury, despair, and fear. Cole’s acting is purely en simply physical as there is practically no dialogue to be heard. A shrill and threatening “Fuck off” is the main thing that comes over his lips. You are witnessing how the accumulated tension and frustration suddenly flares up during confrontations and his Thai boxing. And at the same time, you see Cole fighting against his addiction. The Thai inmates are all amateurs in the field of acting but apparently, a large number of these side characters actually have spent time behind bars. Maybe that’s why it all feels so real. Just go watch this top-notch movie. No, “A prayer before dawn” is no fun to watch and will certainly still haunt you the next days after. If you expect a detailed story, you will certainly be disappointed afterward. The narrative is reasonably straightforward and concise. It’s nothing more than a report of Billy’s stay in this hellish place on earth and his constant fight to get out of it unscathed. But, as I said, this film will certainly stay with you. It’s, as it were, beaten into you. My rating 7/10

The fifth instalment in this now boring and close to extinct franchise is given a new fresh level of fun from Spanish director J. A. Boyana. It’s certainly done things we’ve all seen before and there wasn’t anything new to add to the Jurassic franchise but it was an enjoyable and exciting film for dino lovers. The story is set 3 years after the chaos that occurred in Jurassic World (who could have guessed that would happen), the dinosaurs left on the island are about to go extinct, again, because of a volcano thats going to erupt. Which really makes you question the guy in charge of a location for this place. If he was only going to get 3 years from an island because they didn’t realise there was a massive volcano around he should’ve been sacked. Anyway, Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) wants to save them all and with the help of Sir Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), who was best buds with old John Hammond, and Eli Mills (Rate Spall) she goes back to the island with the wonderful Owen (Chris Pratt) to save all the dinosaurs including Blue, which is why Chris Pratt is going.  Anyway turns out Rafe Spall is stabbing the old guy in the back, or SPOILER suffocating him with a pillow, and is actually rescuing the dinosaurs so that he can then sell them off to multiple armies. So Claire and Owen head off with two young, friendly, one dimensional characters who are so so so dull. The volcano erupts, the bad guys get the dinosaur, the four guys head back. Before witnessing a sad dino get burned alive by the volcano, really wasn’t that sad but whatevs. Back at the old guys mansion and the dinosaurs start getting sold, we find out about this huge creepy ass dino that is super enhanced. The old guy granddaughter is actually his daughter who he cloned. Or something like that, its really not explained at all and makes no difference to the plot, really pointless and not needed. Old guy dies, dinosaurs escape and start causing havoc. End of film two.  Fallen Kingdom as a whole wasn’t a bad film, it was enjoyable in places in terms of it’s sets and action. The volcano scene was cool and the ending with the new killer dino. I’m genuinely surprised it had a 12a rating, I found it very thrilling and tense and it some scenes, bloody petrifying. If I was a 8 year old, like a lot of the audience are, that scene in the bedroom would’ve freaked me out. You know where the hand goes up to her face. That’s terrifying. The dialogue is cheesy throughout the film, especially between the two minor characters whose story arc is so obvious. The granddaughter being a clone seems so odd, and unless it plays a part in the next film I don’t really understand what the point was of it. It just seemed like a filler film for the the Jurassic World franchise, it’s quite clear the film-makers wanted the dinosaurs back to mainland as quickly as possible without much consideration for this film.  p.s How annoying was it that this hunk was such a key component in the trailer but then was in the film for like a minute at the start and beginning of the film.  3/5 It was a fun addition the Jurassic franchise but it really didn’t have any wow moments are do anything different that we’ve seen in the last 4 films. We’ll probably end up with some rampage style finale that will again, try and make us care about Chris Pratt being friendly with a velociraptor and honestly, I don’t know if I would actually care. You know what, I wouldn’t.

Desire is an intriguing game and the first chapter of this interesting series. The game takes a click and point style mechanism, and you must move through the story with various characters. Play more game on basketball legends. It is an emotional story, and you will find yourself wrapped up in the events that unfold. You have to solve a myriad of puzzles and also interact with different people. This is a fantastic and immersive game and is available on all devices including smartphones. Controls A story-filled point and click game Visual novel style Many puzzles to solve People to interact with Black and white background

(Release Info London schedule; January 18th, 2019, Picturehouse, 12:15 PM) "Beautiful Boy" "Beautiful Boy" is a deeply moving portrait of a family’s unwavering love and commitment to each other in the face of their son’s addiction and his attempts at recovery. Based on two memoirs, one from journalist David Sheff (Steve Carell) and one from his son, Nic Sheff (Timothée Charlamet). As Nic repeatedly relapses, 'The Sheffs' are faced with the harsh reality that addiction is a disease that does not discriminate and can hit any family at any time. At 18, Nicolas Sheff is a good student, editor of his high school newspaper, an actor in the school play and a member of the water polo team. A voracious reader and a talented artist, Nic is set to enter college in the fall. He has started experimenting with drugs when he was 12, but in his late teens he tried meth for the first time and, the world went from black and white to 'Technicolor'. Nic went almost instantly from a teenager dabbling with substances to a having a full-blown dependency. "Beautiful Boy" is a searingly honest account of 'The Sheff' family’s journey through Nic’s continuing struggles with addiction. Based on David Sheff’s bestseller of the same name and his son Nic’s breakout memoir 'Tweak: Growing Up On Methamphetamines', the film presents a unique portrait of the ways addiction can destroy lives and the power of love to rebuild them. Harrowing, heart-breaking and yet full of joy, hope, and love, "Beautiful Boy" recounts the rehabs, disappearances, broken promises and rage as Nic sinks deeper into the drug world, as well as David’s efforts to save his boy from the ravages of addiction. In 2005 journalist David Sheff wrote 'My Addicted Son' for 'The New York Times Magazine'. A painfully frank and unforgettable first-hand account of his son Nic’s battle with addiction to drugs including methamphetamine and David’s efforts to save his family, which includes his second wife Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney) and their two much younger children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), during an almost decade-long ordeal. Nic is a young man who's out of control, all without losing the audience’s sympathy. What makes it especially sad and painful to watch is that he should lucid enough to realize what he’s doing. He's trapped by the drugs and the situation he’s gotten himself into. As Nic describes so well in the book, there’s a cycle of shame; you relapse; you feel bad about it, so you take more drugs; you run out of money, so you steal; and then you've to take more drugs to forget about the horrible things you’ve done. Sentence by sentence, moment by moment, it's a very specific description of what Nic is going through and what it's like to be in the throes of drug addiction. When you’re deep into it, you're not yourself. It’s as if there are two versions of Nic. His mind is on what’s right in front of him and what or where the next high is. It's very present, very personal and in the moment rather than, ‘I’m really devastating my family'. Initially it seems that Nic has just gotten a little off track and David and Karen address it right away. But things are not always as we hope for them to be. In the photos, Nic goes from insecure teenager to self-centered drug addict and then vulnerable adult. The earlier, happier versions of him wore a lot of primary colors. As his drug use begins, he moves through more secondary colors and as an adult it’s all neutral tones. It's surreal and with such a grasp of the intricacy of the push and pull of trust and love and betrayal that's "Beautiful Boy". Despite that, both Nic and David admit to feeling some trepidation as development of "Beautiful Boy" got under way. They would, after all, be entrusting people with the most difficult and personal struggle of their lives. Because this is primarily Nic and David’s story, it's simple to reduce the roles of Nic’s mother and stepmother to tropes. The businesswoman and the artist. But they're both really good mothers, in very different ways, and essential to the story. Karen Barbour, Nic’s stepmother and David’s wife reveals subtle but unmistakable strength, as well as a profound affection for Nic. You're aware that there's a deep bond between her and Nic. But when his behavior crosses the line, she feels violated and protective of her younger children, Jasper and Daisy. Her relationship with Nic is special. She’s a well-known artist and they loved to paint and draw together. They speak French with one another and play word games. She has a very warm and loving relationship with him. Vicki (Amy Ryan), is David Sheff’s first wife and Nic’s birth mother. Vicki has remarried and is living in Los Angeles, where young Nic spent holidays and summers. The revelation that Nic has a serious drug problem comes as a bombshell for her. Like Karen, she also is a rock for Nic and takes over when David is unable to continue. Vicki, David and Karen are confronted with Nic’s addiction. Was it their fault? What's the best solution? As a parent, you’re always going to question whether you could have done something different. All three parents struggle with that. At times they've different ideas about what’s best for Nic, but ultimately they're there for their child. Dr. Brown (Timothy Hutton) is an eminent authority on the devastating effect of crystal meth on the brain, is a composite of the many medical professionals David Sheff consulted over the years. Spencer (Andre Royo) is Nic’s then-AA sponsor. Spencer doesn’t know how much of an impact he’ll ultimately have on Nic or how much help he can be. He knows that sometimes just being there's as important as anything he can do. The characters in the movie have to find their own arc. David’s book is written from the vantage point of looking back. But the movie has to show what’s happening in the moment. Balancing those arcs and juxtaposing them with each other is essential. This film is based on David and Nic Sheff's memoirs back in 2014. David and Nic write from their personal experiences of living through recovery and relapses, but also the moments of life’s joy, innocence, and love. They start out thinking that they've the tools to deal with Nic’s addiction, to solve it. They don’t, but they learn a lot along the way. As time passes, there are moments where control seems beyond their reach and they experience how the consequences of addiction affect every fiber of their lives. The family believes love, and yet they've to come to terms with the fact that there are no easy answers and dealing with addiction is impossibly irrational. The Sheff’s are honest about everything they went through, sharing their deepest fears and feelings of shame too. To experience how they live and how close they're is really amazing to see. The core of the family, which gets tested in a very big way, and the idea of genuinely being there for each other moved very much. The film gives voice to many people struggling with addiction. To show in a simple, honest and raw way, the complexity of the illness. The film helps people to feel and understand different points of view and might open the hearts and minds of the people who see it. The film is an epic story, but it's also extraordinarily intimate. It sees the beauty in life and the difficulties in life as inseparable and part the whole experience of being human. Maybe it’s because both David and Nic really love film, so when they write, they think about images or situations that are cinematic, like when they go surfing. All of a sudden, it’s foggy and dark and David loses his son. That's an incredible metaphor for the entire film. Ultimately, it's because the story feels so mythical and universal. It's exiting to show that special bond, what they shared and what they're at risk of losing. It’s heart-wrenching, especially because this is a family where there's so much love that none of them can fathom what’s happening. On top of that, it’s not one person’s story. Nic and David are equally present throughout. Often movies about addiction are about people coming out of rehab and restarting their lives. Or it’s about the experience itself with all it's ups and down. It’s a tough topic, yet the darkness is countered by a love for life, and the highs are really high. The pain 'The Sheffs' go through is not uncommon in America today. Beyond that, however their story will resonate for anyone who has raised a child, even those whose families have not been affected by addiction. Nurturing a child is one of the fundamental parts of the human experience. As the child becomes fully grown, the parent has to let go and let the child fend for himself. It’s a democratic phenomenon that doesn’t care how much money or love or education you've. So seeing a boy who comes from a beautiful place and has people who did their best to help him is excruciating precisely because it upends our cognitive bias about addiction. Rather than try to place blame for Nic’s addiction, "Beautiful Boy" takes a clear-eyed and intimate look at a family grappling with a devastating and growing phenomenon. In the past, and to some extent, still, addiction has been perceived. Addicts were kept at a distance. But we’ve come to understand that this is something that can happen to anyone, anywhere. So many families face these issues. The film wants to make sure addiction and recovery were handled in a subtle, complex and realistic way. The film plays with time in the beginning in order to grab the audience’s attention before diving in head first. "Beautiful Boy" includes numerous flashbacks to happier times before Nic became addicted, it's told in a fairly straightforward manner. The film shows what the family has lost, or what they’re about to lose. What sets this film apart is it's point of view. It feels like a window onto the disease of addiction that we hadn’t seen before. Addiction is the great equalizer. We’ve been trained to associate it with income status and moral failing. In reality, addiction is a disease that's rooted in non-moral circumstances, but it's taboo in our culture to talk about it that way. What makes us care is this loving but conflicted relationship between father and son. The story is heartbreaking, but also inspiring and hopeful. It puts forth an ideal of parenting as not giving up in the face of difficulty. If you acknowledge it as a disease, it's not something that should create shame. "Beautiful Boy" can start a much-needed dialogue. We judge their bad choices. We judge their families. We judge ourselves. We've stigmatized addiction. The judgment is so harsh that we hide and when we hide we feel like we’re alone. We all like to think of it as something that happens to someone else, but it's hard to find a family that has not been touched by addiction. The way "Beautiful Boy’s" narrative is structured, mimics the way memory works. At every crossroads in your life, you think, how did I get to this point? It’s a very natural thing for people to do, which is why they respond well to that kind of storytelling. The secret to making it work is that every cut back and forth has to have some kind of emotional logic.

Avengers: Infinity War In my last Marvel film review of Black Panther, I expressed how over-saturated I was by the Marvel movies formula: a bit of plot set up then bish-bash-bosh things start hitting each other. We do get more of the same here, but I felt that there was actually a sense of threat. For once we got a good amount of the villain's back story so that almost was an origin story. This provided so much more gravitas to the situation to the Avengers and Earth are in then we ever got from Ultron in Age of Utron's (an "age" in that movie being redefined as a few days) portrayal. We get both a physical and emotional weight to the film's big bad- Thanos. Though an entirely CGI character, when he walked or hit something (or someone) you sure felt it. In previous Marvel movies I've sometimes found this to be lacking. I believe this would have been a motion capture performance from Josh Brolin, and if so he put in a stellar performance. If it wasn't motion capture, then bravo to the CGI team as we felt everything that Thanos did through his expressions. It is a testament to the directors (the Russo brothers- best known for other top rated Marvel movies Captain America's Winter Soldier and Civil War, and also for the TV series Arrested Development and Community) that we simply just didn't get the generic dead eyed power hungry villain that we get all too often (especially in DC movies). I thought the CGI work on Thanos' was excellent. You could see every muscle and hair which made him seem very, very real and to be afraid of. The heroes that we have seen team up before were split and mixed with each other to create fresh dynamics. Again to give credit to the directors, the overall balance of the sheer multitude of characters was done really well. For the heroes that got a lesser role, I think it was justified as either we haven't yet seen enough of them in the MCU to warrant a lot of screen time or we haven't had a lot of meaningful back story to their character to give enough emotional weight. This emotional weight being important as the film has relatively little time for plot explanation and understandably relies a lot on its actions set pieces, so if this weight was lacking, viewers may switch off or become numb to the whole thing. Of course we got the standard Marvel movies quick quips throughout- but i found that most of them hit home- and especially for the laughing seagull viewer that was sat behind me. Mr Seagull always particularly loved a Game of Thrones star's small role- which to be fair was fantastically done. I think the comic fan boys almost would have have gotten what they wanted from this film- especially the climax. But may have a similar little big problem with the film. This being that I don't understand the rationale for Thanos' plan. Its hard to explain without spoilers, but ultimately he has justified to himself into doing some horrific actions for the greater overall good, but unless I've misunderstood how the infinity stones work, with his power, he could do a simple good action for a greater overall good. Other than my little big problem, I think its a good film and holds together very well for such an epic coming together of so many characters. Though over 2 and a half hours, it speeds over an hardly stops for breathe. Well worth seeing, even if you've felt you've been bashed in the head too many times by the Marvel juggernaut.

A Quiet Place VERSUS Truth or Dare So let’s play a quiet game. Do you choose ‘A Quiet Place’ or ‘Truth or Dare’? Do you choose the film that earned its jumps scares, or the one that pumped up the volume whenever it wanted to make you jump? Do you choose the film that had a fairly original premise or the one with a clichéd narrative? Do you choose the film written and directed by Jim from The American Office, or the film written and directed by the guy that made the massive let down that was Kick Ass 2? A Quiet Place was a very, very good Twlight Zone-esque B-Movie that took a simple, easy to understand idea and took it as far as it could go. A family lives in a world where they can’t make noises over a whisper without creatures that sense their prey only through noise hunting them down. We are drawn into the quiet world and hold our breath when a character drops something by accident- this even in a cinema with a fairly talkative audience. Unlike the other film, A Quiet Place earned its occasional jump scare through plot alone. By this I mean that it didn’t have to turn the speakers up to eleven. In fact, it managed to achieve one jump scare by the simple shot of a babbling brook (not as scary as an A-Level exam on The Scarlet Letter though I promise you). On the other hand, Truth or Dare took a simple kids / drunken teenager game and turned it into a overly convoluted mess. The first third, to be fair, was set up quite well. Decent character building which then quickly turns onto the main plot. A group of teenagers play a game of truth or dare that soon turns deadly. But then the film lost hope in itself and gave up on its own simple rules. Starting making up its own rules to keep the plot going, and escalated far too quickly and without reason. I was expecting a bit more of over the top deaths associated with the Final Destination franchise but they were all quite bland really. Some horribly clichéd horror moments- I swear if I have to watch a character in the bathroom look down and then up at their own warped reflection in the mirror one more time I’ll have to choke myself in a bucket of Odeon’s overpriced, chewy popcorn! So if you like your horror movies, I urge you to go see A Quiet Place rather than Truth or Dare. Leave the latter for underage teenagers that snuck in so they can laugh away their terror or try touching that girl’s hand that they sit next to in maths.