Search Results

After 22 years we finally get the mission impossible film we all deserve! Mission impossible: fallout even made me not take a toilet break even though the run time was an excruciating 2 hours and 45 minutes. In all seriousness this had everything i was asking for in an action film, with fast paced car chases, jumping from buildings, Henry Cavill reloading his arms after being badly beaten up and Rebecca Furgerson being the coolest assassin sidekick. With Simon Pegg's character i would of loved a bit more humour but from start to finish it was a thrilling journey almost making you think the mission simply, wasn't possible. I advise you all go out and see this in cinema's as quickly as you can because it won't be as thrilling on your laptop or tv especially with the run time. I give this a very generous 5/5 stars purely because i don't think i've ever had this much fun with an action film since The dark knights or Mad Max: Fury Road.

A worthy sequel for the potty-mouthed red menace After suffering a personal tragedy and hitting rock bottom, Wade Wilson (Deadpool) finds himself seeking consolation at the X-Mansion where he's reunited with Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead. However, after a training mission goes badly wrong and spending time in the Icebox – a notorious mutant prison – Deadpool's priority changes. Deadpool sets about building a team of rogue mutants with the aim of rescuing Russell – a 14-year-old boy and fellow mutant – from the clutches of the brutal, time-traveling mutant known as, Cable. I had been concerned about Deadpool 2 after the news that director, Tim Miller had left the project over "creative differences" with the lead actor, Ryan Reynolds: stating he "didn't want to make some stylised movie that was 3 times the budget." I have to say, that is essentially what has happened, and something that made Deadpool the success that it was has been lost along the way. Deadpool 2 then, is another example of bigger not always being better. Fortunately, the film retains enough of its predecessor's charm, wit, and other unique qualities to get it through. The cast from the first film are back in full force: Ryan Reynolds reprises his role of Wade Wilson (Obviously - who else?) and T.J. Miller returns as Weasel, Wade's wise-cracking but cowardly friend. Fan favourites, Brianna Hildebrand and Stefan Kapicic return as Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Colossus respectively, along with a mixed bag of new mutants including the brilliant Zazie Beetz as Domino. Deadpool 2 is another strong outing for Josh Brolin in his second Marvel appearance of the year and – like Thanos before him – is able to create a truly three dimensional and sympathetic character in Cable. Overall, the cast is excellent, I enjoyed all the new characters and was thrilled to see Brianna and Stefan return. My only issue with the film (in regards to the cast at least) is that I'd like to have seen a good deal more from Brianna and Shioli Katsuna - who plays Yukio, a new addition to the cast and Negasonic's girlfriend. Negasonic was one of my favourite characters in Deadpool, but here, she never really gets involved, and Yukio's abilities are teased towards the end of the third act but never really explored sufficiently. The soundtrack and cinematography are adequate but nothing like as memorable as Deadpool and the action scenes are competently shot, although some of the larger set-pieces do suffer from the usual Marvel movie problem of looking over-manufactured. In contrast, the smaller fight scenes feel considerably more physical, concise, and enjoyable; something sorely missing from many recent Marvel releases. Verdict Whilst never quite reaching the same heights as its predecessor, Deadpool 2 retains its razor-sharp wit, deadpan humour, and proves itself a worthy sequel to one of my favourite 'superhero' movies of recent years. Deadpool 2 keeps up the tradition of its fourth wall breaking, self-referential humour and parodying of superhero genre cliches, even if it does fall into a few in the process. The cast is superb and – working off a splendid script – delivers their lines faultlessly. Where the film falters slightly is, firstly in the story, and secondly in trying to be bigger and louder than it needs to be. No-one goes to see a film like Deadpool 2 to watch something with an underlying, philosophical message about the importance of family. I'm sorry, but they just don't, and yet that's exactly what this film attempts. There's also a real fear for me that the Deadpool movies may be getting a bit too big for their boots, as they say. The first film was better for being less over the top and more modest in the scale of its set-piece action scenes. I fear that future films could soon become more corporate and lose more of what made them special; until they're just more of the same. For now at least, this will be another film to add to my collection and one I very much enjoyed seeing at the cinema. 8/10

Since early December 2017, you couldn’t escape the empowering anthem, This Is Me from the soundtrack to 2017’s, The Greatest Showman. From radio stations to supermarkets, the song was inescapable, as was other forms of marketing for the upcoming film release. And after initially passing it off as another desperate Oscar baiting film, I sat down at the start of 2018, and was immediately enthralled with the toe tapping songs and sublime cinematography, just like many fans of the film did. But that’s not to say this is the perfect film. If you’re looking for a 100% accurate retelling of P.T. Barnum’s (Hugh Jackman) life, you may not find this as enjoyable. Throughout the film, Barnum is often written in a way that doesn’t justify why he starts what many people of the time would call “a freak show”, but it instead gives you an insight into why Barnum sees this as a good idea. Lines like “they’re already laughing kid, might as well get paid for it” can makes sense to some people, and back then, it could’ve been seen as justification. We also have to appreciate that while doing something like this in 2018 would be morally wrong, back when Barnum started the circus, it was socially acceptable to go to a show like this, and laugh at the “oddities” on display. There’s also the two romantic subplots that didn’t really happen. There’s the added romantic tension between Barnum and Jenny Lind, (Rebecca Ferguson) which was the only narrative element that I didn’t care for. There wasn’t a big impact on the plot apart from one argument with Barnum’s wife, Charity. (Michelle Williams) It also felt like it was forced in for a contrived attempt at drama. The other romantic subplot between Zac Efron’s Phillip Carlyle, and Zendaya’s Anne Wheeler. This one had much better chemistry and tension between the fictional couple, primarily because of the prejudice of the time period. Efron and Zendaya create a real sense of restricted love, where the characters are desperate to be together, but feel restrained by the world around them. Highlights include their tender interaction at Lind’s opening night, and the big expression of their love, and the chains that hold them back during Rewrite The Stars. But forgetting all the historical inaccuracies for just a moment, the film still others a lot for the modern audience to enjoy. Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography is beautifully handled, with sharp and clear use of colour through each frame of the film. From the silhouettes of Barnum at the start, to the shots of yesteryear America, as Barnum and Charity start their lives together, each image comes alive with beautiful imagery. But it never takes away from the first class performances by the entire cast, with a particular highlight coming from Keala Settle as Lettie, (The Bearded Lady) who stole the show whenever she took the spotlight. She’ll make you laugh and cry at each perfect point. And when it comes to the songs, it’s some of the best examples of film songs in recent memory. With the minds behind City Of Stars from 2016’s La La Land responsible for all the lyrics this time, each song fills the listener with empowering messages and thrilling imagery, while bringing the film to life in a whole other way. Just like the opening to La La Land, many audience members will be won over by the end of the first song! So, is The Greatest Showman the most accurate telling of Barnum’s life, not by any stretch of the imagination, but if you can look past that, and be sucked into this interpretation of history, then many are bound to be enthralled with the show stopping tunes, fantastic performances across the board, and some stellar imagery. Having spoken to many viewers of the film, it’s done exactly that to them, with some saying they’ve felt the urge to join in the songs every-time they heard them. All I can say is, no wonder it did so well. Musical fans, you’ll love it! Historians… maybe look somewhere else. 4.5 Stars Out Of 5

(Glasgow Film Festival ● Select event time ● Here are a list of days and times at which this event will take place ● March Mon 07 Screening time 20:30 ● Tue 08 Screening time 15:00) https://glasgowfilm.org/glasgow-film-festival/shows/benedetta-nc-18-1 "Benedetta" In the late 17th century, with plague ravaging the land, Benedetta Carlini (Virginie Efira) joins the convent in Pescia, Tuscany, as a novice. Capable from an early age of performing miracles, Benedetta’s impact on life in the community is immediate and momentous. Benedetta is a 17th century woman who has acquired real power, both in her convent of 'Theatine' nuns and in her town of Pescia. Benedetta is famous as a saint and as abbess of the convent. She reaches positions of power through her talent, visions, manipulations, lies and creativity. Whatever the means, she manages it in a society and era totally dominated by men. Women counted for nothing, except male sexual gratification and reproduction. They held no positions of power. What does physical climax bring her? Benedetta has a strong belief in Jesus, and she's also looking for power. She's not all sweetness and altruism. She takes sexual pleasure without giving it. The issue of love intersects with that of faith. The film shows the conflict between faith, in the private sphere, and clergy, as a component of a system of power. The theme is an intrinsic part of Benedetta’s story. If you take a closer look at her case, she's clearly a fervent believer. Her visions of Jesus may have been authentic, while also being a means to obtaining what she wanted. Benedetta truly believe she's Jesus’s bride. Every time, she sees him as a shepherd guiding his flock, in keeping with the imagery of St. John’s Gospel. From the moment Bartolomea (Daphne Patakia) joins the convent, roughly sixty minutes of the film are devoted to the gradual crystallization of their lesbian love affair. After Bartolomea slips a finger into her lover’s behind for the first time, She sees Jesus, who tells her that she must resist Bartolomea and stay with him. At that point, Benedetta is still deferring to the religious orthodoxy of the time. She obeys Jesus and abides by the rules. She even punishes Bartolomea by forcing her to plunge her hands into boiling water in a demonstration of tough love. In the end, the erotic attraction is too strong. And then Benedetta has another vision, in which Jesus tells her that the previous apparitions were a false Jesus, an impostor. Benedetta’s visions take her in opposite directions depending on the circumstances! Later, another vision has Jesus ordering Benedetta to strip naked, saying there's no shame in it. Benedetta’s visions provide what she needs. She has her own private Jesus constantly at her side. Of course, that Jesus is a creation of her brain. It’s Benedetta’s psyche generating the visions, but she genuinely believes in them. Benedetta dreams up a Jesus who permits her to have sexual relations with Bartolomea. Benedetta is no saint, either. She reaches a point where she cannot bear dissent. There are also some very funny notes; when Felicita (Charlotte Rampling) asks Benedetta if Jesus gave her advice, she replies, 'No, he didn’t mention you!' It’s important not to forget that the film is funny. Bartolomea is direct and frank, tending toward how a modern young woman might express herself with regard to sexual desire. She was the victim of rapes within her family. In western Europe, notably in the Netherlands, where there are no longer very many believers, Bartolomea is most likely seen as more sympathetic. It's not the case in other parts of the world, where there are strong religious movements, such as the United States with it's evangelicals. People like them would probably empathize more with Benedetta than Bartolomea. It’s interesting to note that the evangelical concept goes back to the Middle Ages. The man as head of the family, the wife secondary and only there to satisfy the man. To see that concept in 2021 is very surprising. Moreover, that concerns every religion. Bartolomea and Benedetta use a statuette of the 'Virgin Mary' as a dildo. It’s more than an object, it perfectly encapsulates the conflict between Catholic taboos and sex, between body and mind, which is present throughout the movie. For Bartolomea, it's just an object. For Benedetta, the object is of high symbolic value, but she abandons that on her journey to love. There's a shot where Benedetta and Bartolomea are performing forbidden sex acts, while in the background, the statue of the Virgin Mary is illuminated by a candle. That shot sums it up; let’s ignore rules and taboos, let’s do what we want. In the book, Bartolomea is the main witness at Benedetta’s trial. She tells the inquisitors that she's abused by Benedetta, who forced her into sexual relations. That’s one of the major changes the film makes in comparison with the book. Bartolomea doesn’t seem to believe in Benedetta’s love. It’s like a disavowal for her, as if she were not loved enough. It’s difficult to shine a light on the person whose love is real, and the person whose love is not..Christina (Louise Chevilotte) is another interesting character. When she becomes aware of Benedetta’s manipulations, she denounces her because, for Christina, it's blasphemy. Soeur Felicita, the abbess, retorts, however, that Christina is blaspheming by refusing to believe Benedetta. Once more, who's right and who's wrong? Except that Christina was not there to see Benedetta’s manipulations. She's caught in her own trap, in her own lie, even though she's basically right. The religious authorities are happy to think of Benedetta as a medium, a prophetess, and it’s dangerous to go against the deep power doctrine of the Church. So, Christina is compelled to self-flagellate half-naked, and then she commits suicide. She cannot live with the shame. It all comes from her initial lie. To qualify that, Christina is the most realistic, the first to realize that Benedetta is inventing her visions and manipulating everyone around her. By lying, she digs her own grave, which is tragic. It also shows the reach of the deep power of the religious system. The abbess is very authoritarian, but she uses her power with discernment in the context of the times. Felicita is not a believer, except perhaps when death is approaching. She's a politician who respects extant power structures because it’s in her interest to do so. She denounces Benedetta in the end, but not out of religious conviction, rather for revenge after her daughter’s death. Benedetta drove Christina to suicide. Basically, none of these characters are completely sympathetic! But if you observe the behavior of present-day politicians, they’re not always very likable either. 'The Nuncio' (Lambert Wilson) is a dangerous, threatening character. After Christina’s suicide, there's no menace from within for Benedetta. 'The Nuncio' can be charming, unctuous, smiling. But he's still a man of power. The popular uprising is not in the book. To maintain the narrative tension, the Nuncio has to be intelligent and motivated by the desire to defeat Benedetta. The film is based on Judith C. Brown’s book, 'Immodest Acts: The Life Of A Lesbian Nun In Renaissance Italy'. Judith C. Brown stumbled across the story while researching another project in the archives in Florence. She opened up a box, and found the minutes of the trial of Benedetta, which took place in the early 17th century. She was impressed and intrigued. It’s a rare document. There are no other known trials of lesbians in the history of Christianity. In the original document, the clerk of the court is shocked by the sexual details described by Bartolomea, the nun who slept with Benedetta, that he could hardly write! He left blanks, scratched words out, rewrote them. Bartolomea is very explicit in her account of how they licked each other. The script is a superb balance between religion, sexuality and the Church’s political scheming. The film never says if Benedetta is a slightly deranged mystic or a manipulator, or both. Right to the end, the film maintains the uncertainty about her deepest nature. Two truths coexist, and the film does not say which is the real truth. You've to accept that some facts can be seen from two different perspectives. There's an assimilation to Arnold Schwarzenegger's dream about reality in "Total Recall". You see a good example of those dual realities later in the movie, when the plague hits; Benedetta tells the crowd in Pescia that Jesus will protect them, then she orders a soldier to shut the city gates, instituting a sort of lockdown! It once more shows her dual nature as a believer and politician. The Church does not prohibit sexual relations, except for members of the clergy. We humans are, fundamentally, animals, right? We've a body and instincts. Benedetta does not resist the call of the flesh, but why would she resist it? Science tells the truth, legends tell stories. That’s how we see it. The film shows what religion prohibits, especially with regard to sex. The hypocrisy and corruption is at the heart of the religious authorities. It's a film about freedom that's very relevant to the times we live in. Not all mystics believed in Jesus as a means to obtaining positions of power, but mysticism is often the only way for a woman to climb the social ladder. The issue of blasphemy is also shifting, ambivalent, with the accusation bandied about between characters. Yes, blasphemy works both ways. Religion forbids things, as if it's possible to lock away impulses, desire, urges and the unconscious in a little box. Except it doesn’t work like that. It’s important not to reduce the dildo to an immature prank, the desire to shock. History advances and evolves over the centuries, but it's always subjected to contradictory currents and the advances of civilization. You think that freedom has been won, but no, we get the feeling that a period movie always resonates with the present. We should be happy that in the partisan times we are living in, this film blurs boundaries, with mystery. And it's a film of powerful cinematic convictions. Written by Gregory Mann

The phrase “refusing to refuse to look” comes from a study done by Brigid Cherry in 1999 that debunks a theory put forward by Linda Williams in the ‘70s that says that women refuse to look at the screen because of the horrific sight that horror movies provide. Williams wasn’t completely wrong when she said women didn’t like looking at their own victimisation and over sexualisation on screen, but that doesn’t mean that we need “to hide in our boyfriends’ shoulders” – as she claimed -, or that we can’t stand to look at gore and violence. The horror genre has always been controversial, and its duality comes from the fact that horror texts can be used in different ways. Whilst in the ‘70s and ‘80s horror was used to secure traditional roles within society and to warn teenagers of the dangers of sex and drugs, by killing off those characters who would indulge in one of those two, by a machete, a hook, a butcher knife, a trident, whatever was the killer’s weapon of choice; now, the horror genre is being used (once more) to shine a light on social issues, such as racism, mental health, and sexual freedom. To confuse a bit further, the role of women in horror presents an even more problematic perspective. Again, during the ‘70s and ‘80s female characters were represented as one dimensional characters that had to endure rape in never-ending scenes (I Spit on Your Grave, I’m talking to you) and overly horrific and unnecessarily nude death scenes, but now they are finally gaining their due respect. In the last years, the horror genre has become the only genre to treat women and men as equals – the amount of horror films with a female leading character is superior to any other genre. Women went from victims to survivors to protagonists and one of the main reasons for that evolution might be because of the chunk of attention given to the genre. With the rise of feminism and sexual revolution in the ‘70s, women started to look at films and look at the way they were being represented in the narratives, and thus the Feminist Film Studies was created, aimed solely in studying the place of women in films, both behind and in front of the camera. And due to the strong attention given to horror genre by academics, it didn’t take long for the genre to gain focus by the feminist film theorists. Feminist Film Studies was divided in two main paths – those films that were analysed by a feminist lens, and those that were made by women. With the attention centred in the role of female characters on screen, theorists begun to realise that the female characters weren’t really that important for the narrative as they didn’t drive the storyline forwards, instead they followed the male character who in turn, was the one to give meaning to the story. Female characters had one purpose: to be looked at. They were prizes for the male hero, they were the dames in distress who waited for her rescuer, and they were the ones who needed to be straightened (literally) after being corrupted by the lesbian vampire. Even the death scenes were different amongst female and male characters – the male characters would usually die with one blow or their death would occur off screen, whereas the female characters would have a longer death scene, with multiple stabbings, often in their naked and bloody bodies. With the conception of the Final Girl, the role of the female character started to gain recognition, and because the Final Girl would be the one in the end to resist all of the killer’s attempts in killing her, it became understood that she was strong and resourceful. But then the duality strikes again and the idea that the Final Girl reinforced the concept of “good girl lives, bad girl dies” was put forward. By analysing the reasons behind the survival of the Final Girl – the only one who didn’t have sex or didn’t use drugs – and how she survived – after a lot of screaming and the help of a male rescuer – the idea of the Final Girl became, like everything in the horror genre, hazy. Nevertheless, the recognition of the Final Girl’s recurring trope in horror films is important to understand the history of female characters in horror films, and with time, it helped to turn the genre on its head, by reappropriating the term as a feminist one. Scream was one of the first films to subvert horror tropes and create strong female characters that, above all, are human - three dimensional and flawed. The female characters in Scream are different in every sense: there’s the Final Girl who is strong and fights with the killer, many times killing them (becoming a slasher film to give the importance to its characters who survive each instalment, instead of having always the same killer and different victims); there’s the fame-seeking Journalist; the killers, the best friend, the sexy one, the nerd, but whichever their characteristic is they are never there for the sole purpose of being killed. They matter – they are lovable in their own screwed up way, they are defiant, which means that even though they die, it is not without a fight. After Scream, horror films have been challenging and changing themselves, but more recently, a film that shuts down the “sex=death” trope is It Follows that, with a female protagonist, provides a simple answer to survival: to have sex with as many people as possible. As important as it is to have the role of the female characters evolved, the growing presence of women behind the camera is helping to shape the genre. Women are writing themselves and they are creating believable characters, lovable and hated ones. They are showing that there isn’t one way to portray women because there isn’t one WOMAN, there are multiple identities and each needs to be recognised in cinema. Female filmmakers have long complained about the lack of role model for girls in horror films, throughout the years women have been silenced in film but now they are shattering the walls they were put into and breaking them alongside box office records (within and outside the horror genre). But the amazing thing about horror is that it allows filmmakers to create the unimaginable, and with that freedom comes endless possibilities for female characters. Women filmmakers are creating stories that are well known to girls, they are writing their own fears and giving a voice to expose the dangers of patriarchy and oppression, and they are also breaking taboos generally associated with girls, such as violence, pregnancy, open sexuality and professional/personal agency. To valid these advances, the films are being praised by critics and audiences, they are winning awards and ranking in “top films” lists. This is not a surprise because women have been fans of the genre since its beginning, and they are horror enthusiasts, thus they are familiar with the tropes of the genre. And therefore, by knowing what works and what doesn’t and by re-evaluating their place in the genre, they are able to create relevant films. In addition to the filmmakers and the characters, the fans should get their own appreciation since because of them and their hunger for new stories, festivals aimed at women filmmakers, as well as a whole month focused on women in horror are being created and allowing filmmakers to grow and explore more and more. A list of (some) filmmakers who have ventured or are venturing in the horror genre, and deserve recognition: Julia Ducournau, Kerry Anne Mullaney, Tara Subkoff, Ana Lily Amirpour, Doris Wishman, Jen and Sylvia Soska, Mary Harron, Katie Aselton, Jennifer Lynch, Kimberly Pierce, Sarah Adina Smith, Alice Lowe, Leigh Janiak, Karyn, Xan Cassavetes, Lynne Stopkewich, Stewart Thorndike, Marina Sargenti, Jennifer Kent, Kathryn Bigelow, Mary Lambert, Jovanka Vuckovic, Laura Lau, Amy Holden Jones, Claire Denis, Ursula Dabrowsky, Ann Turner, Tracey Moffatt, Donna McRae, Elisabeth Fies, Emily DiPrimio, Danielle Harris, Jackie Kong, Emily Hagins, Ingrid Jungermann, Anna Biller, Axelle Carolyn, Ruth Platt, Kate Shenton, Rachel Talalay, Shimako Satō, Stephanie Rothman, Katt Shea, St. Vincent, and Roxanne Benjamin.

(Curzon Home Cinema, Available 24 September) "Gagarine" Youri (Alséni Bathily), 16, has lived all his life in 'Gagarine Cité', a vast red brick housing project on the outskirts of 'Paris'. From the heights of his apartment, he dreams of becoming an astronaut. But the plans to demolish his community’s home are leaked, Youri joins the resistance. With his friends Diana (Lyna Khoudri) and Houssam (Jamil McCraven), he embarks on a mission to save 'Gagarine', transforming the estate into his own starship; before it disappears into space forever. The huge, red-brick 'Cité Gagarine' housing project, boasting 370 apartments, was built in the early sixties in 'Ivry-sur-Seine', one of the communist municipalities that formed a red belt around 'Paris'. At the time, highrise buildings were shooting up in order to clear the slums on the outskirts of 'The French Capital'. In June 1963, Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, came to inaugurate 'The Cité' that bore his name. Within decades, however, these collective utopias had become neighborhoods that were often stigmatized and slated for sweeping urban renovation. In 2014, the decision was made to demolish 'Cité Gagarine'. The inhabitants were gradually rehoused, leaving 'Cité Gagarine' as an empty shell. The families left, taking their stories of lives of toil, migration, hope and disappointment with them. On August 31, 2019, the demolition machines moved in, watched by the former inhabitants. The film was shot on the cusp of the actual demolition of 'The Cité Gagarine' housing project in collaboration with it's residents in 'Ivry-sur-Seine'. One day Yuri Gagarin came to inaugurate the project in the sixties. A completely surrealist scene, with the first man in space returning from his mission and winding up in a housing project on the outskirts of Paris. You see the new inhabitants eyes, their outsize hopes of this place and this man. The cosmonaut and the building are symbols of hope and progress. That footage opens the film. The film.wants Youri to be impregnated by that, steeped in that heroic past, so that his space dream is born out of his home. Symbolically, the building is his mother’s belly, which he refuses to leave. It feels like there are two main characters in the film; a teenager and a building. Youri, the teen, and 'Gagarine', the building, are in a non-stop dialogue with one another. His parents Gérard (Denis Lavant) and Marie (Meta Mutela) moving into the housing project before his birth. Youri was raised there and developed an imagination the equal of the massive highrise. The prospect of it's disappearance means, for him, the death of his childhood memories and dreams. It also means losing his beloved community. The film gives a positive vision of a place and generation that are often caricatured. Youri loves his neighborhood. For him, 'Gagarine Cité' is not an outdated utopia, it’s his present, and the soil of his future. Leaving means losing everything: abandoning his family and his imaginary world. So he takes up resistance to alter the perception of the place and people, it’s as if you chose duality. Everything about Youri has another side, loner but always connected to people, attached to the past, but steeped in hyper-modernity. Youri is balanced. Roots in the housing project, but head in the stars, constantly navigating between dream and reality, between the place’s past and present. Like when a love affair comes to an end, as the prospect of demolition loomed ahead, there's a spurt of activity throughout the project. The film witnesses the inhabitants unfurling their wings. We discover a deep-rooted sense of community that the film infuses into the protagonist. It’s Youri’s family, it’s Houssam, his best friend, it’s Fari (Farida Rahouadj), a neighborhood activist who looks out for tenants around her, and it’s lots of people from one window to the next, who are connected, and whose lives echo up to Youri on the roof through the chimneys. He's full of very restrained love for them. What Youri is experiencing is tough. He symbolizes excluded youth, hurt by that abandonment, and withdrawing in on itself. Part of Youri’s struggle with growing up comes from his circumstances sapping his confidence. Youri sees his home as a spaceship. It's not.too sterile or clinical, but alive, grimy, and organic, because Youri builds the capsule with found objects. He goes through deserted apartments, collecting things the tenants left behind, anything that might come in handy. Each object is repurposed to become part of the capsule. It’s riffing on this idea of Youri walking a high wire between celestial bum and astronaut. Once again, life informed art. Despite the building’s scheduled demise, he tries to keep it alive at all costs. When he gives up, other forms of life step up. In the capsule, there are all kinds of plants. The vegetable world takes over. Through them, the visual and aural universe evolves into something more aquatic. A lot of noise disappears, replaced by sounds that are transformed, becoming increasingly strange until they disappear. Sound does not travel in space. The idea is to follow a trajectory that starts with roiling reality and moves toward silence. Telling a story of life up to the ultimate moment of Youri’s ejection from his building into the cosmos. There, in the vacuum, there's no sound. Symbolically, a journey in sound from life to death. Youri is a loner but not alone. Women play an important role in the film, and a very different role than the one usually accorded them. Through them, Youri accesses technology. The example of Diana springs to mind. Like Youri, Diana wants to understand how things work. That guides her. Compared to him, however, she has a very practical and concrete vision of things. She’s a mechanic. She can fix anything. The character of Diana comes out of something that struck us very forcefully. At the foot of 'The Gagarine Tower' blocks, there are Roma camps stretching out. Vertical and horizontal planes that never intersected. There are no points of crossover between those two worlds. The film witnesses an encounter between two people from those two places. Two characters rejected by society, who nonetheless affirm themselves by fabricating their own world and their own tools. 'Gagarine Cité' has now been demolished. It exists only in the film. The film is also a tool of remembrance, bearing witness to the architectural vision of the period, and above all to the people who brought the place alive. They're everywhere in the film, in visual and sound archives, on screen and behind the camera. The film shows that the building is important but in the end what’s left is the people. Their relationship to the place endures whatever happens. That’s what the film.captures and convey. Holding out a mirror that reflects the beauty and complexity of those lives. Politically, it’s urgent to revisit how people see this bountiful and diverse younger generation, which is often portrayed with negative images, as having no future. Those clichés do a lot of damage. They must be torn down! Grandparents, their children and grandchildren; three generations and multiple views on life and a single location. When you demolish a place, you destroy family histories. Magical realism is everywhere in France. The tempo of the directing is driven by that balance between realism and oneirism. The magical dimension allows the film to approach reality and it's violence from another angle. Introducing a form of magical realism facilitated the creation of a back-and-forth between the real and the imaginary, and navigation between the collapse of the character and the building and zero-gravity. We believe in the power of images to sway people’s visions of themselves. It’s what opens up imaginations.

Director: Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein (Contains mild spoilers) If you take into account the reviews on Rotten Tomato (32%), Empire (2/5), Metacritic (47%), IMDB (5.0/10) and many others, it would be fair to say that this film has not set the world on fire. It probably hasn’t even lit a match. But with all these reviews annihilating Amy Schumer’s I Feel Pretty, is it remotely possible that there is someone out there who has enjoyed watching this comedy? Is it possible that these reviews have got it all wrong? The Good: The Storyline/Themes and Ideas - I Feel Pretty follows Renee Bennet (Amy Schumer) being constantly mistreated or looked down upon from others due to her ‘plus-size’ body shape. Due to this, her confidence is at an all time low and so registers for a Spin Cycle Class in the hope to build up her self-esteem. During the class, she violently falls on her head, and once awakened she eventually sees herself in the mirror and sees herself as beautiful, not even recognising her own skin even though she looks exactly the same to those around her (and us the audience). The film explores the ideas of insecurities (both female and male), self-esteem and self-confidence, and the idea that beauty does not always mean automatic happiness which is represented by the character Mallory (Emily Ratajkowsky), a fellow Spin Class participant whose gorgeous looks makes Renee feel superfluous, but in the later stages we find out that Mallory herself has insecurities and problems of her own. The film also asks the question about where the line is between being confident and being arrogant. After miraculously gaining confidence, Renee’s life starts getting better. She gets a new job, she gets a new boyfriend, Ethan (played by Rory Scovel), and eventually gets a role as Vice President at the cosmetics company she receptions for. But Renee starts treating her friends and others the way that she was badly treated at the start of the film and is quickly ignored and phased out by them. So in the end, Renee questions who she really is and has a revelation that self confidence has always been inside us and that confidence is about being comfortable in our own skin rather than trying to mimic what society believes beauty is. I Feel Pretty has reminisce of What Women Want, Shallow Hal, and Big (which the film references), but still manages to stay fresh and relevant in today’s current political climate. The Laughs: Regardless of what many reviews say, this film made me smile and laugh. Once Renee believes that her body has miraculously changed for the better, a whole load of misunderstandings take place setting up many comedic situations. In particular, the laundry scene where Ethan asks what her number in the queue is, Renee genuinely believes that he is asking for her phone number and gives it to him. Also the bikini contest scene, where Amy Schumer pulls out all the stops to show off her curvaceous body in a short denim shorts and front tied shirt were hilarious (albeit being slightly cringing). The Bad: Amy Schumer: She wasn’t terrible, and it is clear that Schumer gave it her all. But she portrayed the new, highly-confident Renee in such an exaggerated, over-the-top way that it seemed a little contrived compared to the former self. If she just reined her performance in just a little bit, then the protagonist may well have been a little less annoying and a little bit more enjoyable to watch. Other characters: I wanted to see more screen time with Aidy Bryant, Busy Philipps, Michelle Williams and Tom Hopper. I enjoyed all their performances, but their characters could have added more comedic moments and a bit more substance to the storyline. My biggest criticism is Grant, played by Tom Hopper, whose role confused me a lot. The film seemed to have set up Grant as being the ‘bad guy’. He constantly goaded his sister Avery (Michelle Williams), he seemed to turn up in places where he wasn’t meant to be (on Avery’s airplane, in Renee’s hotel room) and so gave us a suspicion that he was inconspicuously up to something. But in the end the only role he played was to unsuccessfully tempt Renee in having a romantic fling and so was neither really liked nor disliked. More Oomph to the Storyline: The resolution to climatic problems Renee faced towards the end seemed to have concluded quite quickly. In comparison to Amy Schumer’s Trainwreck, where her character is almost in the same predicament, the resolution took its time to resolve Schumer’s anxieties and family and love issues. By doing so, we truly sympathise with her and understand her doubts and misery. In I Feel Pretty, she wins back her friends so quickly that there was really no emotional impact to her downfalls and sufferings. Also, when Renee did become a ‘bitch’, (she completely mistreated an older lady who turned up at her work and humiliated her friends in front of their dates) she was only one for about five minutes, so again, like Tom Hopper’s character, we neither really disliked her at any point which I think the film wanted us to do. The Verdict In all honesty, the film really wasn’t as bad as some reviews portray it to be. Yes, the storyline is so predictable, but some films are not always there to be groundbreaking. Should you spend your money and go see it in the cinema? Probably not. But if you do come across it, you should be pleasantly surprised on how entertaining it is and unlike most rom-coms it is unique in that the storyline and underlining themes is saying something that is actually worth hearing. Rating: 6/10

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

Upgrade is a science-fiction movie which follows Grey Trace, a man who becomes paralyzed and has been implanted with an experimental technology which allows a hyper-intelligent AI to control his body. It explores the dangers of technological advancement as well as the more interpersonal, emotional facets of grief, revenge, and power. When you're writing about technology and AI, there's an extremely thin line between refreshing and cheap. UPGRADE is that line. It has wobbles on either side, but it mostly traverses a wonderfully stylistic if unoriginal narrative that is elevated by the stellar craftsmanship at hand here. The writing, for the most part, I was very okay with. The story is convincing, bouncing off all-too familiar plot beats to set up the delicious blend of technological thriller and body horror revenge movie. The two genres bounce off each other very well, providing some fresh insights on a somewhat worn out concept of futuristic technology with some nice balancing between tones. Leigh Whannell keeps everything moving very quickly, the pacing extremely fitting for a movie like this. The direction is solid throughout, the action pieces hyper-stylistic with works beautifully with the premise. The duality of Grey's initial hesitation with STEM's monotonous, danger presence is played out very well in these moments, particularly during the first big action sequence. I'm certainly looking forward to whatever Whannell chooses to tackle next. The performances are all efficient, from what should be Logan Marshall-Green's star-making performance. He shows a variety of range with this turn, with shades of Tom Hardy popping in and out throughout, at least that was the vibe that I got from it. The supporting players do their jobs well, but special mention must be given to Simon Maiden as the voice of STEM. Playing off the infamous HAL in every way but without directly impersonating him, Maiden provides a gentle, delicate baseboard for a quietly lurking presence with serves the film very well in its later acts. Some of the dialogue I had an issue with, basically everything that the character of Fisk says in this entire movie is weak and doesn't do a lot to ameliorate his already lacking characterisation. I wish it had gone through another edit because it stood out like a sore thumb. It's a shame because the rest of the writing was really quite engaging. I also didn't care for how the third act plays out - I really liked the tone of the ending, but the 10 minutes before that provide absolutely no pay off and I would have liked to have seen something different done to set up the ending in a less expository way. But those are minor gripes in something I very much enjoyed!

(Release Info London schedule; November 24th, 2018, Curzon Soho, 11:00) "Disobedience" A woman returns to her 'Orthodox Jewish Community' after the death of her rabbi father and stirs up controversy when she shows an interest in an old childhood friend. In a 'Jewish Orthodox Synagogue' in Hendon, the frail Rav Krushka (Anton Lesser) collapses whilst giving a sermon. As funeral rites commence in London, the Rabbi’s exiled daughter Ronit (Rachel Weisz) is living her life as a photographer in Manhattan. During a photo shoot she's told by 'The Brooklyn Synagogue' of her father’s death; wounded by the news and in a vulnerable state, she gets drunk in a local bar and sleeps with an undetermined man. Ronit flies home to London where she feels out of place in 'The Orthodox Jewish Community' she left behind. She's greeted at the home of Dovid Kuperman (Alessandro Nivola), a son figure to the Rav, who's taken aback by the unexpected return of his childhood friend. Her welcome inside the home is hostile from those in the community gathering in the Rav’s honour. Her aunt Fruma Hartog (Bernice Stegers) greets her more openly, though the air is frosty between Ronit and her uncle Moshe (Allan Corduner). Ronit is both upset and angry that she was not informed of her father’s illness and that her father’s obituary claims he was childless. Despite tension surrounding Ronit’s sudden departure in the past, Dovid invites her to stay with him and his wife. Ronit is shocked to discover that he's married to their former best friend Esti (Rachel McAdams), now a teacher at an Orthodox girl's school. It's uncomfortable between the two women; a complicated past is clearly hanging over them. The next day Ronit visits her father’s grave. After further prayers at their home, Dovid, Esti and Ronit go to a dinner at the Hartog house with Rabbi Goldfarb (Nicholas Woodeson). Ronit tries to talk to her Uncle about selling her father’s house, but he tells her now is not the right time for such a topic. Conversation turns to Ronit’s successful career as a photographer and Goldfarb's daughter Rebbetzin (Liza Sadovy) questions why she goes by Ronnie Curtis (Adam Lazarus) after seeing one of her photos in a magazine. Esti, quietly joining in the conversation, states that women change their names all the time when they get married and lose their own history. Everyone is silently shocked at Esti’s controversial comment. Rebbetzin continues questioning Ronit’s life in New York and asks why she's still not married, as it’s the way it should be for a woman. Ronit disagrees, calling marriage an institutional obligation and if she had stayed in the community and been married off, she would have killed herself. Everyone is shocked by her outburst and Ronit, blaming her jet lag, excuses herself to go home. Dovid, upon Esti’s request, leaves to walk her home. Ronit breaks down to Dovid, hoping her father knew she truly loved him. Dovid, struggling against the rules of his religion, tries to comfort his childhood friend without touching her. Ronit visits her uncle Hartog at his wigmaker’s shop to continue the discussion of selling her father’s house, but is informed by Hartog that the Rav left the house and all its contents to 'The Synagogue'. She leaves and soon runs into Esti outside a supermarket. They visit the Rav’s house together, a rundown mess full of medical equipment, it is not so much the house that Ronit wanted, but for her father to acknowledge her in his will. Esti admits that she does not want Ronit to leave again; past feelings are reignited and they kiss, at first timidly as Ronit pulls back, and then passionately. Ronit retreats once more, confused about her feelings. They leave the house and Esti confesses that she had called 'The Brooklyn Synagogue' to let Ronit know of her father’s death. She tells Ronit that she married Dovid, a man she doesn’t love romantically but respects, as she was mentally unwell following Ronit’s sudden departure and married their best friend upon the Rav’s suggestion. As they relax into each other’s company and kiss again, they're interrupted by Hinda (Clara Francis) and husband Lev (Mark Stobbart) and are unsure how much they saw. Esti rushes home, tense; she almost embraces Dovid but their marriage still lacks the passion she has with Ronit. At school, Esti is summoned to see the headmistress Mrs. Shapiro (Caroline Gruber) where Hinda and Lev are waiting to confront her. Allegations about Esti and Ronit also plague Dovid when he's asked by 'The Synagogue' to take on the Rav’s work. Ronit waits for Esti at the school gates, where Esti tells her about the formal complaint Hinda and Lev have submitted against her. Upon Ronit’s suggestion, they escape the close knit community and head into central London for the day. Ronit and Esti continue to be conflicted in their attraction to one other; Esti feels guilty and is trying to lead a good life in line with her faith, but cannot help but desire her former lover. They go to a hotel where they make love, completely at ease and euphoric in each other’s company. They talk about how Ronit’s father first learnt of their relationship all those years ago. Esti returns home late at night, where Dovid is waiting in their bedroom. He tries to get close to her but his yearning to be intimate with his wife is rebuked once again by a confused Esti. Nauseous the next day, Esti begins to wonder if she's pregnant. Dovid confronts Esti about Mrs Shapiro’s accusations and she admits what happened between them. Dovid’s anger almost turns violent as he releases his frustration at his wife’s inability to embrace their life together. Ronit, having overheard the argument, tries to persuade Esti to leave her husband, but Esti struggles to come to a decision. They both try to convince each other, and themselves, they're happy in their lives. Unable to cope with the current events, Dovid seeks refuge in a quiet Synagogue library. The atmosphere is tense when he returns home for dinner with Ronit and Esti. When Ronit announces that she has booked a flight back to New York that night, Dovid seems relieved and quietly asked his wife what she plans on doing now. Ronit and Esti share a difficult goodbye, both unable to share their true feelings. Esti accuses Ronit of taking the easy option by leaving, Ronit storms out the house and Esti slams the door behind her; both heartbroken at the recent events. In the middle of the night, Esti leaves the house and returns to the hotel room with a pregnancy test. Waking up at the airport the next morning, Ronit receives a panicked phone call from Dovid saying Esti is missing. After trying to calm him down, she continues to check into her flight, but later decides to leave and help Dovid in the search for her. Returning home after failing in their search for Esti, Ronit is still angry that Dovid didn’t tell her of her father’s illness. Esti returns from hiding and, having heard everything, announces her pregnancy. Dovid is joyous, believing a child will solve all their marital problems, but Esti instead asks for freedom for her and her child. She was born into the community and wants to give her child the freedom of choice she never had. Dovid is speechless and Esti feels guilty for crushing her husband’s dreams of becoming a father. Ronit and Esti attend the Hesped at the Synagogue, intimidated by the judgemental looks they receive. Esti tries to make peace with Dovid, but he ignores her. Moved by the temple’s sacred atmosphere, Ronit asks Esti to be with her in New York. They clutch hands as Dovid takes to the podium, where he struggles to deliver the official speech on the Rav’s passing. Seeing Ronit in the crowd, he instead contemplates the notion of freedom and choice, a topic that the Rav spoke about in his final sermon, and grants Esti the autonomy she has requested. Dovid declines 'The Synagogue' position and abruptly leaves the Hesped. Outside, overcome with emotion Esti and Dovid hug. Ronit watches on in the distance until Dovid extends an arm and the three friends have a long heartfelt hug together. Next morning, Ronit prepares to leave for the airport. She bids a quiet farewell to Dovid outside his bedroom and goes to see Esti, who has slept on the sofa. They say goodbye; it seems Esti has decided against joining Ronit in New York. As Ronit’s taxi pulls away down the street, Esti runs after her and the pair share a long goodbye kiss, promising to remain in contact. An emotional Ronit visits her father’s grave one last time and takes a photo, achieving a sense of closure over his passing and the recent events. Ronit is this modern, free spirited woman who has run away from her origins. Esti has stayed in the community but has run away from her true self. By letting Ronit know of her father’s death, Esti not only allows Ronit the opportunity to reconnect with her origins, but also calls her own destiny; knowing this is her last chance to be set free. And there's this other important element of Dovid, the Rav’s spiritual son and natural successor. The days of mourning allow all these passions and repressed feelings to come out and a new order is established. During the years, Esti has become a master in disguise, hiding behind wigs and manners. But deep inside she’s a desperate woman trying to reconnect with who she's. Even though Esti is navigating through a lot of complex situations, there's something very stable about her that allows the character to be strong and fragile at the same time Ronit and Esti are the same person divided in two. One escaped and became free, the other stayed and embraced the religion; but both paid a big price. Ronit is living with her guilt that she has erased her father from her own life after he disowned her. When she left, she chose not get in contact with him. There's this regret of being too late to forgive each other. To find forgiveness and peace with a parent before they die is incredibly important to carry on with your life. A part of her story is about how you can leave where you’re from, but you can’t really leave it behind; you carry it with you wherever you go. You think you're free living your life, but you need to find closure on certain things. For Ronit not to be contacted about her father’s illness, she’s denied closure to come and say goodbye which is very painful. Ronit questioned the religious laws; her free liberal thinking is immensely dangerous to the tiny closed community. There are so many rules and laws and Ronit questioned them hard and was seen as a rebel and anti-authoritarian as a result. It's a love story between all three of them and how their relationships evolve and their lives are affected by these days of grief. Esti is a gay woman who's in a loving heterosexual marriage. In her religion, homosexuality is considered a sin, but she believes in god so she’s trying to do the right thing by her marriage. She's in a lot of psychological pain because of this decision and Ronit’s return releases all her desire to be free. At the same time, she doesn’t view her life as a prison because she loves Dovid as a dear friend. Dovid is an innately conservative and spiritual man, who was Ronit’s father’s favourite student. Growing up, Ronit was jealous of their relationship because they could sit around talking about Judaism for hours, which didn’t appeal to Ronit. So there’s always been a bit of sibling rivalry between the two of them, but Dovid is a decent, morally good man. Even though the community is warning him about the trouble Ronit could bring, he knows she is mourning her father and should be involved. When his decency is tested in a very serious way, he discovers an existential spirituality outside any given doctrine, and Alessandro has really tapped into that and the sense of righteousness that you need play a Rabbi. At a young age, Dovid's father saw a quality and a connection with god in Dovid which could help bind the community together in a way that he had, so he became his pupil. Dovid’s adolescence would have been spent with this man, which is how he came to be so close to Ronit and her best friend Esti, who he might not have known otherwise because young men and women are kept quite separate in 'The Orthodox World'. After Ronit left, he became adopted by him as his only child so the situation is difficult for everyone. The man was essentially his father. His death at the beginning of the script really sparks of this confusing situation where she comes back to mourn him and there mourning him like a father. Dovid represents someone who has committed his life to his religion in a very intense and profound way, and has to reconcile those beliefs against his sense of goodness and his love for the people he's closest too. It really explored that dilemma for him in a detailed, complex and beautiful way. Dovid and Esti have a loving relationship built on deep friendship and full of respect. When Ronit left so suddenly, Esti was destroyed and Dovid was there to pick her up, so she’s very grateful to him for saving her life in some ways, but she might still be with him out of certain obligation and gratitude. She's living a life she thinks is good enough by ignoring her sexuality and making the choice to be with Dovid. Esti is a real believer in Judaism and being a good Jewish wife and member of the community, it’s a belief that lives deep inside her. So to have her sexuality deemed not acceptable in her community creates an inner struggle for her. For the most part, she believes she's happy but doesn’t realise she’s cut off this major part of herself. It’s difficult for Esti to have Ronit return and not be able to openly comfort her, she's very self conscious about how she acts and respectful of Dovid as they are the pillars of the community. She also feels the real sting that she left, not just her but Dovid as well. They're a great group of friends that only had each other and when Ronit left, it was a real betrayal to both of them. But somewhere deep inside, Esti knew that things needed to change, which is why she gets the message to Ronit that her father has passed; her return is the catalyst for Esti to revaluate her choices. This film is based on Naomi Alderman’s 2006 novel ‘Disobedience’. What really grabs about the novel is the theme of transgression in the modern world where there's almost nothing taboo anymore. The term disobedience means very little unless you find the right community to set it in, like the small 'Orthodox Jewish Community' in North London. If you find a story of transgression within an ordered old fashioned society, you've a great universal drama that anyone can relate to. What responds most in the film is how utterly human these characters are with all their flaws and self-doubt; their forgiveness and their disobedience. We all have a fear of family, as well as a love, and we want to honour the complexity of love and loss in her book. "Disobedience" is a drama of love and the fight for acceptance against the confines of the regimented 'Orthodox Community' in North London. We’re going through a war in which only certain relationships are considered legitimate and who draws the line where and with which authority. This is a story about characters that are willing to change and evolve, but to do so they've to go through very rigid structures and that confrontation resonates with what we’re going through nowadays as a human society all over the world. The 'Jewish Orthodox' background is of course very important but what’s really going on in the film, in a certain way transcends that particular cultural specificity. The heart of the story is very universal. These are people who are full of passion and affection for each other. Sometimes 'The Orthodox' is perceived like a hostile community, ruthless in it's judgement of the outside world. Life is always presenting you with situations that aren’t easily resolved. So ideally people will walk away without easy answers; the best stories are the ones that aren’t packed. Hopefully people will walk away having had their opinions and preconceptions about certain life challenged. The film explores the theme of personal freedom and what it means to follow your own path, it's a story that has an incredible amount of hope in it. "Disobedience" is a very intense journey. The characters are going through a certain turmoil that defines the film and makes it oscillate between different tones. The story explores the whole emotional spectrum of Ronit, Esti and Dovid. They feel very real, very close. You feel like you're sitting at the dining tables and lying in those beds with the characters; Even though we might not know much about the very secretive world of 'London Jewish Orthodoxy', the film generates a very intimate, strangely familiar feeling. It's a story about confused human beings interacting and trying to do the best they can against a background of fixed conceptions. This is a story about characters that are willing to change and evolve, but to do so they've to go through very rigid structures and that confrontation resonates with what we’re going through nowadays as a human society all over the world, where the old paradigms seem to be either obsolete or insufficient.

"On Chesil Beach" It's summer 1962, and England is still a year away from huge social changes; 'Beatlemania', 'The Sexual Revolution' and 'The Swinging Sixties'. We first encounter Florence Ponting (Saoirse Ronan) and Edward Mayhew (Billy Howle), a young couple in their early 20s, on the day of their marriage. Now on their honeymoon, they're dining in their room at a stuffy, sedate hotel near 'Chesil Beach'. Their conversation becomes more tense and awkward, as the prospect of consummating their marriage approaches. Finally, an argument breaks out between them. Florence storms from the room and out of the hotel, Edward pursues her, and their row continues on 'Chesil Beach'. From a series of flashbacks, we learn about the differences between them, their attitudes, temperaments and their drastically different backgrounds, as well as watch them falling deeply in love. Out on the beach on their fateful wedding day, one of them makes a major decision that will utterly change both of their lives forever. "On Chesil Beach" is a powerful, insightful drama about two people, both defined by their upbringing, bound by the social mores of another era. "On Chesil Beach" is a gripping, heart-rending account of a loving relationship battered by outside forces and influences first formed in childhood, in a society with strict, inflexible rules about uniformity and respectability. Florence was born into a prosperous, conservative family in a neat, organised home presided over by her overbearing father Geoffrey (Samuel West), a successful businessman. Edward comes from a contrasting background. His father Lionel (Adrian Scarborough) is a teacher, while his art expert mother Marjorie (Anne-Marie Duff) is brain-damaged after an awful accident; their home is informal somewhat chaotic and closer to nature. Florence is a talented, ambitious violinist with a string quartet; Edward has graduated from 'UCL' with a History degree and aims to become an author. They married as virgins; two very different people, but deeply in love. Only hours after their wedding they find themselves at their dull, formal honeymoon hotel on 'The Dorset Coast' at 'Chesil Beach'. They dine in their room, and their conversation becomes stilted and nervous. The consummation of their marriage is fast approaching, and while Edward welcomes the prospect of sexual intimacy, Florence is scared by it. The tension between them boils over into a heated argument as Florence feels repelled by Edward’s advances. She dashes from the room, out of the hotel and on to 'Chesil Beach', with Edward in pursuit. On a remote part of the beach they've a blazing argument about the profound differences between them. One of them makes a startling decision that will have life-long consequences for them both. In a series of flashbacks, the film emphasises the differences between Florence and Edward, the underlying tensions and circumstances that contributed to that crucial moment on their wedding day. Other scenes illustrate what happened to these two people in subsequent decades and how their lives were shaped by that dramatic stand-off on 'Chesil Beach'. In the forefront, Florence is a violinist. She’s reserved, not much into any kind of fashion. She’s a girl who probably went to a university in a dormitory of girls with like- minded backgrounds. Her mother Violet (Emily Watson) is of a certain age, so she would never be high-end fashion; she’s kind of settled in the mid-1950s. So, the influence on Florence is from her mother; she's never a fashionable young girl, but nicely dressed and interested in music. The clothes worn by Florence and Edward also hint at the difference in their social circumstances; Edward looks not very well looked after, a little frayed about the edges. He seems to be in the same jacket all the way through, whereas she changes a lot; usually something nice from department stores. Money isn’t a problem for her family, the Pontings. Even though he's from a family without much money, Edward is bound by a sense of respectability, typical of this early-1960s period. He’s followed the constraints of wanting to be like his father, who’s a teacher. Most men of that time wore jackets and ties. Florence’s ‘going-away dress’ needed to be something special, and to make a statement in visual terms. There are still signs of hormonal adolescence in there for sure, but with Edward, a lot of that anger comes from a righteously indignant place. So, if he or someone he cares about has been wronged, that’s the point at which his anger or rage will rear its ugly head. So, there’s this real dichotomy in the story, and it feels like Edward is at loggerheads with the world in which he finds himself. If their wedding day had happened even a couple of years later, things might have gone better for Florence and Edward. They’d have been more able to talk about things. They’d have had a lot more facts to go on. With the two of them the film wants to move them forward from the 50s into the 60s. The film shows this is their height of fashion. Like the new modern man and wife together; on the beach. Ian McEwan’s 'On Chesil Beach' is among the most acclaimed British novels of this century. Published in 2007, it was short-listed for 'The Booker Prize', garnered glowing reviews and became a best-seller. But as often happens in the film world, it took a long time for the book to make the transition to the big screen. There's a simplicity of narrative and a clarity of emotion about it. It's a portrayal of a young woman at a particular time, and what that meant for her; defining her creative ambitions and her sexual being, her own self. And it’s clear how these two young people are affected by the time they live in. McEwan’s novel is a highly specific work in many respects. The year in which most of the story takes place, and in which Florence and Edward are married, is 1962, just before the dawning of a new youth culture and a sexual revolution that would sweep the western world. And the book’s main geographical location is 'Chesil Beach' itself; an extraordinary place like no other. It was just on the cusp of the 1960s, so it was a time that was crucial both for fashion and for this story. This was pre-teenage revolution. 'The Beatles' hadn’t quite happened yet. Girls still dressed very much like their mothers and boys like their fathers; that's to say, conservatively. 'Chesil Beach' (‘Chesil’ is derived from an Old English word meaning ‘shingle’) has been designated a site of special scientific interest (SSSI); it's fossil-rich and important to wildlife. It’s also very cinematic, and the most cinematic part of all turns out to be also the most inaccessible. It’s separated from the mainland by a lagoon, and it goes out on a long spit of land seven to nine miles long. The physicality, and the relationship the beach has to the land and water around its so peculiar. It’s essentially a strip of land that juts out into the water and it’s kind of isolated. There’s something about that coastline, and the beach itself feels untouched, untainted by human hands. It’s the closest you can get to something 100% natural. Looking out over that beach, it can be tempestuous, it can be serene. But even in it's serene stillness there’s something very disconcerting. That encapsulates the human condition quite well. Even in it's stillness and absence of anything, there’s something quite disconcerting about it, and about our existence. One of the great thing about this script is that it reveals two central characters that are both sympathetic, but also flawed and limited by the circumstances they've grown up in. Film is the ideal medium for showing interior life because the camera can pick up nuances of thought and subtext, and the big screen reveals them. The main visual idea is of two people trapped by the time they’re living in, and the sense that they’re living in a world not of their own making. Music is very important in the movie, as both characters’ identities are grounded in their musical taste. Early 60s Rock n’ Roll and chamber music performed at 'Wigmore Hall' in London. The film tackles the issue of social pressure being put on young people, no matter what era they grew up in, to be or to behave in a certain way. The story has a very specific sense of place and time. One side of the movie is about a particular time; the moment before the liberal values of the sixties kicked in. The other side is more universal; the challenge of true intimacy, first sexual encounters, and how one bad decision can shape your whole life. These questions are as alive for contemporary audiences as ever. This film gives you a new perspective on our parent's generation. We now live in a time of a toxic nostalgia, where many people think that the past was a better, simpler time to live in. If you look at the emotional lives of many people born in the first half of the twentieth century and the emotional repression that was the norm in the UK, how traumatised many people were by the war and the hardship they suffered; it was not so easy. We're now little more sympathetic to what that generation had to deal with, how strong they're to survive it and what they sacrificed along the way. Audiences will take away from this story a sense of how dangerous it's to react to difficult situations rashly, and how fortunate we're to live in a time when we can be more open about our feelings. Repression of any sort is harmful. Learning who we truly are makes us more integrated human beings and more able to make wise choices for ourselves and those around us.

The Hurt Locker is a 2009 war-drama film surrounding a squad of soldiers assembled in Iraq who are perturbed by their new man - Sergeant William James, a wildfire and an expert in defusing bombs. This is just an exquisite piece of filmmaking. Everybody involved is at the top of their game. Bigelow's direction is so tonally and atmospherically perfect for this movie (and the subsequent thematically-linked movies she would go on to make). If there's one thing Bigelow does better than a LOT of other directors, it's building tension and seeing it payoff in a satisfying way. FULL props to Miss Bigelow for this achievement in directing. Jeremy Renner hit his peak with this performance and it's hard to think of him putting in work that's better. He challenges that with 'THE TOWN' and years later, 'WIND RIVER' but 'THE HURT LOCKER' remains his most complex, enthralling character and performance to date. His provocative, erratic Sergeant James is as wild as you would expect, but Renner manages to deliver periods of restraint, where we see his quieter moments, something another actor might have chosen to load with a quiet rage, but Renner's ability to pull back, even for a second, is invaluable to the character work. I also have to mention Brian Geraghty's sensitive, compelling work as Eldridge here as an addendum, because his performance has always been overlooked and I strongly support more love and attention for it. A lot of that effort is achieved by Mark Boal's screenplay, which is superbly written and packed with some good dialogue, characters, and some lovely storytelling through action set pieces, which combine themselves beautifully with Bigelow's abilities. Even though this may not be seem to be a writer's film, it most certainly benefits from the tightness of the screenplay. The documentary-style cinematography from Barry Ackroyd was a bold choice to take for this move, as were the abundance of hand-held shots. But when you're shooting and the framing the frenetic energy of war, Ackroyd proves to be right, as his informal frames and shots capture everything through a seemingly ordinary lens, painting these soldiers as real as any another person so that their more inaccessible struggles, such as defusing bombs and looking out for insurgents, become emotionally-charged, tense moments that make the spine tingle. And where would this film be without the criminally overlooked score for Marco Beltrami? There is some lusciously effective sound design in this movie and it works to prolong the tension and amplify the payoffs, but Beltrami's score explores a mixture of themes and motifs, from the more dynamic expressions of war to the softer, more emotional effects of the battle. It's a beautiful score that I still listen to almost ten years later.