Search Results

(Regent Street Cinema, 307 Regent Street, London, W1B 2HW, ● Screening from 26th Mar) https://www.regentstreetcinema.com/whats-on/ammonite/ https://www.regentstreetcinema.com/staying-well/ (Release Info London schedule; March 28th, 2021, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-ammonite-film-online "Ammonite" 1840s England, acclaimed but overlooked fossil hunter Mary Anning (Kate Winslet) and Charlotte (Soairse Ronan) sent to convalesce by the sea develop an intense relationship, altering both of their lives forever. In the 1840s, acclaimed self-taught palaeontologist Mary Anning works alone on.the wild and brutal 'Southern English' coastline of 'Lyme Regis'. The days of her famed discoveries behind her, she now hunts for common fossils to sell torich tourists to support herself and.her ailing widowed mother. When one such tourist, Roderick Murchison (James McArdle), arrives in Lyme on the first leg of a 'European' tour, he entrusts Mary with the care of his young wife Charlotte, who's recuperating from apersonal tragedy. Mary, whose life is a daily struggle on the poverty line, cannot afford to turn him down but, proud and relentlessly passionate about her work, she clashes with her unwanted guest. They're two women from utterly different worlds. Yet despite the chasm between their social spheresand personalities, Mary and Charlotte discover they can each offer what the other has been searching for: the realization that they are not alone. It's the beginning of a passionate and all-consuming love affair that will defy all social bounds and alter the course of both lives irrevocably. When "Ammonite" begins, we find Mary Anning slightly past her prime at this point, the days of her making huge discoveries as a leading scientist in the field of palaeontology are somewhat over, and she’s a little bit jaded with the profession. She’s been much maligned by her male counterparts. She’s looking after her ailing mother Molly (Gemma Jones) and selling fossils from the fossil shop where they live. A working class woman working on the unforgiving and dangerous sea shore in Dorset, with virtually no education, thrust into being the breadwinner for the family at the age of 11 following her father’s death, and rising to become one of the leading but totally unrecognised palaeontologists of her generation, totally self-taught in a deeply patriarchal and class ridden society. Mary is remarkably stoic. She was born into a life of poverty, lived in a class-ridden, patriarchal society, and was very much sidelined. Her achievements were taken from her by her male counterparts; they would credit themselves for the majority of Mary’s finds. But she's determined, she's very headstrong, so she didn’t change who she's as a person. She's uneducated, but she learned from her father, who died when she was ten years old; it's because of the things he taught her that she found her first ichthyosaur at eleven. She has an inquisitive mind and a vast, knowledgeable brain, this self-taught ability that she has, and that she continues to learn throughout her life, is something we truly admired in her. There’s not a huge amount of literature on her, and we don’t know very much about her personal life, but one thing that we do know is that she would give the little that she has to the poor. Among the fossils she also find items that smugglers were hiding on the beach, in the caves. In those days you were supposed to turn over anything you found of a smuggled nature to the authorities; but Mary re-hides the things that she finds and then tell the poor people where they're! There's absolutely no evidence Mary ever has a relationship with anyone, whether that be heterosexual or same sex. She has close friendships with women and in the society of the time, where women are the subjects of men and where Mary has been virtually written out of history because of her gender and social status, it didn’t feel right to give her a relationship with a man. It's difficult to be open and vulnerable enough to love and be loved, particularly if you’ve been badly scarred by a past relationship. The film explores what this relationship might mean to someone who has not only been socially and geographically isolated but who has had to close off to any emotional life, where you replace affection and intimacy with work and duty. Where you’ve been overlooked and ignored your whole life because of your gender and social class. Given this world, would Mary be able to access how she feels for Charlotte? Would she be able to let her guard down to allow the possibility of something new and wonderful to enter her life? The film is fascinated by how these female relationships could flourish in this world, a world where the medical profession still believed women had no sexual pleasure organs and still 50 years before science categorised sexual orientation and then only for men. Through lighting, the film depicts the change Charlotte brings with her into this world, how she alters the environment, bringing her own sense of light into his dark, unemotional world. Charlotte has been married to Roderick Murchison for a couple of years at this point. She lost a child, and just feels empty and a bit useless, really. At that point in history the only purpose that a woman had was to marry, keep the home and have a child; so she feels fundamentally like a failure. It’s six months on from the death of her child, and she’s still in mourning, and hasn’t come out of that depression yet. So she’s brought to Lyme Regis, and she’s left there,,and she can think of nothing worse. Roderick leaves, and she and Mary don’t get on initially. But the safety of being with somebody who doesn’t want anything from her, isn’t asking anything of her, and allows her to break down and grieve and then start to come out of that a healthier stronger person. They really help to build one another up; and so get to a place where Charlotte still has this sadness, but she can live with it, and survive it. Her relationship with Roderick is really fraught at the beginning of the film; their marriage has become quite strained; they don’t have sex anymore, and even when they did, it's probably a very functional thing. What makes Charlotte quite unique, is that she’s somebody who's quite willing to take a back seat in terms of attention or being the one to shine. Her talent comes through in putting somebody else up on a pedestal and allowing everyone to see their greatness. She’s got a great sense of humility, and she’s a very giving person. She’s someone who has been very hurt and broken, but who still has a great capacity for love anddoesn’t shy away from that at all. From Charlotte’s point of view, she just wants to be held, and to have someone close to her physically who can at least try and understand what she’s going through. He’s probably going through the same thing, but they don’t know how to articulate it. There’s so much expected of them at that time, to just keep going and pretending everything’s fine, it puts a lot of strain on them. Then they've this time apart, and Charlotte comes out a different person in a way, a stronger person. And he’s gone off and had this adventure, where he’s been able to find his passion. The relationship between Mary and Molly, it’s quite tense. Mary’s mother has a hold over her. Mary does respect her, and doesn’t want to let her down, but at the same time she's held by this life, by the darkness of this world, and that’s largely to do with her mother being stuck in her ways and scared of change. Mary’s determination to carve out her own personality whist living with another powerful woman was quite difficult, but it’s also quite funny. There are funny moments, where you see Mary roll her eyes behind Molly’s back. At the beginning of the story Mary is tired, tired of living a hard impoverished life; increasingly impatient with her mother; disheartened with her profession and with trudging out on the cold beaches. Emotionally she’s really shut down, and she doesn’t expect life to deal her any nice cards at all. So the attachment she forms to Charlotte is really interesting. She doesn’t expect to fall in love with Charlotte at all, she initially finds her a bit silly and irritating, and doesn’t want to have to look after this tiny little sparrow of an upper class woman who wears the wrong shoes and puts on lace gloves to go fossiling. But her opinion of Charlotte really does change, in spite of herself. Even though they’re from completely different worlds, what you realise is that they’re equals in many ways. They’re both looking for affection; they’re both trapped in their own worlds, for a variety of reasons. Mary doesn’t have the finances to explore the world; but Charlotte is trapped by her finances, as the quiet little wife who’s very much kept. Mary brings out a feistier side in Charlotte, and Charlotte learns things about herself she never would have known were it not for Mary. She has lost a child, so she’s grieving; through friendship with Mary, she’s able to start thinking about other things, thinking beyond the grief. Her spirits lift, she gets healthier - and that’s all because of Mary. Charlotte is inspired by Mary; she’s never seen a woman like this, a strong woman who lives alone, who doesn’t have a husband to provide for her. For Mary, Charlotte is beautiful and delicate in a way that she herself isn’t. She’s got gnarled hands, she doesn’t look in the mirror, she barely takes a brush to her hair; so there are many things about Charlotte that she finds utterly fascinating. The way she smell of perfume and nice fabrics, it’s not Mary’s world at all. There’s an intoxicating aroma that follows Charlotte, and for Mary it’s something very new, something that she’s never imagined she’d stand that close to. Charlotte in turn feels like she’s almost got to live up to Mary. What Charlotte does that really helps Mary to come out of herself, and get rid of some of that coolness that she’s carried with her for so long, is that Charlotte won’t give up. She goes in with open arms, isn’t afraid to be vulnerable with Mary, and isn’t afraid to show what her feelings for her are. That catches Mary off-guard, but she’s forced into a place where she has to do the same. The physical environment is also very important, not just the exteriors but also the interiors. This world is defined by space Mary is working class and has little money, her living environment is small, with few windows, almost claustrophobic, dark and uncomfortable. In contrast, Charlotte’s interior world is flooded with light, space to escape, in other words there's choice within Charlotte’s world. It's fascinating to see each character inhabit each other’s interior and exterior live. "Ammonite" is a really good example of how the industry is changing. It’s a symbiotic change. For Mary, she ends up letting love in; and with Charlotte, there’s a sense of pride in work, an understanding of who she's, and how not to be defined by the norms of the day. "Ammonite" is shot in a linear, chronological way. Allowing each scene to impact on the next emotionally, like building blocks within the story. This is particularly challenging but it has paid off, given the strong emotional arc that's depicted at the heart of the film. The camera movement reflects not just the landscape but also the emotional state of the characters. An investigation into how to navigate a relationship from deeply lonely, disconnected beginnings. How we learn how to love again after being hurt. How we can be open enough to love and be loved. How we can accept and forgive and learn through the power of a true, intimate connection. But the world was a very different place: people’s emotions were much more hidden, things were just much more behind closed doors; religion played a much bigger part in everyday life. Throughout the history of cinema, there’s been a real enjoyment in finding romantic relationships through real people in history, from ‘Shakespeare In Love’ to ‘The King And I’. It marks our time that we can be free and open to the idea that there could have been a same sex relationship in Mary’s life, as there might have been a heterosexual relationship. It doesn’t matter where you come from, what life you're born into possibilities are out there, possibilities are endless. Being authentically true to yourself and using your voice to be who you want to be is more important than anything else in this world. Now more than ever we’re living in a time when women are absolutely obsessed with other women and when, more than what we look like or how we feel when we walk down the street, it’s about what women have to say. Women are greater together: the more strong female voices we've, the more togetherness we show, more examples we've of great women history, the more inspired we will feel as a community to support one another, to encourage one another and to inspire one another. For years we’ve been judged; still now we’re judged. We’re questioned all the time, we’re asked to justify our choices, why we wear what we wear, why we do our hair the way we do, why we work or don’t work. We’re seeing a new chapter in the history of women. We’re seeing much more equality in the workplace. We’re at a point now in society, and politics, and art, and film, where we’re definitely being given a platform to share stories we weren’t able to before. It shows a progression, and a real acceptance about the way we're now. People throughout history have been able to find a sense of self that’s not necessarily celebrated by the patriarchy of the time; people still live their lives.

"Past Lives" (Prince Charles Cinema) Nora (Greta Lee) and Hae Sung (Teo Yoo), two deeply connected childhood friends, are wrest apart after Nora's.family emigrates from South Korea. Two decades later, they're reunited in New York for one fateful week as they confront notions of destiny, love, and the choices that make a life, in this heartrending modern romance.   The film, at once strikingly intimate and bracing in its scope, is broken into three parts spanning countries and decades: first with Nora (Moon Seung-ah) as a young girl in Korea, developing an early bond with her best friend, Hae Sung (Leem Seung-min), before she immigrates with her family to Toronto; then, following Nora in her early 20s as she reconnects virtually with Hae Sung; and finally, more than a decade later, when Hae Sung visits Nora, now a playwright married to an author, Arthur (John Magaro), in New York. The film has the instincts and control of an artist with a precise vision of the story's every conflicted, emotional note. The triptych that tracks Nora over the years is, in the most basic sense, about the different parts of her past. But in the film's breadth, sketching out the long arc of her relationships with Hae Sung and Arthur, and the memorable moment when they all eventually come together, the film constructs a deeply resonant and warmly generous meditation on the trajectory of a life. It's about, on a very simple level, what it's like to exist as a person. Or what it's like to choose a life that you live. More specifically, what that choice means for Nora, and what happens when the other choice, her phantom life in a sense, is suddenly staring at her through a computer screen, or across a park in New York City. It's so unfair, the devastating thing about us as people, the fact that we only have one life.   The simple, poignant tragedy in the film is also its animating idea: that choosing one life means losing another. There's a piece of yourself that you leave behind in the place you left, who like Nora, emigrated from Korea at the age of 12 for Toronto, before moving again to New York in her 20s. The moment, and the meaning and history filled in that gaze, bears a striking resemblance to the moment in "Past Lives", when Nora and Hae Sung finally see each other, in person, for the first time in years. It's like seeing a reflection of yourself from a different time. Hae Sung a hologram of a totally different existence, what could have been. The connection that Nora develops, first as a child, then over online messages and Skype sessions in her 20er, and revisits in-person later in life is, structurally, a carbon copy of what happened in Hae Sung's life. For her, the experience, one that is at some level universal for anyone who has simply moved into, say, another city or another phase of life, is especially disorienting and wistful, imbued by a distinctly diasporic longing as an immigrant who left behind her country, culture, and language at a formative age. You're not just seeing this person as they're, but you're seeing them as you remember them, which is in childhood. Nora, in other words, is her own person, rather than an idea sketched out by the binary of which man she chooses.   She's so certain about what she wants. And yet, as Nora's worlds collide between these two men, the third act eventually returns us to the bar scene that opens the film, with renewed context, if also a new, uneasy tension. There aren't any villains. But there are people who are filled with pride and people who are jealous and envious and angry, but they've to fight through those emotions. It would be a mistake, though, to read this dynamic as an early scene of a melodramatic love triangle. If "Past Lives" is a film about adults trying their best to behave like adults, no dramatic professions of love, no teary-eyed fights, no villains, this isn't to say it isn't a film that deals in sweeping emotional sentiment. One person can hold this much love, for her husband, for her childhood first love, and for herself, that's sacred. As for Arthur and Hae Sung, it's about these two men who know her, When Nora talks in her sleep, Arthur tells her at one point, she speaks in Korean, stepping into a version of herself only in her dreams. If Arthur can never know that part of Nora, there's a different, more alienating sense of absence for Nora and Hae Sung. He's here to sort of lift the veil and see that that little girl is gone. Then, Nora goes back, left to right, in the direction from which she came. She will stand there for a moment, and then she's gonna go back home, and every step is going to be a walk towards the future from the past.   You find yourself sitting at a bar sandwiched between two men from vastly different parts of your life. One is your husband, the other you childhood sweetheart. These two men love you in different ways, in two different languages and two different cultures. And you're the only reason why these two men are even talking to each other. There's something almost sci-fi about it. You feel like somebody who can transcend culture and time and space and language. It would be a mistake, though, to read this dynamic as an early scene of a melodramatic love triangle. Instead, The film turns this seed of experience into a quietly gutting film, concerned with something far more emotionally complex, the parts of a self that we lose as we become the people we're, and the ways our lives are shaped by those we love. And yet, the film is just as deeply emotional about the cosmic forces that shape our lives: if there's a bone-deep mourning over past selves, there's also the beauty in human connection, in the fact that a woman can find herself sitting with two surreally disparate parts of her lives, as if bending the rules of time and space. If there are 50 people in the room, you've 50 different reasons each of them have cried, and 50 different ways they’ve seen themselves. In all those ways of watching the film, there's actually no wrong answer, except for the one where you don't feel connected at all.   Written by Gregory Mann

“The Royal Hotel" (Saturday 21 October, 2023, ARTS 20:35)     Americans Hanna (Julia Garner), and Liv (Jessica Henwick), are best friends backpacking in Australia. After they run out of money, Liv, looking for an adventure, convinces Hanna to take a temporary live-in job behind the bar of a pub called ’The Royal Hotel’ in a remote Outback mining town. Bar owner Billy and a host of locals give the girls a riotous introduction to Down Under drinking culture but soon Hanna and Liv find themselves trapped in an unnerving situation that grows rapidly out of their control.   The film is inspired by the feature documentary 'Hotel Coolgardie'. It's the story of two young Scandinavian women trapped in an Australian mining town. This clash of cultures feels like a way into a broader discussion about drinking culture and gender dynamics. There’s a part of us that understands that pub world and a part of us that's terrified by it. "The Royal Hotel" feels like an opportunity to do that by putting the two lead characters into a remote community, exploring how these two women navigate an unfamiliar and antagonistic environment, far removed from the urban existence they're used to. "The Royal Hotel" explores Hanna and Liv's experiences within the intense and volatile setting they find themselves in, while also delving into the underlying factors that contribute to its hostility. Hanna doesn't want to be there in the first place and she's feeling vulnerable most of the time, while Liv is more inclined to say ‘lighten up, it's not that bad…it’s just the culture'. With these two characters the film shows the subtleties in the way that women respond in these kinds of circumstances. The film wants to tell this outback story, through a female gaze, to turn the tables on a genre that's traditionally been very male, and to use the masculinity of that world as the fuel for the story, and to be able to examine some of the complications around male culture, but it feels reductive.   The central dramatic question of this film is not will they get out? It’s ‘should they?’ It's a much more subtle question, because it goes to the heart of this very masculine culture and what's unacceptable within that culture. It's a film that builds slowly and inexorably to the question of should they leave. It's about the way people respond to trauma. There's one way where you can be very on high alert, very fearful, or the other way, where you just dive in and drink it all away. The ending is a provocation. It generates conversation around what's acceptable within our culture and when we should stand up for ourselves and take a stand. And it’s a situation that's all too common for young women going into environments where they've little power; where they can start doubting whether their version of reality is the real version and start being co-opted into a culture that is making them feel like they're the ones who are crazy.   "The Royal Hotel" is set in a mining town and not a farming community so we were quite specific about what the landscape should look like. Mining towns are set up to support industry and are mostly filled with fly-in fly-out workers from interstate. The film wants the set to feel normal and inviting in the way that pubs quite often do, but it feels cold or menacing. This place is a threat. While the film has nods to thriller and Western genres, it cannot be readily characterised as a genre piece. Certainly, it's like a nightmare and at times we're almost verging towards horror, but you can not describe this as a genre film. The trick of it and the balancing act within it's that you're observing real behaviours, but you're coming at it from a particular perspective and by ramping up certain key moments you're heightening tensions within it.   Written by Gregory Mann

"Daliland" (UK Release: /10/13/23/)     Salvador Dalí (Ben Kingsley) is one of the most world-renowned artists of the 20th century. The film focuses on the later years of the strange and fascinating marriage between Dalí and his wife, Gala (Barbara Sukowa), as their seemingly unshakable bond begins to stress and fracture. Set in New York and Spain in 1974, the film is told through the eyes of James (Christopher Briney), a young assistant keen to make his name in the art world, who helps the eccentric and mercurial Dalí prepare for a big gallery show.   The character of James is the audience’s perspective. It's the story of Salvador Dali and his wife Gala and how both of them are trying to hold onto their youth and the things that get in the way of that. It’s about the sort of people they surround themselves with and this whole world that James gets taken into that, falls in love with it and gets spat back out of. James also falls in love with Ginesta (Suki Waterhouse). But, Ginesta and James are definitely on different pages. James sees that this girl is interested in him and he falls in love. It’s really sweet, but that’s so far from how she sees it and that causes a lot of pain for James. If only he’d looked ahead, he’d have realised he’d set himself up for that one! Dali and Gala lived in a New York hotel for much of the late 1960s and early 1970s, so the film is primarily set in New York. New York in the 1970s is a place of great discovery. An exciting period, pre-disco and the beginning of punk, which was portrayed in a very different way in the US compared to the UK. Dali is surrounding himself with the movers and shakers of that time so his entourage consisted of people who were there for a purpose, they all have something interesting about them, whether they're musicians, artists, beatniks, poets, aristocrats or art buyers.   The film is primarily about Dali’s fear of death. Even though he's a remarkable genius he's also very much like us. Dali’s life and career spanned six decades. The other element the film wants to explore is Dali as an older man in New York in the 1970s, hanging out at Studio 54: He's living this very modern 70s life, yet we all think of him as a surrealist from the 1930s. Dali was quite a crazy guy when Gala met him. At that time, she was in a relationship with Paul Éluard, the writer and she had lived in a menage a trois with Max Ernst and Éluard. When she met Dali, something really extreme happened in her life. She really is very fascinated by him and she fell in love with him and she knew that this is the man to whom she would dedicate her life. Dali is a voyeur and Gala stimulated him very much artistically. He likes her passion and she completely gave her life to him, although she has other relationships, especially later in her life. She was criticized and condemned for sexual relationships with men who were much younger than she was. Gala is in her 70s in the period in which the film takes place and she didn’t like to be photographed as much as Dali. The script throws them together in this very uneasy chemistry. She's a lady who has a very strict image, she loves couture and the big designers of the time and she loves jewelry. She did more than anyone else to foster Dali’s career and more than anyone else to damage it. That’s an interesting paradox. In Púbal, in Figueres where Gala’s castle is, there’s still a lot of her jewelry, including pieces designed by Dali.   The story of Dali’s house at Portlligat, is that it's a fisherman’s hut that Dali and Gala first bought together in 1930. It was their first house. It didn’t have any electricity or utilities. They then bought the one next door which was a bit higher up and they started knocking walls down, hence the different levels which made it very quirky and recognizable. Dali’s personality really comes through, so it’s almost like the house is another part of his character. He finished work on it in 1972 so it’s like another piece of his art. The film deals mainly with the time when they're older and they've this very successful artistic life and they've built this whole world around them. They surrounded themselves with much younger people in an attempt to recapture their youth. People like Alice Cooper (Mark McKenna) and Amanda Lear (Andreja Pejic) are in their lives because both Gala and Dali loved beauty so they wanted to have beautiful people around them. Maybe the realization he has at the end is not in a sad or depressing way, it’s just reflecting on this moment in his life where he lived in this dream of a world. It's a façade as were the people he met and the life that he lived for that time. James just ends up in a moment of reflection and sort of nostalgia and it’s a moment of appreciation for the time that he had in that world.   Amanda is this fabulous woman who has this great relationship with Dali and she's in the center of that art world in Paris and London. She dated David Bowie and she was the ’It’ girl of the 1970s and 1980s",  before she becomes this sort of disco queen of Europe, like Grace Jones or Donna Summer. Captain Peter Moore (Rupert Graves) is Salvador Dali’s secretary, he did pretty much everything for him, including being an agent for his lithographs. He works on a commission basis and basically, he's part of Dali’s entourage. It’s very difficult to find out the truth about Moore because Dali is fabricator of reality, in his paintings and his life, and a lot of his entourage are also kind of fantasists we suppose. Moore wasn’t quite who he said he's, the English army Captain with the stiff upper lip. He's playing a part and we think that kind of pleased Dali who's happier with that rather than somebody who's authentic. Moore presents himself very well and is very charming, but he did some dodgy dealings, but a lot of people in the art world did dodgy dealings.   Dali is to the art world, what Almos Famous was to the rock and roll world. The glittering excesses of Dali’s fantastic circus, as seen through the young eyes of James, and the way he’s swept up into this opulent world, chewed up and spat out, until he realizes that the world’s quite a bit different than he dreamt it to be. There are many volumes where Dali is unkindly or dismissively judged. A distance that’s thrilling and terrifying, rather like a trapeze artist swinging back and forth, then suddenly the trapeze artist lets go and spins in mid-air and catches the other trapeze. It’s difficult to regulate the art world, because you’re selling people’s squiggles. Nobody knows how much they’re worth until somebody decides to pay that much for it. There’s a crossover between good and bad business practice in the art world and it’s very difficult to know where the edges are and that area can and has been exploited, even more so since Dali. It’s one of those things where you know it’s going to be special and then it happens, one of those times you’ll remember for the rest of your life.   Written by Gregory Mann

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

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

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

(Wildhood ● BFI Flare London LGBTQ Film Festival ● Thursday 24 March 2022 17:50 BFI Southbank, NFT1 ● Friday 25 March 2022 15:20 BFI Southbank, NFT3) https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/Flare/Online/default.asp "Wildhood" In a rural east-coast trailer park, Link (Phillip Lewitski) lives with his toxic father Arvin (Joel Thomas Hynes), his late Indigenous mother Sarah (Savonna Spracklin) and younger half-brother Travis (Avery Winters-Anthony). When Link discovers his Mi'kmaw mother could still be alive, it lights a flame and they make a run for a better life. On the road they meet Pasmay (Joshua Odjick), a pow wow dancer drawn to Link. As the boys journey across Mi’kma’ki, Link finds community, identity, and love in the land where he belongs. When watching "Wildhood", take note that there are two parallel stories playing out concurrently. On the surface, "Wildhood" opens at the point of no return for Link. His childhood, rough and troubled. The pressures of youth have created mounting frustration and anger that he aims inwards and outwards. Link at the start of the film is an untamed wild dog, effortlessly rebellious, someone who fights to the death to protect his kin, but who can also reach into those soft gooey bits that we all have. When he discovers a collection of birthday cards from his mother that his father has hidden from him, he realizes his mother might still be alive. He knows nothing about her or her Mi’kmaw people. For him, this unknown is a path he hasn't walked, and he senses that it might be the key to finding his place. There's nothing for Link in the trailer park where he has lived his whole life. So he moves forward and 'forward' is the woods, the forest, the back roads, the rivers, the lakes. Stepping into that world, he opens himself up to a connection that's always been there, but now, because he's made space, he allows those things to come alive and that relationship with the land to exist. Burning all the bridges behind him, he and his young half-brother, Travis head out. Travis is Link's half-brother from a different mother and brings a freshness and comedy into the story because he's young enough that he can interject moments of levity into serious situations. He can also deliver with piercing truths because he usually has the wrong thing to say at the exact right time, which in the end makes it somehow perfect for the moment. There’s a protectiveness that he has for Travis, that all brothers have, and the growing importance of the relationship with Pasmay, who becomes a protector for these boys. Link meets Pasmay at the most confusing time in his life. As much as Travis is this person Link has leaned on up to this moment, he needs someone his age, at his maturity level, that he can have real genuine conversations with and that's when Pasmay appears. These are two lone wolves spotting each other, and Pasmay wants to create his own pack. That's why he continues to stick around and help Link and Travis. Walking the land is a healing process in itself. Out of that newly opened space, he meets this oddball, handsome, charming, funny guy, Pasmay, who seems like he's got it together. Pasmay knows the Mi'kmaw language, and he recognizes something in this other teenager and so offers to help because Pasmay's looking for a family of his own. And so the three, Link, Travis and Pasmay, begin to travel together. In traveling to find Link's mother, there's a sharing of hardships and triumphs which in turn creates bonds, something Link had never experienced before with anyone other than Travis. Along this journey, all the people Link encounters, from the youngest to the oldest, have something to impart, but not in the Western notion of. Gradually, Link learns something more profound; to observe, to experience and to listen. He hears many things about his mother that paints an incomplete picture that's often at odds with itself. When things are discordant like that, there must be a truth buried somewhere. Pasmay and Link are from different worlds. What they're trying to do, they can't do alone. It's hard to do things alone. In Mi’kmaw language, there’s a conjugation that reflects two people doing activities together. This would have been more common pre-contact because everywhere you went, into the woods, fishing, hunting, there would be at least two people. Pasmay is a 2S person and he knows this, while Link is someone who's moving into that space, but he doesn’t know the depth or meaning of it yet. He's beginning his journey without that connection and it can take many years. He feels fragmented and unbalanced. The common thing for all of the different characters' paths is love, it's always there, but they aren’t ready to see it. Link moves through a fog, trying to find out who he's and where he belongs. Encountering culture, language, and the land help him to heal and rediscover his sense of self, his story. It brings him into that worldview and shows him that he's related to all of the things around him. In the search for his mother, Link doesn't get everything he wants. He gets something that he needs. He gets a connection. He gets to see where he came from. "Wildhood" is a road trip film, and a buddy film. Identity and language being so deeply interconnected, the presence of Mi'kmaw dialogue in the script supports the themes of the film. When connecting or reconnecting with Indigenous culture, you better understand life because the language is descriptive. It’s through the language that the relationship between the People and the land is found and can truly be understood. The language expresses a worldview, a way of seeing things, that's different from a Western way of thinking and doing. It's at the core of importance to identity and history. The Mi’kmaw language extends back over 10,000 years and contains the stories, the land that we live on. Because Mi’kmaw culture is based on oral storytelling and oral histories. Pjila’si guides the heart of Wildhood. It’s used in modern times to mean welcome. dig deeper and the root of the meaning that’s behind it's there, come and take your place. This phrase was used when someone came visiting and could be applied when entering a dwelling, or coming to the community itself. It implies belonging, that there's a place for each of us where we fit, and it's always there, waiting. Two Spirit is a contemporary pan-Indigenous term that encompasses the Indigenous perspectives of gender and sexuality that interconnects with spirituality and cultural identity. It may include any of the terms such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer. Being Two Spirit also binds the historical collective experience into our identity as Two Spirit. It honours the duality of male/female, non-gendered, and non-conforming expressions of gender. The term can be an expression of one's sexuality, or gender, or used interchangeably. It encompasses all of that. All the characters are on a journey of self-discovery. Being Two Spirit means your very nature challenges mainstream ideas of gender and sexuality. When you don’t fit into a rigid perception of identity, there's a struggle to break free, shed your skin, and understand yourself. There's still things to unlearn and to re-learn. And there's still things to discover, but life is certainly a lot better and happier. The result room for something to grow now. And instead of a poorly potted plant in a trailer park scorched to death by the sun, this is a plant in the forest, able to grow and turn into a tree and thrive and bring something back, bring something good. As with the film, the aim of the music is to express a sense of longing for connection and acceptance, of each other, of our surroundings, of the earth, Written by Gregory Mann Wildhood - FIN Atlantic International Film Festival FIN Stream at 7:00pm, September 16th, 2021 for 24 hours.

British legends of film and TV come together for this true crime flick that is based upon the robbery of Hatton Garden where old school criminals steal £14 million worth of jewellery and money. Michael Caine leads the cast as a recent widower who promised his late wife he would go straight. However this last job proves too good to turn down, so with the help of his old friends they cause the crime, but end up doing serious time.  📷Originally posted by mizworldofrandom The cast is full of true British icons: Michael Caine, Jim Broadbent, Tom Courtenay, Michael Gambon, Paul Whitehouse and Ray Winstone. It is a cast full of charisma and character. A cast that the audience connect with. The humour is humour for that generation, there were plenty of laughs from the audience in their late 50′s because they relate to the references of going deaf, not understanding the internet, making sandwiches, homophobic rhetoric to the younger criminal. It wasn’t particularly funny. What was funny was hearing the likes of Michael Caine dropping the f-bomb every other sentence. I don’t think that makes a film good though.  📷Originally posted by pemberley-press There wasn’t a lot of action, which isn’t a surprise considering the age of the criminals. Therefore it was dependant on the humour which did let the film down. The film just bumbled along as we watched these men make mistake after mistake. They tried to make it interesting by adding in little sub-plots, the rivalry between Caine and Broadbent, the decisions that Courtenay would make but in all honestly it all seemed a bit pointless considering the whole of the robbery was over in 40 minutes and the next hour we are waiting for them to be arrested. There was no build up to any of it.  2/5 Whilst it was enjoyable seeing old legends embrace the screen again enthusiastically, the pacing of the film was all off and didn’t entertain as much as the cast has the potential to do.

(BFI London Film Festival • Peter von Kant Sunday 09 October 2022 • Curzon Mayfair, 21:00 Tuesday 11 October 2022 • BFI Southbank, NFT1, 12:40) "Peter Von Kant" Peter Von Kant (Dennis Ménochet), a successful, famous director, lives with his assistant Karl (Stefan Crepon), whom he likes to mistreat and humiliate. Through the great actress Sidonie (Isabelle Adjani), he meets and falls in love with Amir (Khalil Ben Gharhia), a handsome young man of modest means. He offers to share his apartment and help Amir break into the world of cinema. For Fassbinder, the world of fashion was merely a context. Petra’s work is not developed or analyzed. We only know that she's successful, that she needs to draw new designs, and that her assistant is there to help her. His work is how he meets others, discovers them, elevates them. Amir reveals himself before the camera, not just to Peter but also to the viewer. Suddenly we see him differently, he becomes an actor, which also makes us doubt his sincerity. Is his story true, or is it merely calculated to move Peter, to stimulate his desire to create? When Peter seizes the camera, his appetite to film Amir is clear. That movement plunges him into the creative desire of Pygmalion for Galatea. Sidonie is also a variation on the theme of Pygmalion and his muse. Peter loves and hates her simultaneously. 'I preferred the actress to the woman', he says. In Fassbinder, the character is merely a confidante; a best friend for Petra to bounce of off. We imagine Peter as a big drama queen, always making too much of things. In the Fassbinder film there's a queer side, with the women overplaying their femininity. Peter is forever drowning in his emotions. He’s excessive, overly emphatic. And more often than not, he’s high on alcohol or drugs. The trick is to embrace the theatricality of the character. The color and stylization work characterizes his final period on material from his first period. Peter wants to take Amir in, protect him, be his Pygmalion. Peter falls in love not just with Amir but also with the creature he could shape Amir into. And when Amir ultimately escapes him, Peter is riddled with jealousy. And again, all his theories about freedom in relationships come tumbling down. When Peter meets Amir, there’s a sexual fantasy for sure, but he’s also found someone who is as alone as he's, whose life is broken. Beyond the physical and sexual attraction. Peter ends up alone, but he has his memories of Amir on film. Exploring the theme of love through the prism of cinema is moving, especially right now, with changing attitudes towards going to the movies, falling theatre attendance, the emergence of platforms. This film "Peter von Kant" is perhaps more optimistic than Fassbinder’s. Though Peter ends up alone and isolated, his eyes are open to his films, his imagination, fiction. He films Amir, he records his love. Creation and cinema save Peter. The film is an adaptation of 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant'. Fassbinder originally wrote the story for the theatre. He made it into a film in 1972 when he was just 25 years old. He had recently discovered the Hollywood melodramas of Douglas Sirk, and used all the theatrical and cinematic artifices and mannerisms at his disposal to film his play about emotional dependence and the impossibility of loving as equals. Fassbinder’s body of work, philosophy and vision of the world have always haunted us. His unbelievable creative energy fascinates us. The film centers around one of Fassbinder’s passionate love affairs. In 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant', Fassbinder had turned his own unhappy love affair with one of his favorite actors, Günther Kaufmann, into a lesbian love story between a fashion designer and her model. The character of Karl is inspired by Peer Raben, who composed music for Fassbinder’s films and was also his assistant. The film trades the world of fashion for the world of cinema and changes the gender of the three main characters. It's a way of betraying Fassbinder the better to find him, in a universal tale of passionate love. The story is more relevant than ever in the way it questions the power dynamics of domination in the creative arts, the Pygmalion/muse relationship. 'Water Drops on Burning Rocks' was consciously very theatrical, with an ironic detachment reminiscent of Fassbinder’s cinema. This film wants to inject more empathy into a new version of 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant'. Maybe with age and experience we understand Fassbinder better, the way he sees life, creation and love right down to it's most monstruous aspects. Fassbinder is not a loveable filmmaker. His films are not loveable. But we feel a wide range of emotions towards Peter. To hate him one minute and find him touching, grotesque or endearing the next. He blends the intimate and the political in the most naked of ways, both literally and figuratively. The effect is at once pathetic, sincere and devastating. There’s also a dash of boulevard in Fassbinder’s work, but it’s more Brechtian, there’s more distancing. The film wsnts to highlight the emotional power of the text, bring the character's humanity and feelings to the fore, leave behind Fassbinder’s little theatre of puppets in favor of flesh and blood characters. The bitter tears in Fassbinder’s play and film are artificial, which is what makes them beautiful, both theatrically and cerebrally. Written by Gregory Mann

The German doctor, he believes the tar in the ground has some kind of a power. He calls it his science. But it’s just an excuse to kill us. When I watched the movie “Trench 11” at the end of last year, I already said this might be the cheaper version of “Overlord“. The starting point was identical. In “Trench 11” it’s a group of soldiers who had to search an abandoned bunker of the Germans. There were rumors the Germans conducted experiments there. The Germans tried to fabricate a chemical product so they could create invincible storm troops and thus conquer the rest of the non-German-Friendly world. The biggest difference between “Overlord” and “Trench 11” is the choice of world war. In “Trench 11” they were wallowing in the trenches during World War I. “Overlord” takes place during the 2nd World War. That means a lot of raised hands and loud clacking of heels. But the rest is actually similar. A film that shows the madness of a filthy war and mixes this with non-human creatures with the madness flowing through their veins. It’s D-Day all over again. Operation Overlord was the code name for the invasion by the Allies in German-occupied Western Europe. Obviously, that’s where the film got its title from. And that’s also where this film begins. A swarm of flying fortresses on their way to France to drop a load of paratroopers. It seemed as if I was watching “The Longest Day” back again. Even the ritual with the agreed code words “Flash” and “Thunder” is used in this movie (I missed the clicking though). The opening scene is still impressive and reminds you of legendary WWII films such as “Saving Privat Ryan” (although the first 15 minutes of the latter were obviously more impressive). First, it’s a genuine war-movie The first part is therefore entirely devoted to the mission of a few American paratroopers. The task they need to complete is disabling a radio tower somewhere in a French village. An extremely important assignment, it seems, It sounds far-fetched but the success of the entire invasion depends on it apparently. From the group of soldiers Boyce (Jovan Adepo), Ford (Wyatt Russell, son of) and Tibbet (John Magaro) take center stage. Boyce is the wimp. An inexperienced soldier who’s regarded by the others as useless. Ford is the leading officer who has to make sure the operation succeeds. A gut-eater avant la lettre. And Tibbet is the bigmouth of them all who brags about his sniper qualities. Something that he wants to put into practice in Berlin. He’ll put a bullet through Hitler’s head and thus end this world war rapidly. And then the horror kicks in. Their path crosses that of Chloe (Mathilde Olivier), a French resistance fighter who wants to take revenge on the German occupiers of her village. Understandable, since those Germans systematically use the inhabitants of the village as test animals. Including Chloe’s parents. From here, the film gradually transforms into a horror/zombie film. Not that it’s all so scary or nerve-racking. In my opinion “Overlord” is nothing more than a typical war film in which a commando, with a specific mission, not only battles German troops but also non-human opponents. So be prepared for lots of veined bloodthirsty creatures, blown away or crushed body parts and gallons of blood. Pulp War/Horror Movie. I wasn’t really impressed by this film. For me, it’s just a more expensive, slick version of “Trench 11“. Maybe I was misled by the trailer. The trailer suggested it would be a blood-curdling zombie movie. Ultimately, the film shows the horror of this world war in a proper way. And there are also a bunch of crazy Nazi doctors who try to create an Übermensch. Something similar as when General Ludendorff sniffs some kind of chemical stuff in “Wonder Woman“, after which he suddenly has superhuman powers. In short, “Overlord” is a pulp war/horror movie. It’s great material to create some kind of videogame from. It isn’t very original and certainly disappointing for the seasoned horror fanatic. But this much I can say. It isn’t boring. On the contrary. It’s entertaining enough. And it’s been expertly put together. It’s worth a look for sure. My rating 6/10 Links: IMDB

The hardest part is… not knowing what’s happened to them. If there’s one horror genre that pops up ad nauseam, it’s that of zombies. Not a month goes by without a release in which undeath feast on innocent non-infected fellow humans. Since the cult film “Night of the Living Dead” by George A. Romero, a countless number of zombie flicks have already been made. Every once in a while they try to give it an original twist to make it more comical or profound. So that for once the emphasis isn’t on the bloodthirstiness and the jump scares. Something like “Attack of the Lederhosen Zombies” or “Warm Bodies“. These movies bring a smile to your face rather than scaring you. Others try to put in some more melodrama as in “Maggie“. “The night eats the world” (original title “La Nuit a dévoré le Monde“) is such a film that tries to follow an alternative path in the zombie genre. Just like in “Dead within“, the film deals more with the psychological state of mind of a survivor than about the destructive character of the infected persons. Paris once looked more lively. Let’s introduce Sam (Anders Danielsen Lie) who dozed off in a back room during a party of his ex-girlfriend. And then he wakes up the next day in an abandoned flat where seemingly a chaos has broken out. Everything is a mess as if everybody left in a hurry and the walls are smeared with blood traces and splashes. Soon he discovers that the streets of Paris are taken over by a mob of zombies. Gradually he realizes that he’s lonely and abandoned in the building and that he must do everything he can to survive this holocaust. And that’s what you are presented within this movie. A portrait of a solitary survivor whose daily routine slowly turns into a rut. The isolation and loneliness take their toll. Don’t expect to much tension. For those who associate a zombie film with bloody scenes and nerve-wracking moments, it will rather be a disappointing film. I’m sure that the words “boring” and “annoying” will be the most common terms used by seasoned zombie fans. But admit it. If you end up in such a situation, you will also have a limited daily life, resulting in a tedious dullness. A walk in the park around the corner, going for a newspaper or drinking a cup of coffee in a local bar are all options that belong to the past from this moment on. Because after the slightest noise, a whole myriad of mutilated zombies will be rushing towards you to consume you as a snack. In itself, the zombies don’t look so terrifying but rather moronic and stupid. Only the lack of growling or making creepy noises makes it rather frightening. So don’t expect any ominous sounds, bestial growls or threatening teeth chattering. Zombie flick for beginners. If you really aren’t a fan of zombie movies and you leave skid marks in your underwear every time you see such a hollow-eyed creature appearing around a corner, I guarantee it, you can watch “The Night Eats the World“. You won’t experience a shuddering moment. The only thing you will feel is compassion. You’ll feel sorry for Sam. How he slowly withers away and gradually comes to terms with his fate and the fact that he can’t go anywhere. His only problem is his food supply and the lack of company. That’s why he keeps an infected old man locked in a blocked elevator and uses him as a partner in dialogue. And to kill some time (how appropriate), he uses the apathetic looking zombies in the streets as a target to improve his shooting skills with a paintball gun. In a way, it surprises. Even though his part isn’t filled with entertaining dialogues or fascinating conversations, Anders Danielsen Lie manages to play a whole range of emotions in a convincing way. I thought the cunningly added twist was quite obvious. Don’t you think you’ll become delusional from such a secluded existence and the constant fear of an upcoming assault? The behavior of certain undead can even be called hilarious at times. And the relationship between Sam and his trapped neighbor is at least surprising. All in all “The night eats the World” is an original film with a unique view on the zombie genre. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here