Search Results

On Monday 29th January 2018, I saw Darkest Hour at the Vue Cinema with my Mum and sister. The Darkest Hour is about the period of time in May 1940 when Britain needed a new Prime minister to guide our country through World War II. That Prime minister being Winston Churchill. The film shows the audience the struggle Churchill went through to be accepted as a 'victory' Prime minister and how his stubbornness and care for British people managed to get 300,000 men home from Dunkirk safely and through 6 years of war. I don't know if this is because I am English or if I just love our culture and feel good movies, but I absolutely LOVE British films. We have some incredible actors and that makes me feel incredibly proud. Gary Oldman was no exception, he was absolutely incredible as Winston Churchill, from the makeup to the stutter and articulate voice he was simply perfect. After the recent Academy Award nominations for Darkest Hour I expected a showstopper and it exceeded my expectations entirely. British films win in mise-en-scene as the film was perfectly shot with costumes and sets that fit the 1940's era and how London would have looked at the time. Along with how aesthetically pleasing the film is the historical aspects and learning about what Winston Churchill had to do to please the public and parliament and save soldiers in Dunkirk and still with a positive attitude was very inspiring. In the time of complete and utter fear he stayed humorous and confident that we'd win the war with resilience when others were willing to give up. I personally loved the scene when Churchill visited the public in the Underground when he wasn't supposed to, although he may have not done that specifically it was interesting to learn that he would often wonder off and ask the public how they want to respond to the war and that's why he was so well respected and got us through the war. Along with it being very serious with the situation at Dunkirk and Calais (which was interesting to see after watching Dunkirk in the summer) it was also funny and showed that Churchill didn't really care and was his own individual self. The film brought some comedy to it, some of it was quite obviously funny but as the film is a Drama and is supposed to be serious there weren’t too many moments of humour. The other audience members didn’t really laugh but there were some quite funny parts where Churchill wouldn’t take situations all too seriously and parts where he’d just walk around naked. Overall, I really thoroughly enjoyed the film and I’d recommend it to anyone who wants to see a (hopefully, most likely) Academy Award winning performance as Churchill. It’s very light hearted and not too intense to watch. Definitely watch the film if you can while it’s out in the cinema, you’ll get a different experience then watching it at home.

Wonder Woman! The final 'trinity' movie in DC's universe. I must speak of what first comes to mind - the cinematography. The entire movie looks beautiful, from the orange beaches of Themyscira to the colours of the poison gas, 'Wonder Woman' is designed perfectly. The movie is flawlessly integrated into history, with real parts of World War One (such as General Ludendorff) playing key roles in the movie. Perhaps what is done well (where its predecessors fell) is the structure and pacing of the movie - each act builds up to the final climactic battle between hero and villain. There is no over-cluttering of characters and plot points, a feat that makes this movie great. Instead, there are very few characters, all developed well with enough dedicated screen-time. The film's key strength is its era; those engineering the war are very dismissive of Diana due to her being a woman (a historically accurate feat). How so that the movie ends with Diana being mankind's only hope! Please do yourself a favour and see this film. It is the DC Universe's first truly outstanding piece and DC's best movie since 'The Dark Knight'.

(Release Info London schedule; March 25th, 2018, Picturehouse Central, 30 Orange Street, 17:00) "Isle Of Dogs" "Isle Of Dogs",tells the story of Atari Kobayashi (Koyu Rankin), 12-year-old ward to corrupt Mayor Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura). When, by 'Executive Decree', all the canine pets of 'Megasaki City' are exiled to a vast garbage-dump, Atari sets off alone in a miniature Junior-Turbo Prop and flies to 'Trash Island' in search of his bodyguard-dog, Spots. There, with the assistance of a pack of newly-found mongrel friends, he begins an epic journey that will decide the fate and future of 'The Entire Prefecture'.   'Canine-Saturation' has reached epidemic proportions. An outbreak of 'Snout-Fever' rips through the city of Megasaki. 'Dog-Flu' threatens to cross the species threshold and enter the human disease pool. Mayor Kobayashi of 'Uni Prefecture' calls for a hasty quarantine; the expulsion and containment of all breeds, both stray and domesticated. By official decree, 'Trash Island' becomes an exile colony, 'The Isle Of Dogs'. Six months later, a tiny, single-engine, miniature airplane crash-lands onto the teeming waste-land. A pack of five starving but fierce abandoned dogs scrambles to the wreckage and discovers a twelve-year-old pilot staggering from the burning fuselage. Atari, orphan-ward to Mayor Kobayashi. With the assistance of his new canine friends, Atari begins a search for his lost dog, Spots (Liev Schreiber), and, in the process, exposes a conspiracy that threatens to destroy all the dogs of 'Megasaki City' forever.   Atari is a heartbroken Japanese boy who makes a heroic flight to search for his lost dog. Mayor Kobayashi is the authoritarian who outlaws dogs from 'Megasaki City', though the consequences hit closer to home than he ever imagined. His greatest nemesis proves to be Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig), a feisty young foreign exchange student and editor of 'The Megasaki Senior High Daily Manifesto'. It's a paper that stands for transparency and truth. And Tracy believes that’s what all newspapers and news outlets should stand for. Even though it’s a student publication, they hold themselves to a very high, rigorous standard. That standard pushes her to discover the truth about the dog virus and Atari’s trip to 'Trash Island', and perhaps also the first hints of a crush. Tracy just admires Atari’s bravery. And she thinks he has a nice face. He’s the only person standing up to the madness that’s going on in 'Megasaki City'. And he’s doing it on his own for the love of his dog, which she thinks is noble. Each member of the conversationally gifted 'Trash Island" pack has a well-worn canine name suggesting they're once beloved as top dogs, which only serves to remind them of how much they miss their former human homes. Rex (Edward Norton) is a wiry, wire-haired mutt with spiky, mottled coat and the eyes of an Arctic sled-dog. His ribs stick out like a cast-iron radiator. He's a sleeping on a lamb’s wool beanbag next to an electric space heater. So, he’s not some rich man’s dog. He was probably comfortably middle-class, maybe upper middle-class. But he has a work ethic. He’s scrappy, willing to be resourceful and to fight for what he needs. At the same time, he has had a certain baseline of comfort and so psychologically 'Trash Island' is difficult for him. He can only take so much. King (Bob Balanon) is a graceful, red-haired mutt with a sable snout and a handlebar moustache. He's dappled with scabs, scars, scuffs, and scratches. Boss (Bill Murray) is a stout, liver-spotted mutt with black paws and a tail like a stubbed-out cigar. He wears a soiled, grimy, unraveling, striped, woolen dog-sweater with embroidered baseballs and the word Dragons scrolled across it in cursive. When there's the chance of a great success, you need a mascot, someone that’s going to be with you when things get tough, but someone that you’re really going to want to be there when things go well.  That’s Boss.   Duke (Jeff Goldblum) is a bohemian mountain-dog. Slender face, sleek ears, and a ballet-dancer’s overly-nimble gait. He has seven missing teeth and a consumptive dry-cough. Chief (Bryan Cranston) is a coal-black hound with long legs, black nose, a boxer’s jaw, and floppy, black ears with white spots all over them. He has the sturdy frame of a middleweight, but the starved mass of a long distance-runner. Chief is the odd one out, but he also has a great nobility. He represents the idea that with hope can come second chances. Spots is a 'Short-Haired Oceanic Speckle-Eared Sport Hound', who was once the beloved assigned bodyguard to the Mayoral ward Atari, but is now lost to the winds on 'Trash Island'.  He's highly trained, highly sophisticated animal who's not only the constant companion to Atari but also protects him.  In many ways Spots embodies the ideals of loyalty, duty and honor. Spots also finds romance amid the ruins with the steadfast survivor Peppermint (Kara Hayward). Peppermint has been terribly mistreated and Spots goes from feeling bad for her to falling in love with her. He’s really a dog who cares about other dogs.   Among the most enigmatic of 'Trash Island’s' dogs is Nutmeg (Scarlett Johansson), the coquettish show dog with her femme fatale persona and curiously spotless coat of fur. Nutmeg is incredibly resourceful. She keeps her fur clean by collecting garbage ash in an old coffee bean can. The she works the ash through her fur from root to tip. That’s a very important part of the process. You've to work the ash through from root to tip. And then she shakes off the remaining ash and collects it in the found coffee bean can. Which she then stores for next time. She knows what it’s like to lose something and come back stronger. She might be more civilized than Chief, but she recognizes in him a fighting spirit and a leadership quality she admires.  Plus, he has just the right amount of bite; and who doesn’t like a guy with bite? Jupiter (F. Murray Abraham) has chosen to live his life as though he’s given himself over to a Zen existence. He has a barrel of spirits around his neck. It's very wise because you never know when you might need a little shot, or when you’ll run into someone who could use one. And it’s a communal, convivial thing; we’re all going to drink from the same barrel; we’re all going to enjoy this together; and we’re going to find a way out of this mess. We would sure use Jupiter right about now in this poor old world of ours. "Isle Of Dogs" is a grand adventure set in a near-future Japan in the grips of a canine crisis and mass anti-dog hysteria. Here, in a far-flung floating junktopia known only as 'Trash Island', a scrappy pack of exiled dogs who’ve banded together to survive makes an amazing discovery, the crash-landing of a little human pilot who will take them on a life-changing journey. The resulting journey is packed with humor, action and friendship. But on it's trek, it also pays homage to the epic scope and beauty of Japanese cinema, to the noble loyalty of canine companions, to the hopeful heroism of the small and the overlooked, to the rejection of intolerance and most of all to the unbreakable boy-dog bond that has launched countless escapades. The film is inspired by Japanese movies. It's a story with chatty canines, furred femmes fatales, a boy aviator, an intrepid school reporter, mutant viruses, mythical isle and step-by-step unraveling of a big human mistake. In fact, "Isle Of Dogs" may owe as much to the storytelling legacy of Akira Kurosawa as the history of stop-motion animation. The story’s invention expanded from a dreamlike spark to the spectacularly detailed creation of 'Megasaki City', the rubbish-geography of 'Trash Island', and a cast of misfit but hopeful characters, both fur-bearing and human. An outsider (the little pilot) arriving in a new land (Trash Island), and an analogue of the timeless tale of, well, in this case literal underdogs striving against blinded oppressors. But the magic of it all sprang out of the details, from the charm and texture of each dog’s story, from the cluttered but artful architecture of 'Trash Island', from the idea that a child searching for his faithful pet might set off a world-altering chain of events. It just seemed the matching form for emotionally fluent, if down-and-out, dogs and a Japanese island lined with society’s strange, funny and downright calamitous discards. It’s a movie about talking dogs. Yet, it’s not a cartoon, it’s a movie. It pushes the boundary in terms of what people think can be done in this medium. In fact, stop motion animation’s century-long evolution has long been more creative than technical. Little has changed in the fundamentals. Though digital cameras and computers have smoothed the process, it’s still a matter of shooting the infinitesimally small movements of 3D objects frame-by-frame, in a painstaking process that nevertheless generates palpable life. So the biggest changes in the form have come in the content, in the kinds of stories one might tell, in pressing the limits of imagination.   "Isle Of Dogs" is a worldbuilding story that by it's very nature breaks animation norms and brings together all the themes, shots, emotional intricacy and adventures. From the intricate puppets and micro-sets arises this living, breathing realm of cold-nosed questers whose plight is intimately relatable.  The feel is of a whimsical legend but the grounding is in the real concerns, big and small, of modern life; friendship, family, humanity’s future and coming together to clean up our messes. It's a story of disenfranchised dogs, but that's also a very real experience for human beings in every country and walk of life. The main characters might be dogs, but they exist in a zone between animals and humans. They've all the dog behaviors we know and recognize but we connect to them through their very human emotions, through their excitement, sadness, anger, hope and their love for one another and their friends. There are disenfranchised people, the throwaways. And the demagoguery of fear, the kind that leads all the dogs of 'Megasaki City' to be put on an island to fend for themselves, is something humans are dealing with as well. It's a very timely theme. The music becomes another layer of a film that, not unlike 'Trash Island', is piled high with bits and pieces that, when combined, seem to alchemically forge a world that feels lived-in and alive in it's fantasia. If any single word seems to define the movie that word might be scale, both for the tiny scale of the intricate stop-motion work and the enormous scale of the story of how the 'Trash Island' pack unites in their trek towards freedom and to discover the potential in themselves. While the sheer number of individual moving pieces, physical and thematic, that make up "Isle Of Dogs" might be staggering, the paradox is that the prevailing core of the film is one of the most timelessly simple relationships on earth.   The animation is wild and the amount of detail packed into every frame is astonishing. It's a beautiful fable that takes you into a world of it's own, a world no one else could have imagined. With it's semi-fictional Japanese setting, it's construction out of comic book-like chapters and it's intercut themes of nature, heroism, technology, rescue and honor, perhaps it's only natural that the film is also reverberate with echoes of Japanese pop culture and some of Japan’s greatest film directors, from Yasujiro Ozu to Kurosawa to Seijun Suzuki, as well as the Japanese monster films of the 50s and 60s, with their climactic disasters. It's as referring to a whole range of Japanese filmmakers and Japanese culture, but Kurosawa is the main movie influence. It’s hard to even quantify Kurosawa’s impact on cinema because he arced so gracefully through a huge pendulum of genres from noir, to Samurai, to Shakespeare, to melodrama. Each seems to transcend the dark side of the modern world with characters of the utmost honesty and humanity. And seen in each is the legendary Toshiro Mifune, whose expressive countenance inspires the look of Mayor Kobayashi. Another branch of inspiration came from two 19th Century, Edo-period woodblock print masters; Hiroshige and Hokusai, whose emphasis on color and line deeply influenced European Impressionists. Their ukyio- artworks capture fleeting moments of pleasure focusing on natural landscapes, far-flung travels, flora and fauna, geishas and kabuki actors. The film collects a wide swath of woodblock print images and the storyboard artists trawled through the extensive collections at 'The Victoria And Albert Museum' in London. Then, by osmosis, the folkloric Japanese style began to merge with the tactile, handmade feel of stop-motion. The world of "Isle Of Dogs" is kind of an alternative reality. It looks and feels like Japan, but it's a slightly dreamier version. That's the beauty of setting the film in a make-up city, in a make-up time; you get a certain amount of artistic license. The blending of old and new is very common in Japan. There are scenes in the film that are very minimalist and wabi-sabi; but then you switch over to the city, which is maximalist and very intense. The film is a scope of Samurai movies and adventure. It's a big movie in every way, but with simple basic themes that anyone can relate to. 

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

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

/05/23/23/ Picturehouse Central, 6:15 pm Fulham Road Picturehouse, 8:00 pm "Master Gardener" "Master Gardener" follows Narvel Roth (Joel Edgerton), the meticulous horticulturist of Gracewood Gardens. He's as much devoted to tending the grounds of this beautiful and historic estate, to pandering to his employer, the wealthy dowager Mrs. Haverhill (Sigourney Weaver). When Mrs. Haverhill demands that he take on her wayward and troubled great-niece Maya (Quintessa Swindell) as a new apprentice, chaos enters Narvel’s spartan existence, unlocking dark secrets from a buried violent past that threaten them all. "Master Gardener" is a potent tale of a man tormented by his past as a white supremacist gun-for-hire, which captures the racial tensions of contemporary America. Although not initially envisaged as a trilogy, "Master Gardener" marks the culmination of a tryptic of films that began in 2017 with "First Reformed". Like "The Card Counter" (2021) before it, "Master Gardener" is a bold new take on a man in a room narratives, where a lonely figure, wrestling with his past and hiding behind his day job, waits for something to change. The character first evolved with "Taxi Driver" (1976), which was an outgrowth of the existential hero of European Fiction. Each chapter of the trilogy concerns men who are facing existential crises, living lonely lives, hiding behind their day jobs, whether as a reverend, a card player or, as in the case of "Master Gardener", a horticulturist. At the heart of "Master Gardener" is Narvel Roth. He's someone who has a bit of Robert Mitchum about them, who you wouldn’t want to get into a fight with at a bar. It looks like that 1950s American physique, we've seen before with "Warrior" (2011). Narvel, like so many leading men, is a loner. He’s meticulous in his duties, carefully tending the grounds of Gracewood Gardens, a grand house owned by the wealthy dowager, Mrs. Haverhill. When Haverhill’s much-troubled niece, Maya arrives at Gracewood, Narvel finds himself caught between these two women, as his past, present and future collide with dramatic force. Whether it’s being a gigolo ("American Gigolo", 1980), or a drug dealer ("Light Sleeper", 1992), or a gambler ("The Card Counter", 2021) or a gardener, it’s about finding a metaphor. Gardening is a particularly metaphor, both positively and negatively. The films is alluring to a flashback Narvel has when he remembers a white supremacist saying it’s their job to rip out the weeds. But it's equally through gardening that Narvel finds redemption. It all comes back to that man in the room. It starts out with gardening, much like how "The Card Counter" started out with gambling. But this is only the start of the creative process. Why is this gardener such a recluse? From there we remember about the Witness Protection Programme, and again you ask the question, why is he in the programme? This mutes to the idea that he's a gun-for-hire for white supremacists. The story must follow a logic. Asking these questions, means his isolation becomes completely understandable. As his handler tells him, you’ll never be free from this shadow, which is echoed when he says that he wears it on his skin every day in the form of tattoos. Whilst bearing some similar narrative techniques to previous films, "Master Gardener" detours from what has come before. You must create a different social ambience with the film, and then start moving the characters around slightly. Here you not find new wine for your skins. Whilst the framework of the story is akin to previous man in the room narratives, the way the film manipulates and puts a spin on ideas is what leads to such stories. With "Master Gardener", there's the central notion of the triad, whether it's sex, race, and gender, or the character triad of Mrs. Haverhill, Narvel, and Maya. Here you've a man caught between two women, one old enough to be his mother, the other young enough to be his daughter. This is the first time since "Taxi Driver" that we see two women in one of these stories. What was once deemed acceptable on screen has changed dramatically. With this in mind the film wants to tell the story in a way that reflects contemporary society. We no longer accept the idea that a 55- year-old man and a 25-year-old woman is a perfectly normal arrangement. In the film, Maya is in her mid-20s, and Narvel is in his late 40s, whilst Mrs. Haverhill is older than them both. These age gaps to lean into the unease of the film. The age gaps of the characters to add to the unease of the situation. Rather than avoid these complex moral issues the film wants to explore these themes in the narrative. Age, race, and gender make for a good narrative triad, where all the corners of the triangle meet in different ways as they explore the subject matter. "Master Gardener" is a film where age, gender and race collide. This final chapter in the trilogy echoes the message of redemption through love. Across the course of the three films, the man in the room character does not offering new, intriguing perspectives on his tales. All three men find redemption, but often at a price. The intentionally ambiguous ending of "First Reformed" left audiences questioning whether Toller is alive or dead by the film’s end. In "The Card Counter", William Tell finds redemption, but his brutal acts lead him to be incarcerated. "Master Gardener" offers a different, more hopeful perspective, reinforcing the idea that the only hope these existential antiheroes have, is to be found in love. Written by Gregory Mann

"When Evil Lurks" /10/07/23/Prince Charles Cinema/13:45/     The residents of a small rural town discover that a demon is about to be born among them. They desperately try to escape before the evil is born, but it may be too late.   When brothers Pedro (Ezequiel Rodríguez) and Jimmy (Demián Salomón) discover that a demonic infection has been festering in a nearby farmhouse, its very proximity poisoning the local livestock, they attempt to evict the victim from their land. Failing to adhere to the proper rites of exorcism, their reckless actions inadvertently trigger an epidemic of possessions across their rural community. Now they must outrun an encroaching evil as it corrupts and mutilates everyone it is exposed to, and enlist the aid of a wizened cleaner, who holds the only tools that can stop this supernatural plague.   The film wants to create an own universe and something unique in the genre. It's a sequel to "Terrified" (Aterrados). To make the audience experience disturbing situations in the context of everyday life. It's about a new way into the demonic possession subgenre, without falling into the expected or generic places. Unlike "Terrified", where the protagonists were based in a couple of houses and going to look for 'evil' until they collided with it, here we propose the complete opposite, evil would be looking for the characters, who would have to cross a whole region to avoid that confrontation. The idea is always to create a horror road movie of characters with family ties that are in a state of decay, which makes everything that happens more brutal and disturbing. The film also wants to present striking scenes and images within the horror and fantasy genre set in Latin America. A wildly original take on the possession film, "When Evil Lurks" is a shocking supernatural thriller.   Written by Gregory Mann

If you’re unusually fascinated with the psychological and characteristic fundamentals of serial killers as much as me, you’ll be able to recognize Jeffrey Dahmer without hesitation. Born on May 21st, 1960 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S. Dahmer committed various malicious crimes such as rape, murder and mutilation of 17 men and boys. Frequently indulging in necrophilia, cannibalism and preserving the body parts of his victims as a declaration of accomplishment. I’ve observed countless articles, books, movies and interviews surrounding Jeffrey Dahmer. So, why on earth was I sympathizing with Dahmer in Marc Meyers latest film, My Friend Dahmer? My Friend Dahmer directed by Marc Meyers is a biographical drama movie that surrounds the childhood of perhaps America’s most notorious serial killer. The film successfully encapsulates the essence and fundamental core of John “Derf” Backderf’s graphic novel of the same name. Derf went to Revere High School, Ohio, the same high school as Dahmer. He and his friends would observe Dahmer’s eccentric behavior as he would fake epileptic fits and impersonate the characteristics of someone enduring cerebral palsy. With this newly found fascination, Derf and his friends would invite Dahmer to socialise and the inaugural meeting of the “Dahmer Fan Club” initiated. Within this “fan club”, Derf and his friends would request Dahmer to use his unique impersonation skills in various environments such as the library or the local mall. Often paying him for his performances. Perhaps this was Dahmer trying to fit in socially or was he just impersonating the interior decorator who visited his mother the previous day as it made him laugh? Ross Lynch portrays Jeffrey Dahmer realistically, resembling an eerie comparison. Lynch even stated that he took extended showers to escape and evacuate the Jeffrey Dahmer character from his consciousness. Jeffrey Dahmer inhabited numerous issues throughout his childhood. His morbid obsession with dismembering dead animals and dissolving their remains in acid. Overcoming the harsh realities of high school. Battling his frustration and understanding his sexual orientation by stalking the jogger consistently. Comprehending the inevitable disintegration of his family. Combating his inescapable alcoholism to subdue his mentality. Ross Lynch encapsulates Jeffrey Dahmer’s childhood with his performance. Incubating his suppressed resentments, his introvert characteristic, his zombie-esque movement and the way he struggles to convey his emotions. Lynch studied Dahmer’s stature and his mentality effectively. Marc Meyers took the initiative to shoot My Friend Dahmer in the Dahmer childhood household in Ohio to enrich the realism. The film follows Derf’s graphic novel religiously, however, it heightens specific scenes to incorporate a feeling of tension. One scene in particular which is so bizarre to comprehend was when they had a field trip to Washington, D.C. Dahmer’s friends were conversing, joking about meeting President Carter when Dahmer takes the initiative to phone his office from a nearby payphone. He successfully got through to Vince President Walter Mondale’s office and arranged a private tour. Let me explain myself. My Friend Dahmer is a fascinating character driven story that provokes a sympathetic sentiment towards Dahmer. However, the movie does not justify Dahmer but rather illuminate his serial killer tendencies. Obviously, I’m not a serial killer fanatic that worships and praises these people. I just find the whole psychological and mentality extremely fascinating. It’s funny that I’m justifying myself here. My Friend Dahmer is an exceptional insight into the mind and upbringing of Jeffrey Dahmer. It’s not a gore fest whatsoever, it’s an unnerving study. There is a feeling of sympathy as you watch him trying to fit into high school and the only way he can do is by being a “performance act”. However, Dahmer has recalled his high school days fondly, stating that he did have a good time. Then there’s the problematic family issues surrounding Dahmer too. Drifting away each day as his mother and father undergo a divorce, ultimately leaving Dahmer alone to finally embrace his concealed thoughts.

Jesus Christ. It’s Rob Zombie’s house. They came up with the following slogans for “Hereditary“: “The scariest film ever” and “A highlight in horror in the last 50 years“. Well, I wonder what they would say about “Incident in a Ghostland“? I won’t say this is the most masterful horror of all time. And no, it’s not as frightening as “The Exorcist“. That one scared me to death in those days. “Incident in a Ghostland” uses the same concept as in “The seasoning house” and “I spit on your grave“. The sexual abuse of innocent girls and the psychological damage these desperate victims suffer from. It’s not trembling and shaking all the time, but the whole movie you’ll have that uncomfortable feeling. An eye for an eye. Now, the concept of such movies is actually quite simple. In the first instance, they try to shock you with confrontational images so you’ll feel sick with disgust and anger. In such a way that the second part feels like a relief. Just like Jean-Claude Van Damme in his old movies where he fights back and wins, after being beaten up real bad. Or when an almost defeated underdog in a football match can turn the tide. That’s how the second part feels. You are a member of a fan club for the victims who fight back and avenge the injustice done to them. As in “I spit on your grave” where I couldn’t suppress a heartfelt, loud “Yes” with every execution of one of the perpetrators. And the way the victims take revenge should be ruthless and merciless. The more pain, the better. In short, a film that contrasts two opposing feelings frontally. The feeling of destruction, despair and physical pain, versus relief, liberation and a victory. The twist was a surprise. In a way, “Incident in a Ghostland” tries to break this pattern. Yes, there’s that moment of extreme violence and that moment the situation looks desperate. And just when you think it’s going smooth, the film takes a completely new path and the struggle for survival begins again. Further revealing only leads to spoiling the fun for those who haven’t seen the film yet. But the twist in the story also surprised me. To be honest, it’s not often that a film does this to me. Usually, I see it coming a mile away. But not now. Is it something like “Martyrs”? The film was directed by Pascal Laugier who’s best known for his controversial film “Martyrs“. A film that was proclaimed as the mother of all “torture-porn” and apparently rolls over you like a steamroller. An extremely brutal film many found disgusting. I never watched it myself. Deep inside I would like to see this movie but something tells me that the extreme violence will hit me too deeply. That’s why I avoid it. Had I known that Laugier directed this movie as well, I might have ignored it too. And now I’m on the horns of a dilemma. Is this a film where Laugier went soft? Or should I try to watch “Martyrs” anyway? Thumbs-up for the make-up department. Is it worth to watch this movie? Actually yes. And that because it’s beyond simply a brutal “home-invasion movie” with the torture, abuse, and humiliation of young girls. Here Laugier also brings the psychological impact of such a traumatic experience in the picture. He shows how the human psyche works from an individual who experiences something such as this barbaric invasion by two murderous maniacs. It’s not a film for sensitive souls even though the violence isn’t explicitly shown. However, the consequences of these brutal assaults are clearly visible. That’s why I give a thumbs-up for the make-up department. Dark and oppressive. The set-up as a whole is very successful. The house where Pauline (Mylène Farmer) and her two daughters Beth (Emilia Jones \ Crystal Reed) and Vera (Taylor Hickson \ Anastasia Phillips) move in, is a real junk house full of rarities and old dolls. Not that it plays a prominent role in the film, but it contributes to the entire oppressive and dark atmosphere. The acting of the two girls is mainly limited to screaming and anxiously waiting for the two halfwits to show up again. Except for Beth who became a successful writer of horror stories. Until she returns to the hell-house and is being confronted with the suffering. Mother Pauline behaves as a soothing and encouraging character. And then finally you have the two assailants. One crazier than the other, in terms of appearance. One is a goth-like person who you’ll only get to see briefly most of the time. The second a colossal, moronic monster who’s inhumanly strong. A drooling and groaning primate who prefers to play with dolls. And he likes it even better when those dolls are alive. More frightening because of the realism. All in all, “Incident in a Ghostland” is fascinating in a way. Even though the level of sadism is quite high and you can’t shake off the feeling of fear and panic during the whole movie. The entire film is an avalanche of hysteria with that constant sense of helplessness. It’s not a horror movie about possessed houses or paranormal phenomena with the familiar jump scares and creepy moments. This is a frightening film about something that can happen in reality and that we see on the news on a regular basis. The story itself seems rather simple, but Beth’s condition creates an extra dimension. In any case, it’s a lot more frightening than “Hereditary“, THE horror from 2018 (sarcastic tone). My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB

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

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

"Border" Tina (Eva Melander) is a border guard who has the ability to smell human emotions and catch smugglers. When she comes across a mysterious man with a smell that confounds her detection, she's forced to confront hugely disturbing insights about herself and humankind. At a ferry-port customs checkpoint, Tina is one of many polyester-uniformed guards standing watch. Short, with her features broadened and by a congenital genetic condition, and one of many in her polyester uniform, she blends into near invisibility, a cog in the system. During the day, she keeps a close eye on travelers; off the job, she has a small place surrounded by primal forest and a normal life of family, friends and work right down to her ailing dad (Sten Ljunggren) and her indifferent boyfriend Roland (Jörgen Thorsson), a dog-trainer. The only thing exceptional about Tina's work is how exceptional she's at it; in a way even she can't quite explain, Tina can literally smell guilt, fear and fury seeping off of some travelers, and her results speak for themselves. Mostly she detects booze-smugglers and other minor transgressors, but two separate travelers give off clouds of strange scent that give her reason to look closer. One is a suit-clad smoothie found to be carrying a cache of child pornography, the other is a smiling, swaggering rambler named Vore (Eero Milonoff) whose silent ways and familiar-strange features pull Tina closer. Her search for belonging crystallises when Vore passes through customs. As Tina's strange skill and determination see her helping the police work up the chain of sex criminals she caught a small link of at the terminal, she has to go to the grey city streets and perfect 'IKEA' apartments of her suspects. Back at her home, in the woods, wild and waters, she and Vore talk and grow intertwined, as he reveals more and more secrets about his life even as he confounds and confuses her. He has many of the same scars as her, knows more about her past in some ways than she does, and soon Tina has to decide just how much of her life she's willing to upend in the name of belonging. Almost instantly, she can tell something is off about him but for the first time she can’t quite put her finger on what it's. Strangely attracted, Tina strikes up a friendship that soon blossoms into romance as she gradually learns uncomfortable truths. When the true nature of the case Tina's working and the lies about her childhood past she's uncovering lead towards friends and family, Tina will discover, for herself, who she truly is. This film is based on the short novel 'Let The Right One In' by John Lindqvist. His way of writing and his universe is very specific, and he doesn't write 'feel-good' literature. He works in fantasy genres, or subgenres, but it always has a twist. The way he treats his characters, he uses a lot of space and effort in describing their inner conflict, and their feelings, and their emotions, and their thoughts, which is the kind of thing that you would kind of expect from 'serious literature'. Even if he's known as a fantasy writer, underneath there's always something unsettling, and something very serious, and other conflicts going on, which makes it hard to just see it as 'fantasy literature'. "Border" is about being an outsider, but when you think about where the story comes from, John is a white guy that's totally adapted to his society, and as for being an outsider, that's not why he wrote. The experience of being outsider is not exclusive to if you're brown in a white society, or if you're a woman in a man-dominated society. You can be perfectly fit for the society you live in, but still experience. You end up in a job you don't like, or you end up in a marriage you don't. Every person has experienced how it feels to be an outsider, and that's why, in a strange way, everybody is an outsider. Or at least they know how it feels. There are always groups and places that exclude you. This story is stylized, it's not realism; there are other elements, and it's elevated. The film stylizes shots or framing that kind of signals something special is going on. It's a kind of anchors the realism. Because it isn't real, you probably wouldn't care about Tina. We've this theme through the whole film, nature versus nurture, or nature versus civilization, or whatever you want call it. The society and the socio- economic situation is really important. It's easy to justify how Tina is more human than Vore is. Tina has the context to develop empathy, which is the most critical part of being human. The film creates a contrast between the ferry terminal and the forest, and again, as for the realism of it, that place in reality does sit exactly like that. The ferry terminal is kind of like a piece of concrete landed at the shore, just a slab on the edge of a forest. And you go inland to the forest, and then there are some small communities of houses, and the film is what the surrounding community looks like. And then there's a city an hour's drive from there. The set design is not that far from reality, and of course, the film choses more shades. The idea of monster is very connected to the idea of human being. Because monsters are always defined as; you don't call a fox a monster. The idea of monsters has always been where there's enough humanity, or elements of humanity, so that we can relate to it as some kind of human-like creature. But it's also far away enough from us so that we know that it's not human. That space is how you define a monster. The film is interested in the psychology of nature versus nurture, of what happens when you're at the limit of humanity. And what's it that defines humanity, which is a very relevant question. It isn't just an artistic or existential question like it maybe was in the eighteenth century. Not anymore. Because soon, we're going to have legal, ethical, and technical questions to answer about humanity. And one of the core questions of the movie is, what does it take to be a human being?' It's about how nature versus nurture and similar thinking underlies a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Generally speaking, Republicans put an emphasis on nature. If you don't have a job it's because you're lazy, if you're a crack addict it's because you like drugs, if you're a criminal, it's because you've a bad nature. And generally speaking Democrats put an emphasis on nurture. If you're poor maybe it's because of the socio-economic situation, or your context, or our society. And of course, it's neither 100% this or that. To say more would spoil many of the film’s surprising revelations, but the ease with which the film infuses a social dimension with 'Scandinavian' folklore without ever losing his footing, in reality, is nothing short of breathtaking. "Border" is one of the most original and unique films of recent years. The film weaves folklore, tragic romance, and existential questions into a highly affective cinematic tale.