Search Results

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

Relapse is a part of recovery. 8 Years ago I found myself in a similar hopeless situation. With my back against the wall. Desperately searching for a way out. Knowing that I had to change my way of life drastically. Or else I would be admiring the roots of green grass till eternity real soon. The will to change was there. The courage too. Only I couldn’t do it. And now, after all those years, I’m happy I made the right decision back then. For me, “Beautiful Baby” was a bitter pill to swallow. I didn’t think I would have a hard time watching it. It wasn’t crystal meth or something similar I had problems with. But there were so many similarities with my situation in this impressive film that it seemed like the story was about me. You’ll see an avalanche of feelings in “Beautifull Boy”. Pride, trust, distrust, despair, upheaval, hope, happiness, grief and discouragement. A hopeless battle that demands inhuman efforts from both camps, leading to an unavoidable outcome. Either the person succeeds or those who surround him must passively watch as he drinks, injects, blows or swallows himself to death. Well, the movie shook me up. Aggression, begging and promises. The nice thing about this movie was that it didn’t only focus on the addict Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet), but also on the people surrounding him (his father David Sheff played by Steve Carell and stepmother Karen by Maura Tierney). As an addict, you don’t have any clue what grief you are causing to relatives during your heydays. Everything revolves around getting what your body yearns for. It’s not like in “Christiane F. – Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo” and “Animals” where you witness the gradual decline of the addict himself. Both physically and psychologically. It’s not that Nic looks spic and span the whole movie. Towards the end, you can see the terrible consequences of the daily use of methamphetamine. That hazy look and a gray, unkempt appearance. But mainly his changing moods and aggressive behavior towards others are terrible to look at. His begging and making promises are nothing more than an excuse to get some extra cash to buy the drug he needs. I pray this will never happen to one of my kids. The only thing I could say to my wife afterward was: “I hope we’ll never have to deal with this with one of our two kids. Because this is a real nightmare“. As a parent of two children growing up, the thought this could happen to us scares the hell out of me. No matter how much you try to protect them from the evil outside world and you overload them with love and attention, the moment they give in to the things that seem to make their life rosier, you know that you are going to have an unequal battle. A fight where, against all your parents’ feelings, you might have to throw the towel in the ring at some point and have to confess to yourself that you’ve lost the battle. Losing a child is terrible. But breaking the bond with one of your children, pretending that they no longer exist and hoping that they get out of that period unscathed, is dozens of times worse I think. The acting was impressive. “Beautiful Boy” is impressive. And not only because of the theme. The acting of Steve Carell and Timothée Chalamet is also unparalleled. You simply feel the desperation of Steve Carell who tries to help his son and always realizes that this isn’t possible. A father who tackles the problem and like an investigative journalist tries to understand what the notorious drugs do to his son Nic. As a comedian, Steve Carell never convinced me. With this role, however, my respect for the actor has only increased. Timothée Chalamet’s performance is certainly Oscar-worthy. You don’t get the feeling that he’s the acting rising star in the Hollywood firmament. It feels authentic, sincere and unforced. These two protagonists may already prepare their tuxedo for the Academy Awards. Proud to be a Belgian. And director Felix van Groeningen (Yes, he’s from Belgium) can also join these gentlemen on the red carpet. Thematically, the film lends itself perfectly to make an exaggerated Hollywood spectacle. But he manages to keep it serene and realistic. Artistic images are processed in an idiosyncratic montage with a lot of back and forth jumping in time. Flashbacks follow each other and the memories of both Nic and Davis flow into each other. I sometimes didn’t know where the story was situated on the timeline. But that’s the only flaw that I can think of in this otherwise impressive film. And all this with a tasteful soundtrack. I never expected to hear “Territorial pissings” from Nirvana in a movie. I was speechless. Some film viewers will probably just say it’s a family drama about addiction. Maybe they also find it monotonous because of the endless cycle of reviving and relapsing. On me, however, it made an overwhelming impression that unleashed a lot of emotions. I hope that every person who falls into the trap of any drug also can fall back on a loving, supportive family full of understanding and support, so they can escape from it eventually somewhere in their lives. My rating 10/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

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

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.

(Release Info London schedule; July 20th, 2020, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-arkansas-online "Arkansas" We enter the world of 'The Dixie Mafia', from the 1980s to the present. Two parallel narratives telling one larger story; the three decade rise of an Arkansas-based drug kingpin known only as 'Frog' (Vince Vaughn); and the ground-floor criminal careers of two young guys at the bottom of 'Frog’s' present-day operation, Kyle (Liam Hemsworth) and Swin (Clark Duke). Posing as junior park rangers by day, they operate as low-level drug couriers by night under the watchful eye of 'Frog’s' proxies Bright (John Malkovich) and Her (Vivica A. Fox). Swin then settles into his day job by taking up a relationship with Johnna (Eden Brolin) against orders to blend in while Kyle continues to question his night job by trying to figure out who 'Frog' really is. Their world is then upended after one too many inept decisions, and Kyle, Swin, and Johnna find themselves directly in 'Frog’s' crosshairs, who mistakenly sees them as a threat to his empire. Kyle and Swin live by the orders of 'Frog' , whom they’ve never met, but a series of mistakes leads them into a deadly collision course where the only way out is to eliminate 'Frog' and take over or be killed trying to do so. The 'Dixie Mafia' has long history of criminal cases. A plan to murder a 'Florida' prosecutor in November 1968 was discovered literally by accident, but the thwarted plol served-as a catalyst for police departments throughout 'The South' and 'Southwest' to organize a massive regional intelligence network. Police linked the foiled assassination to a loose association of traveling criminals, and by the next April had organized a regional conference in Atlanta to coordinate informatlon on the group, according to a 1971 'Intelligence' report that was one result of that conference. The report claims the news media picked up the story of the criminal 'Intelligence' meeting and came up with the name 'Dixie Mafia' for this gang, although others have credited the name to a police officer who was instrumental in developing the intelllgence network. The incident which precipitated the intelligence network was a plan to murder 'Escambia County', Fl., prosecutor Carl Harper, who's now a retired circuit court judge. Gary Elbert McDaniel, identified in the report as a burglar and hit man, was involved in a traffic accident near Pensacola. McDaniel had a handgun, a hand-drawn map and notes describing Harper, his personal habits, his car and the location of his garage in relation to his home. McDaniel was charged with conspiracy to commit murder alter interrogation revealed he had been hired by three friends to kill Harper. He was released on bond, and roughly two months later was found in 'The Sabine River' in 'Wood County', Texas, dead from three 38 caliber slugs. A number of gun battles between the thugs and law enforcement officers are reported, including one in January 1969 in which 'Deputy Sheriff' E.R. Walthers was killed and his partner wounded in a gunfight with fugitive James Walter Cherry. Cherry was also wounded and quickly caught. Cherry was convicted of murdering Walthers, but not before three other men kidnapped a woman in 'Little Rock', Ark., in May 1970 as part of a plot to locate a prosecution witness in the murder. One of the abductors was arrested; and less than three weeks later 'Little Rock' police arrested four more men who were burglarizing an auto, parts store to raise bond money for the accused kidnapper. Although elaborately planned burglaries and thefts were a mainstay of the criminals monitored in the report, confidence swindles, scams, were frequently employed and olten netted large sums. A 'Vidalia' man was sold smuggled diamonds for $70,000 in a scam operated by three men, one of whom was supposed to be an independent gem expert. A bank president in 'Guthrie', Okl.; lost $10,000 when he thought he was buying a stolen coin collection. An attorney and a bank president from Jacksonville, Fl.; lost $140,000 in 'Corpus Christi', Texas, believing they're buying old currency and gold coins being hidden from 'The Internal Revenue Service' by a wealthy ranch executive. 'The Florida' victims sued and were awarded a $139,000 judgment against one of the criminals. The 'Vidalia' case was dropped after the victim's money was returned. Surveillance and raids on motels and residences turned up connections between the criminals and public officials. A former sheriff from Georgia and an unidentified state senator, the state was not designated, were among the people noted in the report. Stanley Lee Cook was hospitalized for several weeks alter he was shot during a struggle over his own gun Feb. 1st, 1970. The shooting occurred over the burglary of a house belonging to a former 'FBI' agent who had become friendly with Cook. Seven months later, Cook's wife was shot and wounded. She refused to press charges or tell police what happened. A handgun confiscated during an arrest of suspected 'Dixie Mafia' associates was traced to a police 'Sergeant' in 'Kentucky'; the officer lost his job. The extent to which crimes were planned came to Ught in August 1970 when police in Dallas opened a trailer on which the storage fees had expired at the airport in Dallas. The trailer contained a complete set of safe burglary tools, 83 burning bars, two gas masks, an asbestos suit, two-way radtos, a hydraulic jack, porta-power jack, weapons and diagrams of two proposed bank burglaries. Based on the novel of the same name by John Brandon, "Arkansas" is a gritty, darkly comedic thriller about drug trafficking by the 'Dixie Mafia' in 'The Deep South' from the 1980’s to the present. "Arkansas" weaves together three decades of 'Deep South' drug trafficking to explore the cycle of violence that turns young men into criminals, and old men into legends. 'Frog' is, to use 'Fhe FBI’s' terms, a 'known associate' of 'The Dixie Mafia'. He's a true southern character, wrecked, blown up, arrested; like a Hank Jr. song come to life. This film is about crime and 'The South' and fathers and sons and cycles of violence and how a place with so few economic options can turn young men into criminals. The book 'Arkansas' by John Brandon, it's a gut punch. It's everything we want to write about, all the themes we want to explore, in this eloquent structure with dialog that left us dizzy. 'Arkansas' was his first book and his personal version of the real South. There are no banjos on the soundtrack. The real 'South' is heartbreaking and hilarious, poetic without being sentimental, mannered but brutally honest.

Wow. You’ve given each other the perfect male fantasy. Sex without emotional attachment. Fascinating. That’s the best description for this film. “Jonathan” is not an easy movie and it excels in monotony. But give this not so action-packed, one location situated film a chance and maybe you’ll discover how unparalleled and brilliant this film is. The starting point is actually dead simple. Those who already experienced the concept of living together, know that this only has a chance of success if appropriate agreements are made and complied with. This is to ensure that nobody makes the other’s life unnecessarily miserable. which could lead to a breakup. In the case of Jonathan (Ansel “Baby Driver” Elgort), it’s a bit more complicated. Because the person he lives with is his twin brother John who shares the same body. Aha, this is something like “Split“? No, not entirely. It’s less intense and it shows in a realistic way what a split personality is. So no frightening personality changes or “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ” behavior. Excellent performance. First of all, I would like to praise the excellent acting of Ansel Elgort. Even though I realize this isn’t so obvious, it seems to be a piece of cake for Elgort to play the two totally different personalities. Jonathan is the more disciplined twin brother. A perfect hairstyle and decent clothing show he’s the one who follows the rules. This means he manages his allocated time of the week optimally. He works at a distinguished architectural firm where he does his job perfectly. The cooking and household tasks are done neatly. And he reports conscientiously what he did all day with the aid of the camcorder before he crawls into his bed at an exact time to make room for the other twin brother John. No girlfriends. John is the indifferent one. A relaxed-looking pack rat who doesn’t want to live strictly according to the imposed rules. A night owl who enjoys the nightlife where he can meet other people and seduce feminine beauties. He’s someone whose video messages never sound too businesslike and who exudes an enormous “Je mon fou” mood. John is the rebellious personality who enjoys life. Until Jonathan gets suspicious (there’s this constant feeling of fatigue) and hires a private detective (a brief cameo by Matt “Walking out” Bomer), after which he finds out that John isn’t really keeping his end of the bargain. He conceals certain developments and breaks the main rule: no girlfriends. Having sex isn’t the problem, but having an emotional bond is out of the question. It’s all about inner struggle. “Jonathan” shows the interaction between two good friends. Jealousy and protecting his own territory causes complications and leads to a struggle between two people. In Jonathan’s case, it’s about an inner struggle. Something everyone has experienced once already. Only such a quarrel isn’t so obvious for Jonathan cause physical contact is impossible. What they get, is a war of words with the use of the camera. Or just simply, the absence of any sign of life, such that one of the personalities stays behind helplessly. The only moral support Jonathan has is Dr. Mina Nariman (Patricia “October Gale” Clarkson). She took Jonathan in when he was young and introduced structure in his life. She discovered what was wrong (Single body, multi-consciousness) and separated their lives with the help of a kind of timer. Interesting, fascinating and captivating. “Jonathan” is an interesting and fascinating indie-SF. Probably it’s a bit boring for some because it mostly takes place at one and the same location. And a large part of the film consists of video recordings of the two persons. But to be honest, it was captivating and I was curious how this unique conflict would end. There was, however, one particular thing I broke my head about. If the surgery which Dr. Nariman performed when Jonathan was 9 years old, went off seemingly hassle-free, why not apply this to all personalities? Wouldn’t this be the solution to avoid this unique and complicated situation? Or was Jonathan simply the umpteenth guinea pig? But besides this remark, I thought it was a top film. Definitely recommended for film lovers who love a clever psychological thriller with SF elements in it. My rating 8/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

It’s intense. The infinite horizon. After a few days, I feel reborn. You know, just you, the wind and the sound of the boat cutting through the ocean. When you compare “Adrift” with the movie “All is lost“, where Robert Redford sailed across the ocean on board of a huge sailboat, you’ll notice some similarities. First of all, you can expect some idyllic footage once again. The words horizon, the setting sun, and sails that blow in the wind can be used to compose a corresponding sentence. In both films, it’s an upcoming storm that ensures that the spotless sailboat is reduced to floating wreckage. And then you see an admirable struggle for survival. These being the similarities, isn’t surprising. What else did you expect in a film about a shipwreck? Similarities and differences. However, there are also some significant differences. Differences which make “Adrift” a more interesting film. First, let’s talk about the conversations. In “All is lost” there are as many dialogue lines as you encounter traffic lights on the ocean. None! But then again, Robert Redford was drifting all alone while Tami (Shailene Woodley) and Richard (Sam Claflin) had each other. If there would be no conversation at all, you could say those two Globetrotters weren’t really meant for each other. And the trip across the Pacific would have been boring as hell for both of them in that case. The most obvious difference is the gender of the person who does everything to survive. And finally, there’s the psychological aspect that reminds you immediately of “47 Meters down“. Before you know it, the storm is over. The film can be divided into two chapters. One part before and one after the storm of course. Don’t expect an apocalyptic drawn-out part with a ferocious ocean that throws the boat around like a walnut after which it finally crushes it like a coconut by a heavy stone. Otherwise, you’ll be disappointed. The devastating storm itself is extremely short. The part that was given a lot of attention, is about Tami and Richard meeting each other. And on the other hand, the terrible period on a destroyed boat with a limited supply of food and something to drink. And as a vegetarian, it’s even more difficult For Tami. Because catching a fish causes her to gag instead of being happy. If I’d be in a similar situation, I would throw away my morals instantly. Lots of flashbacks. In terms of content, both parts were interesting enough. Only the romantic stuff was a bit too much of a good thing. I understand they tried to show the contrast between the pleasant and the difficult moments. And then there’s the least successful part for me. The alternation of fragments from the two different time lines with the help of recurring flashbacks. Just when you are empathizing with the dramatic part of the story, in which Tami tries to cope with the situation and does the impossible to cheer up the badly wounded Richard, they jump back to a romantic scene with those two lovebirds watching a beautiful sunset while drinking a Cuba Libre. Even though these are sometimes scenes with beautiful images, I thought it slowed down the pace and decreased the tension. After every flashback, I thought to myself “Show up, you damn storm. Where are you?“. But once this terrible event is over, it’s still a fascinating film with a well-thought-out twist. Don’t watch when you’re about to go on a boat trip. “Adrift” isn’t a bad movie. Or you hate romantic issues. Or you instantly get seasick when you look at a sailboat. What impressed me the most was the interaction between Shailene Woodley (who effortlessly transcends her acting level from “Divergent“) and Sam Claflin. Their love relationship felt convincing and realistic. No fake moments. They were two wandering souls who met each other by chance and together undertook this adventurous trip. They aren’t married yet and already they experience what it means to be together for better or for worse. The film is based on true facts. Mostly the result is a mocking chuckle when I read this. But for me the result was an enormous respect for that young girl who experienced this disaster. Tami Oldham is living proof that one should not talk about the weakness of women. She proves that women can stand their ground in certain circumstances. “Adrift” shows that the term “Girlpower” is not an empty concept. Only one advise. Best not watch this movie when you’re planning to take a boat trip in the near future. I’m sure you’ll start that well-deserved holiday with trembling knees. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Unlike previous Cartoon Saloon films – which have mixed the fantastical folk-tales with the modern, more grounded elements – The Breadwinner, very purposefully keeps them separate. That's what I'd like to talk about in this post: How the movie uses these vastly contrasting narratives that dance between reality and fiction to explore grief and courage; creating one of the most heart-breaking, uplifting, and powerful film endings I've seen for years. Be warned, this post will contain spoilers; I'd advise you not to read before you've seen the film. The Breadwinner is a movie of two parts: The visually lavish sequences of digitally recreated cutout animation; reserved for Parvana's tale of the "brave boy" and his struggle against the elephant king. In contrast, we have the grittier, dirtier, more grounded style of Parvana's existence. Intercut with Parvana's, the story of the boy is, at first, a form of escapism; for the audience as well as Parvana: A simple plot device to take the edge off some of the more uncomfortable subject matters. In fact, it's far more meaningful, and, as the film progresses, the story becomes an avenue for Parvana to overcome her fears and address grief. During the second act, Shauzia – another girl in disguise, a childhood friend of Parvana's – asks Parvana about her older brother: "But you have an older brother don't you? He used to bring you to school on his shoulders, what's his name?" "Sulayman" - Comes the reply. Parvana is reluctant to talk about him; saying merely he died some years ago, and that her mother won't talk about it. Sulayman's death is clearly still affecting the family deeply, and Fattima – Parvana's mother – has clearly not dealt with it well and seemed to me, to be suffering from depression; explaining Parvana's disinclination to address it directly. When Parvana leaves her house to earn money and buy food for her family, it's Sulayman's clothes she wears; reinvigorating her brother's spirit and memory. Fattima regularly, and unknowingly refers to Parvana by her brother's name; providing us more evidence to suggest she's not fully come to terms with his death. However, after this awkward exchange, Parvana does begin to open up more; bestowing the "brave boy" the name, Sulayman. This seemingly fantastical tale becomes a medium Parvana uses to express herself, conquer her fears, and acts as an insight into the state of her mind. During the more joyous times, Parvana spends with Shauzia; the tale of Sulayman is jovial and humorous. As she recites the story to her younger brother or mother, it's calmer, safer, but also more melancholic. And, as she faces down the horrors of her situation, the story is dark and menacing but full of the strength of courage. As the film reaches the final act, and amidst a bombing raid, Parvana races to the prison in a last, desperate attempt to save her father. Running in parallel, is the "brave boy" (Sulayman), who is struggling up the elephant king's mountain in what appears to be, a vicious and loud storm; perfectly echoing the bombing raid. Parvana begins shouting the story aloud to herself as a means of finding her courage. After arriving at the prison, Parvana witnesses the Taliban lining up prisoners and executing them. Placing her hands over her ears, she calls out for her brother and the movie cuts to Sulayman; fending off several of the elephant king's jaguar minions, and finally coming face-to-face with the elephant king himself. "I have not come to kill you!" - Shouts Sulayman: The elephant king rears up and bellows in provocation. "Sulayman! Soothe him with your story, the one that Mama-jan can't speak of. Tell him!" - Insists Parvana, who has now summoned the strength to confront the truth of her brother's story. "Tell him what happened. Tell him your story!" "My name is Sulayman!" - He begins. "My mother is a writer. My father is a teacher. And my sisters always fight each other." Then, comes the truth of it all: "One day I found a toy on the street. I picked it up. It exploded. I don't remember what happened after that because it was the end." The elephant king roars again and charges down the mountain towards Sulayman who repeats his words. "My name is Sulayman. My mother is a writer. My father is a teacher. And my sisters always fight each other. One day I found a toy on the street. I picked it up. It exploded. I don't remember what happened after that because it was the end." Stopping dead in his tracks, the elephant king stands in front of Sulayman: Reciting his words once again, this time, in a noticeably more melancholic manner. Sulayman has conquered the elephant king, and Parvana has conquered her fears, and rescued her father. The Breadwinner left me awestruck; almost breathless. I've seen it several times now, but the effect from those last few scenes has never abated. To me, everything about this film is as close to perfection as is possible to come. Jeff and Mychael Danna's soundtrack is superb and melancholic. The casting is flawless, as are the direction and screenplay. The stunningly hand drawn and lovingly recreated, digital cutout animation works perfectly together; particularly within the narrative of this movie. In my eyes, The Breadwinner is a must-see film; a testament to the power of animated film, and is arguably one of the best films of the year so far.

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

Those who hear the three bells toll, accept his invitation. When you hear the first, you must close your eyes, keeping words unspoken. If one wants to hear, you must listen closely, for they are soft and distant. I was really curious about this movie. Not that I expected anything spectacular. But the photos with this cult figure, which popped up on the internet, were rather intriguing. Not really scary but mysterious. A faceless figure with disproportionate limbs who appears in the background while observing children playing. A kind of Pied Piper of Hamelin who lures innocent children and makes them disappear. The fact this creation is the result of an internet competition is widely known. I was only curious if this figure would convince in a horror film. Well, it’s not really innovative. You’ll see the same clichés again. And the same stupidities and bad decisions are made by those who are about to become a victim. And the same tricks out of “Horror for dummies” are applied. It’s not so bad. And yet, I didn’t think it was bad. “Slender man” certainly isn’t such a big fiasco as you might think. It isn’t as disastrous as the comments you can read here and there on the internet. It won’t go down in history as one of the most frightening or bloody horrors of all time. And the obscure and dark images creates an appropriate atmosphere but also ensure that you can’t see a damn thing most of the time. But I felt that constant threat and the fear among the four teenage girls. And no, I won’t have panic attacks immediately when hearing the sound of crackling wood. But these sound effects did create a creepy mood. This is a hip demon. Normally I am such a person who whines about the fact that too little background information is given in a film. You are kept in the dark (appropriate for this movies) in terms of the origin and arising of the particular creepy phenomenon. With “Slender Man“, however, I didn’t think this was necessary. It made Slender Man even more mysterious. Summoning malicious demons also isn’t exactly something new. Only recently you could see in “Pyewacket” how a frustrated teenage girl evoked something similar with the help of an occult ritual. And a long time ago, a group of young adults played a tape in “The Evil Dead” which caused Kandarian spirits to ruin everything. In “Slender Man” the cause of all the misery is a video on YouTube. Maybe that fits with today’s time, but perhaps this bothered me the most. They tried to make it too hip. Especially when afterwards this ancient legend also knows about mobile phone technology. They say it might be dangerous. Oh hell, what the heck. Maybe that’s the problem with this movie. They focused more on the continuation of the internet hype and tried to make a modern horror out of it. They lost sight of the concept of a well-thought-out horror. Maybe it fits perfectly with the life the four teenage girls Wren (Joey King), Hallie (Julia Goldani Telles), Chloe (Jaz Sinclair) and Katie (Annalize Basso) lead. A group of carefree teenagers who gained a certain popularity status at school (as seen in so many other Highschool films) and show an everyday affinity with current modern technology. They have more affection for their smartphone than for their fellow students. Yes, they display a kind of arrogance. To such an extent that they simply ignore the warnings for watching the video. Until one of them suddenly disappears and they realize that they might be stalked by this lugubrious figure. Javier Botet. I love this creepy looking actor. Want to know my conclusion in the end? The whole legend created around this Slender Man was much more interesting than the film itself. All in all, it wasn’t original and I didn’t see anything baffling new in this film. But I still found certain scenes successful. Such as the one in the library with the use of a sort of psychedelic footage. And throughout the film, there are more of those hallucinatory passages. Also, I didn’t think the acting was that awful. Ok, sometimes the four girls acted rather childish during meaningless conversations. And yes, some of their decisions were downright stupid. But that suited these young girls. And finally, I also thought the appearance of the mysterious Slender Man was reasonably successful. He blended perfectly with the background so you had this feeling that he could appear at any time. It’s Javier Botet again who has put his peculiar physique at the service to play this nasty character. Just like he did in “Mama“, “Don’t knock twice” and “Mara“. No, “Slender Man” wasn’t disastrous, but seasoned horror fanatics will look at it in a rather condescending way. Beginners, on the other hand, might be afraid this faceless figure will show up. After all, they’ve seen a large part of the illustrious video. Not? My rating 6/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

We have no idea what it was that bit you. It had fingers, Andy! Fuck! If there’s one genre with so many releases that you get tired of it, it’s certainly the zombie genre. I’m sure this kind of movies is made on a daily basis. Movies in which infected undead stumble around, searching for victims, to have a portion of juicy brains. Most movies aren’t very innovative and all known clichés are being used. But occasionally you come across something completely different where they want to give a new direction to the zombie genre. Just like in “Maggie” it’s about a father who wants to protect his daughter. Only, little Rosie (Finlay and Nova Sjoberg) isn’t aware of any threat. It starts off idyllic. The story is set in the Australian bushes (the last Australian zombie flick I have seen was “Wyrmwood“. Also highly recommended). Andy (Martin “The Hobbit” Freeman), his wife Kay (Susie Porter) and their baby-daughter Rosie are quietly riding a dilapidated boat across a river. It seems idyllic and has a high “The African Queen” mood. There’s no indication of a post-apocalyptic situation with humanity again being the victim of a viral outbreak. Until they come across the wreck of a boat. The same stupid decisions over and over again. The only thing that bothered me in this film are the stupid, illogical decisions that were made. It’s understandable that this family can’t go on forever without providing themselves with new food and provisions. Trust me. I would also go and check if there wasn’t anything useful to find on board this boat. But knowing that every moment you can be attacked by a hungry zombie, I would certainly not do this unarmed and without informing the other person. I suppose they are of the same intellectual level because Kay makes the same primal mistake. With all the consequences. Hit the tree instead of the zombie, please. The next stupid fragment announces itself when the family is on the run in an abandoned off-road vehicle. In normal circumstances, you as a driver will try to avoid inattentive crossing pedestrians. You’ll probably perform some neck-breaking maneuvers that are a risk to your own life. But when knowing that the mainland is populated by soulless creatures whose only goal is to take a big bite from any uninfected after they have towed them to a local zombie barbecue, you would rather put the pedal to the metal. But no. Not Andy. He’s so good-hearted that he prefers to crash the all-terrain vehicle against an Australian boab instead of hitting such a creature. But as I said before, these are the only drawbacks in this, for the rest, fascinating and especially emotionally poignant zombie story. Problems in Australia? Ask the Aboriginals for help. The film itself isn’t unnervingly exciting. It shows the self-sacrificing agony Andy undergoes so he can take his daughter to a safe place. Far from the mutated fellowmen and half-wits who do totally crazy things in this chaotic world. Like putting an Aboriginal in a cage after which the target practice can start with zombies, which are lured by fresh meat. Incidentally, it’s the Aboriginals who know how to maintain themselves in this new world. With primitive-looking rituals they succeed in liquidating zombies and plant-based ointment provides protection. It’s also a young Aboriginal girl (Simone Landers) who helps Andy with his trip through the bush and who provides a safe haven. An emotionally touching zombie-flick. Who would have thought that? Frankly, I thought this film was original in many ways. Not only the zombie concept was elaborated in a different way. The transformation is totally different than in a typical zombie movie. Here it’s not only blood and ripped off flesh, but it’s a blubbery, slimy substance that manifests itself during the 48-hour transformation. Also, the phenomenon of zombies with their head in the ground (ostrich-like behavior) was surprising. Was it to shut themselves off from the outside world? Or is it part of the transformation process? No idea. But it was fascinating enough. And finally, the most impressive thing for me personally was the atmosphere that this film radiated. I never thought I would ever watch a zombie movie and get emotionally touched by it. You really have to be a zombie if you don’t want to be moved by this movie. And finally, praise for the admirable acting performance of Martin Freeman. A whole movie he played a leading role and not for a moment I had the feeling he was playing a hobbit. That’s what I call an achievement. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(Release info London schedule; April 20th, 2018, Empire Cinemas, Leicester Square) "Every Day" Based on David Levithan’s 'New York Times' bestseller, "Every Day" tells the story of Rhiannon (Angourie Rice), a 16-year old girl who falls in love with a mysterious soul named 'A' (Justice Smith) who inhabits a different body every day. Feeling an unmatched connection, Rhiannon and 'A' work each day to find each other, not knowing what or who the next day will bring. The more the two fall in love, the more the realities of loving someone who's a different person every 24 hours takes a toll, leaving Rhiannon and 'A' to face the hardest decision either has ever had to make. Rhiannon is a good 16-year old, she helps out at home, doesn’t cause trouble, and does well at school. However, her family has been struggling, her father Nick (Jake Robards) had a nervous breakdown and stopped working leaving her mother Lindsey (Maria Bello) the pressure of being the sole breadwinner. While her sister Jolene (Debby Ryan) is the wild child who acts out, Rhiannon just wants to help keep her family together. At school things are little better, Rhiannon’s boyfriend Justin (Justin Smith) is the popular athlete, however, he’s also self-centered and takes Rhiannon for granted. That's, until one day when Justin shows up at school acting differently. Suddenly, he’s attentive and curious and sweet. Taken aback and enamoured, Rhiannon suggests they play hooky and steal away to Baltimore. The two take off in Justin’s car, listen to music and sing along, share stories they’ve never shared before, and play at the beach. Rhiannon is surprised to see a softer side of Justin, one that’s playful and unselfconscious. It's a day like they’ve never had before: perfect. Yet the next morning at school, Justin seems back to normal and he barely remembers what they talked about or the day they spent together. Rhiannon is perturbed, but tries to shake it off. By that weekend, though, it’s clear that the Justin who Rhiannon played hooky with isn’t coming back. She tries to recapture that day by playing the song they sang along to at a party, but Justin seems uninterested. It does get the attention of a boy Rhiannon doesn’t know named Nathan (Lucas Zumann), however, who starts dancing wildly and putting on a show to make Rhiannon laugh. Rhiannon joins him on the dance floor and something suddenly seems familiar, but she doesn’t know what. Justin shows up and chases Nathan away and Rhiannon is left with a lingering feeling of 'déjà vu'. A few days later she's contacted by Nathan who says he wants to meet and talk. They arrange a date at a bookstore, but when Rhiannon shows up Nathan isn’t there. Instead, she meets Megan (Katie Douglas), who says she's there on Nathan’s behalf. Yet when Rhiannon and Megan begin to talk, Megan explains that she in fact is someone named 'A'. That weekend at the party 'A' was Nathan, and the day at the beach 'A' was Justin, because 'A' is a bodiless spirit who wakes up inhabiting a different person every day, for just twenty-four hours. Always someone 'A’s' age, always someone close to the last, never the same person twice. Rhiannon is naturally disbelieving at first, until 'A' manages to make contact with her a few more times over the next few days and eventually proves they are telling the truth. What follows is an extraordinary love story that transcends external appearances and physical limitations. A love story about loving someone truly and completely for who they're in their heart and soul, regardless of what's on the outside. The Rhiannon who we meet at the beginning of the film is living a fairly conventional life, albeit being the rock of her destabilized family. A nice girl, a good friend, a solid student, Rhiannon is dating the popular boy at school, though she doesn’t feel very connected to him or much appreciated. She’s playing all the parts she feels she should play at the expense of her own self-discovery. Especially when we’re young we tend to be defined by our relationships. In the beginning of the story, Rhiannon is Nick’s daughter, Jolene’s sister, Justin’s girlfriend. As a result of her father’s breakdown, the whole family is in stasis. Their family has been fractured and they haven’t figured out how to move past it. These things are standing in the way of her freedom to grow. And what we see in the movie is that her interactions with 'A' broaden her perspective and give her space to find herself. She and everyone around her are all seeing each other not for who they're, but for who they think they should be, which is pretty common. Another important part of Rhiannon’s journey is learning to see and accept those around her, and she then shares that perspective with her family. In the beginning of the film we’re introduced to Rhiannon’s boyfriend Justin. Justin is the popular athlete at school and he takes Rhiannon for granted. He's kind of oblivious to other people’s feelings though. He thinks a lot about himself and his own needs and when he doesn’t get those needs met, he gets frustrated and easily irritated. But one day Justin wakes up, promptly examines his hands, takes his bearings and heads off to school. On this day Justin is not himself, he has been inhabited by 'A'. Rhiannon can tell something’s off with Justin, yet soon suggests they play hooky and head off for adventure. What follows is 'A" and Rhiannon’s first date, driving and listening to music, hanging at the beach, and talking and sharing more than Justin and Rhiannon ever have. 'A' falls for Rhiannon that afternoon and, without knowing it, Rhiannon falls for 'A', too. The next day at school, Justin doesn’t seem to really remember this day that was so special to Rhiannon. We've this character 'A' who's an entity who inhabits a different body every day for 24 hours and so in the film is portrayed by fifteen different actors. Several of the actors who play 'A' in the story play a character in Rhiannon’s life as well, so each actor has to both differentiate between when they're their main character versus when they're inhabited by 'A', as well as supporting a single, clear character for 'A'. It’s quite complex. In motion pictures, you've twenty-four still frames in a second and when they’re run together your brain compensates and creates the fluid motion connecting the frames. There's an intermittent motion effect happening in this movie in which the film asks the audience to bridge the gaps and perceive 'A' as a fluid and consistent character. That maturity and depth coming from the eyes becomes a big part of the throughline for 'A' and makes the character feel whole. Jolene’s pretty sassy and sarcastic. But her relationship to Rhiannon is really important to both of them. They’re cut from opposite cloth and they've responded to the family situation really differently, Rhiannon by trying to hold everyone together, Jolene by going a bit off the rails. She’s tough and aggressive but she has good intentions. And she's one of the few people in Rhiannon’s world who's pushing her to demand more for herself. In 2012, young adult author David Levithan published a book that pushed him to new creative heights. It resonated so deeply with his readers that it spent months on 'The New York Times' bestseller list and spawned online chat groups, fan art and writing. That book was 'Every Day'. Ask any teenager or parent of a teenager if they’ve heard of 'Every Day', and not only will they know it, they’ll most likely have read it and passed it on to a friend. The story of a teenage entity named only 'A', who wakes up every day in a different body. "Every Day" deals with the challenges faced when 'A' falls head over heels in love with Rhiannon, a girl unlike anyone they’ve ever met. Can you've a relationship with a soul who inhabits a different body every day, sometimes boy, sometimes girl, sometimes the school quarterback, sometimes the outcast? Who are you removed of your body, your race, your clothes, your family? The story is the actualization of the old adage that we should love someone for who they're on the inside, all the more powerful because it's set during the teenage years when we customarily try on and experiment with myriad external identities in an effort to figure out we're. Levithan’s book explores all these themes, but fundamentally it’s a story about true love, growing up, and the lengths we’ll go for those we care about. This is about not being defined by your body, or externally imposed ideas of who you're, but by who you really are. What does it really mean to love the inner person devoid of the external? The book is a juggernaut, clearly resonating with young people the world over, and taking Levithan on tours to visit high school and college students across North America. There’s a freedom in what 'A' is that’s really interesting to explore, and that’s creates a lot of great side conversations about gender and race and the binaries that society is built on, but that we can choose to step out of if we want. The book challenges gender presumptions in a way that's as entertaining as it's unexpected and, perhaps most important, that's relatable to teens who may not think they need sensitivity training when it comes to sexual orientation and the nature of true love. His name is 'A'. Every day he wakes up in a different body. Always someone his age, never too far from the last person, never the same person twice. He has no control over any of it. He doesn't know why it happens, or how. He knows what makes each person different and what makes everyone the same. He has seen the same color blue look fifty different ways with fifty different pairs of eyes. Every day of his life, he wakes up and just try to live that day, for that person. Make no mark, leave no trace. In the film, we've 15 actors playing 'A' and the film unites those characters in one coherent arc. By making Rhiannon the protagonist and following her journey as she meets 'A' and learns about who 'A' is, the audience gets grounded in her experience, and projects into her relationship with 'A', which gives us an entry point into the more fantastical and magical idea in the story. To fill out Rhiannon’s world, the film gives her a family backstory that didn’t exist in the novel. Rhiannon’s father is recovering from a nervous breakdown and not working, her mother is the sole breadwinner, her sister Jolene is a bit of a wild child, and Rhiannon is the rock trying to hold everything together. When we meet Rhiannon she has a real desire for normalcy but she's also somewhat stuck and unable to fully discover herself because her focus is on supporting her family. This is the foundation from which she takes off on this incredible journey. A great love story is timeless and remains one of the most satisfying cinematic genres. On the one hand the book very simple, the embodiment of loving someone for who they really are, while also being very complex in how it addresses a lot of issues in the lives of young people today. The results something really extraordinary about manifesting that in a character who literally has to walk in someone else’s shoes every single day. The profoundness of that and the magic of that just grabs people and inspires awe. Beyond exploring the most universal themes of true love, identity and coming of age, "Every Day" also reflects very contemporary ideas about acceptance and the freedom to be whoever you're, a particularly resonant idea for young people right now who increasingly reject categorization. It's such a commonplace and simple piece of advice, that you should appreciate someone for what's on the inside, and not judge them by external appearances. Yet it's also true that what seems simplest on the surface can often end up being the hardest thing. In the end, the question of who we're at the core, without body, gender, any external identifiers that all, is not so simple to answer. Equally, at first look "Every Day" is a charming, funny, and smart coming-of-age story about the ups and downs of true love and growing up. But dig a little deeper and there’s more. This movie is a love story, but there's so much more, it's a coming-of-age story, it's a story about family love, it's a story about loving someone so much that you choose to do the difficult thing, and it’s a magical story. It's a total swoon. This story will have resonance at this amazing time we're in where a generation seems to be turning away from black and white definitions around identity, which is such an exciting thing.