Search Results

(Release Info London schedule; July 11th, 2018, Picturehouse, 21:00) "Marrowbone" Four siblings seek refuge in an old home after the death of their mother, only to discover that the house has another, more sinister, inhabitant, in this haunting directorial debut from Sergio G. Sánchez. "Marrowbone" tells the story of Jack (George MacKay), Billy (Charlie Heaton), Jane (Mia Goth), and Sam (Matthew Stagg), 4 orphan siblings that only have each other and that face the threat of a voracious past, that doesn't let go and the promise of a future of light that doesn't really sets in. While they try to overcome that moment, they take shelter in a house, which actually is a great fiction that allows them to live under the mirage of being safe from that, which harms them. Jack, Billy, Jane, and Sam represent different way, sometimes opposed, sometimes complementary to face the trauma they've in common. That's why their inner relationships are so fascinating and complex. The main weight falls on Jack. As the older sibling, he faces the responsibility of looking after his siblings. He struggles with the usual concerns of a boy his age, his love for Allie (Anya Taylor-Joy), and the responsibility his mother has given him by asking him to keep the family together. He's a tortured character because he lives with anguish and emptiness in his memory and is constantly trying to close that hole. By contrast, Jane, the second sister, symbolizes goodness in the absence of the mother. Whenever there's a violent or negative instinct, Jane compensates. She fights for the brothers can leave behind their painful past. Billy, the third of the siblings, is perhaps the most troublesome. He represents courage, the bravery that Jack sometimes lacks. In return he has a tendency to rush and move towards the dark side. It contrasts with Jane, who leads the family into the light. Billy is therefore one of the most interesting characters in the story as it condenses the fears of the group, the fear with which they've to learn to live with. He's only a teenager who, like the boys of his age, wants to explore, feel free. A vehemence that given the peculiar situation in which his family is, turns out to be counterproductive and dangerous. The most obvious metaphor for summarizing Billy's character corresponds to that of a caged bird that's eager to fly.   The fourth brother is Sam. He's the youngest, so everyone feels they've to overprotect him by hiding the most scabrous aspects that have led them to their present situation, which is funny considering Sam is very conscious of what happens. In this sense, Sam is a fundamental pillar of the family. He tries to remain innocent before his siblings, as if he fears to put them in danger if he verbalizes everything he knows. It seems that his older siblings need to believe that he's more tender and naive than he really is. For them, his innocence is living proof that not everything is corrupted in the world. Allie is practically the only link they've with the outside world, the lens through which they observe what goes on outside the walls of their little microcosm. She's a bright, cheerful character that holds us to the story and the moment in which it happens. Allie represents the real world. Her life is radically different from the sibling's one. The romance between Jack and Allie accurately sums up the idiosyncrasy of both characters. It's teenage love shared by two young people who neither want nor have time to consider where it will lead.   There's another character that's also essential and has to do with the Asturias nebula. It's the house where the siblings live, the miniature universe that frees and cages them at the same time, and which, although in the film is located in a fictional point of Maine. The protagonists live in the world with their own rules, invisible to society that continues with their concerns on the other side. All this is very easy to convey thanks to the house they chose, because it's totally isolated, with no signs of modern life around it, as if the history had really run it's course without it. In addition to the house, it's also important the recreation of the town that Jack visits on occasions to run errands. This village is conceived in the film to aggressively contrast with the reality of the house. While this has barely evolved since 1931, when the house was closed, the village people live fully in the year that corresponds to them, 1969. It's a town that we don't see much in terms of footage, but the feeling that you are somewhere else has to be very fast. The chosen place is 'The Old Factory Of Arms Of Oviedo', which also has to be transformed to fit the geographical and temporary needs of the story.   "Marrowbone" is Sergio G. Sánchez's filmmaker debut. Up until now, Sánchez had been responsible for some of the best screenplays of recent Spanish cinema, praised for his ability to manage emotions and connect almost immediately with the audience. Especially well known are "The Orphanage" and "The Impossible". It's a complex story, with different time lines, with several twists. This idea of a novel in installments is not by chance. "Marrowbone" shares with this type of literature the presence of an independent universe, filled with secrets that entices the audience and invites them to stay and live inside. The odyssey of four siblings that cross the Atlantic escaping from a mysterious trauma with a life of it's own. The four siblings are flesh and bone people. One wants to stay and live with them, know their secrets and be by their side in their fears. A great deal of it comes from the special interest in childhood, youth and all which happens when their characters swim into the deep and dark water of adulthood. It's not by chance that "Marrowbone's" main characters are four kids that haven't yet reach adulthood. The same way "The Orphanage" and "The Impossible" placed the lights and shadows of childhood at the core. The film defends the importance of fiction as a medicine to cure deep wounds or even as shelter for a hostile reality we're not able to manage. It's a combination of fantasy and terror and drama genre. The film creates a cinema, which is analogous and supplementary, with obsessions and themes alike.   It's a subtle approach to the genre, without tightening the screws. The genre, as a way of reaching the truth, but not as a purpose itself. It's the kind of feature that's no longer done, that don't requires special effects or make up; terror is at the story's core and gradually consumes everything. Genre is a crucial and essential element that gradually sneaks under the door, always to help the characters, not the other way round. The fantastic element helps narrate the ordinary in an extraordinary way, as something that can't be, but it in the end, is. "Marrowbone" moves along different areas. A balance between drama and different elements of genre that adjust to the point of view of four siblings, full of life, but also with anxiety. And all of it, impregnated with a unique romanticism that tinges each frame. It's only logical that the family dynamics between the four members constitutes the cornerstone that articulates all the film. In "Marrowbone", all those principles take place simultaneously. We know something is happening beyond that surface of apparently calm images, and of course, we're willing to unravel it's deepest nooks We want to cross the threshold and dig into the story.   "Marrowbone" is a thriller that combines many elements, thriller, horror, love story and fantasy. The film invites the viewer to participate in the game, to actively participate and compose a puzzle. It's a classic movie of suspense, it seems like a movie from another time, away from the patterns of the current genre cinema. But for this not seem like an exercise of nostalgia, the film tries to narrate it for it to have a complex and original structure. Sanchez uses the simile of a Russian doll to define the structure of the film. This is not a classic story in three acts. The framework is more complex. Each time a new mystery is revealed it's as if we open one of these matrioshkas, the film changes and reveals a new identity. What begins as a story becomes a family drama, then to become a ghost story, then a psychological thriller and so on until finally to the last of those dolls that encircles the heart of the story that which surrounds the emotion of this fable. But once you know all the secrets, you can watch the movie again and understand it in another way. The most poetic, or fabled, side of history takes on a new meaning once you understand everything that's happening and you can see it again, taking a different journey with it's characters. It's cinema appeals to that apparently complete happiness, but incredibly fragile, in which you can get a glimpse of the cracks of growing up. It's a message directly to kids; telling them that once they cross that line, they're force to grow up, even though in essence, they're still children. In our cinema, the look is always connected to a kid's point of view. It happens in the films we've done together and it happens in "Marrowbone". The characters struggle between different worlds, they fight to remain in one, but they're destined to grow up and enter the other one. The phrase that the mother states, can also be understood like a hidden message for the audience. It's telling us that going through that threshold will take us directly to the film's mysteries, to a secret that promises to change us forever. A point of no return. A journey that has to do with the fantastical. It's a movie with a lot of heart, with a lot of spirit. The audience is going to find a very rich universe, full of nuances, with many turns and, above all, a lot of emotion.

(Release Info London schedule; July 23rd, 2019, Curzon Soho, 99 Shaftesbury Ave, Soho, London W1D 5DY, United Kingdom, 9:00 PM) https://www.curzoncinemas.com/soho/film-info/marianne-and-leonard-words-of-love "Marianne & Leonard: Words Of Love" "Marianne & Leonard: Words of Love" is about the beautiful, enduring love story between legendary folk singer Leonard Cohen and his Norwegian muse Marianne Ihlen. The story begins on 'The Greek island of Hydra' in 1960, where Leonard, then a struggling and unknown fiction writer, and Marianne, a single mother with a young son Axel, become part of a community of expat artists, writers and musicians. The film follows their relationship from the early days on 'Hydra', a humble time of free love and open marriage, to how their love evolved when Leonard becomes a successful musician. She's an enormous influence on him. Marianne and Leonard’s is a love story that would continue for the rest of their lives. Along the way we learn of the tragedy that befell those that could not survive the beauty of 'Hydra', the highs and lows of Leonard’s career, and the inspirational power that Marianne possessed. This are magical moments of life. Never-before-seen footage shot by legendary documentarian D.A. Pennebaker make for a unique portrait of an idyllic 1960’s bohemia. Marianne had been visited the year before by D.A. Pennebaker, who had filmed her with her young son, and very much impressed her with the joys of documentary filmmaking. It's D.A. Pennebaker’s footage of Marianne, shot all those years ago, that's used in the film. D.A. Pennebaker, Marianne, and Leonard have remained the greatest of influences. It's on 'Hydra' in 1968 that director Nick Broomfield, then aged 20, first himself meet Marianne. Under 'The Greek' moon and stars she introduces him to Leonard Cohen’s music and encouraged Nick to make his first film. As she's with so many artists, Marianne is an enormous influence on Broomfield, who direct many documentaries about iconic music legends including Whitney Houston, Tupac Shakur, Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. It's a time that left a lasting imprint on both Marianne and Leonard, whose friendship would last another fifty years. Marianne and Leonard went through many highs and lows. Bonded for life, even though drifting apart, they died three months apart in 2016. This touching documentary illuminates tender aspects of the enduring love between the Canadian musician and his Norwegian muse, who gained immortality through his songs 'So Long Marianne' and 'Bird On The Wire'. This Marianne is Norwegian Marianne Ihlen, his lifelong muse with whom he started an intense relationship in a time of free love. Nick Broomfield, director of documentaries such as 'Whitney: Can I Be Me', 'Biggie & Tupac' and 'Kurt & Courtney', follows their unconventional relationship from the early days in idyllic Greece. Along the way we learn of the tragedy that befell those that could not survive the beauty of 'Hydra', the highs and lows of Leonard’s career, and the inspirational power that Marianne possessed. In later life when Marianne lay dying, Leonard himself old and sick wrote to Marianne. 'Know that I am so close behind you that if you stretch out your hand, I think you can reach mine, I've always loved you for your beauty and for your wisdom, but I don't need to say anything more about that. Endless love, see you down the road'. Does love have to be conventional? "Marianne & Leonard" is a beautiful illustration of the twists and turns of a complicated relationship that has produced some of Cohen's most famous songs. Archive material and some recent interviews tell the story of the interrupted yet never ending love that began on the island of 'Hydra'. Cohen was mostly a writer at the time, the songs came later, when the melancholy poet evolved into a prominent musician. When Cohen became famous, and Ihlen became known as his muse, their relationship suffered and they lived apart more than they lived together. Still, their connection remained strong, even after Ihlen returned to Norway. A love story that defies conventional structure and slides back and forth in time within a rough chronology.

(Release Info London schedule; August, 12th, 2018, Red Cinema, 12:20) "Beirut" Caught in the crossfires of civil war, 'CIA' operatives must send a former U.S. diplomat to Beirut to negotiate for the life of a friend he left behind. In 1972 Beirut, American diplomat Mason Skiles (Jon Hamm) hosts a cocktail party accompanied by his wife and Karim (Yoau Saian Rosenberg), the 13-year old Lebanese orphan whom they hope to adopt. The festivities are disrupted when Mason’s best friend, CIA Agent Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino) arrives with startling information about Karim. Seconds later, terrorists attack the party with tragic results. Ten years later, Mason, now an alcoholic working as a mediator for labor disputes in Boston, gets approached by a stranger in a bar, who hands him a passport, cash and a plane ticket along with an urgent invitation from mutual friends that he travel to Beirut. Reluctantly, Mason arrives in Beirut only to find that the formerly picturesque city on the sea has become a violence-ridden warzone. Mason soon discovers the real reason he’s been called back. 'CIA' and 'Embassy' officials Donald Gaines (Dean Norris), Gary Ruzak (Shea Whigham) and Ambassador Frank Whalen (Larry Pine) explain that terrorists have kidnapped a CIA agent. Mason’s mission; negotiate a swap for the release of terrorist leader Abu Rajal (Hicham Ouraqa), believed to be imprisoned by Israeli secret police, in exchange for the American. Navigating the rubble-strewn city with the help of his Embassy-assigned handler, savvy cultural attaché Sandy Crowder (Rosamund Pike), Mason secretly meets with the kidnappers and uncovers clues that help him unravel competing agendas advanced by Israeli military boss Roni Niv (Alon Aboutboul), 'Palestinian Liberation Front' minister Bashir (Ahmed Said Arif) and corrupt bureaucrats. Confronting ghosts from his past, Mason faces a formidable question; who do you trust in a world where the truth emerges only when it’s convenient, or profitable? A taut action thriller from director Brad Anderson, Beirut takes an unflinching look at the cost of freedom. Mason Skiles is a communicator rather than just a terminator. He’s not some guy who solves everything by throwing a magic hammer or casting a spell or doing things that don’t really exist in life. As a negotiator, Mason’s gift is that he’s able to talk to people not in a backhanded or sneaky way but by basically saying, 'you've something I want and I've something you want'. We've to find that place where we both leave something on the table and ideally, each of us gets a little of what we want. When people live in a country not their own they need to have tremendous respect for local culture and local politics to understand what’s actually happening on the ground. He’s a facilitator. He wants both sides to win. He’s not there to undermine the other government at all. There’s a great deal of respect and intelligence that goes along with that approach. When we first meet Mason, he seems to have it all together, trying to do good things in the world. He's extroverted, almost like he’s showing off. That’s why the film puts him in party duds with the off-white suit. This cocktail party is his territory. He's in control. Then, in a few terrifying seconds, Mason’s life falls apart. It takes a while for Mason to pull himself out of this profound tragedy. Ten years later, Mason’s outfits signal his slide into alcoholism as a demoralized, backroom labor negotiator. It's important to create a disheveled, deconstructed type of mishmash of different things in order to communicate the fact that Mason’s life is falling apart. Then when he comes back to Beirut, the audience focuses on the character and plot more than his wardrobe. There’s one shot midway through the film where Mason’s dressed in an Oxford shirt and loafers while he walks through a deserted city square that’s just been completed destroyed. That’s the kind of contrast that's really exciting, as a way to show Mason’s alienated state of mind. When he goes back to the place where it all happened, that’s where Mason begins to find some happiness and his place in the world. When you think about the terrorism and fundamentalism and the political intractability in Beirut, which is all still sadly true today, it’s important to look at the reasons behind all that. How did we get here? In addition to Beirut’s politically charged themes, the film looks forward to exploring the personal trauma that lends depth to Mason’s journey. Sandy Crowder’s job description as a keeper of secrets impacts the character’s personal life in compelling ways. She can’t really trust anyone so Sandy doesn’t let people get too close. She’s sort of a proto-feminist who’s there for the adrenaline rush. It's a tough world for women in the agency in the ’80s. There were very few female agents. There are 14 pay grades within the CIA and most women hit the ceiling at around level seven. She’s defined by her actions. Sandy’s decisions under pressure eventually affect the outcome of the whole story and that6s pretty exciting. She comes in as this mystery person in the second act, so it's interesting to forge the relationship between Sandy and Mason. He doesn’t really know this person but he has to trust her. That dynamic dovetailed very nicely with the film’s political nature and intrigue as the film figures out where the story is leading and why. 'CIA' agent Gaines (Dean Norris) is a guy, who represents a hardball approach to international problem solving. You need both the carrot and stick. You hope Mason can make diplomacy work but you always need somebody like Gaines so you've the heavy hand of 'The CIA' backing it up. Shifty political operative Gary Ruzak (Shea Whigham) loyalties are to the president. He’s very much a company man who’s in Lebanon to fix this situation before it goes bad and he’ll make a deal with the devil if necessary. Big political themes don’t get addressed very often in movies anymore. This movie deals with something important rather than just having the action element or a comic-book element, which seems to be the tenor of most large-scale movies right now. At the time, Beirut is a hot topic because Tom Friedman’s book 'From Beirut To Jerusalem' has just come out. "Beirut" has a historical setting, it feels true to life without actually being a true story. The fictional script based around facts on the ground including the 1984 kidnapping of 'CIA Station' Chief William Buckley. It's all very garish and gothic, not too clean like an American movie but more European style. Against the backdrop of a politically dysfunctional Lebanon, the film strives to develop the interior psychology of his hero in the manner of master spy novelist John Le Carré. His books were extraordinary, although they didn’t always make for good movies because they're so hard to condense. And then the idea of a character like Mason, who’s faced with great disappointment; that’s very much a John Le Carré thing. Mason is a character in need of redemption, which is also true for Jason Bourne and Michael Clayton. "Beirut", is about people trapped inside a political situation, while at the same time Mason is forced to confront his past and his own weakness. But "Beirut's" fictionalized portrayal of U.S., Israeli and 'PLO' scheming in 1982 Lebanon ultimately proved too hot to handle. The problem is that the script is accurate. 'The PLO' didn’t have exemplary behavior. Israel did not have exemplary behavior. 'The U.S. State Department' did not have exemplary behavior. Nobody looked good at that moment in time except for the hero of this story. The script is still very intense but the political radioactivity has completely subsided. There’s not much argument anymore about what happened in Lebanon in the winter of 1982. It’s also an emotional journey about characters in this war-torn part of the world who are trying to find some goodness or something hopeful that they can hang onto. Thrillers today tend to be violent, over-the-top action movies or else they rely heavily on some kind of technological solution, whereas "Beirut" is very human. A period thriller loaded with resonance for contemporary audiences, "Beirut" revisits the roots of 'Middle Eastern' terrorism as a backdrop to a timeless story about one man’s quest for peace. Audiences who see "Beirut" will become interested in some of the history that the film touches on. It's about the idea that one person can make a difference, however small. In a bad situation, you've to suit up and try to make things better. "Beirut" also invites audiences to experience an exotic locale teeming with intrigue. The film creates this smoky, dirty, grimy, beautifully tattered world. In the end, if people walk away with questions about America’s involvement in Beirut in the ’80s, that’s great. The film leads people trying to learn more about this time frame, that’s fantastic. But it’s really more about the sensual experience of the movie and putting the audience into this world, in all it's screwed-up glory. The character’s willingness engages in dialogue stands in stark contrast to the current political climate. Everything’s so polarized now that you can’t say anything for fear of being a traitor to your party or a traitor to your country or a traitor to your religion. It seems like we only have the capacity to see things in black and white, but the world doesn’t exist in that color scheme. If we’re not talking, we’re fighting, and that doesn’t seem to be a very legitimate way to move anything forward. So honestly, that’s the message people take away from this movie; instead of fighting, maybe talking works a little better.

(Release Info London schedule; June 29th, 2019, BFI Southbank, Belvedere Rd, Lambeth, London SE1 8XT, United Kingdom, 17:15 pm) https://walloh.com/movies/33714-photograph/ "Photograph" Rafi (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), a struggling Mumbai street photographer, pressured to marry by his grandmother Dadi (Farrukh Jaffar), convinces Miloni (Sanya Malhotra), a shy stranger, to pose as his fiancée during a family visit. Despite vast cultural differences, the pair develops a surprising connection that challenges their worldviews in a wistful and funny romance. Rafi comes to Mumbai from a small village to earn money to pay off an old family debt. Working as a street photographer, he shares one small room with friends and sends almost everything he makes to his grandmother, Dadi, in the hope she will be able to buy back her ancestral home. To satisfy the elderly woman’s desire for him to marry, he sends her a photo of a shy stranger, claiming that the girl, Miloni, is his fiancée. When his grandmother insists on a meeting, he tracks Miloni down and asks her to pretend to be his betrothed. A sheltered young woman studying to become an accountant, Miloni lives a quiet, middle-class life with her parents, and awaits an arranged marriage to a suitable boy when she finishes school. She impulsively agrees to Rafi’s scheme, opening the door to an unexpected adventure at the crossroads of tradition and modernity. "Photograph" is a heartwarming and comical snapshot of life in contemporary Mumbai. Miloni, a shy and traditionally raised middle-class 'Mumbaikar', crosses paths with Rafi, a 'Muslim' villager living in the city trying to scratch out a living as a street photographer. Who are these people, what happens to them and how it's that their lives go along together for some time. Miloni is very strong, and keenly sensitive to the needs of others. She's devoted to her family, but also feels burdened by the ties. She's seeking a sense of freedom that she has never had, freedom from family traditions, expectations, status, societal norms. Miloni’s experience of life is limited to home and school, but she has a measure of curiosity about the world around her. She has never had a chance to decide what she wants. She has been led by her family’s priorities for her and by the force of tradition. She's a dutiful daughter. The logical next step for her is marriage to a suitable boy, one carefully vetted and selected by her parents. But meeting Rafi has her wondering if there could be more to life. There’s constant pressure from the society to be a certain way. Meeting Rafi opens an entirely new world to Miloni and it’s the world she wants to live in. He allows her to experience things she hasn’t before. Through his friendship with Miloni, Rafi is exploring the possibility of falling in love, something he has never felt he had the opportunity to do. He’s letting himself go for once in his life. Rafi and Miloni are divided by radically different religious, economic and cultural backgrounds, and even skin color, but both struggle with the same kinds of existential questions. India’s in a very interesting place now. For probably centuries, people always thought as a family first. Recently, they've started to think of themselves as individuals rather than as part of a family. It’s become one of the central conflicts in Indian life today. Miloni and Rafi find themselves at odds with the expectations of a modern world in which they can’t ever truly be themselves. For her, it means that while she has been raised to be a professional and is excelling in her classes, she still lives with her parents and must defer to them in all things, including her choice of career and husband. For his part, Rafi has moved far away from the village he grew up in and lives without family around him, but he's still bound by tradition to restore his family’s honor and to satisfy his grandmother’s wishes. Differentiating visually between Rafi’s chaotic, hand-to-mouth world and Miloni’s orderly family life is essential. It helps to define the internal state of a character with the color of their surroundings, especially in quiet movies like this that are expressive only in ways that are true to the characters. The film uses warmer light and mainly handheld camera work to depict the scenes in Rafi’s world. As an example, there's a scene in which Miloni walks from her apartment building’s elevator into her parents’ apartment. The elevator itself establishes her relative economic privilege, while her reaction to the conversation in the apartment offers a window into her thoughts. There's a sense of nostalgia that Rafi has, and that Miloni has inherited from her grandfather. The sense that these characters would have been happier in an earlier time when life was simpler in India, when everyone was not running around so much, when there was only one kind of cola on the stands, one TV channel, and two kinds of cars. Miloni speaks about missing a soft drink from her childhood called 'Campa Cola'. It was the only cola available in India for years. It's a golden-age fallacy, but the nostalgia is what binds the two characters together. Following the intersecting paths of two people who would typically never meet has a source of humor. The different ways people express that can be both funny and sad. People often mistake that kind of longing for loneliness. Longing is an act full of life and vitality, with room for humor and sadness and everything in between. Lots of people longing for all kinds of things; the past, things they dream of but have never seen, other people, even for the smallest of things. Rafi’s imposing grandmother, whom he calls 'Dadi', has a single mission in life; to make sure her grandson gets married sooner rather than later. She writes Rafi letters, sends messages though friends in Mumbai and relentlessly entreats him to find a wife. Her determination may seem hilariously over-the-top to some audiences. It’s pretty realistic. It may seem exaggerated, but that’s pretty much how it goes. After a certain age, if you’re not married it becomes the point of your life for both men and women. All your relatives are asking why you aren’t married yet. When Rafi tells his grandmother he's engaged, she immediately makes the grueling journey from her village to meet his fiancé. Dadi, a diminutive dynamo, turns her laser focus on Miloni as soon as they meet, dominating the conversation with a barrage of blunt questions to determine her suitability as a wife. Perhaps because the three characters are so different, their encounter opens new doors for each of them. Some people are able to inspire us to be something other than what we believe we can be. They do that for each other. She brings about a curiosity in him. She inspires him to take a moment for himself and do something for somebody other than his family. He gives her an opportunity to explore and expand her world, to take on a new persona when she's with him and his grandmother. There’s a lot of nobility and sacrifice that goes into thinking as a family as opposed to thinking as an individual. These people are torn between that and putting their own desires first. Since the international success of his 2013 debut feature film, "The Lunchbox", "Photograph", marks Batra’s return to his roots for an inspired and funny look at love in the contradictory world of modern urban life on the Indian subcontinent. The film is inspired by both exuberant 'Bollywood' musicals and a classic 'Shakespeare' comedy. They're always some kind of 'Taming Of The Shrew' adaptation. There are hundreds of them with a poor guy who’s maybe a car mechanic and a rich girl who's a little hot-tempered. For decades, 'The Indian Film Industry' has made tales of plucky heroines who defy tradition and family with the men they love it's stock-in-trade. The girl in these movies has little more to do than look pretty and spend three hours being mindlessly pursued by the hero as her family alternately bosses her around and mollycoddles her. Nowadays she may have a job, a goofy group of friends, a lovable dog, or none of these, but she’d certainly have a say in who she wants to end up with. Living in Mumbai today has more a feeling of an independent arthouse film than a 'Bollywood Extravaganza'. The action of "Photograph" begins at the bustling 'Gateway Of India', a landmark that has become a symbol of both modern and historic Mumbai. Built to commemorate the visit of 'King George V' and 'Queen Mary' to India in 1911, it has become a favorite place for tourists and locals alike, with pleasure boats that tour the harbor and vendors of all kinds. For decades it welcomed dignitaries arriving in India via 'The Arabian Sea'. So it’s a tourist attraction but also a local hangout and it’s always jam-packed with people. "Photograph" is the first film shot at 'The Gateway' since the 2008 terrorist attack on the nearby 'Taj Mahal Palace Hotel', a Raj-era architectural marvel that's often seen in the background of the film. Mumbai is a densely populated city of about 20 million that continues to grow every day. There are about 10,000 people moving to the city every day. There's a mass migration from the villages into the city. Mumbai is a city of stark contrasts, home to both a 27-floor private residence and some of the most desperate slums in the world. Centuries-old temples and modern office buildings co-exist side-by-side, while the glitzy world of 'Bollywood' and India’s straight-laced financial sector flourish. Luxury hotels and restaurants have proliferated in recent decades. 'Chowpatty Beach' is a longtime destination where visitors still enjoy the city’s renowned street food, bhelpuri, in a portable paper cone. In this complicated, hectic world, the film tells a story of extraordinary sweetness and optimism. The location has much to do with the story. It's shaped by life in Mumbai, which cannot be replicated in any other city in India or elsewhere. People are defined by the small corner of 'The Earth' they stand on. The film captures the city we travel through every day, the people we meet every day. Nothing expresses a character’s internal state more than how they perceive magic in a world that seemingly has none. If you believe in a ghost, maybe he will come and speak with you someday. "Photograph" may surprise audiences with a picture of an incredibly diverse metropolis. It's a classic independent film that Americans will easily relate to. It’s about finding companionship and maybe even love, but filtered through an Indian sensibility. Whether it's to save the home in the village or complete a degree or get a temporary reprieve from family pressures through this photograph, they end up making some space in their own lives for the things they long for. They're finally able to think of themselves as individuals, not just a cog in the family machine. It does show that India is no different from anywhere else in the world in many ways. This film is not meant to be a cultural education as much as it's an emotional experience that's true to the time and place, which is today in India. It's a simple, timeless, universal message about vastly different people being able to transcend boundaries. In these times, where Trump wants to build a four meter wall at the Mexican border, this is a very important message.

Killed after his part in a hostage rescue, marine Ray Garrison (Diesel) is brought back to life by scientist Emil Harting (Pearce). Yet he is not only back from the dead: he’s super-enhanced and ready for revenge. There should be something tons of fun about a mash up of Robocop and Universal Solider. Based on a 1992 Valiant comic book creation, Bloodshot delivers an origin story about a military man brought back from the dead to become a super-soldier, yet rarely finds the spark or any potential richness in the conceit. Directed by VFX supervisor Dave Wilson, it has moments of visual flare but feels hamstrung by dull writing and a leading man sleepwalking through the tech and the bullets. The project was originally set to go in 2012 with Jared Leto; that might have been more interesting. Diesel is Ray Garrison (he’s a one man army, see), a marine who, after a hostage rescue mission in Mombassa, spends some R’n’R with his wife Gina (Tallulah Riley) on the Amalfi Coast (cue gold filters). Garrison is captured by evil Martin Axe (Toby Kebbell), who, in the film’s most memorable moment, does a Mr. Blonde style dance to Talking Heads’ ‘Psycho Killer’ before executing Gina and then shooting Garrison dead. The action has learned nothing from John Wick.Garrison wakes up in the lab of Rising Spirit Technology, regenerated by Dr Emil Harting (Pearce, channeling _Iron Man 3'_s Aldritch Killian) through nanites injected into his blood (hence Bloodshot). The regeneration gives Garrison all sorts of superpowers — super strength displayed by punching concrete pillars, interfacing with technology at rapid speed, the ability to self-heal — but not his memory. Yet with the help of Harting and his assistant KT (Eiza González), Ray begins to piece his old life together and escapes the facility to go after Axe.It’s at this point that Jeff Wadlow and Eric Heisserer’s script delivers the film’s one decent idea, that niftily reframes and story but almost goes so far as to explain why it has been so poor up to this point. But the film never really capitatlises on the clever conceit, falling back on action, techno-talk and a throbbing bombastic score courtesy of Steve Jablonsky. Save for a Point Break-y foot and bike chase, the action has learned nothing from John Wick or__ Chad Staheski’s 87 Eleven aesthetic (ie. letting action take place in long takes). Instead a punch up in a toilet, a showdown in a tunnel riddled with flour after a truck crash (it allows Diesel to walk moodily out of the dust), cinema’s only action sequence set in East Sussex and a fight atop a lift all feel like by-the-numbers set-pieces, full of slo-mo injections and senseless cutting. After being shot in the face, Garrison’s visage rebuilding itself is an impressive effect but little else lodges itself in the memory. The film gets a spec of character colour from two techies played by Siddarth Dhananjay and Lamorne Morris but for the most part it’s a bland ensemble following Diesel’s lead. There’s something potentially moving in Garrison’s plight — a man who’s lost his past and can’t face his future: think Peter Weller in Robocop — but Diesel gets nowhere near it. It’s a somnolent, inexpressive performance (even by Diesel’s standards) that makes Stallone’s turn in Escape Plan 3 feel like Daniel Day-Lewis. Download: Run 3 online.

Before I delve into the bowels of this movie's storyline; I have to state for the record that before watching it, I was relaxed. After watching Hereditary, I was so uptight, that I squeaked when I moved. Once in a while, a movie comes along which can mess with your head that much that by the time you have watched it on several occasions, you still can't decide whether or not you love it or hate it; Hereditary for me is one of those movies. In saying that; after much deliberation, I believe that I neither hate it or love it but respect it immensely for its extraordinary atmosphere of tension, edginess and graphic detail. And now for the movie's narrative. Hereditary gives us the story of the Graham Family's slow descent into hell after the death of Annie Graham's mother Ellen. From this point onwards, the dysfunctional family setup between Annie, Steve, Peter and Charlie becomes frightenly obvious as each family member seem to be uncomfortable whilst in the presence of each other and therefore spend most of their time in separate rooms. What starts out as a tense psychologically broken family story, ends with a very nasty vicious horror climax. Toni Collette is absolutely disturbing in it; her portrayal of Annie kept me on edge throughout the entire film with only two other movie moments that I can remember whereby you feel as if something is going to happen more and more as the tension builds in movies like The Hurt Locker while they are trying to disarm a bomb or in Foxcatcher when Steve Carell's performance as John Du Pont has you at bursting point with anxiety. Hereditary is a whole different monster with the pressure cooker starting to boil at the beginning and going supernova at the end. Gabriel Byrne, Milly Shapiro, Alex Wolff and Ann Dowd are all brilliant in their parts, proving that casting really did get it right this time. The soundtrack to the film is so sinister and unsettling, that it would over time disturb your mind and therefore wouldn't be recommended for relaxation. The director, Ari Aster has done quite a job with this movie, his vision both perverse and visually gothic; in my opinion, the first of many great movies in what could be a very promising career providing he doesn't sell out by making countless sequels that seem to get worse as each one passes by. In the end, what everyone wants to know is should you watch it and will you like it. My answer is yes you should watch it and as for the liking it part, that will be entirely up to you. If you're expecting a straight forward Horror film which falls neatly into the Horror Genre, this is not the movie for you. On the other hand, if you avoid the trailers, and keep an open mind which will allow you to watch this movie and rate it by its own merit, chances are, you'll enjoy it. Pleasant Dreams Richard Green

To say I was expecting a little more from this movie is to say nothing. If you’re on the lookout for a compelling horror-tale with a well-constructed plot that will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time, you definitely shouldn’t bother with this flick. I first acquainted myself with the art of Svyatoslav Podgaevsky, the director of The Mermaid, through his second movie “Queen of Spades: The Dark Rite.” I was pleasantly surprised and satisfied with his modern take on the infamous legend of Russian folklore. The movie was a breath of fresh air in the dying -or perhaps already dead- Russian cinema. And though a story about kids who accidentally summon a demon while playing a game is painfully familiar to all of us, it’s the first Russian horror movie I can remember, that does justice to its multiple American analogues. Then came last year’s “The Bride” which also left a vivid, lasting impression on me. Noticing Podgaevsky’s professional growth spurt within the past three years, I had no hesitation in buying the ticket for his next upcoming film. The Mermaid, however, with its action-packed trailer and tastefully designed poster, much to my regret, turned out to be a disappointment. The only element in the movie that accomplishes a desired result, in my opinion, is the atmosphere. What truly sets the mood of the film right from the start is the color pallete. The director sticks to minimalism and is selective about the colors in order to enhance their effect. Most scenes are shot in dark blue, green and grey under-lit tones which are constantly present in the everyday life of the protagonists, suggesting that the supernatural world and ours have overlapped. It may also show the power the paranormal forces have over feeble human nature and indicate that the main characters are doomed. The opening scene is particularly gripping and atmospheric with a lantern illuminating the mist over the lake and a man failing to hold onto his wife as she’s being dragged down into the lake by an unseen force. The scene promises a bone-chilling, mystery-driven film. But it never happens. After that scene we are transported into the present where, right off the bat, we are struck by a flat unconvincing performance of the lead actress Viktoria Agalakova, who plays Marina and who also starred in the previous film of the director “The Bride.” And if in “The Bride” the cast is bigger, and the lead actress’ stiff portrayal is compensated by other more engaging performances which makes the miscasting forgivable and the movie watchable, in this one the spotlight is fully on her. Looking totally unaffected by the fact that her fiancée Roma (Efim Petrunin) is under the maddening spell of an evil spirit, we watch her mechanically act as the script dictates, accompanying her actions with forced facial expressions and movements. Naturally, we feel uninterested in what is going to happen to her before something ever does. More than that, there isn’t a moment in the film when she looks troubled, let alone frightened, and thus all visibly massive efforts put into the creation of an uncanny villain are shattered. For when the leading lady isn’t terrified of the antagonist, the entire situation strikes the audience as fake. All characters are badly-written, lack depth and unique traits that would make them memorable. And even though there’s a hint at a character arc in the film, it is so badly executed that it only evokes confusion. Marina is scared of water and doesn’t know how to swim. So, in order to save her boyfriend, she has to confront her fear of the water. Instead of slowly building her way up to overcoming it – like it would happen in a decent horror movie - she just willingly plunges into the lake without expressing fear or any conflicted emotions whatsoever. That certainly leaves the audience feeling cheated and disappointed once again. To make matters even more disastrous, the plot unfolds at an unnaturally fast and smooth pace giving the film an obvious touch of cheesy phoniness. The intended twist is spoiled before it ever gets a chance to occur: in the scene where Marina gives a haircut to Roma’s sister (Sesil Plezhe) they discuss an old slavic ritual which involves hair cutting. An attentive viewer will promptly put the pieces together and deduce that the ritual is the key to destroying the Mermaid, and that it is due to be performed at the climax. The movie overflows with jump scares, but instead of seamlessly fusing them with the plot, the director falls into the habit of cutting off an important scene and ‘freezing’ all the action in attempt to keep the audience focused on the looming screamer. It only reduces the boo effect though, for he might as well have been announcing on the loudspeaker “Brace yourself! There’s about to be a jump scare!” When watching “The Mermaid: The Lake of The Dead” a feeling of déjà-vu grows stronger by the minute as the identical elements and techniques from other movies of Svyatoslav Podgaevsky rush to mind. Again, we are faced with a vicious female demon that “won’t leave you alone once she’s set her eyes upon you”. And again, we witness an otherwise promising idea being so shallowly and lazily carried out on screen that it starts to resemble an annoying broken record.

https://youtu.be/tSX3_jKR53s

The virus has laid dormant in us since the beginning of time. And the extremes of modern stress have caused it to awaken. We’re all, in essence, Patient Zero. There you are! Another zombie movie. And also one where they tried to use something unique, in order to give it an original look. Now, to be honest, I found the idea they’ve used to be highly amusing. An infected person who’s still functioning normally is being used to gather information. And the interview technique used was also a nice touch. Of course, the highlight of the film is the moment Stanley Tucci shows up. Let’s play some music and see how they react. Unfortunately, the initial idea isn’t very original. For the umpteenth time, planet earth is the victim of some kind of epidemic, causing the majority of the population to transform into something inhuman. And just as with a realistic Ebola epidemic, they start looking for the one where it all started with. The so-called “Patient zero”. In “Outbreak” it was an imported monkey. In “World War Z” they also tried to trace the origin of a virus. In this film, the army goes on a manhunt (if you can call it that) and try to detect this crucial person with the help of imprisoned infected persons. There it is that Morgan (Matt Smith) uses his unique gift. And his collection of vinyl records is an extra tool to help him with that. Zombies being a more evolved species, sounded kind of intriguing. Now, I’m of the opinion that zombies are brainless, bloodthirsty, wandering beings whose minds are so affected that they lead a catatonic existence. Them expecting such a creature to point out where the person sought is located (probably staring off into space in an apathetic and comatose way), makes it clear how stupid the set-up is. The fact that these mutated individuals are superior to the human race and the whole reasoning about the pent-up anger about all sorts of misfortunes now erupting as a climax, sounds plausible and even interesting. But besides these philosophical musings, which are put forward in an excellent way by the professor (Stanley Tucci), there’s nothing else exciting to be found in this average horror. To be honest, this film fell short in several areas. This flick fell short of its mark. The acting of Stanley Tucci and the conversation between him and Matt Smith are actually the only highlights in this film. The rest is too limited, too cheap and too superficial. The story itself is too narrow-minded. They also added a love affair to it to embellish it, while it’s not really relevant. The search for the ultimate antidote to save a loved one is added for sentimental reasons. They limited the film to one dark location. And the zombie part, isn’t frightening either. And I constantly had the feeling as if this was a pilot of a new television series. Something like “The walking dead“. Hence probably my slightly apathetic attitude while watching this film. I’m not a big fan of series. And if you think about it properly, this scenario resembles that of “I am legend” for the most part. And that for me is unacceptable and cheap. My rating 3/10

I’m Luke Allen, a 15 year old award nominated filmmaker from Shropshire. Here’s the trailer for my latest short film, Unstable. ://youtu.be/F-0Ow3UI5Jg

Early Man is the new stop-motion, clay animation film from Aardman Studios. If you're familiar with the studio's previous films or series you likely know what to expect. By continuing the studio's affinity towards good humoured, layered and utterly charming animated films that can be enjoyed by the whole family; Aardman has created another classic! Early Man follows, Dug and his tribe of stone-age people as they're driven out of their home by the despicable, Lord Nooth and his more advanced city of bronze ("Ze age of stone is over!"). After being evicted to the volcanic badlands and realising that fighting is futile, Dug discovers his ancestors had a love for a game the bronze people call...football. With the help of Goona – a bronze city resident with her own desire to play football – Dug sets about training his tribe in an effort to win back his home and save his people from slavery or destruction. Featuring a concoction of some of Britain's finest talent, Early Man is as wondrously voice-acted as it is animated. Eddie Redmayne, as Dug – our lead, and the stone age tribes more plucky character – gives a typically excellent performance; as does Maisie Williams as the tough, want-to-be football player, Goona. Dug's best friend and sidekick, Hognob – lovingly grunted by Nick Park – is a delight to watch, and serves as a reminder of how perfectly Aardman can develop speechless characters that are equally as emotive and understandable as others. Rob Brydon also deserves credit for his hilarious, albeit limited role as the mimicking messenger bird; a bird that frequently brings bad news or angry messages to Lord Nooth, from his wife, Queen Oofeefa. Contributing some of my favourite scenes in the whole movie; watching as the messenger bird struts around the table, yelling and throwing fruit at Lord Nooth – as his wife would, had she been there – never got boring and had me in fits of laughter long after the scene had ended. The rest of the cast is made up of an eclectic group, including the likes of: Timothy Spall, Richard Ayoade, Mark Williams, Johnny Vegas, Miriam Margoyles and Gina Yashere. All of whom do a superb job at creating side characters that never feel like a carbon-copy of another, or unimportant; imprinting each with their own personal flair. It's Tom Hiddleston who really steals the show for me, however. Playing the tyrannical Lord Nooth, Hiddleston gives us the perfect mixture of the evil villain and the campy bad guy (think Victor Quartermaine - Curse of the Were-rabbit); with the most extraordinary French accent, I might add! The animation and humour on display are typical for Aardman, and for a legitimate reason. They're good at it. Really good at it. Mixing a Punch and Judy style slapstick, hilarious puns ("Go on then! Show us your tackle!") and intelligent cultural jokes is no straightforward task; and yet, Aardman rarely put a foot wrong. The combination of clever and funny off the cuff puns and jokes regarding British culture (Dug kicking the ball over the fence and having to ask for it back) will ensure there's plenty of laughs for adults. The more physical look of the animation, silly slapstick, and cheery style captures the interest of children; truly, a film for the entire family. Handmade plasticine models provide the basis for the movies painstakingly made animation. CGI is also used to add certain visual flourishes, but mostly to create the movies backdrops. Although CGI is used more than ever now; Early Man nevertheless manages to hold onto the down to earth, thumbprint look, and style that so defines Aardman Studios. Verdict Early Man is a beautiful and laugh out loud funny animated movie from Britain's best known, and most loved animation studio. By sticking to their tried and tested formula, Aardman can sometimes seem unadventurous; but why change something that works so well? The pick-a-mix bag of gags and jokes ensures that there is something for every member of the family; no matter the age. For me, Early Man did its job; it had me smiling from the get-go, and I didn't stop laughing until the movie finished. Although primarily about football – not a subject I have any interest in, or much knowledge of – the movie managed to keep me hooked, and I never felt like I was watching a film I just didn't get. Although not one of their best works (for me that's Curse of the Were-Rabbit), Early Man is nevertheless a wonderfully charming, and funny piece to join Aardman's already marvelous back catalogue. I've seen the movie once so far, but fully intend to see it a couple more times; to look out for the no doubt copious background gags I missed the first time around; something you can always rely on with these films. I challenge anyone to go see this movie and not come out of it smiling and feeling even just a little better about things. 9/10

Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Mundane Movie If you are looking for a true, faithful and accurate adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s brilliant source material then Guy Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ is not for you. With Robert Downey Jr as the protagonist, the once respected detective is now a crazed madman crossed with some kind of wacky action hero. It is hard to tell what kind of character Holmes is in this oscillating confusion of film and I’m not too sure the director knows either. Throughout, the film fluctuates back and forth between action, comedy, mystery and crime. These tones aren’t balanced well at all and are instead clumsily juggled by a blindfolded dimbat of a director. Speaking of clumsiness the main character is constantly falling over and dropping things as if he is Mr Bump from the Mr Men. This cartoonish and silly depiction of Sherlock Holmes strips the character of all reputability. Then at other points in the narrative the same detective is a strong and brave action hero who uses methodical scientific processes to fight street thugs. Holmes spends more time using his intelligence and deductive ability to beat up criminals instead of actually solving crimes like he’s supposed to. The action scenes are another weak component as they are mostly a mess of CGI explosions, which made me feel like I was watching a trashy Michael Bay blockbuster instead of a mystery thriller. These special effect shenanigans don’t even add any high stakes as the protagonists easily walk them off as if they were simply a mere inconvenience. This reoccurring trope of ‘plot armour’ turns the once relatable characters into invincible superheroes who the audience cant connect with or relate to. The removal of high stakes cancels out any tension or fear, which are fundamental emotions in crime cinema. The bipolarity of the film and its characters fails to allow for any emotional connection to be made with it, as there is nothing whole to connect with. Both of the protagonists who we are supposed to root for are dislikeable. Holmes is a lunatic who carries no charisma and is mainly just an arrogant idiotic douchebag. Nobody seems to like him not even his only friend Dr Watson. Played by Jude Law, Watson is to put it simply, very boring. He serves one purpose that is to complain and look annoyed. To be honest I don’t blame him as if I was an acquaintance of Downey Jr’s Sherlock Holmes let alone share an apartment with him I would find it unbearable. Instead of professional partners Sherlock and Watson are instead more like squabbling siblings with no sense of brotherhood, chemistry or comradery. The antagonist of the film is another mundane element that adds nothing of interest at all. Blackwood as played by Mark Strong is nothing but a generic one-sided villain who is evil just for the sake of it. He doesn’t seem to have any real motivation or reason for his wickedness except from that the script wills it so. Strong attempts to present him as terrifying vampire like adversary but instead comes off as frivolous. Blackwood’s plan is a grand convoluted scheme, which involves black magic and taking over the world (muhahahahaha). Yeah I know, it’s as ridiculous as it sounds. I can’t help but wonder what happened to the small, niche and actually interesting schemes of Holmes’s opponents that made Doyle’s stories so fascinating. Another uninteresting component is the set and mainly the colour pallet used. The mess of dark grey ashy buildings in nearly every shot may convey Victorian London effectively but feels lifeless and uninspiring as nothing new or exciting is bought to the table. The film attempts to distract the audience from this with very weak attempts at ‘comedy’. Every single ‘joke’ falls completely flat and I genuinely can’t remember a single time I laughed during my viewing experience. I couldn’t even chuckle at how bad the comedy is. The only laughable thing about the film is the film itself. The one part of this film that evokes actual positive emotion is the fantastic score by Hans Zimmer. Hans perfectly captures the essence of 19thcentury industrial London with the strings and percussion giving an eerie, dark but powerful feel to this dim, drag of a movie. Every positive part of Sherlock Holmes (and there’s not a lot of them) is completely outshone by the BBC series ‘Sherlock’. Comparing the two live action adaptations really highlights everything wrong about Ritchie’s attempt at bringing Doyle’s iconic character to the silver screen. The series has the perfect balance of action, comedy, mystery, crime and enjoyable but accurate characters all whilst taking place in the modern world. The 2009 Sherlock Holmes lacks all of this and is probably why I found myself falling asleep before I even reached the 3rdact (I’m not even joking). If you really want to watch a satisfying and well-made version of Doyle’s stories then please stay far far far away from Guy Ritchie’s insulting mess of a movie also known as ‘Sherlock Holmes’.