Search Results

(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.

Hounds of Love (2016) Starring Emma Booth, Susie Porter, Ashleigh Cummings and Stephen Curry. Written and Directed by Ben Young. What a dark horse Australia is proving to be when it comes to filmmaking. I first discovered this when I was introduced to The Babadook a few years ago after complaining to my brother I hadn’t seen a decent horror in a while. Now, I have found this little gem and was surprised to find Australia is giving us a whole other dimension to abduction based thrillers. Hounds of Love tells the story of teen Vicki (Ashleigh Cummings), struggling to come to terms with her mum leaving her dad to ‘find herself’. As a result, she plays out her inner rebel and sneaks out at night to a party one evening. After a moment of naivety though, she is abducted by serial rapists/killers Evelyn (Emma Booth) and John White (Stephen Curry) after foolishly accepting a lift and a promise of drugs. Don’t get me wrong, it still has all the typical elements of an abduction movie - an escape attempt that is thwarted as it comes too early in the film to pay off, agony that is further prolonged by the hard-to-watch ordeal (very tactfully shot), chains and blood, local law-enforcement who don’t care, the inevitable scenarios of sexual abuse, which became over-familiar (and therefore devalued) in the Hostel heyday of torture porn. However, this film is different from the rest. In many other ways, it plays against expectations, which of course keeps you gripped. Rather than the basement cage in a remote house of most abduction movies, Vicki is very loosely chained in a back bedroom, in a bungalow, on a regular street, and the racket she raises often alerts nosey neighbours. Accustomed to cracks in relationships from her parents’ break-up, she realises that the needy Evelyn, who has children that don’t live with her and dotes on a child-substitute dog, is exploited by her perverse, domineering, inadequate partner. A monstrous master in his own home, John is a little fish in a bigger crime pond (people are chasing him for money), taking frustrations out on his victims and his wife alike. Vicki sees an opening and plays on Evelyn’s insecurities with the moody teenager skill she has developed pushing her own mother’s buttons. As a result, very quickly as a viewer you begin to ask all the questions the Director hopes you will – will Vicki’s plan work? Will she actually be able to negotiate? Oh god, is she actually going to make it out? The fact she is so painfully close to the perfectly populated street (excellent storytelling) makes it all the more enthralling. In my past posts, I have spoken about true horrors having a huge element of psychological trauma. What works in this film is that John’s victims know exactly who he is and what he wants, but his wife lies to herself about it until he crosses a line, which makes Evelyn waver in her loyalties. Again, this makes us question does Evelyn even have the mental capacity to believe Vicki’s plea? Abduction narratives are always tough to watch and this one is no different. However, Young’s storytelling is proof he cares about audience satisfaction and how realistic we believe it to be. After all, the minute it becomes too farfetched we switch off. Vicki’s abduction has plenty of uncomfortable scenes, but it isn’t just blood, gore and chains. Most of the harrowing scenes take place behind closed doors, leaving it to us to use our imagination. That alone is enough discomfort for any reasonable person. It doesn’t surprise me to see this film is based on fact, relating to similar abductions that happened across Perth in the ‘80s. Emma Booth and Ashleigh Cummings are outstanding. In most films like this, female characters have to be foolish and irrational for the narratives to work, but here we see why these intelligent women (Evelyn is unnervingly good at luring victims into the car) ignore their own best instincts to get into a position where John can exploit them. I think what was missing for me was the motive. I wasn’t sure why this deranged couple did this to young girls, but my first thought was something to do with using them to reproduce, because of the storyline of Evelyn not having her children with her. However looking back, a couple capable of committing such crimes probably don’t need a reason. The most thrilling scene for me was right at the end, when Vicki is a matter of feet away from her own mother, but being kept quiet under a knife to the throat. Conveniently, Vicki and her boyfriend have code breaking skills, whereby simple spelling errors in letters can reveal a message. Earlier in the film, Evelyn had forced Vicki to write a letter to her mum to throw her off the scent but this handily led her to her best chance of survival. Does she get out??? Watch it!!! You won’t be disappointed.

"It’s not just a call... It’s a warning." From Warner Bros. Pictures comes Matt Reeves’ “The Batman,” starring Robert Pattinson in the dual role of Gotham City’s vigilante detective and his alter ego, reclusive billionaire Bruce Wayne. Two years of stalking the streets as the Batman (Robert Pattinson), striking fear into the hearts of criminals, has led Bruce Wayne deep into the shadows of Gotham City. With only a few trusted allies—Alfred Pennyworth (Andy Serkis), Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright)—amongst the city’s corrupt network of officials and high-profile figures, the lone vigilante has established himself as the sole embodiment of vengeance amongst his fellow citizens. When a killer targets Gotham’s elite with a series of sadistic machinations, a trail of cryptic clues sends the World’s Greatest Detective on an investigation into the underworld, where he encounters such characters as Selina Kyle/aka Catwoman (Zoë Kravitz), Oswald Cobblepot/aka the Penguin (Colin Farrell), Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and Edward Nashton/aka the Riddler (Paul Dano). As the evidence begins to lead closer to home and the scale of the perpetrator’s plans becomes clear, Batman must forge new relationships, unmask the culprit, and bring justice to the abuse of power and corruption that has long plagued Gotham City. It was a rainy summer day when Robert Pattinson's casting had been officially announced back in 2019. DC fans and the internet alike drove in volumes to Twitter to protest the "sparkly vampire" from Twilight being selected as the new Batman, but I maintained the notion that he was the best choice for the role and counted down the days till he would prove me right. Come the end of this week, that day will emerge for fans worldwide. As you likely know thanks to Reeves' words, this feature begins with a young Batman, and is not a full origin story, but Bruce is not yet the iconic character we know and love. This makes sense: Bruce didn't become the Batman in a week, nor did he stay the same throughout his career; he must have developed, he must have changed and grown, yet we have never truly seen that on the big screen - The Batman marks the first chapter of that. From past adaptations, all the iterations we've seen feature Bruce wearing the Batman mask at times; this time, Batman wears the Bruce mask - this is evident from the opening scene. Rather than donning a playboy persona, Bruce keeps true to his mindset, adopting a depressed, reclusive attitude. It seems this story (and any follow-ups) will be a long-form origin story for Robert Pattinson's Bruce Wayne to eventually become the caped crusader from the comics, and this is true for the entire ensemble, as will become apparent. Speaking of masks, perhaps the most prominent theme in the movie is the question of identity. When the Riddler's first look was revealed, many fans criticised the uncharacteristic costume and the use of a mask, but the mask is vital to the theme. In this feature, wearing masks is not about hiding identities, it is about revealing them. As I spoke of Batman being Bruce's true identity, the same can be said for the Riddler, and their dichotomy is the heart of the film. It's this meaning that never allows the pace to falter - the movie does not feel remotely close to three hours. This theme wouldn't be anywhere near as impactful if it was not sold by the pairing of Pattinson and Dano. While every cast member goes above and beyond, the standout has to be Paul Dano. Dano sells this intelligent, unhinged, childlike Edward Nashton and it gave me chills. Dano also sells the fearless, terrifying, unbeatable Riddler: two characters, two performances. Robert Pattinson too adopts this philosophy and perfects his on-screen chemistry with every supporting cast member, most notably with Zoe Kravitz's Catwoman, who explores her own storyline that makes you root for her. Colin Farrell not only has the perfect look through the use of prosthetics, but nails the performance. Andy Serkis is the Alfred this feature needed - I was a little hesitant on this at first as I had always seen Alfred as a harmless-appearing butler with a renegade side, but Serkis was the perfect choice for this Alfred. The entire supporting cast give it their all, and I have never seen such a quintessentially assembled cast in any form of media. The Batman is a feature so well cast that even the extras have standout performances. The cast make sure not to play their characters from the comics, but to take a step back as they become them. This isn't a Batman origin story; this is a Gotham origin story. Gotham, in fact, is portrayed better than any past feature: yes, portrayed. Much like the television show of the same name, Gotham is written as its own character and given an identity on screen, and Liverpool was a great casting choice for the role. As Andy Serkis reiterated in an interview, the film is timeless, and that is in large part due to Gotham's style. The architecture (both classic and modern) only adds to the tone of the city, uplifting the movie's noir feel. The city's identity was one of the few flaws in The Dark Knight trilogy, and Reeves made sure to correct this from the very first scene. The world goes hand-in-hand with the world-building, and while the film works as a one-off, the world-building sets up an entire universe very well. I highly anticipate both the Gotham PD and Penguin shows, as well as the inevitable sequel. Despite my words on this iteration being an almost "proto-Batman" (or rather "proto-Bruce Wayne"), there are so many moments that made me giddy. Even shots from the trailer surprised me and carried so much more weight when played within the movie. In fact, these shots are so well produced by cinematographer Greig Fraser and compliment the tone of the movie so well, that The Batman is the most beautiful film I've ever seen. For Batman fans, especially fans of the Arkham games, this movie is a smorgasbord of some of the best Batman moments on-screen. Reeves also follows suit in keeping the comic-book genre alive. The Batman is not a superhero movie, it isn't even a Batman movie, it is an intelligent screenplay that chases its own ambitious story and draws elements from the Batman IP, but ultimately adapts them however it sees fit. As audiences are beginning to grow tired of what has now become standard of the genre, movie studios are beginning to adapt comic-book material into movies of other genres - this is an intelligent way of doing so but is adopted by so few filmmakers. Following such features as Logan and Joker, The Batman is a welcome addition to their ranks. The Batman is up there among the better comic-adapted movies and a breath of fresh air in the genre. From the first act, it took the spot as my personal favourite Batman film. Perhaps it's time to retire the "best Batman movie since The Dark Knight" and now set The Batman as the new staple. After decades of cinema rushing toward the latest tropes, The Batman is a much-needed (and long-overdue) return-to-form. About the Film Critic Ahmed Abbas

(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.

Jason Statham and a massive shark.  5/5 It’s Jason Statham and a massive shark. Seriously though what more would you want from a film? It’s Jason Statham and a massive shark. Look, if you was expecting an oscar worthy movie that was going to be challenging, insightful, intelligent then get out, this is some B-Movie, blockbuster trash, it’s trash, it’s complete trash. But my god this is a brilliant steaming pile of trash. 📷Originally posted by theshawbrothers Jason Statham is an ex-rescue diver, after a mission goes wrong where he encounters Meg, has to leave two of his friends behind to save 11 men, he retires. Fast forward 5 years and Dwight from The Office has spent a tonne of money on this underwater research facility that is exploring the depths of the ocean. The scientists have found a strip of science stuff that is blocking some sort of underwater world that is untouched by humans. They send a crew down there but their sub gets attacked by Meg and needs saving. Jason Statham comes along and saves the day. However, Meg manages to get out of the layer of science stuff (it couldn’t before because the layer was too cold, however because of the ships heat it now can) and starts to cause a right nightmare in the normal ocean. Jason Statham and his crew try to find a way to capture it, they do but it turns out to be baby Meg. Big Meg kills a couple of the crew and then makes his way to the beach. Kills a couple of people on the beach and then Jason Statham stabs it in the eye, takes a massive chunk out him. Blood comes gushing out, little sharks come out and eat Big Meg. Bit like Scar in Lion King, but in water, and sharks, and not digitally animated, and not as good.  Gripping stuff right there, am I right? What do you expect from the guy who directed the National Treasure films? To be fair, this movie is a whole lot of fun. Sure, the dialogue is a bit iffy, it’s a bit all over the shop and at times it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Jason Statham saves the crew and then gets accused by the female lead (Li Bingbing) of not saving the guys life who sacrificed himself. And then the scene after she’s flirting with him. What’s that all about? Where’s the consistency? The humour is really cringe, you know it tries to be funny but it fails a lot. A couple of the stereotypical black jokes and the film mostly tries to use Rainn Wilson (who was Dwight) as the comic relief as nostalgia to his Office role. It just doesn’t work.  📷Originally posted by dailydwight What does work is the action, it’s good shark vs Jason Statham shenanigans. It’s fun to watch, a massive shark being a nuisance and eating people, what’s more fun is the attempts to catch it and the method in doing that. Jason Statham out in sea trying to plant a tracker on it. Or Suyin Zhang (Li Bingbing) tricking it by going in a shark cage. Which, although can’t be smashed because of what it is made from, can fit inside its mouth because it’s a FRICKIN’ MEGALODON. 2/5 Look it’s good fun. That’s what I can say. It’s a good blockbuster flick. It’s worth paying the £11 at the cinema just to hear Jason Statham say ‘oh my god, it’s Megalodon’. Brilliant. That will be up there with ‘No, I am your father’. At the end of the day though, it is Jason Statham and a massive shark.

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’.

If something happens to my daughter I’ll kill you. You and your boss. Just when you think that an icon such as Jean-Claude Van Damme is becoming a caricature of himself and in danger of sinking into oblivion, he surprises you with such a part as in this film. The “Muscles from Brussels” got under my skin with his integer and sensitive acting. No bulging muscles and a long stretched primal cry accompanied by a grimace. He already demonstrated this in the 90s extensively. The years he peaked with classics such as “Bloodsport“, “Double Impact” and “Sudden death“. In those days you couldn’t come in a video store without a combative JCVD staring at you threateningly from the shelves. Unfortunately it went from bad to worse. And he hit rock bottom with the film “Alien Uprising“. What a crap movie this was. Unworthy of Jean-Claude Van Damme. Jean-Claude really acts magisterially. Van Damme proves in “The Bouncer” (original title “Lukas“) he’s capable of doing more than just effortlessly cracking coconuts between his two muscular buttocks. Verily, he even shows here some acting talent. Not that he has to grasp deeply in his box of tricks. All he has to do is stare gloomy and tired. And occasionally he needs to handle a situation emotionlessly as the bouncer in less kosher establishments of Belgium’s nightlife. Well, someone who hates Van Damme would say that. I thought it was magisterial what he demonstrated here. He plays an old man who knows the ropes. Such an individual who doesn’t shy away from a brawl with other mean-looking fellows, as a job application. Someone who carelessly licks his wounds and puts a firm bandage over his wounds and then moves on to the order of the day. In short, a tough guy. A tough guy living a tough life. And yet this bad-boy has a golden heart. The way this single father takes care of his 8-year-old daughter Sarah (Alice Verset) is endearing. Lukas experienced some major setbacks in his life. Things he still hasn’t recovered from. And the fact that it doesn’t go smoothly financially, only makes it more difficult. A regrettable accident in the club where he’s working as a bouncer causes additional problems. In such a way that he also takes up a job at a nightclub where it’s not only dark for the clientele (so they can discretely do their thing). But also they carry out activities which shouldn’t be noticed by the authorities. French, Flemish and English. Well, it’s Belgium. “The Bouncer” is not an action-packed film. In the end, it’s rather depressing. Grayish back streets, dark clubs, and brutal crime. That’s what you get served. I myself am not so familiar with the region where this all takes place. The Brussels region isn’t a known area for me. Because of the mix of languages (Dutch, French, and English), the film also got a more international character. And the recruitment of Kevin “Revenge” Janssens and Sam Louwyck, the two companions who hire Lukas as a bodyguard, gave it a Flemish cachet. I myself am not such a big fan of home-grown films. But cinematographically this was of a completely different level. A gritty movie with no splits. “The Bouncer” is a straightforward film in which clichés aren’t avoided. Jean-Claude Van Damme shines in this film. He’s constantly in the picture and carries this movie effortlessly. No, don’t expect him to demonstrate that he’s a master in combat techniques. Lukas is a sturdy, tough guy who can throw punches and can take punches effortlessly, but he won’t do splits in this gritty film. The acting of the two criminals is also far from bad. Especially Sam Louwyck is pretty intimidating. The conversations between him and Lukas are extremely successful. Kevin Janssens’ hairstyle stands out most. Could you talk about a rebirth of Van Damme? Who knows. Maybe I should give “Black Water” a chance, even though I’m sure I’ll be disappointed. My rating 6/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

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

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

All right, I need you to loosen the guy up. He’s old, all right? Do not kill him. The only thing I wondered afterward was “Why for God sake was this movie made?“. I’m not saying that this was the most horrible film of the year. Or the most superfluous release ever. There were some positive things in it. And in a certain way, it was sometimes far from bad even. But in the end, it was only a simplistic storyline and little to nothing innovative. The only thing that stayed with me is that you got an unpleasant feeling while watching. The way Rainy (Guillermo Diaz) addressed and dealt with the kidnapped persons was rather intimidating. An agitated character who’s completely out of control after consuming some kind of soft drugs. You just felt that it was a difficult situation for Audrey (Tammy Blanchard) and her daughter Cheyenne (Onata Aprile). But that’s the only thing in this film that can be called exciting. For the rest, it’s quite weak. It’s all about water. Everything revolves around the claiming of water rights by Bobby (David Spade). Something his ancient grandfather failed in doing. And apparently, he can only achieve this by sending two vicious-looking characters to the elderly owner. To exert a little pressure. What Bobby didn’t know was that the latter had already died. The only ones they find in the old man’s house are the daughter Audrey and granddaughter Cheyenne. And the only plan that those two bums can come up with is to kidnap these two people who happen to be present. What follows is a precarious situation where one kidnapper (Dwight Henry as Jawari) tries to keep the other in line (clearly that these two bunglers don’t really know each other). And when someone unexpectedly shows up at the door, Ryan gets even more agitated. Some familiar faces. Apart from the lesser known actors, you will notice a number of familiar faces. The most well-known person is, of course, the comedian David Spade as the go-getter Bobby who apparently has to prove himself towards his grandfather Calvin (Bruce Dern, known face number two). Personally, I don’t think David Spade belongs to the crème de la crème when it comes to comedy. Usually, these are forgettable, nonsense comedies that are far from funny. I thought he’d make a funny comment at any moment. His contribution was reasonably mediocre. Bruce Dern’s acting was also fairly limited. Certainly compared to his part in “The Hateful Eight” as General Sandy Smithers. And finally, you’ll also recognize James Earl Jones in a tiny role as a sort of notary. Also an insignificant role for such a well-known star. A movie to forget about. What remains are the leads. Their acting is nevertheless of a reasonable level. For example, I found the interaction between Tammy Blanchard and Onata Aprile very convincing. Maybe at times, it was a bit overly sentimental and Cheyenne came across as inexperienced. But that didn’t really bother me. Also, the acting of Guillermo Diaz was generally good. He managed to picture Ryan as an unstable character. Although his frantic attempt to sound like an accomplished psychiatrist was a bit absurd. Unfortunately, this wasn’t enough to make it an interesting film. The motive itself was already far-fetched. The final denouement sounded even more nonsensical. Nope, “Warning Shot” certainly isn’t a great film. So, you don’t want to waste time? Better you skip it then. My rating 3/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(London Film Festival, October 13th, 2018, Prince Charles Cinema, 18:15) "Bad Reputation" A look at the life of Joan Jett, from her early years as the founder of 'The Runaways' and first meeting collaborator Kenny Laguna in 1980 to her enduring presence in pop culture as a rock ‘n’ roll pioneer. When a precocious 13 -year-old girl in a sleepy suburban town put a 'Sears Electric Guitar' at the top of her Christmas list in 1971, no one could have predicted how the gift would change the course of history. Joan Jett wants to make some noise. She wants to start a band. An all-girl band. Never mind that the only viable path forward for aspiring female artists in the male-dominated music industry was as a singer-songwriter on an acoustic guitar. Jett wants to plug in, and nothing is going to stop her. Following the break- up of 'The Runaways', Jett met songwriting partner and producer Kenny Laguna, and formed 'Joan Jett & The Blackhearts'. After being rejected by twenty three labels, Laguna and Jett formed 'Blackhearts Records', selling records out of the trunk of Kenny’s Cadillac. Then, 'I Love Rock n Roll' went number one all over the world. The friendship and tenacity exhibited between Jett and Laguna proves to be both entertaining and inspiring. Jett ’s relentless passion for music and her revolutionary spirit has allowed her to defy great odds and find success, credibility and respect among her peers. Joan Jett is an originator, an innovator, and a visionary. As the leader of the hard- rocking 'Blackhearts', with whom she has become a 'Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame' inductee, she's had eight platinum and gold albums and nine Top 40 singles, including the classics 'Bad Reputation", 'I Love Rock 'N' Roll', 'I Hate Myself For Loving You', and 'Crimson and Clove'. Her independent record label, 'Blackheart Records', was founded in 1980 after she was rejected by no less than 23 labels. 'Blackheart' is one of the longest running indie labels and continues to give voice to new bands. Jett has acted in movies and television, including 1987's "Light Of Day", and in a Broadway musical, 'The Rocky Horror Show'. She has appeared on such television shows as 'Oprah' and 'Law and Order'. As a producer, she has overseen albums by 'Bikini Kill', 'Circus Lupus', as well as 'The Germs'. Her music has become a permanent force in mainstream culture. A version of 'I Hate Myself For Loving You' was reworked for 'NBC's Sunday Night Football' theme song. Her music is heard in countless films and TV shows including 'Easy-A', 'The Runaways', 'Shrek' and 'Baby Mama'. Since co-founding 'The Runaways', the pioneering all-girl punk quintet, at age 15, Jett's determination and drive have kept her in the public eye. Jett and 'The Blackhearts' released their latest record, 'Unvarnished', in 2013 and continue touring the globe to throngs of adoring fans. Joan Jett has spent her lifetime breaking barriers and challenging expectations, this is, after all, a woman who's both a spokesperson for 'PETA' and a devoted supporter of 'The US Military'. She's fought hard for all of her historic accomplishments, yet she remains humble and appreciative.   Kenny Laguna has been in the music industry as a musician, songwriter, singer, and producer, for nearly five decades. His resume is as diverse as his talents, including 'Bubblegum', 'Punk Rock', 'Indie Rock', and 'Blue-Eyed Soul'. He has produced the soundtrack to 'The Andy Warhol' movie "Lonesome Cowboys". He's Joan Jett's longtime producer, songwriting partner and partner in their label, 'Blackheart Records'. Starting at the tender age of 12 years old, Kenny was playing keyboards for New York radio high school hops, for twenty dollars a day, when he was recognized by an industry bigwig. This led to other doors that Kenny kicked open, and eventually he found himself producing and playing in 'Bubblegum' bands like 'The Ohio Express'. By 1972, Kenny had played and sung on over '50 Billboard Top 40' hits. After the demise of 'Bubblegum', he was given the opportunity to produce for 'The Who's' label in London, which would prime him for the next phase, 'Punk Rock'. Soon after that, Kenny was asked to help write and produce six songs in 8 days with a young singer named Joan Jett. Her former band, 'The Runaways', had broken up, but they're still contracted to do a project that was yet unfinished. Kenny and Joan immediately found they're kindred spirits, and have collaborated on every Joan Jett album and hit ever since. Kenny wanted to help Joan get a record deal, so they submitted 'I Love Rock N' Roll' and 'Bad Reputation'. They're turned down by every  one. Despite this, they didn't give up; Kenny and Joan manufactured the record, 'Bad Reputation' and sold the album from the trunk of 'Kenny's Cadillac'. This was the beginning of 'Blackheart Records'. 35 years later, 'Blackheart' is still the home to Joan Jett and 'The Blackhearts'. Kenny served as 'Executive Producer' of 2010's, 'The Runaways', bringing the story of the band to life on screen. After 35 years of creating music together, he and Jett are still touring the world, writing and recording new music. Kenny Laguna's vast career is a testament to his talents and tenacity. His body of work is as diverse as his talents. His lengthy career has been driven by passion for what he loves to do best; create music.   Carianne Brinkman spent her first 5 years traveling all over the world with rock n roll bands and then retired from the tour life to start kindergarten. Having grown up in the music industry, she was destined to follow in the formidable footsteps of her father, Kenny Laguna, a music business legend, and her adopted aunt, Joan Jett. After attending college, she joined the family business, 'Blackheart Records', and began to plot how to bring the label into a new era. 'Blackheart' was started after 23 labels rejected Jett and Laguna, before they found success with 'I Love Rock n Roll'. Brinkman rebranded 'Blackheart'' to reflect Jett's authenticity and rock n roll spirit. The label has become one of the longest running and most respected indies. By bringing Jett's catalog into the digital space, and focusing on Jett's unique brand and influence, Brinkman helped propel Jett from rock star to icon. In addition to infusing new life into the over 35 year old label, by signing and championing unique and diverse artists, she has been an integral part of Joan Jett's management team and was key in ushering in a new era for Jett. Jett credits Brinkman as the secret to her current success. After 13 years as 'SVP Of Blackheart', Brinkman began to expand into film. She was an associate producer of the 2010 film, 'The Runaways'. "Bad Reputation" chronicles the life of Joan Jett, from her early teenage years as founding member of The Runaways to her enduring presence over four decades later as a rock ‘n’ roll icon. Joan is so much more than "I Love Rock 'n' Roll." It's true, she became mega-famous from the number-one hit, and that fame intensified with the music video's endless play on 'MTV'. But that staple of popularity can't properly define a musician. Jett put her hard work in long before the fame, ripping it up onstage as the backbone of the hard-rock legends 'The Runaways', influencing many musicians-both her cohort of punk rockers and generations of younger bands-with her no-bullshit style. The film gives you a wild ride as Jett and her close friends tell you how it really was in the burgeoning '70s punk scene, and their interviews are laced with amazing archival footage. The theme is clear, even though people tried to define Jett and keep her stuck to one hit, she never compromised. She will kick your ass, and you'll love her all the more for it. The film shows the evolution of a young girl with a radical notion that girls could play electric guitars into a woman whose place in history will be marked by perseverance, authenticity and incredible rock n roll. Jett’s activism and commitment to all living beings are captured in her work on behalf of animals rights, travels to warzones to entertain the troops. Her humanity and candid reflections reveal a side seldom seen of the seminal rock star. Joan Jett is the essence of rock and roll. A dark and dingy club filled with the hormonal roar of longing and desperation and fuck yes. A stadium filled with hundreds of thousands of fans with their fists in the air. A dyed in the wool musician working on a song alone in her bedroom who won't let a lick or lyric rest till it's just fucking right. A machine who has such perfect timing that she don't need no stinking click track. An alley cat whose iconic howl is either mother's milk or a call to arms or both for millions of people all across the world. An atomic, three chord burst of guitar that's a thousand punches in the gut. A poet who speaks screams whispers of things that go bump in the night with such insight and finesse that the pain somehow just goes away. The highest of all hi-priests and priestesses who preside over a ritual that's still the gold standard for all art forms when it comes to moving masses. A fight against injustice of every stripe. A voice for the voiceless. A champion of champions and defender of the underdog. A feminist manifesto in the flesh. A paver of ways for little girls all acrothink pink was their color and even for those who did. A defiant, never-say-die general and foot soldier who tore down the old world patriarchy so that little girls could plug in and play it loud.

At least once in a person’s life, they find something that really sticks with them. It could be a book, a painting, a poem or a film. For me, it was watching ‘No Country for Old Men’. I didn’t like it at first; like many people, I was miffed about the way it ended, and ended up just hating Carla Jean’s mother instead of really thinking about why the film ended the way it did. Once I cared to see, I realised what the film was really trying to say. The film takes on a pretty simple set-up; a Texas-‘Nam-Vet-Hunter-Salt-of-the-Earth cobblestone archetype called Llewelyn Moss comes across the aftermath of a Mexican drug deal gone wrong. All the combatants are dead or dying, and a briefcase filled with money is left behind. The hunter takes the case and is then pursued in a cat-and-mouse game by a remorseless villain, Anton Chigurh, who, as a side note, uses a coin like Two-Face in a film with Tommy Lee Jones in it, and the old-time sheriff Ed Tom Bell who’d much rather be watching reruns of Rawhide, curled up on his couch. So far, so seen-before. But ‘No Country’ isn’t content with re-telling the chase story with some sly Fargo humour and no real musical score. It’s a film that deliberately challenges its audience, and their expectations, as evidenced by the amount of people who get angry when its ending is brought up. Ending aside, the film itself I regard as spotless. There are some glaring logic flaws throughout, like Llewelyn ‘Usain Bolt’ Moss outrunning a truck on foot and Chigurh teleporting a city block during a climactic shoot-out to get the upper hand, but cinematically and in terms of sound design, the film is a triumph. Never before has a film with two-thirds the main cast of Men in Black III had such great acting, or a film with little to no music had your backside on the edge of the seat instead of your head on the armrest. The issue of violence is woven through the story like a… thin red line, if you will. One can draw a connection about the human impact of violence from the three main characters. Bell has come undone from exposure to it, labouring under the mistaken belief the world was rosy before he arrived, and it’s only under his watch the thorns have started to prick. Moss has hardened against it, resulting in a stubborn but resolute man w ho takes on all comers, regardless of the costs involved. And Chigurh? Chigurh has let himself become violence personified, revelling in his ‘principles’, as molasses-mouth-man Carson Welles surmises. Thematically, the film builds a case for its conclusions; while accepting violence can keep you alive (‘if the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’ gloats Chigurh), it will corrupt and dehumanise you as payment. ‘No Country’ is a film that frustrates you. Even its most ardent supporters, myself included, will concede it’s a little disappointing after spending much of the movie building up to a showdown between Moss and Chigurh, to instead be met with Bell chatting with a paraplegic about God. The question to be asked is only this: ‘does the ending fit the movie?’ In some cases, it doesn’t. In this case, it did. One could argue the fact its ending is so far out of left field is part of the reason the film has remained so endearing. It is a film with something to say that hasn’t been said before. We’ve seen plenty of films use violence for both theatrical and thematic purposes but none quite as gracefully as this film does, and with such a lasting impact. Bell becomes the focal point by the end of the film, the character with which we can most relate. We have seen just as much violence as he has, and when the film reaches its end we have become Bell; so desensitised we only need to see Chigurh checking his bootheels for blood to know something terrible has happened. He encapsulates the nihilism the rest of the film has struggled to create. His actions never have bearing upon the plot. There is no point of him even trying to save Moss or capture Chigurh, because he comes to realise his actions, and furthermore everyone’s lives, are meaningless, leading to the melancholy finale where he is told of the everlasting violence of the area, and even his fantasy version of the past becomes shattered. In the end, he is a shadow of a man, no past, present or future about him, only hoping for death so he can reunite with his father. Now that may be very depressing, but like a punch to the gut, it stays with you for a long time after you watch it. I can say almost for certain that if the film had ended with the typical Western shootout and Moss the victor, it would have lost far more than it gained by subverting our expectations. Rather than glorify violence as the tool to stamp out evil, ‘No Country’ establishes it as the fertile ground on which evil grows. Only Bell, who doesn’t use violence at any point in the film, is left standing at the end, and he physiologically limps away from his encounter with it. ‘No Country for Old Men’ is one of few films I consider to be perfect, and for that, it’s earned itself five stars.