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

(Release Info London schedule; June 19th, 2020, Curzon Home Cinema) https://www.curzonhomecinema.com/film/watch-on-a-magical-night-film-online "On A Magical Night" We meet Maria Mortemart (Chiara Mastroianni), a woman who's dissatisfied with her marriage after a heated argument with her husband Pierre (Anthony Devaux). After 20 years of marriage, Maria decides to leave her husband. She moves out for the night to stay in a hotel across the street from their home and settles in room 212 from which she watches her husband and reflects upon their life together. While mulling over her decision, various people from her past appear, offering their opinions. She's visited by her late mother (Marie-Christine Adam), her dead grandmother (Claire Johnston), Richard Warrimer (Vincent Lacoste), a younger, 25-year-old version of her husband, her husband’s first love Irene Haffner (Camille Cottin) and her many lovers, to berate her for a string of infidelities. In room 212, she reflects upon her marriage, gifted with the ability to see it all at once. There, she has a bird’s eye view of her apartment, her husband, and her marriage. In this comic romp, she confronts her past lovers and relationships on one magical night, fantasizing about the lives she could’ve lived and wondering if she’s made the right decisions. Inspired by Leo McCarey’s 'The Awful Truth', this is a playful, witty fantasy, served by stunning cinematography. From the very beginning, the story looks like a conjugal tale more than a report on couples. The film takes a familiar topic, a couple in crisis after many years of marriage, and revives it with abundant creativity and cinematic strokes of genius. 'Thus play I in one person many people, and none contented'. We believe that this 'Shakespeare' verse, that John Irving borrowed for the title of one of his novels, defines quite well the initial mystery in that story. Let’s pretend a woman, Maria, one night has the revelation that she has the gift of seeing how there are always more people around her than it seems. Her husband is also her young fiancé, and the teenager she did not know. Her rival Irene is also Irene the role model of her future life. Her lover Asdrubal Électorat (Harrison Arevelo) is all of her lovers in one person. Maria would be like a fixed star that would attract satellites around her that keep multiplying. The story follows the poisonous steps of this invasion and simultaneously builds with Maria the antidote to escape them. Let’s pretend that woman, Maria, experienced finding her voice among all the voices that block her. The more Maria would like to think about her life, the more her life turns out to be filled with protagonists who want to speak for her. Maria crosses a street, hoping for some perspective, to see herself from the outside, to see her apartment, her husband, her marriage from above. Yet now she's not facing loneliness, but the noisy group of people who claim they've suffered from her, her freedom, her desires. Among them, Maria is like a prisoner of more or less aggressive signs that she must interpret. And we don’t have much of an explanation for it except that they're shamefully sweet and exhaustingly kind; these four characters liked one another. In our great ideas about films and how cinema happens, we forget this essential, precious and rare element; the love that the characters feel for one another. The trust, the humor, the affection, the friendship between them. This film owes everything to the health, kindness, tenderness, wildness and delicate and benevolent warmth of the characters. As often, “On A Magical Night” proceeds from "Les Fleurs", which has not been shot, barely been written, but which is it's secret source. The story is set during 'The Occupation', then in 'The 50’s'. There's an imaginary painter, a piano, 'The Picardie' region, 'The Opéra Garnier' and two female characters who are keeping a secret that they could not access themselves. We find ourselves watching Leo McCarey’s “The Awful Truth”; Irene Dunne and Cary Grant as an infallible married couple after their divorce. It takes us to an overly solemn level. How many filmmakers have taken an interest in the subject of conjugal conversation? We're more and more distrustful of this importance, this sort of domination that some films command to cinema itself. "On A Magical Night” expresses in a sentimental and stubborn way, the attachment to fiction cinema where let’s pretend has more value than the let’s do it as it's. Here, fiction in the sense of enchantment. We've let ourselves been swept along it in a dance with forgotten steps, charmed by it's spells. And little by little, it appeared to us that it's not nothing, in this day and age, to claim the precious tools of acting, of metaphor, to favor the magic of backstage, of tricks, in a work that aims to make life happen during a film. We should not forget that we've been twenty-five and that we loved us madly when we was that age! For years, we've gotten our bearings in life from the love stories that punctuated it. It was back in the days of 'X' or in the days of 'Y', month-long or night-long romances seemed to be the highest points of our existence. As if romantic faithfulness allowed us to multiply projects. We're aware that it's arbitrary, and maybe irrelevant to bring up these two words, truthfulness and films. We're quite tempted to claim that loving lengthily has certainly allowed us to shoot often.

(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.

https://youtu.be/tSX3_jKR53s

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.

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.