Search Results

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; 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.

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.

(Release Info London schedule; January 19th, 2018/Curzon Bloomsbury, 18:30) "The Final Year" "The Final Year" gives a look at the inner workings of the Obama administration as they prepare to establish a legacy when leaving power after eight years. The film revolves around Obama's foreign policy team; 'Secretary Of State' John Kerry, 'UN Ambassador' Samantha Power, 'Deputy National Security Adviser' and presidential confidant Ben Rhodes, as well as 'National Security Adviser' Susan Rice and President Obama himself. Over the course of 2016, they travel the world attempting to solidify and lock-in policies that they believe will define their legacy, promote diplomacy over large-scale military action, and fundamentally alter how the US government confronts questions of war and peace, as they prepare to hand over the machinery of American power to a new administration.   John Kerry served as 'Secretary Of State' from February 2013 until the end of the Obama administration. He previously was a Senator from Massachusetts and Chairman of 'The Senate Foreign Relations Committee'. Kerry first met Barack Obama in 2004, during Kerry's own presidential campaign, and chose Obama as the keynote speaker for his nominating convention. Kerry served in Vietnam as a 'Naval Officer'. Following his military service, Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist testified before 'The Senate Foreign Relations Committee' in 1971. Samantha Power served as 'US Ambassador' to 'The United Nations' from February 2013 until January 2017. During President Obama's first term, she worked in 'The White House' as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for 'Multilateral Affairs' and 'Human Rights' at 'The National Security Council'. Samantha Power emigrated from Ireland at age 9, and became a US citizen in 1993. After college, she was a journalist in Bosnia during wartime, and later wrote 'A Problem from Hell: America And The Age Of Genocide', which won 'The Pulitzer Prize'. Power met then-Senator Barack Obama in 2005, and worked on his first presidential campaign as a foreign policy advisor.   Ben Rhodes served in 'The White House' as 'Deputy National Security Advisor' for 'Strategic Communications' from 2009 until January 2017. Rhodes joined the Obama presidential campaign in 2007, and later became one of the president's closest aides. Rhodes was a creative writing student at NYU when he witnessed the 9/11 attacks. He moved to Washington and was hired by former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired both 'The Iraq Study Group' and 'The 9/11 Commission'. Rhodes helped draft 'The 9/11 Commission's' final report, which became a best-seller. Susan Rice served as 'National Security Advisor' from 2013 until January 2017. During President Obama's first term, she was Ambassador to 'The United Nations'. In 2004, Rice was a foreign policy adviser to John Kerry during his presidential campaign, when Kerry chose Barack Obama as the keynote speaker at his convention. In 2007, Rice was one of the first prominent foreign policy advisors to join Obama's own presidential bid. Rice had previously been a Senior Director at 'The National Security Council' during President Bill Clinton's first term, and was Assistant Secretary of 'State For African Affairs' during Clinton's second term. "The Final Year" begins in late 2015 and continued to the early hours of the morning on January 20, 2017, the day of Trump's inauguration. Director Greg Barker filmed extensively throughout the year at 'The White House' and 'State Department' in Washington DC, 'The United Nations' in New York City, and in 21 countries, following US officials on their international travel. The film is shot on-the-fly, with minimal equipment, no lights, and the smallest possible crew at all times, which gives the documentary flexibility to be nimble and capture spontaneous moments. Simultaneously, the editing team in LA reviewed and assembled nearly 1,000 hours of footage.       Timeline -   Sept. 2015. Presidential visit to 'The United Nations General Assembly'.   Jan. 13-17, 2016. Vienna, Austria. 'Secretary Of State' John Kerry, on 'Implementation Day' for 'The Iran Nuclear Agreement'.   Apr 17-24, 2016. 'UN Ambassador' Samantha Power visits Cameroon, Chad and Nigeria.   May 15-18, 2016. 'Secretary Of State' John Kerry attends Syrian peace negotiations in Vienna.   May 19-25, 2016. Presidential trip to Vietnam.   May 26-28, 2016. Presidential trip to Hiroshima, 'Potus' speech at 'Peace Memorial'   Jun 15-18, 2016. John Kerry visits Greenland to study climate change.   Jul 14-Jul 22, 2016. Ben Rhodes travels to Laos in advance of Presidential visit.   Sept 3-6, 2016. Barack Obama is the first US president to visit Laos.   Sept 18-24, 2016. 'United Nations General Assembly' meetings, attended by President Obama, John Kerry, Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes.   Nov 08, 2016. Election night.   Nov 13-16, 2016. 'Potus' visits Athens as part of his final overseas trip.   Jan 19th and 20th. John Kerry, Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power pack up and leave their offices. Filming wraps at 4am the morning of January 20th, hours before the inauguration. At 4am on the morning of Donald Trump's inauguration, the film shows 'UN Ambassador' Samantha Power as she slowly removed her 7 year-old son's artwork from the walls of her office overlooking 1st Avenue. She fills a bankers box with all the drawings, and then carried it down into a waiting 'SUV' for what would be her last official ride as 'US Ambassador' to 'The United Nations'. Earlier that day Secretary John Kerry leaves 'The State Department' for the final time, and with speechwriter and presidential confidant Ben Rhodes in 'The White House' as he packs his own belongings, wistfully coming across his handwritten notes from a 2009 sit-down with Obama in 'The Oval Office' to talk through what the President wanted to say in his upcoming speech in Cairo. This is the end of an era, everyone feels it and the end of an epic 15-month film shoot that take us on a once-in-a-career journey inside the workings of our foreign policy machinery. This is a story about a small group of people who came together nearly a decade ago, rallying behind a man and his cause. They set out to change the world, and against all expectations, found themselves in a position to affect that change. The believed they could redefine American foreign policy, promote diplomacy over large-scale military action, and alter how we as a nation think about questions of war and peace. They had their share of victories, the Iran deal, climate change, Cuba, and despite their own internal divisions over one of the toughest foreign policy questions of our age, at the outset of 2016 they believed they had largely succeeded, and that their legacy would define US foreign policy for decades to come. In retrospect, what the cameras captured is more than just high-ranking government officials at work, as fascinating and informative as that may be. The film captures a worldview, an attitude, an approach to international affairs that, we now know, is fleeting, unique to a particular moment. As anyone who has worked in government knows, behind the access, the crises of the moment, and the elusive but seductive sense of power, there's simply an enormous amount of hard, usually thankless work. Witnessing that up close, and seeing how dedicated our public servants are, is truly humbling and inspiring; honestly the greatest privilege of professional life.   "The Final Year" gives an unprecedented look at the shaping of US foreign policy by following key members of outgoing US President Barack Obama's administration. It's a fly-on-the-wall documentary about the last year of a presidency, in the spirit of the classic campaign film 'The War Room', only in reverse. Senior officials inside 'The US National Security Apparatus' are not used to having a documentary film crew hang around for months on end. It's a truly revealing film about the human dynamics and emotions at play inside the normally opaque world of US diplomacy. The film looks for strong personal narratives that illuminate the complexities and moral ambiguities of global politics and war. For "The Final Year" secures unprecedented access to 'The White House' and 'State Department', capturing the emotions and human dynamics behind American diplomacy at it's highest levels. This film is by far the most challenging, in terms of access, in terms of storytelling, and in terms of the sheer logistics involved when filming inside what's known as 'The Potus bubble', especially overseas. This film is controversial, the very nature of it's subject matter almost guarantees that, but the film goes beyond the politics of the moment, and helps foster a wider discussion about how America can and should relate to the wider world.

Home means everything. The visually mesmerising opening scene grabs you and doesn't let go, ever. Dunkirk takes place in three distinct timelines; One Week, One Day, One Hour (Land, Sea, Air) or as they were titled in the film: i. The Mole ii: The Sea iii: The Air "In 1940, after the invasion of France by Nazi Germany, thousands of Allied soldiers retreated to the seaside town of Dunkirk. As the Allied perimeter shrinks, the soldiers await evacuation in a seemingly hopeless situation." Christopher Nolan is a master of visual storytelling and he, along with his team carefully measure with precision every inch of detail responsible for the feelings felt during Dunkirk. This is unconventional, disjointed and completely stripped down of dialogue in his usual display of nonlinear narrative; always trusting the audience to piece together. This creates such a tense, emotional and somewhat overwhelming experience that enhances the viewing pleasure. Time is one of the most important dimensions - you can't escape it, nor can you escape the foreboding feeling it gives you. The constant ticking clock throughout Dunkirk and Hans Zimmer's Shepard tone score barely give you a second to catch breath. The cross-cutting parallel action is one thing, but you just 'feel' every moment - from the tide coming in and the foam bubbling to the Spitfire aligning the German plane in its sights. Large format cameras were squeezed into real Spitfires to achieve an unrivalled sense of truth. The colour balance is quite simply first-class as are performances from Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy and co. Creating a modern war film with a PG-13 rating raised eyebrows but apart from one choice shot on the beach early on - the horror of war is still fully portrayed. It's incredible to think that around 400,000 men were trapped so close to home - home was in their sights and ultimately a much higher number than first predicted survived thanks to the heroics of those in the air fighting, on the piers organising the evacuees into groups and the civilians who came to the rescue. Christopher Nolan has created so many exceptional films but I believe this to be his first absolute masterpiece.

I sat down with pen and paper to make notes on Melvin van Peebles’ milestone film for the first time: I had heard it mentioned in numerous film history books, including Mark Cousins’ very entertaining The Story of Film, and approached it with a feeling of academic solemnity. This was to be a serious film viewing. But 3 minutes in pen and paper had dropped onto the floor at my feet and I was scrambling for the fridge to arm myself with a can of fire water and a packet of crisps, the wind of this joyous flatulence of a film cutting pleasurably across my face. This is a film so wacky, horrifying, hilarious and fiercely political all at the same time that it defies all notions of academic stuffiness I had come to expect. Then again, I might have known from the title that there had certainly been no other film of this kind to have been made before. Made in 1971 whilst the Vietnam War was raging across the screens and student protestors’ blood was being painted on the white walls of Washington, Sweet Sweetback is an assault on the senses even today with Peebles’ varied use of jump cuts, split screen, freeze frames, filters, zooms, superimpositions, etc. Such techniques had been used in film before, but never with so much in-your-face brashness as here. A work like Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song proves what Peter Greenaway meant when he once remarked that “continuity is boring.” A curious statement to make, yet what it highlights is the sheer freedom of expression that film allows, and I suppose that what Greenaway meant by this was that too little films—including some of his own, by the way—seemed to have forgotten that film making is, at its core, fun. In breaking the conventional protocol enforced for years that we call the Classical Hollywood filmmaking and by actually experimenting with the filmmaking and editing processes, Peebles treats his viewer to an all-night (well, 1 hour and 37 minutes to be precise) free-for-all visual buffet. If only more films had that level of energy and joy for the craft with the sheer goofiness to pull it off. Indeed, I must say that it felt like I was watching a home movie at times, but the best kind of home movie where the person filming dreams of making films in the future. The kind of home movie where they will play, cut, move to another place and play, cut, then move again. The kind that will infuriate relatives and probably eavesdrop on family-shattering conversations by accident, but at least the video would have been worth watching. The film also has a devout and healthy hatred of the corrupt enforcers of the law: the eponymous hero skewers them with pool cues, beats them with knuckle busters and sets them on fire, all to jaunty Ramsey Lewis Trio style music. Peebles treats his characters with the subtlety of a road runner cartoon, with Sweetback as Roadrunner and the police as Wile E. Coyote. Sweetback is somewhat justified for this to say the least when some policemen break into a flat, supposedly looking for him, and then beat the innocent occupant until he is practically blinded with his own blood. After this is done, one of them concludes: “That’s not Sweetback.” The other replies “So what?” Sweetback does however skin police dogs, which was a shade too sadistic for my taste. All in all, it would be unfair of me to describe all of the details of this film, but I will say that Terry Southern’s very funny book Blue Movie—supposedly written for Stanley Kubrick after the success of Dr Strangelove—about a dedicated filmmaker trying to make the most artistic and socially redeeming pornographic film ever made. Necrophile producers, neurotic actors and clueless cameramen and eventually the Vatican and the pope invade its pages, but Melvin van Peebles baadasssss song is what jumps to mind in reflecting Southern’s anarchic spirit for the brawny and the bawdy. Not Kubrick. ���]�I

Release Info London schedule; November 26th, 2019 (Picturehouse Central, Piccadilly Circus, Corner of Great Windmill Street and, Shaftesbury Ave, London W1D 7DH, UK, 18:20 pm) (Clapham Picturehouse, 76 Venn St, Clapham, London SW4 0AT, UK, 20:30 pm) https://www.google.de/search?oq=&aqs=mobile-gws-lite..&source=hp&q=Lucy+in+the+sky+showtimes+London "Lucy In The Sky" How does life change after such a transcendent experience? What would inspire such disturbing behavior, particularly from someone who’d been the image of space-worthy perfection? By 34, Lucy Cola (Natalie Portman) has achieved her every dream and has to find a new dream. None of this stuff is easy to navigate. And, you know, she spirals out a bit, which is human. Lucy is a strong woman whose determination and drive as an astronaut take her to space, where she’s deeply moved by the transcendent experience of seeing her life from afar. As astronaut Lucy floats alone in the vastness of space, the blue marble of 'Earth' reflecting in her eyes, she’s overcome with wonder and awe. Precious few ever behold the planet from this perspective. Lucy senses the majestic enormity and relative insignificance all at once. She's an astronaut whose penchant for excellence earns her a coveted spot in the tight-knit boy's club at 'NASA'. But after realizing her dream of going to space, Lucy’s everyday Earthly existence suddenly feels stiflingly small. Back home as Lucy’s world suddenly feels too small, her connection with reality slowly unravels. Laser-focused on training for her next mission, her life slowly falls apart as she loses touch with what’s real, and what’s really important. That adjustment of having gone up to see the celestial everything and then you come back and go to 'Applebee’s', it’s a very weird transition that seems really interesting. Studies show astronauts can experience personality changes and a feeling of disconnection, and even cellular changes, after spending time in space. For Lucy Cola, that mental unraveling leads her to frantically drive across the country to confront a former lover Drew Cola (Dan Stevens) and his new girlfriend Kate Mounier (Tig Notaro). It's a story of a brilliant and determined woman nearly undone by her own dreams. The film has three main settings; outer space, 'NASA' headquarters and Lucy’s Texas home. Deep blues and crisp whites denote space; a dash of vivid red and yellow set things apart at 'NASA'; while Lucy’s Earthly life is rich with natural hues of green and brown. As she begins to go a bit mad, the colors brighten. So that when the movie goes to a darker place emotionally, it doesn’t go to a darker place physically. At the beginning of the movie Lucy wants success, to be happy for the fact that she got to do this and to want her to go back to space. The script focuses on Lucy and how her life on 'Earth' changes after seeing the planet from afar. The story is told from the perspective of the protagonist, who believes he has psychic abilities but may also be suffering from a mental illness. The film uses experimental visual techniques to convey Lucy’s mental state. One example is treating aspect ratio as a storytelling device, shrinking the frame when Lucy is on 'Earth' and broadening it when she’s in space. When she’s in space, we’re in our widest aspect ratio. But when she comes down, her world shrinks. As she dreams of and trains for her return to space, she gradually loses her personal tethers. Butterworth uses elements of magical realism to show Lucy’s grip on reality slipping. You’re in these crazy places telling these stories, and then you go home and you’re doing the school route and it’s kind of back to normal. The film explores her emotional experience. It’s really to try to get inside her state of mind. She’s facing the biggest questions of life because of this experience of being exposed to the vast nothingness of space. She’s confronting her relationships, her desires and her own major flaws. When you've to look at yourself in the mirror like that, it’s kind of the rawest human experience you can havet, o face your own ugliness. And literally the film uses the screen as a tool. We go down to a smaller aspect ratio, so suddenly she’s in a box. The intention is to make Lucy’s perspective feel deeply personal, even as she makes illogical and impulsive decisions. We're deeply related to the plight of an overachiever like Lucy. The story’s in a box. The film takes a little license and aesthetic liberty in order to create the perspective from Lucy’s eyes. We're in full widescreen when we’re in space, then when we’re on Earth, we shrink the box. Now the movie is literally more claustrophobic, and she’s living in a world that’s physically smaller. It’s a way to very clearly show the audience what the feeling is. When she’s at her freest and most comfortable, the frame will open up to 240 widescreen. And when she’s feeling more constrained, it closes down to 4:3. The 5:1 aspect ratio is a device that the film uses to show her isolation from the world at large. It helps to feel the difference in Lucy’s emotional state. Another innovative visual technique the film creates is the 'Infinite Zoom' in which character and background appear to move independent. A tiling technique that appears to stretch images to impossible dimensions. The approach is conceived to reflect Lucy’s emotional state when she learns that her grandmother is in the hospital. You know when you've a really traumatic event and you've to go somewhere, and you can’t really remember how you got there because it's all such a blur? So she’ll actually travel from her house to the hospital throughout the 'Infinite Zoom', and the shot continues to take her into her grandmother’s room at the end. The three most prominent relationships in Lucy’s life undergo dramatic changes after she returns from space, and each contributes to her decline. She begins an affair with her colleague Mark Goodwin (Jon Hamms), leaves her loyal husband Drew Cola (Dan Stevens), then loses her grandmother Nana Holbrook (Ellen Burstyn), the stalwart maternal figure in her life. Mark Goodwin, is the strapping, recently divorced astronaut whose flirtation with Lucy becomes an affair. Much more than the story being about a love triangle or a relationship, it’s really more about how we, as human beings, and especially as people that have seen 'The Earth' from a different perspective; have to adapt to that in our daily lives and how difficult that's. Mark has firsthand experience with how space flight can change one’s worldview. He’s about to go back up into space and he has his fears and doubts about it? How many times can you ride the rocket and survive? So there’s a certain self-destructiveness that he’s going through as well. Mark embodies the quintessential pilot trope; a tremendously confident, take-charge guy. There’s that kind of swagger that comes not only with that but being from Texas, and truly having the pressure of having people’s lives in your hands and needing to get the job done. In contrast to the swaggering astronaut is Lucy’s endearingly devoted, ever-supportive husband, Drew Cola. Drew is a faithful man in every sense, to his wife, to 'NASA' and to doing what’s right. And when Lucy goes off the rails and leaves him, that fundamentally rocks Drew and the world of his belief. Drew is the guy who has this sort of leather 'BlackBerry' holster, you know, a mustache. The rock in Lucy’s life is her Nana, a hard-drinking, tough-minded woman. Nana raised Lucy to be hard-working, responsible and diligent. Lucy has an ingrained resilience and strength that's endowed from her grandmother. She's someone who's always told by her grandmother that she would have to work harder than everybody else. And she did, and it takes her to space. It’s kind of no-nonsense, no-frills. Get the job done. Lucy develops an unexpected connection with another female astronaut, Erin Eccles, (Zazie Beetz). The character is a role, sort of, in Lucy’s disintegration of self. Initially poised to be adversaries, the two women develop a more nuanced relationship throughout the film. There’s also a point of a deeper rivalry that can exist, too, if there’s a feeling that there can only be one of us and there are so few spots on upcoming missions. It's more of a mentorship than a catfight. Because we don’t need to see that, and it’s not really what this is about. Another key relationship in Lucy’s life is with her 16-year-old niece Blue Iris (Pearl Amanda Dickson), who serves as a grounding reality-check. As Lucy’s world falls apart, Blue Iris is dragged along on this adventure in a way that allows us to see her journey through somebody else’s eyes. We’re watching a little bit of a train wreck with what’s happening with Lucy, and Blue Iris has this beautiful observational quality about her. Magical realism is the subjective experience that Lucy goes through on her return to Earth. An otherworldly feel through narrative metaphors, like the chrysalis-to-butterfly theme throughout the film, along with experimental camerawork and subtle image shifts that correspond with Lucy’s emotional trajectory. The idea of magical realism is you've to create reality in a way that’s completely realistic and familiar to people. Then when you take these magical turns, these slightly surreal turns, they've real impact. Much of the magic in the magical realism comes through creative camera techniques, including two experimental approaches developed specifically for the film. It's important to bring together all of these technical elements of magical realism the audience is able to go into Lucy’s mind and experience her distorted reality as she does. It really helps us to understand, through metaphors, what she’s experiencing and the struggles she’s going through. When you spend a year in space, every single thing that you do demands constant focus, because if you don’t, you die or someone on your team dies or something catastrophic happens. You get home and you’re completely drained, and it takes a little while to kind of ramp back up into just living a normal life where you’re not hyper-focused. The human experience is kind of always searching; searching for meaning, searching for who you're, searching for relationships with other people. The transportation captain is a woman. We've a female grip! It’s a female-centric film. In a scenario where the guys with the right stuff, you know, typically have been really daring and done kind of crazy and courageous things, and that’s what makes them fit to be astronauts. And a woman with the same kind of behavior might be called erratic or crazy, where the guys get high-fived for it. It’s a story in which a woman ends up doing things that ordinary people might look down on or judge her for. Because it’s very easy to root for people when they’re making good choices. It’s harder when they’re making bad choices. But that’s exactly the moment when they need empathy the most. The film takes this sort of feminist road, as it explores how gender stereotypes may have affected personnel relations and opportunities at 'NASA'. 'The New York Times' recently reported about the particular challenges female astronauts face at 'NASA' even today as the organization prepares for another moon landing in 2024.

Cast: #dakotajohnson #jamiedornan #ariellekebbel #kimbasinger Director: #jamesfoley Fans of the books and first two film's #fiftyshadesofgrey and #fiftyshadesdarker, have waited for a whole year to see this final finale, hope you all enjoy. After sailing through dark and stormy waters, #christian and #ana are finally get married ready to start a new chapter in their lives. But, the arrival of Ana’s ex-boss and a voluptuous architect hired to design the couples dream home poses a threat to their blissful existence. Having come to terms with the many lovers that have come before her, Ana (Dakota Johnson) is finally at peace with Christian’s (Jamie Dornan) colourful past and the pair become husband and wife. After a blissful honeymoon living the life of luxury, the happy couple return home and go back to work. But, things are only normal for a short period. Ana is threatened by her ex-boss Jack (Eric Johnson), who is still bitter from being sacked. With Jack’s threats becoming more and more dangerous, and Christian’s past haunting them once again, Ana begins to feel the heat and wonders if she’s made a major mistake after all. Dakota Johnson reprises her role as Ana, while Jamie Dornan is back again as #MrGrey. There's strong support from Kim Basinger (#LAConfidential) and #TylerHoechlin (#EverybodyWantsSome). MY FINAL THOUGHTS I don't know how on earth I managed to bravely sit down and review this? Since I've seen the previous ones I said to myself I might as well complete the trilogy properly. I've always admired passionate #moviegoers especially my fellow male species who patiently sit through dozens of #chickflicks without kicking and screaming. Overall I gave this kinky #romcom a satisfactory 3/5 Stars 🌟 🌟 🌟 Without disheartening any genuine excited fans of the #novels I think the second film was much better. Definitely a movie for a #ladiesnightout #cinema #entertainmentnews #filmcritic #filmmusic #musicnews #music #soundtrack #sia #song #deerinheadlights #kamaras_reviews

There's a scene in Sausage Party when a human character, tripping on bath salts, suddenly sees food and other inanimate objects grow eyes, legs and arms and, not before long, they start talking to him. This MUST have been how the idea for Seth Rogen's raunchy comedy was born. Sausage Party aims to do to food what Toy Story did for toys, what The Lego Movie did for Lego and what The Emoji Movie tried to do for emojis. It aims to bring them alive; to give them feelings and their own hopes and dreams. And for the most part it succeeds. Its influences are clear, but it does a good enough job of distinguishing itself from similar movies; mostly through it's obscene adult humour. Seth Rogen comedies aren't known for their high brow comedy and Sausage Party is the same; reliant on being loud, offensive and at times disgusting. Set in a supermarket, where all the food and products are secretly alive; this film has some genuinely clever ideas and set pieces. A trolley crash near the beginning turns into a scene from a disaster or war film. Flour fills the air, suffocating the protagonists (a sausage and a bun... yeah it's a weird film), an Oreo walks shell-shocked through the chaos, it's back biscuit missing. At times this is a straight up horror film with a no holds barred approach to showing food's perspective of humans. I'd like to talk about more of these good ideas but that would ruin the surprise of seeing them for yourself. I'm a huge fan of puns. I regularly use them to annoy my family and friends to no end. Apparently Sausage Party does too, its setting and story provides a gold mine for puns and other food related jokes and the film uses every single one it can find. At many points throughout the movie it felt like the filmmakers came up with jokes first, story second. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, not all the jokes land well. Sausage Party is a highly offensive film that relies heavily on racist stereotypes, gross out humour, sex jokes and euphemisms. If you're Mexican, Native American, Jewish... basically any race or religion you will be offended at some point during this movie. It uses the native country's of food items to give them their personality. For example, we see some  German products that are basically Nazi's repeatedly announce their hatred of Juice...Jews....geddit? The potatoes are Irish...because Ireland and potatoes.....geddit?! The local Chinese takeaway is called Pu Ping...Pu Ping...Pooping...DO YOU GET IT YET?! It frustrates me that this film resorts to this kind of humour so often throughout. Near the beginning our madly in love protagonists spend what feels like forever talking about touching tips. Finger tips that is. It's just so forced at times. However, these stereotypes do give the movie one thing. Surprisingly, Sausage Party is incredibly thought provoking. Using real world global differences in a smaller more compact setting allows the film to perform interesting, not always subtle, political and religious commentary. Talk of...ahem Crackers "invading" the land (shopping aisle) of Native American food, there's lengthy reference to the sticky political climate over in Palestine as well commentary on the constraints of many religions; mostly in reference to their standpoint on sex and sexuality. The filmmakers obviously struggled with an ending. The film, which had a perfectly fine ending point, continues on for another painstakingly unfunny couple of minuets. The ending comes out of nowhere and, taking a leaf out of The Lego Movie's book, becomes extremely meta. Much like in that movie however it's terrible, unnecessary and takes so much away from the film. It's just a really bad way to end the movie. Sausage Party is Seth Rogen and co. at their craziest. Offensive, loud and downright gruesome in parts it struggles to elevate itself above its low brow sometimes childish humour and terrible ending. Not so subtle political and religious commentary however leave the viewer with plenty of food for thought.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri **** A desperate grieving Mother (Francis McDormond) takes a drastic step in order to put pressure on the local Police Department investigating her Daughter's murder by renting three billboards and erecting messages that taunt the Chief of Police (Woody Harrelson) lack of progress. What unfolds is a gripping black comedy Drama that mixes moments of humour with instant moments of such humanity and sadness it becomes a impossible not to be absorbed undeniable into it's story. This is a film that portrays itself as a "who done it" but makes that a brave choice to become a rich character study of people just trying to people in amongst the wake of tragedy and circumstance. Doesn't sound a laugh a minute but honestly most of the time it is, establishing dark laugh out statements of pure angry and grief. Whether McDormand is berating a Vicar, reporter of the chief of Police the foul mouthed rants are wonderfully written and delivered with fire. That's another beautifully crafted aspect of the film are the tiny moments of the film's balance between rage and humanity. Whether amongst McDormond's hate filled mission she takes time out to put a upside down bug back on it's feet to screaming at the Chief Of Police than instantly finding common humanity amongst tradgedy. A story of good people all reacting to circumstances that life has handed them and acting accordingly the only way they know how from their grass roots. It's truly a stand out out performance by Francis McDormand that has to earn her a Oscar Nomination she's frankly that good. Her face never stops working, when ever she's spoken to her face is still processing, expressing and captivating a woman in constant torment from the first shot to the end she's working 100%. Woody Harrelson is on top form delivering a performance which like the film is comedic and sad with also one of the best character arks of the narrative along side Sam Rockwell as the racist child like deputy who does some growing up on the way. This is storytelling unlike anything were normally used to from Hollywood. It's Bold, Engaging, Risk Taking Power House Drama that will suprise and leave you pondering long after it ends. It won't be everyone's cup of tea but that is defiantly the point.

It’s a fun time of year for cinema. All of the best films are slowly ebbing out of the woodworks in time for the awards ceremonies, so there’s a lot more of a guarantee of value for your buck when you take a seat in front of a big screen. The unfortunate thing is, there’s something other than extortionately priced popcorn putting a sour taste in our mouths this season. Of the recently announced BAFTA nominations, the multi-gendered categories in which no women were nominated were: directing, adapted screenplay, original music, cinematography, editing and visual effects. Funnily enough, there was not one category that qualified male nominees in which none were included, although a huge round of applause goes to ‘Best Hair and Make-up’, in which 7 women received a nod alongside 6 men. Revolutionary. Well done BAFTA. At this year’s Golden Globes, whilst presenting the directorial award, Natalie Portman bravely announced ‘and here are the all-male nominees’ while her co-presenter Ron Howard guffawed in surprise. This was extremely gutsy, and enticed a snicker from most of the crowd, but really it’s not much of a laughing matter. In a year where female empowerment and the rise of the #metoo and TimesUp movements have dominated the media, you’d think the academies would be a little bit more careful, considering the backlash it felt 2 years ago with the Oscars-so-white controversy. In lieu of this, here’s a shout out to some of the ladies that didn’t get their rightful share of the shout outs this year. U go girls. GRETA GERWIG Arguably the biggest snub at both the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs was the lack of directorial nomination for Greta Gerwig, who’s amorous coming-of-age tale ‘Lady Bird’ won both Best Comedy or Musical Picture and Best Actress for Saoirse Ronan in the titular role. Gerwig’s film, a semi-biographical account of growing up in Sacramento and her first behind the camera, was at one point last year the highest rated film of all time, with an outstanding 163 glowing reviews. Its' crown was removed by Cole Smithey, who hails himself as ‘the smartest film critic in the world’ (who?), having a big old moan about the film being ‘dramatically flat’ and part of the ‘Mumblecore’ indie-domination problem. Smithey was also the first man to give Toy Story 3 a bad review, and we all remember what an awful, treacherous bore of a film that was. Disenfranchised, whingey critics aside, Gerwig deserved a lot of more recognition for this achievement than has been granted, and her inauguration behind the camera will pave an exciting continuation of her directorial career. DEE REES Dee Rees might not be a name that rings any bells, but it should. Her Netflix-acquired Mudbound was one of the most relevant and perturbing films of the year, with some standout performances from Carey Mulligan and an unrecognisable Mary J. Blige. Her film chronicles two families in post-WW2 farmland America, and tackles major racial issues in a refreshing and applicable manner. Another hugely disappointing snub is the lack of nomination for the film’s cinematographer, Rachel Morrison. The grainy, sepia laden tones that she has added to Mudbound’s dirt-trodden landscapes triples the intensity of the direction and the film would have not achieved the same level without it. An Oscar nomination is also looking unlikely considering not one single woman has ever received one. We can hope for a miracle. PATTY JENKINS Remember how praised and successful all of the male-directed DC films have been over the past two years? Nope? Me neither. Gal Gadot’s turn as Wonder Woman happily saved the studio from utter critical explosion in 2017, and this was down to its’ fabulous director Patty Jenkins. Wonder Woman is now the highest grossing film by a female director, surpassing $821m, and Jenkins was this year’s runner up for Time person of the year. It would, therefore, have been nice to see her recognised in the cinematic circles, where Wonder Woman, like Mudbound, is yet to receive a single nomination in any category. Zach Snyder, the first director attached to the project and subsequent director of the shit-storm that was Justice League, was offered $3m. Jenkins was paid $1m. Agreeably, the deal she has drawn with her attachment to direct the sequel has landed her a larger 7-figure salary, rumoured to be around the $7-9m mark and will make her the highest earning female director of all time, but this absolutely pales in comparison to her male counterparts. J.J. Abrams, Ridley Scott, David Yates, Gore Verbinski, Chris Columbus, Robert Zemekis. All males, all decent directors. All averaging over $100m dollars per film. And we thought the 21% pay-gap was bad. By recognising and rewarding the achievements of these women, we raise them and improve on the relinquishment of inequality, and things are looking up. You don’t need me to tell you how heavily addressed some gender related issues are currently, and it’s all going in a fairly positive direction. But judging by this years’ awards season there is still a long way to go, and this blatant overlooking of female talent only serves to continue the stagnation of bias.

From the moment I saw the official trailer I knew it was going to be a gooden. I wasn’t let down-(until the ending.) It was a film that was super hot until the end acted like a fire extinguisher and knocked out the all the movies heat, leaving memories of a good thing of what could have been in its tracks. But more about that later. So the plot in a nutshell – A grieving Mother from a small town puts up billboards near her home to spike public and police interest again in her raped and murdered daughters dormant case. The billboards ruffle many peoples feathers and causes a dominio effect of pain and repercussions around the town due to the simple, yet controversial messages on them aimed at the town Sheriff Bill Willoughby played by Woody Harrelson. Played very well by him I might add. Frances McDormand gives a powerful and beautiful performance as angered mother Mildred Hayes. Acting isn’t always about what is said, it’s the silent moments between characters where no words are required. Think of Tom Hanks in Captin Phillips on the bed at the end of the film and Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happiness in the restroom with his son, these clips come straight to the forefront of my mind, I love acting of the eyes. McDormand is PERFECTION in this in this movie, every second she is on screen, talking or not. If you love a drama that takes your breath away literally, like the kind of gasps where your mouth remains open for 10 seconds after the moment has passed, I can count 6 moments in this film. I literally had to remind myself to close my mouth and refocus. The moments came out of nowhere and left me stunned. They left me twisting and turning on this rollercoaster of a ride not knowing what was next. FANTASTIC! The story itself reminds us of humanity, forgiveness, love and hate. In a ‘delicate‘ way, where you can’t help but feel like you know these people and their stuggles. You feel like you know exactly what each character is going through but everyone in the town is a picnic short of a sandwich (intentionally backwards) you know they are all mentally messed up but it’s never mentioned just excepted. One can relate. Director Martin McDonaghs’ ‘delicate‘ way of dealing with the films issues could been seen as lazy or as genius. Do not see this film and expect the themes to carry the movie. Rape, abuse, suicide, police brutality, racism, depression to name a few, the Director skims over a lot of deep issues, just passed them by like Billboards on a road. This is something you may hate about the film if you like the directors to do the thinking for you. I generally do, but I feel McDonagh did right by planting the seeds and letting you come to your own conclusions as to what bad behavior is, the media does such a powerful job of telling us what to think about issues that it almost creates an adverse effect and a rebellion against the protesters of the problems themselves. This movie in a time when these issues are so rife in todays world, it just leaves them unresolved letting you decide how it could have been delt with and what you would do in that situation yourself. This could leave some movie goers mighty frustrated. I personally feel this was a wise move for the 115 minutes the movie has, it did enough and even had plenty of time to dish out some laugh out loud moments and whitty one liners too, a testament to the writing and superb acting. Reminding us again, it’s just a movie based on a fictional story. Don’t relate it to real life, just enjoy it for the story alone. If you care too much you will leave so mad at the fact there was little to no justice for and of the characters in the movie. My pet peave during the film was with Anne the wife of Chief Willoughby and her questionable accent played by Abbie Cornish. Cornish is an Australian actress. I did not know this at the time but knew something was off when she spoke. As I am viewing a film I don’t want to be distracted and break away from the story just because the accent doesn’t match the character speaking. I didn’t think Cornish came across believable as Harrelsons wife either, but if she was so perfect for the role and had to be cast just have her be Australian. Why not? Now at least every time she speaks instead of me placing bets with myself to see if she is South African, Australian or British, I will remain engulfed in her acting abilites. Like I said it’s a pet peeve of mine – bad accents. Sam Rockwell plays Jason Dixon the racist, nasty cop dealing with some kind of mental disability that was never touched on either, could be why he gets a free pass with his awful ways. Really? I just couldn’t help but think of Doofy Gilmore from the comedy Scary Movie. I’m sure this is not what Rockwell would have wanted. The plot should have been based on him and his story or the Mothers alone, by not focusing on one it did injustice to what could have been a deeper character. A great character, but sadly he was never really explored, I feel that was a shame as Rockwell could have had a truly powerful performance and may have scored some awards for it. As it stands now it would depend on the other competition out there to see if he will get a nod for the big O or not. As it just missed a beat for me. So back to his character. Officer Jason had some kind of redemption, changed man moment but this is never towards his crazy mother, the women he punched in the face or the black people he mistreated, we could have witnessed some remorse at a point in the movie where it’s just him and a black couple in the bar. No words were exchanged so I feel it was a missed moment between them for some great acting. All in all, the movie was moving, well written and acted. I did enjoy it, I would nominate Frances McDormand for a best actress in leading role, and it’s a good contender for best Original Screenplay but I would have to see it again to see if it deserves a best picture. Only because on first watch the story was a good one but lost me at the end. Without giving too much away. Well I wouldn’t read on if you have not seen it, I will wrap up the review here and say Go and see it! Ok for rest of us and the nosey ones - here is my peave about the ending. There is a man who comes into Mildred’s store causing some commotion, he implies he may have known her daughter and leaves. Now that alone would have been a pointless interaction if he never came back to town, but he does, and Jason overhears him bragging in a bar and some commotion happens again. As a viewer I’m thinking this is going somewhere – it doesn’t go anywhere, but the movie still ends with Mildred and Jason going on a search together – for him! This just left me with too many questions, as did the Directors choice to show us the burnt grass where the daughter died, that happens to be right where the billboards are, that also happens to be in view from Mildred’s house. Why? I don’t think it needed to be written in that the girl was burnt by the billboards. It just makes it weird and im left asking too many questions about it. Like I am with the ending. It for me was a cringe worthy ending to what I would say is otherwise a very, very good movie. The ending just doesn’t tie anything up and leaves you knowing nothing more than what did to begin with. As soon as she picked up the phone to Jason and the music started playing I started repeating ”No don’t end now, please don’t have this be the ending” It was, and I walked away from the film thinking they ‘may’ kill someone who ‘may’ have killed someone. Huh! whomp whomp! My rating is 7/10, worth a watch for the acting and screenplay, just leave your heart at the door.