Search Results

(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.

JUSTICE LEAGUE REVIEW The first thing you should know (if uninitiated in comic book history) is that DCs Justice League is not a direct response to Marvel’s Avengers. The Justice League were formed in 1960, debuting in The Brave & The Bold #28. The original team comprised of: Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern, Flash, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Superman. The Avengers first appeared 3 years later. I mention this, because the Justice League movie also stands on its own film credentials, not taking any cues from Marvel's Avengers Assemble or Age Of Ultron. If anything, you’ll notice that there are more re-enactments and scenes that closer match Tolkien’s Lord Of The Rings trilogy, than anything offered from comic book land. It's a slight shame, that the production team looked outward instead of within, as if they really needed some inspiration for a mega scale delivery, they need look no further than their own feature length animations. Rightly done, an adaptation of some of these titles, would have rocked the superhero movie genre for sure. But I delay. Is Justice League any good? The Good News; Justice League is worthy of a cinematic visit. It is better than Batman Vs Superman, but not as good as Wonder Woman. The main kick you’ll get out of this DC entry, is in seeing the roster of heroes (main ones and cameos) that make an appearance. This gives the film a type of fulfilment that a solo character outing can’t achieve. Some of the action scenes are awesome, in particular the Themyscira assault and a little internal squabble between the JL team members. Performance wise, newcomer Ray Fisher who plays Cyborg, ironically brings the most endearing humanity to the proceedings and Ezra Miller as The Flash, brings the humour. "Ultimately, the film’s main downfall, is that it is not a consistent ride." But now, for The Bad News. The CGI…oh lord. I don’t know what it is about DC films, but the graphics always look like they are only one step improved from a triple A computer game. This is one factor that I always have to take my hat off to, in regards to Marvel productions, they make me believe in the worlds that they create. As an overall production value, DC/Warner Bros need to seriously step up in this department and other failures arrive in the script having some clunky dialogue, some physical movement that scientifically doesn’t make sense superhero or not (including one scene where Flash’s running style is really bizarre) some narrative mishaps that will have you planting your face in the palm of your hand…and please, STOP with the superhero poses. For 21st century cinema, it looks corny and ridiculous! I’m all for films not being too aware of themselves, but be aware here! If you want to find the ultimate, unpretentious superhero pose in cinema, then look at the very last shot in Batman (1989). Ultimately, the film’s main downfall, is that it is not a consistent ride. There are noticeably good lines and bad ones, nice surprises and annoying parts, good action and bad action. Consequently the film is a seasaw of good and bad ideas - but you'll have to decide which end is staying up longer. Also, as foes go, they picked the wrong villain – Steppenwolf, Steppen who? Exactly. On a personal note, at this point within the superhero movie, I am officially bored of seeing superheroes fight 10,000 minions throughout an entire movie, that present no real challenge. If a studio needs a means of superheroes being able to unleash their power, without any blow back about screen violence and achieving a PG rating, then find another way. There is also one major reason you have to watch this movie – but that would be a major, major plot spoiler. DC are almost on the right track, they just need some of their production values re-examined and tightened. Watch JL with minimal expectations and just go with the flow. Release Date 17th Nov 2017

It’s been a pretty good week for the creators of ‘Paddington 2’. Firstly, the movie received sparkling reviews upon it’s release last Friday, and then news emerged yesterday that the movie has severed ties from the much maligned Weinstein Company after the North American distribution rights were nabbed by Warner Bros. Paddington, our furry little hero from Peru, is a timely ray of shining generosity and love in this the second edition of his tale. The sequel to 2014’s first instalment is just as charming, amusing and uplifting and includes an extremely talented and extremely British cast. We return to the life of Paddington (brilliantly voiced by Ben Whishaw), who has now settled with the Browns, and has made friends with many in the community. With his aunt Lucy’s birthday coming up, he plans to find the perfect present for her which turns out to be an old pop-up book of London that he finds in an antique shop. In order to pay for the book, he tries saving money by working in a barber shop and as a window cleaner which both carry their own comical bout. Just as he is on the brink of having enough saved, the book is stolen from the antique shop and worse yet, Paddington is framed for the robbery. With the help of the Browns as well as those he inevitably makes friends with in prison, Paddington attempts to devise a plan to clear his name and retrieve the book. Given how much of a pleasant surprise the first Paddington film was, it was certainly going to be a tough task for the second to live up to expectations. But it exceeds them thanks to some more brilliantly put-together comedy sequences, some fine casting and more general joyful, feel-good movie making. It bears (excuse the pun) reiterating again the brilliance of Ben Whishaw as the voice of Paddington, who has that soft, friendly tone that so seamlessly goes along with the CGI’d character. It’s difficult to believe that Whishaw was drafted in at the last minute to voise the bear but thank goodness he was. He heads another incredible cast in the second instalment as Sally Hawkins, Hugh Bonneville, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent and Peter Capaldi all return. This time joined by Hugh Grant and Brendan Gleeson with cameos from Richard Ayoade, Joanna Lumley, Ben Miller and Jessica Hynes. It’s a brilliant British cast where both Grant and Gleeson are absolutely on top of their acting game. Grant in particular, who plays the failing actor and main villain, Phoenix Buchanan, has certainly resurrected his career and this can be considered as one of his best comic performances. Grant is just one of the many brilliant comical elements of the movie which playfully rolls by with a number of visually funny gags as well as plenty of witty remarks and jokes. With that said, director and writer Paul King includes plenty of peril and tension in the movie beneath the comedy, none more so than the climactic underwater escape sequence. As a result of this layer being including in a movie primarily designed for children, Paddington 2 is an all round treasure of a film, rather than just worthy of a few laughs. But at the centre of this delightful watch is a character who offers a humble message of love and kindness, albeit sometimes in the most calamitous of ways, leaving Paddington 2 a hugely entertaining and charming watch throughout.

Just take a moment to think about how much time you spend on your smartphone. Think about how much of your week is spent on social media, scrolling through the endless amounts of selfies and filtered pictures. Do you ever get envious or judge people based on what they post on social media? Wish that picture of you from Friday night got more likes on Facebook or that you had more followers on Instagram? Well this is Ingrid cranked all the way to maximum and the poignant message in the dark comedy, Ingrid Goes West, is of how social media promotes an illusion of connectivity which is currently being cast on a generation in today’s society. This movie comes so close to homing in on that warning but cops out right at the end when all of its good work comes undone and any caution about the perils of social media evaporate literally within the last 20 seconds of the film. Ingrid is played by Aubrey Plaza who fits the role of the main character perfectly. The 33 year-old has come a long way in a short space of time since Parks and Recreation and here she plays an unstable social media stalker. We get an understanding of just how media obsessive she is at the start when she pepper sprays her friend at her wedding for not inviting her only to discover that the bride wasn’t a friend but had once commented on one of Ingrid’s Instagram posts. After recovering from that episode, Ingrid then decides to move to LA to track down Instagram expert, Taylor (Elizabeth Olsen), who she had come across and begins to fixate upon. Through a series of creepy acts, she tricks Taylor into befriending her and the pair begin spending time together before it all falls apart when Ingrid’s dark secrets are revealed. None of the characters in the movie are particularly likeable and therefore make the film a rather uncomfortable experience all round. Just think how annoying it is being out with your friends when everyone is staring at their phones or taking selfies – now think how annoying that would be just to watch unfold. The one aspect of relief is Dan (O’Shea Jackson Jr.), Ingrid’s landlord in LA and Batman fanatic who offers a number of laugh out loud moments to the proceedings and the only one who has any concept of reality. The devastating twist at the end should have been where the movie ended and landed its knockout blow of a message. But where 99% of the film is about the dangers of social media obsession, the remaining 1% is the closing sequence to the film that completely obliterates any positive message it was trying to promote. It ultimately lets down what is otherwise a poignant, contemporary movie.

"You put a dime in him, you've got to let the whole song play out." When Arthur C. Clarke wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology was indistinguishable from magic I doubt whether atomic scientist finger wizardry from former Cat-Women was exactly what he had in mind, yet that is the barely explained science thing we are asked to buy into during the closing moments of Ant-Man & The Wasp which, not unlike the rest of the movie, leaves a lot to be desired. Finding Evangeline Lilly's bite-sized mother is the name of the game in Peyton Reed's second stab at bringing Ant-Man to the big screen. To achieve this Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) - who is currently serving house arrest after the events of Captain America: Civil War - must first be abducted, then put in a position where he must choose between the debt he owes the Van Dyne crew (Lilly and Douglas) and his own young daughter, all because he dreamed he was Michelle Pfeiffer once (and really, who among us?). They've got some kind of quantum connection, the Van Dyne's contest, because they've both shrunk to sub-atomic level and they need to get inside his head to find her. It's the kind of ambulatory plot contrivance that super-hero movies are often forgiven for and wouldn't be as much of an issue if it weren't indicative of the kind of laziness on display throughout the rest of this thoroughly uninspiring movie. Chief among it's flaws is the fact that despite ostensibly being something approaching a comedy, Ant-Man & The Wasp manages to be so consistently unfunny. Rudd has his moments and Reed is able to construct one or two decent sight-gags, but the lion's share of the humour is delivered by Michael Pena who - while being fantastic in this movie - isn't in nearly enough of it to keep the script from moments of eye-roll-inducing tedium. Asking Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly to shoulder any kind of comedic burden is like telling a child to disarm a bomb: it's unreasonable of you to ask and will almost certainly end in tragedy. The script here is so lacking in anything resembling actual jokes that it feels almost as if Pena must have ad-libbed his lines, he is that far removed from everyone else in terms of quality. Not pictured: Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth high-fiving as Thor Ragnarok's stock as a comedy retrospectively rises. The absence of good comedic writing would perhaps not be as noticeable if the rest of the movie weren't so lacking in any kind of tonal consistency, or even just a script which didn't feel like it was written with nothing but getting it's characters out of stupid situations in mind. Lang's daughter video-calling her dad while he is being held hostage, with his kidnappers holding the phone up to his face out of frustration, is a relatively funny idea. Attempting to sow dissent between the kidnappers literally seconds later as they argue - very seriously - about whether they should also abduct his daughter is - at best - clumsy and - at worst - wildly misjudged. And this movie is full of these kind of tonal handbrake turns; a moment played off for humour which is also required to move the story forward and carry emotional weight. Neither the writing nor the direction is competent enough to achieve all three of these goals in one scene and so the movie frequently fails at all of them. And the constant sense that events are simply occurring because the plot demands them to compounds this lack of quality. Visually, this is boring. The occasional uses of licensed music are fairly entertaining although this is purely because the song choice is good and it really can't be over-emphasized how funny Michael Pena is here. It's no coincidence that the best sequence of the movie is narrated entirely by him. It's just a shame that this wasn't a film which focused around his character. This is a movie which would have been better as schlock. It tries to give the kind of villains who explain their plans to you a heart instead of having them twirl their mustaches, while the good guys stand around telling bad jokes and staring wistfully at each other with slight smiles while strings play softly behind them without a shred of irony. This is a super-hero movie where no one feels villainous and the heroes - like the film in general - are boring as hell.

First thing first, kindly watch this if you have a thing for sci-fi. As per many news media outlets, Blade Runner has been declared a flop. Please, please and please, kindly ignore those tabloids and watch it at your own accord. The movie like many Denis Villeneuve movies is a visual treat. Breathtakingly stunning and every frame producing it's own distinct piece of beauty something which will make you sit up and marvel at the imaginations of few individuals and their ability to draw them out on the screen with such panache. Deakins probably has sent a clear message that anything less than an Oscar nomination will be a complete shame. Not to forget the special effects and the background score (Zimmer) which were equally brilliant. As far as the story is concerned, I honestly could never figure out what to say about it. Not the best storyline I came across but to say that it's bad will be purely insulting the sanctity involved behind the making of this film which in every word needs to be respected . In the end it was equally difficult to look for any reasons to think about any flaws because it did cross the level of magnificent it was expected to scale. It was equally difficult to sit down and look for flaws and even if there was any, take the liberty to brand it with any negative adjectives. Nevertheless, on a personal level, I would be lying if I wouldn't say that BR2049 is hands down one of the best movies of 2017 and probably a work which might have set a certain barometer for Villeneuve for eclipse in future. The movie is close to 3 hours long and extremely heavy in nature. As mentioned earlier that unless you are a fan of Sci first kindly stay away as there is a huge chance that you might leave the hall early, something I saw many others doing during my three hours spent in the theatre. Ryan Gosling is brilliant and undoubtedly is the major player who carries the film forward very well. Jared Leto is under utilized and felt should have been used more, but he probably is the trump card for the director as he may set out to make another sequel. Is it as good as its prequel? The 1982 movie was a landmark movie in its own right and hence it will be a sin to compare it. The current one is beautiful in its own manner and deserves to be put in a bracket of its own. PS- Kindly watch the prequel before you watch this one. On a scale of 5 my rating would be a 3.5/5.

Even though Dirty Dancing was produced in 1987, it is clear to say that it still gets us up onto our feets to dance 'like noone is watching!' It is a shock to find out that Dirty Dancing - a box office hit - was in fact a low-budget film! However, that didn't change anything! The storyline itself catches the eye of the audience - set in the summer of 1963 in a interactive resort in the Catskill Mountains, a young 17 year old girl named Frances "Baby" Houseman (Played by Jennifer Grey) is taking a vacation with her family. A plain, innocent get-away leads to Baby to ultimately 'come out of her shell' by falls in love with with the handsome and flirtatious dance instructor Johnny Castle (Played by Patrick Swayze). It is fair to say that this was every girls fantasy, falling in love with the guy of EVERYONEs dream vice versa! Who wouldn't want that! DIRECTING: The director Emile Ardolino has undoubtably provided a box office hit with the plot, storyline, characters and every element for the film. With only a budget of $6 million, the talented Emile Ardolino caused the film to have an outstanding box office of $214 million. I'm sure the figures themselves highlight the positive outcome of the film. ACTORS: Patrick Swazye and Jennifer Grey provided a brilliant representation of the character. Jonny's serious nature being shown to have an emotional side is portrayed through Swayze's body language and favial expressions. Grey's own acting skills plays an amazing role, showing her awkwardness in the setting, contrasting her from the other characters. EDITING: The film shows many different scenes, many different characters, and many different scenarioes all in which edited beautifully. The flow of each sceneis created positively, providing the manipulation of time to be unnoticable. FUN FACT: The director used actual footage of the bloopers between Swayze and Grey (scene where she is learning to dance and she keeps laughing, showing his seriousness) -yeah...He was not happy! Last but not least, the SOUND!: The moment people hear 'Time of my life', their thoughts instantly go to Dirty Dancing and the major dance scene at the end of the film. This effect it has, has left a positive remark as this highlights the memorable film which is still sa classic and amazing to this very day! I recommend watching it - if you haven't have guessed