Search Results

(Release Info London schedule; June 30th, 2019, Electric Cinema, Notting Hill 191 Portobello Road, Notting Hill, W11 2ED, 10:00 AM) https://film.list.co.uk/listing/1296251-never-look-away/ "Never Look Away" Amidst the chaos of pre-war Germany, Kurt Barnert (Tom Schilling) based loosely on one of Germany’s most revered contemporary painters, Gerhard Richter, becomes fascinated by the art in the world around him. Kurt attends art school, where he meets and falls in love with fellow student, Ellie (Paula Beer). Kurt soon discovers that his family’s past is intertwined with Ellie’s in sinister and violent ways, just as art in Germany is entangled with the nation’s past. Ellie’s father, Professor Seeband (Sebastian Koch), a famous doctor, is dismayed at his daughter’s choice of boyfriend, and vows to destroy the relationship. What neither of them knows is that their lives are already connected through a terrible crime Seeband committed decades ago. Through the Dresden bombings, a job as a Soviet propaganda artist, and a move from 'East' to 'West Germany', Kurt strives to find his voice as an artist. The focus is an artist named Kurt Barnert. While Kurt is growing up during 'The Second World War', his aunt Elisabeth (Saskia Rosendahl) sparks his interest in art. She's freedom, art, beauty, extreme sensitivity, and madness all in one. After the war he studies first in Dresden, and later in Düsseldorf at the legendary art school 'Kunstakademie', where at the time some of 'West Germany’s' most important artists completely revolutionized their field. His love of Ellie Seeband leads to a confrontation with her father, the famous gynecologist Professor Carl Seeband, a staunch rationalist and perfectionist who despises everything that Kurt stands for. Kurt Barnert’s life makes it clear that we as humans have an almost alchemistic ability to make something good out of the difficult things in life that happen to us all. No less important a role is Ellie Seeband, the professor’s daughter, whom Kurt Barnert falls in love with without knowing who her father is and without knowing that they're bound by tragic circumstances in the past. The complete antithesis of Kurt is his 'father-in-law' Professor Carl Seeband. The character of Seeband is a dyed-in-the-wool 'Nazi' and witnessed the complete failure of this ideology and how it brings about his country’s collapse. He finds safe harbor in the next systems, however, and with his discipline, health, intelligence, and scientific expertise, remains unassailable. It's these qualities that also enabled him to conceal his guilt and save his neck. This gives him a feeling of superiority and a great feeling of security. This is why he finds it so inconceivable that his only child becomes involved with a powerless artist, whom he also deems frail and of mediocre intelligence. He opposes the relationship with every means available to him. Seeband is a monster. He's ice-cold and domineering. But what's truly monstrous about him is that he's convinced he's doing the right thing. There's no feeling of wrongdoing, no sense of guilt. He does what he does because for him there's absolutely no alternative. The clash of two men who at first glance have nothing in common, both brilliant minds but who could not be more different, and who also have completely opposing approaches to life and the world. The subject derives it's power from the clash of these two men, and the result is a story about the essence of inspiration and the power of art. For a long time the cinematic treatment of German history fixated on 'The Second World War', and naturally on the 'GDR' past. One of the things that particularly excited about "Never Look Away" is that the film covers several periods of German history and connects the developments in each. The film sheds light on these periods from the perspective of three human destinies; of the artist Kurt Barnert, the love of his life Ellie, and her father Professor Seeband. All three are invisibly bound by a dark family secret of which Kurt and Ellie are at first completely unaware. The story takes us through three decades of German history: war, destruction, reconstruction, Socialism, the young 'Freedom Republic Of Germany'. But the film’s focus is above all on the art of this period, on the work of our main character Kurt, and his path to finding his own personal style as an artist. What's the defining quality of the Germans? Where does art come from? "Never Look Away" is based on the work of German painter Gerhard Richter, whose life and work serve as one of the film’s many sources of inspiration. Inspired by real events, the film explores a subject matter that's both unusual and compellingly ambitious, spanning three decades of German post-war history in a suspense-packed drama. It also makes use of a sweeping historical backdrop to tell a highly personal and emotional story through the portrayal of three human destinies. A gripping drama and moving family story inspired by real events, by what it means to create art, and by the search for an artistic voice of one’s own. The images of Gerhard Richter are like memorable melodies that continue to dance around in our head. Like earworms. But in this case eyeworms. With the difference that they weren’t annoying, but a continual source of enrichment. It's a film about German art in the period following 'The Second World War'. "Never Look Away" explores the question of how great, genuine art is created. Art is one of the mysteries of human creativity. There's no formula that can determine why a work of art moves, shocks, or captivates us. This film is for everyone who might be a bit bored with the triviality of so much of what's seen in movie theaters today. The film creates a sense of true grandeur and capturing the audience’s imagination. "Never Look Away" is the best argument, the best reason for going to the movies.

On Monday 29th January 2018, I saw Darkest Hour at the Vue Cinema with my Mum and sister. The Darkest Hour is about the period of time in May 1940 when Britain needed a new Prime minister to guide our country through World War II. That Prime minister being Winston Churchill. The film shows the audience the struggle Churchill went through to be accepted as a 'victory' Prime minister and how his stubbornness and care for British people managed to get 300,000 men home from Dunkirk safely and through 6 years of war. I don't know if this is because I am English or if I just love our culture and feel good movies, but I absolutely LOVE British films. We have some incredible actors and that makes me feel incredibly proud. Gary Oldman was no exception, he was absolutely incredible as Winston Churchill, from the makeup to the stutter and articulate voice he was simply perfect. After the recent Academy Award nominations for Darkest Hour I expected a showstopper and it exceeded my expectations entirely. British films win in mise-en-scene as the film was perfectly shot with costumes and sets that fit the 1940's era and how London would have looked at the time. Along with how aesthetically pleasing the film is the historical aspects and learning about what Winston Churchill had to do to please the public and parliament and save soldiers in Dunkirk and still with a positive attitude was very inspiring. In the time of complete and utter fear he stayed humorous and confident that we'd win the war with resilience when others were willing to give up. I personally loved the scene when Churchill visited the public in the Underground when he wasn't supposed to, although he may have not done that specifically it was interesting to learn that he would often wonder off and ask the public how they want to respond to the war and that's why he was so well respected and got us through the war. Along with it being very serious with the situation at Dunkirk and Calais (which was interesting to see after watching Dunkirk in the summer) it was also funny and showed that Churchill didn't really care and was his own individual self. The film brought some comedy to it, some of it was quite obviously funny but as the film is a Drama and is supposed to be serious there weren’t too many moments of humour. The other audience members didn’t really laugh but there were some quite funny parts where Churchill wouldn’t take situations all too seriously and parts where he’d just walk around naked. Overall, I really thoroughly enjoyed the film and I’d recommend it to anyone who wants to see a (hopefully, most likely) Academy Award winning performance as Churchill. It’s very light hearted and not too intense to watch. Definitely watch the film if you can while it’s out in the cinema, you’ll get a different experience then watching it at home.

Unlike previous Cartoon Saloon films – which have mixed the fantastical folk-tales with the modern, more grounded elements – The Breadwinner, very purposefully keeps them separate. That's what I'd like to talk about in this post: How the movie uses these vastly contrasting narratives that dance between reality and fiction to explore grief and courage; creating one of the most heart-breaking, uplifting, and powerful film endings I've seen for years. Be warned, this post will contain spoilers; I'd advise you not to read before you've seen the film. The Breadwinner is a movie of two parts: The visually lavish sequences of digitally recreated cutout animation; reserved for Parvana's tale of the "brave boy" and his struggle against the elephant king. In contrast, we have the grittier, dirtier, more grounded style of Parvana's existence. Intercut with Parvana's, the story of the boy is, at first, a form of escapism; for the audience as well as Parvana: A simple plot device to take the edge off some of the more uncomfortable subject matters. In fact, it's far more meaningful, and, as the film progresses, the story becomes an avenue for Parvana to overcome her fears and address grief. During the second act, Shauzia – another girl in disguise, a childhood friend of Parvana's – asks Parvana about her older brother: "But you have an older brother don't you? He used to bring you to school on his shoulders, what's his name?" "Sulayman" - Comes the reply. Parvana is reluctant to talk about him; saying merely he died some years ago, and that her mother won't talk about it. Sulayman's death is clearly still affecting the family deeply, and Fattima – Parvana's mother – has clearly not dealt with it well and seemed to me, to be suffering from depression; explaining Parvana's disinclination to address it directly. When Parvana leaves her house to earn money and buy food for her family, it's Sulayman's clothes she wears; reinvigorating her brother's spirit and memory. Fattima regularly, and unknowingly refers to Parvana by her brother's name; providing us more evidence to suggest she's not fully come to terms with his death. However, after this awkward exchange, Parvana does begin to open up more; bestowing the "brave boy" the name, Sulayman. This seemingly fantastical tale becomes a medium Parvana uses to express herself, conquer her fears, and acts as an insight into the state of her mind. During the more joyous times, Parvana spends with Shauzia; the tale of Sulayman is jovial and humorous. As she recites the story to her younger brother or mother, it's calmer, safer, but also more melancholic. And, as she faces down the horrors of her situation, the story is dark and menacing but full of the strength of courage. As the film reaches the final act, and amidst a bombing raid, Parvana races to the prison in a last, desperate attempt to save her father. Running in parallel, is the "brave boy" (Sulayman), who is struggling up the elephant king's mountain in what appears to be, a vicious and loud storm; perfectly echoing the bombing raid. Parvana begins shouting the story aloud to herself as a means of finding her courage. After arriving at the prison, Parvana witnesses the Taliban lining up prisoners and executing them. Placing her hands over her ears, she calls out for her brother and the movie cuts to Sulayman; fending off several of the elephant king's jaguar minions, and finally coming face-to-face with the elephant king himself. "I have not come to kill you!" - Shouts Sulayman: The elephant king rears up and bellows in provocation. "Sulayman! Soothe him with your story, the one that Mama-jan can't speak of. Tell him!" - Insists Parvana, who has now summoned the strength to confront the truth of her brother's story. "Tell him what happened. Tell him your story!" "My name is Sulayman!" - He begins. "My mother is a writer. My father is a teacher. And my sisters always fight each other." Then, comes the truth of it all: "One day I found a toy on the street. I picked it up. It exploded. I don't remember what happened after that because it was the end." The elephant king roars again and charges down the mountain towards Sulayman who repeats his words. "My name is Sulayman. My mother is a writer. My father is a teacher. And my sisters always fight each other. One day I found a toy on the street. I picked it up. It exploded. I don't remember what happened after that because it was the end." Stopping dead in his tracks, the elephant king stands in front of Sulayman: Reciting his words once again, this time, in a noticeably more melancholic manner. Sulayman has conquered the elephant king, and Parvana has conquered her fears, and rescued her father. The Breadwinner left me awestruck; almost breathless. I've seen it several times now, but the effect from those last few scenes has never abated. To me, everything about this film is as close to perfection as is possible to come. Jeff and Mychael Danna's soundtrack is superb and melancholic. The casting is flawless, as are the direction and screenplay. The stunningly hand drawn and lovingly recreated, digital cutout animation works perfectly together; particularly within the narrative of this movie. In my eyes, The Breadwinner is a must-see film; a testament to the power of animated film, and is arguably one of the best films of the year so far.

Jonas said something attacked them. Something big enough to destroy a new submarine. I’m happy I’ve watched this movie on the big screen. On the silver screen, the Megalodon (hence the title “The Meg“) was even more impressive. But that’s the only thing that can be said about this film. Every film with a shark as the main subject that suddenly transforms into a psychopathic, bloodthirsty hunter, is of course mercilessly compared to the film of all films “Jaws“. A milestone in this genre and unbeatable. Give “The Shallows” and “47 Meters down” a chance and you’ll notice that you watch it rather apathetic without any sense of tension. If you want to stand out in the shark genre, you can throw in some tornadoes so sharks move around in a strange way. By air that is. In case of “The Meg“, they brought in a prehistoric shark who managed to swim through a sort of natural barrier in the ocean. If you want to exceed “Jaws“, you make it all even bigger and more impressive. But apart from the gigantic dimensions of “The Meg“, this film was nowhere truly gigantic. No fun, Statham no fun. I was looking forward to seeing “The Meg“, even though I knew it would be a fiercely exaggerated and brainless spectacle. The fact that Jason Statham plays in it was good enough for me to give it a try. You never get bored with Statham. And it’s always fun to see him kick someone’s ass. I was curious to see how he would handle this giant shark. That was the first thing I was disappointed with. It looked as if they had made a serious Statham out of him. No dry humor and witty one-liners. All the familiar humor gone. And probably they also threatened to wash his mouth out with soap every time he would start to swear and say the “F” word. Statham the deep-sea diver who’s pining away somewhere in an Asian bar because he’s feeling guilty about abandoning his former crew on the bottom of the ocean. And afterward, there’s also something romantic between him and the Chinese oceanographer Suyin (Bingbing Li). And he also takes care of the lovely daughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). Can it be cornier? This shark ignores all the tasty snacks. Yes, it can be even cornier when the giant shark also starts to behave civilized. Admit it. Don’t you think such a mega-shark is constantly hungry? So when he ends up near an overcrowded beach with an immense amount of young people splashing in the salty water, wouldn’t you expect a bloodbath with an unprecedented number of torn teenage bodies? It’s not that I look forward to such a scene, but you expect that a little bit anyway. Again this was a disappointing feature. I even began to doubt the proper functioning of the natural radar system of this giant shark. And furthermore, there was only one moment I almost jumped out of my skin when an innocent young whale bumped into a window. That says a lot about the eeriness of this movie. Show no mercy, sharky. Isn’t that what you want to see while watching a movie like this? The increasing tension and the redeeming end in which the endangered characters kill that vicious animal. You sigh with relief as you see the dismembered carcass of the shark sink to the bottom of the ocean. And you feel sorry for the attacked victims. In this film, it’s the other way around. I almost cheered the moment the most annoying character in the film saw the giant, razor-sharp teeth of the shark in close-up. In fact, I hoped that “The Meg” could somehow return to its natural habitat, after which mankind would finally realize not to break the rules of Mother Nature every time. And that final fight was like the battle between Achab and Moby-Dick. The popcorn was for free. All in all, this wasn’t really worth a visit to the cinema. I’m already glad they made a mistake at the candy stand and gave back too much cash, so the candy me and my wife bought was almost for free. The popcorn tasted twice as good during this popcorn film. And mind you, not because of the movie. It had nothing to do with that. In retrospect, “The meg” was a mega disappointment. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Go ahead and take her. She’s all yours. But I’ll tell you this. She got a dark side… Darker than hell. I admire the phenomenon called Nicolas Cage enormously. Every film with him (and nowadays it’s a lot every year) is a mandatory watch for me. I really can’t let a single Cage movie pass by. Even though I know that more than half of them are of a dubious level. And some downright bad. And yet there are sometimes gems in between. Now, “Grand Isle” certainly isn’t the pinnacle of his film oeuvre. It’s rather mediocre. The run-up is promising. The concept had potential. And Cage is having a blast with his role that fits him like a glove. Add to that a bitter Milf, a young handyman whose hormones are going berzerk and “Frasier” as a biased, god-fearing detective who would prefer to put the suspect on a stake, and you still have enough material to make something out of it. It all looks reasonable. Until halfway somewhere. And then the movie transforms to the level of an average C film. Unfortunately, the presence of such a cult figure as Cage couldn’t change that. Alcohol and a Nam past. Bad combination. And to think that a white fence is the beginning of all the misery for Buddy (Luke Benward). Such an innocent item with far-reaching consequences. The way in which this fence was damaged, on the other hand, is not so innocent. Not difficult when the owner of the house is an ex-marine with a serious drinking problem. Walter (Nicolas Cage) is a bitter, fatalistic persona. A bit of a crazy person who still can’t get over the fact that he got wounded in Vietnam in a ridiculous way and returned home while his platoon went on a mission the next day. The disappointment was immense. Even knowing that the entire platoon got eliminated completely a few weeks later, the disappointment about a missed opportunity remains. This pent-up anger in combination with excessive alcohol consumption makes him an unguided projectile. His mood, grumpy reactions, and downright aggressive attitude make him an unpleasant person. Let’s seduce the handyman. Walter also doesn’t treat his other half kindly. She’s a mature diva whose body shapes are extremely well preserved and whose libido clearly hasn’t disappeared yet. And let that be exactly what Walter fails to deliver. He won’t even budge when she shows up in a transparent nightgown with erotic underwear underneath it. A disinterested look and another sip of a glass of whiskey are the only reactions. It’s not without reason that this hot woman sets her sights on the young, muscular handyman. A handyman with a sex life on the back burner since his lovely wife gave birth to a cuddly daughter. And just when you think it’s going to be about a dangerous triangular relationship where the psychopathic-looking husband wants to initiate a lynch party, the young handyman sits at the police station, face bloodied, trying to prove his innocence in a murder case. Perfect part for Cage. Indeed, Walter is really the kind of character that has Nicolas Cage written all over it. The manic mood. Maniacal laughter. Medium length, greasy hair, and a rough stubble beard. The constant drinking and the half-awake state he’s in practically all the time. And it’s not the first time Cage played such a person. In short, it feels familiar to see him that way. The most interesting interpretation, however, is that of Kadee Strickland as the voluptuous Fancy. Every time she’s in the shot, you simply feel the erotic tension increase. Her sultry voice and sensuous appearance ensure she demands all the attention. Unfortunately, Luke Benward could not compete with these two heavyweights. And although he actually plays the main character, it felt like his part was less important. A half-decent, half-finished flick. As I said before, the format of the film is only half successful. It seemed to be heading in the direction of a “Basic Instinct” -like, erotic thriller. Only the eroticism and the thriller section remains below par. And you get a rather absurd conclusion. Also, the dark secret of this demonic couple is presented so casually that its impact is negligible. And let’s not forget about the intervention of the police. You really can call this part quite ridiculous. Furthermore, the movie is peppered with improbabilities. Such as that small detail from the testimony that cannot even be verified immediately. But still, it ensures that the biased inspector makes a 180-degree turn immediately. It’s amazing how someone’s beliefs can change so quickly. And the end of the film is simply terrible. Apparently even the marine uniform Cage was wearing, was also completely wrong. Again proof that quantity and quality aren’t related. If you are an immense Cage fan, you should watch it of course. Unfortunately, “Grand Isle” isn’t really grand after all. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB

The Hurt Locker is a 2009 war-drama film surrounding a squad of soldiers assembled in Iraq who are perturbed by their new man - Sergeant William James, a wildfire and an expert in defusing bombs. This is just an exquisite piece of filmmaking. Everybody involved is at the top of their game. Bigelow's direction is so tonally and atmospherically perfect for this movie (and the subsequent thematically-linked movies she would go on to make). If there's one thing Bigelow does better than a LOT of other directors, it's building tension and seeing it payoff in a satisfying way. FULL props to Miss Bigelow for this achievement in directing. Jeremy Renner hit his peak with this performance and it's hard to think of him putting in work that's better. He challenges that with 'THE TOWN' and years later, 'WIND RIVER' but 'THE HURT LOCKER' remains his most complex, enthralling character and performance to date. His provocative, erratic Sergeant James is as wild as you would expect, but Renner manages to deliver periods of restraint, where we see his quieter moments, something another actor might have chosen to load with a quiet rage, but Renner's ability to pull back, even for a second, is invaluable to the character work. I also have to mention Brian Geraghty's sensitive, compelling work as Eldridge here as an addendum, because his performance has always been overlooked and I strongly support more love and attention for it. A lot of that effort is achieved by Mark Boal's screenplay, which is superbly written and packed with some good dialogue, characters, and some lovely storytelling through action set pieces, which combine themselves beautifully with Bigelow's abilities. Even though this may not be seem to be a writer's film, it most certainly benefits from the tightness of the screenplay. The documentary-style cinematography from Barry Ackroyd was a bold choice to take for this move, as were the abundance of hand-held shots. But when you're shooting and the framing the frenetic energy of war, Ackroyd proves to be right, as his informal frames and shots capture everything through a seemingly ordinary lens, painting these soldiers as real as any another person so that their more inaccessible struggles, such as defusing bombs and looking out for insurgents, become emotionally-charged, tense moments that make the spine tingle. And where would this film be without the criminally overlooked score for Marco Beltrami? There is some lusciously effective sound design in this movie and it works to prolong the tension and amplify the payoffs, but Beltrami's score explores a mixture of themes and motifs, from the more dynamic expressions of war to the softer, more emotional effects of the battle. It's a beautiful score that I still listen to almost ten years later.

Yardie, based upon the book of the same name, is James Bond’s…sorry Idris Elba’s directional debut. It focuses on a young man who tries to escape his troubled past on the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, to London; only to remain on the same path that led him there in the first place. When he was a young boy, his peaceful older brother was gunned down by a ‘supposed’ member of a rival crew. It led D (Aml Ameen) to want revenge against the killer, only to find him on the streets of the East End where his old flame, and mother to his current child currently lives, in peace, away from the bloodshed.  I love Idris. He’s a brilliant actor and his performance as Stringer Bell in The Wire is the only reason I carried on watching it. I know, controversial, but christ that show is slow and tedious. As a director, well Yardie didn’t cut it for me. There were a lot of good things about it. The mise-en-scene was brilliant, in every scene I felt like I was in Jamaica in the 70′s, or Hackney in the 80′s. The music, the sets, the costumes were brilliant. King Fox, for example, just oozed class throughout the film. I was convinced by that. I just wasn’t convinced by the story. I wasn’t gripped. There seemed like a lot of ideas that put together, just created a complete jumble of nothing. At certain points in the film I thought to myself ‘ooo this is like City of God’ ‘oooo this could be Scarface’ ‘ooo this could be 8 mile’ ‘oooo this is could be This Is England’. But it didn’t pack a punch like these films did. I was disappointed that it felt like this, and this could be due to the trailer. A trailer that featured music that was prominent at the time the film was set, about a young man trying to find his way in the world, set in England and with action scenes. You tell me that isn’t a City-Of-God-8-Mile-This-Is-England-Scarface mash up and I shouldn’t get my hopes up about that.  📷Originally posted by dancebang The two lead actors were wonderfully chosen for the film. D (Aml Ameen) was very charismatic and lead the film superbly. Whilst the narrative was full of exposition, the acting was brilliant. Yvonne (Shantol Jackson) as the mother of his child and girlfriend was beautifully cast. She drove her scenes with the passion and emotion that she produced. She is a wonderful actress and she deserves to be in much more because in Yardie she was sublime. The worst thing for me about this whole thing though was the casting of Stephen Graham as Rico, one of the villains in the film and the drug dealer based in London. Stephen Graham is one of my favourite actors. As a character actor there aren’t many who come close to him. He deserves to be A-List. But my god what was going on here. I’m not annoyed that he was in the film. I’d cast him as anything. Working class hero. But throughout the film he put on a Jamaican accent, it wasn’t a bad accent but he kept flicking between this and the cockney accent because of Hackney. Now I was confused as to why the Jamaican accent was needed. I didn’t know if it was because he was trying to fit into the Jamaican community in London so he could get their respect and trust. He had Jamaicans working for him, who respected him, who at no point looked pissed off with him. Or if the character was culturally appropriating their lifestyle. By flicking between the two he is undermining them. But again, they were never any scenes where the other Jamaican characters looked pissed with him. I think it ruined the whole scene. He was much more menacing just doing the cockney accent. I cringed whenever the Jamaican accent was used. 2/5 Unfortunately as much as I was looking forward to it, and as much as I was hoping it would be amazing, it wasn’t. This could be down to the story not being originally written by Idris. There’s always a conflict when using an adapted screenplay. I hope and I’m sure we will see more of Elba in the director’s chair. There are far too many white, university educated film directors churning out the same pile of Hollywood crap. I want stories by a director from a working class background, I want stories from the Nigerian family, I want stories from the Muslim community. We need stories like Yardie to entertain, and more importantly, educate us. Just hopefully the next film from Idris is more entertaining than his first. p.s I really hope Idris doesn’t become the next 007. And not because I’m a right-wing gammon. But because he’s too good of an actor to be tied down to such a dead franchise. For sure he’d make it exciting. He’d bring it to life and bring the charm back to it. But he’s too good to be stuck as Bond. I wouldn’t complain if he was, I’d rather it be him than Tom Hiddleston or Henry Cavill or *insert another generic middle class name here*

Jesus Christ. It’s Rob Zombie’s house. They came up with the following slogans for “Hereditary“: “The scariest film ever” and “A highlight in horror in the last 50 years“. Well, I wonder what they would say about “Incident in a Ghostland“? I won’t say this is the most masterful horror of all time. And no, it’s not as frightening as “The Exorcist“. That one scared me to death in those days. “Incident in a Ghostland” uses the same concept as in “The seasoning house” and “I spit on your grave“. The sexual abuse of innocent girls and the psychological damage these desperate victims suffer from. It’s not trembling and shaking all the time, but the whole movie you’ll have that uncomfortable feeling. An eye for an eye. Now, the concept of such movies is actually quite simple. In the first instance, they try to shock you with confrontational images so you’ll feel sick with disgust and anger. In such a way that the second part feels like a relief. Just like Jean-Claude Van Damme in his old movies where he fights back and wins, after being beaten up real bad. Or when an almost defeated underdog in a football match can turn the tide. That’s how the second part feels. You are a member of a fan club for the victims who fight back and avenge the injustice done to them. As in “I spit on your grave” where I couldn’t suppress a heartfelt, loud “Yes” with every execution of one of the perpetrators. And the way the victims take revenge should be ruthless and merciless. The more pain, the better. In short, a film that contrasts two opposing feelings frontally. The feeling of destruction, despair and physical pain, versus relief, liberation and a victory. The twist was a surprise. In a way, “Incident in a Ghostland” tries to break this pattern. Yes, there’s that moment of extreme violence and that moment the situation looks desperate. And just when you think it’s going smooth, the film takes a completely new path and the struggle for survival begins again. Further revealing only leads to spoiling the fun for those who haven’t seen the film yet. But the twist in the story also surprised me. To be honest, it’s not often that a film does this to me. Usually, I see it coming a mile away. But not now. Is it something like “Martyrs”? The film was directed by Pascal Laugier who’s best known for his controversial film “Martyrs“. A film that was proclaimed as the mother of all “torture-porn” and apparently rolls over you like a steamroller. An extremely brutal film many found disgusting. I never watched it myself. Deep inside I would like to see this movie but something tells me that the extreme violence will hit me too deeply. That’s why I avoid it. Had I known that Laugier directed this movie as well, I might have ignored it too. And now I’m on the horns of a dilemma. Is this a film where Laugier went soft? Or should I try to watch “Martyrs” anyway? Thumbs-up for the make-up department. Is it worth to watch this movie? Actually yes. And that because it’s beyond simply a brutal “home-invasion movie” with the torture, abuse, and humiliation of young girls. Here Laugier also brings the psychological impact of such a traumatic experience in the picture. He shows how the human psyche works from an individual who experiences something such as this barbaric invasion by two murderous maniacs. It’s not a film for sensitive souls even though the violence isn’t explicitly shown. However, the consequences of these brutal assaults are clearly visible. That’s why I give a thumbs-up for the make-up department. Dark and oppressive. The set-up as a whole is very successful. The house where Pauline (Mylène Farmer) and her two daughters Beth (Emilia Jones \ Crystal Reed) and Vera (Taylor Hickson \ Anastasia Phillips) move in, is a real junk house full of rarities and old dolls. Not that it plays a prominent role in the film, but it contributes to the entire oppressive and dark atmosphere. The acting of the two girls is mainly limited to screaming and anxiously waiting for the two halfwits to show up again. Except for Beth who became a successful writer of horror stories. Until she returns to the hell-house and is being confronted with the suffering. Mother Pauline behaves as a soothing and encouraging character. And then finally you have the two assailants. One crazier than the other, in terms of appearance. One is a goth-like person who you’ll only get to see briefly most of the time. The second a colossal, moronic monster who’s inhumanly strong. A drooling and groaning primate who prefers to play with dolls. And he likes it even better when those dolls are alive. More frightening because of the realism. All in all, “Incident in a Ghostland” is fascinating in a way. Even though the level of sadism is quite high and you can’t shake off the feeling of fear and panic during the whole movie. The entire film is an avalanche of hysteria with that constant sense of helplessness. It’s not a horror movie about possessed houses or paranormal phenomena with the familiar jump scares and creepy moments. This is a frightening film about something that can happen in reality and that we see on the news on a regular basis. The story itself seems rather simple, but Beth’s condition creates an extra dimension. In any case, it’s a lot more frightening than “Hereditary“, THE horror from 2018 (sarcastic tone). My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB

(Curzon Home Cinema, Available 24 September) "Gagarine" Youri (Alséni Bathily), 16, has lived all his life in 'Gagarine Cité', a vast red brick housing project on the outskirts of 'Paris'. From the heights of his apartment, he dreams of becoming an astronaut. But the plans to demolish his community’s home are leaked, Youri joins the resistance. With his friends Diana (Lyna Khoudri) and Houssam (Jamil McCraven), he embarks on a mission to save 'Gagarine', transforming the estate into his own starship; before it disappears into space forever. The huge, red-brick 'Cité Gagarine' housing project, boasting 370 apartments, was built in the early sixties in 'Ivry-sur-Seine', one of the communist municipalities that formed a red belt around 'Paris'. At the time, highrise buildings were shooting up in order to clear the slums on the outskirts of 'The French Capital'. In June 1963, Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, came to inaugurate 'The Cité' that bore his name. Within decades, however, these collective utopias had become neighborhoods that were often stigmatized and slated for sweeping urban renovation. In 2014, the decision was made to demolish 'Cité Gagarine'. The inhabitants were gradually rehoused, leaving 'Cité Gagarine' as an empty shell. The families left, taking their stories of lives of toil, migration, hope and disappointment with them. On August 31, 2019, the demolition machines moved in, watched by the former inhabitants. The film was shot on the cusp of the actual demolition of 'The Cité Gagarine' housing project in collaboration with it's residents in 'Ivry-sur-Seine'. One day Yuri Gagarin came to inaugurate the project in the sixties. A completely surrealist scene, with the first man in space returning from his mission and winding up in a housing project on the outskirts of Paris. You see the new inhabitants eyes, their outsize hopes of this place and this man. The cosmonaut and the building are symbols of hope and progress. That footage opens the film. The film.wants Youri to be impregnated by that, steeped in that heroic past, so that his space dream is born out of his home. Symbolically, the building is his mother’s belly, which he refuses to leave. It feels like there are two main characters in the film; a teenager and a building. Youri, the teen, and 'Gagarine', the building, are in a non-stop dialogue with one another. His parents Gérard (Denis Lavant) and Marie (Meta Mutela) moving into the housing project before his birth. Youri was raised there and developed an imagination the equal of the massive highrise. The prospect of it's disappearance means, for him, the death of his childhood memories and dreams. It also means losing his beloved community. The film gives a positive vision of a place and generation that are often caricatured. Youri loves his neighborhood. For him, 'Gagarine Cité' is not an outdated utopia, it’s his present, and the soil of his future. Leaving means losing everything: abandoning his family and his imaginary world. So he takes up resistance to alter the perception of the place and people, it’s as if you chose duality. Everything about Youri has another side, loner but always connected to people, attached to the past, but steeped in hyper-modernity. Youri is balanced. Roots in the housing project, but head in the stars, constantly navigating between dream and reality, between the place’s past and present. Like when a love affair comes to an end, as the prospect of demolition loomed ahead, there's a spurt of activity throughout the project. The film witnesses the inhabitants unfurling their wings. We discover a deep-rooted sense of community that the film infuses into the protagonist. It’s Youri’s family, it’s Houssam, his best friend, it’s Fari (Farida Rahouadj), a neighborhood activist who looks out for tenants around her, and it’s lots of people from one window to the next, who are connected, and whose lives echo up to Youri on the roof through the chimneys. He's full of very restrained love for them. What Youri is experiencing is tough. He symbolizes excluded youth, hurt by that abandonment, and withdrawing in on itself. Part of Youri’s struggle with growing up comes from his circumstances sapping his confidence. Youri sees his home as a spaceship. It's not.too sterile or clinical, but alive, grimy, and organic, because Youri builds the capsule with found objects. He goes through deserted apartments, collecting things the tenants left behind, anything that might come in handy. Each object is repurposed to become part of the capsule. It’s riffing on this idea of Youri walking a high wire between celestial bum and astronaut. Once again, life informed art. Despite the building’s scheduled demise, he tries to keep it alive at all costs. When he gives up, other forms of life step up. In the capsule, there are all kinds of plants. The vegetable world takes over. Through them, the visual and aural universe evolves into something more aquatic. A lot of noise disappears, replaced by sounds that are transformed, becoming increasingly strange until they disappear. Sound does not travel in space. The idea is to follow a trajectory that starts with roiling reality and moves toward silence. Telling a story of life up to the ultimate moment of Youri’s ejection from his building into the cosmos. There, in the vacuum, there's no sound. Symbolically, a journey in sound from life to death. Youri is a loner but not alone. Women play an important role in the film, and a very different role than the one usually accorded them. Through them, Youri accesses technology. The example of Diana springs to mind. Like Youri, Diana wants to understand how things work. That guides her. Compared to him, however, she has a very practical and concrete vision of things. She’s a mechanic. She can fix anything. The character of Diana comes out of something that struck us very forcefully. At the foot of 'The Gagarine Tower' blocks, there are Roma camps stretching out. Vertical and horizontal planes that never intersected. There are no points of crossover between those two worlds. The film witnesses an encounter between two people from those two places. Two characters rejected by society, who nonetheless affirm themselves by fabricating their own world and their own tools. 'Gagarine Cité' has now been demolished. It exists only in the film. The film is also a tool of remembrance, bearing witness to the architectural vision of the period, and above all to the people who brought the place alive. They're everywhere in the film, in visual and sound archives, on screen and behind the camera. The film shows that the building is important but in the end what’s left is the people. Their relationship to the place endures whatever happens. That’s what the film.captures and convey. Holding out a mirror that reflects the beauty and complexity of those lives. Politically, it’s urgent to revisit how people see this bountiful and diverse younger generation, which is often portrayed with negative images, as having no future. Those clichés do a lot of damage. They must be torn down! Grandparents, their children and grandchildren; three generations and multiple views on life and a single location. When you demolish a place, you destroy family histories. Magical realism is everywhere in France. The tempo of the directing is driven by that balance between realism and oneirism. The magical dimension allows the film to approach reality and it's violence from another angle. Introducing a form of magical realism facilitated the creation of a back-and-forth between the real and the imaginary, and navigation between the collapse of the character and the building and zero-gravity. We believe in the power of images to sway people’s visions of themselves. It’s what opens up imaginations.

"When Evil Lurks" /10/07/23/Prince Charles Cinema/13:45/     The residents of a small rural town discover that a demon is about to be born among them. They desperately try to escape before the evil is born, but it may be too late.   When brothers Pedro (Ezequiel Rodríguez) and Jimmy (Demián Salomón) discover that a demonic infection has been festering in a nearby farmhouse, its very proximity poisoning the local livestock, they attempt to evict the victim from their land. Failing to adhere to the proper rites of exorcism, their reckless actions inadvertently trigger an epidemic of possessions across their rural community. Now they must outrun an encroaching evil as it corrupts and mutilates everyone it is exposed to, and enlist the aid of a wizened cleaner, who holds the only tools that can stop this supernatural plague.   The film wants to create an own universe and something unique in the genre. It's a sequel to "Terrified" (Aterrados). To make the audience experience disturbing situations in the context of everyday life. It's about a new way into the demonic possession subgenre, without falling into the expected or generic places. Unlike "Terrified", where the protagonists were based in a couple of houses and going to look for 'evil' until they collided with it, here we propose the complete opposite, evil would be looking for the characters, who would have to cross a whole region to avoid that confrontation. The idea is always to create a horror road movie of characters with family ties that are in a state of decay, which makes everything that happens more brutal and disturbing. The film also wants to present striking scenes and images within the horror and fantasy genre set in Latin America. A wildly original take on the possession film, "When Evil Lurks" is a shocking supernatural thriller.   Written by Gregory Mann

Rudyard, there are no people living in this forest. Do you see any animals? There’s no flora with any color, nothing to allure insects! Are you someone who prefers to spend his free time in his perfectly tended garden? Is your lawn as if a delegation from the International Golf Federation could arrive any minute to ask if it could be used as a “green” at a next golf championship? Do you spend hours in your garden staring at freshly planted and potted flowers and plants? Are you an expert in fertilizing, scarifying, digging, pruning, grafting and draining? Well, I guess this film is really suitable for you. Because “Flora” is actually nothing more than a nature film that every botanical film viewer will be excited about. Do you know which film quote always came to me? “Run, Forrest, Run!“. Only here the main characters are running away from a forest. They might have used the following alternative movie title: “Attack of the killer pollen“. That about covers it. It really looks like the 1920s. “Flora” certainly isn’t a bad film. But for those who don’t see themselves as purebred nature lovers, this film may seem terribly boring. What they managed to do, is to show a decent image of the 1920s. I found the props and atmosphere perfect. All the pieces fitted. The oldtimer, the costumes, and the used music. Perfectly chosen. Everything seemed innocent and frivolous in those days. The naivety and insufficient knowledge are portrayed in a proper way. The resources available to the six scientists are fairly limited. Plants are cataloged in notebooks. Illustrations are made with the use of a whole array of colored pencils. No electronic worksheet and digital camera as one would use in the present time. You won’t see the main characters wandering around with a tiny headphone connected to a compact MP3 player. No, here they are lugging around with an impressive gramophone with a huge horn. Before you know it, an old-fashioned foxtrot echoes through the forest after putting on such a fragile record. The footage and acting look great. Unfortunately, it’s slow and superficial. Praise for the creators of this indie-horror. Because despite the extremely limited budget, film-technically it looks fab. Even the for me unknown actors made themselves meritorious in the field of acting. Admittedly, sometimes there was a touch of overacting. And they tried to bring drama in a forced way. But this was certainly not irritating. Unfortunately, it was all fairly superficial with a painfully slow pace. It seemed after a while that the entire film consisted of exploring the surrounding nature. And yes, the discovery that no living organism can be detected in the surrounding area can easily be called troubling. But it’s never really exciting. Nail-biting boredom. Trust me, I’m not someone who only associates horror with gory slaughter and diabolical entities. And also, a forest in a horror movie isn’t automatically linked to a lonely, deserted wooden cabin. Or a wandering, bloodthirsty creature that suddenly shows up from behind a tree and rips you into pieces. So all the praise to try a different idea and for once think out of the box. However, I don’t think this symbiotic fungus that kills every human and animal life is something that ensures it to be a movie with nail-biting suspense. All in all, the starting point of the film wasn’t bad when you talk about originality. But apart from some beautiful nature shots and moments in which the dialogue seemed interesting, it’s all relatively boring and monotonous. My rating 3/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here