Search Results

Get out of the way kids, get to the back of the line, this is my time! I’ve waited 14 years, 14 long years. The anticipation, the excitement, the hope, the suspense. It was all there. All 22 of my years had these emotions. The 8 year old boy inside me who saw the first one was on the edge of his seat. Was it all worth it? Ehhhhh. I’ll be honest, the first Incredibles was brilliant, it wasn’t one of my favourite Pixar films, but it was real good. An animated film about superheroes at an age when I was so into Spiderman, this was my film, and as a kid I loved it. The more Pixar films I’ve seen since, the further down it’s gone on my list off favourite Pixar films. So I was excited to see it, but not over the top that will make this an impartial review. 📷Originally posted by imdcathsmeow This film continues straight from the first one, The Underminer destroys the city despite The Incredibles and Frozones best intentions to save it. The Government aren’t happy that they get involved and don’t revoke the law that prevents superheroes from being in the public eye. Frozone makes a contact with a super rich guy and his sister who wants to change that. Elastigirl becomes the poster girl for this and leaves Mr Incredible to be a house husband which he struggles with. The Screenslaver is the villain who turns and controls people using tv screens. Long story short, The Incredibles saves the day. I don’t want to ruin too much.  This instalment is top stuff, it’s action scenes flow beautifully, the comedy pours out at every necessary moment. Jack-Jack completely steals the show, the scene where he is fighting the raccoon is brilliant. I laughed in the cinema, that’s very rare for me. There is enough there for me, as a sort of adult and fan of the previous film to be happy about, but also new fresh stuff that would make a new fan equally content with.  📷Originally posted by thekidd-n-side However I do have some criticisms with the due, nothing technically because it is wonderfully made, the colours, the sets, the pacing, the mise-en-scene is crafted superbly. It’s beautiful to look at, but that is the mark that Pixar films have set recently. As an audience we shouldn’t expect less than perfect from Pixar. The criticisms I have is that the film has too many messages that aren’t really explored. Normally Pixar films deal with a key issue that is explored but it is normally resolved. Bug’s Life - Class. Wall-E - Environmental issues. Inside Out - Mental Health. With Incredibles 2 however, gender issues, justice system and technology advancements are explored and act as issues that are explored within the film but they really come to nothing.  Mr Incredible struggles with not feeling like a man because he is doing a role as the parent that historically been a womens job. He is the not the bread-winner, he doesn’t feel like a man because he doesn’t have a job. Gags are made throughout the film about this and in the end we really don’t see an acceptance of him being happy that his wife, love of his life is in the spotlight and getting the credit that she wouldn’t get as a mother. I shan’t go into details further about this, nor the other things I noticed because I realise that this is predominantly a kids film. Pixar do normally set a standard when it comes to important issues in their films, whilst their films are entertainment sometimes they can be a key lesson. I just feel that the messages they were putting across were too many, and not integrated into the film like they usually were.  4/5  A Pixar film that doesn’t flop, what a lovely surprise. A brilliant addition to the collection. It doesn’t have the emotional impact that has set Pixar apart from other animated films, nor do it’s messages draw a spotlight on a key messages as well as others have done. It’s great fun, beautifully made and full of action and laughs. Not exactly Incredible, but pretty close.

(Release Info London schedule; December 16th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 10:00) "Papillon" Based on the books 'Papillon' and 'Banco', "Papillon" follows the epic story of Henri 'Papillon' Charrière (Charlie Hunnam), a safecracker from the Parisian underworld who's framed for murder and condemned to life in the notorious penal colony on 'Devil’s Island'. Determined to regain his freedom, 'Papillon' forms an unlikely alliance with quirky convicted counterfeiter Louis Dega (Rami Malek), who in exchange for protection, agrees to finance 'Papillon’s' escape. In the glamorous world of Paris in 1931, safecracker Henri 'Papillon' Charrière (Charlie Hunnam) steals a small fortune in diamonds for local gangster Castili (Christopher Fairbank). Though he avoids detection, 'Papillon', whose nickname refers to the butterfly tattoo on his chest, makes one critical mistake; he withholds a jeweled necklace from the unforgiving crime boss and gives it to his girlfriend Nenette (Eve Hewson) instead. In retaliation, Castili frames 'Papillon' for murder, earning him a life sentence at the infamous penal colony in 'French Guiana'. On a ship bound for the remote South American prison, 'Papillon' meets meek currency forger Louis Dega (Rami Malek), who's sentenced to life for producing counterfeit bonds. There, amid thousands of violent convicts awaiting their fate, the two men reach an agreement; 'Papillon' will protect Dega and the stash of money he has hidden. In exchange, Dega will finance 'Papillon’s' eventual escape plan. Upon arrival, the shackled prisoners are met by Warden Barrot (Yorick van Wageningen), who explains the prison’s draconian rules; solitary confinement for anyone who attempts to escape; the guillotine for murderers. As they struggle to survive the nightmarish conditions, which include tropical illness, savage beatings, forced labor and public beheadings, 'Papillon' and Dega enlist the help of inmates Celier (Roland Møller) and Maturette (Joel Basman) to stage a daring escape during a torrential rainstorm. Despite their best efforts, the plan results in 'Papillon' being sent to solitary confinement for five grueling years. Emerging as a mere shadow of his former self, 'Papillon' is transferred to 'Devil’s Island', where he finds Dega waiting for him. Surrounded by prisoners who’ve been driven mad by their time in solitary, the two friends contemplate the hopelessness of their situation. But 'Papillon’s' relentless desire for freedom will not be denied. Louis Dega is arguably the most colorful role in the film. Louis is a character almost everyone will identify with because he’s someone who’s finds himself in a surprising place he knows nothing about. He’s been thrown into one of the most deplorable and miserable circumstances on earth, and has to fight his way through to survive. One of the coolest things about 'Papillon' and Dega is the way they push and pull at each other. In some ways they’re true polar opposites, and that's what helped their relationship grow into what you see in the film. The character's relationship is extremely significant to the story. If that chemistry doesn’t work, the film won’t come off the way it needs to. 'Papillon' allows the audience to see exactly how someone can snap. Not only how they can physically break, but how their mind can deteriorate as well. These two unlikely friends become so reliant on each other that a genuine love evolves between them. And that love allows them to understand not only the other person, but themselves as well. But it’s about the relationship that’s created between 'Papillon' and Dega, who initially hate each other, but who become entirely dependent on each other by the end. 'Papillon' starts as this young, ambitious, egotistical man, and he ends up a completely different person. The film’s emotional journey of self-discovery expects moviegoers around the world. Nenette (Eve Hewson) is an enigmatic French prostitute who romances 'Papillon' before he’s sentenced to life in prison. Nenette is a tragic soul beaten down by life in the Parisian underworld, She’s a smart, interesting person in the way she approaches her ambitions and dreams. She’s not a delicate flower. She’s a fighter. Although Nenette isn’t sentenced for any of her crimes in the film, the character exists in her own personal prison. Nenette and 'Papillon' are partners in crime, like 'Bonnie and Clyde'. She’s desperate to escape Paris because she doesn’t want to be a prostitute anymore. Her ambition is simply to survive, which is in keeping with the theme of the film. For 'Papillon', survival means getting out of prison. But for Nenette, her prison is a life of prostitution. One of the most important characters in the film is 'The French Guiana Penal Colony' itself. Vividly described by Charrière in his novels, the location’s nightmarish qualities needed to be abundantly clear to audiences if the film is going to have the desired effect. Remarkably, there’s a fair amount of documentary footage on the subject. A great deal of history has been written about the penal colonies. In many ways, the penal colony described in Charrière’s novel resembles a Dante-esque version of 'Hell On Earth'. This isn't a summer camp in the jungle. This is a very rough place that stood for more than 80 years. So to tell the story convincingly, the film creates something that's as terrifying as the one that actually existed. For example, the jail that 'Papillon' is sent to in Paris is very different than the prison ship that takes him to 'French Guiana'. And the prison ship is very different than the penal colony in the jungle. Each one has it's own style and personality. The film captures a sense of compression, like the belly of a beast. There’s an element of rebirth when Papillon and the others are spat out onto the beach at the end of their sea journey. The prison ship has so much texture everywhere. It's dark and greasy, and there are fires burning in the background. It gives an intensely claustrophobic feeling. Although it's cold on set, you’d still sweat inside that ship somehow. Few topics have made for more gripping cinematic drama than true tales of incarceration. From the 1932 classic "I Am A Fugitive" to the 1962 biopic "Birdman Of Alcatraz", moviegoers have thrilled to stories that depict real-life prisoners struggling to survive the brutality of institutional confinement. Filled with shocking details about life in one of the world’s most hellish environments, Charrière’s autobiographical novel became a global bestseller when it was first published in 1969 and remains a modern classic in the genre of prison literature. Amid so many acclaimed titles, perhaps none has captured audience's imaginations the way the 1973 prison adventure "Papillon" has. A box-office hit starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, the film was based on the critically-hailed memoirs of Henri Charrière, a French thief who was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to life at the notorious 'French Guiana' penal colony in 1931. Based on the epic true story, "Papillon" is a thrilling adventure and a powerful portrait of the resilience of the human spirit, even in the face of utter inhumanity. The story of "Papillon" is set between the years of 1931 and 1945. Whenever you tackle a remake or a reimagining of a classic, one of the biggest hurdles is trying to differentiate it from the original without losing the integrity of the story. The solutithe idea of this film is really to capture an overarching life story rather than to just focus on the escape. The focus is not just about the prison and wrongful incarceration. It goes much deeper than that. Although Charrière’s tale is widely regarded as one of the most exciting prison stories of all time, the new adaptation of "Papillon" transcends it's genre. This film is about much more than trying to escape 'Devil’s Island'. It’s about trying to escape yourself and your past. That's the true appeal of "Papillon". Essentially, it’s a story about understanding one’s true self. The result is a stark portrait of unimaginable pain that will likely move many viewers to tears. "Papillon" contains all the elements necessary for a gritty prison thriller set in one of the world’s deadliest places, but it also includes something else; humanity. There’s plenty of visceral action and compelling drama, but it’s mainly a story of friendship. It’s about people being kind to each other in a very difficult and violent place, and it’s a testament to man’s will to endure. Sadly, much of "Papillon" is still relevant today because many men and women are incarcerated under horrific conditions, and isolation is used as a way to torment them. It’s happening all around the world at this very moment. The emotional depth is one of the favorite aspects of the film. "Papillon" is the chance to revisit the topic in a historical context, while focusing on what makes it relevant to today’s world. On the surface, it’s a thrilling adventure film.

(The Banshees of Inisherin • 2022 ‧ Drama/Comedy ‧ 1h 54m Showtimes London • Fri 21 Oct, Sat 22 Oct, Sun 23 Oct, Mon 24 Oct, Tue 25 Oct, Wed 26 Oct Thu 27 Oct, ODEON Luxe, 400 m·24-26 Leicester Square, LONDON WC2H 7JY, United Kingdom, 12:00 • 14:45 • 17:30 • 20:15 Leicester Square, 400 m·Leicester Square, LONDON WC2H 7NA, United Kingdom, 12:30 • 15:10 • 17:50 • 20:30 Vue Cinema London - West End (Leicester Square), 500 m·Leicester Square, 3 Cranbourn Street, LONDON WC2H 7AL, United Kingdom, 12:45 • 15:30 • 17:45 • 19:45 Picturehouse Central, 600 m·Piccadilly Circus, 13 Coventry Street, LONDON W1D 7DH, United Kingdom, 13:00 • 15:35 • 18:10 • 19:15 • 20:45 Curzon Soho, 650 m·99 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON W1D 5DY, United Kingdom, 12:00 • 15:40 • 17:50 • 21:20 ODEON Covent Garden, 800 m·135 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON WC2H 8AH, United Kingdom, 14:30 • 17:30 • 20:30) "The Banshees Of Inisherin" Set on a remote island off the west coast of Ireland, "The Banshees Of Inisherin" follows lifelong friends Pádraic Súilleabháin (Colin Farrell) and Colm Doherty (Brendan Gleeson), who find themselves at an impasse when Colm unexpectedly puts an end to their friendship. A stunned Pádraic, aided by his sister Siobhán (Kerry Condon) and troubled young islander Dominic (Barry Keoghan), endeavours to repair the relationship, refusing to take no for an answer. But Pádraic’s repeated efforts only strengthen his former friend’s resolve and when Colm delivers a desperate ultimatum, events swiftly escalate, leading to disastrous, anarchic consequences. “The Banshees Of Inisherin" is the story of an island, the small group of people on that island, and two friends who early on in the film are forced by the decision of one friend to go their separate ways. The other friend finds that particularly hard to deal with. The story opens with Pádraic walking happily around the island of Inisherin where he lives with his sister, Siobhán. Pádraic is a sweet, mild mannered, happy-go-lucky guy. Every day, Pádraic and Colm meet at 2pm to go for a drink in the only pub on the island. It’s a daily routine. On this particular day, however, everything changes. Colm ignores Pádraic when he calls. Colm starts acting very strangely and starts avoiding Pádraic. Colm doesn’t answer the door, which is how we start off the journey. That’s how it begins, with the shutting of a door against a good friend, for no apparent reason. Pádraic is initially surprised, then shocked, and eventually heartbroken. He’s also confused, since Colm has given no particular reason for the breakup. These two men have been friends for their whole lives..Why did Colm torpedo his friendship with Pádraic, was it something that Pádraic said, or did? Is Colm depressed? Should he respect Colm’s wishes and back off? Or should he try to change Colm’s mind or change himself? Within the first six minutes of the movie, the plot is in place. Pádraic can't understand why Colm doesn't want to be friends with him anymore and won't accept it. It’s similar to the feelings you feel when you've been dumped in a relationship. You think, ‘So did you ever like me, or was I imagining that we were in love'? We've to .understand the tough line that Colm, the breaker-upper, has taken, or do they identify with the nice person who's broken hearted. But Colm has his reasons. He doesn’t want to waste his time anymore. He wants to devote himself to artistic enterprises, music or thought. Pádraic is the fallout from that decision. Until this point things have been easy going. But Colm is older than Pádraic by 15 or 20 years. Colm identifies that time is precious and he sees Pádraic as a waste of time. It's a.smart way of playing with those feelings that everyone has in terms of a loving couple, heartbreak and rejection, but doing it with friends so there's a comedy element to it. Colm decides to embrace art and creativity as the most important thing in life and it leads to hellish consequences. The Irish Civil War was a tragedy, that’s the context here. Through examining it and trying to understand how things can get dragged out of shape, maybe we can face it down and not take that path. Do you devote yourself totally to life as an artist? Is work the most important thing? Does it matter who gets hurt in the process? It's a debate that isn't answered by the film. As Pádraic continues to prod Colm for a response, the situation escalates. Colm comes to a place where unless he does something very drastic, he's not going to be left alone. He threatens to cut his fingers off unless Pádraic leaves him alone and allows him time to create. Colm is curious in his mind and he’s a little bit intense. He reckons he has 12 years left, for no particular reason. He’s not ill but he knows his time is finite and he wants to leave a legacy. His art becomes his main priority. Colm’s quite sophisticated in his mindset. It’s a bit like a nuclear deterrent. Symbolically, he’s threatening to destroy his own gift of musicianship. Colm sees it as a badge of commitment. Pádraic shares a home with his younger sister Siobhán. It's coming up on eight years since their parents have died, so there's nobody else living here, apart from Pádraic’s miniature pet donkey Jenny, who Pádraic keeps sneaking into the house. They're close as siblings, so when Colm shuns Pádraic at the start of the film, Siobhán is perturbed. Siobhán is, perhaps, the wisest voice on the island. She realises the limitations of this community. It's inward-looking and resentful attitudes will eventually drag her down. She has ambitions that extend beyond the island, but she's also acutely aware that Pádraic needs her. Siobhán has been through a lot and so there's this sadness and loneliness to her. She's stuck. Pádraic drives her a little crazy, like a sibling would, yet she's motherly to him. She calls things out in the way that probably only a woman can. Her voice, wisdom, and enormous heart take you beyond the island and in a new direction. Colm’s artistic dilemma is reflected in Siobhán, whose life is consumed by reading, cooking dinners, and loneliness. Colm, perhaps, represents a struggle that Siobhán may find herself in within a few years. However, what's taking place on Inisherin, the division between Pádraic and Colm, and the growing rifts with other people on the island, mirrors what's occurring on the mainland. There are allegorical aspects to the division between both sides in the Irish Civil War. Then the islanders become involved. There's Peadar Kearney (Gary Lydon), the local cop whose dislike of Pádraic and his sister intensifies after his separation from Colm. Dominic Kearney (Barry Keoghan), the policeman’s son, is another person who's affected by this schism between the two men. Dominic is smart in his innocent, childlike sort of way. He has feelings for Siobhán, but she's the only girl for miles. Dominic bears a lot of that sadness and horror, as a lot of kids did in Ireland in the last century..The fictional island of Inisherin has a single pub run by Jonjo (Pat Shortt), whose best friend Gerry (Jon Kenny), is normally in residence. The pair provide a brilliant commentary on Pádraic and Colm’s declining friendship and subsequent duelling. Jonjo isn’t a mediator, but he tends to be there when some of the key moments happen. The pub is a major character in the story. It's yellow, bright. It has a red floor, which is an old oilskin from a sailcloth, and a black ceiling. These are strong colours for a period film. It's a multi-character piece and there are many strands that go through the story. Colm is the only character who wears a coat. The coat is light enough to blow in the wind and has elements of the American Western. There’s discord and madness, loss and suffering, and some laughs along the way. There’s something rotten in the community. All the characters are bananas. They're mad in their own unique ways; archetypes brought together to create a certain amount of chaos, but not chaos for the sake of it, and not just dark moments or themes to titillate and shock. The film is set in 1923 when Civil War was raging in Ireland. The fictional island of Inisherin is not affected but there's tension across the water on the mainland. Cannon roars and gunfire can be heard some nights and so we're very aware on the island that there's a civil war taking place. But we're also kind of shielded from it by virtue of being out of the way and a coastal outpost. The Irish Civil War was waged from 1922 to 1923, following the War of Independence and the establishment of the Irish Free State, which created an entity in one half of the country that was separate from the United Kingdom. Two opposing groups, the pro Anglo-Irish Treaty provisional government, and the anti-treaty Irish Republican Army (IRA), fought for dominance. They're not bothered about the war. It's like they're a separate little country, a separate little everything. The civil war was a catastrophic fallout that can emerge from a struggle for freedom. In the case of the Irish conflict, brother would be cast against brother, and friend against friend. Historically, it ended in horrific atrocities. The film does not adhere to the strict boundaries of history. Instead, it is it's own self-contained fantasy, a mythical place, a streak of madness permeating it's bones. The period setting of Banshees, 1923, leant itself to the idea of a Western. Shooting through doorways and that kind of John Ford-ian trope is something we explore in the storyboarding. The story lent itself to this idea of two almost lone gunmen falling out and getting into tiffs at the local saloon. The explorations of fidelity, separation, loneliness, sadness, death, grief and violence. Violence begets violence. The story is dark enough anyway, but the film wants the visuals and the locations to be as cinematic as possible. The mountainous geography of the island impacts the story. These looming mountains have a lot of tragedy behind them. It’s been informative, in terms of the broadness of Irish life. Everything is a little bit shabby and sad. The scale of this movie is massive. Filmmakers don’t usually try to send an audience away sad. But that's part of it, a about Ireland at that time and maybe about life. Written by Gregory Mann

When I finished watching Vice, my first thought was: Oh-my-goodness, I wonder if Dick Cheney and his family sued the producers. Later I realized that a lot of Cheney's fundamentalist views, strategies and actions, had come straight out of his autobiography. What's more, many Americans approve of his actions, think of him as a national hero, An American version of Horatio Nelson, perhaps. So much for British naivety! My next Oh-my-goodness moment was when the false final credits came onto the screen. I wondered whether I had dropped off to sleep for a moment, lost some crucial point. Were the Cheneys really spending their golden years breeding golden retrievers? How quaint. But no. VICE is clearly divided into a first and second part, and the false credits mark the division. The first half shows Dick Cheney growing up in Nebraska, a typical middle class youngster from the midwest, getting drunk, flunking school, being scolded by Lynne his then girlfriend, soon to become wife, accomplice, partner, soulmate. He sobers up, marries Lynne,cuts down on the booze, develops a taste for pastries and an expanding belly. He climbs the political ladder and also becomes immensely rich as CEO of Halliburton. The second half is triggered by THE PHONE CALL: an invitation to talk about becoming George W.'s running mate, as Vice President of the USA (notoriously a nothing job). Cheney accepts, but on his own terms and becomes the most powerful VP in history. His are the major strategical decisions, it is he who maneuvers the US into invading Iraq. He lays blame where no blame is due, makes and breaks careers, hires and fires at will. To portray this power game, director Adam McKay (The Big Short, 2015) opts for good, fast dialog (with the exception of a curious bedtime, Shakespearean-type repartee between Mr. and Mrs. Cheney) and a generous injection of humor . Otherwise Cheney would be just too scary. Perhaps the film is a little too long, a little too verbose, takes too long to get going; the second half is faster, more interesting than the first. But as a whole it is entertaining, and gives a idea of what was going on behind the scenes in the United States government, both before and after 9/11, 2001. Christian Bale as Dick Cheney is as impressive as he is unrecognizable. He grows his character from callow youth, to smoothly accomplished politician answering to some superior officer, to Vice President Richard Cheney, answerable to none. Bale's Cheney is cold, calculating, enigmatic. His face is a mask. He is like a sinister octopus, with tentacles everywhere. Amy Adams is no less formidable as the formidable Lynne, the perfect American wife always standing by her husband, defending him, applauding him, accompanying him. The rest of the cast is little short of outstanding: Steve Carell is Donald Rumsfeld, Sam Rockwell is George W., Lisa Gay Hamilton is Condoleezza Rice, and so on. All are extraordinary. The cinematography by Australian Greig Fraser is efficient and gives an idyllic tinge to the scenes of family life with the Cheneys (making Dick Cheney himself an even more sinister character!). So, VICE for all its shortcomings, its verbosity, its occasional flabbiness, is well worth seeing, both for the outstanding acting and as a social document.

"The Stones And Brian Jones"     Featuring revealing interviews with all the main players and unseen archive released for the first time, "The Stones And Brian Jones" explores the creative musical genius of Jones, key to the success of the band, and uncovers how the founder of what became the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world was left behind in the shadows of history.   "The Stones And Brian Jones" uncovers the true story and legacy of Brian Jones, the founder and creative genius of The Rolling Stones. When Brian Jones left The Rolling Stones in 1969, he had been a burden for a few years. A loose, unpredictable cannon. Jones surely couldn't have imagined that seven years earlier. The guitarist was the founder of the band, in the beginning the indisputable leader and even the main showpiece, although he wasn't the lead singer. But he had charisma and sex appeal to spare. Alcohol and drugs undermined his reliability, however, and by the mid-1960s Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were the creative core of the band. As a schoolboy aged 14, filmmaker Nick Broomfield met Brian Jones, by chance, on a train. Brian was at the height of his success, with the world at his feet, yet just six years later he would be dead. The documentary looks at the relationships and rivalries within The Rolling Stones in those formative years. The Stones and Brian Jones, which is filled to the brim with archival footage, from the problems Jones had with his parents over the many children with various children to his turbulent relationship with Anita Pallenberg. It explores the iconoclastic freedom and exuberance of the 60s, a time of intergenerational conflict and sexual turmoil which reflects on where we're today.   Featuring revealing interviews with all the main players and unseen archive released for the first time, the film explores the creative musical genius of Jones, key to the success of the band, and uncovers how the founder of what became the greatest rock & roll band in the world was left behind in the shadows of history. The Rolling Stones were a major influence in music business. Brian and Mick were heroes of the day, their rebellion and breaking of the rules were a great inspiration to us. The documentary is an opportunity to look at that formative growing up time until the shock of Brian’s death in 1969, the darkest moment in the history of The Stones, when things changed. For decades among the foremost names in documentary (more recently for 'My Father And Me', 'Marianne And Leonard: Words of Love', 'Whitney: Can I Be Me, Tales of The Grim Sleeper'), director Nick Broomfield studied at the National Film School under Professor Colin Young who had a great influence on his work, encouraging participant observation, as well as introducing him to filmmaker Joan Churchill. Together Nick and Joan made several films "Juvenile Liaison", "Tattooed Tears", "Soldier Girls", "Lily Tomlin" as well as "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer". The film is influenced by the observational style of Fred Wiseman, Robert Leacock and Pennebaker, before moving to the more idiosyncratic style.   Written by Gregory Mann

Director: David Leitch (Contains Small Spoilers) Amidst the array of superhero movies this year, Deadpool 2 offers a unique perspective in the genre with its humour, style, and the characterisation of its protagonist. Like the first, Deadpool 2 brings calamity, witty lines, R-rated sequences and dialogue, and the breaking of the fourth wall which made the first film so popular. So how does this film compare to the rest? The Good: Ryan Reynolds. Like the first encounter, Ryan Reynolds plays Deadpool with such ease. Many would find it hard to find another who could play this fun, cheeky anti-hero as well as he does, and it it would seem that the role was made just for him (ignoring his first attempt in Wolverine Origins). After learning that Reynolds half-scripted some of the lines, it is clear he is whole-heartedly devoted to the role and will inevitably keep playing Deadpool if a strong public need still requires him to do so. Domino. Unlike many of the other new characters who were brushed aside, Domino (played by Zazie Beetz) became the latest of likeable badass heroes. What seemed to be an endorsement and extension of female empowerment seen in Black Panther, introducing Domino into Deadpool 2 was a clever move. Her power, being ‘luck’, meant that CGI was not needed (i.e. no power lasers, steel body, etc), but what it did mean was that we got to see cool, fun action and fighting sequences that looked extremely impressive. Although we didn’t learn much about Domino, her presence and involvement was vital in bringing something new and refreshing into the franchise. Action. Loads and loads of action. Action scenes made this film so much fun to watch, and although CGI realism were a hit and miss in some places, overall the fighting scenes were thrilling. Some of the best action scenes involved Josh Brolin as Cable who was superb for a man who just entered his fifties. Also playing Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War, Brolin has had a great year and has made himself more known to a new, younger generation. The Bad: The Storytelling. Like the first, the weakness in Deadpool 2 lies within the storyline and the telling of. In the first instalment we get to see the necessary origin story, but in the final chapter it becomes a mundane adventure of “kill the baddie and save the girl”. In Deadpool 2 the story was slightly more complex, but it never really felt as epic as the storyline may suggest. Deadpool has to save a boy with relentless fire power, A.K.A Firefist, from killing the guy who has been torturing him from a young age. If the boy succeeds in his vengeance then his taste for blood will lead to an apocalyptic future. We know this because the boy is the reason why Cable, a soldier-type ‘villain’, has traveled through time. In the future, Firefist has killed Cable’s family, so to stop this from happening Cable travels to the past with the intent to kill the boy. The problem with the movie is that we don’t really get the sense of what the future looks like with only the movie giving the audience a few second glimpses. If we take X-men: Days of Future Past as another example with a similar storyline, we see and get to explore a dystopian future caused by the actions of one mutant - Mystique. We therefore understand the urgency of what is at stake. But in Deadpool 2, this understanding is non-existent. We don’t even get the chance to know Cable’s family which would have made the audience more sympathetic to him and his cause, and this leads us to the fact that the film suffers from a..... Lack of Emotion/Too Much Humour. Some of the most poignant and memorable scenes were those that were stripped down to its heart. Throughout, Deadpool is in emotional pain due to the loss of his girlfriend. Seeing him meet his girlfriend in the ‘afterlife’ were truly outstanding moments and gave a massive contrast to the ‘over-the-topness’ abundance throughout the film’s entirety. But these scenes were too few for me to really care about him or any other characters. When things did get ‘real’, we really never got the chance to feel what we should be feeling, because Deadpool always had to throw in a quip or jibe. Some of the seriousness of what was actually happening were brushed aside by a joke or some other form of humour: Colossus trying to comfort Deadpool, Firefist’s anger, Cable’s ferocity and intensity, Deadpool’s sacrificial finale, all were extinguished by Deadpool’s whimsy wisecracks. Of course, this is typical of the character, but it prevented the movie from being elevated to more than just your average superhero action film. Introduction to New Characters (Major spoiler here). As fore-mentioned, the introduction to Domino gave the film a breath of fresh air. But there were other characters who were introduced that could have done the same. When Deadpool decides to get a team together to help him on his quest to save the boy, a hilarious sequence of interviews of willing and potential members takes place. Unfortunately for them, apart from Domino, they are all abruptly killed off, so some hardcore comic-book fans may be left disappointed that the film didn’t get to explore other characters such as Shatterstar. For me though, the biggest disappointment was killing Terry Crews. I had no idea he was in this film, and when the film sets up the notion that Terry Crews is a superhero, I got so excited. But he dies within 10 minutes and so my excitement was short-lived. Furthermore, the sequel again invites along the same two X-men characters, but by the end of the film we still really didn’t get an in-depth look at their backstory. Only Colossus seemed to have done something useful (fighting Juggernaut), but what the film doesn’t seem to understand is that Colossus isn’t always made of steel and that he can transform back to his human body, so it would have been interesting to see what his human physical qualities are. The other X-man, Negasonic Teenage Warhead (whose name I had to Google), didn’t really do anything, and I was left still confused about what her powers are. We find out that Negasonic has a girlfriend who also has super powers, but we only get to see a glimpse of what she can do for only a few seconds towards the finale. Then there’s the Juggernaut. Yes, he is definitely an improved version from the Juggernaut in X-men 3, but his CGI look was still too CGI and I would have liked to know more about his story and his background. Instead he was a side character only used to get Colossus, Negasonic and her girlfriend more involved in the movie, as opposed to using a character to progress the story in a meaningful way. So, should you go see Deadpool 2? Sure. It’s definitely an enjoyable movie. Is it great? Not really, especially when you compare it to Avengers: Infinity War, released only a couple of weeks before Deadpool 2. Some might find this comparison to be unfair, but Marvel has set the bar for storytelling, character sympathy, and pure ‘epicness’. If Deadpool is going to continue to involve other super-powered heroes, it needs to develop them and build a rapport between them and the audience. The film also needs to let emotional moments be emotional, and not let humour get in the way of allowing the audience to be more responsive to sentiment. Rating - 6.5/10

I Am a Ghost was directed by H.P Mendoza, which is a name most people have never heard. However, he became popular on the indie film circuit when he wrote a script for the 2006 film Colma: The Musical. Since then, he's been involved with a few films, but the most well-known of them all is I Am a Ghost. Made on an extremely low budget and fiercely hard to get hold of until the widespread availability of online streaming, the film was made popular by its premise - what if the ghost was the one being haunted? However, after the initial excitement of there being something new and innovative out, word of mouth made I Am a Ghost a cult classic. It was spoken about on film blogs by film critics, but it is a film which was very much touted by seasoned horror fans, not an unreasonably large marketing budget.  Emily (played by Anna Ishida) haunts a Victorian house in an unknown time period. She goes about her daily life, minding her own business, until one day she hears a voice that seemingly comes from nowhere. It turns out to be the voice of Sylvia (Jeannie Barroga), a psychic who makes a living exorcising spirits from people's houses. Because of that, Sylvia has to help Emily come to terms with the fact that she's dead and help her move to "the other side." The film cost $10,000 to make, and a lot of that was raised through Kickstarter. I Am a Ghost could never have a mainstream release. It's a film that starts with 15 minutes of near-silence; a loop of scenes, each one with an incredibly small variation. Emily feels restless, and so do we. However, just as the audience is about to give up, the story begins to reveal itself and the film kicks into gear. I Am a Ghost, for its budget, is a remarkably well-made film. The lighting isn't the sharpest (although it is functional), but the sound design is brilliant and there is some very impressive make-up design. In fact, the thing this most reminds me of is David Lynch's brilliant short-film series The Alphabet. This is an extremely experimental film from start to finish, and although it has a short running time of 76 minutes, it is one that rewards concentration and patience. On the surface, it's a ghost story, but the entire basis of the film is effectively a conversation between a therapist and patient, and a young woman's attempts to reconcile with her own death. The best thing about this film - and it's the best thing about all abstract films - is that it perfectly straddles the line between the metaphorical and literal. It also doesn't skimp on the horror elements. The end of I Am a Ghost is dark, gory and threatening, and I think it will satisfy the fans who were expecting something visceral. Horror films this unique and exciting are genuinely rare, and it is one of the most interesting horror films I've seen in years. It's ambitious, daring, experimental, and delivers an emotional and an intelligent payoff. It's available to stream on YouTube for £2.50-£4.50 and is well worth the rental price. If you're a horror fan, do yourself a favour and check this

(Release Info London schedule; Sat May 29, 2021, Curzon Soho, 99 Shaftesbury Avenue, LONDON W1D 5DY, United Kingdom/Sun May 30, 2021, Curzon Victoria, 1.1 mi·58 Victoria Street, LONDON SW1E 6QW, United Kingdom/Mon May 31, 2021, Curzon Bloomsbury 0.9 mi·The Brunswick, LONDON WC1N 1AW, United Kingdom, 11:00 AM) https://www.google.de/search?q=the+killing+of+two+lovers&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgVeLVT9c3NEwrKjQ0tjAw28SkzsXrWlqUX5Cq75Ofl5KfJ8UGoZW4eJl4_ZxEvbex7tNiKs2-wMS4iFWyJCNVITszJyczL10hP02hpDxfISe_LLWoGAApYU7zWgAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYofGNmeLwAhULhf0HHQI2AsEQxyZ6BAgFEAo&biw=640&bih=287#wptab=s:H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgVeLVT9c3NEwrKjQ0tjAw28SkzsXrWlqUX5Cq75Ofl5KfJ8UGoZW4eJl4_ZxEvbex7tNiKs3excTllpmTG5KZnJ1acoGJcRGrcklGqkJ2Zk5OZl66Qn6aQkl5vkJOfllqUbFCcUZ-eUlmbmoxAG2UKhBxAAAA (Release Info UK schedule; June 4th, 2021, Curzon Home Cinema) https://homecinema.curzon.com/film/the-killing-of-two-lovers/ "The Killing Of Two Lovers" Local odd-job handyman David (Crawford) is trying to keep it together. He and his wife, Nikki (Sepideh Moafi), are going through a time of transition and allowing each other space to figure out whats they want from life and from their relationship. But there's one major issue; David doesn’t want space. Forlorn and frayed, the conflicted David is devastated when he learns that there may be another man sharing his wife’s bed. He just wants things to get better, and he plays along with Nikki because he suspects it’s the only thing that may keep them and their four kids together. His reluctant consent allows him to still visit his four children Jesse (Avery Pizzuto), Alex (Arri Graham), Theo (Ezra Graham) and Bug (Jonah Graham), while holding Niki to mandatory date nights in hopes of fixing their marriage. Now living with his Dad (Bruce Graham), his mental health begins to deteriorate and paranoia consumes his sense of hope, forcing him to confront personal demons in order to save his family and future. He's hotheaded, jealous, and terrified of losing his family. An explosive combination in a claustrophobically small town where private lives seem impossible to preserve; leaving him with only one possible solution. In general, people in life are more complex than we paint them out to be. We don’t know if anyone is inherently all evil or inherently all good. There's a complicated aspect of that. It's really exciting the way we approached it. And for David there's no life outside of his family, so he’s trying to wrap his head around how he will even continue if things go south. His job is a means to an end and he even says, 'I wish I could have had the children and stayed home with them'. David is losing his family and trying to figure out how to fight for them while at the same time giving his wife this room that she’s asking for, which is extremely scary for him. Niki is really in love with two people, which is so complicated to understand when you’re told as a young child that you’ll grow up to get married and only love one person. In the film Niki is loving two people and on top of that her career is blossoming, which is something that was unexpected when she took a job just to take a job and then all of a sudden realized she’s really talented and has skills. And for Derek is interested in settling down and that in his mind, he thinks he may be able to be a part of these children’s lives. He’s dealing with the complicated aspect of loving a woman who has children and a husband, but may be willing to take on all these responsibilities for how much he loves Niki. Then you take all these people who've good intentions in this small town environment and it gets incredibly complicated. The three main characters, David, Niki, and Derek (Chris Coy), continually surprise the audience with the duality of their behavior. We all understand betrayal, we all understand sadness, and if you've a child in your life you understand that love is unlike anything else in the world. It's a gift to be a dad and to have an opportunity to show this thing that we've inside of us just naturally. We never know why David and Niki broke up, we find them just as David is beginning to understand that his wife is sleeping with someone else and this is really all happening for him, he may not be at his dad’s for just a brief stint. The most pivotal moments of the film are defined by epic long takes and stunning wide shots. Think about the rocket scene, it’s like a photograph, framed from the position that Niki would be in if she's taking a picture. What this does is allow us to be in the moment and have all the elements within that moment be rooted to that period of time. The rocket scene, again, is a great example of a memory that would occur. What would the kids remember? How would David and Niki remember this argument? And the other aspect with this shooting style is that, when you film longer takes, you don’t allow the audience to relax, you remove the breathing room that multiple cuts often provide. "The Killing Of Two Lovers" is a story about a father going to pick up his kids who gets into an altercation with his wife’s boyfriend. It's about the period of life that we're in right now. We've seen the marriages of several friends and family members end in recent years and it gets us thinking about our male friends who really define themselves as good fathers and enjoy being fathers. Losing the everyday experience of putting your kids to bed, or sitting on the couch and watching TV with them, caused a few of them to start acting out of character, which is so interesting to us; to see the way in which they responded to this aspect of their life change. The film explores this kind of experience through a character like David because that it’s something you don’t understand until it happens to you. It's also about the idea of masculinity and the role it would play in a situation like this, when a man is fighting for his desired life while at the same time trying to respect his partner, which is a complicated thing to explore in-and-of itself. 'Kanosh' is a town of only 300 people, and it’s a tight-knit community, but houses are dying within that town. Every other block there’s a house falling apart. The landscape is perfect as a background for a marriage, because the onset of marriage is always very beautiful, but the nitty gritty is always more complicated and tight. The possibility of having that background against this intimate town while dealing with a failing marriage would be really valuable. Kids like movies, but we like the organic nature of their touch. The way that they climb over each other and the way they comfortably interact with each other, there’s an element of realism that you can’t really get if you cast actual actors in those roles. It allows us all to live free in the moment and to truly buy into the circumstances. The film is.a transfixing drama without a wasted word or a single inessential scene. It's an absolute marvel in execution that combines the naturalistic, languid life of a one-street town with the simmering suspense of a thriller. Each scene of 'Lovers' threatens to explode as it dives deeper into a torn soul just trying to do the right thing.

"Ferrari"     It's the summer of 1957. Behind the spectacle of Formula 1, ex-racer Enzo Ferrari (Adam Driver) is in crisis. Bankruptcy threatens the factory he and his wife, Laura (Penelope Cruz), built from nothing ten years earlier. Their volatile marriage has been battered by the loss of their son, Dino, a year earlier. Ferrari struggles to acknowledge his son Piero (Giuseppe Festinese) with Lina Lardi (Shai lens Woodley). Meanwhile, his drivers’ passion to win pushes them to the edge as they launch into the treacherous 1,000-mile race across Italy, the Mille Miglia.   Passion, ambition, power, the characteristics of Enzo Ferrari racecars came from within the man himself. From the beginning, they began to dominate the competition and fire imaginations worldwide. Born in Modena, Italy, the former racecar driver and team manager formed his own company in 1947. Built with almost no funding, Ferrari’s first car in its sixth race won the Rome Grand Prix. By 1957 the world’s greatest racers were vying for seats in Ferrari’s. Enzo and his wife, Laura, re-invested heavily in the racing division. As a result, by 1957 insolvency was stalking the factory. Meanwhile the tragic death of their only son, Dino, to mluscular dystrophy in 1956 has further shaken their rocky marriage. Dino was their center and future; now gone. Both grieve differently over the devastating loss. Meanwhile, Piero Lardi, Enzo’s son born in 1945 from his liaison with Linda Lardi, now seeks the acknowledgment of his father. Together they constitute a second family of which Laura is unaware until it’s revealed. As crises and revelations converge, Ferrari wagers all on winning one race, the supremely dangerous 1,000-mile race across open roads called the Mille Miglia.   We all know it’s our deadly passion, our terrible joy. But if you get into one of Ferrari cars, and no one is forcing you to take that seat, you get in to win. Enzo Ferrari is one of the most famous, yet inscrutable and complex men of the 20th century. “Ferrari” moves behind the inscrutable image of the iconic Enzo Ferrari. Based on Brock Yates 1991 book 'Enzo Ferrari: The Man, The Car, The Races, The Machine', the film is a character study. There's no equilibrium in his life, and that’s the whole point of Enzo Ferrari, because that’s more like the way life actually is. Ferrari was precise and logical; rational in everything to do with his factory and race team. In the rest of his life he was impulsive, defensive, libidinous, chaotic. The story is not a typical biopic. It seizes on the four months of Enzo Ferrari’s life, in 1957, when all the conflicts and fortunes, the drama of his and Laura and Lina’s lives come into focus. All the hurdles he faced in the mid-1950s, when motorsports was becoming a glamorous, international phenomenon. There's further duality in Ferrari’s life; his wife, Laura, was a woman hardened by struggle, grief, petrified love, and from being a woman involved in a business dominated by men.   An early deal with Ferrari meant that Laura is a 50/50 partner in the Ferrari factory, which became even more complicated when the couple’s personal life became messy and cold, and Laura’s savvy business instincts emerged as one of the few avenues of control she had. The power Laura had over the Ferrari company would anger Enzo, and yet, when his engineering staff once threatened to quit if Laura continued to make production visits at the factory, Enzo fired all of them, the world’s greatest automotive engineers, on the spot, immediately, out of solidarity with Laura. Still, Laura is invested in Enzo’s success and the Ferrari team’s wins on the track. Meanwhile, Enzo met, Lina Lardi, whom he had met in a factory his native Modena, Italy, during World War II, anchored his life. When their son Piero was born in 1945, Lina raised him in Castelvetro. She was a post-war Italian single mother focused on what was right for her child despite his being born out of wedlock at a moment in history, and in a country, that didn’t accept divorce. It's about providing a safe space for her son to feel like he belonged in a world that, during that time, especially in Catholic Italy, told anyone under those circumstances that they didn’t belong.   If Enzo Ferrari’s life was bifurcated into chaos and control, his life with Lina Lardi was a cause for one while embodying a desire for the other. When their affair began during the Second World War, Lardi had been working at a coachbuilding factory in Modena, and as Prime Minister Benito Mussolini’s fascist policies and World War II ravaged Italy, Ferrari and Lardi’s relationship grew. In the disarray of post-war Italy and the hardships that followed, Lardi raised their son, Piero. Lina is a woman at the crossroads of two lives that existed outside of her own, and she was a bit helpless in that situation; all Lina could do was show support and love for her son and the man that she loved. In Lina’s most forthright moment in the film, she confronts Enzo on his hesitancy to acknowledge Piero with his last name (due to Laura’s legal maneuvers and Italian cultural considerations, Piero was not able to be acknowledged as a member of the Ferrari family until after Laura’s death in 1978). The complexities and emotions involved were tumultuous, but Lina’s view is that what matters most is what’s best for Piero, and that has loved by Enzo as his son.   The difficulty of having two families, and two homes, one filled with grief over the loss of a son who hadn’t lived past the age of 24, the other focused on making a 12-year-old boy’s life free from pain and want, crashes into Enzo Ferrari’s pursuit of engineering perfection. He sees all too clearly the risk of losing all he’s built, either to companies like Fiat and Ford who were looking to buy him out, or through personal issues that threatened to overtake his life’s work. In 1957, Ferrari was going broke; the company’s passenger car sales had dwindled as competitors began breaking his cars speed records, making it harder to secure funding. All of that fueled Ferrari’s competitive nature even more. Ferrari would take a huge gamble with the fortunes of his company by entering the 1957 Mille Miglia, the famous 1,000-mile, open-road endurance race through Italy that had begun in 1927. Thirty years after its inaugural race, it was about to collide with a form of blind ambition Ferrari isn’t ready to be accountable for. His aim, going into this dangerous race, is to put together a multigenerational, flashy driving team that would attract financing to keep the Ferrari factory in business, and which would allow Ferrari to maintain control. But the cost would be high.   Moving to the racetrack, chief among the team of drivers surrounding Enzo Ferrari would be Alfonso de Portago (Gabriel Leone), whose horrific crash in the final stretch of Italy’s Mille Miglia, which killed de Portago and nine spectators, would for decades overshadow the legacy of the race and be part of the reason it ended in 1957. Eugenio Castellotti (Marino Franchitti) dies while attempting to reclaim Ferrari’s speed record from Maserati. Sound is also crucial in the de Portago crash sequence. At the moment of impact, the sound almost disappears, leaving a dull, closed-ear vibe to the sounds that follow. The concept is to have the impact noises as the car is plowing into the pole and through the crowd diminish over time. Piero began working with his father in the late 1960s and collaborated with the company’s Formula One teams, as well as in the concept and production process, and other aspects of production. When Enzo Ferrari died in 1988, Piero inherited his father’s stake in the company. Piero served as president of the Ferrari company until 2015.   There's the world of Enzo’s more intimate, domestic life, at home with Laura or in the countryside with Lina, and then there's the world of racing. The former would be a more classically composed aesthetic, while the latter would be filled with visceral, dynamic energy often through handheld camerawork. Italian Renaissance painting is so informed by architecture and the natural light that Italian architecture of that period lends to a space. It’s all this single-source, directional lighting from the windows. As for the color palette, the yellows, oranges, pale greens and terracotta/ochre hues of Northern Italy set the template. The concept is to slash through that palette with the bright, primary red of the cars, signifying aggression and energy in the face of the more austere aesthetic elsewhere in the film. The cars are kinetic, they’re full of agitation. The film wants to show the experience of what it's to drive one of those cars and to be in a tense race, trying to master the forces. It's, by design, a counterpoint to the formality of the dramatic, dialogue-filled scenes. There are incredibly powerful human moments, then we’re roaring around Italy with drivers flirting with death. In so many places around the world, it’s still a very similar situation, working from the shadows and not being acknowledged for what they do, not being valued. It’s as if youve mild chronic pain, only it’s emotional, but it's important for us to see that represented in many ways, but especially physically. Life is asymmetrical. Life is messy. Life is filled with chaos.   Written by Gregory Mann

Those who hear the three bells toll, accept his invitation. When you hear the first, you must close your eyes, keeping words unspoken. If one wants to hear, you must listen closely, for they are soft and distant. I was really curious about this movie. Not that I expected anything spectacular. But the photos with this cult figure, which popped up on the internet, were rather intriguing. Not really scary but mysterious. A faceless figure with disproportionate limbs who appears in the background while observing children playing. A kind of Pied Piper of Hamelin who lures innocent children and makes them disappear. The fact this creation is the result of an internet competition is widely known. I was only curious if this figure would convince in a horror film. Well, it’s not really innovative. You’ll see the same clichés again. And the same stupidities and bad decisions are made by those who are about to become a victim. And the same tricks out of “Horror for dummies” are applied. It’s not so bad. And yet, I didn’t think it was bad. “Slender man” certainly isn’t such a big fiasco as you might think. It isn’t as disastrous as the comments you can read here and there on the internet. It won’t go down in history as one of the most frightening or bloody horrors of all time. And the obscure and dark images creates an appropriate atmosphere but also ensure that you can’t see a damn thing most of the time. But I felt that constant threat and the fear among the four teenage girls. And no, I won’t have panic attacks immediately when hearing the sound of crackling wood. But these sound effects did create a creepy mood. This is a hip demon. Normally I am such a person who whines about the fact that too little background information is given in a film. You are kept in the dark (appropriate for this movies) in terms of the origin and arising of the particular creepy phenomenon. With “Slender Man“, however, I didn’t think this was necessary. It made Slender Man even more mysterious. Summoning malicious demons also isn’t exactly something new. Only recently you could see in “Pyewacket” how a frustrated teenage girl evoked something similar with the help of an occult ritual. And a long time ago, a group of young adults played a tape in “The Evil Dead” which caused Kandarian spirits to ruin everything. In “Slender Man” the cause of all the misery is a video on YouTube. Maybe that fits with today’s time, but perhaps this bothered me the most. They tried to make it too hip. Especially when afterwards this ancient legend also knows about mobile phone technology. They say it might be dangerous. Oh hell, what the heck. Maybe that’s the problem with this movie. They focused more on the continuation of the internet hype and tried to make a modern horror out of it. They lost sight of the concept of a well-thought-out horror. Maybe it fits perfectly with the life the four teenage girls Wren (Joey King), Hallie (Julia Goldani Telles), Chloe (Jaz Sinclair) and Katie (Annalize Basso) lead. A group of carefree teenagers who gained a certain popularity status at school (as seen in so many other Highschool films) and show an everyday affinity with current modern technology. They have more affection for their smartphone than for their fellow students. Yes, they display a kind of arrogance. To such an extent that they simply ignore the warnings for watching the video. Until one of them suddenly disappears and they realize that they might be stalked by this lugubrious figure. Javier Botet. I love this creepy looking actor. Want to know my conclusion in the end? The whole legend created around this Slender Man was much more interesting than the film itself. All in all, it wasn’t original and I didn’t see anything baffling new in this film. But I still found certain scenes successful. Such as the one in the library with the use of a sort of psychedelic footage. And throughout the film, there are more of those hallucinatory passages. Also, I didn’t think the acting was that awful. Ok, sometimes the four girls acted rather childish during meaningless conversations. And yes, some of their decisions were downright stupid. But that suited these young girls. And finally, I also thought the appearance of the mysterious Slender Man was reasonably successful. He blended perfectly with the background so you had this feeling that he could appear at any time. It’s Javier Botet again who has put his peculiar physique at the service to play this nasty character. Just like he did in “Mama“, “Don’t knock twice” and “Mara“. No, “Slender Man” wasn’t disastrous, but seasoned horror fanatics will look at it in a rather condescending way. Beginners, on the other hand, might be afraid this faceless figure will show up. After all, they’ve seen a large part of the illustrious video. Not? My rating 6/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

We have no idea what it was that bit you. It had fingers, Andy! Fuck! If there’s one genre with so many releases that you get tired of it, it’s certainly the zombie genre. I’m sure this kind of movies is made on a daily basis. Movies in which infected undead stumble around, searching for victims, to have a portion of juicy brains. Most movies aren’t very innovative and all known clichés are being used. But occasionally you come across something completely different where they want to give a new direction to the zombie genre. Just like in “Maggie” it’s about a father who wants to protect his daughter. Only, little Rosie (Finlay and Nova Sjoberg) isn’t aware of any threat. It starts off idyllic. The story is set in the Australian bushes (the last Australian zombie flick I have seen was “Wyrmwood“. Also highly recommended). Andy (Martin “The Hobbit” Freeman), his wife Kay (Susie Porter) and their baby-daughter Rosie are quietly riding a dilapidated boat across a river. It seems idyllic and has a high “The African Queen” mood. There’s no indication of a post-apocalyptic situation with humanity again being the victim of a viral outbreak. Until they come across the wreck of a boat. The same stupid decisions over and over again. The only thing that bothered me in this film are the stupid, illogical decisions that were made. It’s understandable that this family can’t go on forever without providing themselves with new food and provisions. Trust me. I would also go and check if there wasn’t anything useful to find on board this boat. But knowing that every moment you can be attacked by a hungry zombie, I would certainly not do this unarmed and without informing the other person. I suppose they are of the same intellectual level because Kay makes the same primal mistake. With all the consequences. Hit the tree instead of the zombie, please. The next stupid fragment announces itself when the family is on the run in an abandoned off-road vehicle. In normal circumstances, you as a driver will try to avoid inattentive crossing pedestrians. You’ll probably perform some neck-breaking maneuvers that are a risk to your own life. But when knowing that the mainland is populated by soulless creatures whose only goal is to take a big bite from any uninfected after they have towed them to a local zombie barbecue, you would rather put the pedal to the metal. But no. Not Andy. He’s so good-hearted that he prefers to crash the all-terrain vehicle against an Australian boab instead of hitting such a creature. But as I said before, these are the only drawbacks in this, for the rest, fascinating and especially emotionally poignant zombie story. Problems in Australia? Ask the Aboriginals for help. The film itself isn’t unnervingly exciting. It shows the self-sacrificing agony Andy undergoes so he can take his daughter to a safe place. Far from the mutated fellowmen and half-wits who do totally crazy things in this chaotic world. Like putting an Aboriginal in a cage after which the target practice can start with zombies, which are lured by fresh meat. Incidentally, it’s the Aboriginals who know how to maintain themselves in this new world. With primitive-looking rituals they succeed in liquidating zombies and plant-based ointment provides protection. It’s also a young Aboriginal girl (Simone Landers) who helps Andy with his trip through the bush and who provides a safe haven. An emotionally touching zombie-flick. Who would have thought that? Frankly, I thought this film was original in many ways. Not only the zombie concept was elaborated in a different way. The transformation is totally different than in a typical zombie movie. Here it’s not only blood and ripped off flesh, but it’s a blubbery, slimy substance that manifests itself during the 48-hour transformation. Also, the phenomenon of zombies with their head in the ground (ostrich-like behavior) was surprising. Was it to shut themselves off from the outside world? Or is it part of the transformation process? No idea. But it was fascinating enough. And finally, the most impressive thing for me personally was the atmosphere that this film radiated. I never thought I would ever watch a zombie movie and get emotionally touched by it. You really have to be a zombie if you don’t want to be moved by this movie. And finally, praise for the admirable acting performance of Martin Freeman. A whole movie he played a leading role and not for a moment I had the feeling he was playing a hobbit. That’s what I call an achievement. My rating 7/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

(Release info London schedule; April 20th, 2018, Empire Cinemas, Leicester Square) "Every Day" Based on David Levithan’s 'New York Times' bestseller, "Every Day" tells the story of Rhiannon (Angourie Rice), a 16-year old girl who falls in love with a mysterious soul named 'A' (Justice Smith) who inhabits a different body every day. Feeling an unmatched connection, Rhiannon and 'A' work each day to find each other, not knowing what or who the next day will bring. The more the two fall in love, the more the realities of loving someone who's a different person every 24 hours takes a toll, leaving Rhiannon and 'A' to face the hardest decision either has ever had to make. Rhiannon is a good 16-year old, she helps out at home, doesn’t cause trouble, and does well at school. However, her family has been struggling, her father Nick (Jake Robards) had a nervous breakdown and stopped working leaving her mother Lindsey (Maria Bello) the pressure of being the sole breadwinner. While her sister Jolene (Debby Ryan) is the wild child who acts out, Rhiannon just wants to help keep her family together. At school things are little better, Rhiannon’s boyfriend Justin (Justin Smith) is the popular athlete, however, he’s also self-centered and takes Rhiannon for granted. That's, until one day when Justin shows up at school acting differently. Suddenly, he’s attentive and curious and sweet. Taken aback and enamoured, Rhiannon suggests they play hooky and steal away to Baltimore. The two take off in Justin’s car, listen to music and sing along, share stories they’ve never shared before, and play at the beach. Rhiannon is surprised to see a softer side of Justin, one that’s playful and unselfconscious. It's a day like they’ve never had before: perfect. Yet the next morning at school, Justin seems back to normal and he barely remembers what they talked about or the day they spent together. Rhiannon is perturbed, but tries to shake it off. By that weekend, though, it’s clear that the Justin who Rhiannon played hooky with isn’t coming back. She tries to recapture that day by playing the song they sang along to at a party, but Justin seems uninterested. It does get the attention of a boy Rhiannon doesn’t know named Nathan (Lucas Zumann), however, who starts dancing wildly and putting on a show to make Rhiannon laugh. Rhiannon joins him on the dance floor and something suddenly seems familiar, but she doesn’t know what. Justin shows up and chases Nathan away and Rhiannon is left with a lingering feeling of 'déjà vu'. A few days later she's contacted by Nathan who says he wants to meet and talk. They arrange a date at a bookstore, but when Rhiannon shows up Nathan isn’t there. Instead, she meets Megan (Katie Douglas), who says she's there on Nathan’s behalf. Yet when Rhiannon and Megan begin to talk, Megan explains that she in fact is someone named 'A'. That weekend at the party 'A' was Nathan, and the day at the beach 'A' was Justin, because 'A' is a bodiless spirit who wakes up inhabiting a different person every day, for just twenty-four hours. Always someone 'A’s' age, always someone close to the last, never the same person twice. Rhiannon is naturally disbelieving at first, until 'A' manages to make contact with her a few more times over the next few days and eventually proves they are telling the truth. What follows is an extraordinary love story that transcends external appearances and physical limitations. A love story about loving someone truly and completely for who they're in their heart and soul, regardless of what's on the outside. The Rhiannon who we meet at the beginning of the film is living a fairly conventional life, albeit being the rock of her destabilized family. A nice girl, a good friend, a solid student, Rhiannon is dating the popular boy at school, though she doesn’t feel very connected to him or much appreciated. She’s playing all the parts she feels she should play at the expense of her own self-discovery. Especially when we’re young we tend to be defined by our relationships. In the beginning of the story, Rhiannon is Nick’s daughter, Jolene’s sister, Justin’s girlfriend. As a result of her father’s breakdown, the whole family is in stasis. Their family has been fractured and they haven’t figured out how to move past it. These things are standing in the way of her freedom to grow. And what we see in the movie is that her interactions with 'A' broaden her perspective and give her space to find herself. She and everyone around her are all seeing each other not for who they're, but for who they think they should be, which is pretty common. Another important part of Rhiannon’s journey is learning to see and accept those around her, and she then shares that perspective with her family. In the beginning of the film we’re introduced to Rhiannon’s boyfriend Justin. Justin is the popular athlete at school and he takes Rhiannon for granted. He's kind of oblivious to other people’s feelings though. He thinks a lot about himself and his own needs and when he doesn’t get those needs met, he gets frustrated and easily irritated. But one day Justin wakes up, promptly examines his hands, takes his bearings and heads off to school. On this day Justin is not himself, he has been inhabited by 'A'. Rhiannon can tell something’s off with Justin, yet soon suggests they play hooky and head off for adventure. What follows is 'A" and Rhiannon’s first date, driving and listening to music, hanging at the beach, and talking and sharing more than Justin and Rhiannon ever have. 'A' falls for Rhiannon that afternoon and, without knowing it, Rhiannon falls for 'A', too. The next day at school, Justin doesn’t seem to really remember this day that was so special to Rhiannon. We've this character 'A' who's an entity who inhabits a different body every day for 24 hours and so in the film is portrayed by fifteen different actors. Several of the actors who play 'A' in the story play a character in Rhiannon’s life as well, so each actor has to both differentiate between when they're their main character versus when they're inhabited by 'A', as well as supporting a single, clear character for 'A'. It’s quite complex. In motion pictures, you've twenty-four still frames in a second and when they’re run together your brain compensates and creates the fluid motion connecting the frames. There's an intermittent motion effect happening in this movie in which the film asks the audience to bridge the gaps and perceive 'A' as a fluid and consistent character. That maturity and depth coming from the eyes becomes a big part of the throughline for 'A' and makes the character feel whole. Jolene’s pretty sassy and sarcastic. But her relationship to Rhiannon is really important to both of them. They’re cut from opposite cloth and they've responded to the family situation really differently, Rhiannon by trying to hold everyone together, Jolene by going a bit off the rails. She’s tough and aggressive but she has good intentions. And she's one of the few people in Rhiannon’s world who's pushing her to demand more for herself. In 2012, young adult author David Levithan published a book that pushed him to new creative heights. It resonated so deeply with his readers that it spent months on 'The New York Times' bestseller list and spawned online chat groups, fan art and writing. That book was 'Every Day'. Ask any teenager or parent of a teenager if they’ve heard of 'Every Day', and not only will they know it, they’ll most likely have read it and passed it on to a friend. The story of a teenage entity named only 'A', who wakes up every day in a different body. "Every Day" deals with the challenges faced when 'A' falls head over heels in love with Rhiannon, a girl unlike anyone they’ve ever met. Can you've a relationship with a soul who inhabits a different body every day, sometimes boy, sometimes girl, sometimes the school quarterback, sometimes the outcast? Who are you removed of your body, your race, your clothes, your family? The story is the actualization of the old adage that we should love someone for who they're on the inside, all the more powerful because it's set during the teenage years when we customarily try on and experiment with myriad external identities in an effort to figure out we're. Levithan’s book explores all these themes, but fundamentally it’s a story about true love, growing up, and the lengths we’ll go for those we care about. This is about not being defined by your body, or externally imposed ideas of who you're, but by who you really are. What does it really mean to love the inner person devoid of the external? The book is a juggernaut, clearly resonating with young people the world over, and taking Levithan on tours to visit high school and college students across North America. There’s a freedom in what 'A' is that’s really interesting to explore, and that’s creates a lot of great side conversations about gender and race and the binaries that society is built on, but that we can choose to step out of if we want. The book challenges gender presumptions in a way that's as entertaining as it's unexpected and, perhaps most important, that's relatable to teens who may not think they need sensitivity training when it comes to sexual orientation and the nature of true love. His name is 'A'. Every day he wakes up in a different body. Always someone his age, never too far from the last person, never the same person twice. He has no control over any of it. He doesn't know why it happens, or how. He knows what makes each person different and what makes everyone the same. He has seen the same color blue look fifty different ways with fifty different pairs of eyes. Every day of his life, he wakes up and just try to live that day, for that person. Make no mark, leave no trace. In the film, we've 15 actors playing 'A' and the film unites those characters in one coherent arc. By making Rhiannon the protagonist and following her journey as she meets 'A' and learns about who 'A' is, the audience gets grounded in her experience, and projects into her relationship with 'A', which gives us an entry point into the more fantastical and magical idea in the story. To fill out Rhiannon’s world, the film gives her a family backstory that didn’t exist in the novel. Rhiannon’s father is recovering from a nervous breakdown and not working, her mother is the sole breadwinner, her sister Jolene is a bit of a wild child, and Rhiannon is the rock trying to hold everything together. When we meet Rhiannon she has a real desire for normalcy but she's also somewhat stuck and unable to fully discover herself because her focus is on supporting her family. This is the foundation from which she takes off on this incredible journey. A great love story is timeless and remains one of the most satisfying cinematic genres. On the one hand the book very simple, the embodiment of loving someone for who they really are, while also being very complex in how it addresses a lot of issues in the lives of young people today. The results something really extraordinary about manifesting that in a character who literally has to walk in someone else’s shoes every single day. The profoundness of that and the magic of that just grabs people and inspires awe. Beyond exploring the most universal themes of true love, identity and coming of age, "Every Day" also reflects very contemporary ideas about acceptance and the freedom to be whoever you're, a particularly resonant idea for young people right now who increasingly reject categorization. It's such a commonplace and simple piece of advice, that you should appreciate someone for what's on the inside, and not judge them by external appearances. Yet it's also true that what seems simplest on the surface can often end up being the hardest thing. In the end, the question of who we're at the core, without body, gender, any external identifiers that all, is not so simple to answer. Equally, at first look "Every Day" is a charming, funny, and smart coming-of-age story about the ups and downs of true love and growing up. But dig a little deeper and there’s more. This movie is a love story, but there's so much more, it's a coming-of-age story, it's a story about family love, it's a story about loving someone so much that you choose to do the difficult thing, and it’s a magical story. It's a total swoon. This story will have resonance at this amazing time we're in where a generation seems to be turning away from black and white definitions around identity, which is such an exciting thing.