Search Results

(Release Info London schedule; September 7th, 2018, Electric Cinema, 64 - 66 Redchurch, 18:15) "The Seagull" One summer at a lakeside Russian estate, friends and family gather for a weekend in the countryside. While everyone is caught up in passionately loving someone who loves somebody else, a tragicomedy unfolds about art, fame, human folly, and the eternal desire to live a purposeful life. The estate is owned by Sorin (Brian Dennehy), a retired government employee, and his sister Irina (Annette Bening), a legendary actress of the Moscow stage. Irina is imperious, narcissistic and selfish, and anxious about holding on to her star status and the affections of her younger lover, Boris Trigorin (Corey Stoll), a successful writer of short stories. Irina constantly belittles her aspiring writer son Konstantin (Billy Howle), perhaps because his existence as a grown man reminds her that age is catching up with her. While he adores his mother despite her cruelty, Konstantin acts out his insecurity and anger by rejecting both her style of theatre and Boris’s writing, declaring them old-fashioned and banal. A dreamer, Konstantin declares he will create bold and superior new forms of theatre and literature. Konstantin, who grew up on the estate, is head over heels in love with Nina (Saoirse Ronan), a beautiful and naïve local girl who dreams of being an actress. Nina is flattered when Konstantin gives her the starring role in his newly written play, but soon after encountering Boris, she rejects Konstantin, and pursues the handsome and famous writer instead. Masha (Elisabeth Moss), the forlorn, black-clad, self-medicating daughter of Sorin’s estate manager Shamrayev (Glenn Fleshler) and his wife Polina (Mare Winningham), suffers an unrequited love for Konstantin, who insensitively spurns her. She scorns the insipid schoolteacher Medvedenko (Michael Zegen), who refuses to be discouraged by her rejection and accepts any crumbs of attention she drops him. Polina aches for the charismatic country doctor Dorn (Jon Tenney), who, pays her some attention, but still relishes the connection with Irina with whom he had an affair years ago. The elderly Sorin, long past any hope of romance, lives in a languid state of regret over roads not taken. Adapted from Anton Chekhov’s classic play "The Seagull" explores, with comedy and melancholy, the obsessive nature of love, the tangled relationships between parents and children, and the transcendent value and psychic toll of art. The story of “The Seagull” follows the tangled relationships of a group of people who assemble at a provincial lakeside estate and farm owned by Sorin, a retired civil servant and his sister, Irina, a celebrated Moscow stage actress. Irina and her younger lover, Boris, a successful writer, have come to watch a play written and directed by Irina’s son Konstantin and performed by his girlfriend Nina, who lives nearby. Desperate to get out of his mother’s shadow and win her love, Kontantin acts out by attacking her and Trigorin’s work as lifeless and old-fashioned. His abstract and symbolistic play, which he sees as a higher form of theatrical expression, is rejected as pretentious by his mother, and as impenetrable by Trigorin. Even his beloved star, Nina, is unimpressed by the work, and soon her affections drift from Konstantin to Trigorin. Despite everything, Irina is fully human because you can see all of the pain and the fear and the vulnerability there. She’s also incredibly funny. Almost against your will, you enjoy and appreciate the wit of her cruelty. Irina is a passionate woman who's trying to get every last drop out of life that she possibly can. She’s always trying to move toward joy and love and connection, but she doesn’t always get there. She didn’t achieve the stature that she wants. That’s part of what all of us who are trying to do something creative live with; how long will I get away with this, and is there something that’s gonna come up and take everything away? She feels good about herself until her son attacks her and then suddenly that part of her that's wondering where it’s all gonna go suddenly roars to the front of her consciousness and she’s confronted with her own vulnerability. She feels threatened and so she lashes out. Konstantin has been starved of his mother’s attention his whole life, as her first love has always been the theatre. He has genuine talent, however his ego has been damaged beyond repair. Irina will never take him seriously as an artist or a peer. Konstantin starts to do what a lot of young artists who aren’t recognized do, he denigrates the world that has rejected him. He wants to create new forms and make a new theater that has nothing to do with his mother. He's deeply in love with her and also hates her with great vehemence. As for Irina, that like all actresses, she wants to hang on to her youth for as long as possible, and as long as she has a 20-something son hanging around her, then she’s older in the eyes of that community. And now that Irina’s second love, after the stage, is unquestionably Boris, Konstantin channels his frustration with his mother into hatred of her lover. Boris Trigorin isn’t quite 40 and is already famous and wealthy and successful as an artist, so to Konstantin, he poses even more of a threat. He has an almost compulsive need to observe and filter that observation to language. He’s got this detachment, this desire to break outside of that detachment and just be a part of the world. A lot of tension in him is his inner fight between wanting to really participate in his life and in the world, and wanting to retreat from it. Nina is the daughter of a wealthy neighbor who has remarried and disowned her financially and emotionally. She enjoys coming to Sorin’s house, appearing in Konstantin’s play, performing in front of his glamorous mother and the famous writer Boris Trigorin. This starts her fantasizing about the possibility of becoming an actress like Irina. Nina is a bit of a dreamer. She’s someone who's stuck in one place and yearns for something different. To her, like a lot of people, acting and the theater offer something exciting and new. She seems full of life, but Nina is a sad girl, actually. Boris’s desire for a renewed engagement with life is stirred when he encounters the brimming youthfulness of Nina. He feels attractive in a way that Irina never could make him feel. He has something to say, and he’s not familiar to her, so that mystery that he has excites her. And of course he can make that dream of acting come true for her. Infatuated with Nina, Boris approaches Irina and asks her to set him free. He’s convinced it’s going to be easier than it turns out to be. He's shocked at the level that she humiliates herself and begs him. He makes his argument with such reason and kindness. There’s no cruelty in it. Of course, it’s deeply cruel in the way that we've to be with each other sometimes. Boris’s request reveals Irina’s true fragility in a more stark way than any other time in the film. Her power is perforated by the potential loss of Boris. But then you watch her will her power back and manipulate him to stay. It's a defining moment of who this woman is. Boris gives in easily, but his assent may be less than meets the eye. He's supremely conflict averse. He gives in, but then twenty minutes later he’s making arrangements to meet Nina. He desires a life where he can be completely honest, but that’s just not available to him. Masha is the black-clad, snuff-taking, heavy drinking daughter of Sorin’s estate manager Shamrayev and his wife Polina. Masha is the most modern of the characters. She’s a real badass. She can be angry and stubborn one minute, and then the next dissolve into tears, and then make a joke. There’s something wonderfully Bette Davis about her. But at the same time she’s the most self-aware character in the play. She has accepted that she’s not going to be happy; that’s just the way things are gonna go. The main reason for Masha’s sadness is that she's helplessly in love with Konstantin, who won’t give her the time of day. She's miserable because she does believe in love, and does believe in true love, and knows it’s not gonna happen for her. At the same time, Masha brushes off the schoolteacher Medvedenko, in a way not altogether different from the way Konstantin treats her. She sees this man who she doesn’t believe is as smart as her, and she cannot respect him because of that. Medvedenko has done something completely unforgiveable, which is that he isn’t Konstantin and he never will be. Sorin has spent his life working in a government office and now, with his health fading, pines over the paths he didn’t take in his life. Sorin is kind and wise, a good friend to Konstantin. "The Seagull" is something that gradually deepens into an increasingly complex metaphor as the story unfolds. We first encounter it when Konstantin literally shoots a seagull. Konstantin is mortified that his play didn’t go over well; and so devastated by Nina’s preference for Boris over him, that he shoots a seagull and lays it at Nina’s feet as a demonstration of how depraved she has made him. Later, after Boris and Nina have spent an afternoon on the lake, Boris comes up with an idea for a story; a young girl who has spent her whole life on the shore of a lake, a lake that she loves, where she feels happy and free like a seagull. And by chance, a man comes along, and with nothing better to destroys her. While Nina doesn’t hear the last words of Boris’s story idea, when she returns to the house years later, she refers to herself as a seagull. By that point, she has completely fallen apart. She’s gone mad. In her mania, she connects her situation to the seagull that Konstantin shot. It's such a careless act in the hands of a man and she feels that a similar thing has happened to her. That’s the only sort of scenario she can use to make sense out of what happened to her. But Nina doesn’t just call herself a seagull; instead she alternates back and forth between calling herself a seagull and an actress. She’s been told so many different things about herself, that she doesn’t quite know what to believe, but she’s very good at holding onto hope, and that’s what keeps her going. Everything she has to hold onto now is this dream that she has and the purity of that. She’s trying to remind herself that she’s got a purpose other than to be that girl that Boris destroyed or that seagull that Konstantin shot. She’s still got a spark, she’s still alive, and she still has a purpose; the hard work and craft of acting. In October of 1895, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, a doctor and popular Russian writer of short stories and novellas, began work on a play. His previous theatrical work, 'The Wood Demon', had been so roughly panned by critics that he had previously declared he would never write anything for the stage again. When “The Seagull” opened in 1896, the naturalistic style of his writing was so contrary to the melodramas of the time that the first night was a legendary debacle. The play was trying to do something surprising and new; to show people behaving in naturalistic ways, to eschew histrionics and telegraphed emotions for something more nuanced; to allow the actors to truly live inside the characters they were playing, and to introduce the concept of subtext to world drama. It's life itself onstage, with all it's tragic alliances, eloquent thoughtlessness and silent sufferings. Chekhov didn’t live to see cinema emerge as an important global art form. He would never know how significant his contribution to writing and acting would be. The sort of everyday life that is accessible to everyone and understood in it's cruel internal irony by almost no one. It’s a comedy with three female roles, six male roles, four acts, a landscape, much conversation about literature, little action, and five tons of love. The audience talked loudly and jeered the play, rattling the actress who played Nina so much that she lost her voice. In the first act something special started, and a mood of excitement in the audience seemed to grow and grow By the third act the booing was so intense that Chekhov fled the theatre and retreated backstage. The critics savaged the play. Today he's universally recognized as one of the greatest and most influential playwrights in history. 'The Seagull' is a game-changer. You would be hard-pressed to find a drama scholar today who doesn’t think that it marked the beginning of what we call modern drama. No one had even attempted this kind of psychological naturalism. It's a new way of showing behavior that seems very contemporary to an audience now. The camera can capture subtle gradations of emotion and experience in ways that are impossible to do in theater. Cinema can control time differently, and the viewer can experience the actions and reactions of characters in a very particular order. The yearning for love, yearning for connection, yearning for immortality, trying to figure out what it means to live a full life; these are central questions for human beings. "The Seagull" doesn’t necessarily give answers but it asks the question; how do we live our lives? The film remains relevant to audiences for over a century because some things, like the contradictory way human beings feel and behave, never really change. Most of us don’t live on estates with servants. The actual moment to moment reality of the story is not what our every day contemporary life looks like. But our own relationships have in are experienced in very much the same way, and that’s what makes the play, and the film resonant. All of the feelings that the characters have insecurity, fear, hope, longing, and unrequited love; these are human, timeless. These characters express a huge range of emotions. The severe narcissism of Irina; the tragic consequences of irresponsible adult behavior and it's impact on youth are particularly relevant right now. The fact that Nina comes to understand that it’s not about fame, but it’s about endurance, is a huge lesson in life. The film reminds us of the value of art and dreams and how they can elevate one’s experience of the world. It's about love and that’s the subject in which we’re all the most interested in the end. If you’ve ever fallen in love, or had your heart broken, or fallen into a misguided passionate romance, it’s very easy to get swept up in the story of "The Seagull". We’re so capable of such generous behavior towards each other, and such terrible, awful behavior towards each other, and we so easily fall in love with the wrong people. The film shows the glory and the messiness of what it means to be a human being.

I call upon you, brought by leaves and seeds. Hear with my ears and speak with my tongue. I invite you to come. Pyewacket. If you’ve already read one of my reviews, you’d know I enjoy a low-budget, independent film occasionally. A film where you already know in advance that the special effects won’t be mindblowing. And also, mostly unknown actors are summoned. That doesn’t mean these films are unwatchable because of the amateurish camerawork. Nor is it that the acting is extremely bad. On the contrary. I’ve already enjoyed such creative, non-mainstream experiments. I also enjoyed “Pyewacket“. A simple horror story (even though you can discuss whether or not it’s a horror) in which black magic and satanism are the cause of a lot of misery. Yes. Again a cabin in the woods. You might have second thoughts about the impulsive behavior of Leah (Nicole Muñoz) who, after yet another dispute with her mother, goes into the forest and armed with a book about occultism and a few attributes performs an ancient ritual. A ritual to summon the evil spirit Pyewacket who might ensure Leah getting rid of her annoying mother (Laurie Holden). The fact that her mother might go through a difficult emotional phase, isn’t something Leah realizes. Leah being sorry afterward and suddenly noticing that her mother isn’t so bad after all. Well, I can relate to that. Who hasn’t been mad at his parents once, after the umpteenth discussion about random insignificant things? Soon Leah realizes that something dark and threatening is wandering around their cabin in the woods. Not scary and misleading. The film itself isn’t really frightening. There are some apparitions, a scared friend who wants to go home after sleeping over one night and a feeling of threat at certain moments. But you have to be really patient for that. Originality is also a term that doesn’t fit with this film. Once again the teenagers in this movie prefer alternative music with the accompanying black clothes and hairstyle. Archetypes that are often used in such films. The fact that some kind of expert shows up to explain it all and gives occult advice, is also nothing new. The strength of the film is its misleading character. I do like films where you have doubts about the true nature of the event. Is the malignant spirit effectively present? Or is it just a fantasy of Leah? Or is she emotionally unstable so she sees things? Stay away from things you’re not an expert in. In retrospect, I found that “Pyewacket” was really worth a watch. Not only because of the subject being used. But also because of the sometimes excellent acting of Nicole Muñoz. And to a lesser extent that of Laurie Holden. Muñoz her anger and regret felt sincere. More than that of Holden. And despite the fact that the creepy content is of a low level, I thought the dynamic in this movie was extremely successful. No, it’s not an extraordinary movie. The only thing one should remember is never to engage in things one doesn’t know anything about. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Scott Pilgram Vs The World is a Edgar Wright cult classic starring Michael Cera as Scott Pilgrim, a loser who plays base for a band started in a living room with some friends. Now off the cuff nothing really special about what I’ve just described right? Wrong, upon first view, the opening credits hints at exactly what type of movie you are about to watch. We are introduced to Scott (24 yrs) via a highly inappropriate romantic relationship with 17 year old school girl Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). She seems to adore Scott and his friends comment of his decision to date a high school girl following his previous failed relationship, we’ll speak on that later. As the opening scene introduces us to his band (Sex Bob-omb) we witness the stylistic choice Edgar Wright chooses to use for this film. Based off a comic of the same name by Bryan Lee O’Malley, Wright emphasises on comic style imagery, scene transitions and character direction to make it feel as if you were reading a comic book rather than watching a film. As mentioned earlier, the opening opening scene transitions from sex bob-omg simply rehearsing one of their songs into it being the theme song for the opening credits. I am a big fan of Wright’s direction style with his filmography including some of my all time favourite movies (Cornetto Trilogy, Attack the Block), but on this occasion I truly believe he was able to find a perfect balance of comedy with total insanity. The premise of this movie is Scott who is currently in a relationship with Knives meets Ramona Flowers, a delivery girl with a weird taste in hair dye, he becomes infatuated with her and ultimately woo’s her with his strange ways. Unbeknown to him, Ramona has 7 exes, and in order for Scott to truly be with her, he must overcome them, via combat. As Scott encounters all 7 exes, he is faced with having to dig deep and find something within himself to overcome each obstacle. The film follows the narrative in from the comics, with Scott having to fight both male and female exes, and the fight scenes are styled as if you were playing a fighting game like Tekken or Street Fighter, with Scott earning points for combos, there being a consistent trend of someone shouting ‘Fight’ prior to the beginning off every bout and Scott earning a reward if when he defeats each opponent. Wright is able to fuse the comical elements, expertly delivered by Cera, with the dramatic plot of Scott’s fascinations with Ramona, the first fight includes a sing and dance number, something that would seem preposterous on paper but turned out great and fitted with the narrative of the insane world Scott has been thrown into. At first all that is happening seems to confuse Scott and he shows no seriousness towards what is happening, but as he begins to understand that in order for him to get his girl, this is what he must do, we begin to see a shift in Scott from a goofy character to one determined to win at all costs. The film starts to slow a little bit towards the middle of the second act , in which Scott has to fight a movie star, a lesbian ex lover, a super hero vegan, twins who happen to be DJ’s and the final ex Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman). Some would ask what exactly it is about Ramona that makes Scott willing to go so far to get her, and from their on screen chemistry, it doesn’t exactly scream comparable. Ramona is often very introverted, mild mannered and quiet, the contrast of Knives, not Scott’s ex, who is outspoken, animated and naive to say the least. This decision to have both women in Scott’s life be the antithesis of each other is a ploy used by the screenwriter to explore Scott’s mental state, dos he want to stay a child, living a stone’s throw away from his childhood home, sharing a mattress with his best friend or does he want to ‘grow up’ an repeated rhetoric lambasted at him by his sister and close friends? This film examines at what point we all must develop an inner monologue about who we are and set standards for ourselves as we look to grow and develop as individuals. By the end of the movie, Scott is tasked with facing the final ex and the ‘Boss Villian’ in gaming terms, Gideon Graves. Graves has somehow been able to manipulate Ramona into dumping Scott and and returning to him, along with signing Sex Bob-Omb (minus Scott) to play for him. It seems like Scott is lower than ever, but the third act delivers Scott’s redemption as he able to harness not the power of ‘Love’ (He tried that and had to restart the level, another game reference), but the power of ‘Self respect’. At the end of the movie and comics Scott ends up with none other than Knives, as he comes to understand that although their relationship may have seemed inappropriate on first glance (Age difference), Scott was enjoyed being with her, he enjoyed quoting obscure facts nobody cared about, he enjoyed playing video games with her and he loved the fact she cared so much about his ambitions to be part of a great band. Whereas, with Ramona it was just an obsession with a girl he had no real connection or compatibility with. Scott Pilgram Vs The World poses that same question to the viewer, are you someone willing to stick with something that might seem inconvenient to you at the time or are you willing to sacrifice your happiness for what you would perceive as a more overtly satisfying relationship in which compatibility is out of the question? The witty dialogue and comedic moments shine at the hands of Edgar Wright and for me its no surprise this film in the last 7 years has build a massive cult following. Although not a smash in the domestic box office, racking in just over $31M from a $85M budget, it has since garnered the acclaim it rightly deserves with many praising Wright for his forward thinking and stylistic decisions. I would suggest giving this movie a watch with some friends and can guarantee a laugh, if not a cheer for our nerdy protagonist. Check out the trailer for Scott Pilgrim Vs the World below.

After having hearing only the good stuff about the fan film with Nathan Fillion, known as the actor born to play Nathan Drake of the 'UNCHARTED' game series, I had finally come to submit to my own curiosity. The film is 14 min long, and features Nathan Fillion of 'Firefly' and 'Castle' fame (his immense popularity within fandom-community not withstanding) takes on a well fitted role of Nathan Drake, a known explorer, historian and thief in style of Indiana Jones, but funnier. Nathan, along with his long time partner in crime, Sully, are once again on a hunt for yet another sea-fairer treasure - with Drake once again finding himself captured by an opposing side, needing to get out of the situation with secrets and himself in tact. Right off the bat I can say that the production value, is very much in tact. Yes, you can see hole in the budget - the security guards are remarkable in their non existent acting and every now and then the set is a bit bare - and yes, the secondary roles are incredibly stiff in their delivery. However, the editing is crisp. It is Clear. It is artistic and yet not painful, for example character reveal of Drake is both typical but not obnoxious. I did not feel like shouting "I know whom he is!", as I usually do with these type of cuts. When the sets do have significant to the story, they are well lived in and have good attention to detail, as far as props are concerned. The one action scene (a staple of the games) is done both in the spirit of the games but in Drake himself. Nathan Fillion, true to form, does a great job filling the shoes of Drake as the character, as well as North Nolan, the actor voicing him in the Naughty Dog series. Steven Lang off 'Avatar' and 'Don't Breath' is both character accurate in bringing Sully into live action, yet spicing him with his own on-screen charisma. The same cannot, I repeat CANNOT be said for the secondary characters! The secondary acting painful to sit through, and the corresponding info-dump is not helping the situation. At all. Except for El Tigre. El Tigre is awesome. But, in full seriousness unless you are an actor yourself, I don't know weather you would notice in the first place. Let me know, because I honestly don't have a clue. Finally, my evaluation of the motion picture: The film is well maid, well edited and well shot. The principal actors are delivering their characters and their line delivery, the action is well done (considering the budget) and the throwback to the game play is well welcomed. Also, it's for free on YouTube. I'd say it is well worth 14 minutes of you life. Especially if you love 'UNCHARTED', or Nathan Fillion. Final verdict: watch it, it's for free. UNCHARTED - Live Action Fan Film (2018) Nathan Fillion You can fins this on: YouTube

„Alice, Darling“ /01/20/23/ Genesis Cinema, 93-95 Mile End Rd, Bethnal Green, London E1 4UJ, United Kingdom, 15:20 · 17:50 Rio Cinema, 107 Kingsland High St, London E8 2PB, United Kingdom, 17:15 "Alice Darling" Alice (Anna Kendrick) in a woman pushed to the breaking point by her psychologically abusive boyfriend, Simon (Charlie Carrick). While on vacation with two close girlfriends, Alice rediscovers the essence of herself and gains some much-needed perspective. Slowly, she starts to fray the cords of codependency that bind her. But Simon’s vengeance is as inevitable as it's shattering, and, once unleashed, it tests Alice’s strength, her courage, and the bonds of her deep-rooted friendships. When the audience first encounters Alice, she's fully in denial about her fraught relationship with her boyfriend Simon and how damaging it's. Her slow burn realization of the harm it's doing to her and her participation in that reveals itself over time, but at first, it's a mystery, to the audience and to the character. When we meet Alice, she doesn’t really know who she's all. It's actually a really bizarre character to play because the whole point is that she’s sort of lost herself, and that everything in her focus, all her energy, is going toward being kind of small and flexible and to manage her partner’s potential reactivity. And the sense that if she’s just a little bit better, if she's just perfect, everything will be okay. That mindset slowly creeps in, and, before she knows it, she doesn’t recognize yourself. Only when she's with her close friends does Alice have a little more room to breathe. It’s interesting because she’s resistant to that at first, if she fully recognizes and accepts herself and then returns to her partner, she will be in serious trouble, and her carefully constructed if self-sabotaging world will come apart. Alice’s very different public and private demeanor offers existential clues into Alice’s authentic self, even when Alice is not quite aware or willing to accept who that's. This character seems fine on the surface, but obviously, you've little windows into her. A lot of the times that she’s in the bathroom, obsessively twirling and pulling her hair, it's clear she's in great distress about something. So how do you bring that out in a subtle way that tells you what’s happening inside the character? Alice presents as successful and secure, beloved by her boyfriend, her friends, herself. But slowly the enigmatic, self- destructive fissures appear, even as Alice refuses to address her mysterious downward spiral. She refuses to admit or confront it. Façade is all. We're with her, in her emotional perspective. The audience, like Alice, experiences the symptoms but not the root cause. But in this case, as in so many in real life, the character isn’t fully aware of what’s happening to her because it isn’t overt and because there’s a lot of gaslighting happening. The cause is a mystery, as much to her as to the audience; in many ways, Alice is an unreliable narrator. The literal and emotional journey of Alice, especially her complicated, inner turmoil that she cannot articulate but reveals in often self-sabotaging ways. There's a world where we understand that Simon will never change. He will leave this movie telling everyone he knows, ‘Yeah. I dated this girl who was crazy. She turned off her phone. I didn’t know where she was. I went to find her and her friends ganged up on me'. This is the sort of abuse that's very much under the surface but still very present and toxic and it's all too common, if not discussed or recognized fully. The hidden nature of Alice’s relationship with her boyfriend, Simon; his controlling, manipulative behavior; and Alice’s willingness to keep the by peace by accepting blame that doesn’t belong to her. Alice, incapable of facing her issues, sublimates and acts out her suffering in increasingly alarming and mysterious ways. Her polar opposite is her friend Sophie (Wummi Mosaku), a clear-eyed, emotionally centered warm soul with an altruisticr heart. She's the proof. People, but especially women, have a really hard time trusting that what they’re feeling is real and that there’s a temptation to show really overt acts or scenes that make you really understand that, okay, what’s happening is wrong. But that's not how it plays out all the time. To trust that the audience would come along with one character’s perception, flawed, personal and complex as it's, that being enough, is scary. Sophie is someone who's filled with love and enthusiasm, and she wants joy to surround the people that she loves and she just tries her best to do that, whether it’s through like baking or like hiking and kayaking or fireworks she plans for Tess’s (Kaniehtiio Horn) birthday. She wants people to feel loved and happy. It’s no accident that she works for a nonprofit! She's someone who accepts people for who they're, and doesn’t try and change them. Tess is loyal, bighearted, forthright, mischievous, blunt, kind, sometimes judgmental but ultimately forgiving. Tess is a brilliant artist but she’s not raking in the cash or the notices, in contrast with Simon, who's very successful. Tess has all of the best intentions. But we don’t think that she knows how to vocalize her feelings with sensitivity. She's brash and doesn’t exactly think before she speaks. Tess says what's on her mind and deals with the consequences later. And, in this case, her feelings about Simon and her best friend Alice are also influenced by where she's in her career, but ultimately it's motivated by her deep love for Alice. Honesty without compassion is brutality. Compassion without honesty is enabling. They haven’t figured out how to be compassionate and honest, Sophie for sure, and Tess definitely hasn’t figured out how to be honest with compassion. They're all in a transitional time, in their early 30s and going through their personal growth as people and friends and figuring out how to navigate all of it. The characters, their emotional and literal journey is recognizable and, unfortunately, in terms of Alice and her issues with her boyfriend, and her struggle to reconcile those with herself and her childhood friends. The film tells the story from the emotional point of view of the characters, particularly Alice, so audiences experience her self-destructive habits/reactions to her deep despair and low self-esteem as she does, not entirely sure from whence this comes because she isn’t capable of addressing her underlying angst. A particularly telling and disturbing routine is her incessant hair twisting and yanking of strands, a small but alarming physical manifestation of her inner turmoil. There's also something to the literal journey Alice and her friends take, from city to bucolic countryside, this change of scenery and vibe ultimately liberates Alice and her friends. "Alice, Darling" is a subtle, nuanced story about coercion and control. It's about female friendship and coercive abuse. It’s riveting tale, of course, but ultimately it's a story of female resilience and empowerment. What you can do very well in literature is describe what’s happening to somebody internally, what’s happening inside them. Sometimes in film it’s harder to bring something that’s nonverbal out. You need to see the lake from the hot tub and the herbs from the kitchen. There’s a whole bit of business with wood chopping. It's all part of the dance of designing the blocking and that interaction between direction, cinematography, and production design. Written by Gregory Mann

Epecuen looks like the scene from a movie. A horror movie… The Onetti brothers could have made it easy on themselves by dubbing the movie “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” to an Argentine version. Because to be honest, this movie “Los Olvidados” is almost a perfect copy of this legendary film. Only the location and the freakish characters are different. The whole story is situated in Argentina. More specifically in Villa Especuén. A town in the province of Buenos Aires that was completely flooded by a salt lake in 1985 after a period of heavy rainfall. The images used are therefore authentic. Even the slaughterhouse (Matadero) that can be seen in this film, is a lonely witness to the terrible disaster. Yet another advantage for the filmmakers. They could save seriously on the budget for the scenery. It’s not a complete failure. Saying that “Los Olvidados” is a complete failure, is also a bit exaggerated. Admittedly, it certainly won’t win a prize for originality. Literally, all items that are necessary to make a film similar to that of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre“, were checked off on a list. First, you have the ramshackle van, filled with a bunch of people on their way to Especuén to make a documentary about this lost city. The fact that their cumulated IQ most likely won’t exceed that of a hamster, was to be expected. And of course, there are two bimbos who wouldn’t be out of place on one or another Argentine street corner. They take care of the erotic part. Obviously, a tiny jeans pants is mandatory in this case. Let’s see who’ll survive. Furthermore, there’s an annoying director. Then there’s a woman who witnessed the disaster at first hand. She seems to be the smartest of them all. Next, you have a serious guy who apparently joined reluctantly and is constantly scribbling in a sketchbook. And finally, there’s a brown-bronzed, muscular young macho who’s driving the van and constantly flirts with the director’s girlfriend. As soon as this gang has been proposed, you can start guessing who will survive the bloodbath. Brutal and horrible. You don’t have to wait long before the lugubrious figures are introduced. They live in a dilapidated, filthy gas station and their appearance speaks volumes. A mixed bag of strange folk who look unkempt and insane. That these left behind, uncivilized figures will cause problems is plain as day. And from then on, this film transforms from an easy going road-movie to a bloody slasher. And what’s necessary for this type of film, certainly isn’t missing. And these are gruesome, distasteful images in which sharp objects and accessories from a real slaughterhouse are used with enthusiasm. Sure, the used images aren’t all exaggerated or nauseating. Mostly it’s simply brutal and “right in your face” violence. Beautiful footage only won’t make it great. Unfortunately, the brilliantly shot scenes of Especuén and the bloody fragments aren’t enough to make this a great film. The editing of this movie was sometimes very confusing. It seemed as if short scenes were cut out. As if the censorship committee had intervened. There were also meaningless scenes that only served as filler. Like the girl dancing in a bikini. It looked like an amateur-made video clip of a local Argentine hip-hopper. The plot twist at the end was also extremely predictable. And the images made with a drone are also something I’m sick of. It surely produces some hallucinatory images. But nowadays this is used in films time and time again. Do you like movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Watch this one as well. All in all, this film is a must see for the fans of this particular horror genre. The acting wasn’t shockingly bad. The insane family members were really frightening at certain times and acted in a schizophrenic, psychotic way. Especially the head of the family acted completely disturbed. And I got cold chills from the old woman. Also the look of the place where the family leads their life was successful. A frenzied place full of filthiness and blood-curdling props. Unfortunately, that’s the only thing I will remember from this average film. If the makers had put in more Argentine quirkiness, the end result might be much better. My rating 5/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Maybe it’s time for someone like me… to come over there and wipe that smug grin off your face. You know what’s fun sometimes? Haphazardly starting a film without knowing what it is about and afterward admitting you were pleasantly surprised. That’s my experience with this film. A film with a bit of suspense and tension. And thanks to the short playing time you don’t have the feeling it was a waste of time. Even though it isn’t a blockbuster. It’s also the first time that I didn’t feel sorry for the two teenagers Sam (Gregg Sulkin) and Brady (Garrett Clayton). In this movie, these two spoiled, annoying brats reap what they have sown. And the whole time I was expecting the rest of the gang to pop up suddenly and announce it was all one big joke. Extremeprank calls. Like many others, I found the two main actors irritating. But then you have to admit their acting was masterful. Because wasn’t that the whole point? After all, they are two obnoxious young boys who pull pranks on others. They make extreme prank calls. The only thing I couldn’t believe was the fact that those pranks were watched so massively after posting them online. Is that a reflection of what our society is evolving into? A society where gloating is self-evident? A mid-level psychological horror. “Don’t hang up” is a low-budget film. That’s noticeable. Everything takes place mainly in the parental home of Sam. The camera work is uncomplicated but to-the-point. Besides a camera moving through the set in a penetrating way, it generally looks mediocre. It gets bloody in this film, but the used “practical effects” don’t look spectacular either. And yet this film was worth a watch and can easily be added to a whole series of other films from the same mid-level. Yes, I have gloated. Because of the short playing time, the pace is swift in this movie and you don’t have to wait long before the unwanted caller turns up. And still despite the pace, one manages to increase the tension gradually. The sinister caller has a rather frightening voice (a Jigsaw-like tone), which in turn makes it extra creepy. His technological omnipotence was slightly exaggerated though. And despite the fact that it’s about pretty arrogant and unsympathetic youth, I found the friendship and expression of sacrifice commendable. But all in all, I couldn’t avoid to gloat and a convincing inner “Yes!” resounded at the end. My rating 6/10 More reviews 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

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*

God is great. God is powerful, yeah. But even more so, God is all-knowing. And that is what makes him scary as shit. Do you understand what I’m saying? This remake of the movie “Super Fly” from the 70s, with Ron O’Neal as Priest, isn’t really my favorite kind of film. There’s already a multitude of this genre of movies. The so-called blaxploitation. Perhaps the older films sketched a better picture of the Afro-Americans whose future wasn’t too rosy. Because of discrimination and racist measures, the possibilities to succeed in life were reasonably limited. Getting involved in criminal activities was therefore self-evident. But I’m sure it wasn’t as flashy and groovy as in this movie. So you can expect to see some nice, expensive sports cars. Golden teeth and golden automatic guns. Leather coats covered with fur and shiny gold necklaces. Decadent parties where dollar bills are thrown around as bread to the ducks. A shitload of scantily clad ladies with a nicely shaped, vibrating butt. A lot of rap music (even at a funeral) and Yo-yo-yo-Bro show off. And of course the expressions “nigga”, “bitches” and “hoes” are frequently used in a conversation. In short, everything that can be seen in a rap music video. Hey, he does a Marge impression. The film wasn’t really convincing. The only scene that made me hope for a mega-cool gangsta film, full of uncontrollable violence and big talk, was the one at the beginning where Priest (Trevor Jackson) confronts the rapper Litty with the fact that he still needs to pay him a large amount of money. This was such a moment that I love in a movie. The calm and at the same time threatening attitude Priest exhibits there is entertainment of the highest level. He reminded me a bit of Shaft but this time with an absurd looking hairstyle. It’s very similar to the hairstyle of Marge Simpson. Unfortunately, from here it went downhill. Time to retire. Not only did Priest’s hair look ridiculous, but his omniscience and how easily the whole mess is being solved was a bit exaggerated. The story of the street-boy Priest who, after years of selling drugs comes to the decision to call it quits, isn’t very original either. He wants to hang up his dealer-robe because diving away from bullets that are fired at a short distance, isn’t that easy anymore for an elderly person. They want to pull off one last deal (and this at the expense of the person who has taken care of him all his life) and then he and his two wives can buy a luxury yacht and retire. Yep, it’s not a good idea to mess with a Mexican drug cartel. The fact that he uses a Mexican drug cartel for this, says enough about his credibility. No matter how rational he takes care of his affairs, this proves there’s a shortage of well-functioning brain cells. I’m not familiar with the drugs scene, but I do know that the members of such a cartel aren’t softies to play with. Before you know it, you’ll be hanging decapitated somewhere under a bridge or you can admire the fauna and flora of a river with your feet in a block of cement. Just an average movie. And even though it looks visually professional sometimes (apparently the budget was considerably high), there are so many downsides in this film that it’s almost impossible to take it seriously. Perhaps that was the intention. The chases looked ridiculously amateurish. The scarce fight scenes looked average and felt old-fashioned (even the sound effects didn’t help). Trevor Jackson manages to play the cold-blooded drug dealer, but otherwise, his character is so clichéd and two-dimensional that it seems pretty ridiculous. Not to mention his employees. And the most hilarious are the two corrupt detectives and the mother of Gonzalez. If you need a textbook example to explain the word caricature, then they are the most suitable subjects to do this. Superfly? Far from. No, for me this movie wasn’t a success. Are you looking for something to fill up your free time? Well, this flic is useful for that. However, the only exciting thing in the whole movie was the shower scene. Even though it felt like it was a compulsory act to fill up the movie with. It really didn’t impress or surprise. In short, the film wasn’t really “Superfly”. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

"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

It’s a satellite phone. How did this get in my purse? While looking at the film poster, the first thing I thought was: “Wow, Halle Berry has a thing for films about kidnapping”. First, there was “The Call“. And then at the beginning of the year, I saw “Kidnap“. And now it’s a film about human trafficking. In particular, the kidnapping of young women who then end up in a network of prostitution and terrible abuse. But soon I realized I was completely wrong. The woman in question wasn’t Halle Berry. But damn, she looks disturbingly a lot like Halle. Now, I didn’t like “Kidnap” very much. To be honest I thought it was outright irritating at times. This film is, despite another protagonist (Paula Patton), of the same level. That surprise weekend will become a fiasco. The acting in itself wasn’t that bad at all. Perhaps a bit simplistic and predictable, but certainly not annoying. Only some stupid decisions were made again. But that’s typical for these kinds of films, I suppose. Lovebirds Brea (Paula Patton) and John (Omar Epps) are both nice looking persons and form a beautiful couple. When John arrives one day with a classic car as a birthday present and takes Brea on a surprise weekend, you already know this very peaceful scene is doomed to turn into a fiasco. Where’s this phone coming from?. First, they are being harassed by a motor gang in a gas station. Next, their fantastic weekend full of love and eroticism is ruined the moment super-jerk Darren (Laz Alonso), someone with an ego problem and an agent for sports stars, shows up. And as icing on the cake, there’s a satellite phone, with a series of disturbing pictures of abused young women, inexplicably ending up in Brea’s handbag. I’m not impressed. If only they’d stuck to the idea of making a disconcerting film about sex trafficking, it might have been interesting. But turning it into some kind of Hollywood spectacle, with story twists you could see coming from half a world away and an improbable denouement, wasn’t such a hot idea. Human trafficking is a deadly serious subject and a despicable type of crime that needs to be tackled seriously. The fact they try to make people aware of this widespread problem, I can accept. But in the end, this was nothing more than a cheap B-movie about the abuse and exploitation of women in networks. “You were not really here” also brings up this issue, but there it concerns networks with minors. And that message was loud and clear. “Traffik” just uses the cheap solution of showing statistics about the number of women abducted in the US. In other words, I wasn’t really impressed by this film. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here