Genre: American Psychological Thriller (Horror). Directed by: Steven Soderbergh Written by: Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer. Starring: Claire Foy, Joshua Leonard, Jay Pharoah, Juno Temple, Aimee Mullins, and Amy Irving. Filmed on iPhone 7 Plus.
Sawyer Valentini moved to a city far from her family to seek a new start. For all intents and purposes her life seemed normal but first appearances can be deceptive. Sawyer swiped for a Tinder date and took the guy home. She initiated all the moves then suddenly had a disturbing meltdown. Thereafter she decided to seek help with a Counsellor at the Highland Creek Behavioural Centre.
Disturbingly Sawyer accidentally signed herself into 48 hours of observation; the last thing she wanted. Her ensuing complaints came to nothing as she eventually learned the mental health system was corrupt; funds are extorted from patients via their health insurance companies. For as long as the insurance companies pay the individuals are imprisoned.
Sawyer’s predicament worsened when she was unable to control her anger; this resulted in her being seen as further in need of incarceration. Her impulsivity and anger at times meant she was own worse enemy. Is her short fuse part of what she hadn’t resolved from previous events in her life? Is this stalker she sees in the facility real or imagined?
Sawyer Valentini is portrayed as a person who is quite assertive independent and resilient in the general scheme of things. We see this at the beginning of the film; handling problem calls at work and her boss’s creepy behavior. Her mother also talks of her of independent tough and stubborn streak when she visits her at the mental facility. I think that Sawyer’s abilities to read people combined with her intelligence and other positive attributes help her in survive.
The film is about powerlessness and loss of self when caught in situations. It’s about the diabolically unlucky effects we can have if we encounter the wrong people. There’s an educative element for the viewers concerning this in the cameo appearance by Matt Damon.
The movie made me think about obsession how this characteristic in individuals can be a positive driving force to achieve goals. But in others with an unsound mind it can lead to the unthinkable.
It’s also about that point where the results of trauma can be inexplicably woven into a person’s psyche to cause paranoia that can tip someone way over the edge.
The film raises questions of health system corruption, the use of drugs to control people’s behaviour. The film has a frighteningly plausible story.
CAT ON THE HOT TIN ROOF NEW sharmill films review by Jeanette Russell
“Friends, Foes and Fireworks” Review by Susan Reynolds
Genre Indie Film Sub-genre Mumblecore Nexus Production Group 7.5/10
The film has a real slice of life approach, intrinsically very Australian in character however the themes of friendship and relationships are universal. Filmed in the festive summer season; the accents and the locality are all going to really stir interest with those gripped at the same time of year by cold in the Northern hemisphere. It’s all there; the beach, the heat, summer night, young party spirited people and the New Years fireworks. Significance is not lost on the fact that the filmmakers are travelling between two hemispheres. To their European friends it’s somewhat a statement of how the other half lives.
In the story the friends are actors by profession with the exception of Dan who is a Musician. Friendships end up in a tangle near the St.Kilda beach late at night and loose lips as we know sinks ships resulting in friendships taking a nosedive. Some angry and emotional conversations took place. The friendships are tested in the climax of an alcohol fuelled New Years Eve. An exciting element of the film is that actors improvised scenes through sparsely allocated script points. This process means a refreshing creative freedom for actors.
In the opening scenes I did feel like I was sitting in the corner of the flat in a parallel universe with an inability to talk and join in. I felt a sense of voyeurism; being privy to personal conversations and goings on. There’s no boredom with trivialities because you felt an affinity with it all, a seemingly odd sense of inclusion. The characters themselves grappled with moments of awkwardness. This is not deliberate but adds to the feeling of reality. Many of us have milliseconds of silence and gibber.
The content of the film makes one think of how tenuous relationships are and the hurt people are capable of. In the case of Sophia and Fiona it’s not fireworks that go off.....more like Sophia let’s off an emotional hand grenade that leaves both worlds blown apart. Truth is often stranger than fiction; this is believable with the acts of single mindedness and selfishness involved. Should Sophia have kept quiet is a moral dilemma to add to the moral dilemma itself.
At a different time and situation would all have revealed itself so easily. It’s not just wine that’s spilt; secrets and insults better left untold pour out. Conversations sent emotions reeling and people did get hurt. Did vulnerability in the circumstances lead Zoe to actions she might not normally do. What absurd creatures humans can be!
Which brings me to Dan the only man! ….thrown into the mix of all these women and grated on everyone’s nerves or was it just mine; with his convincing smarminess. He’d tried to ingratiate himself with the women through much of the film. There’s a mix of everything; what seemed like unrequited love between Lucinda and Summer to feelings of lack of self worth with Fiona’s actions in the mirror scenes.
I enjoyed the film for its unique approach and look forward to future entertaining flicks.
TULLY NEW Asha Holmes Publicity
CARGO NEW ABCG Films
LAST FLAG FLYING NEW website RATE: 7/10
The friends were invented one day by god so we do not face our issues alone. Not only issues - life tragedies. Friends share everything with us. Last Flag Flying film focuses on this thought for the entire length f the picture. It is a film about the that solid shoulder feeling that we all need so much in our most darkest hours. Te film is on beautiful memory about simple humanity. The actors are very good and the story line is afar away from trivial. The dialogues are very well designed in the film. It remains n the boarder of very tragic events blended together with witty comedy till the very end of the film. The film is not only about the bitter road trip of friends.It touches the philosophy, the believes and some very deep themes. Apart from its profound beauty the film however lacks the live realism. We only see the acting after all, the situations are hard to believe in. The film seems light however it touches very serious topics, some of them are so political I would be hesitating to discuss them here . The episodes of the film are all very well filmed but for some reason they did not come together as one whole movie. The final looks more unbelievable rather then real MHO. I would put a question mark on this film.
THe story line is insredible, the idea is absolutely superb,but unfortunately the excution of it is extremely poor. The film is not only about time travelling and parallel worlds travelling it is about accepting each other, accepting death and accepting life and it reveals in front of you,be they bad experience or great experiences. The acting is ok from the adult characters but the teenagers could not get it through at all. There are some very weak moments with security of such experiment as travelling between the world and it also looks like the budget for this film was extremely poor. Their equipment looked so outdated and so made out of carton, very unbelievable. The dialogues were quite badly structured. And if you take Th wholistic look at the film you will certainly trust that this one was definitely some kids school end of year project. That would be an A plus for such film but when I see the professionals were making it I feel very sorry for the viewers. My last question is: what did I learn fro, this film apart from time wasting? Not much I guess.
Please make sure that you have plenty of time in front of the screen: the film is long. You can also notice that the filming took lots of effort, LOTS OF EFFORT! THe film is an adoptation of a novel by Tim Winton called Breath. The film in the nutshell is about two teenage boys who move the boundries of insanity just to avoid the boredom of life. The action takes place in a small city West Of Australia. They befriend an adult surfer. Simon Baker is a famous Australian actor who is the director of this film. Simon's charisma and his personality attraction are not making up a good film and they never should. Simon is so multileveled you can easily call him Tasmanian Devil. He can be genuiny funny and the next minute he is deeply dramatic. from the absolue careless behaviour to his ntense focus on certain emotion. His beingness as an actor is bottomless indeed. In this film Simon is preswnting himself as I said in two roles: as an actor and as a director. BUt not only that: he is also a script writer for this picture. It is not an easy proces: to create a movie based on a book. We have readers on one side who will always say: the book was better plus there are so many bad projects bsed on this idea. What do we know about Simon? He loves sea, he loves fresh airand nature. Simon likes swimming. He is a sportsmen in surfing. Simon was surfing himself in the film. The film is art house,low budget, it is a festiva film, it is a small project. Simon's project desrves lots of respect soncideriing all the said above. What else should I say: I highly recommend the film: it is about world discovering by teenagers, extra ordinarity and ordinarity, strange friendship, ambitions, life choices, it is about truth, comlex characters, it is about the puzzle of life, relationship, sport, it is about admiring of the ocean, about surfing, about self growth, about waves and discipline, it is about manhood, it is about balance, it is about movement, it is about challenge, it is abou ocean, utis tragic, it is about love after all. The cinematogaphy is awesome, some shoots I have no idea how they were created, It is a good film! The other actors especially female Elizabeth Debicki who plays Eva is one astonishing beauty, sexual and boyish, calm and powerful. The boys are also wonderiful. The nature shots are absolutely stunning as well as the soundtrack to the film. One note: I think the small town Denmark where the film was made will become a new famous tourist destination.
It comes to you like a stream of the warm red blood through the veins, like a Gospel. It opens with the nature scene and shows us two deer on he snow. The snow is crispy , the wind blows through their fur. You feel the wetness of the snow flakes, You almost touch the steam coming out of their warm mouths as they breathe life. The scenery is magical and bewitching: there is the lake, surrounded by winter. The lake mirrors the couple of two deer. They search for food under the snow and fallen leaves. Th woodpecker echoes like an old memory in our hearts. The two deer touch each other, their necks meet. We watch them breathless. We can only assume.... The two humans meet in the same night dream. I have goosebumps . Nights dreams are the windows into the other worlds. I have so much to say about it but I want to see what the director will tell me... I do not get disappointed. Episode after the episode the film develops like a mysterious story , fairy tale. But is there life after waking up in the morning? The daily routines are monotonous and sober. They narrow down to a small passage to the electrical currency execution, meat flesh labeling beef and conversations with the office psychologist. The transportation line never stops, the death is endless and it is seen in the eyes of the killed animals. There is only one hope: reincarnation perhaps. Will I find and recognise you in my next one? in my next life? She is strange. She reminds us the girls from the Paul Delvaux's paintings. She does not speak. He existence is speechless. She remains the same with the decorations changing. She is lonely even with the crowd around. We can only se her face through the glass and there are cars and concrete buildings reflected in this glass too - her mage is forever protected from our eyes. The film is like hide and seek game, there are mirrors, there are reflections,there are illusion and reincarnations. The feelings are so fragile one can blow on them and they will vanish till the next life time. They are fragile. He looks inside my eyes, I look inside his eyes. Will he recognise me in this life? in this reincarnation? May be through my smile, a familiar glance, lost touches, lost memories ? She deeps her fingers int the mashed potatoes, her bed linen rustles , she buys the music of love, and though the sun rays there is a broken glass of the window and her blood. The blood from her veins. The essence of life is uncatchable. Its essence in far away from the banal day to day life. Its essence we,humans will never grasp. Persistently and softly the film takes us on the journey of the life riddle that is hidden in its limitless forms in the memory of the feelings the best that we have from this world when we leave it. When the body sleeps the soul is awake. It brings two people together into one reality.
But how do you know you re in love? May be you can not take your eyes from someone? Or you can listen to this person endlessly? What exactly tells you "I am in love" ? Yo have not met the person yet but you already know what is going to happen tomorrow... This film is built on actors' performance and they do deliver. If you are an action film lover this film is not for you. It is a festival film. It is deep, it is complex, it is reverent. Her seen and unseen beauty strikes . Se looks like a female deer. She acts amazingly well. Thur tandem is break-less. He plays perfectly too. I floated together with the characters in their river of feelings and I have not experience any dramatic downfalls - everything was there in the right places. I liked this film. I gave it 10/10 It also has the best soundtrack.
‘A Quiet Place’ film review. By Maxwell M. Lyons -- -- John Krasinski, best known for his comedic role in TV series The Office, showcases his culminating talents as both actor, director, and even co-screenwriter in the new breathtaking thriller (literally) A Quiet Place. With little exposition, the movie follows a family (and cast) of four (4) as they live out their lives in a world forced into silence at the fear of death by an unknown invasive species, blind yet highly adept in hunting by sound alone; hence the movie’s tagline, “If they hear you, they hunt you”. Whilst deceptively simple, the concept was implemented with great attention to detail; it provoked something of an interesting thought experiment and truly captivated the audience throughout the film’s entire runtime. A mere misplaced footstep could prove life-threatening to the onscreen characters and the silent tension echoed in accordance throughout the cinema; this made ever-more apparent through the vicarious experience of the daughter, suffering from a hearing-impairment. No matter how “silent” the world depicted may have been, when the perspective shifted to her focus and all audio was ceased in alignment with her worldly experience the sharp contrast between our concept of silence and its actuality became unnervingly discernible. On that note, performances by all cast were fantastic and the cinematic world was aesthetically fitting and narratively inviting; you got to experience how these characters came to adapt into this new world, adding credibility to their portrayed extended survival. Further credit must be paid to Krasinski himself as director for intentionally seeking out an actual hearing-impaired actress to play the likewise impaired daughter, wanting to support underrepresented talent, add authenticity to the character’s performance, and mutually benefit from the personal interactions with the actress — for example, she assisted in teaching fellow cast members sign-language, the primary means of communication throughout the film. The movie does show some narrative weaknesses in its somewhat abrupt and motivationally questionable ending, and personally, whilst the underlying concept was implemented immensely well, the logical part of my brain couldn’t help but continually further question the logistics (and ultimately perceived flaws) of the presented world. Regardless, the movie was unique in premise, presented a strong narrative, had great performances all round, and ultimately was a very enjoyable watch. Though more thriller than horror, for the easily frightened it may be one to avoid, but for anyone else, I would highly recommend it.
This is the strangest film I have seen s far. The man buys out an elephant from the street artist and believing it is his old friend from his childhood he had for years and was raised with travels with him the Bangkok streets to find his old house. he story is rather allegorical than believable but somehow we all get on to this superficial journey together with the man who happens to be a very famous Thai architect with some unsettled and troublesome relationship wit his wife. This journey takes our hero from one stop alone the road to another, from one adventure to another. We do not follow the purpose of this tip however a sudden realisation takes place: the elephant is a metaphorical representation of his life load that all of us carry around: our past, our unfulfilled dreams and our material load that rather creates more issues than frees us up, well at least many of us. Thana, the travelling architect as I mentioned before faces some people and places while his trip progresses. They are not really people and place though as he first of all faces his own feelings and reflections of them: be it avarice, neglegence, self-interest, brutality and lust, there are several occasions of positive experiences though of generosity and thankfulness. It is a real life journey and we are so keen to watch the film and wait in anticipation on what is coming next. It is a very well written and filmed story hat is engaging and very unusual. We learn about different country as well as about the animal behavior and the elephant relations with humans.
It was interesting to see a production like this, as you may guess, it is an old William Shakespeare story; kept close to the original dialogue; but delivered with a very menacing modern outlook by director Nicholas Hytner in the Bridge Theatre in London. This style of performance was not my cup of tea, as I continuously found myself attempting to place the events in current political situations happening around the globe during the performance. This I found distracting, but it may also demonstrate the power of the production and how strong the vision of Shakespeare was.
The Bridge Theatre is set up as a contemporary unit, and in this production the audience becomes the public crowd for the set. As the original script is now placed in modern times I found that replacing swords and spears with gun and cannon to noisy for my liking and this took a bit away from the overall political tragedy in my view.
Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu passed away in 2017 aged 46. Gurrumul is a documentary (autobiography) about this late, and traditional Australian musician. Is this production by Paul Williams worth seeing? A resounding yes is the answer. It had me captivated from beginning to end; no boring bits just purely interesting. Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, who was born blind on Elcho island at the top end of Northern Australia, was a member of the popular Yothu Yindi group and the little known local Saltwater Band. His talent was recognized in a strange fashion by a ‘white fella’ musician who was working in the area. Gurrumul mostly sung in his local dialect from all the historical and aboriginal life stories he had learnt from his community in early life. His connection to family and community responsibilities proved more motivational than money. Having to preserve all these small stories and beliefs from the individual traditional communities is a strong theme made through this film and after travelling through this story it is difficult not to agree that the stories and beliefs need saving. The music is fantastic, as are the feelings you gain from it.
Recent attempts at cinematic video-game adaptions have been somewhat disappointing to say the least (looking at you Assassin’s Creed). Whilst the latest Tomb Raider may spark the slightest flare of hope in fans, there’s clearly still a long way to go. Rampage — based on the 1986 arcade game of the same name — may not exactly help the cause, but it is highly doubtful it will be of significant detriment either. Narratively speaking, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare it to its 8bit counterpart, but both do contain a giant gorilla destroying a skyscraper abundant city… so, it’s something I guess. Plot-wise, the movie is cliché, shallow, and nonsensical — a bunch of animals are exposed to a radioactive substance; they grow, mutate, and become uncontrollably angry; and they go try to destroy a city. The only catch, one of those animals is a gorilla named George, and he’s the friend of ex-military-badass-turned-primatologist David (Dwayne Johnson), and no-one is going to hurt George when David’s around; not the evil corporation producing the radioactive substance, not the ignorant cloak and dagger government agencies looking to capture George, and not the army who just want to kill George via wiping out an entire city with nukes. It’s up to ‘The Rock’ to save the world… again… how many movies has it been at this point? I digress. If you saw the trailer, it is unlikely you were expecting cinematic greatness from the film. Whilst there is a narrative to the film, its main purpose is really only to get you to the last 20 minutes of action, excitement, and explosions. And to that extent, whilst it does drag on at times, the shear over the top inanity of Rampage’s climax is a spectacle in itself. It’s egregiously self-aware beyond all comprehension, endlessly one-uping its own absurdity without falter; there are so many twists and turns even Shyamalan would be taking notes. Performances were average, the narrative and characters were one-dimensional and epitomised everything cliché, and the first two-thirds of the movie serve little means beyond getting you to the climax. Despite this, there is still much to enjoy about Rampage. If you want cinematic mastery, you’re in the wrong place, but if you can appreciate a decent “so-bad-it’s-good” movie, I’m certain you’ll find some enjoyment in Rampage. I’ll finish by saying that after watching the film I can confidently say my favourite character was George the gorilla, so that should tell you something.
Chappaquiddick is the film about power and how it changes people, how the decisions are made on what to say on public and what not and why, how the public opinion can be changed by a simple headline and the personal issues of those who run his world It is rather intense drama, but to be honest it was not my cup of tea. First of all I do not like politics secondly I do not see the point of me knowing the lies and the truths that no one would find anyway about someone who I do not care about - Ted Kennedy. Would it tell me that the whole family was like that? Would it tell me that only Ted was not honest? Would it tell me that all the politicians are humans and all politicians are the same? No and yes. But I do not care about. Or less I care about Ted. It was a remarkable family or as how we were told about them. I just simply did not see the point. I would give this film 5/10 but gave extra points because I loved the rest of the family. I find people to be attracted to the story for many reasons bu I would not watch it again.
For me it was a complete waste of time. It is a horror film but apart from audience laughs in the places where everyone was supposed to get scared the film did not get. It was sad and frustrating. The story was wrong,the actors were wrong, the directing was wrong, it all went wrong on so many levels. It was cheap and nothing to take out of it even for a curious teenager. I would not take my kids to watch it especially as the kids have to be raised in the valuable ad not shallow ideas and films with rather undeveloped characters or heroes with no personalities at all who have one purpose only: to sleep with each other. If you are after a disappointment than this is a film for you bu I would prefer to sty on the rich side of emotions. If the genre of this film is horror than I would say: yes, I had a horrific experience of experiencing something rather boring and dull. The idea on its own was good but badly developed indeed.
Starring: Bryan Cranston Greta Gerwig Jeff Goldblum Akira Ito Scarlett-Johansson F. Murray-Abraham Bob Balaban Harvey Keitel Frances-McDormand Bill Murray Mari Natsuki Yojiro Noda Kunichi Nomura Edward Norton Yoko Ono Koyu Rankin Liev Schreiber Fisher Stevens Tilda Swinton Akira Takayama Courtney B.-Vance Frank Wood.
Genre: Animation Adventure Comedy.
Running time: 101 Minutes. Concise Critique: By Maxwell M. Lyons
Isle of Dogs is the latest film from the brilliantly quirky director Wes Anderson. Following an executive degree by Kobayashi, the newly appointed authoritarian mayor of Megasaki City, Japan — a veiled solution to the public concerns of a canine illness outbreak — all dogs are exiled to Trash Island, the isolated garbage-dump isle off the city’s coast. However, when Atari (Kobayashi’s 12-year-old nephew) crash lands on the isle in attempts to save his bodyguard dog Spot, the hidden agenda of Kobayashi and his scheming political cohorts starts to come to light. With the help of a pack of ravaged dogs, lead by the stubborn yet amiable Chief (Bryan Cranston), they must find Spot and return to the mainland to prevent the untimely demise of all those exiled.
In short, Isle of dogs was nothing less than spectacular. It hosted a star-studded cast and performances were great all round. The stop-motion animation was remarkably impressive, with an exquisite attention to detail. Characters were well-developed for the most part, though not all character arcs were resolved once the movie started focussing on the central narrative climax; an unfortunate foible in an otherwise narratively sound film.
A rather enjoyable quirk of the movie was its firm, almost purist implementation of foreign dialects. Based in Japan, all spoken dialogue by humans was in their native tongue (i.e., mostly Japanese), though without translated subtitles. Some dialogues were translated via an onscreen foreign translator in fitting scenes, such as during broadcasted press conferences, but otherwise all other spoken language became essentially innate, making you rely on non-verbal cues and character reactions to garner the conversation’s subject and significance. It proved quite interesting and added a further depth to the narrative beyond mere delivered exposition. You can rest easy though, the dogs spoke English.
All in all, Isle of Dogs presents another uniquely entertaining animated film by Anderson, unapologetically personifying the quintessence you come to expect from his filmography. On first viewing, I couldn’t say with confidence it surpasses Anderson’s preceding animated work, the critically acclaimed Fantastic Mr Fox (2009), but with such masterful artistry put into every project of his, I have complete self-assurance Isle of Dogs will only exude further enjoyment with every viewing. Highly recommended.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on April 12, 2018.
What a positive and moving experience this was for me; seeing these indigenous Australians with the assistance from some remarkable people take them on a musical journey from remote communities in the Central Australian region to singing across Germany.
Interlaced in the musical theme we hear the accounts from indigenous Australians about their past and the historical place music had. Truly illuminates the powerful presence music can have in the lives of us humans.
Integral to the story was choir leader Morris Stewart who moved to Central Australia in 2006 with his wife Barbara Stewart because she wanted to paint. Morris is from Ghana originally and met his wife when he moved to the UK at 17. Morris was going to see if the people wanted to sing African freedom songs but instead the women have much to reveal to him about music. He learns of a musical history passed through the generations; which dated from June 1877 when German Lutheran missionaries went to assist communities and with them took hymns.
But this is a story not about the imposition of a belief system from that time; instead a focus on music which fostered community spirit. The indigenous peoples took the songs and translated them into their own languages. What they get from Morris is the chance to sing like a real united choir; a bringing together of all the communities to one big group. (The choirs had dwindled to only one effective small group in the 2006) Assisting Morris in his endeavours and with process of taking the group overseas was still the Lutheran church. Pastor Albrect organized the logistics for these women who haven’t even birth certificates let alone passports to travel.
It’s not a sad film about the lost generations or focusing on the negative. Instead it’s a feel good film where these people were happy and experienced something which instilled pride and confidence. There was humour when Morris talks about the women not taking their traditional chewing weed through customs…. they joke around with Morris and laugh when he tried to learn their languages. The group sing baa baa black sheep in native language on the tour bus is really interesting.
There are some revealing personal stories from two of the youngest members Nicholas Williams who spoke about still hearing his grandfather singing with him when he sings in the choir. Heather Douglas a young woman told us how the choir saved her from bad choices and gave her a new life. One does wonder where the choir went after this film; hopefully to recruit more younger members and continue to ignite more passion for music.
This film will disturb you to the maximum. It is another masterpiece from Adrrei Zvyagintsev. What is LOVELESS? I loved the landscape photography, it was spectacular but sad, reminded me our skiing trips around Istra river. Beautiful but sad. The lost boy is only shown for 3-4 minutes with one purpose only - parents do not care about hi vanishing, they look for him so casually as if he was not the product of love, and it looks like he was not. We do not care about him either. But even with our "uncare" we care more than his parents. There is a family shown to us where no one loves each other. They swear, there is no respect. The parents are divorcing but deep inside we understand that with their new "loves" , lovers, with their new families, nothing WILL change, nothing will change, it will be the same uncare and the same unlove. This happens and this is so much predictable. People divorce when the lesson is not learnt. If the lesson is learnt (by both sides of course) there is not place for divorce. People think that by changing partner they can change themselves. It is impossible. When you start the change you will also see this change in your partner, wife or husband. Because there is no action without re-action. What ever you seed in the family will be final crop. You seed unlove and uncare, you seed selfish behavior - you will get an immediate response: i will multiply reflected in the other person. . Start with yourself. But both sides have already chosen their destiny. With their choice what was between them: the materialisation of their love should also be destroyed. Thee child should be destroyed. There is no place for him. He is Love and there is no such thing present. We have a feeling that the boy have not disappeared - he was simply not there - no Love, no Boy - so simple I found some of the parts of the film to be a bit long but I understand the reason: the mood of monotone life is created perfectly by the director! There is no hope in this life routine: it is grey , it is boring and it does not have a ray of light or happiness in it. Unlove or loveless - it is our every day mood, every day condition. Love happens as a blessing. With some people more often than with the others. It is a ray of light. But I am not talking abut this Love. I am talking abut the love inside of all of us which should be forever present there. If it is not there at all - LOOK FOR IT, but not outside - inside, closer and closer till you find it. This grander love will fix all your relationship including the past ones. It will fix your relationship with yourself first of all. Finally you will realise why your relation did not work in the first place. It was not because of HIM or because of HER, It was because you could not find love inside yourself. The film will reflect deep inside your soul. You will finally see who you are. Not many will read between the lines, between the episodes, not many will understand why this or that part was filmed , many will say that there were way too many unrequired episodes in this film. It is created as a puzzle. Each scene is responsible for this o that feeling. It is the film to be watched twice. The child was never there - only Love can maretialise a healthy and happy children. Unloce, Loveless produces nothingness. The tragedy of the film is not in the lost boy, it is in the lost Love. The characters are lost because they are looking for it everywhere: at their old mother's country house, in the hospitals, morgues, forests, police, streets at their friends' places, in the shopping centtres, inside the old falling apart building - Love is not there. One place they do not look in - is inside themselves. These people lost something they never had nor they deserved it. Love has to be looked after, it is a hard job, you have to monitor your feelings and thoughts constantly, it is not just there: it has to be nourished daily same way as your child. If you could not find it with your ex-husband or ex-wife the new relationship will never fix it. One last note: fantastic soundtrack, interesting political news are shown on TV while we observe the scenes of normal day to day household life: the news just show us on a different level - the wars on a different scale, not families ut countries but the idea is the same after all. I also want those who know Russian language to pay attention on subtitles and how much is lost in translation. I said it all.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE LISTERS? THE FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO website RATE: 10/10
This is a one enjoyable documentary of a highly celebrated Australian street and graffity artist Anthony Lister. The film shares personal archive of the artist with lots of family videos and photographs. I have the portrait in mind of a very talented person with rather unsettled character, and we have seen many of such documentaries before but this picture showed the insight with no additional coloors, it is very genuine at the same time, The hardship the family went through shaped the art which is reflected on the walls and on canvas. The mistakes made when he was young can not be healed anymore. Once the trust in the family is broken it is impossible to gain it back. No money in the world can gain it back, there is no price tag on trust. The person who lied once will do it again and again. We women walk away from such relationship not because we do not forgive,we simply are not prepared to experience it twice. Once healthy the relationship can fall apart in one night. Lister is unique as an artist, there will be no other Lister. He was blessed with god given girt. I watched how he performed , how one art piece was created and I thought "breathtaking"... butt I also wish he was as good n keeping his family happy... Art is for many, but he as an artist can only find the inspiration in love. When love is gone so is his talent. It is hard but t s true. At the start Anthony Lister, his wife Anika and their three children's life seemed spiritual and full of joy, they seemed connected like no one else. The artist's self-obsession and egocentrism became that destructive power that turned the relationship onto a disaster. It was sad to see his attempts to heal the wounds all in vain. he film commodity is priceless though and highly inspiring for all of us who are involved in art "industry"; he would not show you the story what and how not to live but he will show you just HIS story,which worth seeing and which is done with great love to this particular and very sophisticated art. It is a really touching story about creating, loving, fatherhood, forgiving and trusting. You will love it.
MQFF 2018: LOVE, SIMON website review by Anthony Wayne
Melbourne Queer Film Festival 2018 Love, Simon Review by Anthony Wayne – Mr Diamond Australia National Finalist 2018
Running Time: 1h 50m Director: Greg Berlanti
This coming-of-age romantic comedy fits the mould of dozens we have seen prior, but marks the first time seeing a gay character in the lead role of a major studio-made film. The film is a heartfelt story that centres around Simon, a typical well-liked teenager, with a tight crew of best friends and loving parents. Simon, however, is carrying a big secret. Simon is gay. Through an online school message board, Simon connects anonymously over email with a class mate who shares his secret. They soon develop a romantic connection, and provide each other with inspiration to come out to friends and family. Having lived through similar experiences to Simon myself, I deeply connected with the story and was hanging on to every moment. The loneliness and fear felt by carrying around this secret, and feeling like no one will understand you. The film highlights the small ways in which coming out even in the most accepting of environments can still be difficult. The film’s offers some charming performances adding to the movie’s sparkle. Simon played with likeable charm by Nick Robinson, gives a committed and sensitive performance. Simon’s friends, and love interests played by Katherine Langford, Alexandra Shipp, Logan Miller, and Keiynan Lonsdale all provide strong support. And Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel are Simon’s warm and supportive parents, both nailing the movies more thoughtful and moving scenes with their reactions to Simon’s eventual coming out. Love, Simon is well worth watching and not just for those within the LGBTI community. For anyone who has ever felt a little different, you will leave the theatre feeling inspired and uplifted. êêêê Love, Simon screens at Melbourne Queer Film Festival 2018 on Monday, March 26 2018 (8.00pm) at ACMI, and released in cinemas Australia wide on Thursday 29 March 2018.
Director: Ferenc Torok Town Clerk: Peter Rudolf His wife Eszter : Nagy-Kalozy Clerk’s son Arpad: Bence Tasnadi Peasant fiancée Kisrozsi: is Dora Sztarenki Jewish Father : Ivan Angelus Jewish son Marcell Nagy Town drunk Bandi: Jozsef Szarvas
Adapted from a short story by Gabor t. Szanto Languages: Hungarian, Russian
It was steamy hot summer day August 12 1945. WWII had ended in Europe in May. The scene is a Hungarian rural village under the supervision of Russian troops.
Two Orthodox Jewish men descend from a train along with 2 boxes labeled fragrances. They negotiate with a local to have the cargo delivered to a location and walk behind the horse and cart in procession.
Elsewhere preparations were underway for a wedding between the Town Clerk’s son and a peasant girl. But it’s not long before we see all is not rosy; the Clerk’s wife is an opiate addict and her husband a bombastic, domineering, misogynist who advises his son “your new wife will be okay once you’ve tamed her”. In due course we did find what is to become of this not so “happy” day.
Meanwhile the presence of the two Jewish men made people anxious; they feared the men were returning to claim what was taken from them or their relatives during the transportation of the Jews. Guilt tore at the fibers of a community already tenuously held together from the aftermath of war. Istvan the town clerk’s past was treacherous he’d betrayed some Jewish people and taken from them. The town drunk Bandi and his wife had also stolen property.
There was only minimal dialogue spoken by the Jewish men. The imagery was used to communicate and reinforce a sombre atmosphere. The dark suits they wore as they followed the wagon silhouetted against the brightly lit crop fields and amped up the drama.
The tolling music, the clip clop sounds of the horses hooves penetrated your psyche… time was up for someone or something. A lantern hooked below the rear of the wagon swayed dutifully in unison with the music. The two men were orderly, composed, dignified and in pace; quietly intent on the purpose of their journey.
Meanwhile some townspeople exhibited negative and often immoral behavior. They were boozing, cavorting, angry, deceitful, and suspicious. This contrasted markedly to the pious nature of the Jewish father and son.
We learn the purpose of the trip for the Jewish men as the story unfolds. What’s important is that the visit by these men acted as catalyst. Those guilty examined their consciences; some could live with their crimes some couldn’t. Lives in the town were never to be the same again. The questions arising from the film are about the moral decay of society and that some people are more than prepared to be criminal to improve their lot.
It was a convincing reconstruction of what a post war WWII Eastern European Rural Village would be like. The domestic scenes were austere and the fields looked like they wouldn’t provide much sustenance.
I thought the cinematography by the veteran in his field Elemer Ragalyi was masterful and artistic. The attention to detail in framing scenes made the viewing experience interesting and he used the black and white to make notable tonal statements particularly the dark figures in the bright high key landscape.
I s London after the WWII. The young writer Juliet is trying to find a theme for her new book. he does not want to go to the horrors of war nor she wants to write on any other subjects as all of them seem way too boring or not acceptable for her. Nothing inspires her. One day she receives a letter from a pig farmer in Guernsey Island. She is rather surprised ; who would know that even the pig farmers could like to read. But more out of all she is fascinated by the personality of her correspondent: Dawsey. Dawsey get hold of the book that belonged to Juliet some time ago. He asks Juliet to recommend him a book store where he can find something dissent to read. He also let Juliet know that the Island lacks good books. The life on the island just getting in its war-less state after the occupation. The letter from Dawsey and their later exchange of letters changes Julie's life in the most unexpected way. The history of the society that went undercover during the Nazi occupation of the island was amazing. The society was a breath of fresh air for the islanders at the hardest times of their lives. Juliet is so passionate about the history, the society and its members that nothing else exists for her in this world any more. She forgets about her engagement, she is inspired but will that new path be the path of happiness? That is for you to find out when you watch the film If you like classical literature and reading this is YOUR film
This film will not yell into your face "I am here!", it ill most likely pass by quietly - the privilege of the best movies created on this planet... It runs for 70 minute only but it sure is intense, grotesque, small theatrical play inside the film that shows the couple that prepares a party. The guests invited reveal not very pleasant stories as well as the hosts themselves that will change the whole party dynamics and many lives of the people involved in the "fun". It is a life retold surrealism. It will finish , you will start screaming: "what was it, bloody hell?" but you will love every minute of it. It will pour a bucket of great British humor on you, you will come out wet like a mouse from the cinema hall laughing,not smiling: LOLoud! The camera is superb! So are all the actors the bunch of which is the best you can probably find in the best British theaters. The camera IS elegant and dynamic at the same time, you will forget the action takes place only in a couple of rooms: dining, kitchen, veranda and bathroom. As I mentioned already the actors a GIANTS, I will not afraid of such comparison, as they ARE. There seven Olympic grade team actors involved - the film worth to be seen twice as you will be watching the acting ONLY for the firs time and the words you will hear at the second screening. ALL characters are developed and shaped very well. You will laugh,get surprised, feel for everyone and eventually fall in love with this picture as I DID! Happy watching!
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW by Ivan Lubkov
The Party of extraordinary people. The British back comedy “The Party” depicts an incredibly grotesque and humorous gathering of people from all possible parts of society and beliefs. The film is set in ordinary London suburban townhouse with an impressive list of stars such as Kristin Scott Thomas, Patricia Clarkson, Bruno Ganz, Emily Mortimer, Cillian Murphy. The story unfolds quickly with the viewer constantly on the edge of the seat. The initial occasion of the gathering is self-marvel and glory of the opposition party, specifically the recently appointed shadow health minister and her right hand best friend. The party progresses in ordinary fashion, music, wine and guests arriving. The first sign of trouble comes as soon as one of the guests hides a handgun in a holster under an exquisite jacket. At that point the viewer would become certain that the gun would play a pivotal role in the plot. Shortly the plot is extended by the pregnancy of one of the guests and the conflict of personal values of lesbian couple over the acceptance of male children. As the movie progresses the plots are added one by one, where adultery, love triangles, past love affairs, terminal illnesses, personal conflicts and religions beliefs all stack up into one big knot. The film depicts the modern society where every single person can hold countless surprises and mysteries. The film would be appreciated by anyone that likes the satirical and UK dark comedy.
Starring: Tye Sheridan Olivia Cooke Ben Mendelsohn Simon Pegg T.J. Miller Mark Rylance Hannah John-Kamen.
Genre: Action Adventure Sci-Fi.
Running time: 140 Minutes. Concise Critique: By Maxwell M. Lyons
Directed by the well-renowned Steven Spielberg, and based on Ernest Line’s immensely popular 2011 science fiction novel of the same name, Ready Player One portrays a dystopian earth in the year 2045 where its inhabitants escape the unsalvaged desolation of the real-world for the infinitely alluring utopia of a virtual reality game world known as the OASIS, a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (think World of Warcraft-esk). Following the passing of OASIS co-creator James Halliday (Mark Rylance), a worldwide pursuit begins to find an ‘Easter egg’ (hidden secret) hidden within the game, the discovery of which would reward to finder full control of the OASIS. What ensues is your classic good versus evil, David versus Goliath story, with the morally-driven but lowly protagonist Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) – alongside allies – going up against the powerful corporate antagonist Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), head of a conglomerate with endless resources and extensive indentured operative players at their disposal.
Pop culture references are thrown at you by the dozen in this near 2-hour-30-minute saga of a movie. Though predominantly centred around video game culture – notably that of the Atari 2600-era – the fictional cameos span well beyond this realm, from the cinematic classics of Back to the Future (1985) and The Shining (1980), to the iconic villains Chuckie (Child’s Play, 1988) and King Kong (King Kong, 1933), to the more obscure aspects of humanity’s technological past, such as Jeeves of the search engine Ask.com. It’s an absurd yet eclectic mix of history’s most beloved gems and willingly forgotten ordure guaranteed to scratch the nostalgic itch of almost everyone.
Though performances throughout were fairly respectable, there was a distinct lack of character development among many of the leading cast, particular in the film’s leading protagonist Wade; this made even more vexatious given the compelling backstory and motivation from main supporting ally Samantha Cook/’Art3mis’ (Olivia Cooke). Further narrative shortcomings including inconsistent pacing of events, a discordant balance between real- and virtual-world events, and the overreliance on nostalgic idealisation. The film was so enamoured with exalting the past it failed to appreciate the flawed beauty of its present; but throw in a flying DeLorean and some one-line nods to Bill and Ted (1989) and we’re all good, right? ~sigh
That is not to say it was a bad movie. Overall, Ready Player One had a lot to love about it. Whilst overbearing at times, its pop culture references are brilliantly implemented throughout the world build by the film. Moreover, CGI-effects are of exceptionally high quality, with the OASIS being nothing short of aesthetically rousing, a galvanic spectacle that does nothing but complement the high-octane exciting exuded by all the action scenes of the film – they are kinetic, vivacious, and infectiously convivial.
If you can acquiesce the film’s narrative shortcomings, Ready Player One offers a visually stimulating, pop culture riddled gaming wonderland sure to entertain.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 29, 2018.
THE ENDLESS website / cinema nova RATE: 5/10 Please save me from the good reviews published about this film. It is pretentious to be good but t is not, it is twisted but not t the right side, it has a story line you will never get and it is way too long. The people smoke dope thee, they loop in reality, there are some crazy surreal things happening around. If he film was an art-house it failed big time, if not, then I did not understand a word in that ugly mess of not connected events.
There are some elements of family drama in the film. The story line revolts around two brothers, who went through lots of hardship in their life since their early childhood. Thy did everything together in this life and .they mostly rely on each other. They were part of some occultic organisation some years ago that did not bring any balance in their life. The older brother planned an escape from this religious camp and the younger brother followed out of trust to his older brother. After they lived their life of "freedom" where bread and milk should be earned for survival they went through very hard times together. Apparently compared to the camp not everything including food was coming to them for free. every golden cage has its own rules and ts own way of attraction of its members. After years living in freedom and outside the "cage" the brothers suddenly receive a "message" in the form of a DVD they watch together. Bu they are not boys anymore. There are no more older or younger , they are equal now.
The overall impression: nonsense of the soap opera, The dialogues are empty, soul-less, pointless and some are very primitive and banal. I was not moved or impressed at any episode of the film as it was so not mine like a boring pale carton box! The actors are weak and colorless.
Starring: John Boyega Scott Eastwood Jing Tian Cailee Spaeny Rinko Kikuchi Charlie Day Burn Gorman Adria Arjona.
Genre: Action Adventure Sci-Fi.
Running time: 111 Minutes. Concise Critique: By Maxwell M. Lyons
If you were a fan of the first Pacific Rim (2013), chances are you were giddy with anticipation at the prospect of an over-the-top higher-budget sequel. One that embodied all the elements that made the first movie so enjoyable; a movie that is well-executed (despite narrative shortcomings) but still hilariously self-aware of its own inanity… only bigger. Pacific Rim: Uprising comes close to hitting the mark but falls just short of capturing the magic that made its predecessor so widely loved.
For the uninitiated, Pacific Rim at its heart presents a simple premise — giant (human-piloted) robots versus giant monsters, or Jaegers versus Kaiju, respectively. These films are not without narrative of course, but it was never meant to be the primary allure, and therein lies one of Uprising’s greatest flaws — more on that later.
To start with, one of the better aspects of the film is the performance of lead actor John Boyega. Coming fresh off the latest instalment of the new-age Star Wars trilogy, Boyega continues to demonstrate his acting prowess as he plays Jake Pentecost, the less-than-solemn son of Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba of Pacific Rim), the dignified self-sacrificing hero of this film’s prequel. Jake is cavalier and morally-questionable by comparison, surviving as a “junker”, stealing and selling scrapped Jaeger parts. Following a chance encounter and an impromptu police-chase alongside reluctant accomplice Amara (Cailee Spaeny) — girl-genius Jaeger bootlegger — the duo find themselves forced into Jaeger pilot school. It is here the movie’s storyline really starts to take shape.
A decade has passed since the events of Pacific Rim, and the world is without threat of Kaiju, yet even still forces of Jaeger and next-generation trainee pilots wait in pre-emption of their return (or that of a similar evil). With such worldly tensions alleviated, the first hour or so of Uprising finds itself developing its narrative and injecting suspense through Top Gun-esk cadet rivalries and story-arcs of corporate espionage. It’s understandable the film has to provide some storyline and character exposition to bridge the timeline gap between the films and set up forthcoming conflict, but in doing so it introduces a handful of throwaway cast, adds dramatic but ultimately frivolous conflicts that amount to little, and drags the film out unnecessarily – consequently, the pacing is quite inconsistent, especially when the actual action showcases rear their heads.
Don’t worry, the creatures from the Black Lagoon Breach do eventually come, and the mech v. lusus naturae battles are everything you would expect them to be — I’m talking ridiculously absurd, unnecessarily excessive, and satisfyingly visceral in all the right ways. It’s just a bit of a shame that Uprising felt it needed to justify itself from a narrative standpoint any more than the original Pacific Rim. The original wasn’t so widely loved for its narrative, so why try to change that now?
Narratively speaking, both Pacific Rim and Uprising are laughably horrid — characters are one-dimensional, character development is minimal, character-types are markedly unoriginal, dialogue is cliché, and exposition is lazily thrown about. The difference is Uprising took itself too seriously and lost sight of its own inanity. Perhaps it might have something to do with the absence of original director and creator Guillermo del Toro, replaced instead with television veteran Steven S. DeKnight (Angel, Smallville). Uprising is DeKnight’s Hollywood movie directorial debut.
In the end, if Pacific Rim was never your cup of tea, chances are Uprising won’t be either. But like myself, if you were a fan of the prequel, chances are you will be able to find some enjoyment in Uprising. It may not be quite as good, but if you can look past the movie’s earnestness, the Jaeger-Kaiju battles are well worth the drudgery.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 22, 2018.
MELBOURNE WOMEN IN FILM FESTIVAL 2018 website review by Dina Gavrilova
The Melbourne Women in Film Festival
The next wave of feminism crashed on the shores of Australia and called into existence gender equality issue. it is not a new one in general but it took a fresh turn into the film industry. In the era of global #Metoo movement it seems an honorable initiative to spread it on the local level. And second time already The Melbourne Women in Film Festival gives everyone an opportunity to support and celebrate female filmmakers and creatives. This gives the festival a lot of credit but the implied message it actually sends out is a bit controversial. Fighting for the rights is never easy, therefore the more important to do this wisely. To start from Lili Brik whose portrait made by Rodchenko embellishes the banner for 2018. She was well known mostly for her love affairs and ‘being a muse of Russian avant-garde’ rather than being a creative herself. Moreover, standing for gender equality the crew of the festival has not a single man on board. Is that true equality? The choice of movies is arguable as well. It is fair enough and praiseworthy to promote female filmmakers but not at the expense of quality. Unfortunately, when gender becomes the only criteria the result is not hard to predict…
LOVE SERENADE OPENING NIGHT website ‘Love Serenade’, the movie picked for the opening night, also raises a few questions. According to the official poster, the tagline states ‘two sisters will do anything to hook the right man’. It seems to be not quite encouraging and empowering message for women nowadays, does it? Released in 1996 ’Love serenade’ tells the story of two sisters who compete with each other for man’s attention and kill him at the end. Do not mentioning real incident on the set, violent solution for the trivial issue doesn’t look like moral and ethic response. Perhaps, back in 1996 this movie was witty enough and matched the attitude but does it really fit the agenda now? So, ladies, fighting for our rights lets do not forget about the common sense! Otherwise, we have all the chances to fail…
THE SILENCES website ’Silences’ was another movie on the program. And that one was definitely fitting the bill. It is a documentary narrating a family life story throughout half of the century, how bizarre twists of fate shape our lives. Margot Nash digs deep into her family roots in order to understand herself and examines this issue from a few angles including historical and psychological. How such significant occasion as war affected her personally? Unfortunately, not very often we think of indirect consequences of military conflicts though they have substantial impact through generations causing or triggering mental illnesses and giving plenty of grief even decades later. Another aspect is psychological: what are those coping mechanisms which allow people to handle unbearable loss and what it actually takes. All this contemplates through the lenses of personal relationship between the author and her mother. Private stories and secrets alternate with photos and videos revealing the truth which almost every family keeps (to a certain extend) but rare one has courage to admit.
All in all, it is extremely encouraging to know there are so many passionate women in film industry. Although certain improvements required, the efforts are appreciated. So, the very best wish for the next year is to keep going despite everything!
CLOSING NIGHT: DRAMA website review by Bryanna Reynolds
* REVIEW: Drama By Bryanna Reynolds
In this laugh out loud comedy starring Sophie Mathisen, this new Australian comedy is one you will want to check out. It is sure to have you laughing at the most inappropriate times and wishing you too could experience life in paris as a twenty something year old.
When an actress is pursuing a life of excitement there is only one thing in her way and that is love. There on pursues an onslaught of drama and comedy juxtaposing her life with that of one of her best friends who lives in France.
Drama is a true dramedy of its form. In this sense it makes many cultural references to trends and cultural norms that are representative of life nowadays.
This film is the amazing work of sister duo Sophie Mathisen and Dominique Mathisen. Much of the brilliance of this sister duo is evident throughout the film with similarities to aussie humour and australian slang but in another cultural form such as that of France. These two sisters are destined for great things and this is only just the beginning.
If you are looking to watch a film that will make you think outside the box but also have a good laugh then Drama is for you. This film has to be seen to be believed!
The casting of this film is absolutely on point and they all work swimmingly together. You may even notice some cameo’s of other local aussie talent in the film.
The lesson taken from the film is a true representation of friendship and the spirit of long term friendship and relighting love flames.
I would recommend this film for anyone who adores Australian humour with a touch of cultural diversity. Also the fact that the cast is made up of at least 50% women is a major joy point. On top of that the film is entirely independent!
Make sure you see Drama any way you can!
Drama was screened on the closing night of the Melbourne Women in Film Festival 2018.
Finding Your Feet film shines with the cast which is so theatrical you will adore the actors and their acting. I did not have very high expectations attending this film but it showed the opposite. Watched it in one breath, however some of the parts seemed a bit too sweet and unrealistic to me but the film is very positive and will set your mood in the right pace. he film will be though more suitable for the people of older age as it reflects their challenges and targets some particular aspects of life that relate to this kind of audience. It is about responsibilities in life, it is about love and romance, it is about caring for each other and t is about trust. I also thought: man who has the clear and pure intentions about the woman will not hesitate and will never question: to be or not to be. He knows his truth and he knows that he will be the winner as he has nothing to hide. The message for the women: letting go sometimes is the right and the only way to live. One more: forgive the right people, never to forgive the ones who can do the same wrong deed to you again - you know this kind. The film is full of good and healthy humor and life strength. It will encourage and will inspire. and as I mentioned earlier: BEST CAST EVER! You will enjoy the film.
HUMAN FLOW THE FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO website RATE: 9/10
It is a documentary about human rights, it is shocking, it is cynical due to the material used in making it, it is made by Ai Weiwei, the artist and the dissident .
We all have our view on the new comers and immigrants: be that very low grade opinions or just common opinions, lets be honest: no matter what we are told we all have our opinion on these people. Ai Weiwei did not make it colorful - he simply showed the real dramatic and sometimes devastating picture. His images, I mean hid footage can not be called human sometimes although it is blended with the nice and high end poetry, it is artistic but destroying. We have laws, we have rules to pay on, we have Organasations Of United Nations but the reality is much much much sadder than we all think. We only see what we are shown on TV and media , we know nothing. The humans are treated worse than animals . The animals have more organisations to protect their rights than human beings. Humans might not see the grass for years, the animal will suffocate and die if his/her feet do not touch the ground for a couple of months. While I have been curious and a bit disgusted seeing this documentary the rest of the film was turning into a boring and quite repetitive pace. Was I ashamed of the luxury I live in? Of the country that I live in? Was I ashamed of the ignorance that I live in? Was I ashamed of the complains my friends have on life while their brothers and sisters stay in such conditions? Did Ai solve anything for me or for the people in my country? No, he did not. Will we act? not really. Everything will remain the same because we are rich and we do not want to share or to equialise our selves. One thought was just striking tough: why Mr Weiwei was filming such movie? Would not it be better for him to give the money he spent on travelling and filming to the people he made this documentary on. Is not it some kind of a paradox? The problem of poor/rich next door / wall divided neighbours is spread all over the world, nothing has changed - the immigration happened 200,000 years ago, it happens now, it will always be the case. WE only know now more because of the media and information sharing on social sites. But we all continue on with our lives. We do not care Weiwei, we do not care about your film! Ai traveled through 23 countries of the wold, he spent so much efforts, so much money on that trip to show to us, ignorant potato, leather and cotton wear consumers of the world what is wrong with it. Weiwei covered Syria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Mali, the scale seems devastating. They live next to us., the deprived and the hungry while you eat scrambled eggs and chickens. The dramas get more interesting the vaster their scale is, the deeper their crisis is. Ai's statistic on the screen makes you sick. You will not believe you went to have coffee last night and did not think even that your brother did not have warm blanket last night. Ai Weiwei forgets one thing: again - we do not care, he uses the quality material on the grand scale , we care about teeth brushing. Ai plays with the human destinies as he plays with his art material, the art seems only a material to him, right? What is the difference between his documentary and the everyday news that show pain to us so carelessly we became immune to it...Two and half hours I was in pain. I gave the film 8/10 for his artistism and should be given 0 for the problem tackling. Because this is the main art purpose: to solve and to ease, to beautify and to make us better... I did not feel better ... I felt worse. I did not know how to help these hungry kids' mother and fathers. Ai lost one thing in his life: he is not a classical artist, he has not told me anything new - I know the pain, he did not heal, he laughed at me. His art is helpless... so I felt the same. He disturbed us, the people enjoying the fruit of our capitalistic tables, but he never showed the way out it. We will then remain sitting at our tables and laughing. I only have one very bad suspicion: Ai;s purpose was not to show us the problem but rather to show HIMSELF as a genius rtist. This is where he failed. He ran after that GRAND himself but he found only emptiness of boat of disembarked immigrants, cold and scared to death after their journeys. WOULD HE HAVE THE GUTS TO INVITE HIS "ACTORS: TO THE RED CARPET IN CANNES THOUGH???
NTL: YOUNG MARX BEST MOVIE OF THE MONTH website RATE: 10/10
YOU HAVE TO SEE IT! It is a video version of the newly opened Bridge Theatre production in London called Young Marx. Rory Kinnear rocks in his acting and he would be the best Marx's impersonation I have ever seen on stage! I am in love with Karl Marx! I would not imagine myself saying it anywhere before! Rony is handsome, Rony is OMG!!!!! I am crazy about him and his talent! If I say the production was spectacular I would say nothing to you, my dear readers. I was laughing out loud scaring the people ll over the theater full of serious media, smiling media. But I WAS loud. Marx is shown in all his true colors, as a human being not as a communistic idol of a all centuries and all working people. Marz is a thief, he is a total dumbwit, kind and sarcastic crazy idiot running away from the police on roof ops, unfaithful to his wife, crying at his son's grave, having fun with his made-lover and tricking the pawn shop owners. He drinks, he smokes and he is not right in his head of course as all geniuses are. It is a black comedy of high class. One scene wil never get out of my mind: Marx meeting with Charles Darvin. Now you know who gave whose ideas to whom, but my laughter would not feel complete without this particular scene. Dear Nicholas Hytner, I swar I will not miss any of your productions from now on! Capital! Marz says THANK YOU to the man next to him: Engels, he says THANK YOU to his wife and THANK YOU o his lover - without those three people the book would never see the light , would never be published. It is about women's care and tolerance , men's friendship, finding your own way in life, struggle and hardship, egoism and self-giving to the other person. I want to dd to my story that the decorations are superb, the production is amazing: it shows not only poitical but family and social life of the young star. Musical intermissions of Marx and Engels are the top of the cherry on the production cake. This miracle is a simple window to the common life of any person whom we though was so unreachable and who is reality is the same as us. Engels. He is rational and smart in spite of Marx's volcanic character: he balances the family scenes and the overall mood of the staging. Engels is one who always find the solution in the most difficult situation in family: be is love-romance or just a financial difficulty. Engels is charming. Marx is egocentric to the most. There no people, no sols, no feelings around him except his own, He is always so keen to do something for his family and friends but he never does it. He knows the book title but he has not written a word in his book for the last 5 years. his Miss Laziness can write a poems about Marx if she could ever have the energy to write. But she is laziness, she would rather be infidel, lazy, drink and eat and smoke. There is no job tat She would do. Marx is smart and he is smart enough not to work at all. Marx doe snot have a light nor he knows how to use his torch in the darkness that he put himself into. He looks funny but you want to cry as you yourself in such scenes. WHAT I LOVED THE MOST: humor of course. It is balanced, it is in most cases intelligent and it is always there in the right place. It never ends. Who would ever think Marx was young, stupid and wind-headed? We did not think about it. I am glad there are people who think different from everyone's else.
The message was so well delivered in this film: women have no word and some still do not have any to say o men. It is very hard to imagine that they were fighting for their rights in such country as Switzerland for the rights in 1970 when you are sure the rights should have been all resolved in the best possible way to everyone. It is hard to imagine such a cave-man order but it was true. Nora , the main character can not work outside her house hold, she can not have her own opinion, she has to cook every single meal for her family, all she sees in life is cooking, cleaning and washing. She does not know any better. Her life is about to change. The revelation only needs a small seed to grow inside the good soil. Nora is played by Leuenberger, a highly talented actor. It was one of not many films where the characters were not based on real people. I can see some of the people might find the film a bit slow and boring but I liked some of its parts.
TRANSITIONS FILM FESTIVAL 2018: FOOD FIGHTER website review by Jeanette Russel
I appreciate the opportunity to view the Food Fighter documentary, very much. This film gave an amazing and somewhat shocking insight into food waste in Australia. Ronni Kahn who founded OzHarvest has taken the fight globally about how as human's we waste so much food. In Australia alone, at the start of the documentary being filmed in 2015, we had a 20 billion dollar, food waste bill , per annum. While each year two million Australians suffer from insecurity around food, an essential human need, for survial. The impact on the environment is also huge. Discarded edible food going to land fill causes greenhouse gas emissions. This was all significant "food for thought " for me. Ronni's Oz Harvest first formed in Sydney in 2004, was started, to collect some wasted food. Supermarkets, Qantas airlines etc were just some big businesses where perfectly edible food was collected to take in vans to hungry Aussie's in need. She has founded a phenomenal agency which now helps, educates, and supports people all over Australia. we learn in the film that this dynamic women is taking her harvest approach to the world. Strong focused and passionate about food harvesting Ronni has taken her plight to four continents. As the documentary shows she has not given up in any quarter even though there has been challenges and resistance. Ronni has remained firm and determined to fight for her food cause. Her crusade has brought many bright and innovative ideas to the fore about how we can locally and globally combat, food waste, and environmental impact, as well as contributing to food sustainability, use and health. I would really recommend seeing this documentary. Contained are great eyeopening , moving and very informative . content. I highly recommend seeing this film. It runs at the Transitions Film Festival:
Sydney Newtown Dendy Friday, March 23 @ 6:30 pm Brisbane New Farm Cinemas Thursday, March 22 @ 6:30 pm
Starring: Chris Hemsworth Michael Shannon Michael Peña Navid Negahban Trevante Rhodes Geoff Stults Thad Luckinbill Austin Stowell Ben O’Toole Austin Hebert Kenneth Miller Kenny Sheard Jack Kesy.
Genre: Action Adventure Drama Historical.
Running time: 130 Minutes. Concise Critique: 12 Strong By Maxwell M. Lyons
America, 9/11, terrorism, Afghanistan; here we go again. The latest in American jingoism, 12 Strong, is based on the now-declassified military operation involving the first U.S. soldiers to land in (*cough* invade) Afghanistan post-9/11. Led by captain Mitch Nelson (Chris Hemsworth), this twelve-man Special Forces unit was ordered to rendezvous with local warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum (Navid Negahban) and launch a retaliatory attack – all while on horseback – to cripple the Taliban’s nexus of power and pre-emptively hinder Al Qaeda’s faculty for further terroristic training. And so began the War-On-Terror.
The performances of and chemistry between Hemsworth and Negahban alone were highly commendable, and it is this dynamic that carries much of the movie and acts as a surprisingly emotionally-charged subplot. Outside this duo, noteworthy performances were those of U.S. allies played by Michael Shannon (a loyal lieutenant) and Michael Peña (the comedic relief). Unfortunately, the remaining nine compatriots were underdeveloped and offered little more than gratuitous masculine bravado and throwaway movie-tagline dialogue. And let’s not forget the waves of faceless Taliban soldiers and their stereotypical cold-hearted religious extremist of a leader – you’d be hard pressed finding a more contrived antagonist.
Aside from poorly-written characters, the film’s main problem stems from its overly cliché conventions and enamour with patriotic heroism. There are the tearful (horrendously underwritten) soldier’s wives and their melodramatic goodbyes, the cold-but-progressively-warmer foreign relations, the overcoming of differences for the greater good, the eye-for-an-eye mentality, and of course the necessity for the hero to prove themselves in some way – you’ve seen it all before. The film somehow even makes its action scenes feel repetitive and lacklustre after a while, becoming little beyond a spectacle of smart bombs dropping from B-52s in the stratosphere. The gunfire, explosions, and tactical warfare still rear their heads every so often, but at 130 minutes the film drags on somewhat and stunts in pacing.
At its core, 12 Strong appears to have the best of intentions in telling the amazing story of these twelve men. It was fairly entertaining at times and had some admirable performances, but was unfortunately hindered by its melodramatic cliché, subpar dialogue, and one-dimensional stolidity. If you like war movies and don’t mind a bit of narrative simplicity, you may find 12 Strong a decent way to kill an afternoon. But if – like myself – you’re blasé with the ego-stroke of American patriotism, you won’t get much from this one. Whichever you choose, I must say that the irony of casting an Australian as lead actor to the most American thing to America its way out of America in quite some time should not be lost on anyone.
12 Strong will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 8, 2018.
KANGAROO A LOVE HATE STORY THE FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO website RATE: 9/10
The film is heart breaking, describing the devastating state the national animal of Australia and its iconic symbol being treated as a commodity , bringing money to the state and the government as well as to the organisations and individuals connected to hunting the innocent creature down with cruelty and heartless acts. The films reveals a not so pleasant truth we all do not like to hear. The kangaroo meat is imported without a second though about damaging the environment but not only that as that would be the least of all evil: the way the animal is killed is not unbearable to watch. We do not kill our cows and pigs that disrespectful way. The land belongs to all of us equally. The land does not belong to the ones who have sharper knives, precise weapons and war craft gold. I was so revolted I still can not eat meat after watching this film. The film not only reveals the problem but it also offers the solution. Please watch it as the knowledge is power and such films in particular can tell you a lot about who lives next to us and what we all should sat up on and what we all shoild support.
Director: Garth Evans (Lion 2016) Jesus of Nazareth: Joaquin Phoenix Mary Magdalene: Mara Rooney Judas Iscariot: Tahar Rahim Her brother Daniel: Denis Ménochet Peter: Chiwetel Ejiofor Rachel: Ariana Labed Writers: Helen Edmundson and Philippa Goslett Film Score: Icelandic composer Johann Johannsson
The Costume Design and the Art Department team deserve credit for making this film look stunningly authentic. The plentiful robes, some with beautiful embroidery, artistically swathe the bodies and often move gracefully in the coastal breeze. The superb cinematography recording the everyday life and events of these ancient peoples set amongst the rustic backdrop of Judaean villages.
The group of Apostles led by Jesus progresses through the countryside. The culmination of their journey is Jerusalem, where the story unfolds. All the while we are treated to atmospheric vistas like what one would imagine the ancient world to be. It’s filmed in Italy notably Sicily and Puglia which are grand locations for the movie.
Mary, a young Jewish woman from a fishing village in the 1st Century had wanted to escape the constraints of her expected role as a compliant daughter in a society with a patriarchal order. She was disobedient in rejecting a suitor chosen by her father and engaged in overtly fervent prayer. The latter a practice frowned upon outside the expectations of her gender. As a result of her actions she was seen as a being possessed. She was violently submerged in the sea within seconds of her life by her own family. She flees to follow Jesus and become an Apostle.
Many people are joining now; they’re embracing this new faith and following this charismatic Rabbi Jesus. They are eager to experience the douse of faith in the numerous Sea of Galilee baptisms. At times Jesus greets the crowds with his preaching but baptisms are a highlight and his disciples assist, including the newly enlightened Mary.
Enthusiasm for the new kingdom spoken about by Jesus is apparent amongst the Apostles but overwhelmingly so with Judas Iscariot. A great performance by Tahar Rahmin as Judas whose feverishness about deliverance from Roman oppression and the new kingdom is further fuelled when he witnesses Jesus in action with his miracles.
These healings Jesus undertakes impress everyone not unexpectedly as he manages in one instance to bring a dead man back to life. Mary and the others have their faith legitimized by seeing this. It’s also clear to Mother Mary that Mary Magdalene not only admires her son but she loves him and she states this to her. The chemistry between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is believable. Mary is driven not just by devotion to Jesus but also the bigger picture. In the later scenes she proves this when she stands defiant that she will spread the word when in the presence of Peter after Jesus death. Peter tries to suppress Mary and chastise her for her involvement with Jesus. But she is having none of it; she leaves after proclaiming that she will commit to the cause.
Most people know the essence of the story and it’s there predictably: the crucifixion, the cave and the resurrection. Further revelation about the character of Judas is his completely euphoric anticipation of what Jesus will do. Judas decides to put Jesus to a disastrous test betraying him to Romans uttering Jesus will have to act now in the face of adversity. Seemingly not out of malice but more out of impatience. There is a hugely regretful Judas after the consequences of his actions are realized. Judas character in the film is an interesting depiction and not a single dimension villain.
In the beginning and end of the film Mary is in the watery depths suspended and it is really beautiful. Just like she is in the heavens as we see historically in robed figures defying gravity in Renaissance paintings such as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. The Biblical significance of these narrations talks of the nurtured seed being fruitful and abundant. This is from the parable the Book of Matthew where it’s written the growth of Christ’s kingdom as if from a single seed of mustard.
Joaquin Phoenix as Jesus takes command of the role and has an unconventional demeanor to the point of being almost a bit quirky. He makes the role his own; it’s definitely not a cookie cutter portrayal. His hair is disheveled and his robes are shabby; this emphasizes the fact that he is more interested in others than himself.
Beautiful, fresh faced, palely angelic at times; Rooney Mara conveys Mary’s deft abilities at healing and counseling; her kindness and leadership. Mary is truly a multi-faceted heroine who does her gender proud. Her sense of compassion is the jewel in her crown... no more poignantly than when she deals with the villagers who were left to perish and were near to death if not already dead in the caves scene.
The outcome is an interesting portrayal of Mary’s role in history; she’s no longer viewed as a prostitute. A woman whose status once warped by society and proliferated by Pope Gregory I in 591 and often as far back as the 4th century. 2016 saw change in Church doctrines recognizing Mary Magdalene’s important place in history and redeeming her effectively. The proposals as to what her actual character may have been are well considered in this film.
Running time: 106 Minutes. Concise Critique: In the Fade (Aus dem Nichts) By Maxwell M. Lyons
Directed by Fatih Akin and winner of the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film 2017, In the Fade is a strikingly humanistic story of grief, desolation, and reprisal at the hands of injustice. Divided into three distinct (and intertitled) acts the movie follows Katja (Diane Kruger) and her psychological struggle through the ensuing events following the death of her ex-con husband Nuri (Numan Açar) and young son Rocco at the hands of a terroristic bombing.
As a whole, the movie is an entertaining watch with compelling performances, tight and highly focussed cinematography, and a felicitous discordant sound design fitting of the gritty neo-noir it presents itself to be. Unfortunately, there are some tonal issues between the three acts – the second act in particular drags somewhat before tensions are reignited leading into the climactic thriller-esk third act, though by this stage it loses some traction and never quite reaches that level of suspense you’d hope for.
Furthermore, there was little intricacy to the narrative. The film seemed far too enamoured in depicting the profundity of Katja’s grief that it lacked depth outside her solipsism. For instance, Nuri’s criminal history served little but to facilitate exposition in the form of a police interrogation that itself lead nowhere. Furthermore, the young villainous duo are shallow and underdeveloped characters, all but mere blank canvases with the word ‘evil’ scrawled across them – their malevolence is autotelic. Likewise, Katja’s friends and family are generic and one-dimensional, acting only to fuel Katja’s despair and add verisimilitude to her impetuous desolation before being ousted from the story. The film really wants you to believe that there is no alternative for Katja, but it offered little opportunity otherwise, and so the narrative felt forced and vacuous.
In the Fade is definitely a movie worth seeking out (if you can handle subtitles), though I would caution having ‘Golden Globe’ level expectations. There are many praiseworthy aspects, especially in Kruger’s performance as the unwavering and monosyllabic Katja, but its claustrophobic scope, narrative otiosity, and tonal inconsistency hampers what is an otherwise enjoyable watch.
In the Fade will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 8, 2018.
EVERY DAY NEW website review by Susan Reynolds THE FILM WAS CANCELLED BY THE PRODUCERS
Starring: Jason Bateman Rachel McAdams Kyle Chandler Lamorne Morris Jesse Plemons Billy Magnussen. Genre: Dark Comedy Mystery/Crime.
Running time: 100 Minutes. Concise Critique: Game Night By Maxwell M. Lyons
Game Night is a hilarious new comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams as overly competitive, board games-obsessed couple Max and Annie. Already struggling to conceive, their predicament isn’t made any easier when Max’s wealthier, more handsome, more successful brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) comes to visit, re-opening the wounds of a deep-seated sibling rivalry. If that wasn’t bad enough, Brooks steals the couple’s thunder by kidnapping (in quite a literal sense) the couple’s sacred weekly game night, raising the stakes by throwing a murder mystery party in a smug thinly-veiled attempt of one-upmanship. But in an unexpected twist, the feigned murderous themed entertainment takes an all too real turn leading the couple and their friends on a wild adventure of dangerous, disastrous, and diverting events.
Bateman and McAdams gave stand out performances, with amazing chemistry between the two – a fantastically witty and self-observant portrait of the dynamics between couples. Friends Kevin (Lamorne Morris) and Ryan (Billy Magnussen) and their respective partners/dates complement the comedic style of the film quite well, though with a main cast of seven not everyone gets their adequate share of screen time. With that said, screen time bears no correlation with the memorability of characters as demonstrated by Jesse Plemmons, playing the seldom-seen but unforgettable neighbour Gary, a benevolent yet austere cop ardent for camaraderie – he steals the show every time he’s onscreen; truly a highlight.
The story is also much deeper and fleshed out that your average comedy; there’s a great deal of intricacy to the various subplots of the film and characters are fairly well-developed. The narrative itself definitely crossed the line into the absurd, though I would query you as to think of a praiseworthy comedy movie that doesn’t – not that they don’t exist, just that they’re few and far between. Despite this, the story still remained respectably in the realms of plausibility, albeit requiring a little suspension of disbelief – an easy reconcile considering the comedic onslaught of hilarious repertoire. There are twists and turns all throughout, each as entertaining as the last, and not all as predictable as you would think.
A final note of commendation goes to the cinematography, in particular during the numerous establishing shots throughout the film – using drones and visual effects to make each shot resemble that of a game board and its pieces, reinforcing the motif of the film and its characters playing through a game of their own – and during a continuous tracking shot following a fast-moving catch-me-if-you-can pursuit through a multitude of rooms in a mansion – well executed and highly enjoyable.
Game Night is a delightfully absurd comedy with a razor-sharp screenplay, talented ensemble, and delightfully dark additions. Truly one of better comedies of recent times, and dare I say the best of 2018 thus far – a title it can hold onto for another couple of months until Deadpool 2 comes out. Game Night is well worth a watch and highly recommended.
Game Night will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on February 22, 2018.
PARENTS CAN BE SUCH BLOCKERS website review by Max Lyons
Director: Kay Cannon.
Starring: Leslie Mann John Cena Ike Barinholtz Kathryn Newton Geraldine- Viswanathan Gideon Adlon Graham Phillips Miles Roberts.
Running time: 102 Minutes. Concise Critique: Blockers By Maxwell M. Lyons
Blockers follows the intertwining story of three high-school senior girls – Julie (Kathryn Newton), Kayla (Geraldine Viswanathan), and Sam (Gideon Adlon) – who make a pact to lose their virginities on prom night, and their well-intentioned yet nosy parents (a more than familiar trait to many) – Lisa (Leslie Mann), Mitchell (John Cena), and Hunter (Ike Barinholtz), respectably – that look to protect their daughters by intervening and (c*ck) blocking them. Whilst conceptually trite, what Blockers lacks in originality it justly makes up for in comedic prowess, respectable performances (especially of its young-adult cast), and profoundly heartfelt motifs.
Firstly, let’s get something out of the way… the trailer. If you saw the trailer and rolled your eyes at Cena’s “butt-chug”, believe me, you weren’t alone. But trust me when I say you should give this movie a second chance. Beyond the obvious shock-value sight gags lies a torrent of impressively witty humour throughout more than capable of keeping you chuckling for a solid portion of its runtime; there are a few standout comedic forces (Cena and Barinholtz) but ultimately all leading cast members have their fair share of jocose dialogue and interactions.
Narratively speaking the movie tries to pack a lot into its modest 102-minute runtime; subplots include the three (3) disparate loving-yet-flawed parent-daughter relationships, an emotionally complex divorcee backstory, an exploration of sexuality, and even a passing commentary on feminine ideals and empowerment regarding the perception of sexual behaviour among genders. Consequently, the pacing was inconsistent at times and some aspects of the narrative were underdeveloped or glossed over. Perhaps one or two of these side arcs could have been left out for the better, but in the end, they do not hinder or derail from the main storyline too much. And to its credit, the story isn’t as predictable as you’d think; sure the ending can be seen from a mile away, but the journey there makes a few unexpected twists and turns along the way.
On a more positive note, cast performances throughout the film were fairly commendable and highly entertaining. Mann and Barinholtz showed off their veteran acting experience in full form whilst Cena, arguably the most inexperienced actor of the group, managed to keep pace and deliver consistently; yet another surprisingly impressive role to add to his ever-growing Hollywood repertoire. Though, what proved truly rousing was the performances of its younger coming-of-age talent; Newton, Viswanathan, and Adlon were all phenomenal. I look forward to seeing what their future has to bring.
Blockers most certainly has its flaws, but to sum the movie up in one word is ‘surprising’. Surprising because it offered far more depth, humour, and talent than its pandering sight-gag trailer would have you believe. The humour was surprisingly hilarious, the narrative had a surprising depth and intricacy to it, and overall the movie was a surprisingly entertaining watch, and one I’d happily recommend if you’re in the mood for a hilariously absurd mindless comedy.
Blockers will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 29, 2018.
THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE THE FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO website RATE: 8.5/10
If it was for the humor alone I would give this film 10/10. It is such a Northern style of humor: it is slow,it is sharp and it is brilliant! The Other Side Of Hope shows us the lives of the foreign country immigrants which sometimes is beyond hope. But the film does not touch it heavily. It has nothing but a good aftertaste and no matter what struggles people go through to run away from their countries and establish themselves in the new environment not only as professionals but as humans first of all, the word Hope is still present in the title. The political agenda is shown is all its ugliness though it does not frustrate much but only feels a bit sad, sometimes grotesques and sometimes witty. I loved the style the film was made in: it is so utopic in its delivery to the audience they enjoys not only the story line (the type of one when you think: "i adore it, so what is next?") but the statically vintage form of the movie. It reminded me of Le Havre created by the same Finnish director, Aki Kaurismäki. The film follows the steps of Khaled,the Syrian refugee, his attempts to get get through strict immigration policies, his failure, his way out and escape as well as his success in finally settling up in Finland. While watching the film please pay attention to details, not the major scenes ,but the actual surroundings of the scenes and decorations. The laconic language and minimalism in acting ads to the beauty of the form I mentioned above making the picture so incredibly unique. The music captured live is quite mesmerising breaking up the silence in the right moments. I should also admit the humor and the way the film "pretends" to be serious when it is not is not everyone's cup of tea but if you know the Baltic countries characters and its people you will understand it to its bone and you will keep laughing episode after the episode, When I said minimalism in acting I only meant the lines of the script, but omg how much you can say in a silent dialogue, that sometimes can say more and act more than any long texts and actions (in latter read: movements). It is a truly superb cocktail of drama and comedy where one is only a small step to the other. While watching I kept asking myself: what year was it filmed? the policemen use laptops and the typing machines at the same time? What?How does this blend of vintage and modern even work but it does in the best possible way similar to when the people start laughing at themselves. The absurd sometimes can overflow from your cup ,for some reason this film does not give that impression. It stays on its grounds and continues making statements the audience receives with gratitude and reaction. The film? It is highly recommended.
Starring: Alicia Vikander Walton Goggins Dominic West Daniel Wu Kristin Scott-Thomas.
Genre: Action Adventure.
Running time: 118 Minutes. Movie Review: By Maxwell M. Lyons
Lara Croft has come a long way since her 1996 debut, polygon assets and all. Though the original cinematic adaptions of the early 200s found modest success, it seemed almost inevitable a reboot would be in the works given the recent resurgence in cinematic video-game adaptions in addition to the 2013 game franchise reboot. With a finely crafted narrative, stunning visual references, and more than enough material to last a saga of sequels, you’d think it would be a fairly straightforward formula for success, yet surprisingly even so much as a half-decent virtual-to-screen conversion has alluded filmmakers unwittingly for years now. So, is Tomb Raider the one they finally get right? Well, it’s not perfect, but it’s still noticeably a cut above the rest, and through its flaws remains a fairly entertaining watch.
In essence, Tomb Raider loosely follows the story of its 2013 graphical reboot: Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander), the fiercely independent daughter of missing (and presumed dead) business mogul Richard Croft (Dominic West), travels to an exiled island in search of her father. It is here she’s pushed to her limits as she finds herself in the midst of an excavation, led by the merciless Mathias Vogel (Walton Goggins), to unleash the dormant powers hidden within the island’s mythical tomb.
Narratively speaking, the movie is a bit choppy and certainly slows at times once Lara hits the island. Preceding this her character is fairly well developed and the film’s pacing moved quickly in accordance with her adventurous and locomotive personality, but once the midpoint is reached it falls into a bit of a lull. The climax does pick things back up, but the inconsistency is a little jarring. Furthermore, aside from Lara herself, there not a whole lot of character depth — henchmen are big, brooding, and interchangeable; Mathias’s fixation on the tomb’s treasure is unjustified at best and gratuitous at worst; Richard is presented as loving but morally conflicted without sufficient justification; and the main supporting character to Lara, Lu Ren (Daniel Wu), is all but forgotten about following the second act. Even Lara herself is undercut by her supposed fixation around everything to do with her father; yes, he is important to her backstory and current motivations, but it seems at times to be her only driving force.
Despite this, Vikander performance as Lara was thrilling to watch, going so far as to perform most of her own stunts. Her acting talents and emotional depth made the character more believable and she was by far the stand out of the entire cast. Furthermore, on the matter of stunts and action, the balance between video-game physics and real-world plausibility rode a fine line and brought an excitement and tension to scenes that, though stretched the imagination, did so within reason and firmly grounded themselves within the realms of reality. These were undoubtedly the most entertaining parts of the film.
In the end, Tomb Raider may have been less than perfect, but it sets a respectable precedent for future adaptations to improve upon. Was it amazing, not really. Was it better than any other video-game adaption as of late, most certainly. I can applaud it as commendable in this respect, however, as a standalone film, it’s relative admirability doesn’t make it overly praiseworthy. There’s entertainment to be had, but ultimately, it’s little more than a mindless watch. I would probably wait until it comes to Netflix.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 15, 2018.
I would say it is a rare and unique anmation. If two words are required to discribe this cartoon I would say: charming and funnyy. My disappointment: it is an animation about football. So the story turns into a banal interpreaion we all heard a=so many times ago: team siprit and the good guys winning over the bad guys. It is more or less predictable. Bu despite a common story I left the cinea without any disappointmen. The characters are amazingly cute so are the animals - adorable. How cn you not fal in love with a prehistorical hog which is a miracle on its own. The plasticin animation when we all have digital and graphocal is one perfect gem. It is a breath f fresh and clean air,it s hand made. The creators are trying to project the modern situatons in life and in sport to the prehistorical epoche. We recognise them and we laugh. It works we all have o admit it. We fool around stones, masssages and rabbits - anything works. It is adorable. The anmation is light and mood uplifting.You wil have lots of fun wachng it. We fel not only for the main characters but fo rth eanimals too (and for the sweet hog of course) The story is simple but very pleasurable to wach. It will not be a boring time spent in fornt of TV - I have to reassure you all. I am sure you will all smile an laugh genuinly. I can also see that the people who love fotball will lke the film too. I also can see that many of adults and kids will wattch is film twice.
Film Review: Oscar Nominated Live-Action Short-Films By Maxwell M. Lyons
The Academy Awards are right around the corner, and critics the world over are vociferously touting their winning-predictions. From ‘Best Picture’ to ‘Best Actor/Actress’, there are a flurry of beautifully crafted marvels, impeccable performances, and commendable behind-the-scenes roles worthy of reverence. Though often overlooked is the category of short-films, which is a crying shame given the remarkable feats of cinematic craftsmanship of this year’s nominees for Best Live Action Short-Film – ‘DeKalb Elementary’, ‘My Nephew Emmett’, ‘Watu Wote/All of Us’, ‘The Eleven O’Clock’, and ‘The Silent Child’.
DeKalb Elementary is a retelling of a 2013 school shooting in Atlanta, Georgia. Deriving much of its dialogue and inspiration from the actual transcript of the 911 call made during the event, the short tells the story of a young gunman armed with an automatic rifle and his encounter with a surprisingly compassionate administrator. As a whole, the short was quite well made, but unfortunately lacked anything overly noteworthy. The performances were fairly commendable, but the narrative is quite simplistic and seems to lack scope compared to its competitors. For what it’s worth, the short was solely character focussed devoid of what could have been an easily politicised piece around heroism, mental health, or the much-dreaded topic of gun reform. But in a way this lack of thematic conviction deterred from the overall impact, presenting a problem without a solution – one regrettably still relevant given the continued frequency of mass shootings and gun violence in the absence of pragmatic regulations in the US, but I digress. Given the subject matter, it’s Oscar nomination comes as no surprise, but given its ethical neutrality, up against the other shorts, it falls flat in execution.
My Nephew Emmett continues the trend of historical adaptions with its highly stylistic and dramatised account of the racially-driven 1955 murder of Emmett Till – an African-American teenage city-boy visiting relatives in Mississippi – for the “crime” of whistling at a white woman. Told from the perspective of Emmett's great-uncle (L.B. Williams), the short is a well-acted highly cinematic piece that unfortunately lacks completeness, perhaps hindered by the ‘short’ aspect of being a short-film. The emotional connection with Emmett just isn’t there, which is a shame given the masterful performance by Williams, whose portrayal is so strikingly dark and emotionally complex it near borders on macabre, complemented by a morbid ambiance of soft and low-light cinematography. An admirable piece built on a shaky foundation, My Nephew Emmett may not win an Oscar, but it’s certainly worth keeping an eye on writer/director Kevin Wilson Jr. – an undergraduate NYU film student would you believe?
Watu Wote/All of Us, the final true-story of the category, tells the story of a Christian woman travelling from Kenya to Somalia on a bus that is stopped by Islamic Al-Shabaab terrorists – a common occurrence near the treacherous border dividing these countries. What makes this tale so indelible is not the attack itself, but the actions of the fellow Muslim passengers, who stand in solidarity and protect the Christians passengers from certain execution. The film casts a group of terrific local Kenyan actors who convey excellent chemistry with one another in a narrative that focusses heavily on the intimacy of negative emotions that fester between the two religious groups, fuelled by the distorted veil of extremist forces. Narratively-speaking, however, the film lacks poignancy, focussing more on dramatizing the 2015 events than making a statement. It’s a story of heroism that eclipses any contention raised on the issues of religious discrimination or fundamentalist terrorism. A heartfelt story for sure, but not one worthy of winning the Oscar.
A nice reprieve from the hard-hitting emotional drain of the other shorts, The Eleven O’Clock is a comically witty film starring Australia’s own Derin Seale and Josh Lawson about a psychiatrist and his titular appointment with a patient suffering from grandiose delusions, thinking he himself is a psychiatrist – the only problem, you don’t know who’s who. What ensues is a hilarious psychoanalytic nightmare that blurs objective reality and confabulated mendacity as both men combat the spiralling hysteria of one another’s “delusions” while attempting to remain professional under duress. Performances are on point, and whilst the twist ending comes as no surprise the journey getting there is satisfyingly maddening. Whether you derive a message pertaining to the perceived instability and delirious nature of the world’s political climate, or perhaps the ubiquity of delusion and egotism of self-avowed expertise, or simply enjoy it at face value for the ludicrous farce it presents, there is much entertainment to be had. Comedic shorts seldomly attain Oscar-winning status and so it’s disheartening to say this homegrown short will likely follow the trend, though regardless I would slate The Eleven O’Clock among the must-watch films emerging from the recent Oscar season.
Lastly, we have The Silent Child, a disheartening PSA-in-disguise about the inherent stigmatism surrounding deaf and hearing-impaired children and the continued lack of specialist support and sign language recognition in schools and greater society. Joanne, a specialist support worker, is hired to assist Libby, a young hearing-impaired girl about to commence her schooling. Though well-intentioned, Libby’s mother is naively adamant in knowing what’s best for her daughter, spurring conflict amongst the family and resistance against Joanne, despite Libby’s promising communication development under her tutelage. In the end, inconvenience outweighs progress, and Libby suffers for it – a heartbreaking end, followed by a coda of frustratingly saddening statistics on the ill-equipped nature of families and schools in assisting the profoundly deaf. Personally, I think The Silent Child is most deserving of the Oscar. The film is gorgeously shot and performances by all are fantastic and emotionally-charged. It’s not a dramatised celebration of heroism or bitter reflection of the past you see in the other ‘true-story’ pieces, but instead is a beautifully crafted call-to-action – a plea for change, a depiction of a tragic reality lived by many. For this it deserves the highest of praise and continued support in the spread of its harrowing message.
Though it is a sombre reality that short-films these days are no longer recognised with the same esteem as their lengthier counterparts, it in no way detracts from the artistry of these succinct cinematic showcases. This year’s Oscar nominees for Best Live-Action Short-Film prove a perfect example to this point and should be experienced by all. Luckily, many cinemas across the country are holding compilation screenings of these shorts back-to-back, and so I would explore everyone to seek out their local screening. You won’t regret it!
FIFTY SHADES FREED website RATE: 5.5/10 review by Yulia Assatryan
Anastasia 'Ana' Steele and Christian Grey return to Seattle after a honeymoon. So we meet our sweet couple again. Will the heroes of modern fairy tale live long and happily? This is already the third movie in this trilogy and we realise that it's not that important for them. The most important to show off the luxurious life from every side. It is a classical erotic romance. Everybody already realised that movie versions of E L James' books are much more successful than the books itself! Sam Taylor-Johnson is a master of adaption. It's worth mentioning that Ana is easily getting along with all the circumstances life offers her. She is a very diligent, intelligent and smart professional young woman. She is a brilliant chief editor, housewife and a beautiful partner for her husband. She is the winner of the film. And everything will be just fine. The viewers have to sit back and enjoy the beautifully made charming naive movie!