Psychic ability is a subject that often mystifies yet captivates many of us. It’s also a topic that’s frequently misunderstood and comes with a lot of distorted, uninformed baggage in need of serious clarification. Those looking to be enlightened about it, however, are unlikely to come away from director Lana Wilson’s documentary on the subject with much new or profound insight. The film profiles seven New York City psychic professionals through conversations with these individuals and footage from sessions with some of their clients. Regrettably, though, this overlong offering is in serious need of being trimmed and recut. Much of the material becomes redundant and tedious as the film progresses, and the picture frequently focuses on the wrong content. Many of the client sessions, for example, are abruptly cut short just as they’re starting to get interesting. In addition, the interviews with the psychics are at their best when they wax philosophically about the nature of this phenomenon (particularly when discussing how they became involved in this practice, often through artistic, healing and self-acceptance avenues), but there’s not nearly enough of these fascinating metaphysical musings. And then there’s a potentially intriguing collective gathering involving all seven psychics that, sadly, receives woefully short shrift, again getting clipped just as it’s becoming engaging. Instead of more of what works best in the film, viewers are left with numerous easily eliminated pregnant pauses, often-superfluous descriptions about everyday aspects of the psychics’ personal lives and overly repetitive discussion of subjects addressed in the session material (especially those involving the work of a pet psychic, an intriguing but vastly overused narrative element). “Look Into My Eyes” could have been a genuinely revelatory, insightful examination of this subject, but the filmmaker has not made the most of that golden opportunity. Instead of providing audiences with a meaningful, articulate look into the subject matter, viewers are left with a meandering, unfocused treatment of a topic that could be valuable and impactful to many of us – and that truly deserves better handling than what’s presented here.

Authors striving for authenticity in their work often engage in extensive background research, sometimes of a firsthand nature, to get things right. However, when it comes to writer-director Mikko Mäkelä’s second (and inexplicably much-applauded) feature, I have some serious reservations about its applicability here. This tale of a talented young London-based author of award-winning short stories and magazine pieces is embarking on his first novel, an inside exposé of the lives of gay male sex workers. To find out what these experiences are like, the ambitious emerging wordsmith, Max Williamson (Ruaridh Mollica), decides to investigate the subject by becoming an escort, arranging hook-ups through an internet website under the pseudonym “Sebastian.” But, the more involved he becomes in his research, the more he becomes consumed by it, unsure how to keep control over it. Strangely, though, there are also times when he’s apparently ambivalent about it, going to great lengths to keep both his hustling work – and even his sexuality – a secret. Is he trying to keep from being discovered by his clients and writing peers, or is he a closet case who, quite ironically, hasn’t fully come to accept himself (not even coming out to his own family)? In any event, he engages in a string of diverse encounters that leave him – and viewers – wondering about exactly where he’s going with all this, including a somewhat baffling, unexpected budding romance with an older gentleman (Jonathan Hyde). This plethora of mixed motivations is where the film gets itself into trouble, hopelessly meandering in multiple, seemingly contradictory directions, raising questions about what the filmmaker/screen writer actually had in mind, as well as how diligent he was in doing his homework in crafting the story. “Sebastian” thus often comes across like a series of sexual escapades with a poorly conceived story wrapped about them, many of which end up falling back on well-worn, outdated gay cautionary tale tropes. The film also incorporates some implausible developments involving the publishing business, stretching the picture’s credibility even further. In light of this, then, it’s hard to fathom how and why this offering has received as many accolades as it has, especially as a potential candidate for awards season recognition. In my view, this release needs major retooling, not only to provide a more focused narrative, but also to strengthen its character development to something more believable and something that generates a more viable audience connection. To be sure, there are many fine LGBTQ+ movies out there these days that are genuinely worthy of praise and recognition – but this overrated production certainly isn’t one of them.

_The Shallow Tale of a Writer Who Decided to Write About a Serial Killer_ is an unusual dark comedy. The performances are fine (Buscemi’s voiceover at the beginning of the film is fantastic), and the story has moments of brilliance. Still, its lack of laughs, stumbling narrative, and inability to resolve anything keeps the film from being wholly worthwhile.
**Full review:** https://bit.ly/ShallowTale

Lolita 2: Road Trip
Interesting situations and other such things. Looks good.

Haley Bennett turns in a reasonable effort here as the eponymous lady who has to keep control of her late husband's vineyards at a time in history when Napoleon's wars were raging throughout Europe - and France wasn't doing so well, by this point - and his laws prohibited women from managing so much as a dinner party. The death of François (Tom Sturridge) has left her a property that her former father-in-law Philippe (Ben Miles) is keen to sell to the neighbouring Mr. Moet but with a bit of help from accountant "Edouard" (Anson Boon) and roguish distributor "Droite" (Paul Rhys) she is determined to develop her own brand of Champagne and, probably more precariously, get the stuff to the well-heeled markets readily prepared to pay through the nose for wine without the "frog-eyed bubbles". The framework is here for a good story, depicting the struggles of a woman - and a father - coming to terms with an untimely death amidst a wartime environment. We do learn a little, via flashback, that her marriage was loving but that her husband became mentally ill putting huge stress on this woman and on their young daughter but the dramatisation is rather let down by a typically uninspiring performance from Sturridge and some quite weak storytelling. Certainly, the film looks great and it illustrates well the difficulties in getting the vintage grown in the first place before bottling these mobile explosive devices and taking them, by wagon, to market and it's quite richly scored by Bryce Dessner, but director Thomas Napper has over-relied on the aesthetics of the film and put too little into the characterisations of a woman who clearly knew her own mind and was not going to let her beloved husband's legacy disappear - even at the risk of bankruptcy. It's worth a watch, but a cinema screening doesn't really add much value to this undercooked period drama that just lacked, well, fizz.

Combining all of the elements that go into making a fine film and blending the various ingredients in just the right proportions is akin to the practice of crafting a fine wine – and quite an irony here given the subject matter of this engaging cinematic biography of Barbe Nicole Ponsardin Clicquot (1777-1866) (Haley Bennett), the French winemaker who became better known as “the Grand Dame of Champagne.” Having inherited the business of her husband, François (Tom Sturridge), after this death, she vowed to continue operating the winery, carrying on his vision for innovation in the face of stiff competition from the rival Moet organization. But doing so was quite the challenge in light of financial difficulties, vintage failures, the questionable business practices of competitors, the responsibility of raising a young daughter (Cecily Cleeve) as a single mother, onerous operating conditions during the Napoleonic Era and the profound doubts of others (most notably her skeptical sexist father-in-law, Philippe (Ben Miles)) about whether a woman could successfully run an organization like this. Director Thomas Napper’s latest chronicles the Widow Clicquot’s inventive efforts to address these issues, as well as her ambitious initiatives to live up to the dreams of her late husband, in large part with the assistance of her loyal distributor, Louis (Sam Riley). In telling this story, the filmmaker seamlessly blends challenging events of everyday operations with flashbacks of a more personal nature, exploring the heartfelt feelings that provided the basis for the Clicquot philosophy of winemaking. The picture’s superbly crafted narrative and screenplay, combined with exquisite period piece production values and excellent performances (particularly Bennett in one of her best on-screen portrayals), make for an involving, multifaceted watch. Admittedly, there are times in the second half where the story meanders somewhat, and some may find that this release gets a little too detailed when discussing the technical particulars of vinification. However, much of this offering is evenly balanced, effectively holding viewer interest about a subject that’s not especially common in the annals of filmmaking. What’s more, though, on a more philosophical level, this release celebrates the inherent joy and passion involved in the act of creating, ideas applicable to the manifestation of any artform, be it wine or painting or whatever else we’re capable of envisioning and bringing into being. And, if that’s not worth drinking a toast to, I don’t know what is.

Wow – what can one say about this wild, woolly, wigged-out spoof of superhero movies in which the protagonist is an edgy, crusading transgender harlequin comedian fighting the power structure of a corrupt, narrow-minded society? That description alone is pretty wacky in itself, but, as the finished product shows, its depiction on screen is even more bizarre and outrageous. Writer-actor-director Vera Drew’s debut feature is simultaneously an exercise in the outlandish that’s part high camp, part in-your-face irreverence, part alternative sexuality manifesto and part love letter to the Batman mythology turned on its ear. This story of a small-town boy’s transgender awakening as a springboard to finding a new life in the wilds of Gotham City’s underground comedy scene tells an off-the-wall, often-frenetically paced, sometimes-sentimental tale that defies conventional classification. Its inventive mix of live action, motion capture photography and animation serves up a unique viewing experience unlike anything most audiences have ever seen, including among most seasoned cinephiles. It also delivers some positively scathing one-liners and wicked sight gags that will leave many thinking “I can’t believe they just did that!” Collectively, it makes for the kind of picture that will likely earn this production cult movie status and a guaranteed spot on midnight show movie lineups. Despite its many inspired cinematic innovations, however, the narrative occasionally tends toward overzealous self-indulgence and cryptic ideologies that appear to be employed simply to carry the story forward, making for a production that seems to be trying too hard just to see how much of a stunned reaction it can get from the audience. It has also come under some scrutiny for pushing the limits of fair use issues and acceptable propriety boundaries, elements that raised the eyebrows of some critics and of those who created the source materials from which this work draws (but that have also subsequently added to the picture’s undeniable allure). Nevertheless, if you’re looking for something that’s part DC Comics, part John Waters, part “Liquid Sky” (1982), part “Rocky Horror Picture Show” (1975), and part exploration of the unknown and untried, this one might be right up your alley. But, if you’re put off by such an eclectic blend of satire, social commentary, visual imagery and heretical rumination, don’t say you weren’t warned.

Relishing the freedom to openly be oneself can be a fulfilling and liberating experience, especially for those who have lived most of their lives hiding from disapproving family members and a close-minded society. So it is for Lourenço (Marco Pigossi), a Brazilian transplant seeking to resettle permanently in Provincetown, MA, a goal dependent on him acquiring a work visa to replace a tourist visa that’s about to expire. He has an added incentive to fulfill that objective when he meets and falls for Maurice (James Bland), a vacationer from New York who’s visiting the oceanside resort town before embarking on an ambitious, long-term nursing residency in the wilds of Angola. But can the two would-be lovers make this relationship work in light of the impending changes in their respective lives, geography and careers? What’s more, as this budding romance begins to blossom, Lourenço also wrestles with leftover baggage from an old relationship, unwanted advances from opportunistic lecherous would-be suitors and never-ending pressure from his mother back in Brazil, who is unaware of his closeted sexuality and routinely prods him to settle down and find a wife. While writer-director Marco Calvani capably and sensitively presents a tender, authentic, same-sex love story, the picture nevertheless tells a somewhat familiar tale whose narrative is not particularly original in the annals of LGBTQ+ cinema. It also struggles to blend its own brands of comedy and drama, both of which are handled well in their own right but whose inherent natures frequently come across as too extremely opposed to one another to harmonize in a believable, coherent whole. On top of that, the film also tries to cover too much ground at times, with a number of subplots that could have been easily trimmed or eliminated entirely without causing any undue harm to the picture overall. To its credit, though, this offering sincerely has its heart in the right place, despite the aforementioned shortcomings, backed up by an array of fine supporting performances and gorgeous cinematography showcasing the beauty and character of this charming Cape Cod resort town. Unfortunately, however, “High Tide” is yet another recent release that could have used some significant retooling to help it fully live up to its potential, especially given its predominantly conventional premise. Gay cinema has increasingly been moving forward in new and innovative directions in recent years, so, if filmmakers in this genre attempt to tackle new expressions of tried-and-true formulas like this, they had better have a good grasp of what they’re doing if they ultimately hope to succeed in the end.

***Amusing late 60s Western with Lancaster, Ossie Davis and Savalas***
A rugged trapper (Burt Lancaster) is forced by a band of Kiowas to trade his valuable furs for an educated runaway slave (Ossie Davis). To get the furs back, they follow the Indians and, then, a band of scalphunters, led by a boisterous bald guy (Telly Savalas). Shelley Winters is also on hand.
What’s notable about “The Scalphunters” (1968), besides the cast, is that the entire story takes place in the Southwest wilderness. There are no towns, buildings or teepees in sight. But there’s some gorgeous location photography.
While there are entertaining comedic bits, don’t expect anything outrageous like “Blazing Saddles” (1974). This is more in the mode of contemporaneous Westerns like “Bandoleros” (1968), “The War Wagon” (1967) and “The Undefeated” (1969). It’s not as great as the first or as good as the second, but it’s about on par with the latter.
The film runs 1 hour and 42 minutes and was shot in Arizona (Quartzsite, Parker & Harquahala Mountains) and Mexico (Barranca del Cobre, Chihuahua, Durango & Sierra de Organos).
GRADE: B-

Throw you in a pigpen, and you'd come out vice-president of the hogs.
The Scalphunters is directed by Sydney Pollack and adapted to screenplay by William W. Norton from the novel of the same name written by Ed Friend. It stars Burt Lancaster, Ossie Davis, Telly Savalas and Shelley Winters. A Panavision/De Luxe Colour production, music is by Elmer Bernstein and cinematography by Richard Moore and Duke Callaghan.
Joe Bass (Lancaster) is a fur trapper making his way home with his latest haul when he is stopped by Kiowa Indians. Taking his furs they give him as payment a well educated slave, Joseph Lee (Davis), who they had previously commandeered from a group of Comanches. With Joseph tagging along, Joe sets about pursuing the Kiowa to reclaim his furs, but the Indians fall victim to a band of ruthless Scalphunters led by Jim Howie (Savalas), who gain his furs whilst also by accident capture Joseph. It's Joe Bass against the rest, and only Joseph knows what the Scalphunters are up against.
"Those furs and that man out there are the Scorpio satanic configuration of death for Jim Howie"
Impressively mounted by Pollack, gorgeously shot at Durango, Mexico, The Scalphunters is an interesting blend of a Western action comedy with drama and Civil Rights morality. Film is structured simply by thrusting Lancaster's ignorant and illiterate man of the wilderness together with Davis' literate but ostracised slave. Both men poles apart, but both able to benefit the other if racial barriers can be broke down? Once Joseph falls into the hands of the Scalphunters, film sees Joseph once more held captive, but by using his nous he may be able to finally gain his freedom should the group make it to Mexico.
All the time Joe Bass is tracking the group, picking them off any chance he gets, this means the banter and lively group dynamic of the Scalphunters is pleasantly interrupted by an action scene of some standing. Be it Joe Bass leaping about the rocks and causing a rock avalanche, or the Scalphunters horses going loco, film never lacks for genuine thrills. Some great stunt work in here as well. It's a fine screenplay of much intelligence, not least because it doesn't crowbar in its messages, while it also doesn't patronise the Joseph Lee character. Even as the laughs flit in and out of proceedings, the script pings with smarts as brains are afforded the black man and the ignorance belongs to whitey.
With the cast on fine form and Bernstein scoring it with trademark robustness, it rounds out as a hugely enjoyable Western. So pick a favourite scene and a favourite character, whilst all the time acknowledging that behind the froth and machismo beats a potent thematic heart. 8/10

Whilst I think this really does work on stage, I really didn't much rate this African-American take on the timeless "Wizard of Oz" tale. It seems much more intent on making a political statement than it does on entertaining anyone, and given I'm not from the community it was made by and for, I felt a bit like I was not really invited to the party. The story itself sees a slightly older "Dorothy" (Diana Ross) chasing her dog through a heavy snowfall. She gets hopelessly lost and next thing she is in a mysterious land ("Oz") and must find the legendary wizard if she is ever to sing her way back to Harlem. The snag with this plot here is that her life in New York was none too enjoyable, so after a while here making new friends - including Michael Jackson's "Scarecrow", and singing and dancing her way through life, I did wonder what she actually wanted to get back for. The remainder of the story largely follows the gist of the original Baum novel, peppered with some of Quincy Jones best efforts, and so no there's not a jot of jeopardy as she plods along the yellow brick road towards a typically theatrical, power ballad, denouement. There's no question Ross can sing, but somehow nobody here ever imbues thire songs with much personality or character. They are just repetitions of the vinyl versions with little to personalise them for the big screen. It's not a bad film, and it does try to take some risks with the creativity, but for me I just didn't feel at all engaged.

I reckon that this has to be the saddest of all love stories ever written - in any language! Although top billing goes to the pathetically grotesque Lon Chaney as the bell-ringer "Quasimodo", I think the plaudits must go to Patsy Ruth Miller as the persecuted gypsy "Esmerelda" in this 1923 adaptation of Victor Hugo's story. The score is hauntingly effective as both battle prejudice, jealousy and enmity from high and low society; with plots for revolution against the rather despotic rule of Louis XI never far from the theme. Chaney's make up is not great, even by the standards of the day, and it would not look out of place in a "Tarzan" film, but that matters little to the wonderfully evocative efforts from director Wallace Worsley to enshrine this classical story of lust, power and sadness to film, with a narrative that emphasises more of the emotional aspects of the story than many of it's successors. Particularly effective is the use of light and staging (partly Parisian, partly Californian) too. 2¼ hours may look long, but this positively flies by - rarely, if ever, making you want it to hurry up. Great stuff.

I think that for satire to work, you have to be able to ensure that the audience is on board with the underlying premiss it's trying to achieve. Despite a decent effort from Justice Smith's "Aren" (and his impressive collection of knitwear) I just wasn't. Relying on long forgotten (if, indeed, they were ever actually known in the first place) tropes about racial stereotyping - and not just those from an African American point of view, makes this actually quite an offensive film to watch. Perhaps I am overthinking it, but I found absolutely nothing here with which I could relate - sarcastically or otherwise. The comedy, such as it is, is entirely contrived and the romantic elements between "Aren", "Lizzie" (An-Li Bogan) and "Jason" (Drew Tarver) are badly written and frequently cringe-makingly acted out. Peppering the thing with a few "Harry Potter" style magical effects and adding the benign characterisation of "Barber" (Aaron Colman) so that this "Society" can spend their entire time trying to "fix" the problems of their hapless and hopelessly out of their emotional depth white contemporaries just falls flat. It simply isn't funny. If a load of white folk got together and decided to make a movie about a group of innately obsequious and subservient non-white people, it would (and should) be banned. This is a clumsy and unfunny reinforcement of flawed values seen from an wholly unrealistic perspective and I struggled to sit through it, then wondered just why I bothered. Maybe it will resonate if you are American? I hope not.

Is “the American Dream” still alive and well, or is it a pipe dream whose time has come and gone (and perhaps never really was)? That’s the question rhetorically posed in this modestly entertaining fact-based debut feature comedy from director Paul Dektor, which examines the efforts of an optimistic yet cynical economics professor/would-be novelist (Peter Dinklage) with meager means who repeatedly attempts to buy a home far above his pay grade. He’s discouraged by his frank but somewhat oily real estate broker (Matt Dillon) from continuing in this futile Quixotic pursuit until he finds an offer that seems too good to be true, one proposed by an eccentric wealthy widow (Shirley MacLaine) who’s in the early stages of dementia and is fiercely defended by her daughter (Kim Quinn), an astute lawyer determined to liquidate the deal before she and her heirs get swindled. The result is a comedy of errors with warm, fuzzy edges that makes for an often-sweet and tender comedic romp, despite an occasional overreliance on slapstickish humor to sustain laughs. The script is full of delicious little twists and turns, though sometimes the overall narrative doesn’t hang together quite as well as it could have due to its inconsistent character development and occasionally meandering story flow. However, the film’s fine ensemble cast capably holds this project together, thanks to the fine performances of its principals and the solid work of its supporting players, including Danny Glover, Danny Pudi, Michelle Mylett and Raresh DiMofte. “American Dreamer” is far from epic cinema, but it’s certainly an enjoyable watch and a good first effort from the filmmaker. With some further refinement and more experience behind the camera, here’s hoping we can expect more and better work from this promising first-time director.

Regrettably this film smells like US establishment propaganda.
Lets start with a few simple facts. The US has been a persistently negative influence in Latin American. Just one example, the vicious Augusto Pinochet regime in Chile (as a result of a CIA backed coup). With regards to Venezuela, the less lazy of us might have taken a look at the stats that show the Chavez and Maduro governments, actually reduced core poverty, illiteracy and homelessness. Of course, they are framed by the US establishment as despicable nonetheless, because both refused to hand their nations oil resources over to corporate USA.
With this in mind, its hard to take this film seriously. The alleged villainy of the Venezuelan government just doesn't ring true. Worse still, the action feels stilted, the film overly drawn out and quite frankly, tedious.
Its unfortunate too, because I genuinely like Frank Grillo. He's a decent action flick actor.
In summary, a ham fisted pro US bias ruins any potential this film might have had as actual entertainment. Not helped by mediocre action and an overly long run time.

Jay Will turns in an engaging enough effort here but I found the whole story just a bit lacking in substance. It's based on a true story, adapted by director Chiwetel Ejiofor who plays the father of the eponymous young lad. He's separated from his mother (Mary J. Blige) but seems to be on decent terms with them as he comes for a routine visit in his dilapidated old car. Quickly, a tragedy strikes and dad "Skeet" finds himself sent to prison for a double murder. It falls to son Rob to try to find a way to prove his innocence. Skip on a few years and we find this young man, highly adept at mathematics, proving his genius as he manages to get into the Ivy League thanks to some sponsorship from his prep school but again, he is constantly striving to find a way to extricate his dad from jail. It's his skills at chemistry that now serve a different purpose as he and a few colleagues develop a brand new revenue stream that makes him very popular amongst the student body (and mind) whilst raising the cash to fund his dad's appeal. Meantime, with their community gradually falling to wrack and ruin, he also hits on the idea of using some of his cash to kick-start refurbishment works on over 170 homes that have been abandoned or foreclosed upon to revitalise his community - but when the sub-prime crash hits the world it leaves him desperately exposed in more ways than one. When we get to the end of this film, it does make you look back and think a little about how society can contrive to thwart people with even the slightest degree of social ambition - even when is appears to be eminently commercially viable, but the problem here is that there's just way too much missing from the narrative. We skip ahead when we ought to be developing his character his situation. There is virtually nothing from the trial that convicted his father, for example. Peace is clearly a decent man of idealism, reduced to using the tools at his disposal to funds things way more permanent than a flashy car or some bling for his girl (Camilla Cabello) but again the storytelling leaves us to make too many assumptions about who did what back when and about his own, ostensibly victimless, crimes that risk compromising his long sought goals. Interestingly, this isn't a film that takes much of a racial stance. His colour seems not to have been especially relevant as his education progressed but in the end it was maybe just a short story that's undercooked here and skirts over too many of the issues it needed to fulfil it's promise. It's still worth a watch, but the telly will suit it fine.

Memory is a quiet film that runs the risk of being trampled by flashier fare at the box office. That’d be a damn shame, because this story really matters. It’s meaningful and real, and it’s brought to life by a pair of excellent performances that really don’t feel like performances.
Despite the dark themes, there’s a light Sylvia & Saul create together that’s warm and funny and real (with a bathtub scene that’s as romantic as any you’ll see this year). There’s no neat resolution. It’s a slice of life, and these lives will keep going – we don’t know what happens next. Like Saul, we just get to enjoy it in the moment.
Read more thoughts on MEMORY at good.film: https://good.film/guide/bored-with-blockbusters-memory-will-reignite-your-love-for-cinema

Whilst the subject matter here is quite interesting, the execution isn't especially. "Sylvia" (Jessica Chastain) is working in the social care system whilst bringing up her daughter "Anna" (Brooke Taylor). Her life, as effectively illustrated by her door locking and burglar alarm routine each day, is a structured affair with little variation. She has a strong relationship with her sister but is completely estranged from her mother. The two women attend a school reunion one night and, leaving early, she is followed home. It's a miserable night and next morning she discovers him asleep outside her door. Inspecting his wallet, she discovers his identity and calls his brother "Isaac" (Josh Charles) who explains that "Saul" (Peter Sarsgaard) has memory issues. Was he stalking her or is there more to this rather meandering scenario? Chastain does work quite well, but I found the story seemed to randomly inject way too many "incidents" along the way that seemed designed to enliven or empower the plot. Many seemed a little too disaster-scenario prone and are used to enhance purely for dramatic purposes. The culminating scenes lacked plausibility and at times the whole thing came across as little better than an A-list soap opera. Coincidence underpins just a bit too much of the film and the delivery of information about the characters to the audience is all delivered in just too sporadically a fashion. I felt sorry for just about everyone involved, but I didn't feel particularly engaged.

How we remember our past is something we can all bank on, right? Or is it? For instance, what happens when mitigating influences impact our memory, potentially causing it to become fallible and untrustworthy? Can we truly rely on our recall then? Those are among the questions raised in the unconventional new romantic thriller from writer-director Michel Franco. The film follows the life of Sylvia, a recovering alcoholic with a troubled past (Jessica Chastain), who’s unexpectedly (and alarmingly) followed home from her high school reunion by an alleged former classmate, Saul (Peter Sarsgaard), whom she believes sexually molested her at that time. She’s troubled by this latest development and questions his motives about it, which even he doesn’t understand, especially when it’s revealed that he suffers from dementia. And, in an added twist, it turns out that Sylvia’s recall about her supposed past interaction with him is foggy, something that’s not entirely surprising in light of her history. This revelation changes everything, and an entirely new relationship between them emerges, particularly when it comes to each of them helping one another sort of their respective pasts and begin the healing process. This includes the exposure of an array of additional developments and the persistence of some still-unresolved ambiguities, all of which emerge through a skillfully crafted narrative, effectively brought to life with the superb performances of Sarsgaard and Independent Spirit Award nominee Chastain. Admittedly, the picture’s first half could benefit from some stepped-up pacing, most notably the elimination of some sequences that are occasionally redundant and innately tiresome. However, the intrigue and engagement ramp up significantly in the picture’s back end, making up for much of the tedium in the opening act. Some of this is ironically accomplished through deftly handled nuance and subtlety, qualities that the filmmaker employs far more skillfully in the second half than in the first, where these traits are virtually obscured by prevailing understatement. Clearly, this is one of those releases that requires the viewer to give it some time to develop, but the payoff for doing so is worth it in the end. If nothing else, “Memory” provides us with a fresh perspective on its central theme while showing us how “like can cure like” in a psychological therapeutic process, an approach that can yield rewards beyond measure.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/memory-review-a-poignant-exploration-of-the-importance-of-memories/
"Memory is a poignant exploration of identity and relationships, anchored by mesmerizing performances from Jessica Chastain and Peter Sarsgaard.
Michel Franco delves into the profound significance of memories, tackling heavy themes such as dementia, sexual abuse, familial distrust, and trauma with authentic, non-exploitative care. The deliberately subtle technical choices, such as a colorless palette and the absence of a musical score, heighten the sensitive weight of the impactful atmosphere.
Packed with fascinating, morally complex characters, the movie stands as a testament to the transformative potential of cinema in studying the depths of the human experience."
Rating: B+

This movie was horribly acted (if you can call it acting), Directed, and written. Lucy Hale was particularly awful and proved she can't act. Don't waste 98 minutes of your time and life on this film which you will never get back.

When one young man has a stag firmly in his sights, he balks at the idea of killing it and incurs the wrath of an older man that results in a scuffle that sees another of their party shooting the bloke who turns out to be their rather brutish dad (Paul Higgins). What's equally clear very quickly is that "John" (Brian Vernel) and siblings "Henry" (Daniel Portman) and "Vince" (Calum Ross) had a masterplan that day that was designed to put their nemesis in the ground. What now occurs fills in, by way of flashback, just what drove these young men to their rather drastic course of action whilst we also discover than pops isn't that easy to do away with. With tensions now mounting amidst the dense Caledonian forest, the brothers start to mistrust each other and with tempers flaring they start to wonder who is trustworthy amongst them. Although the story is different, it reminded me a little bit of "Mercy Falls" also from 2023, that over-used the drone footage of ancient woodlands and menacing audio to substitute for some fairly bland writing and acting and a, frankly, increasingly preposterous and protracted storyline that presented us with three principal characters about whom I didn't care at all. It does try to use it's environment to create peril but once the jigsaw (I'd say a six-piece one) of the story was in place then I really did start to lose interest in what became a rather angrily procedural drama devoid of anything at all new or characterful. As a Scot, it's important that we continue to invest in domestic film-making, but endless aerials of fir trees do not, as "Yoda" might have said, a decent film make.

Lockdown played havoc with so many lives, but professionally none more so than those in the entertainment industry. With theatres and cinemas all closed, their livelihoods dried up and a serious degree of ennui crept in to their day to day lives. One escape from that was "Grand Theft Auto" and that's where we meet jobbing actors Sam Crane and Mark Oosterveen. Two forty-somethings who were dealing with this situation by shooting as many folks as they could online. The former lives with Pinny and has a couple of kids, the latter lives on his own and is struggling to find some sort of motivation. It's whilst playing the game one day that they find an outdoor auditorium and hit on the idea of performing "Hamlet" there. Swiftly they realise that standing on the stage belting out the best of the bard is only going to get their characters shot, then that two folks aren't going to be able to cover all the roles - so they embark on a project to recruit other players to fill the roles. What now ensues sees these men introduced to some serious would-be Thespians, some folks who think he wrote "Harry Potter" and some generally eclectic characters who all decide that this can be done after all. I'm not sure Shakespeare could ever have envisaged his play being put on using warplanes or giant blimps whilst the actors faced real peril (though I am sure we've all seen plays on stage where that might have been a benefit!) but as the two men start to become more absorbed with there mission it starts to become just as compelling to watch. Can they do it? How is their obsession impacting on their "real" lives? I have never played GTA in my life so was a little apprehensive that not knowing the game might impact on my enjoyment. It didn't at all, indeed that proved quite a fun template for their scenario as the mix of characters they encountered showed quite clearly that these men were not the only ones adrift in a closed-down world. As you'd expect, it is a quickly paced affair and I thought well worth and hour and a half.

"Arkie" lives with her octopus dad "Blister" on the peninsula where he does his best to harness the sunlight to protect the delicately balanced eco-structure. She's not an octopus, though - more a sort of hybrid of human being with just the one green tentacle, and she's not great when it comes to helping out with the complexities of her dad's intricate contraptions for distributing the sunlight. Meantime, "The Keeper" in the nearby city of light has tasked some searchers to seek out her dad. Her boss "Dr. Maybee" is convinced that he possesses the energy necessary to repatriate him with his long lost daughter. When "Blister" is duly apprehended, "Arkie" must follow him into the big city with her new friends "Bunniguru" the rabbit and 'Egg" to thwart his plan before her father is little better than a cephalopod smoothie. Loads of daft adventures, a menacing baddie who looks like the love child of Terence Stamp and Lionel Jeffries and gadgets and gizmos now feature as the rescue begins. The writing isn't the best but the characters are quite good fun with plenty going on and an underlying environmental message that's presented to us whimsically rather than imposed upon us. The storyline presents us with the usual character virtues of loyalty, friendship and determination and there's quite a bit of imagination gone into the look of this film. I was on my own in the cinema for this screening, which was a bit of a shame - it is worth a trip to see the colourful animation to best effect - it will look really ordinary of the television.

Environmental apocalypse survival story? Sign me up! I loved this movie. You don't often see mom's of newborns as the bravest people on the screen. Yet, true to life, don't mess with a mama bear! Whenever I watch something I look for clues if a woman wrote it or not. With this one I was 100% it was written by a woman and pleased to find out it was two! Also, a woman director, first feature, yay! I can tell the difference between how we write ourselves. I loved the chemistry between Comer & Waterston. I had never seen the latter actor before and this performance made we want to do a deep dive into her work. Both of them earned these parts for sure and did not rely on their beauty one bit in these performances. Strong women write strong women! Also there's super cute babies in it. That's the perfect baby age to me, 4-5 months. So cuddly! Highly recommend for everybody.

With a fairly biblical storm raging outside, an heavily pregnant mother (Jodie Comer) is sitting at home watching the telly. Power goes out, waters break then the struggle to get boyfriend (Joel Fry) and ambulance to hospital is the start of their woes. Leaving, they discover that huge swathes of England are under water so they head to higher ground and his parents. Fortunately, they have had a long ridiculed bit of a siege mentality so there's plenty of food but that's about all as the family units begin to disintegrate, just as society is doing at large elsewhere. The couple become separated and the un-named mother must now find safety for herself and her baby until some form of normality returns. This is another hugely emotional effort from Comer with Fry, a fleetingly potent contribution from Benedict Cumberbatch and a strong role for new-found friend Katherine Waterson working well, too. The story though - well it reminded me a little of "Children of Men" (2006). A rather depressing and dreary chronology - augmented with some flashbacks of happier days - of how individuals deal with disaster, be they self induced or imposed, and I struggled to remain engaged as the narrative lumbered along. The direction and the score are also fairly lacklustre. One too many shots of cars driving along, of mother carrying baby, cheering baby, nursing baby - and talking of the baby, boy does it age! If it's meant to be a very personal, intimate even, indictment of mankind's inhumanity to itself when facing desperation then it just about works, anything else was rather wasted on me, I'm afraid.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/the-end-we-start-from-bfi-film-festival-review/
"The End We Start From marks debutant Mahalia Belo as a filmmaker to follow closely in the coming years, despite the story not being imaginative or impactful enough to reach a higher level of satisfaction.
With a substantial thematic sense, maternal symbolism is portrayed through Belo's contemplative vision, as well as Susie Lavelle's atmospheric cinematography. However, it's up to Jodie Comer and Katherine Waterston to carry the movie on their shoulders, which, unfortunately, lacks a better exploration of the climate crisis that it uses more as a narrative background trigger.
A more memorable conclusion could have made the difference...""
Rating: C+

Saw this movie at the Lighthouse International Film Festival. This movie opened the entire festival. I LOVE this film. The story, the acting - off the charts! Don't miss this film. It's heartfelt, intense, full of love and wants to make you laugh and cry. The entire audience LOVED this film... DONT MISS THIS FILM.

I did quite like the premiss here, but the joke really did start to wear a bit thin after half an hour. "Tommy" (Jake Johnson) is invited to a secret meeting with two men who offer him the chance of winning $1 million if only he can survive a deadly game for a month. In order to take the prize, he must find a way to stay alive for whilst various hunters try to kill him. His only guarantee of safety is not a church, but being in the close presence of someone else. Innocent civilians are his bullet-proof vest. He assumes he can rely on his family - but they think he's rather lost the plot and that means holing up for thirty days with his nearest and dearest isn't an option. He will have to get out into the real world and make friends. This, of course, leads to new experiences and puts a lot of pressure on this man who isn't really best equipped - for anything, really. What would or wouldn't we do for a life changing sum of money? That's the gist but I found the effort from Johnson just too intense. The humour was way too in your face and his acting over the top as the scenarios began to recycle themselves. There's no jeopardy at all, and it probably didn't help that I'd no idea who Andy Samberg was, either. It's a perfectly watchable vehicle for Johnson if you like your comedy predictable and loud, but otherwise it's all quickly paced but forgettable fayre.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.firstshowing.net/2024/review-jake-johnsons-new-comedy-self-reliance-plays-it-too-safe/
"Self Reliance possesses an intriguing premise but ultimately plays it too safe. More audacity and bite were required to truly leave a mark on Jake Johnson's feature directorial debut.
Good work as an actor - Anna Kendrick steals the show, though - decent showcase of his strengths as a writer - despite failing to fully capitalize on the narrative's potential - but the lack of a firm grip on the thriller elements and some tonal inconsistencies prevent the film from reaching the next level.
Some humorous moments and a sweet message surrounding the importance of human connections make it a worthwhile watch for those seeking a lighthearted comedy-thriller."
Rating: C+