Coming soon.

The premiere of 'Seeing Him' at the Prince Charles Cinema generated two first times in one night: my first red carpet screening there, which proved more fitting than expected, and the first time I saw a short film screened twice at the same event: before and after a Q&A with the filmmakers (there were also a few last words from the panel and the audience after the second screening). And speaking of second times, we also discovered the film itself had had two directors and had been filmed twice.

Directed by Chris Jones & Catherine Arton, and written by Vanessa Bailey (who also stars), 'Seeing Him' is a doomed love story, the tale of an impossible relationship between Sophie, a middle aged professional, and James, a secret lover Sophie’s sister disapproves of.

French presidential elections still fresh in mind, though I immediately noticed the age gap between Bailey (who you might have seen in Eastenders or Southcliffe), and George Taylor (Partners in Crime, X Company, The Lady in the Van), it didn’t exactly shock me and therefore made me automatically think the secrecy of the relationship couldn’t possibly be only about this. Something about James was also both candidly charming and disturbingly clingy, so I wasn’t surprised either when I saw my suspicions confirmed halfway through the film. Funnily though, if one specific shot hadn’t completely thrown me off track in the first couple of minutes, I would have gotten the whole picture from the very first shot...and this would have taken nothing away from the film’s impact.

To twist, or not to twist… that became one of the first questions during the second Q&A, as many viewers in the audience found themselves moved more deeply during the second viewing once the twist had been revealed and I wonder if the filmmakers will decide to alter the way they present 'Seeing Him' to future audiences.

Another discussion in the Q&A was gender and age. Bailey stated one of her goals in writing 'Seeing Him' was to create new roles for females in their 40s. Ironically, Sophie could really be any age, and it is her universality that in parts also makes the story so relatable to all, age and gender alike. If anything, it made me wonder why casting for similar roles were not open to both genders or with a wider age range in mind.

Gender politics and twist debate aside, the film was unquestionable moving, thanks to natural, vibrant performances by the leads and supporting cast (Catherine Rowney as Sophie’s sister, Duncan Duff as Sophie’s colleague), beautifully natural cinematography (Don McVey), and last but not least, a hauntingly romantic score by composer William Goodchild (Jago: A Life Underwater, Walking Through History).

Review by Anne-Sophie Marie.

Tell us what you think!
Rate the film and why not write your own review in the comments?

That’s where the comedy would have been stupendous, a woman nervous on a date but who can knock several shades of blue out of any man or villain she comes in contact with. She is secret superhero/assassin yes but in order for us to believe her White needed to show us this woman's private persona as well as her public superhero self. Think about the nuances that are created between Clark Kent and Superman for example. White’s performance needed an injection of curiosity and vulnerability badly as it’s these qualities which makes us - the viewers- get on your side immediately. Obviously the director (Daniel J Brant) could have done much better in bringing these qualities out better in White and so is partially to blame.

​​Rueben Williams played a really convincing and comedic version of "the nice guy" simply on a date with no prior knowledge of his dates real job, which she is essentially a hitwoman/bondgirl/anti-hero type. Rueben Williams was a breath of fresh air and utterly enjoyable to watch despite him having a very short presence in the film. He really was very relaxed and created a sense of confidence from the get go. Francesca White is a deeply attractive actress with some serious Zena warrior princess like moves and that her level of fighting expertise has to be commended however as the lead in this film she simply didn’t achieve all that she could have with Cleo.

I don't like fart jokes. Never found them even remotely funny. 'Despicable Me 3' includes one in the studio animation before the film starts; and I laughed! That pretty much sums up my experience with the film. Though the script is predictable it never ceases to throw a curve ball at you every now and then to pleasantly surprise you and keep things fresh, all the while serving delectable comedy treats you're used to from the previous two instalments.

This time around Gru and his wife Lucy are after villain Balthazar Bratt. He used to be a child star of a famous kids TV series where he played a villain. But his career tanked when he hit puberty and he never got over it. Being shunned by Hollywood and former fans he turns into the villain he used to only pretend to be.

Cue the most epic 80's nostalgia party you can imagine every time this dude shows up. The first 10 minutes of 'Despicable Me 3' feature the best use of a Michael Jackson song in ages. And this trip of nostalgia permeates the entire film. 'Despicable Me 3' felt just as much a film aimed at adults as their children, more so than any other animated film in recent history. Tons of jokes will go over children's heads while the adults are laughing their asses off. 

Tearjerkers and mega cuteness aren't far behind as the kid trio makes an appearance once Gru and Lucy lose their jobs due to not apprehending Bratt. Seeing little Agnes' usual break-your-heart, cutsey approach to everything is one of the most endearing aspects of the Despicable Me series. Margo teaching Lucy how to actually be a mom is touching, while Edith gets the short end of the stick by basically being the same character throughout all three films with little to no development. On top of all that we are greeted to a new member of the family, Gru's twin brother Dru. Their dynamic is entirely different from anything we have seen previously and is a great addition to the cast. The minions get their own subplot this time around as a rebellion is brewing given Gru's refusal to return to villainy and our little yellow, banana-loving friends are just not ok with that.
​
Most of the characters evolve throughout the film. You can see how much they've changed from the first and second films, which adds so much depth and joy to 'Despicable Me 3'. We are attached to this family and go through everything with them. You know this universe and most of the characters, so certain things don't need an explanation and the film is happy to assume you know what's what and just keep going. It has great pace, the script is tight and brimming with humour while giving everyone their moment to shine.

Character moments, action sequences and everything in between are written almost to perfection. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. Probably due to it not focusing on one or two characters but instead giving everyone their due. It's a great ensemble piece and that includes the minions. Everyone brings something to the table and how it all culminates in the final showdown is a brilliant rollercoaster ride that I would love to see again. The end sets up the next film in the series and if it's even half as good as this one I can't wait to see it.

“Know the rule of law and you can bend it.”
 
After hearing this in the opening couple of minutes, I thought I was in for a treat. What I ended up with was the biggest disappointment since England last played in a major tournament. And like then, perhaps it was my fault for reading too much into what seemed like a hopeful and intelligent start.
 
'Detour' is about young law student Harper (Tye Sheridan) asking career criminal Johny Ray (Emory Cohen) to bump off his stepfather (Stephen Moyer) whom he blames for an accident that has left his mother in a coma. This sounds like an interesting concept in itself, and the opening quote teases all kinds of interesting games for Harper to try and get away with it. Unfortunately as soon as the plot moves forward it pretty much derails.

Very early on, writer director Christopher Smith splits the narrative in two, following two versions of the story based on what Harper has chosen to do at a particular moment. Again another promising idea, even if it has been done before, (most notably in 'Sliding Doors') but the film wastes the opportunity. It neither offers us contrasting narratives, nor does it allow the two timelines to play off of one another. Instead we are giving two slightly different variations of nonsense. It all then plays out in a way that takes away any weight that the moment of this choice could have had, Rendering the whole concept pointless.
 
The single biggest problem with this film is that no character has an ounce, of competence. Their decision making is far worse than my own, back in my heavy drinking days. The villains are too stupid to be a threat and the heros aren’t relatable enough to empathise with. It’s one thing to have characters that are led astray because of a personal flaw they have to work against but here there is nothing but unfathomable stupidity, which could have been funny if the film hadn’t taken itself so seriously. I’d have to enter into spoiler territory to really make it clear how idiotic everyone is in the film. From talking openly and loudly in public places about killing, to leaving incriminating notes in cafés when the police are there. They always end up in trouble with their stupidity, only to get bailed out for plot convenience. 

The cast seem to be trying their best, but are done no favours by a poor script. Cohen offers some fire to the role of Johnny. But I don’t believe for a moment he is capable of committing any crimes without being caught. Any potential menace is lost through the characters moronic actions. Tuco from 'Breaking Bad' is perhaps the best reference point here, showing the difference between a loose cannon, and an idiot.

Sheridan is caught in just as much of a no win situation, I also cannot believe that Harper is able to get into law school. It’s a shame that he is incapable of using his brain, or knowledge of law to get out of any of the sticky situations and it was baffling the way he tried to cover his tracks when any kind of understanding of the law (or how to bend it) would have been enough to solve his problems. The audience seemed to take more notice of the opening lines than he did. The amount that he cares for his mother (which was apparently his motivation behind getting into this situation in the first place) gets completely forgotten in the mix.

​Bel Powley also stars as Cherry. Who only seems to be in the film as a damsel in distress. Everything about the character sums up why female characters need to be written better. She is a stripper, often wearing little and is in need of being saved. None of these factors seem to add anything to the plot, she is given no personality and there is no rational reason why Johnny would have brought her along for the ride.

I have never walked out of a film before, but the only reason I watched all the way till the end is because of needed to review the whole film. I hoped for something positive to be able to conclude with, but somehow the third act was even worse than everything that had come before. Not a single thread was resolved with any satisfaction. None of the pay offs were earned and it all comes together in the most contrived of fashions and the worst case of a Deus Ex Machina that I have seen for a very long time.
 
The best note I can end on is knowing there is no World Cup this year.

Don’t you just love it when a film surprises you? And I don’t mean a random cameo near the end, but a full on whack-over-the-head surprise in regards to plot and character development. That’s what 'Lady Macbeth' has in store for you. Let me set the scene.

The year is 1865. Somewhere in rural England Katherine (Florence Pugh) is married off to the son of the man who bought her alongside some land that apparently couldn’t feed a cow. Her husband doesn’t desire her and Katherine is forced to live out her life indoors with nothing to do. When her totalitarian father-in-law and husband take extensive leave from their home Katherine starts to come out of her shell. Coming to the rescue of one of her maids who had been assaulted by male grounds workers, Katherine takes a shine to the leader of the gang, Sebastian. A steamy affair ensues with Katherine’s adultery being her least offending infraction on her way to getting what she wants.

'Lady Macbeth' would not be the surprising crowd pleaser it is without the captivating presence of lead Florence Pugh. She delivers an outstanding nuanced and subtle performance. Witnessing Katherine’s slow awakening and, by the end of the film, full on embrace of everything she is and is willing to do is a marvel to behold. This is Pugh’s first lead role and the entire film rests solely on her shoulders, yet she carries this responsibility with the natural confidence of more seasoned actresses. This young woman is one to keep an eye on.

Cosmo Jarvis does a decent job as Sebastian, but it is Naomi Ackie’s maid Anna who is the real counterpoint to Pugh’s Katherine. These two women tear up the screen whenever they’re in a scene together.

The production design and cinematography perfectly underline the bland existence Katherine is forced into. You hardly notice how the visual presentation influences your mood while watching her living her so called life. She is not even a bird in a golden cage. She’s a bird stuck inside an oxygen deprived house with all exits shut. The claustrophobia was so unbearable that I even forgave her falling for a man who assaults women. On the one hand I was grateful we didn’t have to witness this on screen, on the other I feel this was immediately dismissed as it would have influenced the audience more against Sebastian, who ends up being Katherine’s conscience. Conveniently inconsistent. That didn’t sit well with me at all.
​
Katherine’s story comes full circle as she smothers the last obstacle in her way, as she was smothered by life, her husband and father-in-law. Taking that final leap past her point of no return she emerges out of her cocoon a new woman. A beautiful butterfly. A deadly one. 

The performances alone are enough to recommend this film. But when a film manages to play with your perceptions in the vain of 2005’s 'Hard Candy' it makes you think as well as enjoy what you see unfold before your eyes. And it is equally shocking, breath-taking and horrendous. Highly recommended. 

Javier Bardem doesn’t break any new ground. He is channelling his Bond villain persona in a period costume on the high seas. Like every other Sparrow nemesis before him, he is a victim of the supernatural and wants to make Sparrow pay. Only difference, Salazar isn’t a pirate but a pirate hunter. Everything else, the same.

The film looks great, the CGI is state of the art, but deep down it is missing a soul. Superficial beauty with no charm or personality. And the few scenes that were a hoot to watch lost their impact because I had seen them dozens of times in the trailers or the promo footage playing before 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2'.

None of this would matter as much if the characters were more interesting. I did not care about any of them. How is that even possible? Even Jack Sparrow. He is the same Jack we have seen in Curse of the Black Pearl and all subsequent films. He hasn’t evolved. While that might be entertaining to some, I can’t help but be bored. With some funny bits splashed here and there, Salazar’s Revenge still manages to entertain. Good action sequences, a few character highlights and a tongue in cheek approach help elevate the film.

Benefiting from being an already (dys)functional unit, the cast are on equally charming form as in the first. Each of them taking their fair share of the spotlight and enough memorable lines for the audience to quote over the coming months, no matter the personal favourite of the bunch. Though Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) again prove themselves the standouts in terms of laughs. The biggest - and most surprising - impact, however, stems from the increased focus on Nebula (Karen Gillian) and Yondu (Michael Rooker), whose layers are peeled back to reveal new facets and endearing depths to their characters.

Such is the greatest accomplishment in 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. Though it is as standalone from the rest of the MCU as you could possibly get, it doesn't simply refresh and repeat. In the spirit of all truly great sequels, it refuses to rest on its laurels. It takes what was already there and was already great - both in terms of the world and the characters - and expands upon it. Rather than give the characters fresh wounds to deal with and explore, it merely delves deeper into the ones established in 'Vol. 1'. Be it Drax reflecting further upon the family he lost, Peter reconnecting with the Father he never knew, or Rocket coming to terms with and reconciling the conflicting aspects of his nature. All the while strengthening the bonds between the characters, but between them and the audience as well.

Aside from the cutesy animation, slapstick comedy and every now and then funny dialogue, the film treats us to some entertaining action sequences. Among them Smurf-boarding (welcome to the 21st century), white water rafting and riding a fire-breathing dragonfly into battle. Among others I loved witnessing Clumsy overcome, or more to the point, embrace his clumsiness and use it to his advantage. We might view our traits in a negative light, we can’t all be Hefty, but what makes us special is always a positive thing. This film shows you what boys and girls can do and that none of it is boiled down to your gender. It is a powerful message and for that alone I applaud the film.
​
The voice acting is great. I especially loved McBrayer as Clumsy, Wilson as Gargamel and Welker as Azrael. Every scene with Gargamel and Azrael was hilarious. It reminded me of the cartoon series I grew up with, perfectly capturing these two characters and their bickering. They were my favourites back then and immediately turned into my favourites in 'Smurfs: The Lost Village'. How could you not like a character who just wants to be the most powerful wizard ever, with a cool robe and get his full head of hair back?

While the look of the film definitely appealed to me and managed to capture that anime feel really well, I was surprised to see a significantly simplified story with the AI component completely dropped and the ending changed. The film still delivers a coherent, yet more predictable story. Nowhere near as philosophical as the original, 'Ghost in the Shell' has been stripped down to appeal more to the mainstream audience. This is still a tale about identity and individuality. In the world of the story humans, cyborgs and robots co-exist. Some people augment their bodies as much as they can afford to while others prefer to stay pure. What makes us human? Our essence, our soul, our “ghost” is who we are, no matter if it is inside a biological or artificial body.

In the film someone has memories of a wife and kid implanted into his ghost and this is real and authentic to the affected person, even though everyone around him can prove that this data is false. Yet the memory is there, his feelings for people who do not exist are real to him and shape him. So who are we really? Memories? Experiences? Just data? Unfortunately the film doesn’t go any deeper into this. Given how our world is hooked on connectivity, exploring this side of the story could have made for a hard-hitting, poignant exploration of where we as a society seem to be heading. Instead we are given a sci-fi actioner with impressive visuals that feels a bit superficial while being thoroughly entertaining.

The acting is what you’d expect from an action film. We all know Johansson is capable of kicking some serious butt (where is our Black Widow film?!) and she proves this again in 'Ghost in the Shell'.
Why they chose to give her robotic movements is anyone’s guess given Major is supposed to be the first of her kind, a cyborg that can pass as a human. It looks weird at times and makes her come across as wooden. Pilou Asbaek delivers an engaging performance as Major’s sidekick Batou. Michael Pitt makes for an interesting antagonist (I loved his look). Juliette Binoche does all she can with what she’s given. But it is the only non-english speaker in the film, Takeshi Kitano, who gets the trophy for most memorable performance for his role of section 9 leader Aramaki. The characters were well captured from the source material, although only one of them is actually Asian. The whitewashing of the original material needs an essay on its own.

In the final act is when the films faces its biggest problems. The moral ambiguity that fuelled much of the interesting conflict is abandoned. Instead the plot is reliant on making twists and turns, which haven’t been earned and end up feeling unsatisfying and borderline silly, with muddy motivations being at the core of the problem. In the end 'Miss Sloane' offers some interesting ideas and engaging moments, but ultimately feels falls well short of its full potential.