'Gender', directed by Aleksandra Czenczek and written by Gisele Mauvecin, depicts project manager Emma’s (Gisele Mauvecin), struggle to be seen as an equal and as viable candidate for a senior position in her company. We see Emma working all hours of the day to the detriment of other areas of her life, however despite all of this, her efforts are thwarted by an unfairly rigged system denying her due to prejudices based on her gender. The cinematography overall is very well executed and the film has the feel approaching that of a much bigger budget feature length film. The shots are clean and fluid and it is well woven together visually. The soundtrack is brilliantly composed and it is partially what sells the high end nature of the film. It is not over done and it is great at underpinning the action as it unfolds in a non intrusive sense, that layers it up and makes it fuller.

Performance wise, it is very naturalistic overall and there were only a few moments with the big boss (Jamie Lee-Hill) who verged on being a somewhat pantomimic caricature of a big bad sexist. However, there are some elements that feel as if they are missing. For one, their office is a very white environment. However, both our main character and her boss Anna (Yulia Romanova) have migrated from other parts of the world to work in this London branch, yet only their gender is mentioned as being a barrier to progression. However, as we are all coming to learn, the world is intersectional. So not only will they have to face gender bias, but also the potential biases that come from being a migrant. Both actors read relatively well and it is very refreshing to see two actors, who’s first language isn’t English, without having them be the “Other”, it’s just that within a film that seeks to address prejudice, it is short sighted to ignore the interweaving of these things.

It was a great twist, to have her boss who is a woman, be in some way complicit with the decision to promote her less accomplished male colleague (David Wayman) ahead of her. A great reminder that even if we come from an oppressed group, we can still be puppets of the system enacting those injustices out upon those who face the same hardships as us. However, it is very based in a narrative that there is one metric of success, and that we must all adhere to it, even though it was created and is upheld by those who would keep us out. So rather than redefine what success looks like, we mutilate ourselves in order to emulate and to get a approval from those above who will only allow individuals not in the “club”, just far enough to appease and cajole.

It was well executed and well performed, it just seemed as if it wasn’t saying anything wildly new or in a fresh way. We need more films to get people to think and to address their behaviours for sure and this will certainly act as a reminder, it just could have reached a little further in a more nuanced way for a 2019 audience.

We open with a voiceover from newlywed Elizabeth (Abbey Lee) describing her dream of meeting a brilliant man to take her away from the ugliness of the world. The man of her dreams is husband Henry (Ciarán Hinds), a scientist who brings Elizabeth to live in his sheltered mansion and encourages her to enjoy everything the estate has to offer - so long as she never enters one particular room. So far, so fairytale. Of course, after exploring her new home, increasingly shadowed by house staff Claire (Carla Gugino) and the blind Oliver (Matthew Beard), she does enter the forbidden room. What she encounters brings into question her identity, Henry’s motivations and the nature of the house.

Unfortunately, what follows is a mystery as clunky and obvious as the title itself. Part of the problem is the confused pacing brought on by multiple flashbacks and dream sequences that interrupt the flow of the plot. It also doesn’t help that these scenes are saturated by block colours which jar with the otherwise coldly lit present-day scenes. These strange bouts of high stylisation, along with Abbey Lee’s affected performance, result in an inconsistent genre piece whose central mystery is too predictable to stay engaging. While the rest of the cast try gamely to work with the stained dialogue they are given - at one point Oliver says, “You were the prettiest, strangest creature I ever saw,” to which Elizabeth replies: “How would you know…if you’re blind?” - their efforts can’t quite maintain the tension needed to keep us invested. The conclusion, aided by a lengthy period of reading a diary laden with explanations, has all the subtlety of shotgun fired by a blind man (something that actually happens halfway through).

'Elizabeth Harvest' has a lot of good intentions, but any statement it is trying to make gets lost in an uneven visual style and limp plot. It seems aspire to be a 'Gone Girl' for the #MeToo era; a subverted fairytale about a young and beautiful woman reasserting her power over an older wealthy man. While this could've been a timely thriller about gender dynamics, it is instead a muddled mystery that’s too stylised for its own good.

Family, truth, inevitability, time, loyalty. These are the precious strands of saffron running through this film which make it absolutely compelling.

'Everybody Knows' is a thriller, but not in a conventional sense. It's not about a heightened sense of fear, but an immersion in the realism of family and village life. So identifiable and human, that when disaster strikes for main character Laura (Penelope Cruz), it keeps you on the edge of your seat with compassion. Laura is on a trip back home to Spain from Argentina with her children, for a family wedding. Her 16 year-old daughter is played by Carla Campra, whose performance stands out, then lingers for being as riveting as it is natural.

Like the walls of the sun-bleached brick houses of the Spanish village where the story is set, this is a film built from many parts. It’s a puzzle film, a mystery to be solved by the viewer. It’s immersive, I could taste the dust in the wind and mouthfuls of the meals that Penelope Cruz’s character could hardly eat. I didn't want it to end. The chemistry between real-life couple Penélope Cruz and Javier Bardem (Paco) sizzles out from the screen and seems inevitable, befitting the script and sumptuous to watch.

Some of the early dialogue, action and cinematic choices early on in the film may feel a little heavy-handed in terms of plot direction to begin with. It could even feel as though the writer director, Asghar Farhadi, is underestimating his audience. But in a more subtle way, this is the genius of the film. This creates the sense of inevitability, that drives the film forward, told to the audience first with the with the clockwork mechanism of the village clock in the opening credit sequence. Family life, and love can seem inevitable. And with this Asghar Farhadi asks, is love inevitable? And it’s a fascinating question to ask. As such the symmetry of this film is perfect. Intellectually it's like a chewing gum that doesn't run out of flavour.

'Everybody Knows' doesn’t have the subtlety of Asghar Farhadi’s other films, like 'A Separation', for instance. This is a more glamorous and melodramatic beast. But even with a large serving of Hollywood glamour, it’s still peppered with the realism of messy interiors and tired decor, which makes the imperfect lives of the characters seem even more real.

'Blood Runs Down' delivers memorable miasmic aestheticism within its Louisiana setting and monochrome design. Candlelight spills from every surface and Jesse Ray Guillory’s production design guiles us into a tapered tapestry of white linens and gentle luminescence. While a southern storm rages outside, psychological possessions are padded with whispers and piano chords inside, creating a delightful undercurrent of distress. The atmosphere is brilliantly set thanks to Sultana Isham’s soundtrack and Zac Manuel’s cinematography but sadly Zandashé Brown’s screenplay falters in its progression of a compelling storyline.
The image of a small girl in a white dress wielding a baseball bat is a wonderful reclamation of girlhood as something other than delicate candlelit delights and the overall attempt at addressing intergenerational trauma and the long lasting effects of loss is a poignant one but the film fails to arrest its audience with anything other than scintillating visuals. 'Goodnight', directed by Diane Michelle, features an exploration of psychosexual nightmares and gender in the family unit. Its jump scares and picture perfect family place it firmly in the realm of Hollywood horror, yet the disturbing direction the piece takes in exploiting childhood fears and twisting them into a thing with carnivorous connotations shows there’s more to 'Goodnight' than meets the eye.y

'Luna's Revenge' is a tense story of heartbreak and discovery. Luna’s family are murdered in cold blood during their holiday in the mountains and the killers will stop at nothing the take her out too. As she runs for her life Luna uncovers the truth about her family and her father’s secret life as a Russian spy, but instead of leaving the country and heading for safety she decides that she wants revenge instead.

Lisa Vicari is fantastic as Luna and draws you in with her performance as you go on her journey of grief and fear with her. The film is tense and while it doesn’t do anything greatly surprising with the story, what it does do it does effectively and with great cinematic style. Based on a true story it is a brilliant portrayal of the subtleties of real life espionage.

While there are action scenes, this is not you typical action packed spy movie. It is much more personal than that and is very much about Luna and how the events change her, and also how they don't. As she discovers that her whole life has been a lie we see the childlike innocence stripped away as she becomes a determined young woman with resolve. 'Luna's Revenge' questions where the line is between duty and morals. It also makes a very strong political comment about Russian spies in Germany.

The only downside to this film is that it is essentially straightforward. The story is very well executed but it doesn't do anything surprising or clever, which is the one missing piece of the puzzle that would make it exceptional and a lot more memorable. But otherwise it is a great story and a great film.

Eight teenage friends play games of discovery to alleviate the boredom during a hot summer in a Belgian-Dutch border village. 'We' (original name 'Wij') is a striking and very graphic story about a group of young people who lose their innocence while discovering, exploring, and then exploiting their sexuality in the quest for fun and money. They push the boundaries and challenge themselves and each other, but pretty soon their sexual curiosity begins to blur the lines between right and wrong.

The story is told in chapters through the eyes of different members of the group and we find out what happened while awaiting the outcome of a trial. ‘We’ is a great example of how things can quickly escalate and spiral out of control and the film is very well shot and directed. The chapter based style of storytelling works very well and ensures that things are revealed at the right moments to progress and build the narrative.

The acting was great all round and Aimé Claeys was particularly memorable as Thomas in the way that he showed so many different sides of the character throughout the film. He is definitely the most representative of the teenagers becoming predatory through games and sexual exploitation, and the conclusion to his story is one that will hang in the air once the film ends. What was most interesting was the motivations and reasons why the members of the group do the things that they do, and they all have different reasons.

The film questions responsibility, remorse and accountability and is both a great and somewhat shocking watch.

Picking up a year later, in terms of the story and the production, the start to season 2 is a rocky one, with the actors struggling to re-inhabit their roles. The delivery is stilted and their movements stuttery, but once they find their groove again, things really improve drastically and then continue to do so right through to the emotional conclusions. There are great lines and references from the beginning, but it's not until episode three, You and Me, that 'History' really begins to excel, both comedically and emotionally. As the dynamics between the characters becomes both more natural and authentic in their interactions and some of the emotional beats become more keenly felt.

From episode three onwards, there is clearly a lot more confidence and comfort in both the writing and direction and, even more so, in the performances. 'History' is a very talkative piece, but there comes some moments when words are no longer needed, and Jack Tracy - both as a writer, director, and as an actor - is unafraid to let things play out almost silently. This is most visible and profound in the moment's when he is confronted by stark truths and realisations. In one of the episodes, the character of Jamie is taking a selfie with a friend who insists that they show no teeth, prompting him to (as far as I'm aware) to invent something called 'Smising' wherein his face remains stoic whilst his eyes smile. He really needs to come up for a term for the dramatic version of this phenomenon, because - whether it's a friend highlighting how pain exists outside of his own or when he's receiving a voicemail that serves to convey just how much pain he himself is on the verge of inflicting upon others - It's all in his eyes, and it's beautifully done.

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.

“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.

While Jamie (Jack Tracy) is the clear star of the show, the other characters are just as interesting and captivating once you get to know them. Especially William (William Cohen) and Matthew (Jacob Seidman), who round out the new trio of friends post-breakup, make for wonderful additions to the show and bring out a new side in Jamie. I have to admit that Episode 4 'Saying Yes', which I immediately dubbed the “friendship episode”, was my absolute favourite and these three shine throughout.

Jumping from one hook-up to the next Jamie is desperately trying to fill the void left by Jared. He needs them to feel good about himself and fight his loneliness. He cannot be alone even for a minute. This is perfectly captured in a scene where we see Jamie clinging to his phone like a lifeline. When the battery is empty and he has to wait for the first tiny bit to recharge before being able to use it again, his life literally comes to a stop. He sits on the floor, leaning against the wall that has the phone charger plugged into it, staring at the lifeless device, not sure what to do. Once it comes back to life he immediately comes out of the catatonic state he was in. The series has a few powerful moments like these, but I don’t want to give too much away.

As great as its performances is the cinematography of 'Jawbone', beautifully captured by Radcliffe. Every shot elicits an emotional response in the viewer. From the sweat soaked close ups to the cold and lonely outdoors. The cinematography alone had me on an emotional journey.

Overall 'Jawbone' was more than just a boxing film for me. Yes, there is a lot of working out and it ends with your typical boxing match, but there is more to this film. Jimmy is fighting his opponent as much as he is fighting himself in that ring, throughout the entire film actually. His constant battle with alcohol, his issues with asking for help or even accepting help. We all need help, no matter if we’re trying to overcome outer or inner demons. The physical tale is just its outer layer, with a human story at its core. And that makes 'Jawbone' and Jimmy McCabe relatable to everyone.