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.

Well this is an odd one. Documentary filmmaker Patrick Shen goes on an existential quest to understand the concept of silence and peacefulness and how it may apply to the chaos of modern life. He speaks to experts on the subject of silence (yes, there are experts on the subject of silence), analyses the historical significance of silence in prayer and meditation as well as some of those customs that still take place, including a look at John Cage’s famous composition 4’33” which still inspires artists today.

As a concept this probably sounds kind of dull and as a movie it’s pretty far from exciting, in fact it’s basically about the pursuit of a lack of excitement, a lack of anything, but oh my God I cannot get this movie out of my head. I was utterly transfixed even when nothing was happening, and there are large portions where arguably nothing is happening, and the message of the movie has stuck so deeply in my brain that I find myself altering the way I perceive the world as we know it.
​
Honestly, I don’t think a movie has ever inspired me to change the way I live my life before but this one has certainly made me stop and think. Let me sell it to you, because I’m aware it’s doesn’t sound that interesting.

First of all, yes it’s slow paced and completely lacking in thrills. This isn’t the story of a serial killer or obsessive fan or one of those documentaries with an engaging narrative, this doesn’t really have a narrative at all. It probably is everything you fear it will be, I’ll just be upfront about that. What it is though is a complete look at something you’ve never really thought about but which affects you’re life every second of every day in ways you never bothered to consider.

It’s easy to think of the world in a visual way, and in that regard the film is beautifully shot in parts, but equally if not more so we are audio-centric beings. We are always hearing the world all of the time, we receive much more audio input than visual and the film sets out to explore that. This isn’t purely about “inner peace” there’s a genuine health concern about the noise that affects our lives. Before this film I had no idea that the World Health Organisation lists excessive noise as one of the most serious health risks in the modern world, just behind air pollution. We take for granted how much sound we consume every day and somehow assume that it wouldn’t have a lasting effect on us because it’s basically invisible.

Julien (Mathieu Amalric, who also writes and directs) enjoys a heated affair with a married woman, Esther, where they meet regularly in a particular room at a local hotel, the titular Blue Room. Esther brings out all the passion in him that his wife doesn’t but he isn’t unhappy at home, he loves his daughter, and he seems to hate himself for the forbidden fruit he feels compelled to pluck.

Esther is much less conflicted, almost casual about the affair and convinced that they should break off their respective marriages by any means. However, as they ponder on life and love we are intercut with Julien being questioned in a police station and in a prison, by what appears to be a psychologist, at some future date, and we are soon aware that something terrible has happened and much more than a simple story of forbidden love is about to unfold before us.

The film moves at a near perfect pace, the tension high throughout as the mystery unfolds, never dragging or rushing us into any one particular moment so we have time to form our opinions and learn the facts before the final reveal comes out. If anything it’s more like we’re viewing this from a juries perspective, we only learn so much and only the characters themselves know the real truth.

Even though the story does conclude I’d say we’re left with three possible truths to choose from, and whilst inclined to believe Julien’s version of events because we’ve been follow him most closely, it’s intriguing to think that our faith there could be misplaced. The real question we’re left with at the end is whether or not we can pass judgement based on the limited information we have because it’s just not possible to know any better.

I really enjoyed this film, to some degree it does feel like a lot of set up and no pay off simply because we never see the “truth” as such. Once the characters are doing something that can’t be verified by a witness or some element of physical evidence the movie loses track of them momentarily, and you might think that would be frustrating but it really works to the films betterment. There’s a very real world feel to how we might consume such a story via news coverage and word of mouth and be forced to make a detached judgement.

I’m going to start off, instead of my usual summary, by saying that I don’t get this film. I understand what it was about and I followed it, I even enjoyed it, but I don’t understand what it’s supposed to be. Seemingly a documentary it feels weirdly staged a lot of the time and events tend to play out a little too conveniently, meaning it’s too structured to feel like a documentary but not structured enough to feel like it isn’t. Conversations sometimes feel like they’ve been set up, in fact Julie (our lead) even says this at one point, accusing the director of ambushing her with a fake scenario.

In addition it seems to have a very specific audience. Nothing particularly interesting happens and there doesn’t seem to be much of a message or point to the proceedings, which helps add to the confusion of whether or not the film is fake or real. But having said all that negativity, I did actually enjoy this movie and found myself oddly compelled by the story it was telling. It’s far from a classic but I was never bored.

From what I’ve managed to gleam the film is partly staged but mostly the true life story of Julie, a professional British nanny who goes out to work for a wealthy family in the United Arab Emirates. British nannies are quite popular out there, though whether there’s a practical reason for that or if they’ve just seen Mary Poppins too many times is unclear (you kind of suspect a British nanny is a status symbol more than anything).

Julie joins a large family of six children who don’t really have any kind of structure to their lives and is told by the parents to figure out how to fix this. The parents then wander off into the background and remain curiously distant from the proceedings, and though they seem like perfectly nice people and loving parents, it’s fair to say they aren’t naturals at the whole parenting thing. Anyway, with six kids to control, a new culture to get familiar with and a distant family always on her mind Julie has no choice but to dive right in.
​
As I said, this is an odd film. It’s doesn’t look especially compelling on the surface unless you are specifically interested in the subject matter and the design is more than a little jarring with the curiously scripted opening at the office of the agency that sends the nannies around the world and the even more bizarrely random appearance of a social media superstar during a family outing.

But as someone who knew basically nothing about what I was about to see, when I went in to this movie I found it pretty interesting. The problem may be that everything is a little out of focus. The culture clash is there, but it feels like the films not really about that. The role of a nanny and the relationship with the rest of the house staff is there, but it feels like the films not really about that. There’s some conflict with the kids, but it feels like the films not really about that. I suppose this is where the movie is clearly a documentary, after all something exciting can’t be filmed unless something exciting happens, but without a targeted focus we just sort of meander about with no real purpose and it shows at times.

Ultimately the film is about anything and everything in this 'Nanny Culture' so the story spreads itself a little thin perhaps. Like I say, I don’t really know what this movie is, but I enjoyed learning about the world it was set in and felt genuinely attached to Julie and the family by the end of it. There’s certainly messages and lessons on multiculturalism and class structure that can be taken from this story and it’s all very fascinating, but again, it feels like the film isn’t really about that.

Coming soon! Release date to be announced.

'The Prey' kicks off the proceedings with some truly awe-inspiring visuals and camera-work, setting the foreboding eeriness of the evening within seconds. All before drawing you in to the more human and relatable drama between Mel (Rebecca Van Cleave) and her boyfriend (James Alexandrou).

From there, things refuse to let up; the drama quickly ramping up to a broader sense of such nerve-wracking tension that it’s all but impossible not to be pulled to the edge of your seat. It truly is heart-pounding stuff, not least of all due to a truly impressive use of music and sound, that manages to seem both original and occasionally an homage to other well-known horror movies.

On the acting front, all prominent members of the cast are on solid form. James Alexandrou ('Eastenders') does well with a role which, with lesser writing and in lesser hands, could have been a one-note and generic “annoying boyfriend” role, blessing it with nuance and an acute sense of awareness. Of the two, however, Sam Gittins ('Ripper Street') easily stands out, conveying myriad emotions and levels of menace with expressions and actions alone.

Alongside and up against both, Rebecca Van Cleave ('The Royals', 'Game of Thrones') more than holds her own, in both the personal drama and the subsequent tense situations she finds herself involved in. The scenes she shares with Sam Gittins truly sizzle with palpable psychological and emotional strain. As well as, surprisingly, a wonderful amount of dark humour, producing genuinely laugh-out-loud moments amid the traditional and impressive gore and violence.