In cinemas now!

Mia (Emma Stone) is a struggling actress balancing working in a movie studio coffee shop with an unsuccessful slew of auditions. Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is an extremely talented but cocky musician obsessed with jazz to the point that his passion for the genre keeps him from holding down a steady job as a pianist providing mood music to the diners in a restaurant.

On the verge of giving up on their dreams the two find each other and their relationship spurs them on to bigger and better things even as that future threatens to tear the two of them apart. What comes next is a story of romance, ambition and the struggle to realise your dreams that won’t fail to move you.​

I didn’t love this movie as much as the awards circuit seems to have but it is extremely good. A stunning combination of visuals, subtle yet extravagant performances, and great music. It’s a clear throw back to a seemingly forgotten era of musicals; where the songs are more than just fun asides, they’re an expression of the emotion of the scene and characters before you.

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

Out now!

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

As the finalists start to rehearse for the contest, Moon must find more money than initially planned due to a very unfortunate typo found in the flyers. Since his business partner Eddie (John C. Reilly: 'Chicago', 'A Prairie Home Companion'), another Suffolk sheep who happens to be Nana’s grandson, cannot lend him the cash, they both seek Nana’s help (her older self voiced by Ab Fab’s Jennifer Saunders), which she isn’t keen on giving unless they prove themselves.

On a moral level, the story presents some interesting points. Firstly, the protagonist, happy to build his business from the sweat of others at the start, eventually has to redeem himself through a spell of hard labour before he can get what he wants. He’s helped in this by his Suffolk sheep sidekick, who was born into money and completely lacks purpose until that point. Their redemption scene also allows for a few easy gags, though it oddly flirts with tragicomedy too. The film also includes two contestants (Mike and Johnny) who toy with crime and very nearly suffer the consequences (that being said, Mike the mouse seems to get away with a lot more than he should). On a lesser level, Rosità’s easy fix to rehearse and perform her house duties eventually backfires, yet she later has her big breakthrough as she is near exhaustion at the grocery store, leading to a fantastic dancing sequence to the Gypsy Kings.

All other contestants (except for Mike) have to face their inner demon before they can glow and win the day. And though the prize money is (nearly) everyone’s biggest reason to join the contest, their artistic vocation becomes their only reason by the time the final show ends. Even Johnny’s father Marcus (awesomely voiced by Peter Serafinowicz: 'Parks and Recreation', 'Shaun of the Dead', 'Spitting Image'...though I still remember him from his guest performance in Dylan Moran’s 'Black Books') seems to come to terms with his son’s career and his own in the end. And Nana, the biggest earner of them all, appears to have a genuine passion for entertainment.

In cinemas now!

Let me remind you, this is basically a bad film. What it seemed like we’d be getting is a creepy character piece around James McAvoy switching personalities at least one of whom decided to kidnap some girls and all have their own motivations and drives, and we get that a bit but really he’s a background character. This is Casey’s survival horror story and he’s little more than the monster in the dark most of the time. That being said, McAvoy's performance is fantastic. The personalities we meet are all essentially villains, there’s potential for conflict between them and watching McAvoy switch between is brilliant, especially mid-scene, but none of it has much in the way of purpose.

And once McAvoy finally becomes The Beast it’s kind of silly. Watching him scurry about growling and crawling up the walls like a drunk lizard is arguably much less terrifying than the previous intensity of OCD paedophile Dennis or the underlying sinister nature of calm collected controlling Patricia. Even unpredictable Hedwig, a boisterous nine year old, comes across as more of a threat.

Unfortunately I can’t explain why this underwhelming film has me itching to go see it a second time without spoiling the final twist and if it’s spoiled it might not work. Like I said it changes the entire premise of the movie from top to bottom and until I get round to seeing 'Split' a second time I won’t know if the twist was worth it, but after the first viewing I’m conflicted to say the least.

​“This is storytelling. This is cinema. Hacksaw Ridge is utterly brilliant!”

Gibson does a remarkable job telling the tale of Desmond Doss. Most biopics I have seen usually get a bit checklisty, jumping from one major event to the next, killing the flow of the narrative. Not so in 'Hacksaw Ridge'. The story progresses at a nice pace from Doss’ early years all the way to the event that made him famous. Gibson takes his time to introduce the characters. No unnecessary bits, no fat to cut. And that at 140 minutes running time is impressive. While the film definitely racks up in intensity once the battle starts, the more tranquil earlier bits are just as captivating and not without conflict and Gibson even manages to work in several funny moments. They are the perfect counterweight to what is to come.
​
With the soldiers ready, naval artillery ploughs the battlefield and everyone in the audience is right there with them, feeling every single shot. The soldiers advance quietly, someone screams, and all hell breaks loose. The noise is deafening, the chaos complete. Everyone is staring at the screen in utter disbelief as to the carnage we are seeing. Gibson doesn’t hold back. War is brutal. War is chaotic. War is death. The cinematography is stunning. Intimate and grandiose in equal measure, finding the beautiful moments amongst chaos and destruction. We see numerous people mowed down within seconds by bullets we didn’t even see, but hear. It is an assault on the senses. Overpowering. The sound design is phenomenal. Explosions shake your body. You hear bullets whistling past. You hear them impact, FEEL them impact. You hear, before you see, someone step on a decomposed body. The squishy sound making you nauseous now that you know what it is. This film is a disgusting experience of the horrors of war. In all its gutsy, gritty, brutal and chaotic splendour.
​
But overall it is a film about faith and principles. We see Doss endure hardship due to his beliefs, but he soldiers on. We witness him stumble, lose faith upon a friends’ death. He is lost without his faith and only the cry for a “medic” snaps him out of it. Fuelled by his reaffirmed faith he runs into the thickest chaos to help others, with no regard for his own life.

Indeed, we’re introduced to our Queens-born Holocaust scholar heroine through her daily life: running, feeding her cat, teaching a few students about the holocaust on a sun kissed American campus... I was slowly reminded of 1990s TV movies and other “spag bol” films of the era (spag bol film: you know exactly what’s going to happen, when and how, yet you’ll eat it because of those comfortably recognisable ingredients, even at the risk of your stomach bursting with what eventually will feel like lead). As I wasn’t very familiar with Mick Jackson’s work, I looked him up and discovered extensive TV experience, but not that many films. Bingo. The film soon jumped to her first confrontation with Irvine, suddenly flirting with the documentary genre…to then skip to the beginning of the legal procedure, leaving me very uncertain as to what I was watching.

That being said, once the plot moved to London (with a stop in Auschwitz), it seemed to settle into a form (something between a high end TV movie and cinematic memoirs/diary, the latter making sense given the book it’s adapted from), I became pleasantly hooked. There is more than one reason for this. First and foremost, I fell in love with Tom Wilkinson’s performance as Richard Rampton, the London barrister defending Lipstadt. This may also be the most interestingly written character in the story: a subtle blend of quintessentially British toughness, quiet passion, and heart warming affability. Wilkinson played all brilliantly. Equally captivating was Andrew Scott as solicitor Anthony Julius, who was already famous at the time for taking care of Princess Diana’s divorce.

​On the subject of barristers and solicitor, seeing the British legal system presented from an American perspective was something I’d never seen on screen before, and thus most welcome.
This aspect was also linked to what truly got me hooked and gives the film’s title a double meaning: once in London, the heroine’s journey and her conflicts became clear. Due to British law, Lipstadt and her legal team are forced to prove the holocaust happened, using facts and logic only. No witnesses. Nothing spoken. And thus Lipstadt must keep quiet at all costs, deny the holocaust survivors the opportunity to speak in court, and put her entire career and beliefs in the hands of a foreign legal team she barely knows. Parallely, she must face a surprising response from the Jewish community in London when she attempts to raise funds for the case.

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.