averyberg

Chapter 1: ‘I am different from other kids’ – Little Michael has no friends his own age and stands out clearly, because he already knows that his life belongs to music. For that reason alone, Michael already seems to be emotionally different from other children. Meanwhile, his family life is characterised by a lack of love, which he receives only from his loving mother. His father gives the impression that he does not know what love is and relies on disciplinary measures, regularly beating Michael when his expectations are not met. Overnight, Michael and his brothers become big stars.Chapter 2: “I am a black artist.” – Back in the mid-70s, the Motown record label was home to mostly black musicians. Nevertheless, due to ethnic bias and racism within the music industry, it was difficult for black musicians to achieve real success. Michael is determined to make it: first and foremost for himself, but also to pave the way for other black musicians to follow in his footsteps. At the same time, his solo success meant distancing himself from his father, who had become so desperate due to his son’s solo success that he betrayed his son yet again. He wanted to heal his trauma through his own **** audience gets to know very little, if anything at all, about Michael as a person. The only aspect that one could say stands out to some extent is Michael’s inner child, which was never able to flourish due to his father’s abuse. Neverland – also the name given later to his estate – is a refuge for outcast children in *Peter Pan*. This island symbolises dreams, a carefree childhood that little Michael never had and which, as an adult, he still longs to experience.Overall, Antoine Fuqua’s film is lacking in several respects. His direction lacks any real message and feels as hollow as a Wikipedia page, failing to convey even a hint of emotion or depth. After watching this film, I know just as little about Michael Jackson the man as I did before. The concert sequences are far too long; whilst they are well performed by Jafar Jackson, they are exactly the same as those found on concert recordings. Furthermore, the film’s editing is a disaster, at times seeming as clumsy as the editing of a school project.

The ‘Blue Heron’ a bird native to North America, incubates its eggs in Canada during the summer. From the moment they hatch, the chicks begin to prepare for life in the wild and within the colony. These birds, lovingly fed and raised by their parents, join the heron colony; usually, there is only one of these herons in a colony. Once they are released into the wild by their parents, their paths likely part forever, although there is a chance they may meet again under certain circumstances. There is no guarantee of a reunion.‘Once they leave their colony, they will disappear’, says the debut film by Canadian director Sophy Romvari. The connection between the bird that gives the film its title and a Hungarian family in Canada is ever-present. The parents, who move to Vancouver Island with their children, lovingly care for their two sons and two daughters. Jeremy, the eldest son, is meanwhile labelled a problem child because of his behaviour. From the perspective of his siblings and parents, it is not clear exactly what is different about Jeremy and why he does certain things that get him into trouble. Even in the 1990s, when the first part of the film is set, social workers and psychologists are at a loss. On the one hand, there is the issue of the neighbours: what do they say about him? Do they see him as a problem?On the other hand, there is his behaviour, which could potentially endanger his younger siblings.Sophy Romvari refrains from speculating or making assumptions about the origins of Jeremy’s behaviour, instead leaving it up to the viewers to decide for themselves. She simply portrays his behavioural traits in specific situations, and the viewer becomes someone who tries to understand his behaviour. Statements such as ‘I don’t want to watch you eat’ suggest a mental illness that no one can diagnose. Out of desperation, the mother decides to place him in a foster family. She fears she herself is the cause of his excessive behaviour. Of course, she isn’t, because in truth she has poured all the love into him that she has for her other children. She also decides, out of love, to set him free, just like the mother of his grey heron. Jeremy subsequently disappears from the story; he remains merely part of a childhood memory.Fast forward to the present day, and we see an adult Sasha who has turned her passion – filming and photography, a love instilled in her by her father from birth – into her profession. Her main goal: to uncover the injustices that exacerbated Jeremy’s behaviour and to search for an answer as to why she was unable to spend her entire childhood with her brother. Through her project, she finds herself in a sea of memories, which are depicted visually in a blurred manner. When she visits her childhood home, now an old house, her memories become clearer, as they take on a more concrete form in a familiar setting. She imagines how things might have gone differently today during her conversation with the social worker, whilst at the same time recalling the happy moments she shared with her older brother.Sophy Romvari’s feature film debut is strongly reminiscent of Charlotte Wells’ approach in *Aftersun*. A manifesto of memory, shaped by the perspective of a child who did not understand why her brother suddenly had to leave the nest and is now searching for answers. The cinematography suits the theme of memory and remains restrained. At the same time, it is artistically creative and finds angles that make it easy to immerse oneself in this emotionally charged story, whilst simultaneously conveying a gentleness that touches one deeply.

To what extent should humans be allowed to interfere with nature, and in particular with the animal kingdom? This is the question explored in the new Pixar Animation film *Hoppers*. Mabel, raised by her grandmother to be someone who loves nature, has found her sanctuary in the countryside by a lake right next to her grandmother’s house. Nature, with its calming effect and soul, has always been a special place for sensitive people. Mabel finds herself and her balance there after a difficult childhood. She has always wanted to rescue animals from humans and set them **** that we’ve arrived in the present day, nothing has changed. Quite the opposite, in fact: Mabel is politically active in the cause of animal welfare and nature conservation. Meanwhile, she is opposed by the mayor, who represents capitalism—a system that disregards flora and fauna, pushes through its plans regardless, and is driven solely by profit. But it is not only the capitalists who take centre stage in Daniel Chong’s animated film; scientists do too. The scientists, the observers, know full well that one must interfere neither with the plans of the profit-hungry nor with the animal kingdom; instead, they simply want to use Hopper’s new technology to find out more about animals. Mabel, in her impulsive way, sees things differently and recognises this as an opportunity to preserve her ****, exactly what the scientist warned about is happening: she gets too close to the animals and disaster looms. Nevertheless, *The Hoppers* finds a conciliatory conclusion, as befits a Pixar animated film, with Mabel, the scientists and the mayor reaching an agreement. At first glance, it seems idealistic, but that is precisely what matters here, because the ending gives children the sense that a compromise can always be reached. To return to the question posed at the start, the film illustrates how both worlds can coexist but cannot merge, even though they should look out for one **** animation style, which has almost become standard for Pixar films, strikes me as too polished in this case, just as it did with Elio last time. Furthermore, the film’s message often feels vague, although the humour in the script is well executed, with many memorable characters such as George the beaver, the lizard and Titus the butterfly. Nevertheless, it feels more like the standard Pixar has set for itself, and overall the plot always follows the same pattern.

Colonial powers, landowners, settlers and indigenous peoples, Chile 1901: they all come together in the middle of nowhere, not far from the Chilean Andes. On behalf of the supposedly powerful landowner José Menéndez, three men set out on a journey to protect his territory from the so-called Indios – though he seems indifferent to the matter. Among the three men is also an indigenous man from the island of Chiloé. Why? He was personally selected by Lieutenant MacLennan for his marksmanship. His landowner is less than enthusiastic about this idea, as is the third man, Bill, an American from Mexico and Menéndez’s right-hand **** the crucial question is: why is the indigenous population a threat to the landowners? On the one hand, they live their lives according to their own customs, oblivious to what the wealthy settlers are doing. On the other hand, their customs were almost described as black magic, something one must protect oneself against. Thus, Segundo’s gaze in particular is repeatedly emphasised. He would observe everything, Bill said. What unfolds following the encounter with an indigenous people is almost unrivalled in its brutality and ruthlessness. In the end, everything resembles a battlefield. Meanwhile, Segundo has not shot anyone. Instead, during the massacre, his face reflects pain and revulsion, including at his own complicity. He points his gun at Bill. However, he lacks the final resolve to pull the trigger in secret.Alongside his portrayal of the arbitrary brutality of landowners and settlers, director Felipe Gálvez addresses the issue of assimilation in the final chapter of his film. The politician Marcial Vicuña takes a clear stand against the killing, even though he is, in principle, in favour of the indigenous people’s assimilation. The psychological torment inherent in assimilation is revealed during Vicuña’s visit to Segundo’s new home, where he now lives with his wife Rosa.Stringently structured across several chapters with headings, the plot dives straight into the thick of things with the conversation between MacLennen and Menéndez. The characterisation of the three men only follows in retrospect, after their journey. The crucial message only emerges in the final chapter, though from the first 40 minutes onwards the film gets better and better, slowly drawing you in. Simone D’Arcangelo’s cinematography makes full use of the sweeping vistas of the landscape and gives the three men space by often having them stand together in front of the camera. Overall, apart from a slow-moving opening, this is a powerful film with evocative imagery and a magnificent performance by Camilo Arancibia as Segundo.

“It was an accident,” shouts the writer Ohm Baumann from within his half-finished chalk circle. All he really wanted to do was scatter his parents’ ashes at the place where they’d spent their honeymoon. What his parents experienced in Ireland in this mysterious and gloomy hotel remains a mystery. Director Damian McCarthy and his cinematographer Colm Hogan attempt to capture this Irish hotel on film, with its labyrinthine corridors, a task they succeed in to varying degrees, as the film lacks varied and, above all, wide-angle shots.Upon arrival, Ohm – who has meanwhile also embarked on this journey, as he is in the midst of a creative crisis over how to finish his latest book – learns that the honeymoon suite his parents stayed in back then has since been sealed off and is now inaccessible. A waitress, Fiona, claims to know more and speaks of a curse that lies upon this room. She herself seems very well versed in dark folklore and shows Ohm a book on how to protect oneself from ghosts and **** the centre of the entire film is Baumann, played by Adam Scott, who fails to imbue the character with his own traits and emotions, which is why he comes across as lifeless despite his struggle with trauma. From hallucinations to supposed suicide attempts, the audience increasingly loses the sense that they know what is actually happening. Nevertheless, one feels more a sense of helplessness than the intended **** use of light in the darkness is rendered authentically and is the main contributor to the tension, which suffers from a lack of precision in the script and is unable to recover from this despite an exciting final sequence. The jump scares arise precisely in this context and are sure to startle the odd person or two. Overall, I would have liked to see more build-up, character development and less chaos in the narrative, as well as significantly more creative camerawork.

How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies is another sensitive, tender and slow burn drama that at times uses humor in a very intelligent manner to transmit its message. The film thrives under the brilliant performances by the two main actors: Putthipong Assaratanakul and Usha Seamkhum. Especially Usha Seamkhum delivers a phenomenal and layered performance. She truly nails every line with subtlety yet deep moving emotions. Thus, the subtle direction by Pat Boonnitipat is impressive considering his young age. He lets his actors the room to shine and has an incredible smooth way of directing the camera with his cinematographer. I was in absolute awe with the smoothness of it. I absolutely adore wide angle perspectives with a static and fixed positioned camera. It adds so much depth to everything, opens the room and gives the actor their moment to shine. Though it is missing the slight edginess I prefer when it comes to a character study and the score adds too much forced emotions that had been produced already by the restrained acting performances and worked far better than this score that was checking on me if I have not been crying yet.

Motel Destino is a perfect example of style over substance for me. Surely we can all discuss the screenplay that seems predictable and wild at times. However, somehow I found myself engaged in Heraldo's story and I loved the ending. The ending was full of creative wild choices that I **** style of the film is a little masterpiece for me. The editing is outstanding and extremely flashy at times. The colours are strong and neon. Those neon red, green and yellow full screens, it just rocks. Not only do the colours reappeared in that form but they are also present in the rooms. The lighting is artfully done and replicates the chaos of Heraldo's mind and the erotic tensions between the main characters. I just think Karim Ainouz has created a piece of art that is undeniably exciting. The production design especially of the rooms is outstanding as well capturing the danger Heraldo is facing and the erotic tension between Dayana and Heraldo. Besides the extraordinary cinematic art, the acting matches everything. Despite not having a lot to work with, they are all present and the tension is mounting in a manner that I could feel it in my body. Might like this even more on a rewatch!

A tough watch from start to finish never captivated me nor could make me feel something. Although I appreciate the creativity that became more and more visible with the dream sequences that symbolise the struggle Mother Mary as a pop star is going through. Thus, some shots were very much extraordinary shot. The main problem for me personally was the screenplay and the direction that is missing structure and clarity about the themes of the film. Anne Hathaway on the other hand is a great actress and she has such class that she can work with anything. The costume design is masterfully done and is definitely worth considering for an Oscar nomination. Yes, I am all in for style over substance because I love looking at a piece of art and appreciate its beauty but the story still needs structure not even depth but it just cant be all over the place.

Emerald Fennell is a polarising filmmaker. Of course as she risks a lot where other director would stop, it happens that something goes wrong. Wuthering Heights is not her best work but still solid and not as bad as people say because focus solely on screenplays. I agree the screenplay is messy and is missing depth. Besides the screenplay, Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi are completely miscast for those roles. Not at any point did I feel chemistry between them. Jacob Elordi looks like he is just reading off his lines at times giving Heathcliff little to no depth. Sure this is the screenplay's fault but the best actors and actresses can still make it work. Hong Chau is on a different level compared to everyone else in the film, she outshines everyone in each scene. Moreover, the songs by Charlie XCX feel absolutely misplaced and they just dont work for me.Despite all those aspects that went wrong, it is still one of the best shots films of the year. The cinematography and production design are beautiful to look at. Linus Sandgren delivers again as one of the best cinematographers in the business. Definitely one of the most beautiful to look at films you will see all year.

'Dear Father, I will see you in my dreams' An autobiographical directorial debut by Nigerian filmmaker Akinola Davis Jr that focuses on election day 1993 in post colonial Nigeria and the first time of two brothers in Nigeria's biggest city Lagos with their father. Their father is absent for the most part of their life. However, this remains the only way to guarantee his family a living. The 90s was a decade of dictatorship in the hand of the military, a time of no freedom and lies. The one against them are either being killed or forced to shut their mouth. Akinola and Olaremi live their quiet life outside the tumult in a small village with their mother. Their first visit to Lagos will be one they will never forget. Those political and socioeconomic states become a trauma. Trauma is not only present when it comes to what is going on outside but also inside their family. Their dad has lost his brother at a very young age. Trauma and grief that held on until his son's birth. The scene at the beach reminiscent of Aftersun and Moonlight marks an emotional crescendo that strengthens the bond between the father and his eldest son who stands in his shadow. The ending not only is deeply moving and cathartic but it also marks the moment when Akinola has to step out of his father's shadow and step into his footsteps. With that being said, Akinola Davies Jr. achieves an ambitious piece of filmmaking that consists of some extremely well constructed scenes with sensible writing, capturing facial expressions and metaphoric edits.

Project Hail Mary is an absolute crowdpleaser. Emotionally moving with an unexpected friendship between an 'alien' and a physicist that became an astronaut to save the Earth. Ryan Gosling's performance is a career best and the film thrives under his demanding and highly complex role. Developing such an emotional bond with the creature is a true achievement. The visuals are stunning and make it a must to watch on a big screen to really appreciate what the crew of directors Miller and Lord have achieved when it comes to visual effects, sound design and cinematography. Especially the cinematography adds a lot to the experience. The camera movements reflect the movement of the space. It underlines how important creative camera work is, it adds so much more to the story. Definitely an early contender for Best Cinematography at the Oscars! The weak link is definitely the screenplay and the pacing. It left too much room and it was missing some depth. Every time when I felt they could gone deeper in relationships or deep personality traits, the writer either decided to cut it off or to add a joke. The jokes are funny yes but sometimes a little misplaced for my taste. In the middle, the film also felt a bit too long and at some places the pacing was too fast for my taste.

A script by Alex Garland when it comes to any dystopian film is always great. With Danny Boyle and now Nia DaCosta, he also found two great directors who take everything out this story. Ralph Fiennes as the main act in The Bone Temple, he would have made my Supporting Actor last year already but this performance is on a whole other level. Every scene in which he is in, he steals the show and I cannot look away. What a character! Jock O'Connell goes insane as the leader of a satanic group. However, I cannot decide if I found his character and the whole story of this group a bit unfitting. Just like in last year's 28 years later film, the cinematography is terrific and the pacing as well the editing had its up and downs.

The Devil Wears Prada is one the films that has stayed in my mind since I have first seen it when I was about 8 years old. Since then my mom and I used to watch it every year and since not living with her anymore, I still watch it every year. When the announcement of the Sequel came out, it was pretty obvious that there was only one person with who I could go to the cinema to watch The Devil wears Prada 2: my mom. I will forever be thankful to her that she let me grew up with this film and that she introduced to me to the world of movies because without her, I would have never had this interest. Now speaking about the actual film: I think the best idea they had, was just to keep the main cast as it is because them made the first film so special. Just like in the first film, all the actors deliver phenomenal performances especially Meryl Streep's Miranda and Stanley Tucci's Nigel are still one of their career best performances. I think especially Miranda is being shown from a softer side as new obstacles come in her way. Talking about those obstacles, what I appreciate the most is that the writer did not just make the effort of writing a sequel to the original story but she added current issues to it. The issues that journalism is facing in all kinds of forms with the upcoming of AI and digitalization. For the main characters writing wise everything works perfectly for me while the side character come across as meaningless at times. In the end, just like with the first film I had a wonderful time despite a little messy too fast paced editing. Whereas I can also criticise the use of wide angle shots of cities that do not add anything to the substance of the film.

Kristoffer Borgli's second feature film absolutely deserves that title. It certainly is The Drama that develops on course of its 100 minute runtime. Thus, it features one of the most unlikable characters I have ever encountered in a film: Rachel portrayed by Alana Hain. The Drama starts with her. Then, the film comes to its fundamental questions: Is she overreacting? Is Charlie only thinking about it this much because of Rachel's reaction? What would have happened if she had a different opinion on Emma's secret? The answers to those questions remain subjective. With that being said, for me love has always been something unconditional. Yes, nearly committing a school shooting is nothing to ignore. However, it does not change the person you have got to know and the person you love. Instead of judging her, it could be more about support because in the end she did not do it. This fact alone says to me personally more than anything. So my answer is that if you know what happens in the final scene, Charlie would have supported Emma unconditionally without Rachel's reaction. Considering the technical achievement, the cinematography is too plain, especially the conversations are not well shot and too many shots are captured with a close up. However, the editing on the other hand is absolutely stunning, going for montage sequences proves to be such an intelligent and effective move since so much is based on the two years that passed since their relationship has started.

Illusions may occur with any of the human senses. They reveal how someone's mind is organised and stimulated by one or more of their senses. Cinema is an illusion that relies very much on the strongest of the human senses: the visual. Apart from the human eye, the ears may respond second to the sound of a film. Cinema is experimental. It can incorporate any of the human senses. As the visual is the strongest of our senses when it comes to illusions. Bi Gan's opus of the cinematic language obtains one omnipresent sense: the visual. Each part of his time travel through cinema and illusion is differently shot and lightened. Fitting with the era of cinema history portrayed, Dong Jingson as Bi Gan's cinematographer creates imagery for the ages with a quality and creativity that is hard to determine with words. Second to the visual, comes the auditive sense. Therefore, Bi Gan and his sound team are also focused on a very distinctive sound that changes intensity. At times, extremely drowning for our ear, at times filled with softness to incorporate the sense portrayed in each part of the story. Thus, being the main sense of the first story, it stands for the time after the cinematic era that had to be solely based on visuals. As cinema becomes more experimental, the illusions become stronger moving forward until the moment where cinema tries to break through the second dimension and becomes seemingly touchable. There are not enough words for what Bi Gan has created. A cinematic poetic opus for the ages that has to be rewatched multiple times to fully understand everything. This is intelligent and highly complex cinema that uses cinema as a pure form of art.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]