averyberg

What will the future look like in a few decades’ time? The American director Gore Verbinski tackles this question in a humorous yet dystopian way. Dystopian films are increasingly becoming a trend, centred on powerful artificial intelligence. Here, too, the world is under threat: from artificial intelligence that exerts a decisive influence over our lives; from gun violence; and from technology that now even makes cloning **** can stop it? – The answer: a man from the future. He must assemble a group of people in a diner who can use technology to prevent the end of the world. With this role, Sam Rockwell once again proves that he can shine in comedies too, delivering a performance that is both emotional and funny. Meanwhile, the narrative style of the story is engaging and captivates with its non-linear structure. Viewers learn what these people – who are connected only by the diner as a setting – were doing before this moment. Each of them has, in a sense, suffered a stroke of fate linked to modern technology.What is interesting about these different perspectives is both the settings and the nature of the tragedies. In this future world, for instance, there is a company that can clone children if they are killed in a mass shooting. At the same time, the director uses this insight to criticise gun violence in the USA. Furthermore, the film tells the story of a young woman who is allergic to Wi-Fi and any form of technological device. She thus symbolises the danger posed by modern technology. Moreover, she loses her boyfriend to the virtual world. The connection between the man from the future and her comes as a surprise, providing the film’s moment of surprise.Overall, Gore Verbinski attempts to offer a critique of the world through his comical science-fiction film. The problem is the sheer number of themes he tries to interweave, which is why they all feel as though they’re touched upon but not really explored in depth. Furthermore, at almost two hours in length, the editing sometimes loses its rhythm, with certain sequences feeling too drawn-out whilst others fall by the wayside. Nevertheless, the final thirty minutes offer both suspense and entertainment.

Sexual orientation and gender identity, although both are part of the **** community, refer to two different experiences, two different ways in which a person can identify themselves. It is precisely these experiences that set Johan and William apart. Johan is gay. He is active in the scene and moved from the small town of Odense to Copenhagen, the big city, to live out his sexuality. Yet he seems somehow lost in this big-city life. He appears downright disoriented and doesn’t really know what to do with his life.William, on the other hand, is studying literature and has a clear idea of what he wants to do with his life. His transition is his top priority for now. He has found acceptance from his parents and can now be the person he has always been deep down. The character of William highlights the hurdles of being trans: hormones, surgery, discrimination. William goes through all these experiences as a trans man. He finds the waiting lists and the time it takes to receive a diagnosis far too long. Instead, his friends help him out and share their hormones with him – something very common in the trans community. This community sticks together. At the same time, unlike other trans people, he is fortunate that his parents are paying for his surgery. William simply wants to be seen and treated as a gay man, just like Johan.However, when he visits the gay sauna where Johan works, he experiences discrimination. The older men in charge of the sauna there do not recognise him as a woman and ban him from the premises. Johan had never had to go through this before. Nevertheless, sparks fly between the two of them and they become a couple. This does nothing to improve Johan’s life. His sense of disorientation seems to be at a standstill and he keeps getting himself into trouble. He also excludes himself from William’s circle of friends.Overall, the direction by the Danish filmmaker Mathias Broe comes across as somewhat lacklustre. The characters are defined almost entirely by their sexuality and identity. Furthermore, the portrayals of William and Johan lack depth. It is particularly difficult to understand certain actions taken by Johan, as the characterisation is a complete failure, especially in his case.

The complexity of our psyche and thought processes continues to pose major puzzles for science to this day. The human brain has connections that sometimes make it difficult for an individual to understand themselves. Psychologists are the ones who, on the one hand, help patients to make sense of and understand their behaviour, their psyche and their innermost thoughts, and, on the other hand, delve into their patients’ minds. It is precisely this complexity and the relationship between patient and therapist that director Kane Parsons explores in an abstract and surreal manner in his feature film debut, based on his own web series.Clark, an architect who doesn’t actually work as one. He works as a sales assistant in a furniture shop. He is currently going through a divorce and has left his own house to his wife. He has also struggled with alcohol addiction. Everything points to instability, suffering, unease and psychological trauma. For this reason, he is seeing Mary, a psychologist. The psychologist, like many in her profession, suffers herself from the traumas of her childhood. Meanwhile, she manages to delve ever deeper into Clark’s emotional world. He trusts her. He tells her almost everything. She succeeds in penetrating ever further into his subconscious through a role-play in which she takes on the role of his wife.Clark’s psyche is influenced not only by his problems, but also by his difficulty in dealing with emotions. ‘He would rather feel like a piece of furniture,’ he admits. Pieces of furniture are lifeless objects. They feel nothing. He wants to feel nothing. However, this statement does not occur in the present timeline, but in his subconscious, his psyche: the backrooms of his self. The psychological exploration takes place within him personally. The audience delves into Clark’s psyche. The subconscious is like a labyrinth. All the more fitting, then, is the term ‘trails of thought’. They are complex. Once inside, it is difficult to find your way out **** this world, everything that Clark’s psyche has to grapple with comes to the fore: his problems, the people who have influenced him or caused him pain. At the same time, something else happens as his psychologist, Mary, enters this world. She certainly gains an insight into his deepest inner conflicts, but at the same time she is also caught up in her own traumas and puts herself under strain by allowing Clark’s psyche to get too close to her. The interpretation of *Backrooms* is multifaceted, and viewers can decide for **** his feature film debut, Kane Parsons presents himself as a surrealist. The unique set design, in particular, stands out and feels constricting, frightening and bewildering – just as the inner world of the human psyche is. You find yourself swept up in a torrent of paranoia about your own thoughts and fear of yourself. Furthermore, the set design is brilliantly brought to life by camerawork that amplifies the emotions just described. Of course, one could argue that the screenplay sometimes lacks depth, but for me personally, the director achieves this depth precisely through the camerawork and the visual and auditory presentation.

The Great Terror in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s under Stalin, also known as the purge of enemies of the people, was intended to prevent counter-revolutions. This meant that any suspicion of alleged actions against the communist dictatorship resulted in state repression. People vanished from the face of the earth, sent to the Gulag – a camp, a camp full of torment. A life in filth in the deepest, darkest labyrinth of the prison. The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, or NKVD for short, was largely responsible for these arrests at the time. They were known to be uncompromising, devious and unscrupulous. The NKVD considered any means justified in order to send as many enemies of the people as possible to the **** film’s story begins right here in this dark place, which few people apart from the authorities and the inmates have ever seen from the depths within. The camera impressively reveals the labyrinthine prison to the audience. The appalling conditions. The people are effectively dead, even though they are not yet truly dead. A young public prosecutor appears on the scene. He wants to intervene in the system. He has a message with him – from a prisoner. Stepaniak, whom he knew from university, has written a message in his own blood – a cry for justice, a desperate plea for help. Kornev is committed to delivering justice and sees the conditions in which the prisoner lives. His wounds bear witness to brutal torment, his body covered in life-threatening bruises. Mentally broken, Stepniak seeks justice for himself. To what extent can the young public prosecutor help him? Is he aware of the immense risk he is taking? He will not be able to stop the NKVD and Stalin’s dictatorship. At the same time, in his quest for justice, he runs the risk of becoming an enemy of the people himself. He then sets off on a long journey to see the chief of police. In the end, he seems to have convinced him that he needs his help. Yet the film ends with the danger that has loomed over him from the very beginning: Kornev’s arrest. Kornev was duped by the very regime he had intended to protect. He merely sought justice, yet it ended in his punishment.With *The Two Prosecutors*, Ukrainian director Sergei Loznitsa has created a film that uses a specific event to expose the atrocities of the Russian dictatorship. Through this event alone, and the almost astonishingly authentic setting of the Soviet era, the film has a deeply unsettling effect on the audience. The opening sequence and the conversation between Kornev and Stepniak are masterfully conceived. However, the film loses some of its tension after this sequence. The cinematography fails to build on the opening sequence and relies too heavily on close-ups during conversations, which allows the atmosphere to fizzle out.

Artists – Creative minds brimming with inspiration: that flash of inspiration for artists, triggered by a spark. Artists depend on inspiration. But – what happens when an artist’s private life influences their creative work? Their private life and their own thoughts can become a source of creative block. Julian Sklar, a well-known English artist, is unable to complete his world-famous series of paintings, ‘The Christophers’. Something is holding him back. His money-hungry children seem unimpressed by this fact. They hire the artist Lori Butler. Not only is she a huge fan of Julian’s, but she can also imitate his style to a tee. There are two options left: either convince Julian to let her help him finish the paintings as his assistant, or finish the paintings herself. Overall, Julian is more notable for his rejection of his own art. He wants to burn the series of paintings. The reasons for his rejection are deeply rooted in his **** identity. The Christoph in the picture is a former lover of his. Over time, Lori and Julian seem to become friends. Through her, he rediscovers himself and his peace of mind. Steven Soderbergh’s new feature film deals not only with the creative process, but also with the already excessive attempts to interpret art. How can one possibly know what an artist was thinking when creating their work? It is an impossible question. Nevertheless, Lori seems to understand Julian better than he understands himself, having studied his works. Ultimately, Julian is unable to complete the series of paintings, even though he lets himself go and simply gives free rein to every emotion as he tries. Shortly before the end of his life, he is finally able to set himself free.“Does it matter who painted it?” – Lori’s final statement tells the audience everything they need to know: Lori finished the series for Julian. He shared his inspiration with her. The reviews now suggest that Steven Soderbergh has created yet another brilliant film. This is misleading, however, as his direction is non-existent. There is no discernible directorial style. The screenplay leaves little room for interpretation. Ian McKellen and Micaela Cole alone are responsible for the depth of the characters, which is nowhere to be found in the script. The cinematography and editing are simplistic and lack any creativity.

“I wish that Nikki loved me more than anyone in the world” – a wish that will change Bear’s life forever. In truth, he’s simply hopelessly in love with the lovely Nikki. However, he can’t quite pluck up the courage to tell her how he feels. For fear of rejection, for fear of disappointment, for fear of losing their friendship. Perhaps also for fear of that famous heartache. Bear is a very reserved young man. He comes across as almost shy and has no idea how to approach women. He clearly wants to impress Nikki. However, he lacks the courage to speak to her. His introverted nature seems to be more of a **** culmination of these influences leads Bear to visit a shop – a mysterious, spiritual or magical shop. In this shop, he buys a ‘One Wish Willow’. Does he believe this wish will come true? Who actually believes in wishes? He doesn’t seem to be one of those people, although the shop assistant points out to him that there have already been complaints. Bear thinks it’s all a joke. At the very moment when he is overcome by sheer despair and disappointment in himself, Bear sits alone in his car and voices his deepest wish, believing that nothing would or could happen.Think again – the chaos takes hold immediately as her wish takes effect. Nikki becomes ‘Freaky Nikki’ and Bear becomes her obsession. The social context that first-time director Curry Baker presents to the audience here deals, on the one hand, with the relationship between love and obsession and, on the other, with the fact that you cannot force love upon another person. After all, love is a feeling, not a decision you simply make on a **** desire also encompasses the consequences of wrong decisions: “Just because you chose it here, doesn’t make it any less real.” The compulsion: Nikki cannot resist Bear’s desire. Her soul lives on. She wants to escape this obsession. She wants to resist the power of compulsion. She wants to break free. Yet she cannot. The power of the desire seeks to push her obsession to its absolute limit. Bear must be constantly by her side. Inde Naverette undoubtedly delivers one of the acting performances of the year, having to embody two distinct characters within a single person. The utter madness she has to portray becomes frighteningly real.Curry Baker’s feature film debut is certainly an achievement that deserves recognition. Yet it lacks one thing that would make *Obsession* an excellent film. The social commentary seems hidden, so subtle that one might wonder to what extent the director is even aiming for it at all. What other critics praise as a creative achievement strikes me more as a typical horror film trope. Nevertheless, Curry Baker and his crew deserve every bit of praise for the sound and cinematography, given their limited budget.

In philosophy, the ‘other’ refers to that which differs from the familiar. Accordingly, the ‘other’ also plays a role in our perception of others, for the feeling of perceiving something as ‘other’ is established the very moment a person encounters something unfamiliar. What does this mean for other people? When other people are perceived as ‘the other’, this may not only be related to ethnicity or language, but may also have to do with behaviour. Social behaviour, after all, also encompasses norms, and if someone behaves in a way that contravenes these norms, they are generally perceived by others as ‘the other’.Based on Albert Camus’s world-famous work, French director François Ozon presents the facts as they are and leaves it to the audience to pass judgement. Meursault, the stranger: he is the embodiment of otherness. His views on life, and how he wishes to live it, differ from the old-fashioned norm. He does not weep at his mother’s death. Consequently, he deals with negative emotions – and death in particular – differently from what society expects. Later in the film, during the court hearing, this fact is used as an argument to suggest that he is a cold-blooded murderer devoid of emotion. Furthermore, Meursault seems to place great value on honesty, which is why he expresses his views in court and in his relationship with Marie without regard for the feelings of others. This honesty, which at times borders on emotional coldness, ultimately proves to be his undoing: he is convicted of murder. The court sees him as the stranger who lacks empathy and is too different to live within society.With the story set in Algeria, a former French colony, the issue of racism – although not explicitly named – also comes to the fore. Why is it not explicitly mentioned? At that time, the colonial powers and the settlers did not give it a second thought. This is, without question, morally reprehensible and wrong. At the same time, there is also a connection between racism and the way ‘otherness’ is treated, as racism relates to differences in appearance, language and culture. Racist people do not accept what is foreign to them and treat these people with violence and intolerance. Ozon’s film depicts, both through dialogue and through his cinematography, the inhumane conditions prevailing in Algeria at that time. The murder of a ‘native’ – as they are referred to – was mostly wrongly dismissed as a trivial matter. Because of Meursault’s foreignness, he does not experience the leniency of the court, but is punished with the full brutality of the law, just like the Algerian men and women.*The Stranger* stands out for its exceptional elements. Firstly, there is Benjamin Voisin’s performance, which other critics will no doubt find too reserved and cold. However, in my view, his performance is a masterstroke, for a role like this demands more than one that requires frequent emotional shifts. Furthermore, director Ozon, together with his cinematographer Manuel Dacrosse, has created a cinematographic style whose black-and-white aesthetic captures the story’s sombre atmosphere, whilst its creativity reflects the main character’s sense of otherness.

If you had the chance, would you turn back the clock? Other directors before Matt Johnson have explored this question. The way this happens varies. One of the best-known examples of time travel comes from the film *Back to the Future*. Coincidentally, one of Matt’s main characters is completely obsessed with this film and has turned his caravan – modelled on the one in the film – into a time machine. However, he himself believes just as little as we do that it could actually **** now to the original question: why on earth would Jay and his best friend Matt want to turn back time? They love being in a band and have been living their dream together for decades – to finally make it big and play at the Ravoli. So far, however, it has remained just a dream. Matt and Jay are two friends who couldn’t be more different. Despite all their setbacks, Matt is brimming with optimism, whilst Jay gives the impression that he’s gradually losing faith in their chances of success. With his optimism – which comes across as almost comically naïve – Matt is constantly coming up with new ideas that could bring them both huge success. His latest idea: to parachute from the Toronto Tower onto the half-time show at the baseball stadium. In the end, Jay agrees to the plan, almost in **** closer inspection, the Toronto Tower, which towers over the entire city, symbolises an unyielding hope for success. At the same time, the flight down and the landing on the roof represent the need to get back up time and again after a setback. However, following this setback, Jay gives up and wants to leave his partner, but he hadn’t reckoned on Matt spending the night in the caravan. Suddenly, to their amazement, they realise that Matt has actually built a time machine. But from this moment – marked by Jay’s concealment – the turning point begins, where the two men’s friendship takes centre stage. After all, what is more important: friendship or the success one has always dreamed of? An exciting and endlessly funny journey through time begins.With *Nirvana: The Band, The Show, The Movie*, Matt Johnson has created one of the best comedy films of recent years by focusing on pure authenticity. The cinematography and editing shine through their innovation, with the camerawork shifting in tandem with the editing. Flashbacks change the aspect ratio and switch to a monochrome look. At the same time, Matt Johnson breaks down all the barriers – something very few would dare to do. The audience is addressed directly, and one could describe the film as a film within a film, which handles its many references in a truly intelligent, witty and playful manner.

Twins have been shown to share a deeper bond than other siblings. It is precisely this deep bond that the twins Racine and Anaia share in Aleshea Harris’s adaptation of her play of the same name. They can only communicate through their eyes and feel each other’s pain. Both have endured a difficult childhood in their foster family. Scarred by their burns, they face hostility on a daily basis, highlighting the extent to which many people view mere physical difference as a flaw. ‘My sister ain’t ugly,’ Racine tells anyone who insults her sister’s face. Racine has always been the twin sister who defended herself with force, whether verbal or physical. Anaia, the sensitive one, is introverted and suffers from the hostility.‘You’ve always been the emotional one,’ say both Racine and the sisters’ mother, who only gets in touch when she is on her deathbed. On her deathbed, the sisters learn the truth about their burns. Their biological father set their mother alight back then, and the two sisters tried to help her. Before she passes away, their mother has just one goal left: to exact revenge at any cost, even if it means asking her children to kill their biological father. Driven above all by a thirst for revenge, Racine in particular wants to wipe out everything her father holds dear. In keeping with the title, they see their mother as a god, for she is the one who created them **** a wild journey following the trail of their father’s past, the two encounter everyone whom their narcissistic father has caused suffering in any way, until they arrive at his current family’s home. His new wife, Alice, lives as a prisoner of her twin sons and her husband; in truth, she just wants to break free, and that is exactly what she intends to do. However, she is stopped in her tracks by Racine and Anaia. After Alice reveals her true, malicious nature, she is slaughtered by Racine. From this moment on, a crucial question arises, one which the film attempts to answer: Must one seek revenge to feel better? Is physical violence a legitimate means of revenge? Anaia is sceptical that physical violence is an act of revenge, particularly when it comes to people other than her **** film’s final showdown takes place in the father’s house. Sterling K. Brown delivers one of the acting performances of the year in a supporting role as a manipulative, narcissistic father who will stop at nothing to get what he wants. He lacks any empathy and gets the revenge he never expected. His daughters want to see him suffer just as their mother did back then. The film’s ultimate message – that physical violence is not a legitimate means of revenge – is illustrated by Racine’s death, which could only have come about in this way.With *Is God Is*, Aleshea Harris has created one of the most gripping films of the year, one that does not shy away from black humour. In her debut film, she proves herself to be a fearless director, confronting the audience with the themes of revenge and the deep bond between siblings. The casting of the lead roles is a success, with two compelling performances from Kara Young and Mallori Johnson. Ultimately, however, one realises that staging a play is quite different from shooting a film. The editing feels rough in places and leaves gaps that require more context. The cinematography is kept simple and leaves one wishing for more depth.

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.]