This feature-debut from Nathalie Biancheri tells the story of Pete, a 33-year-old painter-decorator, who forms a bond with 16-year-old Laurie, all the while harbouring a big secret from her. Pete and Laurie regularly meet up at night, drinking while skulking the streets of the miserable, unnamed seaside town in which they live, as their friendship becomes more and more complicated.
Nocturnal is a wonderfully old-fashioned drama about two lonely people who find solace in one another. Pete and Laurie are both unhappy, but the comfort they find in each other’s company begins to become something they rely on, perhaps a little too much. It’s a film that poses questions; i.e. at what point should Pete spill his secret, and when does it become too late to say anything at all?
This question is an interesting one, and one that will likely bring about discussion, but it’s sadly a little implausible that Pete would keep this to himself for as long as he does.
It makes sense at first, but as the two characters grow closer and Laurie makes it fairly obvious what she wants out of the relationship, it becomes far more difficult to buy into the fact that Pete wouldn’t just tell all. It’s a hand that Biancheri plays for a little too long, gradually becoming a little more ridiculous than interesting.
The film works for the most part, though, in large part thanks to its two terrific central performances. Cosmo Jarvis, who impressed greatly in Lady Macbeth, is a towering figure of masculinity, whose nervousness and instability is present in every expression, while Lauren Coe’s portrayal is every bit as alluring as it needs to be for their connection to work. The pair shares excellent chemistry, carrying the film virtually on their own shoulders, and bringing to life characters that feel particularly naturalistic.
Biancheri’s Nocturnal is visually impressive, with late night shots of city lights and miserable scenery bringing to life the idea that this is a town people can’t wait to escape from; a town with no real hope for the future. It’s almost surrealist at times, counteracting the very human story in a way that makes the viewer even less comfortable with Pete’s situation, and feels both intentional and necessary. It’s creative direction for such a low-key story, and is to be commended.
Nocturnal is a flawed but engaging kitchen-sink drama; one with interesting themes at play and questions being asked. Brought to life by strong performances from its two leads and imaginative filmmaking from Biancheri, the film escapes its frustrating premise to remain a mostly thought-provoking and memorable picture.
Isabel Sandoval’s Lingua Franca is a semi-autobiographical picture, and it’s worth noting that she directed, wrote, produced, edited and starred in the film all by herself; a commendable feat by anyone’s standards, but it’s not without its flaws.
The film centres on Olivia, a trans caregiver trying to find her way to a green card, exploring relevant themes albeit in a fairly unengaging way. While at first glance this may appear to be a film tackling current issues with modern means, it’s disappointing to discover that the narrative becomes little more than a generic love story.
Olivia’s relationship with Alex (Eamon Farren) dominates the picture at the expense of its message. It’s not poorly done; Sandoval’s performance is clearly inexperienced but Farren certainly does the best he can with the material. The problem is simply that it isn’t interesting enough. It’s certainly not new. We’ve seen this done better in plenty of other works and it’s not what the film should be focusing on.
But perhaps the biggest problem with Lingua Franca isn’t the plot at all. Rather, Sandoval has forgotten one very important thing: character. Olivia really has very little depth whatsoever. Aside from the fact that she is trans, a caregiver and an illegal immigrant, it’s really quite difficult to decipher who Olivia is.
She honestly never really feels like a person, but instead a mere prop; a vessel for the film’s themes and nothing more. That’s the real shame here. It’s very hard to care about Olivia’s plight without decent character development, and she honestly has none.
Lingua Franca has interesting themes to an extent, which are occasionally well-explored, but the film’s lack of any real character development and unintentional focus on its central love story mean it just completely loses sight of itself. Sandoval’s work is certainly admirable but it’s greatly flawed, and one can’t help but feel this picture may have been a tad more successful in more experienced hands.
Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) travels to a grand old castle to celebrate young Aurora’s (Elle Fanning) upcoming wedding to Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson). While there, she meets Aurora’s future mother-in-law — a conniving queen who hatches a devious plot to destroy the land’s fairies. Hoping to stop her, Maleficent joins forces with a seasoned warrior and a group of outcasts to battle the queen and her powerful army.
The first Maleficent film was one that I was honestly not too sure what I would end up thinking of it. I only watched it for the first time this year and it was originally released back in 2014 and since its release, I had not heard too many people discussing the film to this day.
But I ended up giving it a chance and I ended up thinking that it was actually a good movie. It boasted an amazing performance from Angelina Jolie as the titular character, had some exciting action sequences and the story was one that captivated my interest for the most part. After my initial viewing of that movie, my anticipation for the upcoming sequel grew.
When it comes to that original picture, one of the things that I enjoyed about it a lot was Elle Fanning’s performance as Aurora, which many others thought was weak and non-interesting. In Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, there are times where Aurora feels like the main character, despite the title having Maleficent’s name in it.
A large portion of this story focuses on Aurora and Prince Phillips’ wedding and the dangers and threats that come with their eventual wedding date. Tensions begin to rise among certain people which culminates in a heavily interesting and thrilling story, and one that I was unsure of how it would go down.
Fanning is asked to do a lot with just her facial expressions this time around, and she blew me away. Her acting is truly amazing here, and I think others will agree this time around. There is one sequence in the third act where she cries, and it looked one hundred percent real and convincing. It did not sound like Aurora was crying, it sounded like Fanning was crying.
Naturally, Jolie is terrific in her titular role once more in this follow-up. Since the events of the predecessor, her life has changed and she is a different, and most importantly, better person since the death of King Stefan and since she has continued to raise Aurora as her daughter. During the second act of Mistress of Evil, Maleficent is faced with a new, mysterious group of people, and this entire subplot was one that was eerie and thought-provoking. Just like Fanning, certain scenes ask her to do a lot with her facial expressions and she pulls it off and makes it look so easy. Sometimes, Jolie will say one line but it carries so much meaning. If any other actress was playing the character of Maleficent, it would not work as well. Jolie is perfect for this role.
A ton of people are going to drive out to their local theatres to see this movie in hopes of some high adrenaline, family-friendly action, and if you are looking for this, you are in luck. When it comes to PG rated action, this is some of the best you can watch. Mistress of Evil contains some of the best action sequences ever put in a live-action Disney film, with a lot of the action being legitimately impressive. Something that surprised me about it was that some of it was character centered. Certain characters are involved in the action and have to find their way to avoid death and there was many scenes that were full of tension.
One of the biggest problems that I had with the original Maleficent was the computer-generated imagery. It was a big mixed bag for me. Some of it, like the ending dragon scene, was quite impressive and nice to look at. However, on the other hand, there was some CGI that looked awful, most notably, three little fairy characters that looked extaordinarily jarring and off-putting.
Gratefully, this time around, almost all of the computer-generated imagery is gorgeous to look at, and there are barely any scenes where the CGI looks bad. The three little fairy characters do return unfortunately, and the CGI on them still looks jarring, but luckily, they are barely in the movie. The visual effects in this movie overall greatly impressed me.
This movie is not perfect, however. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could honestly pick apart a lot of this film and find little gripes and nitpicks along the way. One of the biggest issues with Mistress of Evil is the script at times. A lot of the time, the script can get messy and a bit all over the place. The first act is actually kind of a drag to get through upon first viewing. The reason why is it’s a setup act. It exists to create conflict between certain characters, introduce the real plot of the movie, and set up motives. After that first act though, the other two that follow are exceptionally exciting and are filled with fun moments along the way that will satisfy many viewers, especially fans of the first film.
Another issue is in relation to the main antagonist of the film. As far as I am aware, the main villain of the film is not known to the public, so I will not mention who portrays the villain here, just in case you do not know. All I will say is that the villain at times has a motive that you think you understand, but then at other times, it seems like they have absolutely no motive, and it feels like they are clichéd. This character was just not that compelling to be honest.
Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning shine in Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, a sequel that surpasses its predecessor with exciting action, an interesting story, and good visuals.
Rian Johnson has received critical acclaim for his work in the past, most notably for Brick and Looper, but sadly his brilliant and daring take on Star Wars: The Last Jedi has become so buried under a shroud of controversy, it almost feels as if he undeservedly has to remind everyone what an immense talent he really is. Hopefully, Knives Out will do just that.
His old-school ‘whodunnit’ murder mystery picture is the type of film that Hollywood sadly doesn’t make anymore, and the type that the mainstream industry in particular sorely needs more of. It’s a film that thrives solely on its storytelling, performances and delivery; one with no gimmicks and no cheap tricks to hide its failings. Johnson is showing all of his cards here, and it’s brilliant.
It’s difficult to express just how much fun this film actually is to readers who might not have seen it yet, as this is clearly a story that thrives on its topsy-turvy plot, but Johnson’s screenplay is so incredibly well-balanced that it’s difficult to find fault in it. There is just the right amount of comedy to keep its audience consistently laughing (the atmosphere in my screening was electric), but Johnson never sacrifices his plot. He has planned this out to every single detail; all the pieces knit together beautifully, and the mystery never stops being both engaging and surprising.
It’s worth noting the all-star cast involved here, with Christopher Plummer, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Lakeith Stanfield, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette and Don Johnson all playing their part, but it’s Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas who you’ll remember once the credits have finished rolling. Armas has featured in other films, with Blade Runner 2049 her most well-known role so far, but here she stars as arguably the film’s protagonist and, with a supporting cast of experienced pros, she performs with such confidence and charisma that one wonders why it’s taken until now for her to break Hollywood. This one is sure to do it.
As for Craig, channelling his inner-Poirot, there can really be no doubt that this is the most fun he’s had in his entire career, and it might even be his best performance (not bad for a man who’s played James Bond for over 13 years). If this is the type of film Craig wants to explore when he quits Bond, then we as an industry should welcome it with open arms. From virtually the moment he opens his mouth, he steals every single scene he’s in.
But, it’s Rian Johnson who steals the whole show. It’s obvious that this is a film made by someone who absolutely adores storytelling and respects it for the art form it truly is when fully utilised. All the spectacle in the world can’t hide a weak story and, on the flip-side, a great story needs no spectacle. Knives Out is that great story, told by someone with great imagination and at the top of his game. This might be the most fun film you’ll see this year.
Johnson is an exciting filmmaker with a bright future. Here’s hoping his work is better appreciated this time around.
In your single days, did you ever mentally manufacture an entire relationship with someone you had only just met? Did you concoct heady tableaux of sexual prowess? Did you invent a life with this person, when all you knew was their name?
Coming off as something of a budget Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, A Glimpse is a peek into the potential relationship of two Londoners, Jess and Alex (Rachel Shenton and Chris Overton, who collaborated as writer and director on the Oscar-winning 2017 short film, The Silent Child).
This time around, it is Tom Turner’s direction which follows the young lovers as they move through the emotional ups and downs of a blossoming relationship. Told in quick flash-forward as Jess and Alex traverse their initial conversation, we are allowed a look into their time together, as somewhat of a highlights reel. Jess and Alex tackle the possible issues of embarking on a relationship during their meet-cute (a low phone charge crisis, the ultimate first world problem), in a tongue-in-cheek back and forth.
A Glimpse is effective as a fun ‘what if’, but fails to engage much beyond the opening couple of minutes, when it is clear which route the piece is taking, which takes away from the ending, which isn’t anywhere near as resolute or clever as it appears the filmmakers wanted it to be. In addition to the aforementioned Eternal Sunshine, the idea explored here has been touched on in multiple other media, such as Sliding Doors and even Inside No. 9.
However, a concession must be made for both the innovative way in which the device is put forward, and the naturalistic performances from Shenton and Overton, which are entirely convincing, and a world away from the timber-framed scene-chewing of most Hollyoaks acting that the former cut her teeth amidst.
As a curio, or an update on Shenton and Overton’s burgeoning career in filmmaking, A Glimpse is worth checking out, but as a memorable piece of cinema a glimpse might be all you need.
