This Turkish arthouse drama from writer-director Pelin Esmer follows two disparate people attempting to escape their pasts, and finding each other.
Originally made in 2012 and premiering at that year’s Toronto International Film Festival, The Watchtower now gets a belated UK home release through Network Releasing.
Haunted by a tragic incident from his past, Nihat (Olgun Simsek) takes a job in an isolated watchtower from which he oversees a vast forest. With only the repetitive walkie-talkie chatter of his distant colleagues for company, and occasional trips to the nearest bus station, he spends months at a time scanning for the threat of fire.
Young woman Seher (Nilay Erdönmez) drops out of college to take an underpaid job as a long-haul bus hostess, carrying with her a constant reminder of the abuse she suffered at the hands of her uncle.
When their two solitary journeys collide, the pair are forced to confront their consciences before nature and God.
Watchtower is fairly typical of contemporary European arthouse style, with its long takes and unhurried pacing. The slow and often still cinematography provides both a sweeping vista of the scenic landscapes, and an unflinching gaze at the drama unravelling in its midst. While its subject matter is certainly bleak, the film’s refusal of overwrought melodrama, and its relatively slender runtime, mean it’s not as heavy or hard a watch as it might have been. Both the lead actors’ performances are strong enough to carry the weight of the story, especially when their understated grief inevitably breaks into a climactic storm of emotions.
European arthouse cinema enthusiasts might not find much new in this film, but it does tell a powerful and affecting story with sensitivity and grace.
Watchtower is available on DVD through Network Releasing from 20th August 2018.
Promise opens with Hajar (Lara Sawalha), a young middle-eastern woman, arriving at the house of Sarah (Rebecca Callard) and Abe (Nabil Elouahabi), a couple seemingly on the rocks. It’s not made explicitly clear what’s happening to start with, but after glimpses of a pregnancy pamphlet, Hajar’s early-morning vomiting and Sarah’s strap-on belly, it’s easy to work out what’s going on.
With Hajar being an illegal immigrant, the couple have to keep her hidden in her house for the whole nine months. This of course sees tensions rise, as Sarah grows jealous of seeing Hajar carrying the baby she can’t, as well as her getting more attention from Abe. Just when it seems obvious what’s going to happen, though, there’s a new, unexpected development in the tale. One that changes the path of the story and makes Sarah have to think about breaking her promise to keep Hajar her safe.
The twist is made all the more striking by the fact that, for the first half of the film, director Neville Pierce and writer Hannah Lee play it as straightforward as possible – though they do drop little hints at what’s to come. Lee is able to tell the story concisely, with dialogue and directions that are low on exposition. Her writing is complimented by Pierce’s use of visuals to tell the story, his style holds the audience’s attention and gives a genuine feel to the film. Together, they turn what could have been a standard melodrama into something more intriguing and tense.
However, while it is well constructed in terms of plot, it hits all its story beats a little too cleanly. Jumping from one plot point to the next does rob the film of its attempt at a natural, realistic rhythm and feel. What’s more, while it presents both the issues of surrogacy and the plight of a refugee well, neither is really probed too deeply and nothing particularly new is brought to either debate.
There’s also some disparity in the balance between Sarah and Hajar’s character arcs – if they are found out, one is facing far worse consequences than the other.
It’s easier to feel more sympathy for Hajar, as her situation is more desperate and dangerous, and Sawalha does well in her performance of a woman who is, at the same time, dealing with being in an unusual situation and environment, the physical and emotional challenges of her pregnancy and the more serious issues that surround it. Her final scene in the film is particularly effecting. The film may want us to feel ambivalent towards Sarah, but by the end, there’s not as much emotional weight to want to get on her side.
The construction, craft and technical ability of Promise is easy to admire while watching it. It’s well-made and thought-provoking, but it won’t keep you thinking about it for long once its over.
I must confess to not having been familiar with Studio 54 at all, never mind the story behind it. Or even that of its founders. For the uninitiated, like me, Studio 54 was a passion project by founders Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager – it was a theatre in New York, until Rubell and Schrager reconstructed it into a nightclub. It quickly became a huge hit due to the amount of celebrates that frequented it – including but not limited to Michael Jackson, Grace Jones, Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Mick Jagger, Freddie Mercury and David Bowie. It got so big that new from Studio 54 was hitting the front page of every major newspaper in New York. But when the IRS found out about Rubell and Schrager skimming a huge sum of money.
The documentary follows interviews of former employees, with the interviews with Ian Schrager being at the core of it, as we see the rise and fall of the famed club. It’s a primarily interview-based documentary, with no singular narrator carrying us through the documentary. Again, most of this duty all to Schrager – which is an interesting risk to run. It’s always possible to have the interviewee be uncharismatic and flat in their delivery. That is not the case with Schrager. He has a good way with words, easily making you picture what it was like.
You couldn’t have written anything better, just hearing him recite these memories is far more powerful. It also adds a dreamlike quality to the documentary. I got a similar feeling as I did to watching the film Ed Wood – it’s pleasant and dreamy and in a weird way, you wish that you were there to see it all happening, until the point where the curtain is drawn, and the real world finally shows itself. In Ed Wood that was the final title-card, in Studio 54, it’s once the arrests are made.
The footage used, when not during present day interviews, which are mostly shot in-doors and more often than not are close-ups of head and shoulders, is made up of images of the time and video and interview footage of the time too. The lack of colours or over-expositor of them, as well as the grained feel of video footage of the time, does more to add to the dream state and brutal reality that the film conveys. It’s simple but perfectly effective in its execution, namely due to some good editing and use of disco music.
The cherry on top is that it is an interesting subject. The interviewees discussed the topic in such a way that it makes it sound like a huge and important that it probably was to society as a whole – but the truth is that to them, it was this huge and important. You could watch the documentary and come away being sold on how impactful Studio 54 was the world of night clubbing, and how it still impacts it. It could also be seen as an inspirational piece, of how you can – and maybe should- follow your dreams, with the old story of Icarus flying too close to the sun being present too. Overall, I was surprised with how much I enjoyed and appreciated Studio 54. Night clubbing isn’t really my idea of a good time, I’m personally more fond on a few pints in the pub, but to those who are, it’s a fun little story about the one that turned the heads of many.
It’s time to see another Mission Impossible film, should you choose to accept it. I find myself in a minority here, but I don’t like this series. Mission Impossible was an interesting, yet uninspired spy-thriller to me. It had an uneven plot and managed to infuriate all the cast-members of the show that it was based on, not to mention the fans. There was a cool moment in a federal building, and a fun action scene involving a helicopter in the Eurotunnel, plus the casting of Jean Reno, but that was it for me. MI-2 was easily the worst one, yet it was at least laughably enjoyable, with John Woo action that was as over-the-top as ever. MI-3 had a good villain in Philip Seymour Hoffman and introduced Simon Pegg to the series but was otherwise a very dull and forgettable film.
Ghost Protocol was where things changed for me. It had a good story, interesting characters, fun action, jaw-dropping spectacle, good humour and was solidly directed by Brad Bird. I loved it and recommend it to anyone who loves a good spy-movie. Rogue Nation, sadly, knocked things down for me. It was a well-made action film but was beyond cliched and very dull to me – it not being as good as that years 007 Spectre (which wasn’t a great film) didn’t help matters either. Now we have a sixth film in the series.
Ethan Hunt has failed in his mission to retrieve military-grade plutonium. Now he must get it back, with help from Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg and CIA operative Henry Cavill. However, things turn for the absolute worst when an old ally – in the form of Rebecca Ferguson – and an old enemy find themselves in play too. Worse is that one of those who Hunt must trust on this mission is a villainous traitor. The odds are against him, and the mission is looking more and more impossible by the minute. It’s now a race against time to retrieve the plutonium or find out what its planned use is.
It’s admittedly hard for anyone to imagine this series without Tom Cruise. Like it or not, he is Ethan Hunt. Cruise’s dedication to his stunts is beyond commendable. It is nice to see an actor avoid the use of stunt-doubles and computers and do the stunts himself. I also find that Cruise works best when he’s surrounded by a strong cast to bounce off of. This is good in the scenes with Rhames and Pegg particularly. With that, we also have a pretty strong villain and an interesting set up. For a good twenty minutes I was being thrown through hoops. I wasn’t able to keep up with the plot, in a good way. I liked seeing things develop and unfold. Then thing’s got very predictable and very cliched very fast.
The story isn’t good. It’s too familiar and the pace is too slow, which is especially surprising for a film with as much action in it as this does. It’s very dialogue heavy, and if you tune out for the smallest moment then you will be completely lost. I know that some will appreciate this, with the reasoning behind it being that it’s more of a thinking man’s film – but the story is too familiar for that to work. You know who the villain is very early on, and yet the film carries on as if we don’t know who it is. It also falls into the unfortunate trend of the other Mission Impossible films – where the team element of this team film gets lost, completely at points, behind the Ethan Hunt character, who is really not an interesting character. He’s very one note and at the worst times comes off as an ego-trip for Cruise himself.
But, what we’re all here for is the action. In that the film is almost always on point, and at times is outright exceptional. The public toilet scene is a definite standout. There’s some fun foot and motorcycle chases throughout the entire film. The final action scene, involving a lengthy helicopter chase, was phenomenal. It went on a little too long for me, and come the end it got really ridiculous, but that doesn’t chase the fact that it’s a very fun and thrilling action scene. Some of the action does focus a little too much on luck for my liking – for example, a truck just happens to cut off the cops in a chase. I prefer action where a character is using their surroundings in a logical way, so relying on this method is a little irritating for me. But overall, it’s great action and that alone will appease the masses who go to see it.
Mission Impossible: Fallout does its job, and certainly works very well as an action film. I just couldn’t get into it. Maybe it’s because of the character of Ethan Hunt, or just the formula of the series so far that is putting me off it. Or perhaps it was just too long for me. Either way, I couldn’t get into it. But, those who are fans or just love their big action films (which I usually do) should find this to be a very enjoyable film. It’s not often a film of this budget is as well made as this. I just wish that it wasn’t wasted on this story or this character. By all means, go, see it and have a blast.
Dead to the World, a short film directed by Freddie Hall, is the humorous story of three people brought together in unforeseen circumstances, all trying to navigate their way through a film shoot and hold onto their jobs. Craig Parkinson plays a troubled actor who has a history of alcoholism. Ben (Johnny Sweet) has been hired as his sobriety coach, employed to make sure he stays sober throughout the shoot, whilst at the same time keeping him away from the directors wife, Emily Tennison (Susan Lynch). Things don’t go to plan on either front, and things come to blows on the last day of shooting. All three characters scrabble around desperately to try and get through this final hurdle.
What is interesting about this film is the way in which the characters of Ben and James are brought together. They are polar opposites of each other, Ben being the sweet, geeky guy who seems to have it all together, whereas James is the stereotypical ‘difficult’ actor, who can’t seem to deny himself anything. In a tender moment, the pair sit in an empty bath tub together, whilst James swigs from a bottle of wine, and open up to each other about their shared label of ‘alcoholic’.
The rest of the time the film is amusing, it is well cast and enjoyable. There are touching aspects as well as funny jokes. The cinematography is professional and the script impressive, layering the characters well in the short space of time. It’s a good 15 minutes of English wit and humour, with a couple of heart-warming moments in there too. Special shout out to Johnny Sweet, who plays Ben incredibly convincingly and loveably.
