HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON: THE HIDDEN WORLD

US, 2019, 104 minutes, Colour.

Voices of: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, F.Murray Abraham, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, Kristen Wiig, Christopher Mintz-Plasse?, Kit Harrington, Olafur Darri Olafsson.
Directed by Don De Blois.

Dragons.

More dragons – and even more. Dragon battles, Dragon abductions.

And, dragons in love.

This is the third in the series based on novels by Cassandra Cowell. The first two were very entertaining, going back into the Viking era, into the world where dragons flew the skies, where humans and dragons could live in harmony despite ever-present dangers. There was some charm in the story of the young man, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), and his bonding with the black dragon, Toothless. There was also the strong Astrid (America Ferrera), with her eye on Hiccup but also bossing him around. There was Hiccup’s mother (Cate Blanchett), the old Stoick (Gerard Butler). And, reminding us that there were also nerds around in Viking days, the brash young ones (Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse)

They are all back again plus an arch villain, a mercenary employed by a tough Viking community to abduct dragons, Grimmel (F.Murray Abraham).

The film starts with a raid by Hiccup and co to rescue imprisoned dragons. This gives the tone to the film, a touch of darkness, the place of the dragons, the mercenaries, but the happy community of Hiccup and his family providing a refuge for dragons.

The plot thickens when the enemy find a young white Dragon and use her as a ploy to lure Toothless as they fall in love. Interventions by Grimmel, defeating Hiccup, and more battles and rescues.

It is a pleasure to see the animation and hear the voices again – but it is rather repetitious, battles and the dragons wanting to have a hidden refuge away from humans. And there is a nice little romantic footnote at the end.

1. The popularity of the first two films? Their charm? Their sense of adventure? The imagination?

2. The world of the Vikings, the recreation of this world, islands, homes, ships, battles?

3. The popularity of the dragons, the role of Toothless and his friendship with Hiccup, his being trained? This film and the multitude of dragons, the opening, the imprisonment on the ship, Hiccup and the confused and noisy rescue? The liberation? The range of dragons, their coming to the island, colourful for the dragons, big and small, playful but prone to destruction…?

4. The introduction to the characters in the community, Hiccup and his leadership, leading the rescue mission, bonding with Toothless, being pursued by Astrid, the role of his mother? The young Vikings, Viking nerds? Stoick and his presence? The Viking with an eye on Hiccup’s mother?

5. The story of the hidden world and its being a refuge for the dragons? Hiccup changing his mind, the desire to help the dragons to the New World?

6. The enemy Vikings, imprisoning the dragons, hiring Grimmel, his sinister personality, his promise, the confrontations with Hiccup, the ploy of the young Dragon, attracting Toothless, Hiccup and his adding the tail for Toothless?

7. The romantic interludes? The consequences, the young Dragon being taken, Toothless and his pursuit? The confrontation with Grimmel and his defeat?

8. The community reunited, sending off the dragons, the farewell?

9. The wedding, everybody happy?

10. The postscript, Hiccup and Astrid and their children, the encounter with Toothless and his wife and their children, happy ending?

THE RITUAL

UK, 2017, 94 minutes, Colour.
Rafe Spall, Arsher Ali, Robert James Collier, Sam Troughton, Paul Reid.
Directed by David Bruckner.

Writer-director, David Bruckner, has specialised in writing and directing horror films, the signal, Southbound, and to the horror anthology V/H/S. The Ritual is a more upmarket production, especially with the strong British casts led by Rafe Spall, noted theatre actor as well as in films on both sides of the Atlantic, with Robert James Collier who appeared in 52 episodes of Downton Abbey.

What helps the film is a rather ordinary beginning, five men friends having a drink at a pub, planning their annual holiday away together. One of the advantages of the film is that the men have no added on complications in terms of relationships, sexuality, drugs… It is just a straightforward horror story about what happens to them.

There is an immediate shock for the audience when there is a raid at a supermarket, a junkie makes demands on one of the men for his wallet, his being hit by machete, murdered – while Luke, the central character, looks on, helpless, not intervening. Rafe Spall is Luke.

The bulk of the film is their hiking in northern Sweden (actually filmed in Romania which could have stood in even in terms of the plot). They have a special memento and toast for their dead friend. All seems normal enough until one of the men, Dom, slips and suffers an injury, slowing down the group.

This means that they take a shortcut through the forest, encounter strange signs, emblems looking like wicker men, abandoned huts. Luke also begins to have nightmares, seeing the supermarket again in the forest – and Dom blames him for abandoning their friend. Luke senses a monster stalking them and two of the friends are taken by the monster and transfixed in the trees.

Luke and Dom are captured by members of ancient community, worship of the diabolical God who keeps them in subjection and they gratefully survive. There is a preparation for the rituals for the monster, Tom being sacrificed with the monster initially appearing as his wife and transforming before killing him. Luke watches, gets free from his bonds, discovers more skeletons, sets alight some of the buildings. Ultimately, he has to confront the monster who looks, literally, diabolical (and the debate whether it would have been better to suggest the monster rather than showing him, something which could make him look a touch ridiculous).

As said, this is fairly straightforward and uncomplicated horror except for the forest, the community and its rituals. In this way, it is more effective.

1. The title? Expectations? Religious? Horror?

2. The British settings, the pub, the supermarket? The initial mood, jollity with the friends, the drink, the plans for a holiday? The tragedy and the death?

3. The Swedish settings (filmed in Romania)? The vast scenery, the mountains, the tracks, the forests? The huts in the woods? The centre for the rituals? The musical score and atmosphere?

4. The credibility of the plot, the ordinariness of the men and their friendship, their holidays together? The attack in the supermarket? Robert’s death and the pathos? Luke and his not helping, fear? The holiday together in Robert’s memory? The commemoration and the drink and toast? Walking, injuries, delays, days and nights, the forest, sinister, the huts? The atmosphere of menace, the stalker, the effect on the men, the signs, the community, the rituals, macabre deaths, ceremonies, the diabolical monster?

5. The interaction of the characters? Hutch and his commonsense? Phil and his friendship? Dom, married, bespectacled, the injuries, his complaints?

6. Luke as the central focus, getting the drinks at the beginning, watching as Robert was killed and his not intervening? His blaming himself? The ensuing nightmares? The reappearance of the supermarket in the forests, appearing and disappearing, his visions of Robert and dying? The accusations of cowardice? His reactions? The others and their judgement on him?

7. The beginnings of the track, enjoyable, the scenery? Dom and his injury, slowing them down?

8. The hauntings? Their being hunted?

9. The huts, the dreams, to the top of the hill, the sense of the monster?

10. The men working together, the plans, maps and compass, helping Dom?

11. Hutch, commonsense, his disappearance, his body in the trees? The same happening to Phil?

12. Luke and Dom, the community, their being taken, bound? The old woman with the food? The men? The sympathetic hostess? The old superstitions, subservient to the monster
bowing? The preparation of the rituals?

13. Dom, his being taken, tied up, at the stake, the appearance of his wife, transforming into the monster, his death?

14. Luke, watching, getting his hands free, the warning from the hostess? The suggestions? Going to the huts, skeletons, setting everything aflame? Getting the guns?

15. The appearance of the monster, diabolical, the struggle with Luke, bound down? The fire, the destruction of the monster?

16. An effective horror thriller?

SEVEN SINNERS/DOOMED CARGO

UK, 1936, 69 minutes, Black-and-white.
Edmund Lowe, Constance Cummings, Thomy Bourdelle, Henry Oscar, Felix Aylmer, Joyce Kennedy, Mark Lester, James Harcourt.
Directed by Albert De Courville.

If this thriller is reminiscent of some of friend Hitchcock’s British films, this is correct. The writers, Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder, wrote the screenplay of The Lady Vanishes and contributed to Jamaica Inn. They also wrote a number of thrillers including Night Train to Munich. And, in later life, wrote several of the St Trinians comedies.

The initial setting is a Nice, a festival, revelry and masks, an American private investigator (Edmund Lowe) drunk but finding a dead body in his room – reporting it, and the body had disappeared. He is also being sought by an insurance investigator from New York (Constance Cummings) – he is to help her in the investigation of stolen jewels in England.

This is also a train film – with two crashes, one using old footage from a silent film, The Wrecker, based on a play by Arnold Ridley who contributed to this film, and a later crash where the authorities authorised the smashing of an out of commission train.

The film gets quite complicated, as it should, with various leads, the body reappearing on the train, the investigating couple strong on clues, doing the research, this leading them to a pacifist charity group in a provincial town. The French Chief investigator also appears at the various scenes and makes a bet with the American as to whether he will solve the case or not.

There are a few more dead bodies as the investigators come nearer to the truth, uncovering the group which is involved in arms smuggling, their holding a meeting for contributors with a sinister character, seen already in London, posing as a Catholic priest.

Romance is in the air, of course, and a severe ending for the plotters. But, there is the revelation of who is the mastermind of the plot – not someone who was suspected at all by the investigators or the audience!

1. An enjoyable 1930s British action adventure? The settings in Nice? The train journeys? The British settings, London, the provincial town, the open road, trains? The special effects for train crashes?

2. The writers and the touches of Alfred Hitchcock British thrillers?

3. The introduction to John Harwood, the festival, drinking, the man with the mask, New York investigator, the dead body in the room, reporting, its disappearance? The French detective and the interactions between the two? The bet?

4. Introduction to Caryl Fenton, New York, contacting Harwood, collaborating with him, the stolen jewels? Her pursuit of her goal, intrigued by the clues, travelling with Harwood, becoming involved?

5. The battle of the sexes, banter between the couple, the prospect of romance?

6. The dead body on the train, the investigations, the French detective? Further deaths?

7. The couple following the clues, the interview with the businessman in London, his disappearance, the false information, the photo from the past dinner, identifying the character, discovering her whereabouts?

8. The introduction to the group, the personnel, respectable, the clergy? The rallies, financial support, the plan for the charitable goods to be transported? The revelation that this was a cover for arms smuggling? Various members of the gang – their being eliminated?

9. The buildup to a climax, unmasking the characters, the cover of the clergy, the links for the transport?

10. More travel by train, the crash, the deaths?

11. The French detective, his presence at all times – and final revelation?

SEVEN DOORS TO DEATH

US, 1944, 65 minutes, Black-and-white.
Chick Chandler, June Clyde, George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Gregory Gay, Edgar Dearing.
Directed by Elmer Clifton.

A summary from the IMDb serves as a useful review: 9 March 2005 | by dbborroughs .
As the movie starts there's a scream, a gunshot and the sound of a body falling. The film shifts locations as a man in a car is hijacked by a woman on the run. In following her directions he ends up crashing his car and the woman runs away. He tries to follow the woman into an area with a small group of stores, only to end up discovering a dead body. The man notifies the police, who then find a body then the one he reported. From there its complication after complication, most of which are a bit clever but really have nothing to do with the plot and seem to be out of another movie. The conclusion when it comes seems to be tacked on and out of left field.

This a PRC programmer that is a perfect example of what a by the numbers low low budget second feature is like. The plot is set up in such away to keep you interested no matter where the plot goes. Its structured to run no more than the alloted time. It has a minimum of sets and just enough people to keep to make it look as though this might, possibly, be a real place (if you've never lived in the real world). Its also completely forgettable.

The plot has the group of stores being searched and researched again and again to find whatever the latest clue has revealed. Most of the time this is done in the dark so we really can't see where we are. Everyone is a suspect until the very end when the killer is revealed by broad leap of logic. If it wasn't for some rather weird asides, a dance number, a bit about making toast, and a few others, this movie could easily have run half its length. This isn't to say its a dull or bad movie, its not. Things are pleasantly confused for at least the first 15 minutes during which time you'll desperately be trying to figure out what you're watching. By then you'll be hooked since you'll want to know where this very messy movie is going.

REBELLIOUS DAUGHTERS


US, 1938, 69 minutes, Black and white.
Marjorie Reynolds, Verna Hillie, Dennis Moore, Sheila Bromley, George Douglas.
Directed by Jean Yarbrough.

There are two rebellious daughters in the title, one who is rebelling against her dominating father, the other who has been neglected by her parents. They are friends, go out together to a club with their boyfriends, who get into a fight, find themselves at the police station. The father’s bail out their daughters. However, the two young women decide to go to New York City, team up with a fashion owner that they had met at the club.

The girl who was ignored by her parents gets a job in fashion, but also enters into a plan whereby she compromises visiting men who were photographed with her for blackmail purposes. The other girl realises some of this, is caught, but refuses to compromise.

Ironically, the dominating father and a journalist plan together to unmask the blackmailing ring, freeing the girl.

Standard supporting feature entertainment, one of the many, many films directed by Jean Yarbrough, a touch spicy for the times in its venturing into sexual blackmail.

OUTLAW/ KING

UK, 2018, 121 minutes, Colour.
Chris Pine, Stephen Dillane, Billy Howle, Florence Pugh, Sam Spruell, Callum Mulvey, Johnny Phillips, James Cosmo, Tony Curran.
Directed by David Mackenzie.

Scottish history in the Middle Ages. This time the focus on Robert the Bruce.

In 1995, Mel Gibson’s film, Braveheart, about the rebel William Wallace, won the Oscar for Best Film and made quite an impact around the world, a sympathetic thrust for Scotland and independence, and unsympathetic thrust at England.

Outlaw/King takes up the subsequent history (including a grim reference to the execution of William Wallace). Edward I of England has conquered and has a meeting with the Scottish Lords including the two members of the Bruce clan. The Lords have agreed to loyalty that there is a deep resentment within them for the conquering by the English.

The film was directed by David Mackenzie, Scottish director, better known for smaller films like Harlem Foe, The Asylum, Perfect Sense – but moving to the United States with great success for Hell and High Water. He uses the star of that film, Chris Pine, an unlikely casting for Robert the Bruce.

However, this is a 21st-century perspective on Scottish history and of the film was released during the Brexit negotiations, with memories that Scotland voted against Britain leaving the European Union. It is interesting to speculate on these themes while watching the film. The

Stephen Dillane is very effective, sinister and dominating as Edward I. His son, the Prince of Wales, played by Billy Howle, is a callow young man, disapproved of by his father, wanting to prove himself given command but failing. (The final credits give information about the characters and the subsequent history - those familiar with Elizabeth and drama will remember the grim play, Edward II, by Christopher Marlowe.)

The King nominates a bride for Robert the Bruce, Elizabeth De Burgh (a strong performance from Florence Pugh, powerful in Lady Macbeth and The Little Drummer Girl). No love at first, then standing up for her husband in public, her capture and internment in a cage on the wall of the castle, her refusal to sign a document repudiating her husband.

Robert the Bruce Hills a former ally and submits to the bishops for their support in his cause against England. He begins to gather troops, relying on loyal officers in his campaigns, especially Lord Douglas, humiliated by Edward I. Not all the clans agree and there are various skirmishes but, after a brutal defeat when Robert the Bruce had challenged the leading knight to single combat to resolve the conflict and the English perpetrate a vicious night attack, the rebellion is truly sealed.

Edward, dissatisfied with his son, decides to ride at the head of his troops but dies. The Prince of Wales continues and amasses a force of 3000 while the Scots can only field 500. As in the battles in Braveheart, the Scots use their strategy with cunning and skill, especially the digging ditches into trenches and installing pikes.

The battle scenes are particularly grim and graphic.

Robert the Bruce united the Scots clans, a kingdom for 300 years until James I became king of England and Scotland.

1. Scottish history? Audience knowledge? The impact of Braveheart and the story of William Wallace and its influence in the 1990s? The presence of Robert the Bruce?

2. 21st-century perspectives on Scotland, the mediaeval Europe, repression by England, the rebels in the fight for independence?

3. The director, his career, his Scots perspective?

4. The title, expectations? Knowledge of Robert the Bruce?

5. Elaborating the situation at the beginning of the 14th century, the role of England and its dominance, the power of Edward I, his personality, the conflict with William Wallace and the rebellion? The defeat of Wallace? The severing of his arm and its being posted in the public square? The effect on the rebels?

6. The initial assembly, the English and the Scots, the Scottish Lords in making peace with Edward? The Bruces, father and son and their making peace? Edward, his rule, harsh, putting down any sign of rebellion? His power, domination of his son, the son as ineffectual?

7. The portrait of Robert, the scenes with his father, the bond with him, with his father and his father’s death? Edward and the decree about Robert’s wedding, the nomination, Elizabeth, the politeness between the two, the ceremony, the blessing for the wedding night, Robert being distant, leaving Elizabeth in her room? His previous marriage, the death of his wife, his love for his daughter? Elizabeth and her care for Marjorie? Her loyalty to Robert, in love with him, the public demonstration and her defiance of English military in the streets? Robert appreciating this? His organising her escape with Marjorie, their fleeing the town, their being captured, Marjorie sent to the convent with a harsh nun, Elizabeth put in a cage on the wall of the castle? Prince Edward and his document, renouncing Robert, her parents urging her? Her refusal?

8. Robert, his personality, his experience, the links with the clans? The various leaders? The significance of Douglas and Edward I expelling him, humiliating him? Angus, the constant loyalty? Robert and the confrontation with John, talking peace, Robert killing him? The meeting with the bishops, asking for pardon, the Bishop supporting him?

9. The growing rebellion, the king and his wanting to put it down, nominating his son to work with the other knight? Prince Edward in the past, growing up with Robert, challenging him to the duel but its being interrupted? The meeting with Robert and the troops, the proposal of single combat, the viciousness of the night raid, the arrows and fires in the dark? The Scots going to exile, the plan to go to Ireland, on the boats, the attacks from other clans?

10. The Scots re-forming, the various loyalties, Scottish Lords and their not joining but not preventing Robert? The later coming and joining? The small numbers of men?

11. Edward, his anger, putting his son in charge, rebuking him for not achieving much? Edward I leading his troops, riding along the coast, he is becoming ill, collapsing and dying? His son not fulfilling his wishes for burial?

12. The Scots and the buildup of the troops, the strategies, the digging of the ditches, the pikes? The arrogant English, the attack, the trenches, the impaling, the hand-to-hand fighting? The deaths, the young man with the crown for Robert and his dying? The retreat of the English?

13. Robert as King, the 300 years history of independence, James I and his becoming king of England and Scotland in the 17th century? The further history of Scotland and independence?

14. And this film being released at the time of Brexit negotiations and the vote of the Scots against it?

THE FAVOURITE

UK, 2018, 119 minutes, colour.
Olivia Coleman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Nicholas Hoult, Mark Gatiss, Joe Alwyn.
Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos.

How often have we been invited, cinematically, into the Court of Queen Anne? Into the court of the last of the Stuarts who had ruled over England and Scotland for a century, a turbulent century, especially with the execution of Charles I, the rule of Oliver Cromwell, the Restoration with Charles II, the battles in Ireland with James II, William and Mary – and Then Anne. Anne lived through 17 pregnancies but lost all her children, the end of the Stuarts, the beginning of the rulers from Hanover who became the Winsors.

If one likes costume dramas, then there is a great deal to delight the eye as we enter the palace and its sumptuous elegance – although, we might remember, that not all that far away across the Channel, everything was far more elegant, far more sumptuous in Versailles (but the English would not have been so interested at the time because they were embroiled in war with France under the Duke of Marlborough.) So, lots of lavish costumes, excessive facial make-up for men and women, large wigs galore and cinema memories of the tableau and lighting for Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon.

But, The Favourite has been described as a comedy. It is worth an exploration of the many comments on the IMDb to find that it does not fit the bill for so many correspondents and their idea of comedy. It looks as though they want ha-ha, ha-ha all the time. While there are some of these moments, this is a different kind of comedy. Sardonic is a word that immediately comes to mind. Here are comic situations which have the intrinsic capacity to be tragic. Here is very bad behaviour, even from the Queen herself (particularly so), as well as courtiers who want control and power, as well as of crafty politicians in favour of war, in favour of suing for peace with France, in favour of their own hold on power. One might note that it would be funnier if it was not so potentially disastrous!

Many who did not like the film have commented on the soundtrack, quite an extraordinary mixture of musical styles, from 18th century classic to 21st-century atmospheric, sometimes just alternating beats, subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, commenting on the behaviour and action.

So, here we are at the beginning of the 18th century, the end of the Stuart era, international warfare, fops in wigs indulging in geese racing (surely one of the slowest of sports!) or wrangling in parliament. Queen Anne is eccentric, an inheritor of the divine right of kings and sometimes exercising this on whim, exhausted by the death of her children, seeking and finding solace in women courtiers, petty, tormented by gout, not the idea of a monarch. And she is played with incisive skill by Olivia Coleman.

At the title? The first favourite is Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (with her husband played by Mark Gatiss). She is tough minded, a lady Machiavelli, who continually tells the Queen how to act while allegedly deferring to her. She is also a sexual companion. Rachel Weisz is particularly strong – even maintaining some poise when she is poisoned and dragged miles behind a horse.

But, she hadn’t counted on the charm and wiles of her cousin, Abigail Hill, abused and impoverished, coming to court for a job – and a masterclass in ingratiating herself with the Queen, subtly ousting Sarah Churchill, self-satisfied with her position and power, but, ultimately, over-estimating herself. As an English lady, Emma Stone is excellent.

And a word for one of the male cast, Nicholas Hoult as Mr Harley, leader of the opposition, intriguing and an intriguer.

From the screenplay written by British Deborah Davis and worked on by Australian writer-director Tony McNamara?, the film is full of wit (and some unexpected blunt language) but directed in continually unexpected ways by the Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos who has spent a decade becoming more significant internationally with Dogtooth, The Lobster, Killing of a Sacred Deer. They say that this is his most accessible film and praised and award-nominated, but, it seems, not so accessible to audience who want even more accessible comedies at the multiplex.

1. British history? British royalty? The 18 century? The Stuarts? An era of transition?

2. England in the 18th century, the palace, the interiors, the grounds? The forests? The surrounding huts, homes?

3. The range of the musical score, the classical music, themes and beats and rhythms?

4. Audience knowledge of the Stuarts, the transition from the Stuarts to the house of Hanover? The film giving enough information? And a wry interpretation?

5. The tone, satire and spoof, the comedy, ironic comedy in characters, with their idiosyncrasies, the situations? The within the dialogue and its ironies?

6. Issues of power, governance, the Divine Writer of Kings, the role of Parliament? The monikers in and its dominance of Parliament? Wars, hostilities, in Europe, against France? Issues of peace negotiations?

7. An artificial era, the aristocracy, wings and powdered make up, an interior life, artificial manners, the illustration of the goose race, fops and their place in court? And the difference between upstairs/downstairs?

8. The portrait of Anne, Olivia Coleman and her rewards? Her age, her look, the abrupt manner, arrogant, the effect of the 17 pregnancies, her grief, her illnesses, suffering from gout, pain and the relief of pain, greedy with food, becoming sick? The bond with Sarah, Sarah’s favourite, but Serpent, the complexity of the bonds, Sarah ruling, making the Queen’s decisions, her influence in politics? The husband and his leading the only difference? The Queen, sexuality, the relationship with Sarah, the lesbian experiences? Her interest in Abigail, the dependence on Abigail, all the favourites?

9. Sarah Churchill, the family background, her status, married to Marlborough, the building of palaces, in western her personality, control, Marlborough going to war, his absence? Her being Machiavelli character, her power rule, peremptory, ever present to the Queen, making the decisions, the issues of political alliances, with the prime minister, antagonism towards the opposition, Torts Harley? With an, the favourite?

10. Abigail, her background, poverty, the responsibility of her father, her being prostituted, her ambitions, coming to court, cousin to Sarah, her falling in the mud, her treatment by the servants in the kitchen? Going to Sarah, Sarah advancing her, the jobs, prospects? The shrewdness, and and her gout, Abigail getting the herbs and applying them secretly? Sarah’s reaction, the Queen’s reaction, relying more and more on Abigail, her presence, friendship, Abigail infiltrating the court? The Queen depending on her? Sexually provocative, provocative?

11. The range of courtiers, their roles, the parliamentarians coming to the Court, audiences with the Queen, Harley, his manner, the clashes with the opposition? Abigail and her aligning herself with Harley, deals, suggestions, information? He is using it, and again Sarah? Growing enmity with Sarah, the rivalry, Abigail poisoning Sarah, her illness, the ride on the horse, being dragged along the countryside, her being rescued, recovering, her return to the court?

12. Abigail’s behaviour in Sarah’s absence, the courtier, the soldier, his infatuation, the sexual approaches, Abigail leading him on, permission for the marriage, the quick ceremony, Abigail and her entry into aristocracy?

13. Service return, out-of-favour, Abigail and Harley, the Queen, in parliament, painting rather than make a decision? The decision for peace, Marlborough and his return, Sarah ousted, their future?

14. Abigail, now the favourite? The future?

15. The powerful portrait of the Queen, the repercussions for understanding British history of the time?

EIGHTH GRADE

US, 2018, 93 minutes, Colour.
Elsie Fisher, Josh Hamilton, Emily Robinson, Jake Ryan, Daniel Zolghadi, Fred Hechinger, Imani Lewis.
Directed by Bo Burnham.

Response to Eighth Grade will depend very strongly on the age of the member of the audience as well is their perspective on the film’s subject: young adolescents, its trials and uncertainties.

It seems that its writer-director, Bo Burnham, used to be on children’s television dramatising some of these issues from a boy’s point of view. Now he tries the girl’s point of view.

For many, it will be hard to sit through, even while admiring the insights of the screenplay, the performances, noting the education issues. And, for older audiences who don’t have direct dealings with children at school, it might well be very irritating. (Yes, youngsters do talk in this way but, regrettably, dialogue full of okay, like, um, cool, totally frequently repeated, is trying to listen to.)

These comments will indicate that it is very much a film from a teenage girl’s point of view, coming to the end of her years in middle school, coming to the end of eighth grade, the prospect of moving to high school. And not only Kayla, but also her friends and those with whom she clashes, both boys and girls.

Elsie Fisher’s performance as Kayla, um, like totally, is absolutely convincing – and she herself, publicity notes, finished her eighth grade just before making this film. She is a rather introverted girl, her mother moving having moved out of the house some years earlier, her earnest father, Josh Hamilton, trying to be as understanding as he can, giving her some room to move, trying to engage her in conversation, to draw out her feelings (and generally failing and even more frequently snubbed by his daughter), sometimes staying in her room, sometimes trying to bond.

In fact, her most constant companion, as with so many of her peers, is her phone, talking, texting, instagramming, earplugs firmly plugged in all the time.

One of the very best days of her life is the excursion to the high school where one of the students there will serve as a companion. Kayla is very lucky to have Olivia, sympathetic, introducing her to friends, texting to invite Kayla to the mail…

It would seem that Kayla has had very little to do with the boys. As with other young girls, she is social-media aware of the implications of sexuality though, in fact, very ignorant. There is a tense scene where the young boy who drives her home makes advances, testing her, very much frightening her.

Kayla is encouraged by her father to be more outgoing – and, the audience is on her side when she is lined up in graduation cap and gown, suddenly leaves her place and goes to the snooty classmate who looks down her – and really tells her off! Kayla is not in irredeemable!!

Elsie Fisher was deservedly nominated for a Golden Globe award. Probably this film is a must for young girls, for anxious and puzzling parents and grandparents. As those not so involved, it is, as was said earlier, not the easiest of films to sit through.

1. Acclaim for the film? Audiences identifying with the characters? Teens, girls, boys? Parents and teachers?

2. The title, the focus on the eighth grade? The American atmosphere? The transition from middle school to high school? On human problems of growing up, adolescents, education transitions? Relationships with parents?

3. The American city, homes, school, activities? The musical score?

4. The dialogue, young people’s language and idiom, repetitions of words…? Realistic – but for older audiences!

5. The role of social media, youngsters and the availability, continually absorbed, earphones, phones and texting, websites, accessible to many sites too early in their life, sexuality, the effect?

6. Kayla’s story, the performance by Elsie Fisher, nominations? Her age, her mother having gone, living with her father, the antagonism towards her father, irritation, ignoring him, the earphones? Fighting with him? Her threats? Her fears? Her relationship with her peers, her being quiet? The significance of her filming herself on Youtube, her presumptions about helping and teaching her peers? Her motivations, the ordinariness of her advice? The content, her awkwardness, signing off?

7. At school, the snobbish girl and her arrogance, the invitation to the party, the effect? The other girls, talk, sharing experiences? Awkwardness with boys?

8. Kayla and her clash with her father, his giving her space, his tolerance, remembering his wife, her absence? Allowing her to go to the mall, spying on her, her clash with him, reconciliation, his support?

9. The significant day of going to the High School, the line of children, the bus, the explanations, their being allotted senior student? Olivia, kind, the bond between the two, the invitation, going to the mall, meeting her friends?

10. The boys at the mall, the ride home, the boy and his provocation, sexual, taking off his shirt, his expectations? Kayla’s reticence, the effect on her, leaving?

11. Her room, the posters, the Youtube and her contacts? Meeting the boy who praised her for her programs? Connecting?

12. The buildup to the graduation, the telling off of the snobbish girl, the achievement, her father’s support, ready for transition and future problems?

BIRD BOX

US, 2018, 124 minutes, Colour.
Sandra Bullock, Travante Rhodes, John Malkovich, Sarah Paulson, Jacki Weaver, Rosa Salazar, Danielle Macdonald, Lil Rel Howery, Tom Hollander, BD Wong, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Vivien Lara Blair, Julian Edwards.
Directed by Suzanne Bier.

Bird Box is an unexpected title for an apocalyptic, post-apocalyptic drama. It has been directed by Suzanne Bier, Danish director who won an Oscar for In a Better World, who has directed films in Europe and in the United States as well as the adaptation of John Le Carre’s The Night Manager.

At the opening of the film, we are introduced to a pregnant artist, Malorie (no father in view), moody, reluctantly going to visit the obstetrician, urged on by her sister (Sarah Paulson). We glimpse television stories about a disaster in Russia, crowds going berserk, mass suicides. And, within a short time, it takes over in the United States, women bashing their heads against glass windows, crowds running in the streets, vehicles hitting them, crashing into one another, vehicles on fire – and, scenes of people with madness in their eyes, glazed intensity before they go to kill themselves.

Malorie herself is in danger on the streets, almost killed, until a kind woman from a house nearby hurries out, despite her husband’s warning her not to, to help but then she is taken over, willingly gets into a flaming car.

The major part of the film concerns the range of people who have taken refuge in the house. They are a mixed group, John Malkovich as Douglas the self-centred on unwilling host, Travante Rhodes as Tom, a sympathetic worker, some of the staff from a nearby supermarket, Danielle Macdonald desperately taking refuge despite opposition, also pregnant, Jacki Weaver who proves to be a life-saving helper at the births, and, later, Tom Hollander as a mysterious refugee from an institution who does weird illustrations.

The screenplay does not give any detailed explanation of what has happened, only some suggestions, something in the air, sabotage… In fact, the filmmakers ultimately decided not to show anything of what the victims saw what, just the movement in the atmosphere, their eyes opened and transformed to death. Which means then that the survivors have to block out sight of the outside world, emerging only wearing blindfolds. It might defy realism, but the sequence where the group block the car windows, rely on the GSP to get them to the supermarket for supplies, driving over bodies and debris, does create some tension.

And, intersecting with this story is an episode, five years later, with Malorie desperate with a little boy and a little girl, explaining to them that they have to go on a voyage on the river, all of them blindfold, trusting her absolutely. This story draws attention as they experience difficulties on the river, crashing into a wreck, the boat overturning and the danger to the children, going through the rapids.

There are continual ragers around the countryside, able to see, but commenting on how wonderful the beauty is that they can see, urging others to look, to remove the blindfolds, to embrace the beauty.

There are quite a number of disasters, victims being exposed to the outside world, suicides, murders, and quite some empathy at the end towards Malorie, Tom and the children.

The final destination for Malorie and the children has touches of paradise – but, is not quite what the audience might have expected which makes the ending and the finale different, and rather touching in its way.

The film is rather long, sometimes repetitive, which may tax the impatient who want action to move along. However, for those drawn into the story, the mystery, the human experiences, the challenges, it proves to be an interesting, sometimes more humane, post-apocalyptic drama.

1. Science fiction, apocalyptic experiences, post-apocalyptic life?

2. The two stories and their interconnections? The buildup of suspense within each of the two stories?

3. The credibility of the plot, the characters, the mystery? No explanation given? No visuals of what the victims see? Suggestion, atmosphere of the air? The repercussions and the suicides?

4. The city, homes, hospital, the streets, the interiors of the house of refuge? The deserted mall? The musical score?

5. The contrast between the two stories, five years in between? The story in the house and the refuge, the story on the river?

6. The introduction, Malorie, Sandra Bullock’s performance, her age, art, moodiness, the pregnancy, no father, her sister helping, going to the hospital, the interview with the doctor?

7. The television news, the information about Russia, the mass suicides, the transition to the United States?

8. The Dawn of the Dead scenario, people and their eyes, fleeing, the madness, suicides, car accidents, fires? The eyes of the victims, the sudden change, the rush to kill themselves? The effect for Malorie, her sister driving, her sister being taken over, the crash? Malorie in the street, the woman coming to the rescue, her husband at the door, shouting for her to come back, the effect on her, her glazed eyes, getting to the car and the incineration?

9. The chaos, the people taking refuge in the house, the owner and his selfish attitudes, cynical comments, his reactions to the various people? Malorie, pregnant, hard, her experience, her reactions? Issues of fear? The older woman, her presence, later helping with the births? The couple, the bond between them, the getting out of the house? Tom, his work, taking refuge? The man from the supermarket, his discussions about writing novels, fear of going out? The range of interactions, coping and not coping?

10. The need for food and supplies? The discussions about going to the supermarket? The owner, his reaction to the alcohol in the shop? Covering the windows of the car, Tom driving, the use of the GPS, the bodies in the street, the dangers of driving, the corners? Into the supermarket? The supplies? The author, hearing the noise from the refrigerator, his being trapped and dying?

11. Olivia, coming to the door, her coming in, the different reactions, her pregnancy, her absent husband? Her letting in the man from the institution, his plausible words, interacting with everyone?

12. The man from the institution, his wanting everybody to see, to remove the blindfolds, to remove the blinds from the windows? Olivia and the effect, her leaving out the window? The various escapes? The fights, deaths?

13. The births, the two mothers giving birth, the old woman acting as a midwife? Malorie accepting of responsibilities? Especially after Olivia’s death?

14. Malorie and her task, mothering, calling the children Boy and Girl? The transition of five years? With the children, her severe exhortations to them, the blindfolds, the boat, going on the river, the details of the journey, arriving, Malorie tough, the crash into the wreck, going overboard, Malorie of the rescue? The buildup to going over the rapids?

15. The five years, the sudden introduction of Tom, that he and Malorie and the children had been together, forming family, the love between the two? The persecution by outsiders, the reckless drivers and the cars? Tom confronting, the gun, taking off the blindfold, his death?

16. Malorie and the children arriving at the refuge, the discovery that everyone there was blind, the ability to survive without seeing? The welcoming, the discovery of the obstetrician? The names for the children? A future? A kind of paradise?

MOWGLI

UK, 2018, 104 minutes, Colour.
Rohan Chand, Matthew Rhys, Freida Pinto.
Voices of: Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Naomie Harris, Andy Serkis, Peter Mullan, Jack Raynor, Eddie Marsan, Tom Hollander, Louis Ashbourne Serkis.
Directed by Andy Serkis.

Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Book stories have been a popular source for films over many decades. Sabu appeared in 1942. There was the very cheerful Disney animated feature in 1967. There was a live-action remake in 2015 by Jon Favreau, featuring voices for the animals from a wide-ranging star-list.

Now here is another live-action interpretation of Kipling. It was directed by Andy Serkis, certainly drawing on his vast experience in bringing animals and characters to the screen, going back to his appearances as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, to his work with Peter Jackson on King Kong, to his appearances as Caesar in the new series of Planet of the Apes films. (Serkis also takes the opportunity to do some voice acting as Baloo, the Bear.)

This is quite a superior version of the Jungle Book stories. And, it is more rugged than the previous versions. It brings to the screen dramatic evidence of the law of the jungle, and, especially, nature “red in tooth and claw�. The film received a more adult classification, highlighting the sense of menace. And the menace is certainly there. Which means then that this version may not be suitable for younger children, probably too frightening, but it may mean that audiences who enjoyed the stories in the past but have now grown up may well appreciate the stronger themes and messages about humans and animals.

Rohan Chand seems perfect for the 10 year-old Mowgli, abandoned in the jungle, rescued by the Panther, Bagheera (voice, Christian Bale) from the malevolent tiger, Shere Khan (voice, Benedict Cumberbatch). In fact, Rohan Chand is from New York City, appeared first as Adam Sandler’s son in Jack and Jill and has had considerable experience in films like The Hundred Foot Journey, Lone Survivor, and the Jumanji remake. No trouble for him to be so convincing acting in front of the green screen, often interacting with unseen animals.

And the animals, animatronic and not always looking absolutely realistic, are quite convincing, many seen in the assembly to accept Mowgli into the community as a man-cub wolf, genial training from Baloo, severe testing by Bagheera, endurance tests in running with the wolves, playful scenes with little monkeys tempting Mowgli with fruit. There is a genial aspect of the bonding with the various animals despite the ominous threats from Shere Khan and his giggling hyena associate.

Eventually, Mowgli will have two join the human race, something he is quite unwilling to do. In his captive cage, he gets a wise explanation from Bagheera who had spent his own time in a cage as a human pet. Matthew Rhys is a hunter who has encountered Shere Khan but has also damaged the tusk of an elephant. This all comes to quite a dramatic head as Mowgli, now armed with a knife, confronts Shere Khan, supported by rifle shots from the Hunter. And nature comes full cycle with the charge of the elephant whose task was broken.

There is rather an idealistic picture of the human community going about their tasks, their bonding, their finally accepting Mowgli. The screenplay is suggesting that, allowing for nature red in tooth and claw and human hunting, there should be mutual respect in both worlds and between the two worlds.

Mowgli certainly brings the Kipling world to life.

1. The long popularity of the Jungle Book stories by Rudyard Kipling? Throughout the decades? The books? The range of films? Television films? Animation, realistic treatments?

2. This version for the 21st-century, the developments in technology and special effects, animatronics, to make the realism more convincing? Special effects for action, the young actor and the blue screen, interacting with the animals? The convincing story of Mowgli’s experiences?

3. The title, the focus on Mowgli, the death of his parents, the impact of Shere Khan, his being vindictive against the humans? The boy being saved? The role of Bagheera? Mowgli growing up, being a man-cub, the assembly of the animals, the leader, his wife, the vote, the family of the wolves, accepting Mowgli, his growing up as a wolf?

4. Kaa, her presence, the story, her perspective, helping in saving Mowgli?

5. Baloo, the humour, the big bear, his British accent? Training Mowgli and the bond with him?

6. The young boy, growing up, becoming part of the wolves, of the pack, the affection from the albino? And later discovering him killed by the Hunter?

7. The scenes of training, running, the temptation of the monkeys in the trees with the fruit? The buildup to the test, Bagheera being hard, the interventions, Mowgli and developing his skills, using his hands, holding onto branches, leaping on the rocks?

8. The difficulties, the failure, Mowgli self-image? Eventual success? The elephant helping, the broken tusk and this part of the story coming back?

9. The scenes of the humans, in the distance, in India, the life, work, adults, industry, in the fields, the children? Religious ceremonies and rituals?

10. Shere Khan and the hyena, the sense of menace, ever present, the hostility from Bagheera and the others?

11. Mowgli taken to the humans, in the care of the Hunter, in the cage, unable to eat the food, his resistance? Bagheera and the visit, his story about his own imprisonment, the cage, seen as a pet? Reassuring Mowgli?

12. Mowgli the transition to being more human, with the children, involved in the activities? Play?

13. The Hunter and his experience of Shere Khan, the buildup to the attack, the Hunter and his wounds, the return of the elephant and the broken tusk? The death of the Hunter?

14. Mowgli, the confrontation with Shere Khan? Shere Khan’s death?

15. Themes of the laws of the jungle, nature red in tooth and the exhortation for the animals, humans and animals living in harmony