Tag Archives: film review

Les Miserables Movie Musical Exclusive Review

Posted on by

Les Miserables’ movie musical – screened for cast and crew members at the Odeon Cinema in London, Leicester Square on the 4th of December 2012 – soon to be released in the cinemas.

 

I was lucky enough to be invited to the cast and crew screening of ‘Les Miserables’ on the 4th of December 2012 at the Odeon cinema in London, Leicester Square.

 

 

In a speech, held before the screening, award winning British film and television director, Tom Hooper, did thank all the cast and crew in the cinema making his dream come true.

 

Sir Cameron Mackintosh admitted that it had been their dream to make a movie musical and the fact Tom Hooper asked him on this amazing project was a really good thing as the director came up with an amazing vision of how he wanted it. Tom had in fact suggested disaggregating all the scenes for filming purposes to then put them back together in the movie. Mr Mackintosh admitted making a movie and especially a movie musical takes so much more work than putting together a theatre production. He funnily mentioned how the lack of sleep was a constant thing during the production!

The film musical had just been completed before the screening and Mr Hooper ironically wished he could have had a couple of hours more to do some extra touches.

‘Les Miserables’ movie has already had the Guildhall screening in the USA where it received a great feedback but now, the main aim is to bring the production in London.

In between the mentions in Hooper’s speech, Simon Hayes and his team for the sound department and all the post production team which did an amazing work, the costume department – which had to really work out the choice of fabrics so that the microphones would not be inhibited – Steward Hilliker took care of this. The camera team which had to film several scenes with multi-cameras; it was a real challenge. Really, a great team work. Also, Hugh Jackman’s remarkable and poignant performance of Jean Valjean cannot be left unmentioned.

 

The live sung movie musical is much more emotionally bounding than the old school movie musical version where actors used to mime the singing on a pre-recorded track. I found the movie as poignant as the live staged version. In the theatre it is great to be present and literally breath the performance but unless you are sitting in the very first rows, you hardly get to see the actors expressions when in the movie musical you can clearly see their eyes and facial expressions. This works amazingly to get into the actors’ deep feelings highlighted by remarkable close ups that, on the big screen together with the musical effects, make the audience unavoidably feel exactly how the characters felt whilst singing those lines live to the cameras (see video link below).

The movie respects the same sequence of events of the original Boublil – Schönberg musical theatre score. The musical and emotional tension is not released till the ‘Master of the House’ entertaining scene where we even see a featured Father Christmas!

Pablo Bubar – one of the many cast members who attended the screening – explained to me how, for the revolution scene, he had been called on set for 6 days, working 13 to 14 hours per day. Crew members worked even more than 17 hours per day.

 

The movie produced by Working Title Films (Sarah Radcliffe and Tim Bevan) will be released on the 25th of December 2012 in the United States and on the 11th of January 2013 in United Kingdom.

Might this movie be the landmark for more live sung movie musical productions to come celebrating really good acting and filmmaking and I bet cinemas will be full again!

 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2587403289/

 

 

Written by Paola Berta

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Posted on by

Ahead of the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, We have a new, exclusive video of director Sir Peter Jackson and The Hobbit cast on how New Zealand was transformed into Middle-earth for the film.

The video is a guided tour of Middle-earth by the actors on location.

Air New Zealand, the official airline of Middle-earth, has been giving passengers The Hobbit experience as soon as they step onboard with its latest safety video , which stars Sir Peter Jackson, actor Dean O’Gorman, great grandson of J.R.R, Royd Tolkien and Gollum himself.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is released in cinemas in the UK on 13 December. For more Air New Zealand Hobbit assets see airnzhobbitmedia.com. Video courtesy of Air New Zealand.

Skyfall {Film Review}

Posted on by

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

 

After the underwhelming reaction to Quantum of Solace in 2008, critics and audiences were worried for the James Bond series. It left us feeling cold and empty, much like the character of James Bond that was portrayed on-screen. So there was a lot of work needed to bring the franchise back on its own feet and convince audiences there’s enough room for Bond to keep going! With Sam Mendes hired as the director of the 23rd Bond film, people started raising their eyebrows and their curiosity peaked as more talent were hired to the project.

Now celebrating 50 years of Bond (longest running movie series in history), the main questions on our minds were; does this Bond film deliver a respectful tribute to the series (more so than Die Another Day celebrating 40th anniversary in 2002) and do the filmmakers make up for their mistakes from Quantum and bring back the Bond we’ve been waiting for? The answer to both of those questions is a solid YES! Bond IS back!

The film ignores the events that have happened in the previous two films and goes straight to a different film altogether. The story starts with Bond (Daniel Craig) in Istanbul on the hunt for a missing hard-drive that contains names of every agent in terrorist organisations around the world and is accompanied by Eve (Naomie Harris). Meanwhile, M (Judi Dench) overhears their progress but the mission goes horribly wrong as Eve accidentally shoots Bond as ordered by M and the assassin escapes with the hard-drive. Months later, M and MI6 get attacked from a mysterious terrorist that seems to have a grudge against her. Bond eventually returns to England and is recruited back on the field. He then follows a trail that leads him to Shanghai and to an anonymous island where he meets Silva (Javier Bardem).

The film has all the trademarks of what you expect from a James Bond film; the one liners, the beautiful Bond girls, the stunning locations and the egomaniac villain. Unlike the typical plot where the villain holds the world to ransom or plans to start a World War; Silva has a personal vendetta up his sleeve and makes his character more threatening (even his presence is felt before he shows up). Through-out the film, Bond is treated like an old relic in a 21st Century world. It’s a daring but interesting question Sam Mendes not just puts to the character of Bond but even asks the question as mentioned earlier; is Bond still relevant in today’s generation? To which M delivers a speech in a meeting that time is inevitable but the soul still goes strong. Basically referring to the franchise and something I admire that a blockbuster even asks that question.

Daniel Craig excels as Bond, delivering the witty wisecracks like he’s able to do it blindfolded. He has definitely moved on from being cold and calculative to a Bond that is likeable but still retaining the efficiency as a double-0 agent. Judi Dench really delivers a great performance as M, even bringing more meat to the character than she ever has been since her debut in GoldenEye. She feels the weight as her time is nearly up but also feeling responsible for her recent actions. Her scenes with Daniel Craig are one of the highlights, as they interact with each other as they’re mother and son they both never had. Both Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe really do check the list on being a Bond girl; they are both absolutely stunning! Harris makes Eve a convincing character, showing being a field agent isn’t all that glamourised and there are consequences to her actions. Though the weakest part of the film are the Bond girls, they don’t have enough screen-time to feel beneficial or make an impact to the story (especially with Marlohe’s Sévérine). Ben Whishaw as ‘Q’ made an impressive performance, making his take on the character his own but still retaining what we love about ‘Q’ (requesting Bond return a gadget in pristine order). His first scene with Bond establishes the type of relationship they will have; a banter between the old and the new but no matter on their differences, they still go hand-in-hand. Though Javier Bardem as Silva steals the spot-light and delivers one of the most memorable Bond villains in the series’ history. He brings the same intensity as he performed the character of Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men but also making Silva very flamboyant which makes it very fun to watch and can tell Bardem is having a blast playing the role.

The film looks absolutely breathtaking and no surprise it is shot by Roger Deakins (previous credits include True Grit (2010), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and The Shawshank Redemption). One of the many things that have been improved from Quantum is; the action sequences are wide and stationary so we can tell what is going on (further proving that you don’t need to make it hand-held and have kinetic editing to make your action scenes to be intense). One particular scene that made my mouth drop was when Bond follows the assassin he encountered earlier in Shanghai, leads up to a skyscraper and the entire floor is only lit from neon lights from opposite buildings. It really shows Deakins’ talent and I applaud Mendes on applying this amount of artistic license in a Bond film (and has my vote for Best Cinematography during the awards season). Thomas Newman replaces regular Bond composer David Arnold and delivers a classic Bond score but also feels very modern (using synthesizers when Bond arrives in Shanghai).

Overall; Sam Mendes delivers a Bond film we’ve been waiting for and actually feels like what a Bond film should! The entire cast and crew should be applauded to their work, bringing the top of their game and truly showing respect to the series. My personal favourite blockbuster of 2012 and one of the best Bond films ever made. Highly Recommended!

5 out of 5

The Master | Film Review

Posted on by

Paul Thomas Anderson has a lot to live up to. By the time he was thirty years old he had Boogie Nights and Magnolia under his belt establishing him as the most talked about new American filmmaker of the 1990’s next to Quentin Tarantino. Five years ago his magnificent fifth picture, There Will Be Blood, was heralded by many critics as one of the finest, if not the finest film of the new decade. He has found himself being compared to the likes of Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese and even Stanley Kubrick as a new titan of American cinema. In cinefile circuits his new release The Master has been awaited with the sort of fan fever saved for comic book blockbuster adaptations. Interest has been particularly stoked since rumours circulated that the film would focus on the early years of the controversial religious sect Scientology and its mysterious founder L. Ron Hubbard. But nothing is ever as it seems. Anderson has sidestepped the obvious headline grabbing to deliver a film that is everything we expect from him; virtuoso, frightening, mysterious and with its heart on its sleeve.

It’s the end of World War Two and things are not right for Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix). An alcoholic Navy Veteran, who has been left psychologically scarred by his experience in conflict and with an unhealthy lust for women, is sent into the civilian population and told that he and his like are now America’s future. Yet Freddie’s bad habits soon find him drifting from drink to drink, woman to woman and utter desolation. One night he drunkenly stumbles across the path of Lancaster Dodd (Philipp Seymour Hoffman), the self appointed leader of ‘The Cause’, a philosophical movement that claims to be able to cure ailments and trauma by recalling the past lives of individuals by billions of years. Dodd is fascinated by Freddie (and his homemade liquor) and invites him along with ‘The Cause’ entourage to spread the word across post war America. Though Freddie finds initial solace in Dodd’s teachings it isn’t long before doubts and scepticism rear their heads and a psychological tug of war begins between the two men.

From its fractured opening it’s clear that Anderson is playing to his own rules. Much talk has been made of the fact that the film has been shot in 65mm film stock and blown up into 70mm as opposed to the industry standard of digital filming and projection. I was lucky enough to see the film in its original stock format and found it well worth the effort. The texture and colours practically radiate off the screen whilst Anderson’s measured direction (in contrast to the frenetic nature of his early work) allows us to soak in the atmosphere in every long, meticulous take. This is once again accompanied by a stunningly unconventional score from Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood that constantly wrong foots expectation yet completely puts you in the characters’ mindset. When it comes to the particulars of the narrative, Anderson is not one to speak down to an audience. There Will Be Blood was discussed as an examination of the birth of capitalism and commentary on America’s dependence on oil yet he never forces those ideas down your throat and he certainly doesn’t do it here. All the build up has focused round the Scientology issue but at its heart The Master is far more about the uncertainty of post-war America, a clash of class ethics (Dodd is the entrepreneur, Freddie the blue collar everyman), the horrors of post traumatic stress disorder and perhaps even a doomed platonic love between two outsiders attempting to find their way in a new world. Anderson has once again used an epic canvas to create a searing intimate portrait.

It is in the clash between Freddie and Dodd that the crux of the drama takes place. In terms of narrative it is the least constricted of Anderson’s work and so much responsibility lies upon Phoenix and Hoffman’s performances and it’s a responsibility they rise to tremendously. Opinion remains divided on Phoenix’s bizarre faux sidestep into being a rap artist but it’s great to have him back channelling the raw, dangerous and oddly charming energy that made his name. He is simply stunning as a man whose sheer facial expression alone speaks volumes about his character and what he has seen. He enters the frame a figure of snarling, contorted anger barely suppressed beneath the surface slurring words out of one side of his mouth refusing to confront the issues bubbling away within him. In one frighteningly surreal sequence, Freddie is brought along to a socialite dinner and physically resembles a wild animal that has somehow been forced into human attire. Brilliant, subtle touches (reaching out to a hostess’s necklace) add layers to the complexion and bring Freddie alongside the other brilliantly damaged souls of Anderson’s filmography. However ‘big’ Phoenix’s performance is, it is matched with a mercurial subtlety from Hoffman, who works as a perfect counterbalance to Freddie’s volatile nature. He manages to make plausible the idea that people can be drawn to such bizarre notions through a stunning portrayal of charming and infectious joie de vivre that make everyone gravitate towards Dodd and his teachings. However far from just a kind father figure (a recurring theme for Anderson) Dodd is capable of showcasing a spiteful darkness when his theories are criticised. His brief outbursts at dissenters are terrifying as they are short. Watching the two actors together is genuinely like watching lightening in a bottle and several scenes between them are as exciting and emotionally draining as any major action set piece from this year’s summer blockbusters. One scene recalls De Niro’s meltdown in Raging Bull as when both men are briefly jailed, they use their separate confines as the opportunity to rail against one another. Freddie hurls accusations of lies whilst Dodd repeatedly taunts him, ‘I’m the only one who likes you!’ For all of the films fractured, episodic nature it builds up to a surprisingly moving tale of a failed relation between the men. Their final scene, which would otherwise sound bizarre on page, becomes almost unbearably tragic. Though the film is dominated by the two male leads we also have a string of effective supporting performances most notably Amy Adams as Dodd’s ever present wife Peggy. Rapidly becoming a firm fixture on annual awards nomination lists, Adams wonderfully subverts her good, All-American girl image for something far more straight faced and even chilling. Though seemingly first merely a supportive arm to support Dodd, Peggy is gradually revealed to be far more akin to a Lady Macbeth of the story driving her husband on, urging him to go on the attack and in one telling (and quite scary) scene, displaying a sexual dominance over her husband before chastising his relationship with Freddie.

Anyone looking for easy or cathartic payoffs may very well be disappointed. There’s none of the raining frogs of Magnolia or descent into homicidal madness of There Will Be Blood. Instead Anderson chooses to end on a quieter and extremely ambiguous note. Dissenters will argue that the film ask more questions than it provides answers and question where it leaves the characters at the finale. I’m personally delighted to be confounded when the questions are this deep and the execution is this flawless. It arguably represents a maturity in Anderson’s style compared to his rapid multi stranded early epics. He is refusing to repeat himself and has cemented his reputation as one of America’s finest mainstream filmmakers. This is cinema at an absolute pinnacle and I cannot recommend it enough. I’m a devotee of The Master.

Vanessa Bailey & Richard Perryman on Three Days Film | Film interview

Posted on by

When I interviewed Vanessa Bailey and Richard Perryman about their new film, Three Days, we had so much fun and laughed so hard. Vanessa has co-written and is starring in the age gap romance alongside Richard who is fresh out of drama school. Vanessa is beautiful and talented but doesn’t seem to know it, as is Richard. They are both also wonderful company and building quite a following for their film which will start shooting early next year. To find out more, read on….

;

Tell us about your character.

Richard Perryman: ‘I am playing James, a recent graduate, a young guy who does odd jobs. He is flyering for a jazz club and has a care-free lifestyle. He is not really looking for love but just by chance it happens. We were talking about this earlier. It just happens and he is not looking for a long term thing. It just happens to him and he can’t really get away. [laughter]

Vanessa Bailey: [laughing] He can’t really get away! These two characters are not the two people you would expect to see in a relationship. Not just with the age gap, which does sometimes happen, but also with their personalities. She is no a cougar, she is not predatory. She hasn’t been walking around looking for impressionable young leafleters to drag back to her hotel room. He’s not a lad.

;

Richard: It’s not a trophy for him.

;

Vanessa: It is just a sexual connection between them.

;

Richard: Well, not the main one.

;

Vanessa: [laughing] No, not the main one. It is about two real people. It is about finding what that connection would be and how it would work out in real life. They are not caricatures. It is not about romantic cliches. If two people really did connect, how would that work. Can it work?

;

Richard: Can that relationship last or is it just a fling?

;

Vanessa: And we don’t know the answer yet.

;

Richard: I think they are probably both going into it thinking it is just a fling. And not expecting to find that they actually fall in love.

Age gap relationships are popular in film at the moment. Why do you think they are popular and what is your favourite?

Vanessa: I really liked the ITV one, Leaving, although I kinda thought they had stolen our thunder because we had written the script before it came out. What appealed to me about that one, and about Three Days, is most of the other films, the age gape in The Graduate isn’t that big. There is only six-years between them because they are playing up and down. So what I really liked about the ITV one was that they had Helen McCrory who is really gorgeous. They were able to make the audience believe. It was a slightly different story and it was about self-improvement. That one would be my favourite because it was anchored in real life. You can recognise it in real life. Whereas with the other ones, they are lovely stories, but they are not real.

;

Richard: I have only seen The Graduate. I think with that one he has that relationship thrust upon him. It is much darker. She is more of a cougar and she reels him in. This is more of a chance. It is a more filmic story.

;

Vanessa: It is more of a romance. It is not dark in any way. Which is more challenging. There is no gender game. It is more, ‘why has this happened and what should we do with it?’.

;

Why do you think there is still a stigma attached to the older women/younger man thing?

Richard: There has been a rise in those type of films. I think there is a stigma attached but it is becoming less and less. There is still that taboo and it is still fine with older men and younger women.

;

Vanessa: Again, we were talking about that earlier. I think with the older man and younger women, largely they are a physical manifestation of his success and being sexually attractive to women. It is more of a trophy thing. It is interesting because, as you said, the storyline is really popular. We have 1,300 people following us on Twitter. We have no media, no trailer, nothing really about the film, but I think the story has lots of appeal. We have a lot of different people following us. Younger girls, 17 or 18 years old and older men.

;

We had a guy who said when I was in my 20s I had a relationship with a women who was 20 years older than me because it is common. See I am 43.

;

Richard: And I am 22.

;

Vanessa: Oh my god it has gotten bigger! What is that gap?

;

Richard: 21 years.

;

Vanessa: Yes, 21 years. That is quite a big gap.

;

Richard: It’s not that big.

;

Vanessa: Oh, bless you. We can make it work. But I think people are really fascinated by that. I am not going to name names but I had a lot of people say I had this relationship with this women who was 20 years older than me. It is really interesting. It does actually happen but I don’t think film shows that as much as the older guy.

;

Another issue with younger men with older women is the fertility issue….

;

Vanessa: Yes, I think that is true. It doesn’t work quite as well from a family point of view, biologically the other way around. Maybe some women are at the point when they don’t want to have kids.

;

Richard: I think going into that relationship they won’t really think about it and then when they did the pressure would start adding on to it. Like, ‘what do we do?’

;

Vanessa: I was talking to some friends about it and they were like, ‘lucky you’ and then I was thinking, no, because in reality when you are an older women it is hard. You have insecurities.

;

Richard: Yeah, you were saying to me that when we go out people will be like, ‘Your son is waiting for you’ or ‘Is that your mum?’ or something. Which would be really tough.

;

Vanessa: [laughing] There is always a 21-year-old girl around the corner and you are getting older, and you look older, and the point of this, of Three Days, is also when older women are portrayed in films they don’t look their age. They have had all of that plastic surgery and they don’t look their age. I do look my age [she doesn’t] so it is not like, yeah, she is a hot 43 but she looks 33. She is just 43. So there is that whole physical insecurity.

There is also this myth that is spread that men get better looking as they get older but women don’t. It places a lot of pressure on women and it also happens a lot in film. Then when you do get a part it is not a really good part. In this film it is a women in a really good role, which could actually have a lot of significance.

;

Vanessa: And that is the great thing about indie film. You have raised a great point actually and that is the good thing about Three Days. There are not the parts out there that actresses my age necessarily want to play. You get typecast in commercials and then you have to wait until you are 75 to play a dowager in Downton Abbey. There is a massive gap in-between. You are just wandering around wondering what you are going to do. A few of us do have a natural look so you are not going to get the barmaid parts or the cougar parts. So I kind of wanted to come up with a part that a lot of women my age would want to play because it is interesting and it is fun. There is a massive gap for older actresses.

;

How did you come on-board

;

Richard: I didn’t really do anything.

;

Vanessa: That is the joy of Twitter. I am going to write a book. Instead of the Joy of Sex I am going to write The Joy of Twitter, and [to Richard] you are probably too young to even know the book. It was out in the 1970s. [to me] You know the book? [Yes, I know the book] See, women know the book.

;

So, Twitter, we were looking for someone. I was looking at showreels because I love watching showreels. I saw Richard’s headshot and someone tweeted a link to a short film he was in called Emmeline, which was gorgeous. So I stalked him. I asked him to be in a film with me.

;

Richard: I got an email asking me if I wanted to be in the film. We met up for a coffee. Then I wanted to do it. She reeled me in. We were both on the same page in terms of character and what we wanted for the film.

;

Vanessa: What clinched it was that halfway through we were talking about the dialogue and how we wanted it to be really natural, and be very real and he said it should be like ‘Before Sunrise’, which is my favourite film. At that point I was really hoping he wanted to be in the film.

;

So it was the power of Twitter and short film. And the mocha that I bought him that I then drank.

;

Richard: Yeah, I had a latte and she had my mocha.

;

Vanessa: Start as you mean to go on.

Tell us about the process of the film so far.

Vanessa: It has been a long time actually, nearly a year. I wrote it. I wrote a really bad script originally. I sent if to Jon Rennie, our director, and basically what he did was he rewrote it from a cinematic point of view. Jon said he liked the story but this is how he thought the physical journey of the film would go. We have beautiful locations we are filming in. Then he gave it back to me to fill in the dialogue. We knew we had Huw onboard who is just phenomenally good.

;

The film is quite like Notting Hill on acid. Huw Walters (Cinematographer) and Jon and myself all worked on Bubbles [an excellent short film. See it] Our composer had seen Bubbles and asked us if we had a composer. Then I looked at his credits and I was like, wow. He has worked with the BBC, with Tom Jones, with loads of people.

;

Our hair designer, Jason Hall, also asked to come onboard and he had done London Fashion Week. He was also from twitter. He contacted us and asked us if we needed a hair stylist.

;

The producer, Sam Smith-Higgins, was following the film since it started on Facebook and she said she would really like to collaborate and asked if we had a producer. She has an entire production company that she is bringing with her. The Executive Producer, Suzie Boudier, has been a constant source of inspiration.

;

The great thing about this film is that everyone has come on-board because they really want to make this film rather than just a film. It has been a really long process. I am really excited.

;

How did you approach funding.

Vanessa: We will be crowd funding in February. Consolidating everything in March and then we are shooting in April. We are looking at different crowd funding options at the moment.

;

Tell us about you.

;

Richard: I just graduated from E15 from a contemporary theatre course. I set up my own theatre company with a couple of friends called Antler. We took two shows up to Edinburgh.

;

Vanessa: Who have got some amazing reviews. Should I quote some of them? Richard excels in dry humour. That is what it said.

;

Richard: We got some lovely reviews. Since then I have done a short film with the same company. I was lucky to be a part of that. And from that I got this. Which is great and exciting.

;

Vanessa: I am completely different. No training. I am a teacher. A music specialist whatever that means. I came out of it after I had my children and decided I wanted to be an actress. So I did a lot of background work just to get into the scene and I was lucky to break that rule that you never become an actor after being an extra. I managed to get there. I have managed to blag my way to some good jobs so far.

;

You are so self deprecating

Vanessa: Yes I am. But I have no reason to be here. Once I got Spotlight and a DVD I sent it out and Sam [Samantha from Simon & How, out mutual agent] was the first person to give me an audition. I absolutely love it.

;

Do you think the age of the actor is dead and you have to be an actorpreneur and do your own projects.

;

Richard: I have only ever done my own projects. So I think, yes, you can’t really trust anyone else to do anything for you. You have to do it yourself. If you are lucky enough you will be handed lots of jobs. It is the luck of the draw. If not you have to go out and do it yourself. [to Vanessa] Like you are doing.

;

Vanessa: All actors know that it is a really small pool that people fish from. Especially in television. It is hard and it is not going to talent unfortunately. You see people who work regularly who are not good and lots of people who are very talented who don’t get any work. So, yes, I do think you have to be an actorpreneur.

;

Richard: I am very bad at selling myself because I am not on Twitter.

;

I often lose roles to people who are more famous or someone’s girlfriend.

;

Vanessa: Yes, that is frustrating. I can see the other side of that. We all work with people we know because it is better the devil you know.

;

Richard: Then that creates those little cliques who work with the same people and you can’t break into it.

;

That is why I left Scotland. I had to commute from Glasgow to London because there was the group of Scottish actors who always got work and I could not break into the industry.

;

Vanessa: There are a couple of casting directors who fight it. A casting director said to me that he was sick of seeing the same faces in television over and over again.

;

And you do. You see the same faces over and over again. We need pioneers who are bringing new faces in and trying to get people seen.

;

Richard: But we are a little family. [We all have the same agent. Samantha at Simon & How]

;

That’s right.

So is the process to make a short and then a feature film.

;

Vanessa: I would love to. I would love to make a feature. Are you playing footsie with me Richard?

;

Richard: Yes, I am getting into character.

;

Vanessa: Two things with the short film. Firstly, I would like it to get into festivals. But also it is like a calling card. Hopefully people will see this. When we had one of our first meetings with Jon and Huw you could very much see the potential of the film and the ensemble cast. I would love to make a feature film.

;

Richard: It has the potential to be a great British film.

;

Vanessa: I am such a champion of British film so I would love to make it into a feature.

;

What are you shooting on?

;

Vanessa: I’m not sure. I have left that to Jon. Not film. Because it is too expensive. We want to do a few different takes on this film and we don’t want to worry about how expensive it would be. I know Jon was talking about filming on mono. So a combination I think.

;

What’s next?

;

Richard: I just graduated. I am not sure what is next. I am just putting myself out there.

;

Vanessa: You are developing….

;

Richard: Oh yeah, with my company, Antler, we are constantly developing work. Putting things together and trying out new ideas.

;

Vanessa: Everything at the moment is Three Days. Then hopefully after that it will be the festivals. [Vanessa also has a lot of acting work coming up. Including a part in Southcliffe and some short films]

;

Thanks Vanessa and Richard.

;

Director: Jon Rennie @jon_rennie
Writers: Vanessa Bailey, Jon Rennie @vbaileyactor @jon_rennie
Producer: Sam Smith-Higgins http://www.redbeetlefilms.co.uk/ @SamSmith-Higgins
Executive Producer: Suzie Boudier @Superboooo
Cinematographer: Huw Walters http://vimeo.com/user4428776 @huwcamera
Composer: William Goodchild http://www.williamgoodchild.com/ @WGoodchildMusic
PR: FireflyPR http://www.firefly-pr.com/ @FireflyPR

Hair Design: Jason Hall http://www.jasonhallhairdressing.co.uk/ @Jhhair

Circle of Revenge | Film Review

Posted on by

Circle of Revenge started as a web series, and was so popular that it has now been made into a feature film. I went to the screening at The Electric on Portobello Road without seeing any of the web series. The film is a low budget British feature film. Shot on a Canon 60D (which is the same camera I am making my film Prose & Cons on) and a shotgun microphone, what the crew and cast lack in resources and money, they make up for in enthusiasm and talent.

A true depiction of urban life in South London, Circle of Revenge has a strong cast and a sleek, gritty, real-life feel to it. Circle of Revenge has all the makings of a cult classic.

Circle of Revenge The Movie is based in the urban jungle of London bringing what happens on the streets to the big screen. Revenge is a vicious circle that often involves violence, drugs, guns, gangs, the police and the disloyalty that they can generate. Many can relate to the situations in Circle of Revenge. Now their story will finally be told.

J. Valentine & D. Adams directed and also star in the film, a common theme in the film as producers Darren Baba and Katherine Evans, as well as the assistant to producers, Sue Henry, also have roles. This does not mean the roles have been filled in by non-actors though. The parts are played very well. Darren Baba in particular has a very good supporting role and is great in his role. Though it is not really fair to single a cast member out as everyone is great in their role.

Circle of Revenge is a very good British film by a talented production company who have something to say. Go see.

@circleofrevenge @officialbantah

Robert Pattinson Confirms 50 Shades Of Grey Role?

Posted on by

Robert Pattinson confirms 50 Shades role to MSN?

Could Robert Pattinson’s next role indeed be that of Christian Grey? In an exclusive live web chat with MSN.co.uk, he playfully alluded that he will take on the role in the film adaptation of the book, Fifty Shades of Grey. When asked if he would consider the role he said: “I’m playing that part!” He also said he would like to experience one day as a woman.

To read the full web chat click here

Argo | Film review

Posted on by

Just under a decade ago, it seemed that it was nearing the end for Ben Affleck. Having climbed to immediate fame with an Oscar win for the script to Good Will Hunting and engaging performances in the films of Kevin Smith, Affleck appeared in several critical flops that tarnished the golden boy image. The most notable examples were Michael Bay’s excruciatingly saccharine war drama Pearl Harbour and the tonally misjudged crime comedy Gigli which occurred at the same time he found himself caught up in the hysterically inane media frenzy referred to as ‘Bennifer’. It seemed that the talent had been squandered and it was only a matter of time before he was swallowed up by obscurity, another casualty on Hollywood’s walk of fame. But some refuse to go down without a fight and over the last few years Affleck has slowly been building up his resume as not just an excellent actor but a filmmaker. His 2007 debut Gone Baby Gone won critical acclaim and the follow up The Town proved to be a solid if unremarkable effort that performed well with audiences. Affleck showcased an unfussy, clear and stark directorial style that convinced many that his future now lay behind the camera rather in front of it. Now he stars in and directs a new project that both (cautiously) bites the Hollywood hand that feeds but also offers up a true story that seems so unbelievable upon first listen but proves to be a fruitful subject for a thriller.

In 1979, the American embassy in Tehran was overrun by revolutionaries furious that America had given sanctuary to the recently exiled Shah. Over fifty American diplomats and military personal were taken hostage in a crisis that lasted over a year and saw a collapse in diplomatic relations between America and Iran and left geopolitical aftershocks that can still be felt today. The crisis itself kept the nation on tenterhooks yet the story here concerns something not made public at the time. Six Americans managed to escape the embassy before its downfall and took refuge at the Canadian ambassador’s residence. Realizing that their discovery would result in capture and possible death, the CIA struggled to come up with a plan to get them out of the country safely. This where Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes into the story. Having exhausted all other ideas, Mendez proposes an idea as bizarre as it is dangerous; they will pass the six off as a Canadian film crew scouting ‘exotic locations’ for a science fiction B-Movie called Argo including setting up a fake production company and a script to make the ruse as believable as possible.

From the opening shot of the classic seventies Warner Bros logo and through its tense, frenetic opening act it’s clear that Affleck has done his homework. Handheld cameras, saturated filters and even replicated scratches on the digital print all combine to make Argo appear to be a genuine political thriller made in the era of its setting. There’s a visual tone and atmosphere that recalls the likes of All The President’s Men and The Parallax View though certainly not without its own visual sheen that thankfully never becomes to on the nose. Affleck’s proven he’s got the gritty chops in his previous endeavours but what really impresses in this latest outing is his control over the tone of the story. It’s a work which crosses over the line between humorous incredulity and genuine life or death tension. The first half of the film is filled out with Mendez’s exploits in Hollywood as he recruits Oscar winning makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (a scene stealing Alan Arkin) to painstakingly set up a production they have no intention of making. As Chambers puts to Mendez, ‘You want to come to Hollywood, flash some money and not do anything? You’ll fit right in!’ It’s playful, light satire that doesn’t stray into the more cynical depictions of Tinseltown we’ve seen in the past but it provides a sharp relief from the darker tones of the drama. Thankfully there is no awkward transition; when Mendez heads out to Iran the tone of tension and claustrophobia is simply unrelenting. Narrative events clearly drift into dramatic license toward its final set piece but when the execution is this good then that is forgivable. I was reminded of Ron Howard’s Apollo 13, a film that drew every bead of tension available from an inevitable conclusion.

Whereas in The Town Affleck seemed a little stiff in front of the camera, he feels much more relaxed here. He fits the dual role of spy and every day practical man rather well and sells the urgency of his character’s predicament without ever resorting to an over the top performance. A subplot involving Mendez’s separated wife and son feels quite unnecessary but is thankfully kept to a bare minimum. It is a film that favours its ensemble cast rather than one particular performer and this works all the better for it. Goodman and Arkin are a safe pair of hands and handle the comedic aspects of the Hollywood scenes with aplomb while Bryan Cranston is reliably grouchy in the role of Mendez’s CIA boss. If there is anyone to single out and praise it is the six who portray the American refuges. Established character actors rather than big name stars, they convey fear, resilience, scepticism and compassion that stays clear of melodrama and makes you genuinely care about their predicament and fate. Scoot McNairy in particular continues to build on a strong filmography that includes his superb turn in this year’s Killing Them Softly. Some commentators have criticised the films portrayal of Iranians, claiming it confuses the actions of the government with the general population and reduces them to a mass of simplified, chanting antagonists. I personally disagree with this; I found it much more even handed with sympathetic portrayals of certain characters and the grounding in historical fact. There is one wry scene where an Iranian official berates Mendez, undercover as a producer, for portraying Iran as ‘a land of flying carpets and snake charmers.’ There is certainly room for discussion though given the recent flowering of Iranian cinema in to western audiences and the complicated history between the two nations.

Argo is certainly not a classic but is an astonishingly well made, confident and brisk thriller that walks a fine line between its two sides of the coin and stands as Affleck’s most assured directorial work to date and a front runner for upcoming awards season. It will be fascinating to see where he goes next.