Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

FORT COMME UN HOMME/ /RUGBYSTAR

2007, 90 minutes, Colour.

Marc Ruchmann, Philippe Maymat, James Gerard, Florence d'Azema, Audrey Fleurot.

Directed by Stephane Giusti.

A familiar story done in French style, a particular interest in sport and rugby the popular theme of what it is like to be a man, a strong man.

The central character is a young man, Olivier, alienated from his mother, a local star rugby player, arriving in Paris, welcomed into a special team with lot strong ambitions. He finds his place, welcomed by some of the players, doing his rigorous training, sharing an apartment with a young Irish player.

The film focuses on the young man and his ambitions, his work, yet his being touchy, outbursts of anger, sympathetic members of the team and management trying to urge him to some kind of calmer approach, more mature.

The manager of the team invites a commercial photographer to make a calendar of the team players, he becomes the object of special attraction, sessions for photography, his approaching the photographer, beginning an affair with her – and some jealousy from a woman who follows the team socially.

Which means then that this is a story of someone with potential who does not realise he should be measuring up, indulges in the affair, socialising, some drugtaking (which will catch up with him when there are tests of the players). He also clashes with the Irish footballer discovering that he is gay and has a partner, but later apologising.

Then injury, on the benches, observing, then the testing of drugs and his being found guilty, suspended for six matches – but, after a visit with his mother who wants money from him, he decides to go to England, play with a small team, lying low – and, then, perhaps the future.

LES YEUX SANS VISAGE/ EYES WITHOUT A FACE

France, 1960, 90 minutes, Black-and-white.

Pierre Brasseur, Alida Valli, Juliette Mayniel, Alexandre Rignault, Beatrice Altariba, Edith Scob, Claude Brasseur.

Directed by Georges Franju.

In many ways, this film is ahead of its time, described in the IMDb with the later description, “body horror”. While this is a horror film, it uses very few of the horror conventions that were to become popular, especially with the exploration of the living dead and medical experimentation.

In fact, the treatment of the horror theme is done in straightforward dramatic style, very little blood, a focus on the removal of the face, the revenge of the dogs but otherwise one might say a very well-mannered drama.

The title indicates the theme, a professor-doctor with a great reputation, lecturing in experiments with skin grafts and the need for radiation, preoccupied with finding a substitute face for his daughter who has been injured in a car accident, lives at home, the body of a young woman who did not survive surgery, thrown into the lake and identified as his daughter so that she could continue to live and his finding a face for her.

The other central character is Louise, played by Alida Valli, who has had face alteration and is indebted to the Professor. She stalks young women and brings them to the house for further experimentation.

There are police investigations, the fiance of the young woman, all set out to unmask the professor, the cutting off of a face but the daughter intervening dramatically.

The score, with a range of moods, jaunty during the opening credits, was written by Maurice Jarre, two years before Lawrence of Arabia, six years before Dr Zhivago.

The film was directed by celebrated director, Georges Franju, who, in 1937, was the founder of the French cinema class, the Cinematheque Francaise.

1. The title and expectations? Horror overtones?
2. French cinema at the end of the 1950s, traditions, dramas, the venture into horror themes, but using the traditions of drama rather than the conventions of horror? Black-and-white photography?
3. The opening and atmosphere, Louise, the long drive in the credits, the journey music, the body in the back, the disguises, her throwing the body into the water?
4. The professor, his lecture, the fashionable audience, experiments in skin grafts, issues of radiation, blood? Someone and by the police, the morgue, identifying his daughter? The other possibility of the corpse, her father waiting outside, his grief?
5. The professor and the funeral, with his daughter’s fiance, with Louise, his secretary? The monument, his pressure on Louise? The return home?
6. His daughter, injuries in a car accident, blaming her father and his domination, her disfigurement, her father’s intentions, to transfer the face, the dead woman and the operation, her eyes? The daughter and her mask, dealing with Louise, her frustrations? Putting on the mask, exploring the house, the huge range of kennels, the dogs and experiments?
7. Louise, fashionably dressed, stalking women, the young woman in the theatre queue, the ticket, the meal, offering accommodation, bringing her to the mansion, the remoteness, the young woman’s hesitation, the chloroform, her later on the table, the marking of her face, the close-ups of the removal of the skin of her face?
8. Transferring the face to the daughter, her acceptance of it? Her loneliness, the phone calls to her fiance not saying anything? The days passing, the photos of her face, the gradual deterioration?
9. The professor, continuing his work, the hospital, looking for another face? The fiance, reporting the phone calls to the police, their discussions, methods, the shoplifter and setting her up, her going to hospital? The treatment? Her leaving, phoning home, given a lift by Louise, the same procedure with the light on her face?
10. To consciousness, upset, the daughter present, the knife, setting the young woman free? The daughter, freeing the dogs, the young woman falling over to her death?
11. The police, the doctor, the interrogation of the professor?
12. The daughter, Louise coming in, stabbing her through the neck, Louise wearing the pearls to cover the incision?
13. The professor, returning, set upon by the dogs? And his daughter walking into the forest?

NEW LIFE

US, 2023, 85 minutes, Colour.

Sonya Walger, Hayley Erin, Tony Amendola, Jeb Berrier, Ayanna Birkshire.

Directed by John Rosman.

Complex in its plotting, tantalising as the narrative develops.

At first, we encounter Jessica, bruised, pursued, a victim. Then we have another woman, Elsa, ill, but part of a network of surveillance. And Jessica is under surveillance.

Gradually, details of the plot unfold, the reality of Jessica and her past, her relationship with her partner, and the revelation about illness and infection – and it veers into an atmosphere of the living dead.

As Jessica continues to escape, Elsa pursuing her despite her illness, confrontations between the two, Jessica also encounters a number of people who help her, the kindly farming couple, a young woman who gives her a job – but, there is a grim tone to this film, with almost everyone as victims of infection and illness as well as some human malice.

Not essential viewing, complicated in its unravelling, but, in retrospect, an interesting variation on the living dead theme.

1. A brief intervention-horror thriller?
2. The setting, the US countryside, North, the towns, the homesteads, homes, the surveillance bureau? Atmosphere? The musical score?
3. The young woman, blood, wandering, washing in blood, the house, packing, leaving, walking, the encounter with a couple and their welcome, the food, the lift, going to the town, asking for the job, the friendship with Molly? The mystery?
4. Elsa, at home, her health, infirmity, the work, her contact with surveillance, Raymond Reid, surveillance, her skills, her commission to find Jessica? Her contact with her friend and his disabled wife, their discussions and his encouragement?
5. Raymond Reid, the associates, the surveillance? The situation, the infection, the need to contain it?
6. Jessica, her memories, midway through the film, the indication of the theme, her boyfriend, the red spots, the authorities taking them, hospital, his collapse, the guards, protective clothing, the attack, her escape?
7. The kindly couple, their being infected and the consequences, Molly and her friendship, offering accommodation, the infection?
8. Reid, his authority, Elsa and her reluctance, and search, tracking Jessica, pursuing her, the confrontation, the shops, the moral dilemma, saving people from infection, Jessica and her death?
9. A variation on the themes, the particular focus on bondage infected person and the consequences? And the mission for surveillance and tracking down the infected person?

THE WRONG PARIS

US, 2025, 107 minutes, Colour.

Miranda Cosgrove, Pierson Fode, Frances Fisher.

Directed by Janeen Damian.

The Wrong Paris is an enjoyable title, a young woman expecting France but finishing up at a reality show in Paris, Texas.

This is a popular romantic comedy, variations on the expectations but it is heading in the romantic direction with some humour and clashes along the way.

It has been directed by Janeen Damian whose previous films, Falling for Christmas and Irish Wish were star vehicles for Lindsay Lohan.

Miranda Cosgrove, popular from Nickelodeon and streaming channels, plays Dawn, an artist, in need of money, helping her sick grandmother (Frances Fisher), her sister engineering her to enter into a reality show to win money for studies in France. But, it turns out it is in Paris, Texas.

At home, she had encountered a handsome cowboy – and then discovers that he is the object of the reality show. And so, her wanting to get out of the show, trapped by the need for the money, all kinds of goings-on amongst the contestants, falling in love, his visiting her house.

And, what else, her winning the show and the cowboy!

1. The title and expectations, Paris, France, Paris, Texas?
2. The popularity, especially on streaming networks, of romantic comedies? Expectations, romance, ups and downs, predictability – that enjoyment of the predictability?
3. The Texas settings, homes, towns, bars, the ranch, the competition? And some Paris, France?
4. Dawn, her art, hoping to study in France, scholarships, her sister, her grandmother and her health? The information about the competition, the entry fee? At the bar, the encounter with the cowboy? Attractive?
5. Going to the reality TV show, the title, the expectations, the young women, their hopes, their personalities, interactions? Dawn, the discovery that the destination was Paris, Texas? Her reaction?
6. The producer, the rules, the demands? Dawn and her manoeuvres to get out of the show? The need for the money?
7. Trey revealed as the cowboy, the object of the reality show? Dawn and her experience? The attraction, but wanting to get out? The squabbles amongst the contestants? Dawn and her manoeuvres?
8. The falling in love, as expected? Dawn and helping with the horses? The travel, and Trey, his visit to the family?
9. Dawn, to France, the end of the competition, her manoeuvres, the rules? But the happy ending?

KOKUHO

Japan, 2025, 175 minutes, Colour.

Ryo Yoshizawa, Ryusei Yokohama, Soya Kurokawa, Keitatsu Koshiyama,Ken Watanabe, Nana Mori, Mitsuki Takahata, Shinobu Terajima, Min Tanaka.

Directed by Sang-il Lee.

Kokuho has been very popular at the box office in Japan. It is a film about kabuki. Which leads to the question by most non-Japanese audiences, what is kabuki?

Kabuki is a classical form of Japanese theatre, mixing dramatic performance with traditional dance. Kabuki theatre is known for its heavily stylised performances, its glamorous, highly decorated costumes, and for the elaborate make-up worn by some of its performers. (In 2005, kabuki theatre was proclaimed by UNESCO as an intangible heritage possessing outstanding universal value. In 2008, it was inscribed in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

And this film, which runs almost 3 hours but keeps the attention, does offer a brief history, the developments in the 17^th century, the forbidding of  women to perform, the art form then becoming a theatrical vehicle for male performance.

And the title of the film? It actually means “National Treasure”. The title bestowed on performers who excel in kabuki.

While there is a narrative development through the film, the focus is on a talented teenager, his being the son of a yakuza head in the 1960s, the killing of the chief, family revenge, but the boy’s surprising performance observed by the head of a family with a kabuki heritage. The boy is chosen for intense training joining with the son of the kabuki master, the developing expertise over the years, some of envious attitudes of the son who is not as committed as he might be, and also the suspicions his mother has towards the newcomer.

The training sequences and the discussions about performance provide important background for the film’s audience: details of movement, stylised representation, the importance of costumes, make up, scenery, which all serves as something of a tutorial for the audience to learn what kabuki entails. And, there is a huge emphasis on the male performers learning how to move as female characters, timing, the suppleness of their bodies and movement, angles, holding positions as well as voices, and vocal range.

Throughout the whole film there are many performances of kabuki dramas, titles given, indications of plot, and the audience is invited to sit back and absorb the kabuki experiences.

But, as the years move on, the master kabuki performer decides that he will pass on his title, choosing the young man over his son to his wife’s dismay. The son disappears, the young man’s girlfriend disappearing with him, a strong sequence when this newly crowned head of the family leads a large parade through the town, a little girl, his daughter with a geisha, runs after the procession and he spurns her.

Important is the performer’s visit to a shrine, suggestions of prayer, the supernatural – and a kind of Faustian pact for success.

Pride, fall, humiliation – but in this story, possibilities for redemption, the return of the son, his wanting to return to kabuki performance, complications with an injury to his leg, gangrene, amputation, and reconciliation.

For audiences outside Japan, this film is something of a challenging experience, this immersion into Japanese history, Japanese culture.

1. The title? Meaning “National Treasure”?
2. The popularity of the film, box office in Japan, awards and nominations?
3. The introduction to Kabuki, the art form of the 17^th century, historical glimpse, the issue of women not performing, the men taking the female roles, onnagata?
4. The style of Kabuki, the stage, scenic backgrounds, musicians, singers, the performers, the characters, costumes and elaborate, make up, stylised movement, stylised singing, voices? The range of stories, male and female characters, birds, herons, wisterias, love, relationships, suicide?
5. 1964, Japanese society, the popularity of Kabuki, the young boy and his performance, age, appearance, make up, physical movements and extremes, the response? Hanjari sitting, impressed, wanting to train the boy?
6. The yakuza connection, the attack on the party, the killing of the father, the effect on the boy, time passing, his girlfriend, the planning of the revenge, the attempt, the confrontation, failure?
7. Hanjari, continuing to support the boy, inviting him to his family, his wife’s reaction, suspicions of the yakuza, concerned about her son, the importance of bloodline for Kabuki families, the son, the two boys together, the training in detail, the performances, climb, friendships, rivalries and comparisons? The years passing?
8. The elderly national treasure, his observing, influence, later performances?
9. The two young men, their names, the theatres in Osaka, the range of theatres, layouts, the audiences, large, response, acclaim? Japanese response to these performances? Non-Japanese responses? To the stylised nature of Kabuki?
10. Two young men, Kikuo and his complete dedication, the training, the young son, more laid-back, drinking, late, the repercussions? The concern of his mother?
11. Hanjari, the car accident, in hospital, the issue of who was to take his place, expectations for his son, his choice of Kikuo? The reactions, the performance and the young man’s nervousness, success, the son walking out, in the foyer, leaving and disappearing? His mother’s reaction?
12. The personal life, Kikuo, the relationship, his daughter? The son disappearing, the geisha following him, their child?
13. The issue of succession, the announcement, the buildup, the dignitaries, the National Treasure present, the ritual, the announcement, Hanjari and the blood, withdrawing? Kikuo and his inheriting the title? Celebrations, the procession, his daughter running out, his ignoring her?
14. The consequent years, Kikuo and his abilities, his reputation, the yakuza connections, his relationship and illegitimate daughter? The consequences?
15. His failure in theatre, his performances in smaller venues, the drunk man accosting him thinking he was a woman and the aftermath? His visit to the shrine – and a Faustian pact and its consequences?
16. The return of the son, his return to the theatre, the reconciliation, Kikuo training the son, baseball rather than Kabuki?
17. The son, the gangrene, his wanting to perform, the amputation? The buildup to the final performance, Kikuo assuming the male role, memories for the audience of having seen the play previously and the style, the action? The son, the female role, the performance, the difficulties, the other foot with gangrene, the collapsing, but Kikuo enabling them to complete the performance?
18. The move to the future, Kikuo decades later and as national Treasure, the acclaim, the public, his long career, the journalist interviewing him, about the scenery that he favoured, the realisation that this was his daughter, the response to his performances?
19. The ending, Kikuo and his life, looking at the scenery, successes, failures? Achievement?

BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR

US, US, 1990, 96 minutes, Colour.

Jeffrey Combs, Bruce Abbott, Claude Earl Jones, Fabuaba Udenio, David Gale, Kathleen Kinmont.

Directed by Brian Yuzna.

Stuart Gordon’s initial film, Re-animator, 1985, received strong welcome as a 1980s horror film, based on a novel by H.P. Lovecraft but owing much to the influence of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

In the first film there were experiments, skin grafts, experiments with reviving the dead, undertaken at Massachusetts University by two young doctors played by Jeffrey Combs and Bruce Abbott. As the title suggests, reanimation.

This sequel, five years later, again based on the Lovecraft stories, was directed by Brian Yuzna (who had just directed the body horror film, Society). It begins eight months after the ending of the first film, the two doctors finding themselves involved in warfare in Peru, but still the interest in reviving lives.

Then, they are back in Massachusetts involved in the same experiments. Lovecraft’s title includes the name of the key doctor, Herbert West. He is played with serious intensity and some relentlessness by Jeffrey Combs, looking something like a diminutive Clark Kent, glasses, intensely serious. His associate, Daniel Kane, is tall and lanky, intense but also having some relationships. And, there is the young girl they saw at their work in Peru and has come to the US.

Dr West is still continuing his experiments, a particular focus on a young woman, friend of Daniel, her surgery, his attempts to revive her, her coming to life in the same vein as the Bride of Frankenstein. There are also hidden in a room, some of the reanimated survivors, especially the wife of an investigator who keeps coming to interrogate the two doctors – but then becomes a victim, along with the other living dead, pursued by his wife, continually bringing out his official badge.

In the meantime, the doctor from the original film, separated from his body, only a head, continues to haunt people, especially another doctor involved in experiments played by Claude Earl Jones (no relation!).

Many laboratory sequences moving towards some kind of final mayhem, involving the young girl from Peru, her attraction to Dan, coming to the laboratory, pursued by the Bride, the other creatures getting loose and running amok, including the separated head. Dan is torn between the achievement and his emotions for the women. No such scruple for Dr West, relentlessly moving on, trying to escape.

And the film ends suddenly – but, in 2003, a further sequel, Beyond Reanimator and the return of the star, Jeffrey Combs as Dr West.

SOUTH OF ALGIERS

UK/US, 1953, 88 minutes, Colour.

Van Heflin, Wanda Hendrix, Eric Portman, Jacques Francois, Marne Maitland.

Directed by Jack Lee.

This is an entertainment typical of the first half of the 1950s, exotic adventures, filmed in authentic locations, finding photography, a blend of cast which is American, British and French. Produced a number of these films as did universal studios in the United States.

As with this kind of adventure, there are archaeologists wanting to explore ancient ruins south of Algiers, including the search for hidden treasure, archaeologists interested in uncovering knowledge, but, of course, some is a drink for the money.

At the centre is a British archaeologist played in typical stiff upper lip style by Eric Portman. Hendrix takes on a British accent to play his daughter. Van Heflin, the necessary American, is a journalist, writer of books, interested in archaeology, suspect by the British proving himself interested, collaborating with the work – and, with the adventurous climax, proving himself something of an action hero. On the other hand, the almost instant falling in love of the central characters is not particularly credible at all.

It is interesting to see North African countries and their lifestyle in the middle of the 20^th century, the ancient traditions (is plenty of dances), exotic tribes and demonstrations, tribal warfare, that the already welcome influence of Western styles, clothes, music, behaviour.

There is a comic touch with Marne Maitland and the touch of pathos with two young orphans trying to sell and he, bought by van Heflin and their taking a long for the adventure.

The film was directed by Jack Lee, of a number of significant British films, especially the prisoner of war film, The Wooden Horse. In Australia who directed A Town like Alice and Robbery under Arms. And in 60s, he moved to Australia.

1. Popular and colourful action adventure of the 1950s? British and American collaboration? Authentic locations in North Africa?
2. The location photography, the cities and their lifestyle, traditional, dances, clothing, poverty, tribes and warfare? The influence of the West in clothing, music, one of life? The musical score?
3. The situation, archaeology in North Africa, British archaeologists, grants, financial difficulties, Dr Burnett and his search for the mask, the imposition of Chapman, his unwillingness, his daughter sharing his work, her fiance?
4. Chapman, journalist, writer, American reputation? Joining Dr Burnett, American style, the plane, the press conference, meeting his daughter, the tour of the city, his enthusiasm, her being tired? His going to the restaurant, the belly dance, the conversation, his room searched?
5. The introduction to the villainous characters, listening in, information, infiltration, partnership, local contacts?
6. Thank you and the taxi, helping, the comic touch, the driving through the countryside, reckless? The site, the Wall, the exploration? The rival searchers?
7. The, Dr Burnett protecting his daughter, her hiring, coming along? In the city, looking for help, the warring tribes?
8. The dangers, the capture of Chapman, his kindness towards the children with the donkey, the enemy, all rounded up, tired, his escape? The battle, the shootouts?
9. The new site, the search, the discovery of the mask? The shootings?
10. The credibility/not of the romance, the nobility of the fiance? Typical ingredients of this kind of action adventure in its time?

BRING THEM DOWN

Ireland/UK, 2024, 106 minutes, Colour.

Christopher Abbott, Barry Keoghan, Colm Meany, Nora-Jane Noone, Paul Ready, Aaron Heffernan, Susan Lynch.

Directed by Christopher Andrews.

Feuds often grim and violent. Family feuds fester. And, especially on the evidence of Bring Them Down, Irish feuds can be merciless – but also elements of forgiveness.

And, with feuds, there are always two points of view, at least. And this is what happens during this film, audiences needing to pay attention to see the transitions from one perspective of the savage events to another.

In fact, the opening scene is set 20 years earlier, Michael, a sheep farmer (an intense performance by American Christopher Abbott Irish accent and all) wildly driving his car, his girlfriend, Caroline, a passenger in the back, but his mother in the front, telling him that she is about to leave his father, more speed, a crash, Caroline’s face cut, his mother dead. A grim prologue for what will follow.

In the present day, Michael is still living with his old cantankerous father, Ray (a familiar role for actor Colm Meany). Michael is unmarried, looks after the sheep, Caroline having married his neighbour, Gary, and they have a son, Jack. But, times are difficult, finance hard. Gary is prepared to let his sheep go and develop some of his land building homes.

Jack is played by Barry Keoghen now coming into greater prominence with films like Banshees of Innisherin  and Saltburn.

At the centre of the feud is the disappearance of the two rams owned by Michael. They are reported to be dead. Then they appear at the market. Jack is involved, clashes between Michael and Gary.

Which brings us to the title. Is it that each side of the feud wants to bring the other down? Certainly. But, with the huge centring on the rams, then on the sheep flock, Jack and his cousin brutally cutting the legs off of Michael’s shee, Michael bringing the sheep down from the hills and having to destroy them in their suffering.

This is where the screenplay challenges the audience, telling the story from Michael’s perspective and judgements, then recounting the same events from Jack’s point of view. And, Ray, influencing Michael to be more vengeful.

There has been a long hardness in the Irish experience over the centuries, Irish oppressed, religious persecutions, famines, migrations, tough attitudes for survival. And this is a buildup in a final confrontation between Michael and Jack. But, we realise that under the hardness, there is some humanity, some tenderness. And the film ends with both, some more hope rather than anger.

1. The title, with reference to the sheep, sheep farmers?
2. Locations and atmosphere, the mountains, hills, the sheep in the countryside, homes and interiors, sheds? The musical score and atmosphere?
3. The prologue, the drive, Michael driving, not seen, Caroline in the back anxious, his mother, in the front, watching him, the plea to slow down, her leaving her husband, increasing the speed, the crash, Caroline and her face slashed, his mother dead?
4. 20 years later, Michael, with the sheep, taciturn, looking after his father, the difficult relationship, his father not knowing his wife had left, cranky, needing care? Michael and the sheep? The relationship with Caroline, her marrying Gary, Jack as her son?
5. The phone call, the rams dead, Michael going to the market, seeing the rams, the confrontation with Gary and Jack, the bystanders and support? The vehicles chase on the way back, Gary and Jack crashing, Michael giving Jack the lift?
6. The story of bringing the sheep down? The two versions? Michael’s version, Jack’s version? Michael, searching for the sheep, the legs cut, his carrying the ramps? Upset, with his father? The vengeance, Gary and his buildings, going to the site, struggle with the builder, his ear shot, killing the builder, removing his head, his father’s request for a head, in the bag? His later realisation that he had the wrong head?
7. Jack’s solution, with his cousin Aaron, the plan, the destroying of the sheep, the legs? Jack and his reaction, the confrontation with Aaron, not wanting to see him again? The blood, his mother, returning home, with his father?
8. Michael, with his father, his father’s collapse, Caroline and helping? Her tending Michael’s ear?
9. Jack, the realisation, running away, Michael pursuing him up the mountain, the Bluecoat decoy, gestating Michael, the fight, Michael stabbing Jack, carrying him down, giving to his mother, Caroline with the rifle?
10. The end, Michael wounded, going back to the house – and audience speculation about the future?

mubi release, January 2026

AVATAR: FIRE AND ASH

US, 2025, 197 minutes, Colour.

Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Oona Chaplin, Kate Winslet, Cliff Curtis, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Edie Falco, Brendan Cowell, Jemaine Clement, Giovanni Ribisi, David Thewless, Britain Dalton, Jack Champion.

Directed by James Cameron.

The third Avatar fantasy and science-fiction adventure from James Cameron. It is, in fact, 16 years since the first Avatar film was released with great success. Then a 13 year wait for Avatar: The Way of Water. Only three years wait this time. And, Cameron has noted that although sequels are in preparation, his making them will depend on how this film is received. There is no doubt of its popularity and success at the box office – but, along with critical comment and popular reactions, will this be enough?

In the meantime, here we are again in Pandora, out in the galaxies, beautiful floating islands, homes in the forests, mountains, cliffs, crags and oceans, huge creatures swooping in the air, exhilarating transport for humans, marvellous giant beasts of the sea with consciousness, communication – and the background of a creation mythology. Audiences who relished all this in the first films will appreciate it once again, especially since this is how this film begins, the fantasy, rather than focus on the Sky People, the humans who had journeyed here with their vast laboratories, scientific equipment, boats and weapons.

Many of the responses to Fire and Ash have stated that, in many ways, most ways?, is a replay of the previous films, the establishing of the families and tribes, the dangers from the humans, the relentless human expansion, clashes between the tribes, the buildup to the final battles. And, this is quite true. But, there are many audiences who are willing to surrender themselves to this kind of repeat experience.

Once again Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana play the parents, the leaders of the Navi tribe, their children, especially Loach, still suffering the loss of his brother and feeling responsible for his death, his bonding with his brothers and sisters, and with the children from the local tribes. But there is a change in the family, the presence of the human, Spyder, teenager, needing a mask to breethe, but welcomed into the family except for the severity of the virulent hostility from the mother, loathing humans. In fact, Spyder is the son of the former soldier, Quaritch, who, like Jake, has been transformed.

The presence of Spyder, his welcome in the family, his father searching and wanting him back, provides much of the drama at the centre of this film, leading to the issue of whether Spyder be sacrificed for the safety of the tribes (echoes of the biblical story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac).

But, this time there is another warrior tribe, led by one of the most savage female leaders, absolutely relentless. And she teaming up with Quaritch to wreak vengeance.

And the expected battles: the confrontation between Jake Sully and Quaritch. And, of course, at great length, intensity and spectacle, the Navi’s long and spectacular battle with the humans.

There is one complaint, true of the other films. Much of the dialogue is quite commonplace, often trite, and, with Spyder, the kind of quick American slang that would appear in the bubble a cartoon panel.

So, for the fans, more of the same but with some variations as a new characters like Spyder and barre. It runs for 3 ¼ hours but, with continuous action, it keeps up its pace. And the question raised: can there be still more created stories out there in Pandora?

1. The third in the series? The popularity of the films? Box office records? The work of imagination and James Cameron?
2. Recreation of the world of Pandora, the visuals of space, the beauty of the floating islands, the colonies for the various tribes, homes, cliffs and rocks, the sea, rivers? The contrast with the scientific base, the scientific equipment, elaborate, the controls? The space vehicles? The ships? The creatures, flying, the giant creatures in the sea? The range of special effects, especially for the confrontations, the battles, the rescues, the attacks, the deaths? In the background of the musical score?
3. Presuppositions from the earlier films, the range of characters, Jake Sully, his human background, becoming part of the tribe, the romance, his wife, the children in the family life? His being hero, his wife and her prejudice against the humans? Quaritch, human, transformed, his son, his warrior behaviour, his death, revived? The general and her command, the Captain Scoresby on his boat, the scientists and their demands, the warriors, the humans and their scientific advances, the havoc on Earth, potential havoc for space? The development of these themes again?
4. The previous emphasis on the science and the expedition from Earth? This film taking it for granted, opening with Pandora, its beauty, peace, the islands in space, the homes, the family? The audience invited to enter the world of fantasy rather than science and science fiction?
5. The repeat of the situations, humans as Sky People and their attack on the Navi? The life of the Navi, the relationship with the other tribes? The buildup to the confrontation between the tribes, and the clash with the humans?
6. Jake Sully, established character, his leadership? The death of his son, the blaming of the younger son? The younger son and his friends from the other tribes? Spyder and his being the son of Quaritch, received by the Navi, wearing a mask, the hostility of the mother?
7. The revelation of the warlike tribe, the leader, visualised, fierce, merciless? Teaming with Quaritch? His associate?” Marriage and his love for his son, wanting with him? Spyder’s response? Spyder and the experience without the mask, the daughter, her special powers, her representing the God, his revival?
8. The focus on the family relationships, the dangers, the threats, the role of the young son, relationship with his father, clashes, reconciliation, his role in the final battles?
9. The mythical aspects, Kiri and origins, the visual manifestations, the flying creatures, the creatures and the sea, communicating with them, their communications, life? These beasts the target of the humans?
10. The range of battles, their being visualised, in the air? The humans and their weapons and vehicles? The herding of the sea beasts?
11. Focus on the humans, the general and her attitude, commands? The captain of the ship, his mission? Dr Garvan, sympathetic, his helping Jake Sully? The contrast with Selfridge and his wanting to get Spyder and study him?
12. The buildup to the confrontations, Varang and her fierceness, her role in the battles, the final defeat?
13. The issue with Spyder, Jake and his decisions, his wife, agreeing, changing her mind, seeing Spyder saving Jake’s life, Jake taking him out, echoes of the Abraham story and the sacrifice of Isaac, his inability to kill? Leading to the confrontation with Quaritch and his falling into the abyss?
14. Peace among the tribes, Jake as leader, the defeat of the humans – abandon ship? The future, peace in Pandora? The role of the humans?
15. And the success of sequels depending on the commercial success of this third in the franchise?

URCHIN

UK, 2025, 100 minutes, Colour.

Frank Dillane, Harris Dickinson, Okezie Morro.

Directed by Harris Dickinson.

What might we expect from a film with the title, Urchin? The Oxford dictionary suggests a meaning with which we are familiar: a young child who is poorly or raggedly dressed.

But, this is not the case at all. This is an adult story, the film written and directed by up-and-coming acting star, Harris Dickinson (Triangle of Sadness, Scraper, Babygirl). His definition of urchin belies the familiar description in the dictionary since the central character, Mike (a persuasive performance by Frank Dillane of a character that we might not be immediately sympathetic with as we watch him on the screen, let alone encountering him in day by day life) is now in his 20s.

Here are some different descriptions of urchin Googling from the Urban Dictionary: A street person or person of the street. These people usually dwell in cars that aren't theirs, warehouses, squatting holes, gutters, garbage cans, boxes, parks, opium dens, public bathrooms (bus/train station, airport), bushes, soup kitchens, etc.  A person who's an asshole and doesn't seem to get that you don't want to talk to them. Has a tendency of being very annoying. Also dresses very trashy and can be depressive. Annoying low life that people hate and often beat up.

And, this is what Harris Dickinson shows us, the day by day life of Mike, scrounging, past drug habits, encountering a kindly man who wants to get him something to drink, walks along the street offering to help further, then Mike suddenly attacking him, bashing him, stealing his watch and pawning it.

Actually, Mike is not very worldly -wise and fails to remember that everything he did was captured by surveillance cameras. Police, prison, getting out, an attempt to do better, an interview at a restaurant for work as a chef, partly succeeding, supported by the owner, and then failing, impatient, an attack on a customer.

Then a new job, joining a troupe of litter collectors, conversations, success, failures, discussions with those from government and social organisations who want to help –  immediate help but what of the future?

While most of the film is social realism, there are some moments of fantasy, Mike falling through tunnels, rugged cliffs, symbolic of… His isolation, hopelessness, interpretation for the audience in the light of what we see of Mike, the adult urchin.

This is a sombre look at those who are marginalised, who marginalise themselves, surviving, though not necessarily surviving. Stories and images of modern urban society at the fringe.

1. The title, children, adult urchins? On the fringes of society, disliked, not accepted, pugnacious?
2. The urban setting, the UK, the streets, sleeping rough, shops and stores, police precincts, parole officers, restaurants and kitchens, licit collecting parks? The musical score?
3. The work of Harris Dickinson, writing the screenplay, directing the film, his role in the film? Perceptiveness?
4. The story of Mike, the sketching of his background, in his 20s, drug use and habit, sleepless, carrying his bag, hungry, begging, people passing by, the cafe, being moved on, the encounter with Simon, something to drink, the offer of food, walking with him, turning in bashing, robbing him, pawning the wants, the arguments with the pawnbroker? Audience response emotionally to his bashing Simon?
5. The police, surveillance, prison, getting out, the possibilities for restorative justice, the session, his leaving? Government and social organisations, care for the parolees, future care or not?
6. The job, the interview with the owner of the restaurant, the article, always ducking out, the clash with him, the girl and her friendship, the owner, sympathy, giving him the job? The work, upset, the fight with the worker, the criticism of the customer, arguing with him, wanting the meal replaced? Fired?
7. Wandering, the job at the parks, with a group character collecting the listener, the characters, discussions, sharing opinions and hopes, the drugs?
8. The future for Mike? The patterns of the past, people reaching out, his bad reactions, always on the fringe?
9. The significance of the symbolic sequences, falling through the tunnel into the light, at the end of the tunnel, the cliffs and the crags? Symbols of his life in the future?
10. The friendship with Nathan, trying to contact him, tracking him down, the accommodation, the clash, the money?
11. The end, the encounter, asking for help, the whole, his being pushed out, falling to…?