Best described as a sweet but very slow, this film by Japanese screenwriter and film director Hirokazu Kore-eda falls within the sci-fi genre covering the very topical issue of AI and robotics in a very human context.
Plot: Set in the near future, couple Otone (Haruka Ayase) and her husband Kensuke (Daigo Yamamoto) are mourning their young son who has died in mysterious circumstances. Turning to an AI/Robotics company, REbirth, they are supplied with a state-of-the-art humanoid replicantion of their lost son, Kakeru (Rimu Kuwaki). Although initially the humanoid has limited communication, over time this interaction improves despite Kensuke's dismissive references to a 'Tamagotchi' or a 'Roomba'. The couple are astonished to discover that memories of the past life are surfacing from the humanoid. Memories that it should not have.
Rimu Kuwaki in Sheep in the box
The film is very slow moving with long scenes containing little activity or dialogue. It's non violent film generally and has elements of sentimentality especially when the humanoid Kakeru links up with other humanoid and human orphan children to depart for a special forest to make a home for themselves. Acting and cinematography meets the professional standard in film-making and its a pleasurable viewing experience although the film is too long at 126 minutes.
The subject of child abuse and its' impact on a family is the central focus of Gentle Monster.
Plotline: Famous concert pianist, Lucy (Lea Sedoux), her husband Philip (Laurence Rupp) and their young son move to the countryside as Philip is suffering increasingly from burnout. They settle in a country house outside of Munich into a calmer life and all seems idyllic until one morning the police arrive and seize Philip's electronic equipment and remove him for questioning. As the film progresses, Lucy questions if she knows the man she married and moment by moment comes to the realisation that Philip is guilty of trafficking child pornography for money. Lucy seeks a way forward to protect her son and herself while Philip continues to try and save the marriage. She initially supports her husband but following his confession to her and mounting evidence including that photos of their own son had been used, it becomes clear to her that the only option is to leave.
The film is tastefully photographed and veers away from sensationalism with measured performances from the cast. The film does have some structural problems. The flashbacks used to portray images of the previous happy family life and Lucy's various concert performances are not seamless but rather muddled, distracting and seemingly dropped into the film. There are various substrata tensions with various characters alluding to other personal issues that appear unnecessary for the overall story itself.
Lea Seydoux superbly portrays a woman experiencing a range of emotions from shock, devastation, anger to optimism. Catherine Deneuve is cast as her emotionally distant mother who makes it plain that she never approved of her daughter's marriage but provides her with limited but useful support. Writer and film director Marie Kreutzer has created a powerful and morally complex film traversing a highly emotive topic.
It's difficult to find a high point aspect of this feature film other than it is just over an hour and half in duration. Viewers looking for a very funny comedy about couples relationships, sex parties, open marriages while avoiding the prodigious use of the "F"word will be disappointed by what appears on the screen.
The plot: The film is set in San Francisco in the apartment of Joe (Seth Rogan) and Angela (Olivia Wilde), best described as two tightly knit individuals with tension in their marriage. Angela invites their neighbours (Edward Norton and Penelope Cruz) from upstairs over for dinner. The neighbours are attractive, free spirited individuals who experiment with other relationships in their marriage. This makes for a tension filled evening as the couples dance around meanings and descriptions with each other.
The Invite
The scenes for the film are various rooms in the apartment where Joe and Angela live, giving rise to the impression that these performances would be better as a live stage theatre production rather than an on-camera effort. In summary, the film largely consists of Seth Rogan venting then subsiding like a volcano, Olivia Wilde trying different versions of wide incredulous eyes, Edward Norton perfecting smirking and Penelope Cruz simply trying to appear sublime and seductive around the chaos. It has the feel of an actor's workshop for experimenting with improvisation rather than a series of refined, sharp repartee responses.
Run time: 107 minutes
Rating [/10]: 5 out of 10
Recommended for cinema ticket: No. Wait for streaming or subscription services for viewing.
The Australian government has agreed to invest almost $53 million in a north Tasmanian company that will upgrade its coal-fired kiln to burn wood “waste” and used tyres for cement manufacturing.
The Federal Minister for Climate Change, Chris Bowen, says this initiative will help decarbonise the Australian economy.
However, the science is clear: burning forest biomass, or so-called forest “waste” – which could include dead trees, understorey vegetation and fallen logs – generates large amounts of carbon emissions. It will likely also accelerate poor forest health.
The empirical evidence shows burning forest biomass to make concrete is poor climate policy, poor environmental and forest policy, and a poor use of taxpayer funds.
Why is this happening?
In line with climate change treaty commitments under the Paris Agreement, governments worldwide are working to decarbonise their economies in an attempt to limit global warming.
This includes finding alternative sources of clean energy to using fossil fuel. This is especially important for carbon-intensive, high-polluting industries, such as concrete production. While about 56% of concrete emissions come from processing clinker (the base material for cement), 39% come from using fossil fuel to generate heat, and 14% from electricity.
Unfortunately, forest biomass is increasingly being promoted as an energy source to replace fossil fuels, for example in the United Kingdom and Europe. Most forest biomass used to generate energy will likely be trees. And what is often referred to as “waste” is actually a critical part of the structure and composition of natural forests. For example, understorey vegetation and logs provide habitat for a wide range of animal species. They play an essential role in nutrient cycling, such as storing substantialamounts of carbon.
Whilst forest biomass is technically a renewable resource, as trees can be regrown after logging, it is not a source of clean energy. This is because about half of tree biomass is carbon (assuming a moisture content of 45%). Therefore, burning a tonne of wood generates roughly a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. Importantly, up to 30% of carbon dioxide emissions are still in the atmosphere after 1,000 years.
Concrete and its primary ingredient, cement, account for up to 8% of global carbon emissions. This is because high heat is required to turn limestone into ‘clinker’.chameleonseye/Getty
The time lag between release and absorption
Critically, there is a highly significant lag time, of decades to centuries, between carbon being instantaneously released from burning forest biomass and when it is removed from the atmosphere. These removals occur either by plant growth or through carbon making its way to the bottom of the ocean.
The lag time between burning forest biomass and tree regrowth is important because the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations causes even more climate change. This is one of the key reasons why widespread burning of forest biomass in some European countries threatens their ability to meet Paris Agreement greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Furthermore, forest biomass has a far lower calorific content relative to coal. This means large quantities of forest material has to be burned to generate an equivalent amount of energy. This high demand for wood for biomass energy can contribute significantly to poor forest health.
Notably, Australia, along with many other governments, has committed to ending deforestation and degradation by 2030. This recognises the importance of forest carbon sequestration and storage in meeting climate targets and achieving the Paris Agreement goals.
Not an isolated example
The Tasmanian plan, that would see Cement Australia burn forest “waste” to generate energy, is far from an isolated case. There are well-developed plans for Verdant Earth Industries to reopen the former coal-fired Redbank Power Station in the Hunter Valley, in New South Wales, and generate energy by burning hundreds of thousands of tonnes of “wood waste” annually.
Much of this “waste” will likely be trees from forest and woodland regrowth, which are fundamental to the integrity of those ecosystems. This regrowth also provides habitat for a vast array of species, including a range of threatened species.
Biomass burning is frequently supported by native forest logging advocates because of structural issues in the industry. These issues include attempts to extract some financial return from an industry that is largely unprofitable. The native forest sector produces primarily low-value, high-volume commodities such as [woodchips and paper pulp], whereas plantation forest sector dominates high-value sawn wood products.
Similarly, state government forestry agencies have been unable to get market certification for wood products such as woodchips and pulpwood from bodies such as the Forest Stewardship Council. This is partly because the areas logged to produce wood products are often are home to a diverse range of plants and animals that may be threatened by logging.
Decarbonisation matters
We fully acknowledge the efforts being made to explore how emissions-intensive industries can be decarbonised, such as reducing the clinker content in cement.
However, Australian governments must stop using taxpayer money to subsidise projects that entail large-scale burning of forest and woodland biomass for industrial energy.
Alternative forms of energy, including concentrated solar power, will be important in this regard. Unlike forest biomass burning, these are both renewable and clean sources of energy.
The return to Germany in 1949 of Nobel Prize winning writer, Thomas Mann is the subject of this first rate directed, acted and photographed film by acclaimed Polish director Pawel Pawlikowski.
The Plot: Mann (Hanns Zischler) had left Germany in 1933 following Hitler's rise to power and his first visit to his homeland, since the end of WWII, accompanied by his daughter Erika (Sandra Huller), is to receive the Goethe Prize. Photographed in black and white, the film conveys the images of a Germany in ruins with shortages of most consumer items and limited public services. Welcomed warmly by the Mayor of Frankfurt, Mann must contend with threats labelling him as a 'traitor' and 'communist scum' from the wider community. In various social cocktail parties, Mann's former colleagues are at pains to mitigate or deny their cooperation with the former Nazi regime. He will have none of it. Mann also receives an invitation to visit Weimar in the Soviet occupation zone where he is also to receive another Goethe award. His road trip in his black Buick through the zones and finally to Weimar provides a contrast between the US and Soviet occupations. A personal family loss adds to the pressure of this trip.
Sandra Huller and Hanns Zischler in Fatherland
A film with a profound story of family, loss and guilt in a time of extreme turmoil.
Winner of the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival 2026
Winner of the Jury Prize at the Sydney Film Festival 2026
Best described as a complex, urgent and ultimately provocative film by the master Russian film director, Andrey Zvyagintsev, Minotaur confronts both personal crises and societal ones simultaneously. Set in Russia in 2022, the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war is an ever constant in this thriller.
Plotline: A successful businessman, Gleb (Dmitriy Mazurov) is living in an idyllic, expensive waterfront home with his wife Galina (Iris Lebedeva) and their young son. The usual stresses of life appear to the same as for most normal families. But these are not normal times. Gleb's staff are resigning and disappearing and he is under pressure to assist with filling recruitment quotas for the Russian Army. News reports show Russian citizens heading for the borders with other countries and Gleb finds he is facing another distraction as he fears his wife is having an affair. After hiring a private detective, his worst fears are confirmed and a suspect lover is identified. He now must face two challenges of trying to protect his staff from being drafted and dealing with his wife's lover. Fateful decisions are made to resolve both matters.
Dmitriy Mazurov in Minotaur
With well paced scenes, selected locations and meaningful dialogue matched with precision atmospheric cinematography, Minotaur is a taunt thriller.
The plotline: In February 1977, failed property developer Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgard) ties a shotgun trigger to the neck of mortgage broker Richard Hall (Dacre Montgomery) and abducts him. Holding Hall as a hostage in his own crumbling apartment, Kiritsis claims to the police and increasing media circus that he has been betrayed in a land deal with Hall's father. Seeking financial compensation and a public apology Kiritsis portrays himself as the little guy whose dream has been stolen by morally corrupt elites. The actions of Hall's father (Al Pacino) to his son's abduction only reinforces that perception. The film essentially follows the abduction seige before finally a negotiated hostage release occurs and Kiritsis is arrested.
The film is well-paced, capably acted drama in a period setting from over 49 years ago. Van Sant is a long-term experienced director with a formidable list of film credits particularly in social commentary/issues stories.
Dacre Montgomery and Bill Skarsgard in Dead Man's Wire
Run time: 105 minutes
Rating [/10]: 7 out of 10
Recommended for cinema viewing: No. Streaming or subscription viewing.
Whales and dolphins inhabit some of the largest and seemingly most pristine environments on Earth, from tropical coastlines to Antarctic waters. Yet even they cannot escape PFAS – persistent “forever chemicals” that leak from our homes, factories and waterways into the sea.
Forever chemicals are the secret ingredients in our non-stick pans, waterproof jackets and stain-resistant carpets. These chemicals belong to a group of more than 1,400 compounds known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They enter the environment through manufacturing waste, industrial runoff, wastewater treatment plants and firefighting foams. But once these chemicals escape our homes and factories, they become almost impossible to get rid of. Washed into waterways, they make their way to the sea.
Small organisms absorb them from the water, fish eat those organisms and larger predators eat the fish. At each step, the chemical load increases. As top predators, whales and dolphins can end up with very high levels in their bodies. Not even deep-diving species living and feeding far from humans are safe.
In our new research, we found PFAS concentrations in cetaceans have increased globally since 2000. Animals in the Pacific Ocean were the most contaminated, with humpback dolphins showing the highest PFAS concentrations.
These mammals are sentinels of ocean health. They sit high in the food web, live for many years and are exposed to pollution across large areas of the ocean. When whales and dolphins show signs of chemical exposure, it tells us something is wrong in the wider marine ecosystem.
Forever chemicals move through the food web and end up in the bodies of high-level predators such as dolphins.Dmitry Miroshnikov/Getty
Why are we worried about forever chemicals?
Many of these chemicals have been in use for decades. Their sheer durability and ability to resist heat, oil and water make them very useful.
Scientists have grown increasingly concerned about them because they persist for decades and build up over time in our own bodies, as well as in wildlife and the broader environment.
The key concern is what these chemicals may be doing to the animals that accumulate them.
Research in humans and laboratory animals links PFAS to immune suppression, hormonal changes, reproductive problems and developmental effects. But we don’t yet have enough research to understand how different PFAS compounds and levels of exposure affect health.
Understanding these impacts in whales and dolphins is harder still. Marine mammals are long-lived, highly mobile and exposed to many human-made problems at once, from climate change to noise pollution to other contaminants.
Even so, there are warning signs. Some dolphin studies have reported changes in immune-related markers associated with PFAS exposure.
How do you test a whale for forever chemicals?
For humans, testing PFAS levels is usually done with a blood test. It is not as simple for whales and dolphins.
It is extremely difficult to take blood samples from large marine mammals in the wild. Scientists often rely on tissue samples from dead animals, particularly from the liver and kidney where many PFAS compounds tend to accumulate. These samples are analysed in specialised laboratories capable of detecting tiny concentrations of individual PFAS compounds.
This way, scientists have been measuring PFAS in whales and dolphins for decades. Each study added another piece to the puzzle, showing these chemicals were present in different species, populations and oceans.
Our study took a step back and looked at the global picture.
We compiled PFAS data from cetaceans worldwide, focusing on liver samples because they are the most commonly available tissue type, allowing us to compare studies across species and regions.
What did we find?
We found PFAS contamination differed substantially across species, location, sex, age and time.
Infographic showing the main findings of the study.CC BY
The highest concentrations tended to be found in coastal dolphins and porpoises, suggesting animals living near urban and industrial areas face greater exposure.
Cetaceans in the Pacific had higher levels than other oceans. This is likely due to high industrial activity and the extent of historical PFAS production in coastal regions.
Female whales and dolphins can transfer forever chemicals during pregnancy and nursing. This means their calves can be exposed to concerning levels of PFAS at a very early age.
Males often end up with higher levels than females overall, as they cannot transfer these chemicals to their young.
There are some large gaps in the global dataset we collated, which means we don’t fully know the extent of PFAS contamination in cetaceans off India, Indonesia and parts of Africa.
Female whales and dolphins can transfer forever chemicals to their calves.Kerstin Meyer/Getty
What should we do?
While important questions remain about the effects of forever chemicals on whales and dolphins, the widespread contamination we observed is a real concern. We need to continue monitoring while strengthening regulations and working to reduce PFAS flows into the environment.
History shows global action on harmful chemicals works. After it became clear Earth’s protective ozone layer was being eaten away, nations agreed to phase out the chemicals responsible. The ozone layer is now recovering.
The European Union moved to ban some PFAS compounds 20 years ago. Our study found lower levels of some legacy PFAS compounds in the Mediterranean Sea, a pattern that may reflect the effects of regulation. This is positive, but not sufficient given overall PFAS levels in whales and dolphins have increased globally over time. The EU is now moving to better regulate this class of forever chemicals.
Forever chemicals are one of the defining pollution challenges of our time. The more we understand how these chemicals accumulate in whales and dolphins, the better equipped we will be to reduce future contamination and protect marine ecosystems.
What ends up in the ocean does not simply disappear. And neither do PFAS.
This article is based on collaborative research that also included Lavinia Stokes (University of Wollongong), Jesuina de Araujo (National Measurement Institute) and Gavin Stevenson (National Measurement Institute).
