PaddyC's Movie Reviews

We Were Here

2012-01-10T21:09:00.002Z

PCMR Verdict: Understated, powerful film-making. This account of the AIDS pandemic in 1980's San Francisco is given from the perspective of those who, as the title suggests, were there.

The eyewitness accounts are eye-wateringly detailed, intensely personal and completely compelling. It's brilliant, and you should try and see it (if you can find it)!

PCMR Rating: 9/10

I first became aware of this documentary in a Mark Kermode Guardian article, entitled 'Hidden Gems of 2011'. (Which prompted two instant DVD purchases, and a third is on the way!)

As a piece of entertainment, 'We Were Here' hits its marks, in that it will bring a tear to the eye of the of the hardest heart, and a lump to the throat of the surliest soul. More than this, however, this film is also relevant in a number of other, possibly more important ways. It is in equal parts historical document, cultural relic, and cautionary tale. You might be a child of the 80's, but I'll wager good money you've not seen this story told from a similar perspective.

The film tells the story of the AIDS pandemic in 1980's San Francisco, told from the perspective of five people who were at the epicentre. Guy was - and still is - is a flower salesman in the Castro for the last 28 years. Eileen was a nurse in 'the 5A', a ward in San Francisco General Hospital where AIDS patients were treated. Paul is a political figure, trying to lobby for research and aid, while fighting propositions to quarantine and isolate sufferers. Ed is a gay man whose friends were dying, so he volunteered to help isolated sufferers, and ended up working in the 5A. And finally Daniel is a HIV/AIDS sufferer - still living with the disease - who lost many friends and, tragically, two long-term partners to the disease.

The stories begin with the rise of the gay community in bohemian, post-hippy San Francisco at the end of the 70's, with each person giving a separate account of how they ended up there, and what it meant to them to be part of it. The participants' words are interlaced with incredibly rich archive footage from the time, starting in the late 70's and working through the 80's.

The rise of the virus itself is particularly chilling, and the suddenness with which it spread is compared repeatedly and aptly, to a warzone situation. In 1982, people realised that something was out there, but by then it was already too late. Awareness of how it was transmitted, how to prevent it, and most importantly how to treat it did not develop until thousands had already died: more than 15,000 would eventually die. The symptoms of the disease were particularly horrific and sudden, with sores and lesions, and rapid wastage among the more viscerally visual signs of the virus's hold.

However, underpinning the historical relevance of this story is the personal accounts of the contributors. As their individual stories unfold and develop, gradually the different ways each of these people experienced the outbreak hits home. The choice of contributors is inspired, as they are all eloquent and likeable and, as their stories can coalesce and commingle, their different perspectives consistently inform the same coherent narrative.

Each story is so rich, I can't possibly do them justice in this format, but take one example. Eileen Glutzer was a nurse in ward 5A of San Francisco General Hospital, where hundreds of Aids sufferers were essentially given treatment which amounted to palliative care, and a place to die in peace. At a point in the pandemic where field research was desperately being conducted in the search for a cure, her role involved asking sufferers if they would donate their eyes after they died. As she puts it herself, not an easy question. Also, she would get to know these people, as they could remain on the wards for weeks or months before the virus took their lives. Really, I cannot imagine how difficult that job must have been. But as she says herself when describing a conversation with her mom, "I didn't choose this, it chose me."

Apart from the powerful stories of the personal tragedy associated with AIDS, the movie really focusses on the sense of community that began to develop at this time of great tragedy. Volunteers began offering their time to help isolated sufferers of the virus. Lesbians, traditionally no great friends of gay men, rallied in their support through blood donation drives and political lobbying. Artists collaborated and opened a store where people could buy products such as t-shirts to support local sufferers. (Interestingly, the original name suggested for this shop was 'Aidsmart'!)

The contributors' words are all their own, and their stories are uniquely powerful. The archive footage and photos that are cut with the stories are fascinating, and really get across the palpable sense of dreadful fear and terrible personal loss that were so pervasive at the time. And yet, the rallying of the community leaves the viewer with a sense of the possibility of people to survive, and rise above any tragic event.

You won't see a better documentary this year. Go buy it if you can.

References:

The Invention of Lying

2012-01-07T19:28:00.000Z

PCMR Verdict: Unashamedly intellectual, and admirable for being so, but it's not very funny.

Honestly, I might have chuckled only a couple of times, which is pretty unforgivable considering the cast of this movie.

PCMR Rating: 5/10

Love him or hate him, you have to admire Ricky Gervais' work ethic. The Office made him a household name, and the syndication will guarantee him financial rewards for the rest of his life, but since then, he's done a few successful stand-ups (Politics, Animals, Fame, Science), made Extras, another successful TV Series (which PCMR controversially prefers to The Office), developed a children's book called Flanimals, which will now also be made into a TV series. His record breaking podcast with regular collaborator Stephen Merchant and best mate Karl Pilkington has been made into an animated HBO Series, and spawned an excellent spin-off series called 'An Idiot Abroad'. And most lately Gervais' gleefully irreverent appearances as the host of the Golden Globes have copperfastened his global celebrity status.

Somehow, with all of this going on, Gervais has also managed to make a couple of Hollywood movies. Now, not all comics can survive the jump to the big screen, so this is a bold move for Rick. The most obvious comparisons to draw from his foray would be with the attempts of Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock. Although this duo have enjoyed huge success on television and on stage, their Hollywood careers are not exactly glittering, so the expectations for Ricky are probably not too high.

Low expectations or not, Gervais' first attempt at a Hollywood movie is a bit of a mess. The premise is so straight-forward, it could apply to a Jim Carrey vehicle: it can be easily Hollywood Pitched in the gravelly trailer man voice. Just like this. (Ahem).

In a world.
Where everyone tells the truth.
One man.
Has just invented...
The LIE.
*cue hilarity*

The movie certainly starts out on those lines, but unexpectedly, in this lie-free, truth-only world, people don't just avoid lies, they constantly blurt out painful home truths about themselves and others. Indeed, in the opening scenes, Mark Bellison's (Gervais' character) first date with Jennifer Garner is punctuated by painfully honest observations on everything from masturbation to Gervais' slim chances of a second date.

However, after inventing the lie, Gervais suddenly finds himself in a world of gullible fools who will believe anything he says. Then, he finds that he can tell little white lies to make people feel better. Each of these revelations present their Bellison with different dilemmas.

Gervais' script diverges from the Hollywood premise rather sharply however, when he lies to his mother on her deathbed about the existence of heaven. Some doctors and nurses overhear, are amazed, and demand to hear more about the existence of this magical place. Bellison becomes an overnight celebrity, known for having a direct line to the 'man in the sky', and the movie enters a more philosophical act.

Gervais actually has a degree in philosophy, and the ideas in 'The Invention of Lying' are good ones. You can only admire his genuine attempts to make a smart movie, rather than opting for the easier, more lucrative Adam Sandler route. The only problem with his execution is that I sat down in front of this movie expecting a good laugh, and there isn't enough comedy to balance out the clever ideas. The movie can only be disappointing as a result.

I certainly admire Gervais' ambition with this movie. He recognises that he needs to do more than just be funny (which by itself ain't easy), that he needs to leave the audience with something to think about. The only problem with this movie is that the balance favours philosophy, and comedy is neglected as a result. So, next time, more comedy please Rick!

La Joven (The Young One)

2012-01-05T21:36:00.000Z

PCMR Verdict: Pre-dates 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and 'Lolita' by two years, but could conceivably have inspired both movies.

Bunuel's multi-layered tale sins and sinners touches a lot of raw nerves, but the theme of race must have been particularly controversial in 1960. It's 50 years old and still holds up, although it's arguably not an all-time classic.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

'La Joven' (aka 'The Young One') was made a full thirty years after l'Age d'Or, and is an entirely different kind of movie. For one, it is in English, one of only a couple of movies Bunuel ever shot in the language. For another, the surrealist influence is almost entirely absent, so at first glance Bunuel could appear to be making a 'studio picture', or taking a job for the paycheck.

On the surface, 'La Joven' is the story of Traver, a man on the run from a crime he claims he didn't commit, namely raping a white woman. It's important that the woman is white, because this is 1950's America, and Traver is black.

Traver stumbles upon a game reserve island operated by Miller, a grizzled bear of a man who would shoot intruders on sight, without requiring any prior knowledge of their character. But if the intruder was black, his trigger finger would no doubt get a little itchier. Miller's only companion on the island is young Evalyn, whose age is never revealed, but she is certainly no more than a child, perhaps thirteen years old. As the film begins, Evalyn's former guardian has just died, and Miller starts to notice how she is becoming a woman...

So Traver certainly arrives at a dramatic moment, but his arrival is the catalyst for a series of events that may end up revealing Miller's dark secret, and if Traver's own secret is revealed, it could mean his death.

On the surface, this is a straight-forward racially themed drama, but look a little deeper, and Bunuel's subversive themes are there as well. The hypocrisy of Miller's conduct is plain when we see how he treats Traver. In particular, his disdain for the crime Traver is accused of is in stark contrast to how he expects to get away with his own transgression.

The arrival of a reverend on the island is an interesting addition, and he certainly reveals who is the guiltier of the two men. "Let he who is without sin..." and all that.

The Young One isn't populated with many likeable characters, bar Traver. Played with relaxed charm by Bernie Hamilton, he's smooth, almost to the point of being a 60's cliché, but manages to retain his cool nonetheless. Miller is fundamentally a bit of a cunt, and is played well by Zachary Scott. Perhaps a little one-dimensional, he is at his best when he is broodily threatening, with either Evie or Traver on the receiving end of his menacing presence.

The best part of the film is the dialogue, especially when Traver and Miller are shooting the breeze. It's extremely well written, with hardly a wasted word, and each discussion revealing more about the characters. Bunuel's skill and influence here cannot be understated, as the dialogue is remarkably fresh for a fifty year old movie. Also, in Hollywood in 1960, there can't have been many Hollywood movies evangelising black characters and vilifying their white counterparts. In this context, the film is also subversive and enjoyable.

Unfortunately, where 'The Young One' falls down is in terms of this reviewer's expectations of the director. It's a million miles away from his initial movies of the 30's, and perhaps reflects the stage of life Bunuel was at when he made it. Exiled from Spain since the Spanish Civil War, he had been working in Hollywood and Mexico for some years, but he actually lived in Mexico, where he also made a lot of his movies. (I'm working on getting a copy of 'Los Olvidados', and will include it in this retrospective if I do get it)

So, in brief, it's a 'straight' Bunuel movie, and in English. Might be a good starting point for the Bunuel-curious out there, a gentle one to dip your toe into before starting into the Spanish surrealist stuff. I think I was a little disappointed by the Young One because it's the surrealist work what I'm looking forward to!

Next Bunuel review: The Exterminating Angel
(Sounds awesome! - Ed)

L'Age d'Or (The Golden Age)

2011-12-12T17:53:00.000Z

PCMR Verdict: Sensationalist, scandalising and surreal, Bunuel's second collaboration with Salvador Dali, and his first full-length feature picks up where Un Chien Andalou left off. It is more coherent and narrative-driven than it's predecessor, and perhaps hits more of its targets. Dali's early departure from production means that this picture better represents an example of Bunuel's work.

PCMR Rating: 7/10

When you slash an eyeball in the opening scene of your debut short film, there has to be a moment when you ask yourself: "where do I go from here?" Well, after 'Un Chien Andalou', Bunuel collaborated once more with fellow provocateur Salvador Dali to produce a full length feature named 'L'Age d'Or' that was so controversial upon its release, it was banned for more than 50 years. Not bad, eh? In any case, this was the last movie that Bunuel made before returning to Spain, and after sufficiently aggravating the fascist authorities there in a similar manner, he wisely decided on a move to Hollywood.

No stranger to controversy, Bunuel's eyeball-slash is followed here with a scene where the female lead fellates the toes of a statue of Venus... surreal and controversial all at the same time.

Dali and Bunuel fell out before this movie started shooting, and although Dali still has a writer's credit here, his influence would no doubt have been anarchic, reducing concern with such trivialities as story, narrative structure and rational explanation. Due to his absence from shooting, it's probably fair to describe l'Age d'Or as more of a representation of Bunuel's work than Dali's (although the toe-sucking scene certainly has a whiff of the painter's influence).

The movie is divided up into a series of vignettes, tied together with themes of class warfare, the madness of high society, the effects of sexual repression, and of course, attacks on organised religion. Surrealism is also liberally sprinkled throughout proceedings, so in Bunuel's world, we should not be surprised when we find a cow in the bedroom. Seriously. However, the surrealism is used more as a device to enhance the satire, so in other words, it's more 'Spitting Image' than 'Monty Python'.

The attacks on high society are more coherent and sustained. At a black-tie gathering a maid screams and falls through the kitchen doors as flames pour out behind her. The party continues uninterrupted. Outside in the courtyard, a child is unjustly shot dead. The party is momentarily interrupted, but carries on. Then, there is a sudden breach of decorum by one of the tuxedoed revellers, as he slaps a female guest across the cheek. Well, at this, the wealthy revellers, ever inward-looking, stop to express disgust, eject the miscreant, and console the dejected victim.

While the party continues, a consistently interrupted, star-crossed couple illicitly meet in the garden, where the infamous statue-toe-sucking scene takes place. More disturbing for me though, is where the pair suck on each other's fingers, and his fingers disappear. In a subsequent scene, the girl's face is clearly being stroked by a fingerless hand, and it is not a special effect. Is this Bunuel warning of the results of sexual repression? Earlier in the movie, after the couple were found kissing and forcibly separated for the first time, the guy begins expressing violence towards random passers-by, in one instance knocking down a blind man. This appears to a clearer warning of the effects of sexual repression on men, and it's clear why a message of this kind would be seen as controversial and corrupting by the religious authorities.

However, the religious authorities themselves make a couple of cameos too, but their presence is more satire than surreal: a bishop plays fiddle in the band at the party attended by the high society. In the beginning of the movie, we see four bishops - possibly cardinals? - mumbling in prayer until they rot into skeletons. Another bishop is thrown from a second floor window, although we see him walking away. Bunuel's message to the church is not a positive one.

I have to say, although it certainly has it's moments of unusual imagery, the movie is not as visually arresting as 'Un Chien Andalou'. Perhaps credit is due to the brilliant madness of Dali for some of that. That aside though, I love the irreverance of Bunuel, and his open challenges to high society and the religious establishment are compelling. In this, his satire and surrealism is not simply unfocussed and defying explanation: quite the contrary, it is rational and targeted.

Our own generation could probably confess to thinking that artistic scandal and controversy are somehow unique to us, but when you see this movie, made more than 80 years ago, that conception is instantly exploded.

L'age d'Or is available to watch on youtube here

Un Chien Andalou

2011-12-10T17:14:00.000Z

PCMR Verdict: Today, these first 15 minutes of Bunuel's cinematic career still have a big impact, but in 1929 - that's a full 82 years ago - Bunuel's surrealist handshake to the world of cinema must have been seismic. It's surreal and non-linear, and co-writer Salvador Dali stamps his presence on a number of scenes. It's confusing and strange, but is certainly memorable!

PCMR Rating: 7/10

It seems only proper to start this retrospective of Luis Bunuel at the beginning. In 1929, Luis Bunuel co-wrote 'Un Chien Andalou' - a.k.a. 'An Andalusian Dog' - with Spanish compatriot and surrealist artist Salvador Dali. The film is a short, at only 15 minutes, but it has certainly had a lasting impact.

It would be unfair to call it incoherent, but the film is essentially a collection of unrelated images. While making the movie Dali and Bunuel challenged themselves to not provide any rational explanation for the images presented on screen.

It's tempting to believe that controversial art has only existed in our own generation, but in the first few seconds of this film, Bunuel explodes that conceit, and slashes a woman's eyeball with a cut-throat razor. In reality, the eyeball belonged to a calf, but the effect is startling. Dali's imagery is also prevalent: one of the main characters' hands is crawling with ants.

The soundtrack is Richard Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, and is also memorably jaunty, providing a light counterbalance to the strangely dark imagery on screen. An amazing foot-note is that Bunuel himself played the score live at the movie's premiere in Paris in 1929!

This fiteen minutes features sex, death and a death's head moth, which you might recognise from 'Silence of the Lambs'. The surrealist imagery is jarring and disjointed at times, but the film is never dull, and always visually interesting. It's mind-blowing to think that it was made more than 80 years ago. If the rest of Bunuel's work is half as interesting as this, then this retrospective should be an interesting trip!

You can watch 'Un Chien Andalou' on youtube here.

Director Series: Luis Bunuel

2011-12-10T14:47:00.006Z

In a bit of a departure from the usual reviews, for the next few posts I'm going to work my way through a set of movies directed by Luis Bunuel. I'll confess to owning a box set of his movies for around four years, and only ever watching one of them (which I reviewed way back in 2007!), so this will be education for me, and hopefully I can recommend the ones worth watching.

If you're unfamiliar with Bunuel or his work, he's probably one of the most influential directors in movie history, but certainly the most celebrated Spanish movie director of all time. In his very early career, his surrealist inflences led him to work with Salvador Dali on the notorious short surrealist film 'Un Chien Andalou' ('An Andalusian Dog'). Staggeringly, made in 1929, this short film announced Bunuel's arrival, and includes a sequence involving a razorblade and an eyeball that might still make headlines were it included in a movie released today.

The surrealist influence continued throughout his career, and I should probably confess up-front to being a big fan of Salvador Dali and surrealist art. When surrealism is done well, as with a lot of Bunuel and Dali's work, it can challenge and excite audiences, and make even the most formulaic piece of drama suddenly seem subversive.

Bunuel's later career had this subversive surrealism, and he was renowned for his perceived attacks on organised religion, which put him at odds with the fascist establishment in Spain, and ultimately led to him leaving the country. As a result, many of his movies were made in France, and are in the French language. Perhaps his best known, Belle De Jour is a great representation of this wilful subversive cinema, and I'll certainly be including that.

This should be the ideal project for the Christmas holidays and early new year, so I hope you enjoy these movies as much as I'm going to!

Here's the complete list of Bunuel movies I'll be watching and reviewing:
Un Chien Andalou
L'Age d'Or
La Joven (The Young One)
The Exterminating Angel
The Diary of a Chambermaid
Belle de Jour
The Milky Way
Tristana
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (here's my previous review)
The Phantom of Liberty
That Obscure Object of Desire

My Week With Marilyn

2011-12-06T21:27:00.005Z

PCMR Verdict: Light entertainment of a pretty high standard, someday this movie will make a great accompaniment to a Christmas Day nap. Michelle Williams is very good, Kenneth Branagh is great. It's nicely put together and the time flies, but it may flatter to deceive.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

A lot of popular entertainment is about impressions, and if you were unlucky enough to spend an odd Saturday evening watching ITV in the 90's, you probably remember one example. You see, before the polished, cosmopolitan 'X-Factor' vomited onto our screens, the telly-watching public were subjected to comparatively less cultured 'Stars in their Eyes', featuring Matthew Kelly, a dressing-up box, and a karaoke machine. "Tonight, Matthew", they would say, "I will be... Kiki... DEE!". And then lo and behold, through the magic of telly they transform, and in fact often do bear a resemblance to their celebrity chum... until they start singing anyway.

What 'Stars' demonstrated week after week was that, once the uncanny resemblance is out of the way, there has to be something more, something new and idiosyncratic that the impersonator brings to the party. Without that certain something extra, the impression falls a bit flat, and we're reminded of the dressing-up box.

In 'My Week With Marilyn', Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh are in full impersonation mode, to tell the true story of a certain Colin Clark's encounter with the world's most famous actress. The film is set in Pinewood Studios in 1957, and narrated by Clark, who is played very competently by the unfeasibly youthful looking Eddie Redmayne.

In 1957, Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) is already a household name, and is shooting 'The Prince and the Showgirl' at Pinewood with Laurence Olivier (Branagh). It's Clark's first job, as a 'third' or 'third assistant director' (essentially a go-fer), and as the movie begins we see him leaving home to make his own way, starting from humble beginnings, yadda yadda yadda.

Monroe and Olivier conflicted on set for many reasons. For one, Marilyn was a movie star, and Olivier was an ac-tor, which you can't pronounce correctly without saying 'darling' afterwards. Ironically, each coveted what the other had: and this is the driving theme of the movie. Olivier wants to be a star, Marilyn wants to be respected, and Clark wants to bask in their reflected glory.

Williams' Marilyn is insecure on set, requiring constant reassurance that she belongs. Off-set, her marriage to third husband Arthur Miller appears to be rocky and, after Miller leaves the set to return to the United States, a lonely Marilyn seeks solace in the uncomplicated company of the innocent local named Colin. (Wait, Marilyn Monroe had a fling with a guy called 'Colin'? - Ed) In Marilyn's eyes, Clark is uncorrupted by the movie industry, and this innocence appeals to her (more coveting? - Ed).

This relationship is effectively the core of the movie, and to a large extend the two complement each other pretty well. Williams does a fine job as Marilyn, but although Redmayne does an ok job, his character is perhaps a little too clean-cut, homogenized to the point where he's a little dull.

As rounded and capable as Williams' performance is, Branagh's Olivier is more fun, a sweary, bombastic alternative to the romantic flippencies of Marilyn and Colin. Branagh's is more of a supporting role however, and although he's not in the film nearly as much as Williams or Redmayne, he steals a lot of his scenes. Judi Dench provides further gravitas, and the very capable Emma Watson even throws in a nice turn.

The thing is, it's all rather nice, but unfortunately, much like Colin himself, it's a little bit throwaway (er, spoiler alert? - Ed). The story is enjoyable because it's true, so it works as a historical document, but the theme of 'be careful what you wish for' is pretty lightweight. Also, although Williams' Marilyn is very good, her performance never really elevates beyond faithful impersonation for me, which contrasts with Branagh's breezy take on Olivier. So, some good performances, but if you think that this is heavyweight, Oscar-worthy drama, then PCMR thinks you may have the wrong impression.

Take Shelter

2011-12-04T12:57:00.000Z

PCMR Verdict: Fraught, atmospheric, layered story of a man's mental disintegration. Remarkable performances from Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain.

Undeniably quality for me, but the mental illness angle is a tough sell, and my 'atmospheric' could be your 'a bit dull'.

PCMR Rating: 7.5/10

'Take Shelter' tells the story of Curtis (played by Shannon), who is very much an everyman as the movie kicks off. He has a beautiful wife, Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and a young daughter, he works for a paycheck, and he lives in an unnamed part of suburbia, USA. His buddy on the job is his drinking buddy off of it, and, outwardly at least, everything is going fine for Curtis.

Until the dreams start. Curtis begins dreaming about a storm, or at least an awful event on the horizon. His dreams quickly escalate in severity, and before long they begin having an impact on his waking life. Curtis's worries about whether he is going crazy are escalated by his Mom's story. She was committed to permanent care for schizophrenia in her early thirties: Curtis is also in his early thirties.

After the dreams begin, some of Curtis' initial decision-making is not great. He talks to his doctor, who recommends he see a psychiatrist. Curtis initially baulks at the idea, but soon goes to see a counsellor instead. Meanwhile, however, he leaves his wife in the dark, partially out of embarrassment, but she very quickly picks up on the fact that something is wrong.

This is a layered story, and is not just about a man dealing with his apparent onset of a medical condition. It's a story of the fragility of relationships, and how even subtle changes in the ones we love can cause untold damage. Curtis's mental breakdown isn't dramatic, at least not until the third act, it's more about subtle changes in Curtis' behaviour, barely perceived by strangers, but keenly felt by those closest to him: his wife, his brother, his buddy at work.

At it's core it's a psychological drama, but Take Shelter plays with some of the same tropes of the home invasion horror genre, especially in the dream sequences. Michael Haneke's 'Funny Games' is called to mind when Curtis dreams of standing in front of his wife in his kitchen, shaking his head as she reaches for a carving knife. The payoff of the dream is unimportant: the moment of dread is simple, evocative and powerful.

Shannon's performance here is really remarkable, and - one shouty Pacino-esque scene aside - for the majority of the movie, he is portraying a slow, gradual escalation of an inner struggle, without an awful lot of dialogue. His unconventional face and the intensity of his turn may invite comparisons to Christopher Walken, but that's only a measure of how good he is here. One scene in particular, where his brother attempts to intervene, is particularly memorable.

The unique atmosphere is a slow-burn though, and this might put some people off. Is the movie delicately building tension? Or is it a bit dull and baggy in parts? In this reviewer's mind, it's the former, although discussions were had after the screening I was at: perhaps not everyone will agree with me!

Take Shelter is unique in terms of its atmosphere, and also in its ambiguous conclusion, which leaves the viewer with something of a challenge. I enjoy this kind of ending as it prompts discussion, but it might annoy some viewers.

All that in mind, PCMR reckons this one is worth a look for Shannon's performance alone. Chastain, also, is showing some pretty serious chops of late, and is a very hot Hollywood property indeed. On the basis of this performance, it's no surprise: she's also really very good. Considering all of the above, and also considering the theme of mental illness, it's a high rating, but a qualified recommendation from me.

Le Gamin au Vélo (The Kid With a Bike)

2011-11-30T19:07:00.006Z

PCMR Verdict: Uncomplicated, entertaining character study of an underdog kid who struggles to find his path.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

Conversational filler makes the world go round, especially in Ireland. Consider the sentence "this is it": a classic piece of conversational grout, plugging an occasional silent (potentially awkward) moment in an otherwise pleasant chat about the weather. Example: Paddy Irishman, chewing on a spud, addresses you with the gambit: "The weather's taken a turn today, hasn't it?". The correct response - "Ah, sure this is it." - is polite and deferential, will be appreciated by Paddy, and is more of a social convention than the Incorrect Responses, which include "what? who are you?", stony silence or a bitch-slap, among others.

The point here is that, although on the surface you appear to be saying very little to Paddy, what you are giving him is a familiar social convention to take the edge off a potentially awkward interaction with a stranger. Maddening as it can be to hear this phrase too often, it's providing tiny doses of social anaesthetic in this country, administered many thousands of times a day.

'Le Gamin au Vélo' is similarly deceptive. On the surface, it's a plain, slice-of-life movie, but layered into it there is real depth, subtly delivered. The relevance of this movie is in the characters' reactions to difficult events, and how we learn more about them as a result. Which, you could say, is just like real life really. But sure this is it.

PCMR has banged the drum for subtitled movies in the past, and often defended them against any number of claims from people who "wouldn't watch a subtitled movie". Top of the list of reasons for this wilful ignorance is a perception that French movies are intellectual: this is a generalisation I find difficult to understand, and 'Le Gamin au Vélo' is an example of why. If it is intellectual, it hides it under a bushel, and this makes it a likeable film.

The movie is a window into the life of a kid going through a difficult adjustment. The Kid of the title is Cyril (Thomas Doret), an orphan. As the movie begins, he's in a home, acting up a bit, and is struggling to come to terms with his father running out on him. He's fostered by Samantha (Cécile de France), who bonds with him when she finds his bike, which his deadbeat Dad had previously sold. She takes him out of the home at weekends to her own home, and he gradually gets to know the other boys in the local neighbourhood. As he starts to fall in with the wrong crowd, Samantha tries to protect him, but will she succeed, or will he go totally off the rails?

Gradually, we get an idea of Cyril's character, and how he might turn out at the end of all this. His story is not particularly epic or unusual, but it is realistic and believable, and you can't help but root for him. The kid himself (Doret) is brilliant, simply for not having any affectations, and for providing a totally realistic performance of an enigmatic, testy pre-teen.

If you are to look under the surface, 'Le Gamin au Vélo' is about Cyril becoming aware that he can choose a path. Although initially he's a victim of his father's weakness, he slowly learns, thanks in no small part to an act of kindness, that his choices can play a big part in his own fate.

I will confess to not being on familiar terms with the Dardenne Brothers' other work, although on this evidence, I would definitely watch out for them again. Be clear though folks, don't prepare for explosions or car chases, this is very uncomplicated drama. So, although the rating isn't too high for this one, I would give it a guarded recommendation, perhaps for a DVD night in. If I'm brutally honest, it might be more of a one for the movie buffs really. But sure this is it.

Voyez Comme Ils Dansent (See How They Dance)

2011-11-29T19:09:00.005Z

PCMR Verdict: It's called 'See How They Dance', but PCMR recommends you avert your eyes, and avoid spending two hours in this kind of company.

PCMR Rating: 3/10

Life can't be easy for people who are easily offended. Just imagine being shocked by the simple fact of someone on TV swearing before nine o'clock in the evening. Mind-boggling, really. It's tough to imagine how life's actual hard knocks will impact on people so sensitive. After all, things could be an awful lot worse. For example, only last week PCMR heard one of the kids totally drop the c-bomb on 'DeGrassi'. He didn't even prefix it with a "no offence, but.." or anything! Which of course, would have made it totally fine, because as everyone knows, using that prefix means you can say anything you like to anyone and they aren't allowed to get offended. (Well, duh! - Ed)

The thing is, if you blog regularly, the state of being offended is a useful maguffin, even if it is, let's say, artificially enhanced for creative purposes. PCMR may have even employed such a device on this blog over the years, but recently I've realised that the habit of being offended is something I'd like to try and kick. The thing is, when you're offended by something, where do you go from there? Folks, the journey from measured critic to air-wasting troll starts with one angry review.

So, with this alarmingly grown-up resolution in mind, I'll not get too worked up about 'Voyez Comme Ils Dansent', which I should first point out, is completely and unreservedly terrible.

This meandering fluff tells the story (arguably) of a famous performance artist and total douchebag named Vic (already annoying - Ed), and the two women who love him. First, he (James Thiérée) has an affair with his doctor, Alex (Maya Sansa), and divorces his wife Lise (Marina Hands). Then, he emigrates to a remote part of Canada to be with Alex, where he subsequently does something even more douchey to her, which, according to the house rules, I would spoil by telling you about. Considering how bad this movie is, I seriously doubt that, but rules is rules.

So, Lise then somehow contrives to travel across Canada by train, and, lo and behold, her train ends up delayed in Alex's remote tiny village, and she urgently needs a doctor! I know, right? How mad is that? That Lise ends up moving in with Alex for Christmas is probably a low watermark for the bonkers twists and turns that this movie takes. The plot feels improvised and haphazard at best, as if the director would prefer to forget about such trivialities as story structure (pfft!) and get on with filming the Canadian countryside instead.

Given that Vic himself is such a douchebag, it is difficult to sympathise with the two women who fell in love with him. His wife Lise doesn't have too much character to speak of until she gets divorced, whereupon she somehow engineers a work project in Canada. Humm. Her train journey from one side of the country to the other involves carrying a movie camera and smoking the occasional joint. She's complicated like that, you know?

The conceit of her contrived meeting with Dr. Alex is my biggest problem with this movie. The thing is, without it, the film would be dead in the water after about half an hour, and though it pains PCMR to say it, that would improve this film immensely.

Alex (Maya Sansa) probably comes out best from this movie, as she's a more likeable character than Lise, and clearly has better boobs. Director Claude Miller gives us a peek at both female characters' breasts, with both shots comically gratuitous in the style of a lot of French yoghurt and cheese adverts. (Although perhaps Alex needed to go for a naked swim in the lake, and I'm just being cynical). As if to redress the balance of gratuitous nudity before the end of the movie though, we also get a male full-frontal shot, with Vic's junk also put up there on-screen for us, all arty and challenging like.

On the positive side, there are some nice location shots of Canada.

It's pretentious, and a lot of old nonsense, and Maya Sansa is the only one who might come out of it without terminal career damage. 'Voyent Comme Ils Dansent' even has an annoying title!

So avoid this one if you can, but if you do happen to catch it, PCMR asks you to try and imagine the opening credits start with the words: "no offence, but..."

Moneyball

2011-11-28T18:35:00.010Z

PCMR Verdict: A solid, blue-chip Hollywood product, that somehow never quite reaches the sum of its parts.

PCMR Rating: 6.5/10

Police procedurals are a well-trodden path for movie writers, with some of PCMR's favourite movies unashamedly in the genre. The French Connection, Fargo, L.A. Confidential and Zodiac all earn credibility from their portrayal of policemen at work, and all would be seriously diminished without it. But procedural dramas aren't limited to the cops and the detectives, oh my no. Audiences like watching lawyers too, and politicians and the military, especially once they're played by Hollywood actors with craggy faces and zippy lines, or their veneers and their boobs and their sexy uniforms.. (Steady! - Ed)

Aaron Sorkin is a grand-master of the sexy procedural drama, essentially getting under the covers of a profession for a story, populating it with attractive characters, and penning fizzy, dialogue-driven scenes between them, generally involving dense professional discussions loaded with innuendo and doublespeak. 'The West Wing' should need no introduction (sexy politicians), but also on his CV is 'A Few Good Men' (sexy lawyers, sexy military), the ill-fated-but-very-good 'Studio 60' (sexy TV producers) and most recently 'The Social Network' (sexy, er, programmers?).

As Mark Kermode put it in his typically succinct terms, 'The Social Network' was about as entertaining as a movie about a bunch of men in offices arguing about copyright could be. Harsh perhaps, as the Social Network was a very good movie, but Kermode nailed the fact that when he took on 'The Social Network', Sorkin took the procedural drama to precarious places, and wrote a Business Procedural. He came out the other side of that unscathed, but the question with 'Moneyball' is: can Sorkin make the world of baseball interesting and sexy, and resist falling into cliché?

Well, no book is unfilmable, but Moneyball must have been a real challenge, even for Sorkon. Adapted from the Michael Lewis's book, it tells the story of Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics baseball franchise, and how they introduced statistical analysis to baseball in 2002, in order to better evaluate players... and Brad Pitt's in it! (Phew, nearly lost me there! - Ed)

The interest in a story like this lies in the fact that Beane achieved amazing success against the odds on a shoestring, and radically changed the sport he loved in the space of a single season, by taking a big chance on using these statistical techniques pioneered by Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill). You don't necessarily need to love baseball - or statistics - to enjoy watching this story unfold, in what is an extremely solid package of a movie.

On the package: director Bennett Miller is formerly responsible for Capote, Stephen Zaillian also worked on the script with Sorkin, and his last gig was American Gangster. Brad Pitt - looking more like Robert Redford every day - is good in the lead, ably supported by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Wright and Jonah Hill, and the Cinematography is by a certain Wally Pfister. Now this last detail might not seem that important, but let me tell you: this movie looks beautiful, and Pfister takes a lot of the credit for that, just as he did for much of the look of Chris Nolan's Batman movies.

Unfortunately, despite the presence of all these heavyweights, Moneyball never really enters the stratosphere for me. It's entertaining, sure, and the story is great. Pitt is very solid in the lead, and delivers his acres of dialogue capably enough, as we know he can. In particular his scenes with his young daughter, and with the unrecognisable team manager Hoffman, are good, but Jonah Hill was a little wooden for me. The story is the real star, but the movie also looks just amazing, so it is never a chore to watch.

At just over two hours, it's quite long, but the time never really drags. It would be harsh to describe it as 'about as entertaining as a movie about men introducing statistics to baseball can be', but I'm afraid some element of that is true. To its credit, it never lags into lazy sporting cliché, but does suffer from being a little, well, dull.

If you're a fan of baseball, or lived through the story and watched it happen, you'll probably love Moneyball. If on the other hand, like me, you're a fan of sport, or management, you'll probably just like it, maybe even a lot. If this had been a similar story, but set against the backdrop of the football world cup of 2002 for example ('Saipan - The Movie!' Yes! - Ed), I might have been a bit more invested, but it just didn't grab me. Dunphy would say "no, Bill, no, it's a good movie, not a great one."

Poupoupidou (Nobody Else But You)

2011-11-26T13:26:00.009Z

PCMR Verdict: Suspicious suicide is investigated by a novelist in a wintry setting in this decent noir drama. Features a very creative cheese advert.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

Some icons are built to last. Their impact is so far-reaching, their stars shine so brightly, that they live on long after they've stopped working, after their death even. Marilyn Monroe is one such mega-star, and somewhat improbably, she is enjoying something of a mini-resurgence on cinema screens of late. To some acclaim, Michelle Williams is currently filling the shoes of the original sex symbol in 'My Week With Marilyn', and here, in Gérald Hustache-Mathieu's noir drama 'Poupoupidou', Sophie Quinton's character channels Marilyn to create a persona, and just might believe herself to be Marilyn reincarnate.

'Poupoupidou' is a slow-burning noir drama, and tells the story of the apparent suicide of local starlet Candice Lecoeur (played by Sophie Quinton). The story begins with novelist David Rousseau returning to Mouthe (pronounced mooth) - his rural home town on the Franco-Swiss border - to hear a reading of a will. Rousseau is prompted to investigate Lecoeur's death, after her snow-covered body is found clutching a pill bottle in the no-mans-land between the French and Swiss borders, and he slowly becomes tangled up in a web of intrigue, corruption and the desire to find out the truth about what really happened to Candice.

The lead character Rousseau is likeably played with a touch of humour by Jean-Paul Rouve, who sports a salt and pepper beard in this movie and bears an uncanny resemblance to Tommy Tiernan. There is a fair dose of dry humour in a lot of Rousseau's dialogue with the residents of Mouthe as he learns more and more about the demise of Candice. There is also humour in Candice's rise to fame, such as the cheese advert that launches her career, which is a genuinely funny sequence.

Rousseau gets his hands on Candice's diaries, and through the diaries we learn the story of Candice's rise to fame. We learn early on that Candice Lecoeur is a stage name and apparently comes with a built-in blonde bombshell persona, assumed by local weather girl and aspiring actress Martine Langevin as she rises to fame (or local notoriety at least). Rousseau also gradually wins over local copper Bruno, who shares Rousseau's curiosity, and worries about a cover-up.

Poupoupidou is a classic French polar: a noir police story involving corruption, intrigue and lots of twists and turns. The sure-footed script and generally likeable main characters mean it is a comfortable journey for the audience, and the unconventional setting mean it avoids too many clichés of the genre, until the third act at least, when the investigation comes to a head.

The wintry setting and dry, gentle sense of humour throughout prompted memories of Fargo for me, and although Poupoupidou never outright imitates the Coen Brothers' masterpiece, it is probably fair to say that it has taken some inspiration from it. This is a plus point for me.

Rouve is likeable company in the lead role, but Quinton is excellent as the fragile starlet who channels Marilyn Monroe for her ego, her confidence. Her story is nicely told through her own voice, and there is enough humour in the narrative to keep the tone from becoming too dark. Of note too is the prominent soundtrack, which features some off-beat contemporary choices a la Quentin Tarantino, but the music fits the mood of the movie, so it never jars.

On flaws, I've mentioned some clichés in the third act, but there is also a strange theme of mysticism in this movie, involving details such as repetitive numbers (the number 5 in particular), fate, and the reliving of past events that is never satisfactorily resolved for me, but that certainly adds an interesting element to Poupoupidou.

All in all, it's an enjoyable story, and despite its flaws, it's a neat movie that should hold your attention. Not a classic by any means, but a nice character-driven tale with enough personality and twists and turns to keep it a level above bog-standard fare.

Weekend

2011-11-23T21:14:00.006Z

PCMR Verdict: Not straight, but very forward, 'Weekend' is intense, intimate, tightly scripted and beautifully realised. Features two excellent central performances and tells the story of a single weekend that will change two lives.

PCMR Rating: 8.5/10

'Weekend' is the story of two guys who meet on a night out, sleep together, and spend an intimate weekend in each other's company. Russell is a quiet, unassuming, straight-acting lifeguard, while Glen is confident and extroverted, and although he is fully comfortable in his homosexual shoes (You can get gay shoes now? - Ed) he's perhaps not so happy in his professional life as an aspiring artist.

After waking up together the morning after a meeting in a night-club, they initially bond after an early exchange involving one of Glen's art projects, where he puts a tape recorder under Russell's nose and invites him to describe their more intimate moments from the night before.

This is a pretty intense form of ice-breaker, but it sets the tone for much of the exchanges between the two as the weekend progresses. Their chats cover a lot of personal ground in quick time: previous relationships, coming out, confidence, the desire to settle down, but all these discussions serve to ramp up the intimacy between the two, as they quickly learn about each other, and grow to realise that they might be genuinely compatible.

However, when Glen reveals that he is moving to the States on the Monday, the two men are faced with some difficult choices, especially as their meetings and discussions increase in their intensity, and they become closer. Gradually and inevitably, Monday morning begins to loom large between the two. Will Glen pluck up the courage to leave for the States to follow his dream, or will he stay and take a chance on this fledgeling relationship? Will Russell ask Glen to stay at the expense of his dream move, or risk losing the first man he has been genuinely intimate with? Whatever the outcome, the two men both gradually begin to realise that this will be a defining weekend for both of them.

What Andrew Haigh has crafted with the script of Weekend is a real achievement. These two characters are so finely nuanced that they are true and real, even in the brief time we spend with them. Cullen and New are both excellent, with Tom Cullen in particular providing an understated, but affecting performance that should comfortably provide a platform for a career. Chris New is also excellent though, and the portrayal of their gradually developing relationship is a credit to them both. In what is essentially a romantic drama, the success of the movie depends on their chemistry, and they certainly embody a completely credible couple, complete with fragility, fights and, well.. the physical side! It's all unashamedly up there on screen.

I'll be honest folks, I really loved this one, and heartily recommend it. I can only compare it to 'Lost In Translation' as a reference point, but this is a far braver, more honest piece of cinema, and genuinely deserves your attention. Two central performances of genuine courage and a tightly directed, beautifully realised script make this unmissable for PCMR. Trust me, it's going to win some awards.

La Guerre est Declarée (Declaration of War)

2011-11-22T21:07:00.005Z

PCMR Verdict: Intimate, affecting and entirely believable, France's official submission to next year's Oscars has a real chance of winning.

PCMR Rating: 7.5/10

Funny, you wait weeks for an intimate character driven portrait of an ill-fated couple, and two come along at once. (Hilarious - Ed) Purely by coincidence, PCMR has been to see 'Declaration of War' and 'Weekend' in the last few days, and they are a remarkable duo, companion pieces with more in common than might first appear. But anyway, more on 'Weekend' to follow, maybe tomorrow. First, 'La Guerre est Declarée'.

This film is the story of a couple whose only son (Adam) is diagnosed with cancer, but it's by no means a weepie, as from very early in the film, we learn that Adam pulls through. So, what does this leave us with? Well, interestingly, the movie becomes more about Roméo (Jérémie Elkaïm) and Juliette's (Valérie Donzelli) struggle to stay together. With knowledge of Adam's safety in the bank, we can concentrate on the two main protagonists, and whether they will be able to survive as a unit.

The film is also scripted by the pair, and directed by Donzelli, and it must be said, they are a remarkable duo. Their on-screen characters are very likeably played, if a little saccharine sweet while they fall in love in the first twenty minutes. However, while some of the early musical interludes might jar a little, they don't feel entirely out of place with the scenario. Their relationship forms the beating heart of this movie though, and they play off each other beautifully, gradually winning the audience round, and permitting forgiveness for the conceit of their characters' names!

Bringing a rather sudden end to the romantic beginnings, new baby Adam arrives on the scene, and all is not rosy in the garden from very early on. Parents beware, the quarter of an hour that gradually builds up to Adam's diagnosis is as genuinely affecting a movie sequence as PCMR can remember from any recent movie outing (and I'm only an uncle!).

And from there it becomes about coping, about managing, and about survival. As I said, the audience is blessed with the foreknowledge that the couple do not have, so we're in a privileged position, but as Roméo and Juliette soldier on, rising to every new challenge and facing up to every fresh heartbreaking piece of news, you are still right there with them. Their support networks too, play an important role in the movie, but really this is the story of Roméo and Juliette's struggle to survive.

If cinema is about escapism, then 'Declaration of War' will certainly transport you, placing you right in the middle of this young couple's lives as they battle with something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.

I can't recommend it highly enough for lovers of French film, or possibly even just for parents who need a reminder of how lucky they are. It's bordering on stereotypical, picture-postcard French in the opening twenty minutes as the two central characters tombent amoureuses... but kind of suits the mood and is perhaps intentional. Two excellent central performances make it very watchable, but an excellent narrative device elevates this story from a traditional weepie into entirely more interesting territory. PCMR's current front-runner for the Oscar nod next March.

Exit Through The Gift Shop

2011-10-31T12:31:00.008Z

PCMR Verdict: Stranger than fiction, this is an incredible tale of a man's journey through the world of street art, and how he transformed it forever.

PCMR Rating: 8/10

America has long been a fervent supporter of the culture of celebrity. Hollywood, with its fantastic promises of wealth beyond your dreams, a glamourous lifestyle, your name in lights, and a star in the walk of fame, this is the place above all that prizes the trappings of success, and unashamedly worships the successful individual. Remember when George Clooney was a fairly run-of-the-mill actor in ER, struggling to break into Hollywood movies? .. sometimes, with all the bright lights and facade of the entertainment business, it can be tough to remember a time when someone so iconic wasn't part of the glitterati.

It is strange to consider in the abstract, but celebrity culture is predicated on the fact that we reward individuals who entertain us, and when we find a Hollywood star we love, we reward them to a ludicrous degree. Movie actors especially are laughably overpaid, simply for providing us with a couple of hours of light entertainment once every couple of years. Here's a fact that might just ruin your day: Adam Sandler earned $50 million in 2010 for two movies: 'Just Go With It' and 'Jack and Jill'. Yup, 50 mill. And no, I didn't see them either.

Artists too, can enjoy this kind of incredible veneration for reaching the top of their game. Damien Hirst is another member of the 50 million club: in 2008, the asking price for his diamond-encrusted skull, entitled 'For The Love of God', was £50 million. In 2011, his work is a Red Hot Chilli Peppers album cover: he's a celebrity.

The thing is, when us mere mortals, inexpert and infrequent visitors to the artist's milieu, see stories of art like this, our instinctive reaction is to wonder: does the emperor actually have clothes on here? I mean, it's a nice looking skull, for sure. Ok, so he used diamonds worth $15 million to make it... but is that single act of artistic creativity worth a markup of £35 million to somebody? Really? And those animals cut in half, they're worth a fortune too? Really?

The achievements of artists are sometimes fanatically venerated, but these guys are often standing on the shoulders of giants, even copying shamelessly to the point of downright plagiarism, and this is one of the themes brilliantly explored by 'Exit Through the Gift Shop'.

Set against the backdrop of the world of street art, this documentary is surprising in its main target, given that initially it purports to be about the elusive, anonymous, but somehow eponymous street artist named Bansky. However, the documentary takes an excellent left turn early on, which I won't spoil, but I can at least tell you that it's not only about Banksy, and is all the better for it.

It's probably more fair to describe this documentary as the story of the film-maker, Thierry Guetta, and how his life changed once he started immersing himself in the world of street art, and ultimately came to know Banksy. There is an excellent sequence in the movie when Guetta shows Banksy the progress he has made on the documentary so far, and, tantalisingly, we get to see some of Guetta's original version of the documentary ourselves. The movie turns sharply after this point.

I can't say too much more at the risk of spoiling the experience for you, but if you have any interest in street art, the process of creativity, celebrity culture or the machine of consumerism, then you will find something to like in this documentary. I can't remember enjoying a documentary more, possibly since 'The King of Kong'. Unconditional recommendation from me.

Links:
The 40 Highest paid stars in Hollywood
Damien Hirst
Banksy's brilliant subversion of The Simpsons opening credits

The Beaver

2011-10-23T20:23:00.009Z

PCMR Verdict: Hits its marks, and disappointingly manages to not be terrible. Knowing, off-beat, and featuring a solid central performance from Gibson, 'The Beaver' is a little bleak, and perhaps not quite as smart as it would like to be.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

PCMR has a well-honed sense of schadenfreude constantly at the ready, and so was really looking forward to watching 'The Beaver'. You see, in the last few weeks especially, I've been spoiled with a half dozen above average movies, so some gleeful hand-rubbing and knowing giggles accompanied the opening credits of 'The Beaver', Mel's first outing in front of the camera since 'Edge of Darkness' (No, I didn't see that either - Ed). Oh, did I mention that in this one, Mad Mel plays a manic depressive who speaks via a puppet? That's probably important...

So, with said schadenfreude in mind, I should also say that PCMR's Law of Movie Expectations is hard at work here. To explain, after seeing the bleak trailer, where a depressive Gibson voices his Beaver puppet with a mockney accent, I was cheerfully expecting a full-on car crash of a movie. The problem is, after seeing it, PCMR has to concede that 'The Beaver' is actually not completely awful. So, is it any good, or were my expectations just sufficiently low? Hmm, that's a more difficult question.

We don't need to dredge up Gibson's off-screen shenanigans again (google them - Ed), but safe to say, at the time The Beaver was shot, he wasn't exactly Hollywood's poster boy. However, PCMR has a feeling that all the negative stuff going on in Mel's life might have actually helped him portray this role of a manic depressive on the verge of jacking it all in: his performance is actually pretty good.

As the movie opens, Walter Black (Gibson) narrates a tale of woe. He's successful, with a beautiful house and a nice nuclear family, but is profoundly depressed, and just wants to sleep all the time. Black (ah, I see what they did there - Ed) has tried numerous therapies, but can't seem kick his middle-class first-world mid-life crisis.

At a low point, he finds a puppet in a skip (or as they're known in Hollywood, a dumpster) and picks it up on impulse. At an even lower point, Black begins to speak through the puppet, much to the initial horror of his family. Bizarrely though, it seems to give him a kick-start. The beaver is even a hit at the office, and his work life starts to pick up. His youngest son takes a shine to the beaver (ahem - Ed), and their relationship starts to improve as a result.

As the movie progresses, we also get to know Mel's wife, (Jodie Foster) and two sons (Anton Yelchin and another youngling). Yelchin's story in particular has parallels with his father's, as he sells ghost written essays for other kids in his high school. (Ah, communication problems, no voice of his own, eh? - Ed) Yelchin's character earnestly tries to avoid turning out like his apparently crazy dad, but as the movie progresses, his struggle seems more and more in vain.

These two narrative threads form the backbone of The Beaver. Mel's story is the more interesting of the two, and the first few beaver scenes are so bizarre, they're actually a little dark and knowingly comedic. Yelchin's story is relatively less satisfying, as it revolves around the writing of a graduation speech, which is a pretty heavy-handed device (and what, the puppet isn't!? - Ed).

But you know what? Despite its failings, 'The Beaver' isn't terrible. Black senior's genuine depression is deftly set alongside Junior's normal teen difficulties, putting both in their proper perspective. Mel Gibson's capable performance makes his character gradually more likeable as the movie progresses and for the most part, I was morbidly curious to see how it would play out.

It gets good marks for script and crazy Mel's fragile, honest performance. There's a good narrative thread, and the story is reasonably well put together. Unfortunately, the device of the Beaver does get a little tiresome, and you might struggle to sympathise with this guy who is doing extremely well for himself, despite his first world problems. The device of the graduation speech is also a little laboured, but perhaps not as cheesy as it could have been.

PCMR cannot wholeheartedly recommend that you seek out The Beaver, but it's not a complete train wreck, which is actually a little disappointing really... For a movie about depression, it's about as entertaining as you might expect.

Tyrannosaur

2011-10-03T20:13:00.009Z

PCMR Verdict: Three brilliant performances underpin what is at times an uncomfortably intimate tale of a bond between two lost souls. It's hard-hitting and hardcore, but never exploitative. Stunningly, it's Considine's first film.

PCMR Rating: 7.5/10

When PCMR heard that Paddy Considine had gone and directed a feature film, interest was registered. Then, after seeing the trailer before Tinker Tailor last week, curiosity was aroused. (Careful now - Ed). But after learning that the man himself would be coming to the IFI to chat about the movie after a preview screening, well.. the camel's back and all that.

You see, since the heady days of Paddy Chayevsky (the Paddy C who penned the line "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more") there just aren't that many Paddy C's out there making movies. (I think he might be the only one - Ed) So I did feel obliged to show some support and be a bum in a seat. Solidarity. That's all I'm saying.

Well, not quite all, a few words about 'Tyrannnosaur' would be appropriate first I guess. Right, well, 'Tyrannosaur' is Paddy C's feature-length directorial debut, but it's based on his short film 'Dog Altogether' which won a BAFTA no less, so the boy's certainly got some chops. After the movie, it was no great surprise to learn however, that he started out in life as a photographer. He certainly retains the photographer's eye, as he really fills each frame.

In 'Tyrannosaur', Peter Mullan - who is so good in this, he should really have the official prefix 'the incredible' - plays Joseph, angry, working-class, and down on his luck. Joseph seems to eke out a kind of survival on his council estate, but is never too far from violence. Put it this way, in the opening scene of the movie he kills his own dog, and things go downhill from there for a while. (wow - Ed)

Olivia Colman, who you might recognise from the excellent BBC Series 'Peep Show' plays Hanna, a middle-class charity shop assistant, who has a comfortable life in the suburbs, and an apparently unshakeable religious faith. Their first meeting is fractious, but she offers to pray for him, and shows him some unquestioned warmth for what must be his first time in a while. Falteringly, their relationship starts to develop.

Until, that is, Hanna's husband James - played powerfully by Eddie Marsan - gets wind of things. Things get pretty hardcore for a while around this point, and suddenly the relationship between Hanna and Joseph becomes more essential for both of them.

This film is powerful, and not for the faint-hearted. Olivia Colman is surprisingly effective in what is really the lead role, and this is genuinely as far from Peep Show as you can get. Peter Mullan, too, is just awesome as the coiled spring who doesn't understand his own anger, but who somehow meets this woman at exactly the right moment in his life.

It's a love story, but not a traditional boy-meets-girl type of deal, oh dear lord no. Mullan and Coleman's real achievement is to effortlessly portray the growing bond between these two people that seems to be made of something more permanent, something that exists outside of the events in the movie. Considine said he wanted the two characters to be like old soldiers at the end of the movie, and in PCMR's humble view, he achieved that.

A gritty tale of domestic violence might not be up everyone's street, but I'd urge you to seek it out in the cinema if you can get an opportunity. 'Tyrannosaur' is tough viewing at times, but it is also beautiful and has real heart behind it. It's a good story, well played and well told, and is an sure-footed debut for Considine. Also, considering it was made for less than a million quid, your tenner will actually make an impact on its box-office, and hopefully mean that Paddy C will get another run at the director's chair.

In the Q&A after the screening, Paddy Considine had an entertaining little chat-cum-interview with Jim Sheridan, who appeared to have seen the movie for the first time. PCMR was a little over-awed to be in proximity to greatness, but certainly had the opportunity to notice that Sheridan seemed genuinely impressed with 'Tyrannosaur'. And let's be honest, who are we to argue with Jim Sheridan!?

'Tyrannosaur' is showing in the IFI this month, here's the trailer.

Drive

2011-10-02T17:17:00.007Z

PCMR Verdict: The form over content rule applies here: it looks and sounds great, but ultimately is hollow and forgettable.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

You don't need to watch the E! network (the exclamation mark isn't a typo by the way) and you don't need to follow Perez Hilton on twitter to be aware of a rising star by the name of Ryan Gosling. In their words: he's, like, so hot right now. Gosling is very much in demand: his chiselled features are brooding on loads of posters in your local cinema at the moment, as he's currently starring in no less than three Hollywood productions that are all on release right now.

PCMR should probably first point out that this apparently sudden rise probably started about four years ago, with Half-Nelson. That was a great movie by the way, and earned Gosling a surprise, but deserving Oscar nomination. It seemed then that Gosling's future was assured, but after making a couple more movies ('Fracture', 'Lars and the Real Girl') he went on hiatus for a while. Since last year though, he's back for real, and now seems determined to be in every movie that gets released.

The first of his current trio on release, 'Crazy, Stupid Love' appears to be an American re-imagining of 'Love, Actually', but with more nudity. And where there's nudity, PCMR isn't too far away, so watch this space for more on that one. (For your own information, Gosling is the one in the trailer who is asked if he is photoshopped).

The second - 'The Ides Of March' - is a worthy political thriller, written and directed by George Clooney. This is one that will probably make some Oscar waves, maybe even for Gosling himself, so again watch this space for a review pretty soon.

And the third is this one, which I've just seen so can happily fill you in right away.

'Drive' is a stylish heist drama with great looks, but perhaps not too much going on behind the eyes. Gosling plays an unnamed L.A. resident, who drives professionally for the movies by day, and for gangsters by night. Bryan Cranston (from Breaking Bad) plays the Whistler to Gosling's Blade, so to speak: he's somehow taken him under his wing to work in his auto shop (so make that three jobs - Ed), in a kind of a father figure type deal. And he has a limp. (Hence the Whistler thing).

Irene (Carey Mulligan) is Gosling's neighbour, and he strikes up a relationship with her and her kid, even though her husband is about to get out of prison. This risk taken by Gosling's character is the event that kicks the action into gear. Once Irene's husband gets out, he's quickly required to do one last heist job to clear some debts with some less than savoury characters, and the driver finds himself drawn in... What do you think happens folks, reckon it all goes well?

The dialogue in Drive is sparse, and Gosling's scenes in particular are often punctuated with long silences, or smiles. He does have an undeniable charisma, and although I gave all this the benefit of the doubt at first, it soon got a little trying. The point of all these silences was seemingly to demonstrate his calming influence on Irene, which I guess makes sense, and these scenes were undeniably pretty to look at, with a great electro soundtrack in the background. It's probably damning though, that the best scenes featuring Gosling and Mulligan were the ones without any dialogue.

When the bad men appear, and things turn a little violent, the change in tone is sudden, and the violence is shocking. There are only two or three scenes of real violence, but this is very bloody ultra-violence, almost harking to Tarantino, or his Japanese manga influences in certain moments (there's one moment featuring a bullet and a hammer that is unpleasant to say the least).

So, it's a love story crossed with a heist, and when the body count starts to build up, it gets a little ultra-violent, Tarantino-ish even... what's not to like? Well the thing is, there just doesn't seem to be a heart to the movie. Events play out with panache, and the action unfolds with style, but I never really found myself rooting for anybody. Gosling's character in particular, never really tries to win over the audience. He doesn't have a name, which is supposed to make him mysterious, but is a device that has been overused. He wears a jacket that has a scorpion on the back, but when something is trying so hard to be cool, isn't that uncool!? The few driving scenes are certainly done extremely well, and generally make Gosling look good, but that aside, he doesn't really have any good dialogue, which makes it very difficult to warm to the character.

I haven't read the book that this is based on, so it's very possible that the movie is faithful to the source material. Director Nicholas Winding Refn has a good eye and the film certainly looks great. The soundtrack is also achingly cool, featuring French female vocalists crooning over synthesizers as as Gosling guns his motor around the L.A. nightscapes, reminding the viewer of Michael Mann's Collateral, or Miami Vice perhaps.

The problem is, 'Drive' is pretty, but also a little vacant. I enjoyed watching it, but found it a little too self-conscious to earn a glowing recommendation. The love story aspect lacked chemistry and the violence was shockingly brutal, but the few driving scenes were great. On balance however, it's the lack of likeable characters that really makes Drive difficult to fall in love with.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2011-10-01T14:07:00.011Z

PCMR Verdict: Solid, well-scripted, well-acted. You'll like it a lot, but you mightn't love it.

PCMR Rating: 7.5/10

Tomas Alfredson's 'Let The Right One In' was an unexpected treat for PCMR a few years back: one of those unhyped quality movies that earn the 'sleeper hit' moniker. A sleeper hit is a successful film that the pundits didn't see coming. In other words, while bloggers and fanboys were busy generating buzz, via masses of column inches and blog posts about the tiniest pre-production details of the 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' movie, Tomas Alfredson made and released one of the best movies of 2008, with nary a blogger trumpeting its arrival. (Not before they'd been to see it, at least).

Part of what made 'Let The Right One In' so good was an inscrutable period setting, which made it difficult for the audience to pin down exactly where and when the film was set. Also, the colour palette he puts up on screen is striking in it's blandness, its austerity. Finally, his characters do not always speak their minds, leaving it up to the audience to figure out motivations and reasoning for themselves.

These characteristics are all part of the DNA of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy', the most recent adaptation of John Le Carré's spy thriller. Everything feels very 1970's London, although there are no orienting shots of Big Ben or subtitles on the screen to tell us this for certain. Even the scenes in flashback are not announced, with the device of a new pair of glasses for Gary Oldman's character - Smiley - subtly letting us know when we're in the past, and when we're looking at current events.

The catalyst for events in Tinker Tailor is the presence of a mole in the upper echelons of the British secret service. The alpha-male characters in the movie all have their own agendas to defend, and their actions are all open to interpretation. In the presence of so many potentially unreliable narrators, the audience are continually left guessing about who is telling the truth.

When a script and it's cast are as good as they are here, each interaction between the players becomes open to interpretation. The character actors here are all very capable, but also quite restrained, and to a man they are able to breathe real lives into their parts (Ooh, matron! - Ed)

Oldman plays against type as the understated Smiley, but he is ably supported by a supporting cast that can only be described as an embarassment of riches: John Hurt adds a touch of gravitas, Benedict Cumberbatch proves a striking presence, and Tom Hardy does a good turn, following on from his breakout role in Inception. Colin Firth and Mark Strong are effective as ever, as is Toby Jones - the poisoned dwarf - and the always solid Ciaran Hinds.

There's no doubting that Tinker Tailor is a very good movie. PCMR's reservations, reflected in my 7.5 rating, are mainly due to the movie's payoff sequence. The setup is excellent, tightly scripted and tense: there is a mole and here are all the players. By contrast, the payoff, where we identify the mole and see what happens next, fell a little flat for me.

That said, there is a lot to like, if not to love. It's a very solid trip to the flicks, and Tomas Alfredson's future is guaranteed.

The Guard

2011-09-26T20:23:00.014Z

PCMR Verdict:A sharp script, a fun story, and Gleeson is excellent in the lead role. This is the movie equivalent of going for a quiet pint, and then ending up on session.

PCMR Rating: 8/10

PCMR doesn't envy the label of 'character actor'. For men, this label represents the velvet rope division between the elite group of VIPs with jaws just square enough and appeal just sexy enough to be called leading men, and the rest of us. It has less to do with acting ability, more with how traditionally good looking you are. Steve Buscemi is a character actor: you know, the one in Fargo who was “kinda funny-lookin'.”

There can't be many such equivalents in other professions. PCMR struggles to imagine people being refused the role of team leader in the I.T. department because they're not handsome enough. “It's just that, we think of you more as the team leader's best friend. You know... helping with his character's exposition, without stealing the limelight.”

Despite his undoubted talent, and being in possession of that ephemeral quality of innate likeability, Brendan Gleeson has found himself in the character actor bracket throughout the higher-profile side of his career. In his Hollywood roles, he has dutifully provided exposition opportunities to leading actors in an impressive string of high profile productions such as 'Braveheart', 'Troy', 'A.I.', '28 Days Later' and, more recently, three of the Harry Potter movies. (Surely, there is no better nod to one's standing in the Acting Firmament than a recurring Potter role).

In Irish productions, by contrast, Gleeson's place on the billing is often more reflective of his abilities, and he has taken the lead in some fine movies to emerge from these shores in the last twenty years: 'I Went Down' and 'The General', among others.

In more recent years for Gleeson, Martin McDonagh's 'In Bruges' has upset this dichotomy, providing him with a lead role in an Irish movie that has deservedly enjoyed international recognition. Also, it seems a family dynasty was created with that movie, because McDonagh's brother, John Michael, is the man behind 'The Guard', and in PCMR's humble opinion, it is just as good a movie, even if it is an entirely different animal.

Gleeson plays Gerry Boyle, a small-town country copper with a penchant for Dublin whores, who finds himself embroiled in a drug-smuggling investigation so big that the FBI are interested. Don Cheadle is the imported FBI agent who finds himself dealing more and more with Boyle, and tellingly, he declares that he can't decide whether Boyle is “really smart, or really fuckin' dumb”. It's essentially a cops and robbers story, with the gangster contingent including the workaholic, omnipresent Mark Strong, as well as a couple of other, more familiar Irish bad buys, Liam Cunningham and David Wilmot (more character actors!).

It has to be said though, the story of the Guard plays second fiddle to the really excellent dialogue, which gives the characters... well, proper characters. The phrase 'inner life' probably best describes this by-product of good writing, where the actors have room to breathe around their lines, and the audience can enjoy guessing whether they're telling the truth, or leading someone up the garden path.

The excellent writing gives Gleeson all the material he needs to reminder us just how good he really is, and he's excellent in this. Cheadle does well in support, and the three gangsters (Strong, Cunningham and Wilmot in particular) all seem to be enjoying themselves, but Gleeson and McDonagh are the big winners here.

The Guard is punchy, witty film-making, and deserving of your attention. Gleeson is at his endearing, charismatic best, and if this doesn't get him bigger, better roles in Hollywood movies, then I'm not sure what will.

Source Code

2011-09-19T17:04:00.007Z

PCMR Verdict: Everything is iterative: particularly this tidy, enjoyable popcorn actioner that shouldn't disappoint.

PCMR Rating: 6.5/10

Louis C.K. has a great bit of material where he makes an observation that has a hint of genius about it: "everything is amazing nowadays, and nobody cares." Think of how apathetic we have become to so much modern technology that enables our lives: things like high-speed broadband, routine air travel and, er, high-speed broadband on planes. (Nice - Ed) Louis' point - or at least PCMR's take on Louis' point - is that technology itself isn't a problem: it's just that we're so bombarded with technological progress these days, apathy has become an understandable coping mechanism. ("Oh look, there's another new version of iTunes? ... meh...")

The lesson here: over-exposure to technology - even the awesome stuff - can engender mental fatigue. A case in point related to movies: CGI.

'Rise of The Planet of the Apes' demonstrated how the technology could be used, both for good and bad, but surely one man above all has become totally synonymous with the abuse of CGI, and caused mental anguish to thousands of over-25's the world over in the process. 'Bay Syndrome' effectively defines this apathy towards movie CGI: after the 47th massive explosion, the CGI might still be as awesome as the 46th, but I just don't care any more.

Happily, Michael Bay had no involvement in Source Code. Instead, a certain Duncan Jones has the reins for this, his sophomore flick. If you've not seen his first, the most excellent 'Moon', then dear reader, I encourage you to take a two hour break from reading this review, and go seek it out. As a convincer, among its many great qualities, 'Moon' features the best use of emoticons in movie history. (Competing with..? - Ed)

And this is one of the fundamental differences between Jones and Bay: understatement. Or, to put it another way, Jones understands the power of technology in movies, and how to use it sparingly, to greatest effect. Kevin Spacey's GERTY robot in Moon only has a small number of simple smiley faces to express his so-called 'feelings', but the device is chillingly effective: when GERTY's smile changes to a frown, the audience's mood shifts with it.

The writing credit for 'Source Code' goes to Ben Ripley, and interestingly, he seems to share this understated approach. From early on in the movie, the dialogue encourages us to forget about the technology that is enabling this crazily imaginative premise. Jake Gyllenhall is constantly told not to think, just to 'do'. The focus is more on people and details than on expensive gadgets or green-screen whizz-bangs..

On the premise: in a nutshell, Gyllenhaal is repeatedly reliving 8 minutes on a train as someone else, in order to prevent a terrorist attack. It's unashamedly borrowing from a number of influences (Quantum Leap, 24, Groundhog Day, 12 Monkeys) but somehow it nimbly avoids being overly derivative.

Much of the credit for this has to go to the skill with which Jones reshoots the 8 minute iterations, with subtle differences each time they re-play. Credit is also due to the likeability of his main players. As befits an action-hero role of the "what's happening to me?" genre, Gyllenhaal is suitably grizzled and Keanu-confused (is that a real word? - Ed) Also, Michelle Monaghan manages to somehow resist being annoying, even as she repeats a line for the 7th time. And Vera Farmiga (who you might remember from 'The Departed') is very well cast as Gyllenhaal's military guide, who just might be sympathetic to his plight.

The story itself is tidy and lean, and should keep you guessing throughout. And, as the final credits roll, PCMR was left with the enjoyable head-scratching moments that only a time-bending tale can deliver. (Triangle, Twelve Monkeys, Primer etc)

So, all in all, PCMR enjoyed this one, missed it in the cinema, but it's a quality DVD night in.

(Oh, and as a reward for making it to the end, here's that Louis CK link)

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

2011-09-16T20:22:00.009Z

PCMR Verdict: Four hands good, two hands bad (except John Lithgow). Overall, not bad, but falls a couple of branches short of greatness.

PCMR Rating: 5.5/10

PCMR doesn't just watch movies all day, oh no. For 40 hours a week I work the stony grey soil of software development, yoked to keyboard and mouse, engaged in all manner of dark arts.

PCMR understands that most people aren't really interested in what a programmer does for a living. Occasionally though, this wisdom temporarily escapes me, and I embark on a futile attempt to impart some technical information that's 'really interesting'... you can imagine how it goes. Oh, I know, I really do, but I foolishly feel the need to retest the waters every now and again: "surely this is remarkable!?" (It really very rarely is)

You see, techno-babble is complex information, like comedy: you either get it or you don't. For those that don't, you can always explain it... but at the risk of further tumbleweeds... and so it goes with technical stuff. No amount of "but don't you see? That's amazing!!" will convince someone who didn't immediately marvel at your new fart machine phone app.

And so it goes with 'Caesar Begins', aka Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I enjoyed much of the special effects, especially in the prison-break sequence, and the motion-capture performances of the apes is genuinely interesting: this I get.

In this part of the film, Andy Serkis ably demonstrates that computer generated (mo-cap) characters can act, and act well. Unfortunately though, the human actors don't fare so well.

James Franco plays an incredibly irresponsible, and thoroughly two-dimensional scientist. (The whole 'apes taking over the planet'? That's pretty much his thing). His girlfriend (Frieda Pinto) is unquestionably a girl, and also quite friendly, but she doesn't really contribute anything at all, except hotness, and one timely diversion in the third act. Franco's boss is a risible corporate caricature, with some truly awful dialogue. Brian Cox, too, is present, but without much purpose, and his henchmen (Bad Cop and Not So Bad Cop) also make up the human numbers.

The exception is John Lithgow, who gives an effective turn as Franco's father, an alzheimer's sufferer, and the catalyst for the ultimately unfortunate research.

In the final third, special effects dominate once again, but when the camera flies freely, either scaling trees Avatar-style, or flitting around the Golden Gate Bridge at impossible angles, these CGI illusions are far less absorbing than the mo-cap of the second act.

So, Lithgow apart, the apes carry this picture, especially in the middle third. The thing is, for PCMR, there are too many flaws in 'Apes: Episode I' for it to earn a glowing recommendation. It's perfectly fine, but it ain't great.

It should deservedly pick up some technical Oscars, and it certainly is a great technical achievement, but technical achievement alone cannot elevate this movie above the 'just alright' category.

Kill List

2011-09-13T17:18:00.015Z

PCMR Verdict: Whoa, Nelly! This sure ain't a date movie, but it does manage to be compelling, shattering and original, dark, evil and twisted all at the same time.

PCMR Rating: 8/10

At its best, cinema is transportation. The best stories quietly shift spectators from their surroundings, and, for a couple of hours at least, send them somewhere else entirely. Of course, this displacement is nothing but a pleasurable illusion, in which the audience is entirely complicit. Willing, even. However, even with a willing audience, this most delicate form of transit can be brutally derailed by any number of small missteps in script, dialogue or story.

Occasionally though, the magic is maintained right through to the end, and this makes a film more memorable. Seven, The Matrix and Twelve Monkeys all managed it for PCMR, but everyone has their own personal list of flicks that were fully and completely absorbing for themselves. As I emerged from the cinema blinking and disoriented after watching 'Kill List', I found myself enjoying the singular feeling of being completely blind-sided: Kill List has a genuine claim to join PCMR's list.

Director Ben Wheatley has divined a number of influences for this confounding horror/thriller/domestic cautionary tale, but has somehow packaged them together into something new and interesting. It's best described as a horror, but frankly and violently resists traditional pigeon-holing.

It begins quietly, with an up-close view of a family, with all its domestic tensions, from a perspective not unlike Mike Leigh's. A row at a dinner party quickly gives way to guns in the garage, however, and suddenly there is blood on the screen. All too quickly, there are eerie Michael Haneke-style undercurrents in play which unsettle and swerve, before the movie shifts gear into full blown bloody violence, horror, and ultimately, the jaw-dropping finale.

In less certain hands, these shifts in tone might seem sudden or jarring, and perhaps shatter the illusion, but somehow Wheatley keeps momentum and maintains a compelling pace.

Kill List won't be to everyone's taste: it is shockingly violent, from early on. One scene in particular still sticks in the mind (pardon the expression) and even if the recipient arguably deserved the treatment being meted out, I still found it tough going. But hey, it's a horror movie, and I was horrified, so I guess it was doing something right!

So, all in all, if you're made of stern stuff, and can handle horror in small doses, then I would recommend Kill List, albeit with the above reservations! It deserves a wider audience, which it probably won't get, sadly, but at least Wheatley should get a crack at a few more movies: should be a name to watch out for in future.

(Recommended viewing in a crowded cinema by the way, if only for the reaction to the final credits!)

Fright Night (2011)

2011-09-12T17:23:00.012Z

PCMR Verdict: Good fun, bring low expectations and you'll enjoy your popcorn.

PCMR Rating: 6/10

The 80's was something of a heyday for low-budget horror. PCMR spent many a happy evening in my tweens browsing the local Xtra-vision with a few buddies, trying to resolve the weekly debate of whether '976-Evil' was going to be better than 'Braindead', for example. We'd either choose by the cover alone or by trailers, neither of which was foolproof. (That said, the terrible ones were usually more memorable.) Before Arnie and all those dumb 80's actioners came on the scene, horror was very much the coolest section in the video store.

Despite all those evenings in the horror section, the original 'Fright Night' somehow passed me by. I was vaguely aware that it was a vampire movie though, and with Colin Farrell in the lead 'vampire next door' role. I was quietly hopeful he might play it with his own accent. (A Dublin vampire would be bleedin' sound, so it would!)

Before giving the skinny on Fright Night, let me just set out my vampire stall. Like most right-thinking people, PCMR is of the opinion that movie vampires should be a little bit more 'Lost Boys' than 'Twilight'. So, no, Edward, when you step into sunlight you don't become an emo discoball. The, reality (ahem) is that you burn. Horribly. I know this is true because I've seen Near Dark and The Lost Boys. And Salem's Lot. And er, The Monster Squad. It's the rules, and you can't just go re-writing this stuff. And as my final word on this whole unnecessary debate, I'd just like to point out that I live on the street where Bram Stoker wrote Dracula, so I win.

Happily, 'Fright Night' also subscribes to this old-school point of view, neatly ignoring the Stephanie Meyer (spit) 'vampire-as-emo-dreamboat' rulebook. The Fright Night vampire, thankfully, is a hungry, lecherous carnivore who will eat your mom if he's invited in. Colin Farrell plays the bad man without a hint of camping it up, which to his - and Fright Night's - credit.

Fright Night's teen hero is more than a little unlikeable, which means you're never quite sure if he's going to redeem himself, or get some of the just desserts treatment that's so often dished out in horror movies. Anton Yelchin plays it quite well, although the best the audience can hope for in this type of movie is that he's not annoying. (He's not). His hot girlfriend is also quite good (the amusingly named 'Imogen Poots'. Tee hee) and his mom is Toni Colette, who in Hollywood speak, is a banker. (Although not literally).

David Tennant also throws in a decent turn as a Russell Brand-ish Las Vegas Vampire Hunter, and sneakily gets a Hollywood movie under his belt, the wee pup. (And life after Doctor Who used to be so difficult). So a good cast then, and we haven't even got to McLovin yet.

All in all, Fright Night is a decent popcorn movie, and it manages to steer clear of enough vampire horror cliché to retain interest. The story rumbles along at a decent pace, with some decent twists and turns, but it's never really genuinely scary. The comedy's nicely played, and even though the plot has so many holes it's letting in an alarming amount of sunlight, the whole thing builds up to a satisfying finale.

So, all told, low expectations required, but it does the job.

That's all for now...

2008-02-19T19:01:00.005Z

Ah, springtime. Frosty mornings, longer evenings, and the promise of summer fast approaching... Unfortunately all this has an ominous feel when you have a dissertation to write by September! Time is precious between now and then folks, so you're going to have to make up your own minds about what to watch from now on, cos I'm hitting the pause button on the blog for a while. (Don't worry, I have every confidence you'll manage.)

If you've read any of the reviews here over the last year or so, thanks for stopping by.

Stay classy.

Sweeney Todd

2008-01-28T12:16:00.000Z

The verdict: A very likeable bloody musical with Tim Burton's unmistakeable signature, and two outstanding central performances.

The rating: 7/10

Oh great, so Johnny Depp can sing as well now? Way to make the rest of us all feel even more inadequate there Johnny. At least none of us were in 21 Jumpstreet though, eh!? Hehe, score one to Paddy... (Uh, yeah, that sure showed him... - Ed). Johnny's Keith faux Richards schtick has made him a household name, but in Sweeney Todd, he demonstrates a real ability to sing capably, while also appearing to do an impression of David Bowie..

To the marketing men, Tim Burton's musical horror may look like something of a risky undertaking. First, much of the dialogue is sung, by Depp, Bonham Carter, and even Alan Rickman.. The main risk however, would appear to be the gore factor, which is very high, especially by musical standards. However, this short-sighted view, although to be expected from movie marketeers, overlooks the fact that Steven Sondheim's musical has a great deal of success to its name, and more importantly, that audiences are far more willing to take risks with their cinematic input than they are often given credit for.

To keep the marketeers happy however, Depp is the most 'bankable' movie star of this decade, and the story is tailor-made for Tim Burton's shadowy eye. Ably assisted by Dante Ferretti (production design) and Dariusz Wolski (cinematography) the crew have put a darkly threatening, monochrome London on screen, where a pall of black smoke fills the sky and the grey concrete walls of mazy alleys encroach, and are filled with shadows.

This view of London fits with how Benjamin Barker (Depp) would see it, returning as he is to the city after fifteen years of foreign false imprisonment. His mission, as he makes clear right from the off, is to get revenge on the man who separated him from his wife and child. He rents a room over Mrs. Lovett's (Helena Bonham Carter) pie shop, and begins plotting a grisly revenge on the judge who wrongly convicted him. He insists he is no longer Benjamin Barker, and takes the name of Sweeney Todd, a name that Depp delivers with just the right dose of menace.

Once Todd is reunited with his trusty razors, its not long before the first splatters of blood hit the screen. However, Todd and Mrs. Lovett suddenly realise that they need to dispose of the body, but what with meat being so expensive these days, and what with Mrs. Lovett's pie shop doing such terrible business lately and all... perhaps you can see where this is going?

The simple story of revenge is played extremely well by Depp, with the setting and his pallor and performance evoking obvious memories of Edward Scissorhands, even if Sweeney Todd's character, and uses of his blades are entirely different. However, the extra layer of the story, the symbiotic business relationship between the barber and the pie shop, is a delicious satire on consumerism, and fits the mischievous mood of the piece perfectly.

The songs are undramatic, and these are not the razzamatazz musical numbers from 'Chicago' or 'Dreamgirls', not by any means. Generally, the songs are introspective, hushed numbers, where the characters quietly vocalise their thoughts, without pomp or ceremony, and this should placate those audience members who wouldn't normally go see a musical. Depp and Bonham Carter deliver the songs very capably however, and their two central performances are thoroughly deserving of any award nods they get. Of particular note is Bonham Carter's song of an imagined future together with Mr. Todd, where she pictures them travelling for a seaside holiday, a very funny moment.

This is a very professionally made, off-beat and likeable movie, and the two perfectly cast central performances are worth the admission price. The story features enough strong characters to hold the interest until the unconventional ending, and the mix of dark comedy and grisly action should keep even ardent anti-musicalists happy. It's well written, well performed, and has a real depth of production talent on show. What's not to like? Two thumbs up from PCMR.

No Country For Old Men

2008-01-20T20:47:00.000Z

The verdict: Fargo's Texan cousin, featuring less comedy, and a very very bad man. I may be a self-confessed Coen-head, but this is a thoroughly entertaining movie of genuine quality.

The rating: 8/10

Looking at the cast and crew involved in 'No Country For Old Men', you'd be forgiven for wondering just how good this movie could be... First, the Coen Brothers. They've been going through what by their standards would be called a bit of a lean spell lately, but that's only because their first eight movies were modern classics. ('Big Lebowski' and 'Fargo' are PCMR's personal favourites.) If the Coen's played football, they'd be Brazilians in the 70's: self-assured, accomplished, and at the top of their game. In more recent years however, much like the Brazilians, the Coens have inexplicably been finding it difficult to replicate former glories... (Cue gravel-throated trailer voice - Ed) Until now, that is.

Josh Brolin has the lead, and blow me down if he hasn't had a great twelve months. As if 'American Gangster' wasn't a big enough movie to be in, he had to go and work with the Coens as well, the big show off. (And if that wasn't enough, Oliver Stone has recently signed him up to play George Bush!) This is a far more interesting part for Brolin than his American Gangster role however, and he does admirably well, playing as he does the regular John, a cowboy named Moss, who stumbles across two million dollars in the desert wilderness.

Next we have Javier Bardem, who plays the remorseless Anton Chigurh. Regular readers may or may not remember, but last year, PCMR sang the praises of Bardem for his performance in 'Before Night Falls', and I reckon he's a genuine star on the rise. This guy is a proper actor, and has been working for many a year in Spanish language productions. The quirky 'Live Flesh' and the brilliantly melancholy 'El Mar Adentro' are recommended Bardem performances, but in an inspired piece of casting, Bardem plays the very very bad man in this movie, and to chilling effect. Bardem spends almost the entire movie in pursuit of Moss and the two million dollars.

And then there's Tommy Lee Jones, who by is hitting a real professional peak at this late stage of his career, with this movie, and an Oscar nomination for 'In the Valley of Elah' to boot. With a face more wrinkled than a prune in a hot bath, he is the grizzled Southern sheriff, a man named Ed Tom, and he provides the narration - and soul - of the movie.

The movie is essentially a pursuit, with Jones' sheriff monitoring the chase from a safe distance. Chigurh (Bardem) sweeps slowly through the southern countryside like an virus, never in a rush, but remorselessly killing pretty much everyone he comes into contact with. Of real note is an inspired scene in a remote gas station, where Bardem makes faintly threatening small-talk with the owner. Afer a few moments, it becomes chillingly evident that the sub-text to the conversation is whether or not Chigurh should kill this man, and his answers may help him survive. Bardem is frightening.

For appearance's sake, Roger Deakins provides the colour and light, as he does on all the Coen Brothers movies, and he manages to work on two scales, creating some truly memorable moments on the wide dusty Southern plains, and ensuring the walls close in around the audience in the tautly crafter indoor scenes. The moments in the chase where Bardem and Brolin are in close proximity to each other are also perfectly staged and paced to heighten the tension.

As for sheriff Ed Tom, well, as his heartfelt narration of the opening sequence explains, he remembers a time when a sheriff didn't even need to carry a gun. The encroachment of Chigurh's violent crimes 'ain't just one thing', but are part of a 'rising tide', a wind of change that seems to be sweeping simple men like him aside. As an aging law man, he feels ill equipped to fight this type of bad guy, but will he eventually catch up with Chigurh? If so, can he win the fight against this bad bad man?

Bardem is fantastically evil, and should win the best supporting actor Oscar this year if there's any justice (which of course there isn't - Ed). Brolin is also very good as the honest cowboy, understandably taking a risk that might put him and his wife (Kelly MacDonald) in danger, but might also set them up for life. Jones is the heart and soul of the movie, but 'No Country For Old Men' is so densely packed with memorable moments, idiosyncratic turns of phrase, beautifully framed images, it is as immersive as a movie can get.

Some may baulk at the 140 minute running time, but not I. The relatively sudden ending had its critics in the cinema I attended, but I took this as a clear indication that a second viewing is in order. Like so much of the Coen's best work, this movie deserves it.

A Mighty Heart

2008-01-17T21:18:00.000Z

The verdict: At times powerful, this movie tells a story worth hearing. Although flawed, it features an accomplished central performance from Angelina Jolie.

The rating: 6/10

A Mighty Heart tells the story of Daniel Pearl, an American journalist kidnapped in Karachi, and the efforts of his pregnant wife and the Pakistani authorities to find him. Daniel and Marianne Pearl (Angelina Jolie) reported from Afghanistan after September 11th 2001, and then moved to Karachi, Pakistan - a city with strong connections to the Taliban - when most foreign journalists had packed up and gone home.

With Marianne almost five months pregnant, the couple are also due to head to Dubai, but Daniel (Dan Futterman) has arranged a last meeting with a certain Sheikh Gilani the day before they are due to leave. Danny goes to great pains to verify with embassy personnel that what he is doing is not a crazy idea, and he arranges to meet Gilani in a public place on their advice. However, Danny does not return home that night, and Marianne has to call for help the next day.

When Pakistani CID and American FBI and embassy personnel are alerted to the American journalists' situation, the investigation kicks off. Marianne is all too aware of the dangers faced by her missing husband however, so she alerts her employers, The Wall Street Journal, and they too begin working to find Danny. Day by day, as the investigation progresses, the pressure grows on Marianne and those around her. With every passing moment, the search becomes more of a political issue, and increasingly pressurised at ground level. In a telling moment, as hope of Danny's safe return is gradually ebbing away, Marianne is advised by the chief FBI investigator that she can't crumble under the pressure. Everybody else can, but not her.

Directed by the eclectic Michael Winterbottom, the movie is scripted by John Orloff, based on Marianne's book. It is essentially a story of a woman's personal strength at this most traumatic of times. Her will to continue searching for her husband in Karachi, a massively sprawling city of nearly 12 million people, and fully cognisant of the chances of his safe return, is impressively portrayed by Angelina Jolie in a performance that holds the movie together. This is her search, and noone would have blamed her for falling apart, but she does not. Far from it, she applies herself to the search, postponing emotion until the search reaches an irrefutable conclusion.

The movie avoids getting embroiled in politics, focussing instead on the emotional bond between a loving husband and wife, and Marianne's simple natural desire to get her husband back safely from a difficult situation. Politics are presented merely in the context of the search, how they provide clues and obstacles to Danny's recovery, and this keeps the essence of the story at a human level.

Jolie is quietly impressive in the lead, and delivers an understated performance of real strength and contained despair, apart from a small number of scenes where an eruption of emotion are fully justifiable. Winterbottom performs well too, capturing the sprawing chaos of Karachi extremely well, with unstaged city scenes repeatedly seen at ground level, almost always from a moving car. Orloff's script approaches this very human story in a pragmatic manner, with barely contained emotion and the desire to get this man back the common thread holding these characters together.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. The shaky-cam shootout sequences felt somewhat tacked on after the tense investigation scenes, and some of the moments featuring the Pakistani CID's interrogations jarred a little for me. Also, I felt that some of the supporting cast weren't quite up to the challenge of this demanding script.

That said, 'A Mighty Heart' is a story well told, and certainly one worth hearing. It doesn't quite reach the dizziest of heights, but Marianne Pearl's strength is inspiring, and Jolie's performance certainly reflects a respect and desire to do her story justice.

So, all told, a qualified recommendation from me for this one. It's flawed, but there's also a lot to like.

The Man From Earth

2008-01-17T20:26:00.000Z

The verdict: Absorbing, small-scale, dialogue-driven yarn which plays with the audience's willingness to suspend disbelief. The movie asks a simple question: do you believe this man?

The rating: 7/10

The Man From Earth is undoubtedly clever, and a story I really enjoyed, but it is such an unusual movie that I would hesitate to unreservedly recommend it. Let me explain: you see, I've seen some movies in my time that I thought were clever, and a fair few that I thought were pretty dumb as well. In the main, precedent shows that the dumb ones have a bigger audience, and while I'm not going to moan about this, it does make me hesitant to tell you to see this movie without qualifying my recommendation. (I mean, what do I know, you might be paying to see 'Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem' this weekend.)

First qualifier, this movie is set almost entirely in the central character's living room, with the excepton of a small number of outdoor scenes. Second, it's a science fiction story, but there are no action scenes, CGI effects, or aliens to speak of. Now, I would think of this as the better type of science-fiction, less reliant on smoke and mirrors than on the audience's capacity to understand the story... then again, only about twenty-seven people saw 'Primer', so again, what do I know!? Final qualifier - and this is the deal-breaker really - 'The Man From Earth' is based on your willingness to keep an open mind in the face of a claim that appears to be completely impossible, and run with it, just for the craic.

The movie starts with Dr. John Oldman's colleagues intercepting him at his home as he attempts to quietly pack up his possessions and move away. They quiz him as to the reason for his sudden departure after ten years teaching at the local college, and to their dismay, he reveals that he must move every ten years, for fear that his secret is discovered. After much pressing, he tells them that he has been alive since cro-magnon times and does not age, which effectively puts him at 14,000 years old. His university colleagues are both hostile and curious in the face of his story, but as they quiz him on the details of his past, it becomes clear that his words can neither be proved nor disproved. The thing is, the story-teller's responses to their questions are compelling and flawless, so the audience runs with what they see as an interesting tall tale for a bit of fun. However, as the discourse continues, the question is raised, is it possible that Oldman (ah... old.. man... ahem - Ed) could actually be telling the truth?

If the idea of a story like this makes you cringe in embarassment, then fair enough, but I was willing to run with it, and the experience was rewarding. The cast are likeable, and Oldman's story is unbelievable, compelling and challenging in equal measure. The film could easily be a play, and reminded me in its scope of something like 'Twelve Angry Men' (although the comparison to one of the best movies of all time is probably a little unfair.) David Lee Smith is very good in the lead as the compelling story-teller, and although his audience are generally wooden enough, they are generally likeable, and their academic contributions bolster Oldman's story, given that the audience members are, respectively, an anthropologist, an historian, a religious historian, and a psychologist.

If you've read Richard Dawkins 'God Delusion' book, are a fan of science fiction, or occasionally take a chance on movies without CGI, then I'd recommend this film as a diverting, off-beat little bit of fun. Otherwise, for risk of you beating me up for my lunch money, I should probably recommend you steer clear. All in all, PCMR gives a qualified recommendation for 'The Man from Earth', a movie I thoroughly enjoyed.

He Was a Quiet Man

2008-01-16T22:26:00.000Z

The verdict: Dark, off-beat character study of office frustration. While not terrible, it's derivative of a number of better movies.

The rating: 5/10

He Was a Quiet Man is a dark tale of despair told from the perspective of Bob Maconel (Slater), a man who has reached a pretty bleak point in his life. Right from the opening scenes of the movie, this character is portrayed as a downtrodden lonely outcast, and immediately after arriving into his office cubicle (at a company named A.D.D.), he begins loading a gun, quietly assigning each bullet to one of his neighbouring colleagues. Events take a strange twist soon after these scenes, however, and the movie does not at all follow a beaten path.

Christian Slater is almost unrecognisable as the monosyllabic, mustachioed office worker so lacking in social skills, he seems to blush when anyone addresses him directly. He lives alone, has a dead end job, and is treated pretty badly by his young upstart of a boss. He's also patently losing the plot, the first clue given when we overhear his goldfish advising him to pull the trigger...

This movie is surprising in parts, and almost holds the interest until the end. The main problem I had with it was the debt it owes to a number of movies which are unfortunately better than this. For a start, Falling Down did a better job of portraying the mundane despair of the blue-collar worker. Also, there are a number of scenes set in the company boardroom, with William H. Macy as the chief executive with questionable motives, and these scenes evoke memories of Network, where Peter Finch's madness was exploited by television network executives. And then of course there's American Psycho, a much richer movie in terms of it's protrayal of similar themes: office based one-upmanship, male competition, loneliness and fear of insanity.

Slater gives a decent performance in the lead, but we learn little of his character's background, so it is difficult to know whether to be on his side or not, especially considering he's about to commit a spree killing in the movie's opening scenes. Elisha Cuthbert delivers decent support in a difficult role, but the dream-like narrative was overly ambitious for me. Also, the office characters were exaggerated stereotypes, but given that this story is told by an untrustworthy narrator, we can possibly excuse this, and call it dramatic licence.

If I was you, I wouldn't go out of my way to see this one, but if you enjoyed all three movies I referred to as my suggestions for director Frank Cappello's influences (American Psycho in particular), then you might find something to enjoy here. Otherwise, I reckon it's a little too off-beat, meandering and derivative for most people's tastes.

Superbad

2008-01-14T22:21:00.000Z

The verdict: Sub-par stoner comedy with a few good gags, and a couple of decent performances. More like super-average.

The rating: 5/10

The Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow axis marches on. After the one-two of The 40-year-old Virgin and Knocked Up, they quickly followed up with what looked like being the sucker punch: Superbad . Written by Rogen this time, with Apatow producing, it unfortunately fails to live up to the promise of the previous two movies.

It's a teen gross-out comedy, with Arrested Development's Michael Cera in one of the leads. Sounds good, right? Well, unfortunately, the ideal audience for Superbad is either under sixteen years old or drunk. If you're neither of these things, I don't think you'll like it.

For a start, there have already been so many other movies with this kind of story, summed up by imagining one nerdy kid saying to another "dude, we totally need to get laid before we finish high school." 'Superbad' follows on from a less than illustrious, but long line of similar gross-out comedies, some of which were funnier.

Cera is likeable as Evan, Jonah Hill less so as the loud-mouthed Seth. The two are on a quest to get beer, and are aided by their mate with the fake i.d., Fogell, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Not a name that you'll remember easily, but while Cera unfortunately only gets a few decent scenes to work with, the Fogell character generates most of the funniest moments in Superbad, f'sho.

The thing is, it's dumb, incoherent, and generally populated with idiots. Now, sometimes this is a starting point for good comedy, but not in this case. It has a few warm moments to counterweight the many many dumb, crass jokes, but not enough plot to make it interesting.

Superbad was a huge hit last year, but didn't come close to living up to the hype for me. Then again, I was sober when I watched it...

Waitress

2008-01-14T17:47:00.000Z

The verdict: Heartfelt, bittersweet comedy with a likeable ensemble cast, and a really great lead performance.

The rating: 7/10

Before I start, let me just say, any movie that can incorporate a pie-eating contest is alright by me.

Right, so 'Waitress' tells the story of Jenna, a southern girl who has somehow ended up working a dead end job, married to the wrong guy, and without much happiness in her life. She works at a local diner, doing what she loves best: making pies. Now, by all accounts, Jenna's pies are pretty great, good enough to win competitions maybe, so she plots to scrimp enough cash to get to a local competition, where the prize is $25,000 - enough for her to start a new life maybe... Unfortunately, she suddenly realises she's got one in the oven, and I don't mean a souflee.

Waitress is such a simple slice-of-life story, that I don't want to give away much more, but it is set primarily in the Diner where Jenna works, and despite the relatively serious subject matter, is actually a bittersweet comedy. The other two waitresses at the diner (played by Curb Your Enthusiasm's Cheryl Hines, and writer/director Adrienne Shelly) share their relative highs and lows in finding a partner, while dealing with their demanding customers and loudmouth boss as best they can.

All the central characters share something in common - the simple need to be loved, and they're all finding the answer to this need in weird and wonderful places. Now, I'm aware that this description sounds dangerously close to 'romantic comedy', but don't be fooled readers, Waitress is better than that short-hand description might suggest. For a start, it's very well written, creating a relaxed, off-beat mood right from the kick-off. It's undemanding, warm, and full of likeable, flawed characters, with the likeable ones figuring things out as they go, and the rare one or two who remain stuck in their rut.

Keri Russell is great in the lead, and Hines and Shelly give decent support. Nathan Fillion plays the new doc in town, doing himself no harm, and even Matlock shows up! Yep, that's right, Andy Griffith plays the grumpy old diner regular, with enough Schadenfreude to make a paparazzi journalist look like a boy scout.

The balance between comedy and drama plays out well, and you should be interested in what happens to Jenna, as Keri Russell is more than watchable, and her character is realistic and likeable.

Somehow, this movie appears to have been completely overlooked last year, but for an off-beat, relaxing dvd that the missus would like as well, you could do far worse than 'Waitress'.

Charlie Wilson's War

2008-01-13T21:54:00.000Z

The verdict: Polished Hollywood fare. Hoffman steals the show and Hanks is great, but the movie, although diverting enough, isn't brilliant.

The rating: 6/10

Now, if Hollywood ever needed to put an Oscar-worthy 5-a-side team together, they need look no further than the cast and crew that was assembled to tell the story of Charlie Wilson's War. Team CWW already has a fair collection of golden paperweights between them…

But before we get into all that, here’s the skinny: Charlie Wilson was a Texas congressman who managed to – almost single-handedly – arm the Afghans in the late eighties, allowing them to successfully defend against a Soviet invading force. All this, using American money and weapons of Soviet origin, provided by a thoroughly unlikely alliance between Egypt and Israel.

The movie is scripted by Aaron Sorkin – he of 'West Wing' fame, and directed by a certain Mike Nichols (you may remember him from such movies as 'The Graduate' and 'Catch 22'), so our team of super-friends is off to a pretty good start already... As for the people in front of the camera, Tom Hanks plays the quick-witted, Texan congressman who likes to sip whisky at ten a.m., and is a celebrated lothario on Capitol Hill. Wilson is assisted in his political machinations by the thoroughly undiplomatic CIA man Gust Avrokatos, played with portly aplomb by Philip Seymour Hoffman. As if that wasn’t enough, Julia Roberts even pops up, and for a moment you'd be forgiven for thinking this was the next Danny Ocean flick..

Thankfully it's not as vacuous as the Ocean franchise, but the sum of the efforts of all these a-listers is unfortunately not as impressive as you might expect. Hanks is perfectly cast, and as likeable and vulnerable as ever in the lead role, but he shouldn’t win any Oscars with this performance. Unfortunately, Julia Roberts is miscast in my book, she's simply too glamorous for the role, which needed someone with a little, well.. older, like Michelle Pfeiffer perhaps. Our Joolz seems trapped in her Danny Ocean school of acting, where simply being there with the right hairdo is enough to keep the audience happy (she's capable of better than this). Unfortunately for Julia, her male co-stars are far from phoning it in, so she appears wooden in comparison.

The standout performance is Philip Seymour Hoffman's though, and right from his first moments in front of the camera, Sorkin’s sharp dialogue allows Capote-man to almost literally chew the scenery. His character rapidly becomes the liveliest and most interesting in the film, and he has the best chance of an Oscar of anyone in the CWW team.

The first hour of the movie is great, but towards the end, it devolves and almost fizzles out completely by the end, due to a montage! Yep, as Team America said, when you need to move things along, you need a montage. Unfortunately, after 75 minutes of CWW, there was still a fair chunk of story to tell, so this dirty device is employed. The montage sequence detracts from the impact of the movie, placed as it is less than ten minutes before the end.

That said, CWW is enjoyable, polished Hollywood entertainment, with enough quality to be watchable. Unfortunately, it doesn't ever reach the high standards that its cast and crew might lead you to expect.

Charlie Wilson's War is in cinemas now

The Kingdom

2008-01-12T16:35:00.000Z

The verdict: Slick, tense thriller with plenty of smarts and bucketloads of action.

The rating: 7/10

Nothing at all to do with County Kerry, 'The Kingdom' tells the story of the FBI's attempts to investigate a large-scale attack on an Western housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabian. Ronald Fleury (Foxx) heads the investigation team pushing to put their boots on Saudi soil, but the the complex political backdrop, as well as high-profile nature of the atrocity, means that they are not entirely welcome.

The American brass are initially unwilling to send FBI investigators to Saudi on the grounds that they are targets for the fundamentalist Muslim attackers who committed the original atrocity, and that their presence would render the situation even more unstable. The Saudis, for their part, are unwilling to allow interference in their own investigation, especially from non-Muslims. The presence of a female investigator is also a cause for some concern. Cue some serious political wrangling from Fleury.

Once in Saudi, the team are reluctantly assisted in their investigation by a Saudi Colonel, played with real presence by Ashraf Barhom, and the initially frosty association between Foxx and his guide slowly develops into a mutually beneficial working relationship. You know, the old 'frosty at first' kind of deal.

The movie is essentially a tense investigation book-ended by two long action set-pieces, and this structure works well. The investigation is well scripted, and builds the tension well, with all five central characters likeable enough to win the audience over. And why not, when the supporting cast is this good? Chris Cooper is amiable enough as the bomb site investigator, and Jennifer Garner works well; even if she does spend a lot of the movie crying, each episode of tears is thoroughly warranted. Jason Bateman too, continues his career resurgence with a creditable performance as the comic foil, and he has some great one-liners, which serve as a welcome coping mechanism for the audience as the tension builds. Jeremy Piven also has a nice turn as an American foreign department official, popping up every now and again to try and persuade the team to return home, before they do any political damage.

As for the action, well there is a moment about an hour into the movie where things suddenly take a turn into '24' territory, but it works very well. The action is visceral, realistic, and very much in the Paul Greengrass style, with hand-held shaky-cams following the cast, and everything ticking along at a relentless pace. Bullets, grenades and rockets fly, and we are right in the thick of it.

I have reservations about Jamie Foxx as a leading man, but he does a decent job here, despite still needing serious elecution lessons. The script is tight, with almost every central character likeable enough to root for. My only quibble was the Saudi Colonel. Foreign heroes in American movies must be god-fearing, squeaky-clean and have young kids for some reason, and his presence in the movie unfortunately reminded me of the away missions on the old Star Trek shows. Imagine Kirk (Foxx), Bones (Bateman), Spock (Cooper) and Uhura (Garner) beaming down to a planet with an anonymous red-shirted crew member, and you get the idea of the Saudi character's precarious position, right from the opening scenes.

That said, this is a quality movie, a diverting, well-written, actioner with a liekable cast, and PCMR heartily gives it two thumbs up.

Irish Blog Awards 2008

2008-01-11T16:10:00.000Z

With the Writer's Guild Association threatening to prematurely bring the curtain down on the Oscars this year, it's reassuring to know that at least the Irish Blog Awards, that much-heralded bastion of glitz, glamour and razzamatazz, are still going ahead.

Never one to turn down the opportunity for a shameless act of self-promotion, and always in need of a good paperweight, PCMR would like to draw your attention to the fact that nominations are now open. Should you feel the desire to vote, perhaps I could direct you to recommend your humble reviewer for the 'best popculture blog' section? Don't feel under any pressure though... (Ah, reverse psychology... it can't fail! - Ed)

Resident Evil Extinction

2008-01-09T18:29:00.001Z

The verdict: Surprisingly entertaining zombie romp. Sit back, turn down your brain activity, and enjoy.

The rating: 6/10

Yep, that's right, six out of ten. What am I talking about, Willis? Well, as B-movies go, this one's a cracker. It might have hammy acting, cheesy bad guys and the misfortune to be based on a video game, but this movie has something in its favour: it's bags of fun! Paul Anderson, the man behind the scripts for 'Event Horizon' and 'Alien versus Predator', has taken this franchise - itself on the verge of extinction after the second sub-par episode - and somehow managed to make it anarchic, interesting, and most importantly, thoroughly enjoyable.

The opening sequence quickly and succinctly reminds us of the qualities that made the game so involving: claustrophobia, mystery, and an equal mixture of fear and curiosity in relation to what's behind that next door. However, the opening also has some surprises to offer, nodding to the previous two movies, but giving a clue that in this episode, things are going to be veeery different.

For the uninitiated, Resident Evil is the story of the dastardly Umbrella corporation, who carried out all sorts of experiments on unwitting subjects with something called the T-Virus. Now, this virus had the unfortunate effect of turning people into the flesh-eating zombie undead, and in the first movie, the t-virus spread throughout a small town named Raccoon City - also the location for the original game.

When this movie starts, however, the T-virus has become a global pandemic, practically wiping out every living thing: human, animal and plant life to boot... Only a handful of survivors remain on the desertified planet, scavenging what resources they can to survive. Our central character Alice (Milla Jovovich) is a survivor of Umbrella experiments, and has retained some interesting side-effects...

Immediately after the enclosed surroundings of the opening sequence, things go a bit bananas, and we're suddenly transported into an 'Evil Dead meets Mad Max' scenario: a convoy of survivors (including one or two from the first two movies) are struggling to stay alive, hunting for gasoline, food, and safe shelter from the annoyingly persistent chase of the hungry undead.

Meanwhile, back at the Umbrella HQ, the dastardly Dr. Isaacs continues the wicked experiments, as the coprorations' resources dwindle, and his employers exert more and more pressure to find the cure for the T-Virus... Isaacs believes the key to finding the cure is in Alice's blood, he just needs to find her..

Ok, I get it, you either like this type of movie or you don't, but compared to something like 'Transformers' or '28 Weeks Later', for me this was much, much more rewarding. The script is neither pretentious nor self-conscious, and doesn't cop out by trying to be post-modern or ironic. Instead, Paul Anderson delivers a punchy, pacy flick with a relentless sequence of action-packed set-pieces that - for the most part - forego building tension and just get stuck into the good stuff. The climax is satisfying, and even leaves an appetising cliffhanger, leaving the door wide open for an equally anarchic fourth instalment.

It's thoroughly flawed, more than a bit mixed up, and suffers a little from an identity crisis: (is it a zombie western!?) but this shouldn't deter you from enjoying it, as it's simply great fun. For a low maintenance Dvd night in, 'Resident Evil Extinction' comes recommended from me.

Eastern Promises

2008-01-07T22:43:00.000Z

The verdict: Well realised, immersive, slightly off-beat tale of Russian gangsters in London. It's violent, and even features naked fighting... but Mortensen is frighteningly good.

The rating: 7/10

Eastern Promises may sound, as someone pointed out to me today, like a 'special interest' movie, or perhaps the new slogan for Turkish Delight, (ah, remember them? - Ed) but don't be fooled readers, for it's actually the title of the latest movie from the fledgling Cronenberg-Mortensen Axis of Quality.

You may have gathered by now, but I'm trying to catch up on some of the better movies from 2007 that I missed due to assorted reasons associated with living in the real world (tsk, lame excuse - Ed). Anyway, Eastern Promises was very near the top of the list, and it didn't disappoint.

I probably wouldn't be alone in associating Cronenberg with his legacy of above average psychological horror flicks from the eighties and nineties. Videodrome, The Fly, Dead Ringers, the marvellously surreal ExistenZ, and of course Crash (yuck - Ed) shocked and provoked audiences with their schlocky, sinister atmosphere, but movies like 'The Naked Lunch' and more recently 'Spider' have hinted at an ambitious streak in Cronenberg, perhaps a desire to move away from the horror genre and tackle more mainstream material.

Now, he hasn't quite done that, but he certainly hasn't sold out his roots in violent, provocative cinema either. With the excellent 'A History of Violence', however, Cronenberg recruited Viggo Mortensen, headed in a slightly different direction, and made something remarkable. 'History of Violence' was notably different in themes from his previous work, but still retained the signature style and tense atmosphere that elevated his horror movies above the average. Eastern Promises continues that trajectory.

Mortensen returns as a London-based Russian gangster named Nikolai, working for a shady restauaranteur named Semyon. Meanwhile, Anna (Naomi Watts) is a mid-wife working at Trafalgar hospital. When a 14-year-old Russian girl dies in childbirth, leaving no clue behind as to her identity save a diary written entirely in her mother tongue, the paths of these two characters begin to cross. The diary is essentially a Pandora's Box, with Watts warned repeatedly to stay away and let it be. Thankfully however, she ignores these warnings, and the audience is plunged into this dark, previously unexplored corner of London.

Mortensen turns in a really great performance as Nikolai, sporting a marvellously quifftastic hairdo, and all the lazy inscrutable mannerisms of the Russian bodyguard who might want to toast a drink with you, or perhaps cut your fingers off.. who knows what that shrug of his shoulders could imply. Vincent Cassel is also excellent as the closeted, foppish, yet extremely dangerous son of Mortensen's boss. The boss man himself - Semyon - is played by the formidable Armin Mueller-Stahl, one of those faces you'll recognise, but if you can place, you're doing better than me. (Shine? - Ed)

The film moves along at a deceptively lazy, yet steady pace, and this languid style is reflective of Semyon and Nikolai (Mortensen)'s dispositions in the movie... they may appear to move slowly, but you need to watch them closely...

Much of the movie is set indoors, and this adds to the claustrophobic feel of the piece. There is only ever a small number of central characters involved, and we gradualy become more and more involved with each, adding further to the tension. London is the setting, but there are no romantic aerial shots of Big Ben, the Eye or the Gherkin. This London is always at street level, the London of the resident as opposed to the tourist. Only for Naomi Watts' accent, we could well be in Russia.

Although Cronenberg has retained his penchant for ultra-violence and gore in a couple of scenes, he has answered a question I asked of Ridley Scott in a review of American Gangster. What can you bring to a genre that's been pretty much done before? Well, look no further, because Cronenberg has brought something entirely original. It's claustrophobic, immersive, and well-researched. Watch out for Mortensen's tattoos, the breathtakingly violent naked sauna knife fight, and the guy in the barbers in the very first scene. I won't say any more.

Your gran wouldn't like it, but I did. It's violent, but a great story. Mortensen is great in the lead role, and and Cassel, Watts and Stahl deliver in support. The ending isn't the best in the world, but I was willing to overlook this considering the entertaining hour and a half that came before. If you enjoyed 'History of Violence', PCMR recommends you check this one out immediately.

Jameson Dublin International Film Festival 2008

2008-01-07T22:13:00.000Z

Be gorra and be the hokey, sure doesn't time fly and indeed and it does. Ah yeah, seems like only yesterday PCMR sat down in the sold out Savoy One to gorge on the delights of 'Curse of the Golden Flower', one of the best films of last year in my book. And of course there was 'Metropolis' at the National Gallery, another one of my movie highlights of 2007. For a full run-down of PCMR's adventures at the festival last year, have a look at these little beauties.

The 2008 festival runs from February 15th to 24th, and there is a sample of the schedule alread up on the official site. PCMR can at least tell you that 3Epkano are back, this time to provide the live soundtrack to 'Pandora's Box' in the Savoy... sounds promising!

There's even an opportunity to work at the festival this year. For those interested in doing a bit of film-related volunteer work, while possibly getting loads of free cinema tickets (PCMR does not guarantee you will get any free cinema tickets - Ed) check out the official JDIFF site.

Keep an eye on the site, the full schedule's sure to be up in the next few weeks... but fear not! If you can't make it, PCMR will be there to report on the best of what's there.

Atonement

2008-01-07T10:51:00.000Z

The Verdict: Passable, if predictable tear-jerker, with one outstanding performance. (Not Ikea Knightley).

The Rating: 6/10

What's that? Surprised that PCMR took in a romantic period drama? Well, every now and again, one of these movies comes along that achieves a certain level of omnipresence, making it increasingly difficult to avoid. However, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was surely the golden globe nomination for Ikea Knightley (Tip o' the hat to Mark Kermode for that joke – Ed). Curious at this decidedly queer turn of events, I thought it wise to investigate.

Right, so movies like 'Atonement' require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief from audience members like me. More, say than from proper fans of the romantic tear-jerker genre, so my views may be tempered by a degree of reticence towards, for example, an upper-class 1930's English countryside setting. Or, say, posh kids who say words like ra-ther, with the emphasis on the 'ther'.

Ok, this taken on board, 'Atonement' is the story of Cecelia (Ikea) and Robbie (James MacAvoy). Cecelia (or 'Cee' to her chums) is a toff, and Robbie is an orphan rapscallion, taken in by Cee's benevolent Father and happily given a splendid education, but he's still a bit rough around the edges you see, sort of a rough diamond type of fellow. The story of these two is initially told from the perspective of Cee's younger sister Briony, who is 'somewhat fanciful', and fond of writing stories. Now, Cee and Robbie totally fancy each other right from the off, and unusually for the British period drama, their love is 100% requited.

Yep, this pair actually get together, but almost instantly after their first clinch, the movie's potential for drama shifts from the unrequited love scenario to the tragic separation scenario. I'm not sure if the awareness of this fact will spoil the movie for the target audience, because most of them will watch Atonement mainly to have a good little cry. (... not that there's anything wrong with that. - Ed)

That aside, Knightley and MacAvoy are quite good, but really only have straight-forward enough romantic roles to tackle (Passion, tragedy, that sort of meat and two veg stuff). The real star of the movie is Romola Garai, who plays the 18-year-old Briony. She is believable as the repentant, sorrowful sister hoping for redemption for a mistake she made as a child.

The celebrated long Dunkirk beach shot (which you may or may not have heard of) is impressive, but these shots usually just make me feel like the director is showing off. For example, 'Snake Eyes' had a 15 minute opening shot, which was certainly impressive, but Da Palma couldn't make the rest of the movie any good. In Atonement, the long expansive shot of the beach didn't make me feel like I was there, and didn't shock me as to the horrors of war. Nope, it only served to make me more conscious that I was watching a movie. Bad thing for me.

The first hour is enjoyable, the second less so. If you like this sort of thing, you'll probably cry a little, but I don't think Atonement will stand the test of time as a classic by any means. Knightley didn't do enough to warrant a Golden Globe gong for me, but admittedly she did look great, and wasn’t quite as annoying as in some of her previous movies. MacAvoy didn't do himself any harm, but Garai was great. This isn't my favourite genre, but I'm pretty sure that romantic period dramas have more to offer than Atonement.

American Gangster

2008-01-06T13:03:00.000Z

The verdict: Thoroughly enjoyable. 'Serpico' meets 'Blow', with Ridley Scott directing Denzel as a bad guy. At 150 minutes, perhaps a little long for some, but not for me.

The rating: 7/10

American Gangster... now here's a genre that's been done before. Da Palma's 'Scarface' charted the ultra-violent rise of a disenfranchised immigrant to 1970's American drug overlord with hees leetle friend. Michael Mann's 'Heat' was a cop and robber character study, toying with the audience's desire to root for the good guy. Sidney Lumet's 'Serpico' was also set in the 70's, and focussed just on the cops, with Pacino this time surrounded by corrupt cops, and very definitely the one to root for. However, the gangster genre was arguably defined immutably by Coppola's 'Godfather' trilogy, and rubber-stamped for good measure by Scorcese with 'Goodfellas'. (Jeez, Al Pacino's made some good movies! - Ed)

So where do you go from there? What can even Ridley Scott bring to the table that we haven't already seen before? Well, casting Denzel Washington as the ganster is an excellent start, and pitting Russell Crowe against him as the embattled moral crusader surrounded by dirty cops is another plus, but when the story is based on fact, well, that adds even further to the mystique.

Set in 1970's New York, the drug enforcement agency is riddled with corruption, and heroin is the drug of choice on the streets. The good guys are far from clean, with institutional payoffs the order of the day, from beat cops to judges. Detective Richie Roberts (Crowe) makes a name for himself in the force as a bit of a Serpico when he and his partner turn in a million dollars in drug money, rather than distributing it around 'the guys'. As a result, he becomes a pariah, and is eventually recruited for a special task force to tackle the drug problem, without involving dirty cops.

Meanwhile, Lucas (Washington) is importing heroin directly from Vietnam, and is bringing heroin to the streets of New York that is purer than his competitors and at a lower price. Interestingly, Lucas dissociates himself from the evil that he purveys with the conviction and eloquently persuasive language of the successful businessman. He is giving his customers the product they demand, at higher quality, and at the right price. They don't care who he is, any more than he cares who is in charge of the national dairy board, right?

The inevitable rise of Lucas to crown prince of Harlem is charted alongside Det. Roberts travails to find the man behind this new heroin product spreading like wildfire on American streets, known as 'blue magic'. Lucas proves hard to catch however, as he spurns does the ostentatious pimp stylings of many of his competitors, and leads a relatively austere existence, albeit with more of the trappings of wealth than De Niro's character in Heat, for example.

This involving story trundles along at a nice pace, and we're in the hands of Ridley Scott here for god's sake, so the length of the movie (two and a half hours) wasn't really an issue for me. The only issue I had with 'American Gangster' was the scope. It is attempting to be an expansive epic in the same vein as 'Goodfellas', but is not quite as tight. The twin track of the stories means that two central characters require equal, and separate development for the story to work, and essentially each character story could have been the lead in a movie of his own. Frank Lucas' story would work in the same way as 'Blow', which was a very similar story of a man named George Jung, the guy credited with the rise of Cocaine in New York in the 1970's. Meanwhile, alongside this, as I've said, Roberts' story is similar to that of Pacino's character in 'Serpico'.

Putting all this aside for a moment, 'American Gangster' is a very enjoyable movie in it's own right. Denzel is excellent as the nuanced bad guy, and should definitely experiment a little more with this type of character. Russell Crowe is also in his area of expertise here, as the troubled good guy, and reminded me of how great he was in 'The Insider'. The setting is excellently rendered on screen, and I wouldn't want to have lived in the projects or anything, but 1970's harlem is a great backdrop for a movie like this.

As a footnote, Cuba Gooding Jr. is in this movie, and he doesn't suck! Unbelievable though it may seem, readers, I shit you not!

This streak of originality aside, although American Gangster is a very enjoyable movie, and will be in most critics 'top 10' lists of the year, it's unfortunaely not imbued with enough originality or style of its own to topple any of the existing giants of the genre.

War

2007-12-28T13:19:00.000Z

The Verdict: Bog-standard actioner. Disappointing, considering the promising cast.

The Rating: 4/10

Action movies are really about escapism. Total immersion in a good action movie is a wonderful thing, achieved when your attention is totally focussed on the screen, and your immediate surroundings are temporarily forgotten. Even with the best flicks, this kind of voluntary immersion is dependent on a certain amount of suspension of disbelief (SOD) on the part of the viewer. Hollywood producers take note, PCMR has uncovered a scientific formula to calculate how immersed your audience will be! Yes that’s right fat cats, put down the Cuban cigar for the moment, and stop counting those dollars, this formula may make you even richer! Here it is:

SOD = (O – C)

Or in other words, Suspension Of Disbelief is equal to Originality less Cliché. When SOD is less than zero, tolerance levels drop below critical levels, with punters more likely to move to the lobby for popcorn, or to the pause button and the kettle.

With Statham and Li's previous outing - 'The One' – there was enough originality to keep the SOD factor positive, making what could have been a pretty ridiculous movie thoroughly enjoyable. (And Jet Li fought himself! Dude! – Ed). Unfortunately 'War' hits sub-zero SOD levels very very early.

Essentially, Statham's partner and best friend gets killed and he becomes so obsessed with revenge that his previously idyllic relationship with his wife and child breaks down. (3 cliches already!). He's an FBI agent (4) monitoring the ongoing battle between the warring Triads and Yakuza gangs in San Francisco, while keeping an eye out for the rogue agent who murdered his partner. Throw in a car chase here (5), a motorbike chase there (6), loads of standard shoot-out gun play (... say 10), and nowhere near enough chop-socky fights between Statham and Li (one!) and the impulse to say 'sod it' becomes harder to ignore.

Anything original to report? Well, Jet Li is a bad guy... and that's about it really. Everything else here is formulaic, from the hammy, cardboard cut-out Yakuza and Triad baddies, to the cheesy female characters, and the bizarre CSI-inspired belief that to make characters cool and edgy, shades and a leather jacket will do the trick, no matter what they say and do. With an SOD this low, you'll be itching in your seat, pointing out plot holes and less likely to give a toss about what eventually happens. The ending does attempt valiantly to surprise, but by then it's just too little too late.

Jason Statham should really be aiming higher than this kind of bog-standard fare. And Jet Li came out of retirement for this? Take PCMR's advice: avoid this unoriginal, cliché-riddled movie, and consider it a lucky escape.

I Am Legend

2007-12-27T13:29:00.000Z

The Verdict: '28 Days Later' meets 'Cast Away' in this derivative of 'The Omega Man'. Slow-burning, watchable and inoffensive, but not legendary.

The Rating: 6/10

Will Smith has been at the helm of many star vehicles over the course of his career, so it may come as a bit of a surprise that he’s only been in a couple of sci-fi movies. (Unless you count wicky wicky Wild Wild west!? – Ed). Since the execrable 'Independence Day', he’s flogged a couple of franchises to death ('Men In Black' and 'Bad Boys'), made plenty of home-cooked apple-pie family entertainment ('Hitch' and 'The Pursuit Of Happyness') and even had a realistic Oscar shot ('Ali'). My own opinions of the man and the relative quality of these movies aside for a moment, I must doff my cap to the Fresh Prince, for he has quietly and carefully crafted a Hollywood career for himself, and now sits indisputably in the exclusive A-list category.

Big Willy Will's latest star vehicle had a stellar opening weekend, raking in $76 million in U.S. theatres. However, it may be stating the obvious, but box-office success isn't any guarantee of quality: two relevant examples illustrating this point being 'Bad Boys II' and 'The Pursuit of Happyness'. Hollywood marketing is as powerful as any propaganda machine, and if the right sort of internet buzz is also behind a movie, a wide-scale big bang release at the right weekend can generate a huge return before any negative word-of-mouth can spoil the party.

Although more of a slow-burning cruise than a wham-bam roller-coaster ride, I have to admit, I am Legend is a lot better than many of Will Smith's previous big screen outings. Giving a nod, a wink, and masonically baring its nipple to zombie movie classics, and essentially deriving a story outline from 'The Omega Man' (Smith's character shares the name of Charlton Heston's from that movie), the movie starts with the Fresh Willenium as the last man alive in New York. Around a thousand days have passed since some sort of cataclysmic event, and W2K is struggling to survive, hold on to his sanity, and feed his dog.

The opening scenes are very reminiscent of '28 Days Later', and there is one moment that was almost entirely lifted from 'Shaun of The Dead', but the scenes in an abandoned New York, overgrown with tundra, and awash with wild animals are interesting and unique enough to grab the attention of the audience in the opening moments. The pace of the movie is very different to those two however, owing more in terms of inspiration to Tom Hanks’ Castaway, although without the scraggly beard and cries of "Willsooonnn!" to grate on the nerves.

It's a neat script, with a slow-burning opening sequence, a well-timed turning point around half-way through, followed by a neatly packaged ending. Fresh Willy has enough presence to keep the audience's interest and sympathies in the first hour, and the understandably creeping insanity of his character adds a nice edge to his usually syrupy good-guy persona. The fact that he's accompanied by a dog in the first hour of the movie allows for conventional dialogue (man-dog as opposed to man-volleyball - Ed), and these initial scenes, although the slowest of the movie, are in my opinion the strongest. Although gradually, we learn more about the cataclysm and some rather zombie-like survivors eventually surface, the post-reveal scenes are something approaching more conventional Hollywood action fare, and were less exciting for this reviewer.

'I am Legend' has enough quality and production value to make it watchable, and it certainly has its moments. The thing is, in the hands of a less 'bankable' lead actor, perhaps willing to take more genuine risks, the script could have been a little less flat-packed, and perhaps displayed more imagination. The infected, for example, were simply monsters in the dark, and only scary enough to earn this movie a PG-13 rating. I felt more could have been done with this aspect of the film.

As it is, 'I Am Legend' will reward fans of this genre with references to well known apocalypse and zombie movies past, and also be off-beat enough to engage those new to the genre. Fans of the big Willie will see him acting his socks off, and in fairness to him, he delivers a decent performance.

All in all, another good career move for big Will in terms of the high-stakes popularity contest that is Tinseltown. He may not achieve legendary status as a pioneering craftsman of original movies, but he's certainly a bona fide Hollywood star.

I am Legend is in cinemas now.

Capturing the Friedmans

2007-10-07T20:44:00.000Z

The verdict: Absorbing, devastating real-life story which challenges the viewer to decide who is telling the truth.

The rating: 8/10

Capturing the Friedmans tackles some particularly difficult source material. Arnold Friedman was a school teacher accused of molestation, and this documentary recounts his story and that of his family, as told from the perspective of his wife, kids, brother, the police involved in the investigation and some of the kids he taught.

What makes this movie of particular interest however, is the large amounts genuine home movie footage shot by Friedman's three sons over the course of this ordeal. As their family unravels, they record the chaotic events inside the Friedman house, while the media reports chart events outside, making this a 'reality' story imbued with real emotional turmoil and genuine surreality. All of this footage is supplemented by accounts from the people at the centre of the storm.

The media and police would profer the simple explanation that Friedman plead guilty and was convicted of these crimes, and therefore was a despicable monster, undeserving of any further attention from anyone. The real story, however, is far more nuanced. The Friedmans were a seemingly wealthy middle-class Jewish family. Arnold was a popular teacher, with a successful career and three kids, with whom he had a close relationship, as the Friedman home video footage shows.

However, things start to unravel when Arnold Friedman receives a magazine in the post from the Netherlands, featuring pornographic images of underage boys. The house is searched, and more such magazines are found. As the police investigation continues, whispers of 'inappropriate touching' become fully-fledged abuse allegations, and suddenly the community of Great Neck is in full paedophile alert. To make matters worse for the Friedman family, Arnold's son Jesse is also implicated in the allegations.

This movie uses the accounts of the people involved in this trial, and the Friedman's home video footage, to re-examine the case with the benefit of perspective. As Friedman's past is recounted, and his brother and wife are interviewed, we learn more about the character of the man, and the details of his certainly unconventional upbringing, and early sexual history. As his sons are interviewed, we learn more about the strong family bond that existed between father and sons, but certainly not between mother and the rest of the family.

It is a harrowing movie, revealing detail after detail of the events surrounding the trial in such a way as to challenge the audience's perception of what actually happened. Friedman sr's guilt is not really on trial, but the method of his incarceration is certainly evaluated with a cold eye. As to Friedman jr, the details surrounding his arrest and trial are particularly harrowing, including the bizarre home video footage of the night before his sentencing.

'Capturing the Friedmans' is hard-hitting, intelligent and difficult, as it forces the audience to view the facts surrounding an intensely emotional issue with a cold logical eye. As the movie progressed, I found myself questioning who I sympathised with, as well as questioning who was telling the truth, and how much truth they were really revealing.

This is fascinating stuff, and heartily recommended.

Nine Songs

2007-10-01T17:36:00.000Z

The verdict: Sex, drugs and rock and roll... but it's stultifyingly boring.

The rating: 3/10

I haven't seen many of Michael Winterbottom's movies, bar the two featuring Steve Coogan ('Tristram Shandy' and '24 Hour Party People'), but he is certainly eclectic, and something of an enigma. Considering I enjoyed both movies just mentioned, and given that his new one ('A Mighty Heart') is getting great press, I thought it only fair to take a look at what many reckon to be his worst movie: 'Nine Songs'. (I only watched it for the articles though.)

Nine Songs features a number of popular rock bands playing live, as Winterbottom was granted permission to commit shows from groups such as Primal Scream and Super Furry Animals to celluloid. The plot of the movie (for what it is) centres around the rather dull Matt (incongruously, Kieran O'Brien from the 'Goal' movies!) and the fairly annoying Lisa (Margot Stilley) as they attend some concerts, and have sex afterwards.

Now, this was a controversial movie on it's release, because it features nookie, and lots of it. Yes siree, the two stars of this one certainly got to know each others ins and outs. Ahem. Uglies are bumped pretty much every five minutes in this one, and we see all the bits and pieces normal mainstream movies leave out. Put it this way, if it was an ad for shower gel, we'd see the nipple. In this case, Winterbottom shows us everything you'd expect from a porn movie, although - and this may sound facetious, but it's true - Nine Songs is relatively lacking in character development and believable dialogue. The two main characters begin shagging in this one after just a couple of lines of narrated dialogue, which is pretty impressive, even by porn standards, and at the end of the movie, we hardly know them any better.

This movie gets old pretty fast. The sex scenes become dull and invasive very early on, as we learn little or nothing about this monster with two backs that's huffing and puffing on the screen in front of us. The story is wafer thin, and appears to have been cobbled together with a voiceover and some creative editing. The two main characters are as anonymous at the end of the movie as they were in the beginning, and the ending of the movie is perfunctory and unemotional.

Winterbottom filmed this in the Paul Greengrass 'shaky hand-held' style, but where Greengrass creates immediacy and brings the audience closer to the events on-screen, in nine songs, Winterbottom creates an amateurish, home-movie feel, which makes thing all the more uncomfortable and stifling to watch. Even the concert footage is emotionless and distant, failing to capture any of the excitement of being at any of the gigs featured. I can't imagine the Super Furries or Elbow were too happy with this finished movie after lending their music to it.

An unmitigated failure in my book, the only plus point being the sixty six minute running time. Only that I was watching it at home, I would have walked out. God bless Michael Winterbottom for coming back from this to make 'A Mighty Heart', and this tosh still won't prevent me from seeing that one. But take it from me folks, 'Nine Songs' is rubbish, and more of a cock and bull story than Tristram Shandy. Avoid.

The King of Kong

2007-09-24T20:44:00.000Z

The verdict: A surprisingly genuine and inspirational story of a man's struggle to be his own man, and be the best in the world... at Donkey Kong.

The rating: 8/10

This is a movie about video games, but I'm not talking about MMORPG's, Nintendo Wiis, Playstations, or even Sega Megadrives. The games featured in this movie pre-date Commodore 64's and possibly even the 2600 from Atari. We're talking arcade games here, and the originals, such as Donkey Kong, Pacman, Q-Bert and Frogger. 'The King of Kong' tracks the origins and development of the people who hold the world records at these classic video games, and how since 1982, the competition to hold one of these records has been as fierce as in any competitive sport - I kid you not.

Since 1982, Billy Mitchell has held the record at Donkey Kong, but this is really someone else's story. I was surprised how involved I got in this tale of Steve Wiebe, (pronounced wee-bee) a normal, honest, hard-working guy who loved his wife and kids, but somehow never lived up to his potential. His father pushed him to be the pitcher for the school baseball team, and expected him to follow in his footsteps, becoming an engineer at Boeing, and work there for the rest of his life. Steve didn't really live up to his old man's expectations however, leaving baseball behind to play the drums with his garage band, and getting laid off from Boeing the day he signed mortgage papers with his wife.

As his wife says in the movie, Steve was 'searching for something', and one day heard of the organisation known as 'Twin Galaxies', established by Walter Day - the self-appointed regulator of all video game world record attempts - back in 1982. Wiebe took it upon himself to go for the top score, and set about trying to beak Billy Mitchell's world record.

Now, I don't want to tell you more about this movie, because it really caught me off-guard. At first, I found myself amused by the nerdy characters involved in the 'Twin Galaxies' crew, but gradually, I was taken in. The story becomes something that Will Ferrell could option for himself, with Billy Mitchell every inch the real life 'Ben Stiller from Dodgeball' of video gaming. Meanwhile, Wiebe is the honest guy just trying to make a mark for himself.

I don't want to spoil it for you, but I heartily recommend this movie. The filmmaker Seth Gordon understands that the people involved can tell the story better than anyone, and wisely stays behind the camera, letting the protagonists play out the drama for us, building slowly towards a guinness world record attempt, and a live showdown between Billy Mitchell (boo!) and Steve Wiebe (hooray!).

The story is strong enough to transcend video games, and could be transposed to any sporting scenario, or situation involving a struggle for glory. All the central characters have given part of their lives to this story, and it is worth hearing as a result. Seek this out, and you won't be disappointed.

No news yet of an Irish release date, but click here for the (rather noisy) official site.

Seraphim Falls

2007-09-23T10:13:00.000Z

The verdict: A slow-burning western, not without it's charm.

The rating: 6/10

'Seraphim Falls' is very marketable movie: it's a beautiful looking western with a great cast, and it's pretty watchable, if a little on the dull side. However, even when the movie was released in Ireland, the country of origin of the movie's two leading men, there was nary a whisper about it. Were Neeson and Brosnan on the Late Late show, and I missed it perhaps? Who knows, but I remember seeing one poster for this movie, and one review on TV, before it sank into obscurity.

Movie marketing just makes no sense to me. At some point in the mogul hierarchy, a decision is made whether to promote a movie or not, and for some reason, the 'Norbit' gets blanket media coverage for a fortnight, and movies like this, and others, such as 'Thank You For Smoking' must rely on word of mouth and peer recommendation to find an audience.

Ok, rant over. This Western is an old-fashioned slow-burning story in three acts that pits Liam Neeson's posse in pursuit of lone wolf Pierce Brosnan. The odds are stacked against Gideon's survival right from the opening moments of the movie, and he must struggle manfully to stay alive. This western is more 'Apocalypto' than 'Unforgiven', but if Gibson's Mayan pursuit movie was a hundred metre dash, this is more like a Winter Olympic biathlon, with the protagonists travelling long distances before stopping every now and again to shoot at each other.

Gradually, over the course of the chase, we learn of a dark secret that bonds these two men. Brosnan's character - and performance - is the more interesting of the two however, as the script is craftily fashioned to engineer the audience's sympathies for him in the first half of the movie, despite our knowledge that he must have done something wrong to be chased so relentlessly by Liam Neeson. I mean come on, that's Oscar Schindler for chrissakes, you've got to really piss him off to make him want to get a posse together!

As the pursuit progresses, we gradually get to know the two men better, as well as the tragic events that have given rise to Neeson's morbid pursuit. This is not a case of good guy chasing bad, but Neeson's motives for revenge are certainly black and white, while Brosnan's character is a little less cut and dry. Later, in the third act, things get more than a little allegorical and symbolic, with Anjelica Huston's appearance in particular resembling a devil at a crossroads, presenting these two men with choices that will ultimately decide their fate.

It's a beautiful looking film, and Brosnan is great in the lead role, with Neeson an excellent foil, even if he has relatively less to work with. The script is well constructed for the first two thirds, but jars a little when things start getting all surreal. Strangely, this movie's best moments were those when the characters weren't talking at all, and we're left to fill in the blanks. Some of the best scenes feature Brosnan's character using his survival skills, and there is more than a dash of 'First Blood' in some of his early scenes. However, later, when the back story is revealed in particular, my interest certainly waned a little, and the last third plodded a little for me.

I'm boggled why this movie was dropped by the marketing men, as it's got a lot going for it. Also, with '3:10 To Yuma' doing great business, and the Coen Brother's 'No Country for Old Men' being hailed as their best work in years, there could have been a wave of audience interest in Westerns to ride. As it is, this movie will probably sink to the 'straight-to-dvd' shelves, which is a shame, because it's not that bad. I won't lose too much sleep though, because it's not that great either.

Recommended for fans of the Western genre perhaps, and for those interested in Brosnan's post-Bond career-high performances. The man from Navan is really enjoying himself these days.

Shoot Em Up

2007-09-21T15:26:00.000Z

The verdict: Clive Owen shoots bad guys while doing stuff (and Monica Bellucci) but even if it's intentionally cheesy and shallow, it lacks the genuine quality to make up for that.

The rating: 5/10

Every now and again, a 'laddish' film such as 'Shoot Em Up' is released that separates the critics into two distinct camps. On the one hand, you have the lads mags, the likes of FHM and Loaded calling it "non-stop gung-ho entertainment", and on the other, you have "big papers" like The Guardian using such a movie as an example of how modern cinema is being dumbed down.

At the level of the average movie viewer, this can often mean that such a movie becomes emblematic. For example, to admit to liking such a film is a statement that you know how to enjoy watching movies. Conversely to criticise such a film can leave you open to being seen as a bit of a cultural snob.

Now, before I give you the reasons why I didn’t like this movie, I'll ask you not to get me wrong, because I like my brainless entertainment as much as anyone. However, I'll add a bit of a proviso to that statement. Jason Statham's better movies (I'm thinking of 'Crank' and 'The One', for example) may appear at first glance to be brainless, but in my opinion this is by design rather than by accident. If you scratch a little below the surface of those movies, you'll find genuine creativity – these movies might be based on simple ideas, but they are at least a little original, they are well executed, and display a good sense of humour and enough quality to entertain.

'Shoot em up' is different. The premise of the movie is so contrived, it could have been dreamed up by Awesom-o. Anyway, the premise is thus: take John Woo's 'Hard Boiled' and remove Chow-Yun Fat. Insert Clive Owen, and numerous scenes where he shoots many many bad guys while doing cool stuff (like having sex with Monica Bellucci). Now, the premise isn't so bad, but there are so many scenes in here that are just crowbarred into the script because they sounded 'cool' (in a thoroughly self-conscious way, which of course, isn't that cool).

The action in Shoot em up is mildly entertaining at times, but the script, story and characters are just props, linking the assorted scenes of over the top gunplay. I don't know about you, but if I don't care whether the good guy lives or dies, then I’m not going to get too worried about whether he survives to the end or not.

Monica Bellucci is essentially a prop in this movie, appearing every now and again to explain what's going on to the audience, and provide a bit of agreeable T&A filler material before the next action sequence. Clive Owen isn't bad, but his dry cool one-liners are really terrible. He just doesn't have the comic delivery of an action hero. Paul Giamatti hams it up nicely, but he's working with peanuts here.

I know we should all be down with post-modern ironic entertainment, where movies like 'Grindhouse' and 'Hot Fuzz' have made it legitimate to make intentionally cheesy movies, as long as there is the occasional nod to the audience and of course, the original source material. However, this approach can wander into dangerous territory if it goes too far, and 'Shoot em up' is in the kind of 'Snakes on a Plane' territory. It's knowingly cheesy, but it's still cheesy. The one-liners might be written with the intention of making you groan, but the effect is the same. The action has been constructed to be ridiculous, but at the end of the day, is that going to give the audience real entertainment? This movie effectively steals from John Woo, and doesn't reward him for invoking his iconic image.

If you watch this film with the lads over a few cans, you might get enjoy it. Maybe I was just too damn sober for it. I'm going to give it a five, but not because I'm on a moral crusade against low-brow entertainment. No, this movie gets a five because I just didn't enjoy it that much.

Free Lecture: The Power of Japanese Animation

2007-09-20T08:26:00.000Z

Nobiyuki Tsugata knows a lot about anime. In fact, he lectures about it in two Japanese universities (Osaka University of Arts and Kyoto Seika University). Also, he has written three books on the subject, which is roughly three more than you or I. Where am I going with this? Well, one more interesting thing about Nobiyuki Tsugata is that he's also coming to Dublin to talk on the subject, and if you want to go and hear what he has to say, you lucky devils get to go for free!

For those of you with an interest in Japanese animation, this promises to add bucketloads to your background knowledge of the subject from a real expert in the area, and all this at a price that can't be beat.

The lecture is in Trinity College, Dublin, in the Jonathan Swift Lecture theatre (ground floor of the Arts building) on Wednesday 3rd October at 18:30.

To register for places, you'll need to contact the Cultural/Information Division in the Embassy of Japan (tel: 01-2028305, or e-mail: cultural@embjp.ie)

Breach

2007-09-16T21:53:00.000Z

The verdict: Solid, realistic and well acted political thriller, with an excellent script and three decent central performances... but it's a little lukewarm.

The rating: 6/10

You may recognise Chris Cooper's face as the emotionally repressed military father from 'American Beauty', but you there's a good chance you're not familiar with his name. You see, Cooper is one of those jobbing Hollywood actors who at one point or another, was branded as a 'character actor'. The role of the character actor is essentially to deliver capably adequate performances that will support the leading men and women, without showing off too much, and somehow outshining the reason the audience is there in the first place.

Since American Beauty, Cooper has quietly and capably turned in effective performances in some pretty big movies. He was in the first two 'Bourne' movies, 'Capote', 'Syriana' and 'Adaptation', which isn't a bad resume by anyone's standards. 'Breach' is Cooper's just reward for biding his time, and he has managed to land a role that is well suited to his talents.

At one level, this movie is the story of treason inside the CIA. Robert Hanssen (Cooper) may or may not be guilty of feeding inside information to the enemy. Former Catholic schoolboy Eric O'Neil (Ryan Philippe) is given the job of Hanssen's assistant, but this job is just a cover. In reality he is monitoring Hanssen, and reporting his movements to his real boss, Agent Burroughs (Laura Linney).

However, this movie is also a character study, following the effects of O'Neil's immersion in the activities of the CIA, through his encounters with Hanssen, the grizzled twenty-five year veteran who believes he can read people better than a lie detector, and also his immediate boss, who lives a lonely, unconnected life. Whilst in the process of uncovering the truth about Hanssen, O'Neil also comes to learn more about what the sacrifices he'll need to make to get ahead in the CIA as an agent.

I took some enjoyment from this movie, as Cooper in particular is great. Philippe delivers resaonable support, and the two share a few reasonably tense scenes together. The script is well packaged, and build slowly to a crescendo of subtle tension. This movie is based on a true story, and does feel like a slice of life in the CIA, an existence that could be transplanted to any form of corporate life by the looks of it.

The thing is, this movie is good, but it just ain't great. The tension builds slowly, but it never really simmers, and the outcome is relatively predictable. I enjoyed the fact that the good and bad guys in this movie came in shades of grey, but I was never able to warm to the characters. I could relate to the young guy in the office, wondering about how political he needs to be to get ahead, sure, but this is hardly inspiring stuff. All in all, when the end credits rolled, I wasn't really left with any strong feelings about this movie. 'Capable', 'adequate', and 'sufficient' were words that sprang to mind. Perhaps recommended for fans of political intrigue, but this isn't a top-notch thriller by any means.. let's just say if this movie was an actor, it would have a supporting role.

Ratatouille

2007-09-15T14:14:00.000Z

The Verdict: Excellent stuff. If you liked the Incredibles, you'll really like this.

The Rating: 8/10

In sport, as in the entertainment industry, success is often a double-edged sword. Moments of triumph are fleeting for those with that winning mentality, with successes becoming former glories faster than James Cameron can say 'I'm King of the World!!' No sooner has the ink dried on the rave reviews than the sports star or creative artist must pick themselves up and ask "what's next?".

Brad Bird followed his much lauded directorial debut, 'The Iron Giant', with a real gem of an animated feature. 'The Incredibles' won Brad Bird huge critical acclaim for producing an unpatronising piece of family entertainment, and picked up the Oscar for best animated feature. Easy to forget, however, that his script for The Incredibles was also nominated for Best Original Screenplay that year.

Bird was possibly unlucky to be in the same category as Charlie Kaufman's 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' that year, but the nomination is a reflection of his ability to produce family entertainment that has something to offer kids and adults alike. At first glance, The Iron Giant and The Incredibles are straight-forward kids' entertainment, but scratch beneath the surface, as with many kids movies, and there are clear moral messages to be taken away. Thankfully, Bird's 'messages' are subtle enough to often remain implicit to the story, and the two movies I've just mentioned never descend into preaching.

However, with the success of 'The Incredibles', Bird essentially cranked up the spotlight and pointed it at himself. What next? Well, with 'Ratatouille', in my opinion he has raised the bar. It tells the story of Remy, a rat with highly developed senses of smell and taste, who dreams of more than just living on garbage and stealing food. No, Remy's idol is a chef on the Cookery Channel named Gusteau, the best chef in France, and owner of a prestigious Parisian five-star restaurant, who believed that 'anyone can cook'.

In the first few minutes of the movie, Remy is separated from his family and friends, and is surprised to find that he has been living in Paris all along. He somehow finds his way to Gusteau's restaurant, and manages to befriend an inept chef working there. Together they begin cooking gastronomic masterpieces that begin turning around the fortunes of Gusteau's restaurant, which hasn't been doing so well lately. However, the current chef at Gusteau's suspects something is up (smells a rat? - Ed), and when uber-critic Anton Ego (voiced by Peter O'Toole) gets wind of the new chef at Gusteau's, he decides to sample the wares of the new chef, providing Remy with his greatest challenge yet.

As with all involving stories, it sounds so simple, but the main characters in this movie, especially Remy (pictured above) are excellently drawn and animated. There are a million little touches in the animaton that I imagine will reward the repeated viewings of a million kids and their beleagured parents once this movie is released on DVD.

Ratatouille is a wonderfully paced, entertaining story, and Bird has pitched the moral barometer just about right, delivering his lessons more with a roadmap than a baseball bat. It's funny, immersive, and should have enough to keep kids quiet for a couple of hours, while providing more than a few laughs for the adults to boot. Of particular note for the grown-ups is Peter O'Toole's speech at the end of the movie, in which Bird insightfully describes the role of the restaurant critic, in a delightful reference to the role of any critic (ahem).

So, two hearty thumbs-up for Ratatouille from me. This movie should provide a breath of fresh air to the genre of kid's animated entertainment now that the Shrek franchise has gone more than a little stale.

Ratatouille is released in Irish cinemas on 12th October

And the winner is...

2007-09-13T17:24:00.000Z

Well folks, the draw has been made, and Hugh O'Brien is the first name out of the hat, so congrats Hugh, you're won two tickets to the Irish premiere of Death Proof!!

Hugh, please get in touch so I can arrange handover of the moy-chan-dise. (As Fat Tony might say).

I should probably also point out that if Hugh fails to get in touch by four o'clock tomorrow, I'll be obliged to draw another name... so no pressure there Hugh!

Knocked Up

2007-09-10T18:59:00.000Z

The verdict: Warm, funny and engaging. Don't believe all the hype, but this well written, well acted, romantic slacker comedy shouldn't disappoint.

The rating: 7/10

Judd Apatow's rise to the top of Hollywood's comedy crew has gathered so much momentum of late, you could be forgiven for thinking he came from nowhere, but that's not quite true. He's already produced and/or written a few movies for Jim Carrey and (ahem) Will Ferrell, but he first sharpened his pencil on some quality tv shows, writing for both 'Larry Sanders' and the short-lived but under-rated 'Freaks and Geeks'. However, it was with 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' that Apatow became something of a name that audiences would recognise.

Many of the same crew from that movie - except, save a pretty funny cameo, Steve Carell - are re-united here, and the slacker themes are also revisited. Seth Rogen takes top billing this time, as Ben, a twenty-something bong-smoking Canadian jew, living illegally in the U.S. on the proceeds of an personal injury claim until his fledgling porn website (flesh of the stars.com) is launched. Meanwhile Alison, played by the beautiful Katherine Heigl, is promoted to presenter on the E! Network, and decides to celebrate by going out on the town with her older sister Debbie. In the club, the paths of these two characters cross, one thing leads to another and.. well.. I'm not spoiling anything here am I? I mean it's called 'Knocked Up', but it's not about tennis, you can guess what happens next!

The concept of this movie is so simple, it's amazing that it's any good. Essentially following these characters' efforts to cope with the imminent arrival of a big change in their lives, if the people involved weren't realistic and likeable, this film would be a disaster. Thankfully Apatow's script and an excellent cast make this a fun, enjoyable movie.

Rogen and Heigl are both great in the leads, and Paul Rudd is another familiar face from 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' making a welcome appearance. Rudd and Rogen's trip to Vegas in particular is a memorable sequence, and if you've never heard of 'pink-eye' before, then you may need to see this film.

The sense of humour is part 'The Office', part 'American Pie', but what makes Apatow's comedy so engaging is that each character has an identity, rather than just a 'motivation', or a plot-related reason for being on screen. Even the bit players have a personality, such as the candidate gynaecologists, or Ben's slacker buddies, and these aren't simple stereotypes such as 'the jock' or 'the nerd', each character has idiosyncrasies that make them funny. It's a subtle, but effective approach, and needs a good cast to pull it off. (Fnar fnar! - Ed)

I'm not sure how much more I need to say on this one really folks. If you enjoyed 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin' and you're looking for the perfect date movie, read no further, just get out and see this one...

However, be prepared for next year, because Judd Apatow has 'arrived' in Hollywood, and he's cranking up the production line to eleven. Next summer he'll be churning em out for Jack Black ('The Dewey Cox Story'), Will Ferrell ('Step Brothers') and *cough* Adam Sandler ('You Don't Mess With The Zohan'). The jury's out as to the potential quality of any of those (The Will Ferrell one should be good - Ed) but right about now, Apatow is pretty much the guy Hollywood comedians need to work with.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

2007-09-10T18:07:00.001Z

The verdict: Savvy, slick street-wise comedy actioner with a good sense of humour, this is pretty good fun.

The rating: 6/10

For some reason, I filed 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' in the 'maybe' category when it was released, and so never quite caught up with it. However, more recently I've seen Robert Downey Jr. in the brilliant 'A Scanner Darkly' and the thoroughly great 'Zodiac', and he's considering he's soon to star as the hero in the upcoming 'Iron Man', I figured it'd be remiss of me to let the movie that relaunched his glittering post-rehab career pass me by.

Also of interest is the comparitive lack of success that Val Kilmer has enjoyed since this - critically acclaimed and financially successful - movie was released.. I mean, have you seen him in anything recently? What's that? You mean you didn't see him in 'Ten Commandments: The Musical'? Shame on you reader, shame on you.

Anyhoo, Shane Black wrote and directed this movie, and this guy also wrote 'Lethal Weapon', back when the buddy cop movie was a fresh idea, and the origins of this genre are widely credited to him as it happens. Black also wrote what was so nearly Arnie's greatest moment, 'The Last Action Hero'. Sadly, that movie missed its marks, and was widely hailed as a turkey, but he did pen 'The Last Kiss Goodnight', one of those 'actually not too bad' movies you occasionally catch on d'telly.

It's safe to say that 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' is a better movie than Black's other writing credits, and as writer and director here, he has to take much of the plaudits for this, because it is very well written and looks great. The dialogue is sharp and crackles with wit and energy, delivered effortlessly by Downey Jr., who also plays the role of the self-conscious narrator. Kilmer has some great lines as the gay private detective 'Gay Perry', and Michelle Monaghan is only occasionally annoying as Harmony, the aspiring actress embroiled in the same nefarious Hollywood goings on as Downey Jr., and with a few dark secrets of her own to boot.

It's essentially a mystery suspense thriller type of deal, but so tongue in cheek that it's difficult to get too worried about what happens on screen, with Kilmer and Downey Jr.'s scenes together particularly good fun to watch. Downey also has a good chemistry with Monaghan, and there is a particularly good scene featuring a spider that made me laugh out loud. The story twists and turns with ruthless efficiency, and all builds towards a set-piece finale, with the efficiency of a well-oiled Hollywood machine, at times veering towards pat story-telling, but always with a few dry one-liners to keep the audience smiling.

Black has very obviously been influenced by Guy Ritchie's 'Lock Stock' and 'Snatch', and there were moments here evoking memories of those movies. Someone losing a finger shouldn't make you laugh, for example, but in Shane Black's world, as in Ritchie's, this type of incident seems quite easy for the audience to take on board, and is used as a comedy prop.

I found the whole thing good fun and it trundled along at a nice pace. However it was wrapped up a little too easily in the end with an improbable and jarring action sequence. Also, even though it was set in L.A., against the vacuous backdrop of aspiring actors and actresses, the whole thing just felt a bit lacking in substance. Black has improved his comic delivery, and polished the packaging of his movie to look shiny and new, but at the end of the day, this film is not much more memorable than his previous offerings. That said, it's not a bad dvd choice for a night in, you could definitely do a lot worse.

28 Weeks Later

2007-09-05T20:34:00.000Z

The verdict: An admirable attempt at building on Danny Boyle's acclaimed not-a-zombie-movie-but-may-as-well-be: '28 Days Later', this is entertaining stuff, but falls well short of the original.

The rating: 5/10

Sometimes, sequels are easy. In the early nineties, James Cameron certainly seemed to think so. Despite Ridley Scott's 'Alien' and his own 'The Terminator' both being recognised by audiences and critics alike as excellent movies, he arguably followed both with better films (in my book anyway). More recently, Paul Greengrass proved it was possible, with each Bourne movie he makes seemingly better than the one that came before, and you might remember the first one wasn't all that bad either.

With '28 Days Later' though, I always felt that it was going to be a tough gig for whoever it was that picked up the reins left slack by the polyvalent Danny Boyle. Boyle seemingly never revisits a genre once he hits his marks, and wasn't interested in making the sequel to '28 Days Later'. That movie was a breath of fresh air for a genre dominated by dull, formulaic remakes ('Land of the Dead', anyone?). It featured the now iconic scenes of Cillian Murphy wandering through a deserted London city centre, and a chilling virus known only as 'the rage'. Nice. It was also a very uncomfortable movie to watch, with the army barracks scenes in particular harbouring genuinely nasty undertones, to the point where you're rooting for the monsters over those creepy soldiers..

The director of 28 Weeks Later is no slouch though, and bizarrely, his movie 'Intacto' provided me with the orignal inspiration for this blog. Apparently I went to see it, but I have absolutely no memory of it, except, ahem, that it was pretty good... (What a review! - Ed). Hence the decision to record each individual reaction, lest I forget another! Anyway, the director also received executive producer Danny Boyle's stamp of approval, and he even borrowed 'Sunshine's Rose Byrne for one of the lead roles.

So, to the question, where do you go from '28 Days Later?', the answer, apparently, is back to London. The virus has apparently disappeared (yeah, right) and the U.S. Military are in to restore order (Fuck Yeah! - Ed) They're doing their best to rebuild, but we know it'll all go horribly wrong, and it quickly does.

If you thought the hand-held cameras in 'The Bourne Ultimatum' were annoying, then I would recommend you stay away from this movie. The jerky hand held makes the chases seem more visceral, and the rage-infected seem more frantic, but jaysis if it doesn't half get a bit tiresome after a while!

The tension is maintained for around an hour or so, but I felt it lost its way towards the end, particularly when a few bad decisions are made. I feel that if I found myself in a horror movie scenario, I wouldn't decide to hide out in a subway station where it was too dark to see anything. But hey, that's just me.

The end is teasingly left wide open for a third instalment, and stranger things have happened. However, with this movie I think we already have a good example of the law of diminishing returns in action, and the horse has been sufficiently flogged in my opinion. It's not by any means an offensive sequel, but the original was way better. Undemanding entertainment with a few good scares, but was possibly always going to be lacking the originality that made the first instalment so special.

Sherrybaby

2007-09-05T19:56:00.000Z

The verdict: A dark melodramatic tale of family ties and difficult lives, but without an awful lot to say. Maggie Gyllenhall is great, but the movie is mediocre.

The rating: 6/10

Don't get me wrong, I do like a good depressing melodrama every now and again. (Call me old fashioned!). Mike Leigh's 'Secrets and Lies', or possibly Darren Arronofsky's 'Requiem for a Dream' both spring to mind as real gems, but also properly harrowing.

These are not movies to casually throw on after a few pints, because they demand the audience be in the right frame of mind, mainly to avoid being reduced to weeping on the couch in the foetal position within half an hour. 'Sherrybaby' is in certainly in the same ballpark as those I've previously mentioned, but unfortunately doesn't even approach the same level of quality.

Sherry (Maggie Gyllenhall) is released from prison, two and a half years clean of heroin, and attempts to renew contact with a daughter she hardly knows. ... Yes folks, it's that kind of movie. (Jeez, you didn't fancy 'Knocked Up' then!? - Ed).

The plot follows Sherry as she attempts to build her life in the weeks after her release, struggling with addiction, family, and trying to do the right thing. Unfotunately, her background, though it appears rosy from the outside looking in, is anything but, and gradually more details are revealed about Sherry's past that explain why she is in the position she is in today.

Laurie Collyer wrote and directed this one, and the main point of interest in relation to the script is the prevalence of the female perspective in almost every scene. Particularly in her scenes with her daughter (Lexy), and also in the scenes with her sister in law, who has been raising her, I got the impression that the dialogue could not have been crafted by a bloke. There was much more unspoken dialogue than spoken, if that makes sense, and this adds to the realism, a definite plus point.

The thing is though, after sitting through Sherry's tough experiences and difficult times, I'm not really sure what I took away from this movie. In 'Transamerica', another drama told from a female (well, sort of) perspective, I had the impression that, if there was a point to be made, then I might have 'got it'. With Sherrybaby, I was left a little cold. Perhaps Sherry's situation was inevitable all along? Did she learn not to be so selfish and put other people's needs before her own, despite all the horrible stuff she had been through? The evidence on screen is inconclusive at best.

It's well acted, and very well written, but ultimately a standout lead performance does not always a great movie make. There are exceptions of course ('The Last King of Scotland') but Sherrybaby ain't it. I wouldn't run a mile from it, but it's only for die hard Maggie Gyllenhall fans, or possibly only those with a passing interest who just want to see her breasts a few times.

Death Proof Competition

2007-09-05T12:34:00.000Z

Win two tickets to the Irish Premiere of Quentin Tarantino's 'Death Proof'!

Yes, you could be among the first in Ireland to see Tarantino's GrindHouse pic in the presence of the man himself... The premiere takes place on Friday September 14th in the Savoy cinema, Dublin. (More details here)

Two tickets are up for grabs.. all you have to do is answer three simple movie-related questions. The answers can all be found somewhere on this blog (little tip: use the search bar at the top of the page to help you...)

The Questions
1. Which English premier league football team does Sylvester Stallone (apparently) support?
2. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are starring together in a movie released later this year. Name that movie.
3. Name a Thai movie that features a gay volleyball team (I'm presuming there is only one...)

The rules:
- One entry per person. Multiple entries will be ignored.
- Competition will close for entry on Wednesday 12th September at 17.00.
- Your mail address will not be used for any other purpose than this competition. No mailing lists, I promise.
- The winner will be notified on Thurday 13th September before 17.00.

Answers should be e-mailed here. Good luck!

The Bourne Ultimatum

2007-09-03T17:53:00.000Z

The verdict: A cracking actioner, requiring just the right amount of suspension of disbelief. The Bourne Ultimatum is that rarest of movie entities: a third instalment that improves on the previous two.

The rating: 8/10

The third instalment of the Bourne trilogy trundles along at such a confident, relentless pace, it would almost be easy to dismiss it as a solid action movie... you know, good popcorn entertainment. Well, I'm happy not to describe Ultimatum only in those terms, simply because it provides an absolutely top night at the flicks.

Be prepared though folks, because this movie is a tale of perpetual motion, right from the off. From the amnesiac hero at it's centre, on the run from the CIA and the NSA, to the hand-held camera style favoured by the movie's director, the now surely A-list Paul Greengrass, everbody in this movie is in a hurry to get about their business. Right from the opening scenes, which pick up as the second movie ended, there is an atmosphere of little time to waste: the dialogue comes thick and fast, and the action, set almost in real time pace, is smart, realistic and adrenaline-fuelled.

This movie follows a similar template to the previous instalment: Bourne is trying to re-discover his identity while being pursued by the CIA, who use cutting edge technology to try and catch up with him before he uncovers a number of dark secrets that their top brass would prefer to keep buried. While Bourne jets from one exotic location to the next, the CIA agents pace up and down in ultra-modern offices, using any means necessary to try and dispose of him, and getting quite irritated with each other as they continually fail to do so. Meanwhile, Bourne must follow a lukewarm trail of limited information from one life-threatening situation to the next, and keep literally just one step ahead of his pursuers all the while.

Matt Damon is convincing, and David Srathairn is excellent as the morally questionable chief investigator. Joan Allen reprises her role as chief pacer in the office, and does have a little more to do in this instalment, but the real star of the movie is the action. The set-pieces never feel overly contrived, as they are all deceptively simple. A few car chases, a chase on foot across rooftops in Tangier, a sniper in Waterloo station, every set-piece is filled with tension, close shaves, and unexpected twists, leaving the audience with just enough time to gasp before the next moment of high drama erupts onto the screen.

The soundtrack pulses with just the right amount of intensity when building tension, but daringly, many of the action sequences occur without any musical backing. When Bourne is fighting hand-to hand, we hear every swipe, every grunt of pain, and every bone crunching hit. When Bourne is in mobile pursuit, we hear tyres screeching, sirens wailing, glass smashing, and shouts of passers by. Overall, the sound in this Bourne movie really is second to none, and heightens the impact of the action scenes.

The dialogue is terse and urgent, and as with the action, there is little waste, with everything happening at real pace. However, there is some depth below the surface in the exchanges we see on screen, with the high-powered executive banter in particular displaying a real wit that you're unlikely to see in many actioners. A moment that sticks in my mind is when David Strathairn's character lambasts Joan Allen for criticising real-time judgements from an armchair, and I interpreted this almost as a challenge from the screen writers to the audience, as if they were saying, go on then, what would you do differently in this situation? Because Bourne generally stays one step ahead, and also because of the pace of the action, we never get the opportunity to poke holes in his decisions, and this is a major strength of the movie.

There are no cheesy one-liners, arched eyebrows, invisible cars or signature theme tune here (unless you count that Moby song.. which I don't). Bourne gets hurt and is regularly in mortal danger, but when he has to fight, he can fight. When he needs to drive, he's as comfortable on a scrambler as in a cop car. He capably speaks foreign languages, he knows how to lose a tail and he uses pay as you go mobile phones to avoid surveillance. Nothing in Bourne is beyond the boundaries of possibility, and that's what pulls you into wanting him to win out in the end.

If this movie is overlooked for Oscar next year, it will be a real crime. Direction, sound and script are top notch here and are the definite stars of the piece. Damon, too though, is understated and quietly effective in the lead role, and Strathairn and Allen have a very watchable sparring relationship, with a real undercurrent of tension (thankfully not of the Unresolved Sexual type).

What more can I say folks, go see it, you'll have a blast. You'll need a little suspension of disbelief, but not much, and for a movie that asks for so little, it delivers in spadeloads. I'm not sure if I want them to make a 'Bourne IV' (the door is left wiide open), but as long as Paul Greengrass continues to make movies of anything approaching this quality, then I'm going to be very happy to keep watching.

Disturbia

2007-08-27T20:36:00.001Z

The verdict: Polished thriller with plenty of smarts that will certainly launch Shia LaBoeuf's career, and provide large audiences with above average multiplex fodder. It's not great though.

The rating: 6/10

Essentially a remake, or perhaps more accurately a 'modern updating' of Hitchcock's masterpiece Rear Window, 'Disturbia' tells the story of troubled teen Kale, played by Shia LaBoeuf. Wheile Jimmy Stewart's broken leg meant he was immobile during a New York City heatwave, Kale is made housebound for the summer with an electronic tag after he punches his Spanish teacher in the face.

The story is similar enough to Rear Window, in that during his forced retreat from the outside world, our protagonist takes to observing his neighbours, and becomes increasingly suspicious of a neighbour who may or may not be a murderer. However, this being a 'fresh' modern updating of the story, our protagonist here is a teen suburban subscriber to X-Box live and iTunes, who takes to watching his extremely hot neighbour Ashley (Sarah Roemer) taking afternoon swims when his subscriptions to said services are withdrawn by his mom.

The movie is better than your average teen schlock fare, with the first hour building nicely and providing a few genuinely tense moments. LaBoeuf is a very capable lead, and if I was the E! Channel, I'd be describing him as 'so hot right now', with 'Transformers' still doing great business for him, and 'Disturbia' already having hit the top spot in the U.S. He's even doing voices for kids' animated movies for chrissakes, and Steven Spielberg has seen fit to cast him alongside Harrison Ford in the next Indiana Jones.... so he's doing alright for himself!

The supporting cast are all likeable, with Aaron Yoo turning in a great performance as Kale's funny mate who, somewhat unfortunately for him, does all the donkey work for his house-bound buddy when the killer's house needs to be investigated. Sarah Roemer fills the screen marvellously well, and is very capable to boot, while Carrie-Anne Moss and David Morse provide more than adequate support as Kale's mom and the suspected slasher respectively. Morse in particular is nicely dark, and adds a sinister atmosphere to proceedings in each of his scenes, without hamming it up too much.

It's well written, and director D.J. Caruso certainly delivers a polished thriller with plenty of frights and tense moments. Unfortunately, in the third act of 'Disturbia', things take a far more macabre and chaotic turn than in hitchcock's movie, where the suggestion of dodgy goings-on was used as a means to create tension, and where we were never permitted entry into the prime suspect's residence. In this version, we are shown all the grisly details, and somehow the movie loses a lot of the tension it had built in the previous hour, where it just becomes a bit of a chase, derivative of 'Scream', and perhaps influenced by 'Saw'.

In terms of what to expect with this movie, think 'Final Destination'. When I saw that one first, I remember thinking, "hey, that isn't a bad idea.." Perhaps because I was surprised to see an idea so good in a film that I expected to be mediocre, I enjoyed that movie all the more. The thing is, the idea in 'Disturbia' isn't original - Hitchcock did it better about forty years ago. Also, the third act lets it down more than a little. It's thoroughly inoffensive, if a little predictable, but it's a lot better than some of the rubbish you'll see in the multiplexes this year.

In short, 'Disturbia' will provide some decent popcorn entertainment, but it certainly won't live long in the memory.

Bridge To Terabithia

2007-08-27T19:03:00.000Z

The Verdict: A smart, bittersweet little gem of a movie pitched at the perfect level for growing kids and embittered adults alike.

The Rating: 8/10

Despite what the mainstream media might have us believe, not all kids these days are smoking ecstasy pipes while happy-slapping their delinquent friends on YouTube. I'm not talking about very young kids here, those still at the age where copious tears are shed with monotonous regularity ("I scratched my knee", "It's dark and I'm afraid", "There's alligators in the toilet") Hmmm, maybe just me on that last one then... No, I'm talking about the age when your folks get fed up to the back teeth with all this whinging, and start mentioning those terrible words: 'grow up'! That's when independence is forged, and things start getting all too real for kids who shouldn't be behaving like babies any more...

Ah yes, tween angst, that heinous, hormonally unbalanced beast, it's something Disney have been successfully tapping into for years. With 'Bridge to Terabithia', however, they've somehow managed to package it into a subtle, beautifully filmed movie that will surprise most with it's deceptively simple depth and quality.

The story deals with young Jesse, at a twelvish age and feeling a bit left out at school, the poor wee sod. He's interested in running and drawing, but from meagre means, so unable to afford decent trainers or paints. He's the fastest kid in school of his age, but thanks to the bullies, a bit of a loner. However, when Leslie, a quirky new girl starts at his school, and moves in next door to him, they quickly make friends and begin exploring in the forest behind their houses.

It sounds so simple, and it is, but the relationship between the two kids is extremely well written and developed. Both are excluded at school, and through this they bond, finding the means to tackle the bullies and bad kids. Their imaginations, Leslie's in particular, are their escape, and they conspire to imagine a world of their own in the forest, where they make the rules and are in charge.

It's not all happy exploring though. The theme of death is first introduced so subtly, that when it recurs, it is very very shocking indeed. Jess's father (the T-1000 himself, Robert Patrick) keeps a greenhouse, and sells the veg they grow there to supplement his already stretched income. However, he has to lay a trap in the greenhouse for an invading rodent who continually breaks in, and tells the young lad that he'll 'deal with' the intruder when he catches him. When the sound of the trap being sprung wakes Jess early one morning, he sneaks down to the greenhouse and releases the creature, for fear of what was about to happen to it. The scene where the mean dad berates the kid and tells him to 'get his head out of the clouds' is a revealing one, especially considering what comes later in the movie.

I don't want to spoil this movie, but as it's essentially a kids' film that adults can watch, it is important to tell you that it is probably going to be about as harrowing to a kid as, say, Bambi was to you when you first watched it. It's important to remember that most people who watched that movie as kids, never forget it.

In this movie, the themes of death, growing up, and the power of a child-like imagination are all delicately and subtly explored in this movie in a mature and considered manner, but pitched at a level that kids will 'get'.

The two leads are great, and although they are a little 'Disney Club' at times, they are frighteningly capable, the young lad in particular having to deal with some tough material. His music teacher, played by a doe-eyed Zooey Deschanel, also has a nicely understated supporting turn, the script is great, and although there are a few cheesy Disney moments thrown in here, they are acceptably brief, and sort of make sense when they do happen. The man in charge, Gabor Csupo (the real life Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons!) directs with a steady hand, never over-using the unusual special effects, and literally letting the kids do the talking.

No question about it though folks, if you have kids, this movie will make them cry! However, I recommend it as it thoroughly surprised me with its intelligence, subtlety and respect for the ability of its target audience to handle the drama that's unfolding on screen in front of them. Plenty in here for adults as well though, and it may be unfair to compare it to a movie as good as 'Pans Labyrinth', but Terabithia is perhaps a less grown-up version of a similarly themed story, and has many of the same qualities that made Pans Labyrinth so watchable.

The 11th Hour: Preview

2007-08-22T21:33:00.000Z

There was a typically insightful, albeit slightly cynical moment, in the opening minutes of the Simpsons movie, where Greenday, after playing for two and a half hours, request a minute of the Springfield audience's time to deliver a quick message about the environment... now, at the risk of meeting the same fate as those lads, I'd like to briefly interrupt this blog-cast to bring you a wee message... (see trailer below)

Now, it would be all too easy to dismiss Leonardo DiCaprio's movie about global warming. After all, he's a super-rich Hollywood bigshot, what business does he have telling us how to live, I ask you!? Well, don't scramble the angry mob just yet folks, as it appears that DiCaprio's movie is a well researched piece from the list of contributing scientists at least, but more importantly, it is a cinematic movie, featuring some beautiful shots in the trailer at least.

While Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth focussed rightly on getting across the message of a real and genuine crisis with regard to climate change, times and the global political landscape have progressed since that film was released. By contrast, DiCaprio's two cents (more than that I'd imagine - Ed) begins with acceptance that the global climate is in crisis. Taking that as read, the movie tries to spotlight what can be done to turn this around.

No news yet on Irish release dates, but check out the trailer below, see what you think. And actually, if you do take the time to watch the trailer, please let me know if you'll be interested in seeing the movie, just as a straw poll... maybe another documentary about the environment is one too many? See if the trailer tickles your fancy anyway...

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

2007-08-21T20:16:00.002Z

The verdict: Very obviously inspiration for Monty Python, Michel Gondry, Stanley Kubrick and, no doubt, countless others.

This is a funny, accessible dream-like satire featuring deceptively serious themes of mortality and purpose.

The rating: 8/10

Although I had vague memories of watching 'Belle de Jour' many moons ago, I was a little wary of what to expect from my first Luis Bunuel movie as an adult, especially one with a title as wacky as this one. It turns out that the title is strangely descriptive though, as the movie is essentially a gentle satire of upper class habits and customs.

I felt on safe ground almost immediately as the opening scenes of this movie developed. It centers around the movements of a group of three wealthy French couples, who are constantly meeting for dinner, or at least, attempting to meet for dinner. Every time they meet, something seems to scupper their plans, be it a simple mix-up with dates in the beginning of the movie, or the frustrating fact that the entire meeting was dreamed by one of the group, as happens later in the movie when things get a little more involved.

The group of well-heeled couples are versed in etiquette and proper behaviour, and espouse decorum at all times. Behind this layer of politeness however, lurks a significant amount of dark secrets. The male characters are up to no good right from the get-go, with Fernando Rey (you might remember him as the bad guy from 'The French Connection') proving to be a softly spoken, well mannered cocaine smuggler.

The relationships and dialogue between the three couples reminded me of the dinner party scene in 'Monty Python's The Meaning of Life', when Eric Idle's salmon accidentally killed herself and all her guests. Oh bother. This scene from Monty Python was most definitely inspired from scenes in Bunuel's movie, where absurd politeness also happens to sit alongside the imminent approach of death. Just as death played a role in the Monty Python movie, so it does here. In one of many dream sequences, a young boy is visited by the ghost of his mother. After catching a glimpse of her in a mirror, he begins writing on a mirror in red lipstick in a subtly frightening scene, a single shot that instantly reminded me of 'The Shining'. When his mother appears the second time, she speaks without moving her lips, and this too is more than a little unnerving. However, the kid is happy to see her, and hasquickly grown more comfortable with his dead visitor.

Dream sequences play a large part in this movie, and a single shot, repeated three times, may be designed to have the audience question whether these characters are actually alive at all. At three separate moments, we see six main characters alone on a country road, walking towards the distance without speaking to each another. Is this a dream of one of the characters? Or is it merely designed to signal to the audience that the real lives of these characters is the pointless journey? Open to interpretation that one.

The dream sequences are complex, but never get too out of hand. The satire is gentle, and sometimes bombastic - such as when the military batallion interrupt one of the dinner parties - but it never goes over the top. There is a sense of madcap humour about this movie that is infectious however, and even some elements of farce - such as when the local bishop becomes a gardener to one of the couples - but this is explained, and makes a crazy sort of sense, in the context of the movie.

Bunuel collaborated with the prolific Jean Claude Carriere on six movies, all made consecutively, and this one was made in 1972. It's awesome to think just what a source of inspiration it has been to film-makers over the years, and how original it must have seemed at the time it was released.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and am now looking forward to the prospect of getting through my Bunuel box set: this one is heartily recommended as a jaunty little madcap diversion from the mainstream. It's a little surreal, but then again, so was 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', and how good was that?

The Simpsons Movie

2007-08-12T10:42:00.000Z

The verdict: A safe, predictable and somewhat irrelevant cinematic debut for the ubiquitous yellow animated clan.

The rating: 6/10

The American tv show 'Happy Days' inadvertently coined an unfortunate phrase for the moment when an entertainment franchise runs out of gas. That moment when, collectively, the audience decides that there might be something better on the other channel.

The phrase originates from a moment when Fonzie decided to jump a shark through an ingenious set-piece involving a speedboat, a ramp and some rather shoddy special effects. From that moment, the ratings for Happy Days, previously a cornerstone of American tv viewing, dropped dramatically. Thus, to 'jump the shark' is, like Fonzie did that fateful day, to reveal to your audience that you've run out of ideas.

For example, the Wachowski Brothers jumped the shark with the third matrix movie. George Lucas jumped the shark with Jar Jar and Episode I. More often than not these days, television series are conceived with a lifespan in mind, a seven year cycle that will bring it to a logical conclusion. The objective? Avoid jumping the shark.

For seven or eight years, 'The Simpsons' was light years ahead of most of what television, and american television in particular, had to offer. Even Matt Groening could never have imagined the kind of global cultural impact this cartoon family could have had, starting as they did from such humble beginnings as crudely drawn short interludes on The Tracey Ullman show. However, increasingly, audiences are beginning to notice that the quality of Springfield's output has hit a sort of creative plateau.

Fast forward to 2007, and the Simpsons has become a staple of the Fox Network's schedule, on air now for almost twenty years, and soon to become the longest running tv show in the history of the world, ever. The list of guest voices on the show reads like a who's who of popular culture: Spinal Tap, Tony Blair, Stephen Hawking, U2, The Rolling Stones. More recently, Ricky Gervais wrote an episode and, now in the movie, Green Day make an appearance.

The Simpsons is an institution, as iconic as it is possible to be in popular entertainment. However, its best moments are most definitely behind it, and the movie only reinforces this.

The critical buzz from the Simpsons movie goes something like: "yes it's just like an episode of the Simpsons on the big screen, but is that such a bad thing?". Well, this reviewer humbly argues that the movie is about twelve years behind its time, and that to compare a movie to a current episode of the Simpsons makes me not want to pay ten euros to go and see it.

Harsh words perhaps? Well, in my defence, allow me to consider a far superior tv-to-movie jump from an animated series. The 'Southpark' movie was a ballsy, intelligent comedy that used the format of the musical to expose the franchise to a whole new audience, and deservedly received huge critical acclaim. By comparison, the Simpsons movie attempts nothing fresh or new. Also, the quality of the Simpsons TV series has been in steady decline for about ten years. Now, it could be argued that the average episode is still of a decent enough quality, but the point of a movie transition should be to expand the franchise somehow, to perhaps take a creative risk. With the Simpsons movie, we have a plot based around recycled moments from episodes we've already seen, packaged with better anumation and a few new gags.

A telling moment from the Simpsons movie occurs as the closing credits are rolling. Maggie finally says her first word, and it is 'sequel'. As the family disappointedly trudged off screen, I feared that this was the moment. Yes folks, this was the moment when I feared that the Simpsons may have jumped the shark.

It's not a bad movie. I mean, after all, it's 'the Simpsons', like a familiar blanket you can wrap yourself in when you're tired after work, eating your dinner, or waiting for 'Heroes' or 'Prison Break' to start of a midweek evening. It's just that the movie offers neither Simpsons fans nor newbies alike, anyhing new, at least, nothing that the tv show hasn't been doing for years and years.

'Spider pig' was funny, as was Homer's chainsaw impression. The rest, well, I just got the feeling I'd seen it all before on the smaller screen. Yes, I chuckled through a lot of it, but, like the average gag on 'Family Guy', this movie won't live long in the memory. Kids will love it, but followers of the tv series will have seen most of this before. The simpsons isn't jumping the shark in terms of its global audience, but for me, from now on, I'll be having a look to see what else is on.

Zodiac

2007-08-07T21:52:00.000Z

The verdict: Immersive, lovingly created psychological drama that focuses on a small group of people obsessed with catching an elusive killer.

The rating: 8/10

Now this is a movie. Right from the languid opening moments, when the camera trawls slowly over a night-time vista of a fireworks display, and the soothing, late seventies soundtrack caresses the eardrums, the audience should be in no doubt. The message, right from the off, is to sit back, strap yourself in, and enjoy the journey.

In those first scenes, where a young couple foolishly decide to head to a lonely late night make-out spot (first rule of horror films people, keep your kit on! - Ed), the uninitiated could be forgiven for thinking that this is another teen slasher movie in the vein of something like 'Road Kill' or 'The Hitcher'. Luckily however, this movie was crafted by David Fincher, so we are in for an entirely different kind of journey.

Fincher has had an interesting career, even by Hollywood standards. He started out as a miniature artist on small movies like (*cough*) 'Return of The Jedi' and (*cough*) 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. Next, perhaps emulating Martin Scorcese, he cut his directorial eye teeth with a concert movie. However, like so many other directors currently making the big bucks in Hollywood, he really gained notoriety as a music video director, churning out pop promos for small-time musical acts such as Sting ('Englishman in New York'), Michael Jackson ('Who is it') and Madonna (would you believe it: 'Vogue'!).

His big break came with a franchise instalment, but unfortunately, 'Alien 3' was a stylish failure, allowing Fincher room to demonstrate his technical expertise, but possibly at the expense of a decent story. However, treading in the footsteps of Ridley Scott and James Cameron is no easy thing to do.. (but I'll be honest with ya folks, I've always had a soft spot for Alien 3). The rest, you probably know already. After all, this is the guy behind 'Fight Club' and 'Seven', unquestionably two modern classics, but also 'The Game', an oft-overlooked little gem featuring Michael Douglas, Sean Penn, and a wickedly mind-bending story.

With 'Zodiac', Fincher has brought a labour of love to the screen. Based on the book by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle in the seventies and eighties, it tells the story of 'The Zodiac', a serial killer who loomed large in San Francisco in the late 70's. With a craving for media attention and a love of puzzles, this killer captured the attention of the public for half a decade. This guy was never cuaght, and taunted the media and the police with clues as to his identity, sending them letters, and even ringing in to televised talkshows to talk of his exploits.

Jake Gyllenhall plays Robert Graysmith, and he is instinctively drawn to the case right from moment the Zodiac's first letter is received at his office. Crime Correspondent Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is charged with reporting on the case, but he picks up on Graysmith's intuition as to why the killer is sending puzzles, and together they work on cracking the case. Meanwhile, the police investigation is headed by Inspector Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and his partner, played by Anthony Edwards (the Goose man! - Ed).

The story follows the timeline of the case, and tracks the effect this investigation has on the people most closely involved with it. At first, Toschi is the man obsessed, and he comes painfully close to an arrest at one point. However, the physical evidence simply isn't on his side, so his suspect goes free. Avery (Downey) for his part, angers the Zodiac by referring to him as a latent homosexual, and for a time his life appears to be at risk, which only fuels Avery's problems with alcohol.. and the rest.

As the years pass since the Zodiac's last killing, Avery's career goes on a downward spiral. Possibly in an attempt to help his friend, but also possibly out of self-interest, Graysmith offers to help Avery write a book on the Zodiac, but Avery isn't interested. And so begins Graysmith's obsession with the case.

The central performances in this movie are all strong, and are as close to perfect casting as you will see. Gyllenhall's character is moody and weird, Downey's is a fully-functioning alcoholic, and Ruffalo - although almost unrecognisable compared to his character in 'Eternal Sunshine' - is a driven, ambitous and emotional cop. The supporting cast, are all great too, with Brian Cox seemingly omnipresent lately, but the screen is full of recognisable, talented faces, all adding to the atomsphere of the drama.

In terms of atmosphere, the most ready comparison I could make would be with Spike Lee's excellent 'Summer of Sam', but Zodiac is a better movie, if a slightly different animal.

The movie looks and sounds absolutely great, and will be a dream for any HD LCD or Plasma TV owner. Every scene is framed beautifully, and this is a much more colourful film than most of Fincher's previous work, synonymous as it is with either darkness ('Seven') or monochrome colours ('Panic Room'). The soundtrack is atmospheric and seamlessly works with the action, adding to the feeling of being placed in the 70's.

Part police procedural drama, part ensemble mystery story, one criticism I would have of Zodiac is that it is a little long. However, this is not to say that there are any vacuous moments in the movie, it's just that there really is a lot of detail up there on screen.

However, the central performances are all outstanding, the direction and script are top notch and the story is definitely one worth hearing. For these reasons I'd heartily recommend 'Zodiac', and reckon it's easily one of the best movies I've seen this year so far.

The Bourne Supremacy

2007-08-06T15:27:00.000Z

The verdict: Gritty, action-packed and, unbelievably, it's believable! Bond should look to Bourne for ideas, because this is what a spy thriller should be. Roll on Bourne 3!

The rating: 7/10

I don't know, there just seemed to be no end of fuss and hype about 'Casino Royale'. Fair enough, Daniel Craig delivered a great performance as Bond, and the script and action were the best we've seen from the franchise in years, but when you watch 'The Bourne Supremacy', you begin to realise the failings of the british franchise. The problem with Bond, as Daniel Craig found out so viscerally, is all the bloody baggage that comes with it. Everybody has expectations of who Bond should be, what he should say, what fecking car he should drive.. For film-makers to take on the Bond franchise, they have the weight of expectation around this larger than life character that has an off-screen identity all his own.

Bourne has no such baggage. The first movie was a pacy actioner in which Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) awakes from a spell of amnesia to find that he's a highly trained super-spy, and his life is in danger. Instantly, the rules of the game become fluid. We aren't sure what to expect from Bourne because he doesn't know what's going to happen next himself.

The first movie, with its understated and dangerous hero, managed to relaunch the flagging career of Matt Damon, and luckily there were two more Robert Ludlum books to mine for sequel material. Now, of course we have the franchise, with the third movie 'The Bourne Ultimatum' due out this summer, and featuring Paddy Considine in a lead role, good work, fella!

In an inspired piece of delegation for this, the second episode, the reins were handed to United 93's helmsman Paul Greengrass, and this has injected a dose of grittier, more realistic action to proceedings. Bourne has no catchphrase, and there are no invisible cars on show in this spy thriller.

Right from the opening moments, 'The Bourne Supremacy' sets the ball rolling for a fraught, tense and realistic thriller that is definitely worth the admission price. Greengrass brings an immediacy to proceedings, and the action moves at a real-time pace, with Bourne literally living moment to moment, but always a pace or two ahead of his pursuers.

The supporting cast adds the required level of gravitas to proceedings, with Brian Cox delivering a pretty good turn as the veteran of operation Treadstone, Bourne's training mission. Julia Stiles also shows up, and has a nice few scenes with Damon, where she genuinely looks like she's fearing for her life. Bless.

Crucial to your enjoyment of a movie like this though, is whether you can believe what's unfolding in front of you. To his credit, Greengrass manages the pace of the action very well, and although at times events happen very quickly, the movie never gets ahead of itself. When gadgets are employed, they are sufficiently low-tech in appearance, portable, and conspicuously free of brand names to make them look like they might actually do what Bourne is trying to make them do. One criticism might be that even in the quieter moments of the movie, his characteristic jerky hand-held camera style seems a little at odds with what's happening on screen, but this is a small quibble compared to the positives.

Damon is convincing as the amnesiac hero, and has sufficiently increased in bulk to make you believe he's hold his own in a ruck with a russian mole, or whatever. As I said previously though, Greengrass has foregone the dry cool wit of the action hero, so Damon has no killer line to speak of, of the "Bourne, Jason Bourne" variety. (How about: "I'm Bourne. You're dead." Eh? ... No?... - Ed).. However, given the situations he's dealing with, you'd forgive him for not having the time to throw a witty remark over his shoulder..

I have to say, I was impressed with this one, and am now really looking forward to the third instalment, which will also be direted by Greengrass. In any case, this one is well worth a look on Dvd if you missed it in the flicks...

The Host

2007-08-04T15:06:00.000Z

The verdict: A light-hearted monster movie from Korea, but the occasional laughs are outweighed by a meandering, ponderous storyline.

The rating: 5/10

Ah yes, the monster movie. Hollywood has churned out it's fair share of em, and Asian cinema is probably renowned for the genre. But it's been more than a few years since the threat of a big bad monster could capture the imagination of cinema audiences on the scale of some of the recent Hollywood Cinematic behemoths. So, while 'Transformers' brazenly rakes in the box office takings, a fun monster movie like 'Slither' humbly sneaks into the DVD bargain bin with nary a whimper.

The movie critics may bemoan this fact, studied as they are in the history of trashy cinema from 1950's Hollywood and Japan, where monster movies were a staple of the art. However, this style of movie harks back to a simpler time, when broadband was a type of y-front waistline, and a gigabyte was something Gojira did to Mothra. The heyday of monster movies recalls a time when going to the movies of a Saturday was an event, and seeing Godzilla trash a cardboard city on the big screen was new and exciting. These days, we mock poor special effects, used as they are even in music videos.. (such as this Beastie Boys classic) No, in the 21st century, we like our monsters to be real, and if possible, graphically violent, if the huge success of the recent crop of 'torture porn' style horror movies is anything to go by.

The Host is an old-school monster movie, in that the monster isn't simply attacking and killing innocent victims. In this type of monster movie, the creature is created by humans, and simply tries to survive. Godzilla was a product of nuclear explosions, but this creature is caused by an altogether more mundane human failing, when chemicals are dumped into Seoul's Han river.

Rather than building tension as to what the monster looks like, or perhaps give us the occasional night-time glimpse for the first half an hour or so, the makers of 'The Host' take the ballsy approach of revealing the creature in the first ten minutes of the movie. This scene is one of the best in the film, where the creature goes on a large-scale river-side rampage, trashing all in it's wake.

The plot centres around the hapless Gang-Du, played by the ever-versatile Kang Ho-Song. This guy has really mixed it up over the years, and features in two previous reviews from PCMR's Asian Season: 'Shiri' the popcorn cop flck, and 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance' the nightmarish revenge fable. In this movie, Kang Ho-Song's character is something of a loser and a dimwit, but as we learn later, there's a reason for his dopey ways. He lives with his young daughter, athlete sister and browbeaten father in a trailer by the bank of the Han river selling snacks, the Korean equivalent of an ice-cream truck I guess, if the ice-cream was fried squid that is.

Aanyway, Gang-Du's daughter Hanseo, is taken by the creature, and he has to get her back. And therein lies the story of 'The Host'. His sister's archery skills come in handy, as do his father's wiles (and life savings) and eventually the creature is faced down.

The creature itself is done well, and the scenes where it rampages through the crowds are excellent, but there is far to much of the movie where the monster isn't even a threat. Also, there is a lot of comedy in this movie, and I'm afraid the effect of it was lost on me a little, given that I was watching the dubbed version, and all the male characters sounded quite similar (rounded and well pronounced generic american accents... tsk).

So the tension is created with the reveal of the monster, but relieved once we find out Hanseo is alive. From that moment on, the movie just seemed to meander. In a format as tried and tested as this, there needs to be a few surprises involved to hold the interest of the audience, and, sadly, there weren't many to be found in this movie.

There was a lot of hype surrounding the release of 'The Host' on these shores, but sadly, in my opinion, the strong opening scenes promise much but deliver little, and this film is ultimately a little more Godzuki than Godzilla.

Goal 2: Living the Dream

2007-08-03T16:32:00.000Z

The verdict: Ok, so it's only slightly less ridiculous than the first instalment, but (*cough*) the football action is very well filmed.

The rating: 5/10

The continuing existence of this franchise is something of a minor miracle, considering the revenues of the first, cliché-riddled, lamentably awful instalment. However, it may be a fortuitous case of life reflecting art - and I use the word in the loosest sense in relation to this film - but Santiago Munez' career takes a turn for the better in this sequel, and overall, this is a better film than the first epsiode.

Bear in mind though folks, that's not saying much! I don't think Goal 2: Living the Dream is intended to appeal to anyone other than those who would already consider themselves confirmed fans of The Beautiful Game.

I mean, the first episode had weighty themes of the 'believe in yourself and you can achieve anything' variety to tackle. This episode treats altogether more tabloid storylines such as 'how to cope when you crash your lamborghini and punch a paparazzo'. In this, at least, it provides an altogether purer form of escapism than the first episode.

Santiago Munez (Kuno Becker) joins his former team mate Gavin Harris (Alessandro Nivola) at Real Madrid early in the movie, and struggles to get into the first team. The crew were given unprecedented access to Real's facilities during production, so the likes of Beckham, Zidane, Ronaldo and (*cough*) Thomas Gravesen continually potter about in the background, occasionally high-fiving one of our two heroes in the midst of a training montage, or some such. Occasionally the real Real players get lines in the movie, but the film-makers obviously learned from Becks' heinous spoken role in the first episode, and restrain their dramatic demands on the players, letting them do most of their talking on the pitch.

Off the pitch, Santi's having girl trouble, and how. His Newcastle girlfriend, played by Anna Friel, is finding the move to Madrid tough, given that she is still working towards exams at the Newcastle hospital, and only spending the odd weekend in Madrid. At the same time, Santiago's receiving special attention from a certain Spanish tv presenter named Jordana, a Penelope Cruz lookalike (but with a better nose) and this puts a real strain on their relationship.

So, Munez becomes a super-sub, and a Real star, but also discovers his long lost mother in Madrid... Will all his off-field struggles combine to cause mental problems in his game? Will he do the dirt on Anna Friel? Will he reconcile with his mother? Will Thomas Gravesen have a spoken part in this movie?

Yes folks, just like in an episode of 'Dream Team' or 'Footballers Wives', there are many questions to be answered in this movie. However, the on-field action is the primary attraction of this movie, and this at least is put together exceptionally well. When on the pitch, the footage of the fictional characters interacts with that of the genuine Madrid players seamlessly, and with the exception of a few moments that are straight out of an X-Box simulation (every goal Munez scores seems to be an acrobatic bicycle kick in the last minute) the on-field action is great and very watchable.

So, it's a feather-light football movie for fans of the game, but it's a big improvement on the first episode. Kuno Becker is likeable in the lead role, and his team-mate (Nivola) is a loveable rogue kind of character. Friel, too, has more to do in this one, and Rutger Hauer is a useful enough addition to the cast as the Madrid gaffer, even if he does phone in a performance that wouldn't make a Guiness Ad out-take. Too many montages, pat story-telling, and a high number of cliches mean this will never be anything approaching high art or even multiplex fodder, but it's an agreeable, if completely dopey ninety minutes during a summer without football.

The third instalment of this franchise is on the way, apparently. I find it difficult to believe that it will get the green light however, unless they can continue the Beckham link... Munez to sign for the LA Galaxy perhaps?

This is England

2007-08-01T20:04:00.000Z

The verdict: Shane Meadows' superb semi-autobiographical account of growing up in early 80's England is an immersive, atmoshperic movie with great central performances. Well worth a look.

The rating: 7/10

My first impression of Shane Meadows was made with 'Dead Man's Shoes', a wrecking ball of a movie featuring a genuinely frightening performance from Paddy Considine. There are scenes in that movie that leave a deep imprint on the memory, but of note is the unbelievable tension generated by Considine's sudden shifts of mood. One moment things are light-hearted and easy-going, the next you are catching your breath for fear of what the crazy man will do next.

'This is England' features similar moments of tension and unpredictability, but these are balanced by scenes of a more light-hearted mood than anything from 'Dead Man's Shoes'. Set in the early 80's, the movie's central character is Shaun, a guttsy 12-year-old kid dealing with life after the loss of his father. Shaun is getting a little grief at school, and befriends a group of skinheads on his way home from school one day.

Events take a slightly darker turn however, when Combo gets out of jail. Played by Stephen Graham, who you might recognise from 'Gangs of New York' - but more likely from those Arctic Monkeys videos - Combo is a more aggressive, BNP-affiliated kind of skinhead. From his explosive entry into proceedings, Combo is a divisive presence, building tension between this group of friends, with his blatantly racist comments causing particular tension for the ironically named Milky, played by Romeo Brass himself, Andrew Shim.

The movie is loaded with 80's nostalgia, right from the opening credits, where we are treated to a monatage of iconic images from the time, with the opening line of dialogue going to a cinematic debut for none other than Roland Rat.

England in 1983 must have been a difficult place to grow up. The war with the falklands, combined with high levels of immigration and a domestic recession contributed to an atmosphere of frustration. This movie evokes that quite well, particularly with the tragically conflicted character of Combo.

Of more interest though, is the journey of Shaun, played astonishingly well by the young debutant Thomas Turgoose. The role asks a lot of the kid, as he is placed in adult situations throughout the film, but he copes incredibly well, and has some brilliant lines. He has a lot of memorable moments, including one when he is trying to convince his mother to buy him a pair of Doc Martens, and his language shocks the prissy shoe saleswoman.

Stephen Graham's performance too, is phenomenal, and Meadows' capacity to create dark, frustrated and dangerous characters, so ably demonstrated in 'Dead Man's Shoes' is reproduced here, in my opinion to greater effect. The Combo character is complex but understandable, and Graham's performance is top notch.

I would heartily recommend 'This is England' as an immersive, nostalgic movie. If you're a child of the 80's like me, you'll find much to like in this one. However, the central performances of Stephen Graham, Thomas Turgoose and Andrew Shim are worth the admission price alone in my book. So shave your head, lace up your Docs and get that Ben Sherman shirt on, stick on the ska and enjoy this movie. It's definitely Shane Meadows' best to date.

1408

2007-07-31T20:07:00.000Z

The verdict: Claustrophobic, old-school horror that borrows from other, superior Stephen King adaptations (and there have been a few!). Cusack's great performance can't quite lift this above mediocrity.

The rating: 5/10

Horror movies generally have rules by which the principal characters should abide in order to avoid getting hacked up, bitten by a vampire, or eaten by zombies. The 'Scream' movie did a good job of exposing some of the self-aware, ironic teen horror flick rules, but fans will have already been aware of the staples of old-school horror. You know, the things you shout at the screen just before the main characters get bumped off.

First, if you hear a scary noise, don't investigate, especially if the noise is coming from a dark place, like a basement or a bathroom. Investigating the noise is the most dangerous thing you can do. Next, if a scary old man tells you to stay away from something, you should stay away from it. Period. Ignoring the advice of the old-timer will likely result in your bloody demise. Finally, stay away from bathroom cabinets with mirrors on the front. Closing these will almost invariably reveal a monster standing behind you. In fact, refer to rule 1, and just steer clear of night-time visits to the bathroom altogether if possible. (Er, not sure if this is great advice.. - Ed)

1408, starring the always likeable John Cusack, eschews the teen slasher ('Scream'), torture porn ('Saw'), and b-movie ('Slither') varieties of horror movie made so popular of late, and instead opts for a more straight-forward format. This is a Stephen King adaptation, and it is derivative of a storyline from one of PCMR's all-time favourite books and movies: 'The Shining'. In the Overlook Hotel, where Jack Torrance went mad and tried to kill his family, there was a room where entry was forbidden. Room 89 I believe it was. Of course, being a kid, Jack's son Danny decides to go into the room and naturally discovers that there are really scary monsters inside. (Duh! That's why you're not supposed to go in there!)

1408 takes that chapter from the Shining and fleshes it out into a story all of its own. John Cusack plays Mike Enslin, a jaded writer who reviews hotels that claim to be haunted. Enslin is disappointed that to date he has not seen any genuine evidence of the afterlife. On his birthday however, he receives an postcard advising him not to enter room 1408 in the Dolphin Hotel, New York. Intrigued, he ignores the advice of the anonymous correspondent, and reserves a night in the room.

Upon checking in at the Dolphin, Enslin is greeted by the hotel manager, played by Samuel L. Jackson. The manager tries to convince Enslin not to stay in the room, and makes quite a case for the room being dangerous, in an uncharacteristically understated performance from Jackson. No-one has ever lasted more than an hour in the room, apparently..

However, this is a horror movie after all, so Cusack good-naturedly ignores the advice, desperate for some evidence of genuinely spooky goings on. And it's not long before scary things start happening, with the audience collectively muttering to themselves "no feckin' way I'd be staying there after what Samuel Jackson just said."

The thing is, Cusack gives a very effective performance in the lead role as the cynic who at first doesn't believe in the existence of ghosts, and who gradually comes to realise the shocking truth that he is trapped in a haunted hotel room, with the two most likely outcomes of the situation being madness or death.

This movie has Stephen King's trademarks all over it. Wholesome popular music is juxtaposed with tense situations to creepy effect - this time it's The Carpenter's 'We've Only Just Begun'. Normal objects, such as a clock radio, or a painting on a wall, are invested with ominous, foreboding personality. The central character is a troubled writer with a difficult family history...

Director Mikael Hafstrom has created a movie of two halves with this one. The first hour is very well realised, with the characters well established, and the purposeful action set in motion at a lovely pace. Cusack and Jackson have a great few scenes together, and Cusack is as watchable as usual, making his first scenes alone in the room as watchable as what came before.

The thing is, the premise is very ambitous. Colin Farrell couldn't make a phone booth all that entertaining, so John Cusack has a tough job here, with only the four walls of a hotel room to work with for around an hour of the movie. His charisma is enough to carry the first half of the film, but when the scary stuff eventually started happening on-screen, my interested waned a little, and the last half an hour in particular really trailed off.

There are a few scares, and one or two genuinely creepy moments, but the denouement didn't quite live up to the anticipation generated in the first hour. It's admirable for its approach, in that it tries to create atmosphere and tension as opposed to horrify with gore, but the premise, while devilish in its simplicity, is a little too light to justify a full-length movie. And when Hafstrom reveals his hand in the last act, it's all a little heavy handed for my liking. Perhaps an episode of 'The Twilight Zone would have served this story a little better.

Transformers

2007-07-16T21:20:00.000Z

The verdict: The first half hour almost hints at likeable characters, a story.. you know... stuff like that, but the admittedly impressive CGI soon takes over. This is not a good movie in disguise.

The rating: 5/10.

I have a confession to make: I went to see 'Armageddon' in the cinema. Please, please, contain your abuse, there were mitigating circumstances... ahem, ok, so it was a date, she wanted to see 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being', I wanted to see something else... so... we compromised and ended up seeing something neither of us wanted to watch... This is when I learned that a true compromise is a situation where both parties lose. Yes folks, with 'Armageddon', Michael Bay certainly taught me a life lesson.

When it came to the build-up to this movie, my brain may have attempted to remind me of my Michael Bay-related lesson, but I was busy with my fingers in my ears, metaphorically going 'la-la-la-la-laaa'. You see, there is definitely the potential for a really good 'Transformers' movie, if a hungry, talented young director, like a Christopher Nolan, a Len Wiseman or the Wachowski brothers (ten years ago) got their hands on it... instead (sigh), Hollywood gave the man who lost them a cool $100 million dollars with 'The Island' his chance for redemption. And the money men might just have made the right choice from their point of view, considering the business this movie has done. Only one week on release in the US, and its already turning a profit.. not bad for a $135 million dollar flick about toy robots.

So, is it actually any good? Well... to be honest, it's bad, but not 'Armageddon' bad. First, in case you missed it: 'Transformers' is a Michael Bay movie. To explain, 'Armageddon' was a movie where Liv Tyler's 'character' consisted mostly of wordlessly staring, yearning towards the sunset, with the American flag billowing in the wind behind her, while a crew of oil riggers, captained by her daddy (Bruce Willis, not that Aerosmith fella) attempted to save the earth from an oncoming meteor... you couldn't make it up, really. 'Armageddon' sucked in an offensive way, but happily, 'Transformers' isn't nearly that bad.

However, as with other Michael Bay movies, little time is wasted with stuff like character, motivation or (pshaw) conversations. Dialogue is first about setting up the initial explosion, then as a device to move characters from one explosion to the next. In terms of characters, if they can't be understood in one sentence, then they're likely to die rather quickly. We are introduced to Sam (Shia LaBoeuf) who wants a car and a girl and Michaela (Megan Fox) who is hot. That's all. Oh, and then there's Captain Lennox (Josh Duhamel) who just wants to finish his tour in the army and get back to his wife and kid, and the minister of Defence (Jon Voight) who needs to control this mess, and maybe leer a bit...

... ok, ok, so you don't watch 'Transformers' for the characters, I get it. Anyway, the two main leads are more than likeable, so, as long as the robots are cool and have cool fights where stuff gets trashed, who cares, right? Well, I'm happy to say the robots are certainly very well done. The special effects in this one are off the scale, really pushing things to another level. I would have a gripe about the leader of the baddies not being in it nearly enough though. He could have had an awful lot more to smash, given the opportunity.

The story though, is just silly, and possibly ripped off from an episode of the transformers kids cartoon (which was made by a toy manufacturer, incidentally). I've just forced myself to delete a sentence describing the storyline of the movie, for risk of spoilers, because it summed up the entire plot in about sixteen words. Two of those words were 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

Ok, so transformers is for kids then? Well, not quite. There is grown up humour in here, of the 'American Pie' variety, and the action is not light enough for young kids who might otherwise be watching 'Shrek the Third'. About forty five minutes of this movie is crammed with nonsensically fast-moving cameras zooming back and forth around giant robots, with human characters flitting about between their feet/wheels/other mechanical parts. The need for this comparitive scale makes many of the scenes featuring the robots quite difficult to follow. In particular, the last battle scenes are totally chaotic and very difficult for a 29-year-old codger like me to follow, my abnormally short attention span notwithstanding.

If it wasn't so silly and chaotic and two-dimensional, the robots might have saved it, but unfortunately, 'Transformers' just isn't a very good film. The action in 'Die Hard 4.0' was completely over the top, but it was packaged brilliantly. Michael Bay is more like a spoiled neighbour kid at Christmas. He's just got all these toys and, unsure which one to show us first, just shoves three of them in our faces, obscuring any clear view we might have otherwise had, and detracting from any potential sense of wonder. Shame really, but hey, don't worry, he'll probably have another shot, 'Transformers 2' can't be too far off.

Die Hard 4.0

2007-07-15T21:08:00.001Z

The verdict: A grizzled hero and a wiseguy side-kick take on tooled up baddies and some kick-ass action ensues.. Die Hard 4.0 may work from a template, but it does it's thing with gusto. This is a cracking balls-out action movie.

The rating: 7.0 (...what's with the decimal point!? - Ed)

Live Free or Die Hard, or if you're from Europe, 'Die Hard 4.0', sees Bruce Willis take John McClane for another day out against the bad guys. In episodes 1.0 and 3.0, the aforementioned baddies were Germans played by Englishmen. In episode 2.0, the baddies were from a non-existent fictional banana republic. This time, however, beware, because the nerds are coming.

That's right folks, this time Washington has pissed off an IT guy, and he's back to get revenge. This is why it's 4.0 instead of just a regular four in the title: cyber-terrorists, geddit?

So Bruce is given an apparently innocuous mission in the first few minutes of the movie to bring in a young hacker for questioning, a certain Matt Ferrell (Justin Long). The bad guys are after Ferrell too though, and within minutes of McClane showing up, as you would expect, all hell starts breaking loose.

Die Hard 4.0 does everything a good action movie should do with the effortlessness of a grizzled professional, such as McClane is meant to be. From the opening minutes, the action kicks in, and slowly escalates to a truly breathtaking crescendo, with a fair few high notes along the way. This is popcorn action at its finest, with suspension of disbelief occurring involuntarily simply due to the finesse and sure-footedness of the action on screen.

The McClane character is slightly darker than in previous outings, and a little more grizzled than before, if that's possible. He's quieter and more reflective about his role in proceedings, nut he is still every inch the relentless pursuer of the bad guys, and Bruce Willis is excellent in the role. His foil is a necessary assistant, and although their relationship is a variation of the 'frosty-at-first' kind of partnership, Long is a likeable enough kind of smart-ass, with his character also having enough of value to contribute to proceedings. The back-and-forth between the two is entertaining enough, and they are different enough to complement each other quite well. As one character puts it, McClane is 'a timex watch in a digital age', so it makes a certain amount of sense that he would recruit this hacker to help him beat a cyber-terrorist.

The baddie, played by Timothy Olyphant, is believable enough, in that he is a human being, not a caricature of a foreign evil-doer with a generic Mittel-Europaische accent, or a Tony Montana style twang. Olyphant is a bad guy of the American post-9/11 zeitgeist, wishing to highlight America's vulnerability to cyber-terrorists, by disabling the technological infrastructure, and bringing the country to its knees. Then, when his ransom is received, he'll re-activate everything, and maybe install a new security system for an exorbitant fee. Kind of like the scenario where a teenager who programs and 'successfully' releases a virus then gets recruited by an anti-virus company on a six-figure salary. (Damn nerds... - Ed)

This time there is no confinement for McClane to worry about, as he employs all manner of vehicles to make his way from one high speed shoot-out to the next: helicopters, juggernauts and cop cars are all used. When things get personal, and his daughter is kidnapped by the baddies, the stakes are noticeably raised, and the action gets turned up to eleven.

Die Hard 4.0 works from the action-movie template, but does it all so well, that I found there to be a comfortable level of predictability to it, rather than the annoying feeling you know what's going to happen. The action really does take this one to another level though, with the final chase sequence in particular raising the bar so over the top, it'll leave audiences choking on their popcorn all over the world, reminding me of 'True Lies' on more than one occasion.

I would highly recommend 'Die Hard 4.0' as one of those rare movies that does exactly what it promises. It's a balls-out actioner that should cement Willis' credentials as Hollywood's most consistent action star of late. Yabbadabbadoo kemosabe, this one's definitely worth a look.

Sicko

2007-07-12T22:34:00.000Z

The verdict: Moving, didactic, and not as politically divisive as Moore's previus offerings, 'Sicko' is his best work to date.

The rating: 7/10

Michael Moore seems to have an ability to polarise American audiences in a manner few other film-makers can replicate. With his two previous documentaries, Moore called into question certain cultural mores that are almost unuquely American. In 'Bowling for Columbine', the issue of gun control was raised as a possible means of preventing further shootings in American high schools. Moore famously received a rifle as a free gift for opening a bank account in one of the Southern american states... However, gun ownership, and the right to bear arms, is an issue close to the heart of millions of Americans, and Moore did not win many of them over with this movie.

With 'Fahrenheit 9/11', Moore's biggest success to date, the American 'war on terror' was called into question. George W. Bush's actions after September 11th were forensically analysed, and Moore's conclusions were of shady goings-on in Capitol Hill, linking the Bush and Bin Laden families in a real and tangible way. He also famously went to Washington to ask senators in person if they would enlist their sons and daughters in the U.S. army... This type of attack on the president was deemed 'anti-american' by many, and Moore won more enemies with this movie.

With Sicko however, I think Moore may have finally found a subject that does not create two camps of opinion. This time, the operation of the american healthcare system is under fire, and it comes out looking pretty bleak.

Essentially, the American health insurance system is controlled by big companies. They regulate the flow and price of drugs, and actually own hospitals. When you get sick in the U.S., you must contact your insurance company to see if they will pay your claim. However, as Moore points out, the Insurance companies are profit-driven, and the less they pay out in claims, the better return their shareholders receive. An unfortunate by-product of this capitalist dystopia is that sick people requiring medical attention are not receiving it, and dropping dead as a result. Which is a bit of a bitch when you've paid all your premiums each month up until getting sick...

Moore examines the cases of a number of New York firefighters who are still suffering breathing difficulties five years after searching for bodies on 'the pile', where the air was loaded with toxins such as, among others, high quantities of asbestos. Politicians at the time were happy to credit firefighters as the first line of defence against the terrorists, and made $50 million dollars available in funds to cover any potential health problems they may suffer as a result of their efforts. However, the invconvenient truth, as artcuated by New York governr Michael Pataki, is that it is pretty tough for genuine claimants to get access to the funds, as Moore shows in this movie.

As well as the 9/11 workers, Moore shows us case after case of Americans who were refused legitimate claims because of bureaucratic reasons. He contrasts the American system with the NHS in the UK, the French social security system, and of course the Canadians. One failing of Moore's comparisons is that he paints a very rosy picture of the green grass on the other side of the fence, but I suppose relative to the American system, things are far better in all the countries mentioned.

Sicko also has a political message to deliver, and this is articulated by the eminent English former labor MP Tony Benn. There is a point made about the relationship between a people and its government. When the people are healthy and well educated, the power rests with them, because the government is in fear of what the people will do. In the U.S. at the moment, the opposite situation is the norm. University education and healthcare are cripplingly expensive, so people can't afford third level education, and when they get sick, they go bankrupt. Benn makes a point about fear being an excellent means of control, so when people are afraid of their lives, they just keep their heads down and hope for the best, that maybe things will change.

With Sicko, Moore is doing his best to educate about an issue that should not divide his viewers between two opposiing political iodeologies in the same manner as his previous two movies. In the typical Moore style, it is quite heavy-handed, but there are many moving scenes in here, and I reckon it's more balanced, and more watchable than 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

I guess the question needs to be asked, is it worth seeing in the cinema? Well, I think so. Just because there aren't CGI robots trashing it out on screen doesn't make it a Dvd-only experience! In any case, a movie with a message this strong, delivered so eloquently, deserves to be viewed, so I'll recommend it pretty highly.

Series 7: The Contenders

2007-07-12T06:57:00.000Z

The verdict: Subversive, clever and with a knowingly dark sense of humour, the low-budget hand-held style belies is a deceptively good movie.

The rating: 7/10

'Reality tv' tends to provoke strong reactions. Water cooler conversations on the subject can start innocently enough with questions like: 'were you watching that [insert reality show name here] last night?'. The thing is, this question is very likely to be met with sniffy responses such as "Oh, I'll watch 'Most Dangerous Celebrity Tiddlywinks with Ant and Dec' alright, but I just couldn't watch that 'Big Brother' shite... but I do like that 'Celebrity Big Brother'"..

The genuine reality proposed by this so-called 'reality television' is challenged by this movie, a fictional fly on the wall game show in which the contenders must kill each other, and the last one standing is the winner. It's kind of like 'Battle Royale' meets 'The Running Man'. In this game show, contestants are selected at random, armed by anonymous balaclava-clad visitors, and dropped into the 'playing field', a town also apparently chosen at random. Once in the 'game', the objective is simple: kill the other contenders to win.

The movie centers around the story of current champion Dawn, who also happens to be nine months pregnant. Dawn is only a few kills away from being allowed retire as champion contender, but irritatingly, the playing field for what may be her last contest is her home town, somewhere in Hicksville USA, and one of the other contestants randomly happens to be an old flame from high school...

Series 7: The Contenders lampoons the one-upmanship of so-called 'reality television' (a classic term of unspeak by the way), especially when it comes to the desire to shock, to be the most extreme. In this movie, the contestants must murder each other to win, and the fact that we can blithely accept such a concept, perhaps without initially being 100% certain as to whether the show is real or not, puts the audience in an interesting frame of mind. As the movie unfolds, it is loaded with moral dilemmas, and packed with darkly comic moments. Having a heavily pregnant woman as the champion of a show where you need to kill to survive tickled me, and the movie is loaded with wickedly funny moments like this.

Quickly and effortlessly, the movie makes the point that reality television is ominously moving towards a place where audiences can watch a movie like this and genuinely ask 'is this actually a real show?' Just as Chris Morris managed with 'Brass Eye', in this case writer/director Daniel Minahan creates an environment where the audience is enveloped in the trappings of a familiar format, but whereas Brass Eye targeted televised news, 'The Contenders' has its sights set on the Cops-style, cameraman-tracking-real-people shows, the ones that have gravelly-voiced narrators intervening every ten minutes to summarise what has gone before, and give you a tantalising glimpse of the bloody violence soon to come.

As a result, this movie succeeds by pointing out the over-the-top nature of television shows such as this, and their capacity to create unreal, alien situations for its participants, thus distorting what we understand as normal reality. But the success is due to the format in which the message is packaged. I enjoyed this movie because it put its finger on so many of the reasons why I dislike the vast majority of unscripted fly-on-the-wall television shows, while still retaining a tongue-in-cheek style, and never taking itself all that seriously.

When Dawn spoke directly to the cameramen - as she does regularly - and nearly shoots one of them in a chase sequence, I thought of the far darker 'Man Bites Dog', and I have a sneaky feeling that that movie was part of the inspiration for this.

So I have to say, I really enjoyed 'Series Seven: The Contenders'. It's clever, original, genuinely funny and well paced at a running time of just under an hour and a half. Also, the cheekily subversive ending will leave you wanting more.. Series 8 perhaps? Anyway, switch off that 'Big Brother', I recommend you catch this movie instead if you can get your hands on it.

Hulk

2007-07-10T19:51:00.000Z

The Verdict: Not so incredible. Brainless entertainment for boys.

The rating: 6/10

Ah yes, these days everyone's going green you know. Bruce Banner's case is a bit more literal however, although I'm reliably informed that the original character of 'The Incredible Hulk' was intended to be grey in colour, only for an opportune error at the comic book’s printers…

Growing up, I never read those comics, and my memories of the 'Incredible Hulk' television series are hazy to say the least, but I do remember that, like many of the so-called 'action' tv series of the day, I almost always sat through 25 minutes of boring stuff for the paltry reward of a couple of minutes of action. In this case, the action wasn't Jan Michael Vincent flying Airwolf around the place shooting stuff, or that fella riding Street Hawk around the place shooting stuff, it was Lou Ferrigno going 'graar' and running around the place breaking stuff. What kid couldn't relate to that most simple and appealing of pastimes? However, before the bit where Lou went 'graar', we had 25 minutes of sappy old Dr. Bruce Banner, the human version of 'the Littlest Hobo', travelling from town to town, doing his best to keep a low profile... which is difficult to do when you occasionally turn into a six foot five, four hundred pound green giant in torn shorts.

The movie version of the Hulk is quite similar to the tv series in this way. Watching 'Hulk', we sit through around half an hour of boring preliminaries (character development, dialogue, the usual time-wasting stuff) until Bruce Banner gets struck by lightning or whatever, and then hooray, the Hulk appears. I guess this movie hinges on your impression of the - now CGI - Hulk character, and I thought the film-makers were looking to depict a cartoon Hulk, one that would evoke the comic book and appeal to younger kids, rather than being realistic and possibly a little frightening, like Lou Ferrigno was in the tv show. In parts this effect is successful, but when the hulk character interacts with Jennifer Connelly, for example, there’s no two ways about it, he looks fake. Also, the addition of a reptilian element to the Hulk's DNA has allowed the big green goon to run really fast, but he can also jump great distances and to great heights… Now, this may be faithful to the comic book, but again, the audience will only suspend a certain amount of disbelief before they just laugh, and both the jumping and the high-speed running effects are definitely more laughable than awesome.

So, the Hulk himself was a little disappointing, but what of the rest? Well, the hero, Bruce Banner, is played by Eric Bana, and his lab research assistant is happily played by a certain Jennifer Connelly, so both the leads can certainly be said to have the required pedigree to 'carry' a movie. Also, it's directed by the man responsible for 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' and 'Brokeback Mountain', none other than Ang Lee himself, so you'd be forgiven for renting it after reading the back of the Dvd case...

The thing is, Eric Bana's character is all about emotional repression, so by definition, he's not going to be acting much when on screen as the boring old doctor. Jennifer Connelly does quite well, but she'd be watchable in 'Eastenders', and she manages to 'react' subtly enough to the green screen – sorry I mean Hulk – with the required dose of compassion and fear when she's called upon. Ang Lee has unsurprisingly crafted a film that is beautiful to look at, and I enjoyed the novel editing style, with all manner of innovative cuts and split-screen effects used to create the panel-style view of the comic book, although this may grate with some viewers a little.

The action sequences, when the Hulk goes mental and starts getting all smashy-smashy, are very well done indeed, which you would expect from a movie that cost no less than $137 million dollars to make. Of particular note are the mutant dogs, the tank-breaking scenes and spitting the warhead (is that a euphemism!? – Ed).

However, given the three writing credits, I have the impression that the script went through a few 'treatments' before it was finished, and the extremely confusing last third of the movie reinforces this suspicion. The climactic 'battle' scene in particular, is just bizarre. Also, the lack of a real nemesis for the Hulk is a glaring omission. Where is his 'Joker', his 'Darth Vader', his... 'Nuclear Man'?

This movie managed to break even at the box office, and 2008 will now see a second attempt at putting Stan Lee's franchise on the big screen. The part of Bruce Banner seems perfect for Edward Norton, considering how little effort he seems willing to make these days – The Illusionist notwithstanding. Directed by the man who helmed the bright and breezy 'Transporter' franchise, and with Stan Winston taking on some of the special effects work, it seems like the mistakes made in this version of the Hulk will hopefully not be repeated in the next.

So, is this 'Hulk' recommended? Well, it's brainless entertainment for boys, but ultimately, and despite the presence of Jennifer Connelly, it's unrewarding. Unless you're a diehard Hulk or Jennifer fan, I’d recommend that if you haven't yet seen it, you should instead hang on for Hulk version 2.0, out next year.