Keane

In Keane, we are introduced to William Keane (Damian Lewis), a man searching for his missing daughter. We form our first impression of Keane as he questions a worker in a train station ticket booth, asking the employee if he remembers selling tickets to his daughter the previous week, as it was the last time he saw his daughter. Keane appears to be grasping at straws in his search, and this initial scene goes some way to preparing the audience for what is to come.

Our involvement in Keane's struggle is immediate, but we are also given many questions to answer from the outset, almost all of them relating to this man's mental health. For example, in this initial scene, we can forgive Keane his insistent questioning of the ticket booth employee, as he is obviously traumatised by the tragedy of his daughter's disappearance. However, as he subsequently questions random passers-by in the same train station, becoming ever more stressed and frantic when they fail to give him satisfactory answers, we begin to get a clearer picutre of Keane's mental state.

From the first moments of this tense, fraught character study of a man caught in the grip of mental illness, we are drawn into Keane's desperation, anguish and loneliness. Director Lodge Kerrigan continually fixes the camera either on Keane's face or over his shoulder, giving the audience the feeling that we are pursuing this character as he drifts around the city in his vain quest. As we follow Keane and events unfold, he sinks ever deeper into despair. He talks to himself, and this quasi-narration is almost the only dialogue in the first half of the movie. He tries to do normal things to make himself feel better, like going to a bar and having a drink for example, but it doesn't quite work out as you would expect. He goes to a night club and meets a girl, but you just know the outcome isn't going to be wine and roses for Keane.

Eventually, just when you are reaching exhaustion with Keane's unrelenting despair, two other characters are introduced. Keane meets a mother and daughter at the hostel where he is staying and befriends them, and a process of osmosis appears to kick in when Keane is around these people. His despair gives way to a sudden calm, especially in the company of the young girl Kira (played by Abigail Breslin). Where he was tense and frantic in public places earlier in the movie, he is now calm and at ease around Kira and her mother, and even demonstrates more than adequate parenting skills in his interactions with Kira.

However, this relationship is at the heart of the questions 'Keane' is asking the audience. Did William really have a daughter, or is Keane's entire identity a product of his mental illness? Is William's interest in the child Kira the innocent protective instinct of a grieving father, or is there a more sinister motive under the surface?

Keane is played by Damian Lewis, and the performance is nothing short of incredible. This is a particularly challenging role, and director Lodge Kerrigan gives Lewis nowhere to hide, fixing the camera on his face for roughly two-thirds of the movie. Lewis' ability to exude anguish makes Keane's suffering palpable to the audience, but when he has his more tender moments with Kira, we can let ourselves believe that he had a daughter, so at ease are his interactions with the young girl. How this performance was not recognised on a wider scale is beyond me, especially given that Steven Soderbergh's name is associated with this picture as an executive producer.

William's soliliquys do not narrate proceedings in the traditional sense, but the effect is of an unreliable narrator, and this device is used to particularly good effect in Keane. The audience is never at ease with William as a character, and as he repeats the important events of his life towards the end of the movie, we are left to wonder, is he restating these events so as to remember them in the face of his mental breakdown, or is he committing them to memory in order to adopt a new identity for some reason? As I said earlier, this is more character study than pat story-telling, and this slice of Keane's troubled, anguish-filled life leaves the audience with more questions than answers as the end credits roll. There is no 'ending' to speak of, Lodge Kerrigan merelty shuts off the camera after ninety minutes.

So, it's not an easy movie, and PCMR would not recommend watching it on a Friday evening as I did, because this film will leave you so unsettled, you may not be able to cope with a night out afterwards! However, the performance from Lewis is as good an acting job as you will see, and Keane is definitely worth seeing. The audience accompanies William Keane on a dark path, and, luckily we come out the other side almost completely intact for the experience.


The verdict: Harrowing, but immersive. Lewis' performance is magnificent.
The rating: 8/10

Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond is set in Sierra Leone in 1999, a time when the country was in the midst of a bloody civil war. The R.U.F. (militia rebels) terrorised the country's civilian population, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands, and displacing millions. The cause of the conflict was the rich deposit of diamond reserves held by the poor African country, which under international law, came to be known as 'conflict diamonds'. This same law made it illegal to import diamonds from countries in conflict such as Sierra Leone.

This type of situation attracts opportunists, mercenaries such as Danny Archer (Leonardo Di Caprio) willing to transport the diamonds across the border to neighbouring Liberia, where customs officials can be paid off in order to rubber-stamp the origin of the diamonds as Liberian, which in turn means the gems can be exported to first world nations, and made into nice necklaces, rings and other assorted items of 'bling'.

The thing is, the R.U.F. in civil war Sierra Leone used the country's own people to mine the diamonds. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is captured by the militia, separated from his family, and sent to work in one of these diamond mines by the rebels. He unearths the titular Blood Diamond - a 100 carat diamond the size of an egg - a milky gem worth a significant fortune. Solomon just about manages to bury the diamond as the camp is attacked by the army, and all non R.U.F. survivors are imprisoned.

Unfortunately for him, Archer too is imprisoned for smuggling diamonds across the Sierra Leone-Liberian border in what can only be described as strange cargo. While in prison, Archer's attention is drawn to Solomon's story, and he takes it upon himself to try and track down this blood diamond, for his own nefarious purposes.

After getting bailed out, Archer stumbles across Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) an American journalist reporting on the conflict in Sierra Leone. These two characters quickly come to represent an interesting reflection of the conflicting outsider views towards the internal struggles of African peoples. Maddy is conscientious, a lefty journalist, who believes that simply by being there and reporting to the latte-drinking, interest-rate-discussing people back home, she may be able to make a difference. By contrast, Archer is a grizzled former soldier from Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as he insists on calling it. After fleeing Rhodesia, he joined the South African army, and fought in Angola. He claims to have seen it all before, and is uninterested in making a difference to the outcome of the conflict, only taking what he can from it before it all explodes.

Solomon's wish to be reunited with his family is Archer's leverage to get to the diamond, but at the same time, Solomon believes he can use Archer to track down his son, now a soldier with the militia. When the militia's marching forces invade Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, the two are forced together, Solomon needing this soldier's survival skills, and Archer only thinking of the diamond. Maddy, on the other hand is drawn into their story as a covert means of transport to the diamond mine, in return for a tell-all story from Archer on the people behind the diamond trade.

In a telling scene, Maddy describes her efforts at describing the carnage she is seeing. She admits her reportage may be pointless, that severed limbs, displaced families, and burning African villages simply has no impact on first world readers any more. The phrase is not used, but she is referring to the first world audience and their 'compassion fatigue' when it comes to African struggles. If they are not like-minded with her, in other words, if they think like Archer, how can she convince them of the damage being done in this country? And even if the're willing to make a difference, what can they do anyway? This movie valiantly attempts to explore whether there are in fact answers to these difficult questions.

Blood Diamond is beautifully shot, set against the backdrop of a collection of colourful African rural and urban landscapes. Coastal villages are bathed in sunlight, the dark jungles loaded with shapeless threats, the night-time flame-lit parties in the militia bases ominous and fraught with tension, but the many treks through the countryside are framed by breathtakingly beautiful natural scenery, all captured with real verve by cinematographer Edoardo Serra, and director Edward Zwick.

The three leads are impressive, and Charles Leavitt's script weaves the contrasting beliefs of this trio of characters, and their developing relationships with each other on two levels. At the basic level of the story, they are drawn together through their links to Solomon's diamond, and this yarn is interesting enough in and of itself. However, each lead character acts as a symbol of either Africa or of how Africa is percieved by the outside world, and this layer is subtly transposed onto proceedings in a way that never dominates the action.

The action scenes too, are tense, exciting and on a large scale. Director Ed Zwick is an old hand at directing the thick of battleground action, having taken the helm of 'Glory', 'Courage Under Fire' and 'The Last Samurai'. The shoot-outs are immediate and realistic, and the main players are forced into a physical involvement in the action that immerses the viewer.

Although diamonds were the catalyst for the war in Sierra Leone, and the blood diamond the trigger for the events in the movie, the more viscerally explored theme of the film relates to child soldiers. As the old Mende teacher (played all too briefly by Winston Ntshona) explains in the movie, infantry means 'child soldier', and many child soldiers were used in the war in Sierra Leone. The 'recruitment' methods of the militia are explored on screen, and these scenes are among the most emotive of the movie. These children are separated from their families and become brainwashed into fighting for - and most likely dying for - the cause of the rebels.

'The Last King of Scotland' touched on themes of African political instability, and portrayed events from Idi Amin's perspective, or at least from the perspective of the cossetted bosom of the presidential palace. Blood Diamond, by contrast, plunges us deep into the real madness, and we are there at ground level, witnessing all the bloody carnage.

Put aside your unreasonable dislike of Leo, he doesn't deserve it. DiCaprio is maturing as an actor with every new outing, and this role is another step forward for him, and better than his turn in 'The Departed'. Even from behind the constraint of a Zim accent (pretty much Sith Ifrican here) he delivers a powerful, rounded and mature peformance, and is believable as the hard-hearted refugee, who has become so cold and cynical to African events, that when he witnesses another tragic event that is difficult to comprehend, he simply shrugs and says 'T.I.A.', or 'this is Africa'. (In 'Saving Private Ryan', the same device was employed, only it was FUBAR - Ed).

Jennifer Connelly must surely now be recognised not only as the most beautiful actress of our generation, but as a genuine talent with a lot more to offer than just a pretty face. Her role is the most difficult to pull off, as she is intended to be the antidote to DiCaprio's deep-seated cynicism, but on a more basic level, it is understandable that she might be able to defrost DiCaprio's heart.

And Djimon Hounsou, who most of you will remember from 'Gladiator', is brilliant. His performance varies from being subtly played, in particular the scenes with his son, to the more outward displays of emotion he directs at DiCaprio, but he manages to make it all believable. In particular, PCMR will remember his 'berserker' moment towards the end, where I was sure I saw the fires of hell in his eyes. Excellent stuff.

I would have given this a higher rating, but unfortunately, the last five minutes of the movie had to go and let it down, but only slightly. It may have been a concession made by the film-makers considering how much else they got to show on-screen, but the formulaic last scenes jarred slightly with me, no matter how much I liked the characters involved by then.

So, it's a true gem of a movie this one, and unfortunately Blood Diamond could very easily be buried in the hype surrounding the other oscar nominated movies, such as Babel, Last King of Scotland or The Queen. However, I would argue that - even purely on the level of entertainment - this one would give any of those three a run for their money. In PCMR's book, Blood Diamond is well worth a look.


The verdict: Visceral, powerful, entertaining and emotive. This is proper cinema. Go see it.
The rating: 8/10

Dreamgirls

Dreamgirls is a musical. Stick with me though, lads, Beyonce's in it!! Ah, lost most of ye already I'd imagine... That's the problem with musicals, they just don't tend to pack the lads into the cinemas, unless they're dragged by a focussed and determined girlfriend, keen not to get stuck watching another 'Apocalypto' or some such.

The thing is, to blindly rule out an entire genre can mean missing out on the occasional gem. Hollywood has a long-standing tradition of churning out musical feature films that showcase genuinely talented people performing at the top of their game. Fair enough, the term 'chick-flick' is a facile label to apply to some of these, but more recently, the Hollywood musical has attempted to attract a more broad audience. While 'Chicago', 'Rent' and (choke) 'Moulin Rouge' were more or less targeted at 'burds', other recent musical releases such as '8 Mile', 'Hustle and Flow', 'The Producers' and even 'Team America' and 'SouthPark' (one of PCMR's all-time favourites) can be described as appealing to the lads just as much as the ladies. (possibly more so with the last two - Ed)

'Dreamgirls' is slightly more difficult to categorise in these terms. Eddie Murphy's turn as an aging soul singer will appeal to male audiences, as will Beyonce's doe-eyed presence. However, the real star of the movie, Jennifer Hudson, will probably appeal more to the female audience members, giving this movie a broader audience than a straight-forward chick-flick.

There are two great performances in this movie, but Jennifer Hudson's is pretty much a revelation. This is a girl who entered American Idol, a 'Popstars'-style audition show in the U.S., and made it to the final six before getting booted off. An inauspicious beginning to a showbiz career, you might think, and you'd be right. However, when Hudson won the role of Effie White in Dreamgirls, she was chosen ahead of hundreds of other hopefuls, including the eventual winner of that show. Progress perhaps. Well, after watching this movie, I can't help thinking that Hudson misrepresented herself on that American Idol, because she literally owns this movie. Her voice is soulful, powerful and mature, and she has most of the lead numbers. Rightfully so, because she is by a mile the best singer of the ensemble group.

The story charts the rise of Effie's (Hudson's) group, 'The Dreamettes' from beginning as backing singers to James "Thunder" Early, (Eddie Murphy) to being the biggest thing in the pop charts in the 60's and 70's. (It's strongly implied that this is the story of Diana Ross and the Supremes, but names have been changed to protect the innocent - Ed) Although Effie is universally recognised as being the best singer of the group, she is eventually asked to take a backseat to allow Deena Jones (Beyonce) take the lead of the group. It is perhaps art reflecting life, but when the girls' manager (Jamie Foxx) reveals to Beyonce's character that he chose her for lead vocals because her voice was 'bland' and had more cross-over appeal to a pop audience, this rings quite true to reality. Compared to Hudson's vocal power and range, Beyonce really is put in the shade as a vocalist. She only gets one opportunity to shine with a musical number, and she does a very good job, but by that stage in the movie, Hudson has already well and truly stolen the show, run away with it, and is smugly sitting in her dressing room waiting for the awards to roll in.

Eddie Murphy's performance is worthy of a mention too, for the pleasant surprise of its brilliance. He has always been a more than capable singer, a James Brown riff forming a big part of his early stand-up routines. Consequently, he is genuinely good in the three or four numbers he tackles in this movie, and his acting performance is the strongest in the film, undoubtedly the best he has turned in for years, decades even. (Shrek doesn't count!). His character is the most interesting in the piece, and although it is steeped in music lore and cliche, his story is an excellent couterbalance to the meteoric rise of the band who used to be his backing singers. (He also has the best song, 'Patience', worthy of download even, and up for the Oscar - Ed).

Jamie Foxx is in his comfort zone in this one, and didn't really stand out for me, but he was competent enough I suppose. Beyonce's musical performances were excellent as you would expect, but she's not quite an actress yet. Her wide-eyed, honey-voiced turn in 'Goldmember' was great for novelty value, but she seems like a rabbit caught in the camera's headlights in certain scenes in Dreamgirls, mostly the ones involving her dialogue. This is only her first serious acting role though, so let's not be too harsh, because her stage performances are top stuff.

And it is in these performance pieces where Dreamgirls really cranks up the Hollywood glitz, the stagey razzamatazz, as 'Chicago' referred to. The staging of the musical numbers is engaging and showy enough to appeal to the MTV generation as much as fans of, oh I don't know, Cats or something. (Philistine - Ed). But for fans of Motown, 70's funk, Curtis Mayfield, and Disco, there is a great range of musical numbers on show here, all smartly choreographed and expertly performed. Also, there is not so much of that annoying feature of some Hollywood musicals, where the characters simply sing their dialogue to each other.. this device always smarts with me, and thankfully there's not too much of that sort of thing in Dreamgirls.

Although Oscar traditionally doesn't reward comedies, musicals are an entirely different matter. 'Ray', 'Walk the Line' and 'Chicago' have picked up Oscars in recent years, (for Jamie Foxx, Reese Witherspoon and Catherine Zeta-Jones) and PCMR predicts with confidence that of the 8 oscar nominations that Dreamgirls has received, Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy are water-tight no-brainer shoe-ins, and the movie will pick up at least two more for art and music direction, and also best song (where it has no less than three chances to win).

If you don't like musicals, I shake my head disapprovingly at you and urge you to reconsider this unfair prejudice. There are enough recent examples ('Walk the Line' dammit!?) to make a strong case for the movie musical as a potentially cracking piece of entertainment. Put it this way, when the wife/girlfriend 'suggests' you go see 'Dreamgirls' together, rest assured in the knowledge that you can go along, secretly really enjoy it, and also earn the required brownie point credits to go see something like 'Apocalypto' the following week. The perfect crime...


The verdict: A musical, but a very very good one. This is Hollywood razzamatazz at it's glitzy glamorous best, and Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy are excellent.
The rating: 8/10

The Queen

Although movies like 'The Queen' might not normally be one's cup of tea, so to speak, this particular biopic is of interest not only because of the unprecedented amount of publicity it is receiving of late, but also because most of the characters portrayed on screen are alive, and still in power. Centering around the appointment of Tony Blair as prime minister, and the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, the movie portrays such movers and shakers as the current queen of england, the current british prime minister and his wife, and of course the delightful Alistair Campbell.

Now, biopic etiquette traditionally waits for a death to trigger the production of such a movie, but 'The Queen' has twisted this rule to its own nefarious advantage. The death of Lady Di resulted in a massive shift of public opinion in relation to the british royal family, and of course in relation to the new prime minister, a certain Mr. Tony "I know Noel Gallagher" Blair. The fact that these people are still alive and moreover, still in power, makes this movie more of a daring undertaking, and adds a little spice to proceedings.

'The Queen' is essentially a window into the operation of a dysfunctional family. However, the Windsors are not being lambasted or lampooned in this movie, with the possible exception of Charles. This portrayal of Elizabeth is affectionate, with the Queen demonstrating human characteristics behind the duty to the crown, stiff upper lip and all that. Helen Mirren's performance is excellent, no question, and she manages to be both stoic and emotional at the same time, something few actors are capable of.

One scene in particular is memorable for me. In an unprecedented move engineered by Blair, the Queen agrees to make a public appearance at Buckingham Palace to visit the memorials being laid by the public for Diana. As she reads the sympathy cards, she numerous remarks directed at the other members of the royal family, and how Diana was "too good for them", or that "they should have gone first." As the Queen reads these cards, a tangible manifestation of the almost total erosion of public affection towards her and her family, she is visibly wounded. However, she is also duty-bound to repeatedly turn and face the crowds of on-lookers and press, smile, and demonstrate her solidarity with the people at this time of their mutual grief. This conflict between public opinion and private emotions of the monarch is at the heart of this movie.

Were it not for Helen Mirren, this character could be quite difficult to relate to. However, Mirren's physical transformation is quite remarkable. We see her walking in a number of scenes, and her very posture is regal, with an emphasis on restraint and control. Tom Cruise employed this kind of technique to play his coiled spring of a hitman in 'Collateral', and his results were also successful. Helen Mirren's physical transformation becomes part of the mask, part of the character, and after the first few minutes of the movie, it becomes increasingly difficult to actually recognise the Helen Mirren we know.

Hollywood loves this kind of acting, time and time again rewarding actors who play characters that are far removed from themselves. Think 'Forrest Gump' (Tom Hanks), 'Ray' (Jamie Foxx), 'Walk the Line' (Reese Witherspoon), 'Rainman' (Dustin Hoffman), 'My Left Foot' (Daniel Day Lewis), and 'The Aviator' (Cate Blanchett). These roles allow actors to show that they are really acting. Contrast with this a performance such as Ryan Gosling's in 'Half Nelson', which is anchored in reality and subtly executed. Gosling has no chance of an Oscar this year, but PCMR now believes that, unless Meryl Streep works some kind of Hollywood voodoo, Helen Mirren is an absolute banker for Best Actress.

However, Mirren's regina is not the only remarkable aspect of this movie. (Careful, Ed) The excellent script by Peter Morgan, who has had a truly remarkable year in 2006 (he also wrote the 'Last King of Scotland') allows Mirren and the supporting cast room to manoeuvre, despite the shackles of these characters. This could so easily have been a collection of impersonations or celebrity caricatures, but the depth of the script makes these people believable as humans in their own right, even despite the looky-likey baggage that they bring with them.

Michael Sheen, in particular gives an excellent performance as the man who would be prime minister. This Blair character has a unique relationship with the Queen, engineered primarily by his duty as a representative of the public at the time of Diana's death. His job is to change Royal tradition, to modernise them at a time when this type of unsolicited change - involving the most change-resistant family that can exist - may just preserve the existence of the British monarchy. Sheen's resemblance to Blair is uncanny, with his little 'you know's and 'sort of's adding to the impression that this is Tony Blair on screen. He very effectively portrays a character in over his head, but coping, and learning as he goes, and his scenes with Helen Mirren are warm and engaging.

James Cromwell crops up as the notorious Prince Phillip, and he has some decent lines, comparing the british people to a crowd of zulus at one point in a thoroughly non-PC remark, echoing some of his more 'colourful' outbursts. However, Cromwell is not in the same league as Mirren and Sheen here, despite his character's pure novelty value, he is literally outshone.

The production of the Queen lovingly recreates Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and sets the scene immaculately. Stephen Frears is already an incredibly accomplished director , with thoroughly solid and memorable movies such as 'My Beautiful Launderette', 'The Grifters', and 'Dangerous Liaisons' to his name. But with 'The Queen', Frears has garnered huge international critical and industry acclaim, and is almost certain to finally pick up at least a Bafta for his troubles. (Plus he's also head of this year's jury at Cannes, so maybe he can engineer a Palme d'Or for himself! Ed)

As I said at the outset, PCMR did not expect 'The Queen' to be one's cup of tea at all. However, there is genuinely a lot to recommend about it. Well acted, well written and well directed, it's a window into a private world, and a believable portrayal of a figurehead who would normally shun this sort of limelight. Helen Mirren's regina is truly impressive. (Last one. Ed). Paddypower.com, the Irish gambling site, has her at 33-1 on to pick up the Oscar, and after seeing the Queen, PCMR thinks they might have a point there.


The verdict: Tightly scripted, extremely well acted. An interesting, daring biopic, and worth a gamble.
The rating: 7/10

Babel

The Book of Genesis has been crowbarred into a couple of high-profile cinema releases of late. In Darren Aronofsky's 'The Fountain', we were reminded of the story of Adam and Eve, but with an eye on a relatively under-publicised aspect of that story, namely the Tree of Life. In 'Babel', Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's third major feature film, we are reminded of the story of the mythical Tower of Babel.

Just in case you've lived under a large rock all your life, the parable of the tower of babel tells of an ancient time when the peoples of the earth all worked together to build a tower so tall that it would reach the skies, and man could be closer to God. When God saw what man was striving for, he became angry. His punishment for man's endeavour was to scatter the population across the world, and create the barrier of language, so as to divide men, and forever prevent them from working together in such a unified manner again.

Inarritu's movie is different from The Fountain, in that it does not include, or even refer to, to the bible story in question. Rather, the stories being told here relate to the theme of communication difficulties, and the problems faced by people in simply trying to cope with themselves and each other, often against the backdrop of a foreign or alien setting.

Inarritu is a firm believer in the Neapolitan Ice-cream art of film-making. That is, rather than focus on one straight-forward flavour or story, and exploit it to it's fullest, he tends to include three different stories for the delectation of the audience. This is an innovative approach to film-making and a formula that Hollywood has taken to it's collective bosom of late, with 'vignette movies' such as 'Crash' and more recently 'Bobby' rapidly becoming the new vogue in Tinseltown, and proving popular with audiences to boot.

In Inarritu's movies, common themes run through each of the three stories, but there is also a pivotal plot point where the three stories intertwine and influence each other. This plot point is in reality, often quite straight-forward. For example, in 'Amores Perros', the movie that attracted Hollywood to Inarritu's door, the device was dogs. In the (ironically) extremely heavy '21 Grams', the linking point was a heart transplant operation. In 'Babel' it is a rifle. However, even if the linkage device is straight-forward, it is in the exposition of the narrative, and the revelation of this device, where Inarritu employs his full bag of creative tricks.

To labour the Neapolitan metaphor a little, there is a problem with this type of ice cream: everyone has a favourite. The result of this is that the other two flavours become a little devalued, and we wonder why we didn't just buy strawberry ice cream in the first place. Specialise or diversify... it's a difficult one to answer. In 'Babel', the best story for me is the one set in Japan, where Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi) is a hearing-impaired teenager whose mother has recently died. Like any teenager, she's moody, and has problems communicating, but her handicap makes it more difficult to talk to boys her age, and this frustrates her even further. Her story is set against the backdrop of urban Japanese teenagers though, and it's fascinating to look through Inarritu's window into a world that is so foreign to our own. 'Lost in Translation' also played with this device, employing Japanese culture almost as an ominous supporting character in the movie.

The vanilla story - i.e. good, but not the best - is the one with the most recognisable faces. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are a married couple on holiday in Morocco, and their marriage is obviously on the rocks. Meanwhile, a moroccan rural family purchase a rifle with which to keep jackals away from their goat herds, and the two young boys of the family are given responsibility for the weapon. When they test the rifle's range, they manage to hit Cate Blanchett, and this is the trigger moment for the three layers of the story to gradually melt into each other.

Finally, the chocolate story, or the one I would rank the lowest. A child-minder for a wealthy American family (Brad and Cate) is charged with looking after the two kids on her day off, but she also has to attend her son's wedding across the border in Mexico. In what proves to be the first of many bad decisions, she opts to take the kids with her across the border. Essentially, she has a pretty bad day after that, and this story is by a long way the weakest of the three.

Brad Pitt is very good in Babel, portraying his gradually increasing desperation and isolation very well. There are some nice moments where he befriends a Moroccan man, and they find they have quite a lot in common, despite his surroundings appearing so alien to our Brad. Cate Blanchett, unfortunately, is completely wasted in this movie. She has two scenes involving anything other than writhing in pain or screaming in pain, but, as you'd expect, she is excellent for those couple of minutes at least. The effect of the gunshot on the Moroccan family is more dramatic than the effect on Brad and Cate however, and this storyline is also well played out. The younger of the two brothers in particular is a great little character.

However, as with the strawberry part of the Neapolitan, I found that when I was watching my favourite - the Japanese story - I lost interest in the other two sections. Someone made the point to me recently that subtitled movies sometimes gain an extra layer of gravitas, simply thanks to the fact that they are in the foreign language. The character of the fawn in 'Pan's Labyrinth' is a great example of this. Would he be quite as interesting a character, or quite as threatening if he was speaking in English? It's difficult to say, but it's curious to me that the Japanese story the Moroccan family's story in 'Babel' and were the ones that held my attention the most, and both of these were in foreign languages.

Babel is a meandering, expansive tale that in the end, doesn't draw any big, important conclusions. However, it is at least a thought-provoking, well-crafted story, and definitely worthy of two hours of your time. Innaritu's critics may say that with the triple narrative device, he's becoming a one-trick-pony at this stage, but at least in this he has chosen to specialise, and focus on what he does best.

It is worth seeing Babel, because there aren't enough large-scale productions made with this level of thought and ambition. And who knows, come Oscar night it may follow in the footsteps of last year's bg vignette movie, Crash, and pick up the best picture Oscar gong. (Although PCMR's money is on Clint Eastwood's Japanese war movie: 'Letters from Iwo Jima')


The verdict: Intelligent and well-made, with a very self-important title, but no mind-blowing conclusions to draw.
The rating: 7/10

Severance

As the closing credits of 'Severance' rolled on the screen in front of me yesterday evening, I experienced many emotions at once. Wonder, as to how the movie-makers managed to blag their way into a big budget production such as this. Regret, that a mildly promising cast and a half-decent idea had been so appallingly wasted. But the main feeling was one of disgust, and mainly with myself, that I had decided to watch this movie in the first place. Self-loathing is a temporary emotion, however, and quickly gives way to a desire to put the blame on someone else. With this need in mind, I decided to focus on the vaguely worrying feeling that, once again, I had been duped, sideswiped if you will, by the movie marketeers.

Thanks to my middle-class background, and the fact that it was free god-dammit, university, in some shape or form, was always on the cards for me as a teenager. However, with the Leaving Cert exams looming large back in the winter of 1994, I realised I didnt have a clue what I wanted to do with my life. French? Maybe. Psychology? Sure. But to do what, exactly? Difficult questions that I couldn't answer. My career guidance teacher was a big help, and pointed out that many people who didn't have a clue how to do anything often did a business course in university. Plus, if you take the language option, you get an Erasmus year abroad, c'est fantastique! I was sold, promptly applied for a business course with French, and spent two solid years drinking paint-thinner wine and chemically processed beer in northern france. Happy days.

However, amidst all the hazy hangovers and Gallic swearing, there were a few classes to attend. Marketing was my major, so we covered advertising, branding all that stuff, and it was mind-blowing to see the techniques that are used by businesses to get you to think about their products. Marketing is a cousin of propaganda in that the techniques are relatively unscientific, but involve strong methods of persuasion, with the aim of influencing behaviour in the name of economic activities... Strong images are used (brands). Slogans are used. The primary aim is to influence behaviour. The secondary aim is to appear 'good' to the 'consumer'...

So as an embittered ex-marketing student, I now hate most advertising with a passion. However, there is one major exception: I am a sucker for a good movie ad campaign. For example, the trailer for 'Transformers' makes me keen to see the film, and I'm unashamed to admit it. The 'Live Free or Die Hard' trailer appeals to me too, and it's more the packaging of the trailer that has the effect than the expected content of the finished movie. I know this, but the trailer still works on me. I can feel my behaviour being influenced, and I don't let it bother me...

The marketing campaign for 'Severance' was quite strong. The poster was well designed, and the slogan 'another bloody office outing' was memorable enough to remain at 'top of mind'. The trailer was punchy, and it was billed as a smart, escapist modern horror flick. Initial reviews in the British tabloid press were very positive... (Ok, so my case is getting weaker here!)

For whatever the reasons, I did watch Severance, and I have to say that, as both a former marketing student, and as someone who fancies himself as a bit of a cinephile, the marketing is without a doubt the best thing this movie has to offer.

The story, what little there is, involves employees from an arms manufacturing company being dropped in the middle of the Hungarian wilderness on the premise of a team-building weekend. Something's lurking in the bushes though, and it doesn't take long before people are being hacked up.

So it's a horror, but it's also attempting to be a comedy. In fairness, there are a couple of funny moments near the beginning, mostly involving Danny Dyer and the drugs he regularly consumes. Danny Dyer is a very frustrating guy to me. He showed real promise in 'Human Traffic' and has pretty much just made bad films since then. His self-indulgent movie choices seem to hinge on whether or not he'll be embarassed to tell the lads about his character down the boozer after the footie. This character in Severance is no different to the ones he played in 'The Football Factory', 'The Business', 'Mean Machine' etc etc. This cockney wideboy humour is funny for a few minutes, but it just can't carry a movie. Dyer has the best lines and the best moments in the movie, but the occasional chuckle does not a comedy make.

The thing is, comedy/horror is a deceptively difficult genre to effectively capture. James Gunn made a great effort with 'Slither' and the results were more than watchable. However, Gunn's movie was the product of years of immersion in the genre, and the depth of his knowledge for, and love of this type of film was all up there on screen. Conversely, James Moran and Christopher Smith, the two guys behind 'Severance', don't seem to have paid any dues to the basic requirements of a genre movie such as Severance is, like it or not.

First off, the heroes need to be believable people, or at least likeable. In Severance, we have a collection of what are at best office stereotypes (the annoying boss, the laddish rebel, the human resources dweeb, the pandering second-in-command, the bullish finance type). At worst, these are simply two-dimensional cardboard cutouts of people. With people like this at the heart of the movie, who cares if they die or not? Second, the monster/bad man needs to have a creepy back-story. In this case, the baddies are soldiers. What's scary about that? Thirdly, if you're going to have gruesome scenes in the movie, then the two previous conditions need to have been met, but mainly, the victims should deserve it. Horror isn't just about slashers killing people, it's about immoral or bad people getting their cumuppance, and the hero winning out in the end... until the twist at least!

But on a more basic level, the plot is meandering, the story seemed to have reached a natural conclusion twice in the first forty-five minutes, and after an hour, I just didn't care any more.

Also, in it's gore levels, I felt 'Severance' went a little over the top at times, and made me think of the nasty, despicable 'Wolf Creek' more than once.

The characters are annoying, the script is awful and it is unsettling to me that a movie audience are supposed to be happy about employees from an arms manufacturing company winning out over a collection of Eastern european soldiers who were fucked over by them in the first place. If there is irony in this plot, then it's lost on me. Congratulations to Severance for receiving the second lowest score ever awarded on PCMR!


The Verdict: Neither scary nor good fun. A half-decent idea, but very poorly executed. Avoid.
The Rating: 4/10

Half Nelson

Now, it might be a cliche to begin with a cliche, but there's an old axiom which describes the scenario of two opposites coming together: "when an irresistible force meets an immovable object." An illustration of this expression might be, say, Jennifer Connelly meeting Marlon Brando. Put more accurately however, this little epithet sums up a scenario we often face in our individual little insignificant daily struggles, and that is, conflict. People argue all the time. Some because they believe in something, others to play 'devil's advocate', or simply to put forward a view for the purpose of debate to test the strength of the opposite argument.

In 'Half Nelson', Ryan Gosling plays Dan Dunne, a high school History teacher who professes that History is the study of change. His view of history, possibly more at home in a University lecture theater than a junior high classroom, states that when conflicting forces collide, events are altered, and History simply records how things turned out. Dunne is also in the process of writing a children's book based on the principle of dialectics, but the book project has fallen by the wayside of late, thanks to his fondness for a bit of crack. (And I don't mean crack in the Irish sense.)

Dialectics is based on the principle that disagreements can be resolved through rational discussion. In other words, when propositions are put forward and met with counter-propositions, the product is either a synthesis of views, or at the very least a change in the direction of the dialogue.

The irony of Dunne's belief in the principle of dialectics is his own inability to change, and to try and vanquish his sincere and profound drug habit. A girlfriend from his past resurfaces towards the beginning of the movie, having successfully come through rehab herself, and with news of her engagement. This news seems to send Dunne into despair at his own inability to change, and he repeatedly goes on missions to get into a narcotic stupor, and on schoolnights to boot.

Dunne is a good teacher, but the effect of these mid-week benders on his professional image is undeniable. Although he is seen as something of a rogue by his colleagues at first, as his inevitable decline progresses, the principal in particular begins to come down hard on him, treating him more like a student than a teacher in some moments. However, he seems to remain popular with his students, and with one student in particular.

Drey is a thirteen-year-old student of Dunne's. Her maturity is evident from early in the movie, a product of her home life, where her parents are divorced, her brother is in jail, and her only paternal influence is a local smack-peddler. She is played by newcomer Shareeka Epps, and her relationship with Dunne is the axis of the movie. What starts as something of a teenage crush develops into a real bond between the pair, as their worlds couldn't be more opposite. However, the real proposition put forward by this movie is whether these two conflicting characters can bring about change in each other.

Half Nelson is a very good movie. I don't feel bad giving away these details of the story, because I can honestly say that there is a whole lot more in this film. Every character has a reality to them that represents a remarkable achievement for the film's writers, the relative newbies Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck. This movie has something that Hollywood doesn't often even attempt to tackle: themes! The theme of change and opposing forces is at the heart of this movie, and it is dealt with in a mature, thoughtful and provocative manner.

Ryan Gosling's performance in 'Half Nelson' attracted enough attention so as to garner him an Best Actor Oscar nomination this year, and I have to say, after watching the movie, I can't fault the nomination. His character is complex because he is real. The conflict between his role as a teacher and his sincere drug problem is explored. His relationship with Drey, a thirteen year old student, is only inappropriate in the eyes of others, but their screen time together is very watchable. Considering this movie is punctuated by occasional silences, and most of it is in close up, Gosling's performance is quite an achievement. Unfortunately for him, however, he's up against Peter O'Toole and Forest Whitaker this year, but a respectable third place behind those two is glory in defeat as far as Gosling should be concerned.

Shareeka Epps too, is excellent as Drey. Her stoic expression only occasionally gives way to a smile, but this fits with her character, not giving her emotions away, and puts her at odds with Gosling's character, who wears his heart on his sleeve. Drey's guardian, Frank, begins getting her involved as a runner for his drug deals, and this sends Drey down a path that Gosling's character does his best to get her out of, but who is he to preach? He's a crack-head himself after all.

Half Nelson is a small indie flick, and could possibly be compared to something like the Squid and the Whale in its small scale, and it's intellectual content. However, this is a much better film than The Squid and the Whale. Half Nelson is tightly scripted, extremely well acted, and in parts is very moving. It is grounded in reality though, as the characters that populate it are not black and white in terms of morality. Every character is conflicted, and not defined by their given 'role' - an accurate reflection of reality. Gosling is a teacher, but a drug adddict. Frank (Anthony Mackie) is Drey's guardian, a drug dealer, but he's also got Drey's best interests at heart, for he feels he's the only one looking out for her. Drey, too, is a complex character, specifically in terms of her relationship with her teacher.

So I would urge you to see Half Nelson, and it gets two thumbs up from PCMR for showing exactly how to deal with themes which might be considered 'arty' for some, but in a manner that makes them accessible to a wider audience than for something like, say, 'The Squid and the Whale'. Gosling's performance is worth the admission price, but this film should be applauded for being genuinely full of depth, thought, and populated by real human beings.


The Verdict: Absorbing, thoughtful and entertaining. Ryan Gosling is excellent.
The Rating: 8/10

The Fountain (first viewing)

Bloody typical. You wait all your life for a big budget Hollywood movie about Mayans, and then two come along at once. Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto' was marketed as being primarily about the fall of the Mayan civilisation, but in reality, it was just an action-packed chase movie set against the backdrop of the Mayan culture. Darren Aronofsky's latest offering - 'The Fountain' - also refers to Mayan culture, and in actual fact, reveals more about the Mayan people. However, whereas Apocalypto attempted to physically drop the audience directly into a Mayan reality, 'The Fountain' looks at Mayan spiritual beliefs, by referring to a particular myth that has commonality with part of the story of Genesis from the Christian Bible: that of the tree of life.

When Adam and Eve ate that apple in the Garden of Eden, they plucked it from the Tree of Knowledge. This angered God, who promptly kicked them out, and without four weeks notice either. (The law would have a different view of that nowadays I can tell you). However, there was another tree referred to in this story, the Tree of Life. Apparently, to eat from the Tree of Life is to be given eternal life. The Mayan people had apparently located this tree on earth, and built a secret temple at it's location. This tree is pretty much the basis of the story in 'The Fountain'.

'The Fountain' is a complex, ambitious tale of love, faith and death. Three threads run in parallel throughout the movie, describing the relationship between Tommy (played by Hugh Jackman) and Izzy (Rachel Weisz). The three stories take place in different time-frames, with one in present day, one set in the 15th century, and one set far into the future, but all describe the love between these two characters over the ages, and their relative quests to uncover the secret of this Tree of Life.

Now, Darren Arronofsky could be fairly described as 'an acquired taste'. This description is a cliche that more accurately be phrased as 'you won't like this at first'. The audience reaction to his movies is visceral, emotive and often polarised. To wit, when 'The Fountain' premiered at Cannes, it was roundly booed. The following night, in the same cinema, it received a standing ovation and rapturous applause.

Aronofsky's offerings are not the cinematic equivalent of fast food. His movies are weighty, ambitious and dark, more like Oysters than a Whopper. They tackle adult themes and deliver messages in ways that allow the audience to interpret much of what they have seen. In addition, they display a characteristic which betrays the scale Aronofsky's ambitions, which is that despite these movies being made in Hollywood, there are no easily digestible morals or formulaic Hollywod endings.

The first time I saw Aronofsky's 'Pi', I was completely blown away, and it remains one of my all-time favourites to this day. Made on a shoestring, 'Pi' tells a very dark, complex story involving the relationship between numbers and the natural world. Max Cohen is a maths genius tortured by headaches and hallucinations, and convinced he is on the verge of discovering the ultimate breakthrough: 'the number of God'... PCMR fondly remembers a party in a former residence which got a little out of hand. The following morning, a number of walking wounded were lodged in various states of hungover stupor in the living room, apparently unwilling to shift. PCMR decided the only thing to unsettle these people was a little dose of Aronofsky, so 'Pi' was put on in it's full surround sound glory. The meek little lambs were awake enough to pay attention to the movie, but blissfully unaware of the assault on their senses that was to follow... Sure enough, when the closing credits began rolling, the bodies looked meekly around the room, nervously rubbing their eyes, attempting to phrase questions their hungover brains couldn't process.. Eventually, they began shambling homewards, whimpering softly as they left.

This is the effect an Aronofsky movie can have on people. 'Requiem For a Dream' was no different in it's unrelenting sensory assailance. Adapted from a Hubert Selby jr. book of the same name, this was never going to be a popcorn movie. To this day, the soundtrack alone is enough to send PCMR into a mild depression, with only a few bars required. Featuring the always fantastic Jennifer Connelly, Jared Leto and an absolutely excellent Ellen Burstyn, 'Requiem for a Dream' is a study on addiction in all its forms, and is a tour de force, despite the incongruous presence of a Wayans brother in one of the main roles. PCMR's advice: don't watch Aronofsky's movies if you're hungover, you may just decide to end it all there and then!

I've been eagerly anticipating the release of 'The Fountain' for around a year, as the production has been one of those that Hollywood rather tellingly describes as 'troubled'. Originally, Brad Pitt was cast in the lead role, but he got the hump and shagged off to do 'Babel', so Hugh Jackman was cast in the lead, opposite Rachel Weisz, who as it happens, is Aronofsky's fiance.

I've never had a strong opinion of Hugh Jackman, but I remember him as being pretty much a perfect 'Wolverine' in the X-Men movies, and possibly the kind of guy to turn up in a few romantic comedies that I wouldn't see. However, despite the fact that 'The Fountain' is altogether more cerebral than anything I've seen him in before, Jackman turns in a very impressive performance, and for what it's worth, has gone up hugely in my own estimation as a result. Some of his more emotional moments, including one where he tattoos his finger, are memorable, very moving indeed, and a nice surprise from someone you might not have thought capable beforehand. Weisz too gives a decent performance as Izzy, but her character is not the protagonist, and she acts almost as a symbol of Tommy's love, rather than a real person.

The soundtrack is remarkable enough, in that it is ethereal, other-worldly and vaguely eerie. It plays in the background in a subtly threatening way, never dominating the proceedings until the climactic scenes, where the crescendo complements the action perfectly.

Visually though, 'The Fountain' is particularly amazing. Aronofsky uses almost every shot as an experiment in lighting and cinematography, and the results are vivid, lavish and extremely easy on the eye. The timelines allow him to use different palettes, and this emphasizes the distinction between the parallel storylines, easing the effect of the numerous transitions over the course of the movie. In particular, some of the final shots in the Fountain are immaculately brought to life, and are possibly worth the admission price alone.

The question PCMR would ask, however, is whether audiences will stay with the story until the end. This is an ambitious, demanding story, evaluating the relationship between fate, love and death. The two main characters have a bond that traverses time, and each story involves the 'Tree of Life' from the Garden of Eden. This demands quite a lot from the audience, and will likely turn a lot of people off. As it builds towards the climax of the story, much thematic ground is covered, in particular over the course of the story set in the present day. However, as I said previously, Aronofsky does not make popcorn movies!

To compare the director to anyone else is difficult. Like Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain uses the device of forging connection between three separate stories, so he could possibly be compared to Inarritu, the man behind '21 Grams', 'Amores Perros', and more recently the best picture nominated Babel. However, PCMR would argue that this device is more successfully deployed by Aronofsky. Final judgement will be reserved on that though, until PCMR gets a viewing of 'Babel', coming soon...

In his ambition to maximise the possibilities of cinema as a visual medium, and his laborious attention to detail, a more accurate comparison could inevitably be drawn to Stanley Kubrick, the man behind 'A Clockwork Orange', 'The Shining', and of course '2001'. There are moments in The Fountain that are very reminiscent of '2001', including one signature shot from the storyline set in the future, where a cue-ball bald Hugh Jackman is outlined from the back, sitting mid-air in lotus position, as a star collapses in front of his eyes..

So, Aronofsky is standing on the shoulders of giants here, but are the comparisons fair? Well, PCMR cannot think of a director that is currently working today, whose work I anticipate with more excitement. The Fountain promised to be truly great, and it's ambition is to be applauded. There is so much real talent on screen, from Aronofsky, Ellen Burstyn, and Jackman in particular. The visual effect of the Fountain is truly unique, and the vision of Aronofsky, who also wrote the movie, is very well realised.

However, I felt that there was something missing from The Fountain, something that was present in Aronofsky's two other previous efforts, and I'm finding it hard to put my finger on what it is exactly, hence the 'First Viewing' tag on this post. I will watch this one again though, so perhaps that's an indicator in itself... Perhaps the George Lucas Principle of Movie Expectations at work here though, as I was expecting a lot from this one.

Critics of Aronofsky will call this film pretentious wank. And it is pretentious, in that it is hugely ambitious in its scope, its themes and its targets. However, PCMR is firmly entrenched in the pro-Aronofsky camp, and believes there are not enough people like him working today. Jerry Bruckheimer can tackle the marketing side of Hollywood, and fair play to him, he's doing great things there. However, if we leave the creative side of movie-making in the hands of people like Darren Aronofsky, we can look forward to enjoying visual feasts like the Fountain on a more regular basis. PCMR would argue that this is no bad thing.


The Verdict: Very well acted, beautifully shot and scored, an original and unique vision from a director with a big big future, it's worth a look, but not for fans of '2 Fast 2 Furious'!
The Rating: 7/10

The Last King of Scotland

When Kate Winslet appeared in 'Extras', she turned in a delightfully wicked performance, but in one of her more despicably prescient observations, she conspiratorially points out to jobbing actor Ricky Gervais that the surest way to win an oscar is to "play a mental." The words of Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais, however laconic, have a real ring of truth about them. Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for 'My Left Foot', and Dustin Hoffman picked up the gong for 'Rainman' in performances playing disabled characters, and both of these performances garnered almost universally positive critical and audience reaction. Anthony Hopkins could arguably been seen to have played another kind of 'mental' when he picked up the plaudits, and the statuette for playing Lecter in 'the Silence of the Lambs.'

However, the military biopic has thrown up a few eccentric characters of its very own, which one could argure fall into the 'mental' genre. George C. Scott turned in a barnstorming performance in 'Patton', as the legendarily eccentric military genius, and he too won an oscar (even if he neglected to accept it). It seems even playing a despotic tyrant can garner an actor critical praise and endear him/her to a large audience. When 'Der Untergang' or 'Downfall' portrayed Adolf Hitler as a nuanced, human character for the first time ever a in German movie recently, the movie received huge critical acclaim, and picked up numerous awards at ceremonies across the world. And with good reason, for the performance of Bruno Ganz is truly excellent.

These larger-than-life characters provide a rich source of material for a capable actor, but for the actor looking to play Idi Amin, there is a pre-packaged character study of the man available in Barbet Schroeder's Idi Amin Dada, a fly-on-the-wall documentary filmed in the early 1970's. In a misguided attempt to improve his public image, Amin gave unprecedented access to the film crew, and even recorded the soundtrack to the movie on his accordion. Perhaps Amin was trying to show the world the 'real' Idi Amin but, whether the image of the man protrayed in Schroeder's film is representative of the real Amin or not, it is debatable whether this image corresponded with the picture Amin had of himself.

Head of a military dictatorship in Uganda in the 1970's, Idi Amin was responsible for the dispappearance or death of around 300,000 Ugandan people over the course of his time in power. Schroeder's documentary portrays a charismatic and intelligent, yet erratic and unpredictable man, his rule based on the creation of a climate of fear and apprehension of a larger than life leader, in possession of both tremendous power and an all-encompassing paranoia. This is the kind of character that Forest Whitaker is charged with bringing to life in The Last King of Scotland.

Forest Whitaker has been kicking around Hollywood for some time, but my first real memory of him was playing the outspoken military aide to Robin Williams in the memorable 'Good Morning Vietnam'. Although Whitaker played straight to William's funny guy, he displayed an uncanny presence opposite the manic comedian. Roles followed in a sequence of mostly forgettable movies, but Whitaker has popped up every now and again in more high profile movies, and regularly demonstrates an emotional intensity in roles such as the empath in the rather poor 'Species', and in the best movie I've seen him in, Jim Jarmusch's 'Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai'. In 'Ghost Dog', Whitaker really shone, and delivered a memorable performance, showing his chops as a leading man. However, Ghost Dog aside, Whitaker has never really got the role to allow him to play to his strengths, and appearing in possibly the worst ever large scale Hollywood production, a certain 'Battlefield Earth' didn't really help his career much.

In his portrayal of Idi Amin, however, Forest Whitaker has delivered a very powerful performance. Amin is a complex character: personable, charismatic, paranoid and dangerous in equal measures, and real range is required to effectively portray all these elements of the man in a credible way. In my book, however, he pulls it off, and Oprah Winfrey agrees, having recently recommended Whitaker as her favourite for the oscar. Now, you may scoff, but Oprah's influence over the Oscars should not be underestimated. A card-carrying and voting member of the Academy, Winfrey started her career as an actress, and recieved an oscar nomination for a supporting role in 'The Color Purple'. And, lest you forget, Oprah wields an unprecedented level of power in the american entertainment industry, her legions of acolytes regularly bending to her will. When it comes to her book club, a recommendation can mean the difference between obscurity and a best-seller for an author. In terms of movies, and the Oscars in particular, Oprah's recommendation can result in a groundswell of popular opinion, just the kind of platform to lead to more academy votes for a given movie. So fingers crossed for Forest..

However, Whitaker's enigmatic performance in the movie isn't the only element to like about 'Last King of Scotland'. James McAvoy too delivers a very sound performance as Nicholas Larrigan, the young Scottish Doctor who travels to Uganda and befriends Idi Amin, after a chance meeting under unlikely circumstances. McAvoy is the main protagonist of the movie, and befriends Amin principally because of the despot's love for Scotland, but also because the two share a similarly impulsive and outspoken personality.

This unlikely friendship leads to an invitation to become Amin's personal physician, so McAvoy moves to Kampala, and forges closer ties with the charismatic general. However, as the plot develops, Larrigan becomes less and less comfortable with the goings-on under Amin's rule, and begins to realise that he my be in over his head.

McAvoy's performance is quietly effective, for he too has a lot to work with in the movie. His cocksure naivete in the film's opening scenes gradually gives way to an increasing desperation and the young Scot handles the role very well.

The action moves along at a fair pace, and although the plot is at times a little chaotic, the ominous presence of Whitaker is never too far away, and his scenes add exactly the right amount of tension to keep the audience fairly immersed in the plot. Even when not on screen, Whitaker is referred to constantly, effectively building a larger than life image of the character that the real man obviously engendered during his despotic tenure in Uganda's seat of power.

A relatively inexperienced director, Kevin MacDonald had previously helmed the award-winning documentary 'Touching The Void'. However, though his recreation of Idi Amin's Uganda in the 1970's is an entirely different prospect, he makes a very good fist of it, and as the archive footage shown in the closing credits confirms, recreates a picture that was quite close to the reality of the time.

The dialogue is always sharp and intelligent, and allows the two leads a lot of room to demonstrate their capabilities. There are some quite violent scenes in here too, however, and one scene in particular may require sick bags to be provided in cinemas showing this, so be prepared!

So, it's a good story, with two very talented lead actors, and a particularly outstanding performance from Forest Whitaker. Despite the fact that creative liberties were taken with the story (Larrigan's character in particular) and that there are a couple of holes in the plot, notably in the final scenes, 'The Last King of Scotland' is definitely worth a look. Forest may just have inadvertently heeded Kate Winslet's advice, so let's see now if Oprah's recommendation can make a difference to his prospects of picking up the gong come Oscar night. In my book, that's where the smart money's going.


The verdict: Intense and enthralling, with powerful performances from the two leads, Whitaker in particular is excellent.
The rating: 7/10

Rocky Balboa

Movies about sport tend to find it difficult to avoid the realm of the cliche. Football in particular, has been vilified on the big screen, almost without exception. Some of you may remember a recent attempt by Hollywood to capture the Beautiful Game with what was meant to be the first episode of a trilogy: 'Goal: The Dream Begins'. If you need a lesson in sporting cliche, look no further. Goal did not score at the box office, and soon became a trilogy of one. However, there is at least one exception to footie's shameful coverage on the big screen, and that's 'Escape to Victory'. A classic matinee for a dreary afternoon', as The Simpsons might call it, 'Escape to Victory' was directed by John Huston, and featured a host of famous footie stars of the seventies, Pele, Bobby Moore and Ossie Ardiles among others. Bizarrely, but quite brilliantly, starring opposite these giants of the game were two icons of modern cinema: Michael Caine and, the American upstart goalkeeper, Sylvester Stallone.

Stallone's association with the beautiful game was renewed recently, albeit in a slightly less cinematic setting, when he visited Goodison Park to watch Everton draw one all with Reading last week. However, as he paraded the centre circle before the game, holding his Everton scarf aloft and smiling at the crowds, it was interesting to note the warm reaction he received. These are football fans after all, noted for their less than enlightened views, and well documented desire for cheap laughs.. and yet, Stallone was given respect. Whether this was due to the fans' memories of Escape to Victory, or the association with a certain Rocky character is unclear, but the affection was there, no doubt about it.

Sly has had a chequered career, spanning four decades now. Beginning with a few, ahem, bit parts, Sly worked as a jobbing actor in Hollywood for the early part of the seventies, playing Extra #252 in this, 'Man dancing in bar' in that. However, around 1975, he managed to sell a script he had been working on to MGM, on the condition that he be allowed play the lead role, and that script went on to be made into one of the great movies of the 70's. Lest we forget, the first 'Rocky' was nominated for ten academy awards, and Sly became only the third ever actor to be nominated for best screenplay, and best actor in the same year, following in the shoes of Orson Welles and Charlie Chaplin! Stallone didn't win either oscar, losing out to one of my all time favourites on both counts (Paddy Chayevsky wrote, and Peter Finch starred in Network), but Rocky won best picture, beating off the stiffest of competition from: 'Network', 'All the President's Men', 'Bound for Glory', and, wait for it... 'Taxi Driver'.

The rest of the seventies didn't smile quite so brightly on Stallone, and he struggled to find a niche in Hollywood, choosing to make a Rocky sequel, which certainly met with less critical acclaim, even if the audience more or less demanded the second episode. Oh, and the third, this time with Mr. T providing the opposition.. Then came the 80's, and the really quite entertaining 'First Blood'. The John Rambo character has permeated the global consciousness so completely by this stage that it seems strange to think his origins were so small in scale. However, in First Blood, Stallone demonstrated a capacity to play the role the 80's would be remembered for: action hero.

Stallone arguably defined two of the greatest cinematic icons of the 80's with two movies in 1985. First came 'Rambo: First Blood Part II', a bloody actioner with a high body count of faceless terrorists, which became a world-wide phenomenon. Then 'Rocky IV', where Sly single-handedly ended the cold war by knocking Dolph Lundgren down. What a guy.

So, the 80's were good to Stallone. However, maintaining a successful run has always been tough for Sly, and, the 90's were something of a bumpy ride. There were highs, including 'Cliffhanger', 'Cop Land', and, um, 'Antz'. But there were also the lows, such as the pretty dreadful 'Daylight', the insultingly bad 'Judge Dredd' and of course the nadir: 'Rocky V'. Stallone may have gotten complacent with the fifth episode of the franchise, or he may simply have wanted rid of the balboa character. Either way, a brain-damaged Rocky, losing fights in the street to local punks was not what audiences wanted, and Rocky V was universally vilified, by audiences and critics alike.

So amid all the amazing highs of his career, Stallone has also had some pretty deep lows to get through. His recent flops include some really desperately poor movies ('Driven', 'Oscar', and unbelievably 'Stop, or my Mom will Shoot') and the 00's have until now, provided only one real role of note for Stallone, in, um.. 'Spy Kids 3'...

So if anything, Stallone has demonstrated an unswerving ability to keep going, to dust himself up after another failure, and attempt once again to reinvent his career. I've said it before, but Hollywood, as well as the cinema audience, loves a good reinvention. And a comeback, well, that's the stuff of romance.

Rocky Balboa is an affectionate addition to the series, possibly Stallone's attempt to exorcise the ghost of his unfortunate previous Rocky outing. What is made clear in the first half of the movie is that Balboa is older now, but wiser. He is coherent, he owns a restaurant, but he has perhaps developed into the unenviable role of 'former champ', telling stories of his former glories to his clients as they dine, and so familiar are his customers with his boxing stories, they say the punchlines with him. (no pun intended).

Balboa junior is grown up now, and making his way in the world. Paulie, played by Burt Young, is older now, and in obvious fear of retirement. And as for Adrian, well, she's no longer on the scene, having passed away some years before.

In 'Rocky Balboa', the current heavyweight champ, Mason Dixon, is unpopular, and the sport of boxing is in decline. A popular sports channel runs a computer simulation of Rocky in his prime, fighting Dixon and winning, putting the idea in Rocky's head that maybe one more fight wouldn't be a bad idea...

I got the feeling that Stallone was putting a lot of himself on screen, finding parallels between Rocky's struggle and his own. Indeed, the larger than life character has been responsible for Stallone's greatest successes. Now, however, Stallone is 60, and facing the prospect of decline. In the first half of the movie, Rocky is pretty much an aging former champ, and a slightly tragic character.

However, you know what's coming in Rocky Balboa. In 'Team America', Trey Parker and Matt Stone presciently pointed out that in movies, when you need to move things along, you need a montage, and no movies can do montages like the Rockies. From the moment Rocky begins training, the audience is on familiar ground. However, I would argue that this is what we want to see.. Rocky deserved a more fitting end than the previous episode, and with Rocky Balboa, Stallone has delivered exactly that.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, Rocky is a true cinematic icon. This movie is a real attempt to move the character on, and when the aging Rocky decides to go fight again, Stallone's script almost manages to make it even seem semi-plausible... (Apart from the licence application hearing, but who's counting that!?)

Rocky's straight-forward message is that no matter how often you get hit, you pick yourself up and you keep going. I can't help thinking that this is representative of what Stallone also believes, given the chequered career, and mixed reaction he has had over its course.

So, if you have already decided to go and see Rocky, then I can tell you, you probably know what to expect, so you won't be disappointed. If you're thinking twice about it, then perhaps this recommendation won't sway your decision, but you will get an affectionate Rocky sequel for your money, and you'll leave the cinema with a smile on your face. Although it's loaded with cliche, Hollywood-style cheese-laden dialogue, and as predictable a movie as you'll ever see, I found it tough to stay mad at these familiar characters for long, and just enjoyed this pure escapist popcorn flick for the hour and a half's light entertainment it provided. It ain't 'Escape to Victory' folks, but it's sure better than Rocky 5!


The verdict: Yo, adrian! It's Rocky. Don't expect too much!
The rating: 6/10