An Inconvenient Truth

American politics is a strange business, as those fortunate enough to catch 'The Daily Show' on a regular basis will attest to all too readily. Although the contentious U.S. presidential election of 2000 may have affirmed this to a global audience, surely no-one can have felt the effect of this 'democratic' process more keenly than the man on the losing side of the result, Al Gore. Now, put aside pregnant chads, political preferences and opinions of Dubya for a moment. On a basic human level, that's got to hurt. To finish in second place in a political process does not often elicit rewards, but to end up the loser in such a manner, that's going to have a profound effect on your worldview.

An Inconvenient Truth is part environmental lecture, and partly a biographical account of Al Gore's life: the man who was 'once the next president of the United States'. The intention of the biographical elements is to weave together the evolution of the man with the evolution of his mission to deliver this message both before and after that electoral defeat in 2000.

For me, at least, this device works. Gore narrates, describing certain pivotal moments in his life and how they affected him, including his time spent working on his father's tobacco farm as a youngster. These accounts climax with un-narrated press coverage of the 2000 election, and when the narration subsequently resumes, Gore simply describes what he did next. The objective is to reinforce his motivation to travel the world and deliver this 'slideshow' (as he calls it).

When he mentions the fact that he has delivered the presentation over a thousand times, and retraces his movements across the globe, the film is at it's most convincing, and all these moments take place outside the context of the presentation proper. Gore's intention is quite simple: if American citizens - constituents - have the environmental issue on the tip of their tongues, then aspiring politicians will have to react, and tackle the issue. By continually delivering the message to people and convincing one small group at a time, perhaps public opinion on the matter will gradually change. The film itself is just an extension of that, a medium capable of delivering the same presentation in many locations and to many audiences simultaneously, without Gore's physical presence being required.

As to the presentation itself, it is almost completely apolitical, with a tone more akin to a scientific presentation, interspersed with occasional moments of light relief, such as a Matt Groening cartoon. Gore presents research from scientists working in all corners of the globe, reinforcing and giving meaning to the phrase 'global warming' in such a way that the audience remembers why this is actually a pretty serious problem. The message builds slowly to a crescendo, and is extremely well-honed and polished. At times it is revelatory and even shocking, but it is not entirely pessimistic. The message we are left with is that, sure, things are bad at the moment, and, ok, they're getting worse right now, but we have the means at our disposal to solve the problem. The only thing that is lacking - in the United States at least - is political will.

In political terms once again, I can only speculate as to how a die-hard Republican would react to 'An Inconvenient Truth', but as Al Gore presented his slideshow principally in universities on his transamerican whistle-stop tour, I can only wonder if he was primarily 'preaching to the converted'. A Republican counter-argument to this movie could be that Gore is simply promoting himself.. why else does a movie about global warming contain auto-biographical segments? Isn't he just a politician cynically trying to gain a platform for re-election?

In all honesty, I don't believe this to be true. The biographical sections work in tandem with the 'green' message, and reinforce the slideshow's salient points. We don't get to know Al Gore's politics any better through the movie, we just gain a deeper understanding of how convinced he is that he is absolutely right on this environmental issue. His presentation is based on facts, but the autobiographical sections commingle with the scientific details to convince you that this man believes what he is saying. This is ultimately where the movie gains added resonance and credibility.

For me, the message of the slideshow is well delivered. Al Gore is not exactly the gregarious extrovert, but his delivery is coolly efficient. Also, the global warming message isn't new, but 'An Inconvenient Truth' succeeds in startling the audience into understanding the real urgency of tackling the problem on a global scale. It might be an old news topic, but the evidence Gore presents is recent, and hits alarmingly close to home at times.

But, lets get back to basics here: as a piece of movie entertainment, how does it hold up? Well, if we judge it as a documentary, then it holds up very well, but 'Bad Boys II' it certainly ain't. (Thank jabus for that - Ed). In all honesty, you could do a lot worse than renting 'An Inconvenient Truth'. It may surprise you, it was certainly a lot better than I expected it to be.


The verdict: Packed with Gore, and shocking in parts, but a very strong message, well-delivered. Better than PCMR thought it was going to be.
The rating: 7/10

LSD: The Beyond Within

The documentary embedded below is a two-part study of LSD, undertaken in 1986 by the BBC Documentary series "Everyman". This refreshingly frank and impartial study of the discovery and development of the notorious hallucinogenic drug is notably free of moral judgemment, and features contributions from such legendary heroes of psychedelia as Albert Hoffman - the Swiss scientist who discovered the drug in 1943 - Aldous Huxley - author of 'The Doors of Perception' - Ken Kesey - author of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' - and a certain Lord Christopher Mayhew (more on his contribution in a moment.

The main question this documentary asks is whether the experiences of LSD users can make legitimate claim to being spiritual in nature, or whether this is just psychedelic delusion. Split into two parts, 'The Rise of LSD' and 'The Fall of LSD', the research starts at the beginning, with Albert Hoffman (pictured above), a Swiss research scientist who discovered the LSD-25 molecule when he accidentally ingested a dose of the drug in his lab. His experience made him think he was either mad or dead and already in hell, and he could think of nothing to do but retreat home and try to suffer through whatever he was experiencing. After a trip lasting around six hours, he returned to his senses, and it became clearer to him the type of discovery he had just made. After a couple of days convalescing, he returned to the lab, and revealed his discovery to his colleagues.

LSD was used in the '50s in number of guises, and it's startling to think of it being routinely prescribed in mental hospitals in the U.K. Although the tests were carried out in safe conditions, and the subjects were aware that they were being dosed with LSD in order to perhaps stimulate the unconscious mind, and aid them to relate blocked memories which may help their recovery, it is unsettling to note the scale on which the drug was used. Thousands of English mental patients were given the drug.

More alarming though, are the methods employed by the CIA to test LSD in the 1950's. Rather than testing on volunteers, the CIA tests were on unwitting subjects, which Hoffman warns of as the most dangerous way to administer the drug. Archive footage shows the effects of LSD on a military unit, as they attempt to march in formation after unwittingly ingesting a dose of LSD.

As the 60's rolled in, the LSD's popularity grew as a recreational drug, and its users identified with the spiritual side of the experience, as a means of getting close to nature, seeing things differently, or as Ken Kesey puts in, 'jarring the mind' into a new way of thinking. Intellectuals and artists such as Aldous Huxley - author of 'Brave New World' - used drugs such as LSD and Mescalin as a source of inspiration, and Huxley even made public his desire for the drug to be consumed on a wider scale. The growth of the 'psychedelic' movement promoted the use of LSD, and it's use continued to spread, among groups such as Timothy Leary's Millbrook movement on the East Coast (Turn on, tune in, drop out - Ed), and Ken Kesey's fun-loving West Coast band of psychedelic misfits.

Huxley's critics disputed the spiritual merit of the drug, pointing to the fact that true spiritual enlightenment cannot be attained 'on the cheap'. However, media and public interest in LSD reached a point in the early 60's that a politician by the name of Christopher Mayhew agreed to undergo an experiment, and for this experiment to be filmed by the BBC. This fascinating experiment involved his taking a dose of Mescalin in the company of a physician, and answerin certain basic brainteasers over the course of his little trip. The footage of his experience is extraordinary, as this eloquent upper-class Mr. Cholmondley-Warner-style aristocrat describes what he is experiencing under the influence of the drug, his eyes wide as saucers. Indeed, the footage proved too controversial for the BBC at the time, and was not shown until this Everyman documentary broadcast it in the 1980's. Interestingly, Mayhew, who in 1986 was a member of the House of Lords, watches the footage, 30 years later, and stands by his description of the experience. "I had an experience in time" he says, and his conviction is apparent.

The mystical side of LSD experiences is referred to constantly in the second half of the documentary. The experiment involving student priests in the U.S. is fascinating, and I will simply say you have to see it to believe it.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) maded LSD illegal in the U.S., after a wave of negative media attention on the drug. Other countries around the world soon followed, and the psychedelic era didn't last very long once the element of criminality was attached.

Critics of the apparently mystical experiences of LSD point out that although these people thought they were on a journey, discovering new methods of thought, they were actually just dropouts. Hoffman himself has some of the last words in the documentary, claiming that, while he didn't believe his LSD experiences to be spiritual, he did believe that they represented 'another dimension to reality'.

In addition, the 'bad trip' side of LSD is also explored, and users of the drug relate negative experiences suffered while under the influence. These experiences are relayed with such intensity, despite the fact that they are describing pretty mundane events, such as getting a verbal dressing down from a stranger while under the influence, that the effect of such a 'bad trip' will not be under-estimated by the audience.

This is a truly excellent documentary, and I would encourage you to have a look at the link below. It's free, and let's face it, it's better than 'Celebrities Doing Stuff' or whatever pap's on TV this evening.


The verdict: they don't make em like this any more. Chilling, enlightening and thoroughly entertaining.
The rating: 9/10

Here it is, enjoy:

Dublin International Film Festival Preview

Well, it may only be a fledgling film festival, an impudent stripling when compared to the big boys, but the Dublin International Film Festival is growing every year, and there's a bumper crop of new and old Irish and International movies to choose from this year. Here's a quick run-down of the ones PCMR will be watching (reviews of all these will follow after the viewings):

The Good German
Ok, so it's on at half ten on a Saturday morning, but Steven Soderbergh's collaborations with George Clooney have produced some of the best stuff either of these two have done, and their foray into a bit of noir should be at least an interesting way to wake up! It's being touted as 'an experiment' for Soderbergh, and this may be another way of him saying 'don't give me grief if it sucks', but PCMR reckons a little noir first thing on a Saturday morning is no bad thing. (No comment - Ed)

Sunshine
Danny Boyle's sci-fi is apparently a bit of a labour of love for the 'Trainspotting' director. It stars the always good Cillian Murphy though, their first outing together since '28 Days Later', and it's rumoured to have been a colourful production, with the cast locking themselves into a claustrophobic setting for weeks on end, and apparently getting genuinely pissed off with each other in scenes that made the final cut...

Metropolis
Fritz Lang's 1927 sci-fi masterpiece wrote the book. It is doubtful if another single film has been more influential on the world of cinema in general, and the sci-fi genre in particular. Packed to the gills with iconic imagery, this showing is in the National Gallery and has a live soundtrack. Can't wait for this one.

Fast Food Nation
Richard Linklater's adaptation of Eric Schlosser's ubiquitous anti-burger-and-fries diatribe should be interesting at the very least. If it's as harrowing as the book though, PCMR may just have to comfort eat in Burger King on the way home.

Curse of The Golden Flower
The most expensive Chinese movie production ever. Chow-Yun Fat, Gong Li and many many large scale kick-ass battles, this one should reward those who take the opportunity to watch it on the big screen.

Color Me Kubrick
John Malkovich plays a con-man pretending to be Stanley Kubrick in this off-beat comedy written and directed by close collaborators of the late director. This should be a hoot.


PCMR Would also Recommend:

Letters From Iwo Jima
Clint's japanese companion piece to 'Flags of our Fathers' is rumoured to be the superior of the two Iwo Jima movies he's cobbled together lately, and given that it's up for a Best Picture Oscar, and topped most American critics' picks of 2006 lists last year, it must have something good going for it. (Plus PCMR foolishly has ten euros on it to win the Oscar at 11-1 - Ed)

Half Nelson
Ryan Gosling's performance alone is worth the ticket price for this one. I can't recommend it highly enough. Read PCMR's review if you're still not convinced!

Rescue Dawn
Freed from the shackles of big-budget Hollywood productions such as Batman Begins and The Prestige, Christian Bale should relish the opportunity to flex his acting muscles in this, Werner Herzog's latest. It's an intelligent war movie, and Christian Bale is possibly the most under-rated British actor of his generation... what more do you need to know?

PCMR Shortlisted for Irish Blog Awards

Well, the shortlists are in for the Irish Blog Awards... and PCMR finds itself up for two categories: 'Best Sports and Recreation' and 'Best Arts and Culture'. Many thanks again to everyone who nominated in the initial round!

As these awards are a democratic process, based a public vote, and given that PCMR has never been one to cow from a shameless act of self-promotion, I would point you in the direction of the links below. Who knows, maybe PCMR can do a 'Ronnie O'Brien'!? (Ah now, don't be knockin the greatest Irish sportsman of all time - Ed)

Here's a complete list of nominees.

And here's where you vote.

Oh yeah, one little thing, please don't vote more than once. If you do, the techies at the irish blog site will come to your house and talk to you about star trek until you weep, and then withdraw your votes, so spamming is a no-no. (If you were thinking of this, I appreciate the thought, but shame on you!)

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