Slither

From time to time, people can be honestly seen to 'surf' the internet. The Arctic Monkeys are riding on the crest of a wave that was in part made possible from their Myspace page. The ubiquitous 'Numa Numa' kid's popularity ballooned so rapidly from a three minute internet spot he recorded miming to a europop tune, that he was eventually offered an appearance on Jay Leno. More and more companies are using viral commercials, or downloadable e-mailable versions of ads that would never air on tv, and these too have a tendency to spread like wildfire throughout office inboxes all over the world.

All these examples are variations on a theme, a commodity held in the holiest of sacred regards by movie-makers: 'internet buzz'. This is another way of referring to the interminable claptrap spouted by 'bloggers' like me, a member of a community that regards itself as slightly less inferior to the dreaded 'message-boarders'. Once the ripple of buzz is picked up on a topic, you will see forum postings, message boards abound with variations on a theme such as 'dude, OMG, like, I can't wait for this one', or 'is SOAP gona be better than LOTR???!?!' The classic example of this buzz getting out of control was prior to the release of 'Snakes on a Plane'. Now, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on its quality, but the impression I got from seeing Sam Jackson talk it up on The Daily Show is that it's a b-movie, trying to be intentionally tongue-in-cheek, but that the idea sounded, well, pretty boring.. Why, then, did the message-boarding fanboys and bloggers embrace 'Snakes on a Plane' so fondly, giving it that most loving of internet fanboy thumbs-ups, an abbreviation (SOAP) and generating all sorts of excitement in advance of its release? Who knows folks, for the internet is a strange place. What's stranger to me though, is that a movie like Slither, which provides all the laughs and grisly enjoyment that Snakes on a Plane promised, never generated a single ripple of internet 'buzz', at least none that registered on my, um, sonar.

Slither is an irreverent comedy horror in the same vein as Sam Raimi's 'Evil Dead' trilogy, or perhaps Peter Jackson's 'Braindead'. It's a monster movie, of the genre that Troma studios have been churning out for years. For Troma movies, think 'Redneck Zombies' or 'The Toxic Avenger' and you get the idea of the tongue-in-cheek approach that they take to entertainment of this type. Slither borrows a lot from the Troma style, and indeed, one of the movie's characters is relaxing at home watching a Troma movie before she meets the monster of the piece.

Essentially, Slither doesn't take itself too seriously, and is all the more enjoyable for it. The self-awareness displayed by writer-director James Gunn probably comes from his own experience as a writer/director on Troma movies. Although he debuted with the not so memorable 'Tromeo and Juliet', Gunn did go on to bigger things, penning the script for the 1994 remake of George Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', which was a big box-office success. He also provided a bit of bankability for himself by penning the two live action 'Scooby-Doo' movies, work of a more mercenary nature perhaps, but of the type that allows you more freedom in Hollywood, freedom to do your own thing.

And with this freedom, Gunn has put together a creditable addition to the comedy-horror genre. Slither is a pastiche of homages to many well-known monster movies, with throwback scenes to movies such as Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead', 'Halloween', 'The Toxic Avenger', '28 Days Later' even, all the movies Gunn obviously has affection for.

The movie is set in a backwater southern u.s. town named 'Wheelsy', where the residents pretty much all look like zombies even before they get infected by the mutant space monster that's on the prowl. The town is policed by Bill Pardy, played by Nathan Fillion, who you might recognise from the under-rated 'Serenity', and who is soon to be seen in the questionable sequel 'White Noise: The Light'. Fillion seems to be cultivating a reputation for himself as a bit of a b-movie icon, but he gives a good account of himself in Slither.

The monster effects on display (and lets face it, they may as well be a cast member) are very good, and there are also a few genuine moments of suspense and horror amidst all the tongue-in-cheek sarcastic humour.

The story trundles along at a decent pace, and from the get-go, you're never more than a couple of minutes away from something gross! Speaking of which, the monster of the piece, the unfortunately named Grant Grant, is played by Michael Rooker, one of those Troy McLure type supporting actors you will recognise, but be unable to place from anywhere specific. He plays the role well though, even if he becomes unrecognisable about a third of the way into the movie!

I'm painfully aware though, that even if I sing this movie's praises, it's going to be difficult to convince you to see it if you're not a fan of the horror genre. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Slither tanked at the box office, despite its obvious quality. It seems surprising to me that it didn't generate any kind of internet buzz, however, as it is one of those movies that would seriously benefit from good word of mouth..

So here's my contribution to hopefully starting a wave of DvD interest for Slither. It deserves it, mainly because it's a funny, entertaining way to spend ninety minutes. The gore is extreme, the monsters are frightening, the jokes are funny, and the victims, for the most part, deserve what they get! If these characteristics do not a good monster movie make, then my name's Freddy Krueger.


The Verdict: for fans of monster horror, this is great fun.
The rating: 7/10

The Wind That Shakes The Barley

I'll be honest with you folks, I resisted watching this one while it was in the cinemas, mainly because the Irish release was surrounded by more column inches than any other movie released in this country in a long long time. Also, given that it won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, my on-line newspaper of choice also decided to give it voluminous coverage. All this journalism contributed to increasing my expectations of the movie, a scenario which can best be described by a truly scientific theorem of mine named the George Lucas Principle of Movie Expectations (or to use it's short-hand moniker, 'The Lucas Principle'). The Lucas Principle states that your enjoyment of a movie is a function of the quality of the movie, but is also inversely proportional to your expectations of it. Think 'Star Wars: Episode I': a good movie, but disappointing to anyone who grew up with the first three episodes (well, the fourth fifth and sixth, but you know what I mean). Or that second Matrix movie.. The Lucas Principle applied in both cases for me.

So not one to repeat my mistakes, I decided to let the dust settle on The Wind That Shakes The Barley, and surprise myself with it on DVD some random evening. I'm happy to say that, without the hype, without the high expectations, it is in fact a very good film.

Set against the backdrop of Ireland in the 1920's, the Easter rising has come and gone, but Ireland is still occupied by british forces. The dreaded 'Black and Tans' patrol the Irish countryside, breaking up organised gatherings such as GAA games, and generally intimidating, terrorising and killing the local people.

A proviso to you, reader, this r5eviewer is not for a moment attempting to be political, but it is worth pointing out that the director Ken Loach, himself an Englishman, is uncompromisingly ruthless in his portrayal of the savagery of the black and tans and the British army. The violence on-screen is of the most difficult type to watch, due to the high level of realism. Recently, the new James Bond movie attracted a lot of press due to a torture scene, well I can tell you, that scene has nothing on 'the Wind That Shakes the Barley'.

The story focusses on a group of friends, and in particular two brothers, played by Cillian Murphy and Padraic Delaney. Murphy delivers a very solid performance as Damian O'Donovan, and Delaney gives creditable support as Teddy, brother to Damian. Damian is a man of letters, and is keen to escape the rural hardship of life under the black and tan cosh and move to London, where he can train as a doctor, but events conspire to change his mind. Possibly against his better judgement, he joins his friends in the Irish Republican Brotherhood and decides to fight for Irish freedom instead.

As the story develops, we learn more about the involvement of every demographic of Ireland in the struggles of the 1920's. Young children deliver messages on behalf of the republicans. The women carry important letters and house and feed the young men training to take on the British army. Older parents and grandparents too, take their lives into their hands by feeding these young men.

Loach's depiction of rural ireland of the 1920's is lovingly recreated, and the skill with which the level of detail is rendered contributes greatly to the reality of the story being told. Never for a second did I question the depiction of the details I would recognise, due to being a native of these shores. The accents are Irish, the Irish language is spoken with confidence by natives, the songs are genuine, the locations are genuine and this all contributes to making the movie quite immersive. Loach sets the scene marvellously well, in as subtle a manner as you will see on celluloid. Not to embarass myself, or Loach, by comparing him to Patrick Kavanagh, but the small details of Irish rural life portrayed in this movie evoked (for me) images from 'Tarry Flynn', and this is something I particularly enjoyed about the film.

Yet, this level of subtle detail and texture all occurs in the background. While it is registering, the story continues to move forward at a relentless pace, involving the O'Donovan brothers more and more in the actual rebellion of Ireland. Again when it comes to the dialogue in the movie, the words of the main characters are not those of politicians, rather those of men who are passionate about having their own land, and leaving behind something for their children. There are no large-scale rabble-rousing speeches here, but there are lively debates between real people. The speeches are faltering, as if the men are venting forth opinions that are developing, fresh in their minds, but also close to their hearts. These scenes are among the strongest in the movie, and portray the tensions, traumas and conflicts caused by the imposition of the need for rebellion on the Irish people.

One criticism I would have of the movie is the portrayal of the British occupying force. I'm no history expert, but the black and tans are probably accurately portrayed as terrorising lunatics. That said, the British army are almost to a man portrayed as blood-thirsty condescending prigs, who regard the Irish people with such disdain, and voice this disdain so readily, that only an idiot would fail to rebel against them. They are reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's heartless black-and-white SS officers in 'Schindler's List' in the cold harsh simplicity of their portrayal. The British landlord character, too, is of this genre. While he shows a fragment of human emotion in his last moments in the movie, in the main he is a heartless authority figure, with provocative bile in his words. "Priest-infested backwater" is one phrase he uses, a good example of how to describe Ireland in such a way as to not make many Irish friends!

That said, Murphy and Delaney are given much more to work with, and their performances are strong. Their relationship continually evolves as the movie progresses, and never enters the realm of cliche as it so easily could in a story of this type.

So, while it is not perfect, 'The Wind That Shakes the Barley' is really rather good. It's pleasing to see Cillian Murphy's career develop, and if a movie like this does not increase his stature as a potential leading man, then something's up. Also, Padraic Delaney, Liam Cunningham and Orla Fitzgerald deliver creditable support, and hopefully their stars will also continue to rise as a result.

So, in accordance with the Lucas Principle, I would advise you to watch this one, but don't raise your expectations too high. As Cillian Murphy's parish priest might have said in the movie, "Gwan! Away with yerself, and quit yer messin!"


The Verdict: Equally credible and harrowing, expertly made, but slightly flawed.
The Rating: 7/10.

Stranger Than Fiction

In an earlier review of another Will Ferrell movie - Talladega Nights - I portentously predicted that 'Stranger Than Fiction' would be the 'Truman Show' moment of Ferrell's acting career. In other words, after capably demonstrating his ability to do comedy in all its mad-cap hilarity, Ferrell was about to dip his toe into more serious waters, much like Jim Carrey did to critical acclaim in 'Man on the Moon' and to more widespread audience approval in 'The Truman Show'. Now both those movies had an effect on Jim Carrey's longevity, but the effect of audience reaction to The Truman Show on his career cannot be understated. It's impossible to know if Carrey would even have been considered for 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' had he not played Truman Burbank so, well, straight. In Eternal Sunshine, there are very few moments where Carrey plays for laughs. In fact, much of his character's screen-time is spent in earnest, haunted pursuit of Clementine, the girlfriend who has tried to erase her memories of his very existence. This is a long way from prat-falls and rubber-faced gurning, and is by a very long way Jim Carrey's best movie.

There's definitely something about a comic actor turning in a respectable dramatic performance that really appeals to audiences. Even Adam Sandler has done it, in his career-best movie 'Punch-Drunk Love', a bittersweet, off-beat comedy that deserved a lot more love than it got. Sandler played a soft-spoken lonely guy, browbeaten by his family. He has a real desire to better himself, although he perhaps lacks the capability or the social skills to achieve this goal. His story in Punch-Drunk Love is enthralling and beautifully filmed, but his performance is surprisingly subtle and eminently watchable, a galaxy far far away from 'The Waterboy'.

Will Ferrell can do comedy, of that there's no question. 'Anchorman' is anarchic, sexist, irreverent and Ferrell is at his manic best. In 'Talladega Nights' however, he showed his ability to really carry a movie, and gave a glimpse of something more under the surface of the lunacy.

While I might have predicted that 'Stranger Than Fiction' was going to be the Truman Show moment of Will Ferrell's career, I'm going to modify that prediction. Stranger Than Fiction is a better movie than The Truman Show. I would more readily compare it to 'Eternal Sunshine'.

I don't say this lightly. 'Stranger Than Fiction' is a complex, nuanced story which swerves between comedy and tragedy in a manner as sure-footed as double o'seven doing parcours. The driver of the story is essentially Harold Crick's (Will Ferrell) realization that he has begun hearing a narrator in his mind. As he brushes his teeth, this narrator describes his thoughts, and as he crosses the street, the voice describes the squeaking of his shoes.. all very innocuous and amusing you may think, until the narrator mentions Harold's imminent death.

Harold's reaction to the news sends him on an enthralling and unpredictable path. His quest to find the author of the story he's appearing in sends him first to the Human Resources manager in his company for a chat, and then quickly to a psychiatrist. But Harold is a serious guy, and Ferrell does not play the character for laughs. He appears genuinely unsettled by this turn of events, and although the idea is fantastic, it is grounded well in reality by Ferrell's performance, as he never over-reacts, even when he tries in vain to make the voice speak..

Ferrell is ably supported in Stranger Than Fiction. Dustin Hoffman is excellent, and shares some of the funniest moments in the movie with Ferrell. Emma Thompson, too, is in excellent form, and this may be the best performance I've ever seen her turn in. (I don't really do Jane Austen though, so I might be wrong about that!).

Maggie Gyllenhall, too, is really lovely in this one. Having only seen her in the decidedly strange 'Secretary', I wasn't certain what to expect, but she appears to be the real deal, and delivers a balanced performance, despite her character perhaps not being the strongest in the movie.

Where Stranger Than Fiction really delivers though, is in the script. The plot appears at first to be a conventional comedy, but very early in the movie we move from 'Bruce Almighty' territory to more alien terrain: we suddenly become sympathetic to Ferrell, and concerned to see how his situation will pan out. His performance is pivotal in this regard, and I believe this is his biggest success in a role where, generally, he is playing it straight. From the moment where Ferrell's character takes a holiday from his job, the movie unravels enthrallingly, with equal moments of tension, emotion and humour. The narrative is evocative of something Charlie Kaufman might have produced, but on one of his better days. 'Being John Malkovich' was clever, and 'Adaptation' also played with narrative, but in my opinion, the devices employed in 'Stranger Than Fiction' are more successful than in either of the two Kaufman movies. The difference being that the narrative never becomes confused or fantastic. The plot is always immediate, linear and has a very definite beginning, middle and end. More like Spotless Mind in fact, but with a plot device that is more readily acceptable to a movie audience in that a voice-over is normally used in much more mundane ways to move a plot forward.

The fact that I'm comparing Stranger than Fiction to 'Eternal Sunshine' in favourable terms is an indication that I really liked this movie. I'm a big Charlie Kaufman fan, and this movie is definitely inspired by, or indebted to Kaufman's work, perhaps with a little of Wes Anderson thrown in. This is no bad mix though, as long as the execution is good. Well, happily, Zach Helm's script is well rendered by director Marc Forster, and the acting is excellent. This movie is intelligent, funny, and will leave you wanting more. Perhaps it's a little early to add it to the favourites list just yet, but 'Stranger Than Fiction' is definitely in the same ball-park as 'Eternal Sunshine' and 'Punch-Drunk Love'.

Even if you don't like Charlie Kaufman, and thought Eternal Sunshine was drivel, I would urge you to go see 'Stranger Than Fiction'. It will surprise you. If you are a Charlie Kaufman fan, and enjoyed 'Eternal Sunshine', I have no doubt you'll enjoy this movie too.


The Verdict: It's great. Go see it.
The Rating: 9/10

Clerks 2

Kevin Smith has had an interesting relationship with the movie business over the last fifteen years or so. In 1996, he announced his arrival onto the silver screen with an accomplished little gem of a sleeper comedy named 'Clerks'. Packed with witty dialogue, memorable characters, novel set-pieces and daringly shot in black-and-white, Clerks attracted Smith a bit of a cult following, and much of the internet fanboy 'buzz' that goes with such a fan-base.

Smith followed Clerks with 'Mallrats', which, to be brutally honest, wasn't that much of a departure really.. it was in colour, but all the corner-stones of Clerks were still present: slackers making witty remarks in suburban New Jersey, kidults wondering what to do with their lives, Jay and Silent Bob, insightful criticism of other well-known movies... essentially Clerks, but from the other side of the counter.

Since then, much has been made of Smith's creativity somewhat dying on the vine. Although 'Dogma' was a pretty big hit, 'Chasing Amy' wasn't bad, and 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' didn't do too badly for him, an air began to grow about Smith that cynics might say smacked of a lack of fresh new ideas.

What followed was perhaps Smith's attempt to move on from Jay and Silent Bob, but the results were less than auspicious... Tim Burton has his creative partner in Johnny Depp, and Steven Soderbergh has his in George Clooney, and these relationships have developed into creative alliances producing arguably their best work. Unfortunately for him however, Kevin Smith developed a bit of a creative relationship with, ahem... Ben Affleck. 'Jersey Girl' is the product of their second outing together (after Dogma)... and may have contributed to the demise of Affleck's career in Hollywood... (he's overdue a reinvention by the way, what price an Affleck career renaissance in the next 18 months!?)

So when your career is floundering in the Tinseltown water, what can you do? Well, you can ring the Weinsteins for one. And you can offer to make that sequel he's been asking you about all these years... hmmm... how much pride is swallowed before a call like that I wonder?

Kevin Smith is unique enough among apparently bigshot Hollywood directors in that he mixes it with on-line fans pretty regularly, giving updates from the sets of his movies, and diligently defending himself against the lunatic fringe of the internet. I'm not sure what his motivation for doing this is really, except maybe that he's a bit of a nerd himself, and he enjoys it. (Nothing wrong with that). However, I've read tirades he has written against semi-literate 'fans' from Hicksville, USA when they dare to criticize his work, and he doesn't hold back. His verbal onslaughts vary in severity from a tirade such as the ones Randall would deliver in Clerks 2, to something of a terse one-liner of the stoner variety from the likes of Jay, but these insults are always infused with the defensive vernacular of the regular internet forum poster.. now if you have ever read an internet forum, you will understand that arguments between varying stages of pond-life often develop, over such weighty topics such as 'Matrix vs. LOTR wich iz betr?' and such and such. This is why, although I admire Kevin Smith's wish to get closer to his audience, I would question his decision to roll his sleeves up and mix it in arguments with these people..

So, here's my frank admission folks, I'm not a big Kevin Smith fan. I loved 'Clerks' though, and the sequel got good reviews, so I thought, what the hey, I'll give it a go... And, to be honest, it didn't suck too badly. But it's just infused with the kind of personality that Smith has developed through spending too much time on the internet. The movie references are sometimes funny, but the targets are too simple, too obvious, and the diatribes lack the many insights offered in the script of the first Clerks movie.

I remember an excellent speech made by the Randall character in the first movie about innocent workers on the Death Star in 'Star Wars' getting wiped out by Luke Skywalker's rebels. Randall was questioning who the actual bad guys were, and this was a funny insight, a different way of looking at the movie. In the sequel, Randall insults a 'Lord of the Rings' fan in slightly more basic terms, by describing what the Hobbits should have done to each other at the end of the third movie... and it's not that this is completely unfunny, but the ideas in first movie were a lot better. It's like the writers of 'Frasier' were switched with those from 'That 70's Show'... "Sick burn, dude" etc etc. (And yes, that line is used in Clerks II).

I hesitate to suggest it, but I think Mr. Smith may possibly be trying to pander to an internet fanboy audience here... but no, that couldn't be right, could it?

Aaanyway, that said, there are funny moments on offer in this movie. The new female characters don't have a hell of a lot to offer in terms of comedy (or drama for that matter), but Randall and Dante's colleague in their new place of employment has some good moments. Elias (played by Trevor Fehrman) is a God-fearing christian and a virgin, a fan of Transformers and Lord of the Rings, and takes copious and regular abuse from Dante and Randall, the two main characters. His is the best performance in the movie, and if there's any justice, he'll survive the association with Kevin Smith, and go on to have a Hollywood career. However, the abuse levelled at Elias throughout the movie smacked of the diatribes of Mr. Smith I referred to earlier, and I got the impression the script of Clerks II contained a lot of speeches contrived by Smith to allow him to vent forth against his least favourite nerds, the ones that perhaps touched some nerves in those internet forums.... (perhaps one of them had the handle 'optimus_prime'?)

Jay and Silent Bob are back too. The Jay character gets a couple of laughs, and Kevin Smith is actually relatively funny as Silent Bob, but the joke is pretty old at this stage. Something inventive was needed to make these two as funny as they were in the first Clerks movie, and whatever this required inspiration was, it was not found for Clerks II. They make you smile, sure, but through mundane familiarity almost.

Dante and Randall, the two main characters from both movies, are pretty much unchanged since the first movie. Randall is as cynical and juvenile as ever, as well versed in Hollywood blockbusters as he is in internet porn and still living at his mom's at the age of thirty-three. Dante, on the other hand, has a fiancee, and wants to make something of his life, get married, move on, all that stuff. But is there a little spark between himself and his rather lovely boss, played by Rosario Dawson?

At it's heart, Clerks II is about growing up, knowing what's good for you, and knowing who your friends really are. So amid the pithy put-downs and knowing sleights on more successful movies, there are moments of emotion in the movie. Randall's worried that his best friend is leaving to marry a girl for the wrong reasons, and Randall is also worried about being left alone. Dante isn't certain he's marrying his fiancee because he loves her, or simply because it's the grown-up thing to do, and Dante's boss, who apparently doesn't believe in romantic love, seems to carry a torch for Dante... Emotions run high towards the end of the movie, but it didn't really convince me to be honest, mainly because the acting is generally quite poor.

There are a number of interesting cameos, however, including an entirely superfluous appearance by Mr. Affleck himself. The best of these is by Jason Lee, who you may know from the TV show 'My Name is Earl'. His 'pickle-fucker' story is so horrific, it must have an element of truth to it, although I'm sure names have been changed to protect the innocent!

So is 'Clerks II' worth watching? Well, as a straight-out comedy, it will appeal to fans of gross-out humour, and as a romantic comedy, it probably won't really appeal to many. It's not as if it was overly ambitious, it's just that in my book, it didn't really hit the marks it was aiming for.

I don't mean to be too hard on Kevin Smith, but he should perhaps get his ass out of the internet forums and the comic book conventions, and go watch something really worthy and inspirational, like 'Southpark'.. or, like, whatever. (OH yeah! ... totally sick burn!)


The verdict: not funny enough to be a good comedy, and not heart-warming enough to be romantic. Just plain average.
The rating: 5/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

In the history of.. well, the world, only three movies have ever made a billion dollars at the box-office worldwide, and Orlando Bloom has starred in two of them. He wasn't in 'Titanic', the behemoth of a movie that's closer to the two billion mark (give or take a hundred million or so..) but he was in 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' and the only other billion dollar baby in existence: 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest'.

However, the Orlando Bloom connection isn't the only thing that Dead Man's Chest has in common with 'The Return of The King'. Both are big-budget fantasy stories involving quests, heroes, villains and a collection of cinematic special effects set-pieces that will quite literally make your jaw drop. The similarity possibly ends there however, as the characters in Dead Man's Chest are altoghether more ambiguous than their peers from the LOTR franchise. In particular, Pirates has a trump character that simply does not exist in the Lord of the Rings universe, a certain Cap'n Jack Sparrow, played with the idiosyncratic verve you would expect from Johnny Depp.

In terms of his relationship with Hollywood, Johnny Depp is something of an oddity. Somehow, he has managed to be a part of an oeuvre of work which consistently receives critical acclaim, and generally does well as the box-office. However, much of his output would be considered off the beaten track as far as someone like, say Jerry Bruckheimer would be concerned. Yet movies like 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Donnie Brasco', 'Sleepy Hollow', and 'Blow' are just some examples of big box-office successes that Depp improved with his presence early in his career. These successes have allowed Depp a certain amount of professional freedom to balance his box-office heavy-hitters with more 'difficult' work that other more risk-averse actors would have baulked at. Movies such as 'Ed Wood', 'Dead Man', 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and 'Before Night Falls' are not the fare of your average A-lister, but these are films that demonstrate Depp's maturity, and are an indication that he plies his trade with an eye on improving and developing as an actor.

His working relationship with Tim Burton is arguably the most productive of his career, Pirates of the Caribbean notwithstanding. With four critically acclaimed hit movies already under their belts, and another in the pipeline (2007 will see the release of 'Sweeney Todd', with Depp starring alongside Sacha Baron Cohen) they seem to bring out the best in each other.

Sleepy Hollow is a good place to start before talking about Depp's ubiquitous character in Pirates of the Caribbean: Jack Sparrow. In Sleepy Hollow, Depp portrayed his character with an English accent, and managed to do something Hollywood actors rarely do with accents, he pulled it off. (Lets forget about his Irish accent in 'Chocolat' for a moment!). His fondness for English comedies such as 'The Fast Show' (he even had a cameo in a scene alongside the slimy tailors) has endeared him to many this side of the water, and the influence of this sense of humour is another ingredient in the makeup of Cap'n Sparrow. The moment of inspiration, which may or may not be accredited to Depp, was to play Sparrow as Keith Richards... and this is essentially the DNA of Sparrow.

Although I was a big fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, there is nothing in that trilogy quite so comically entertaining as Jack Sparrow. His slurred words belie an extremely duplicitous mind (he's a pirate after all) but it's his mannerisms, including an effeminate mincing run and various over-staged reactions to remarks and plot developments, that really make the character. If Depp isn't enjoying himself as Jack Sparrow, then he's an even better actor than he appears, because it really comes across on screen.

Without a good script however, the Pirates movies would really just be the Jack Sparrow show. In the case of Dead Man's Chest, the script again possibly has a lot in common with Return of the King in that it is trying to cram in an awful lot of plot around the spectacular set-pieces, and at times this sheer volume of developments threatens to overload the movie. However, the dialogue is great, and even though it is principally a driver of the action, it is generally pretty smart and witty.

Aside from Jack Sparrow, the other two main leads are Keira Knightley and of course the two-billion-dollar-man himself, Orlando Bloom. These two characters aren't anywhere near as interesting as Sparrow, but they are slightly more unpredictable than you might give them credit for. They never fully trust Sparrow, even if they have a strong bond with the man, and the dynamic between the three is interesting enough, even though they don't actually share a huge amount of screen time all together.

More interesting than either Knightley or Bloom's characters is the baddie of the piece, a certain Davy Jones. An unrecognizale Bill Nighy plays a character resembling a modern updating of Squid-Head from the early Star Wars movies. His CGI costume is expertly rendered however, and he is allowed to act despite certain constraints, such as the lack of a nose or eyebrows for example. But Nighy's dialogue is excellent, his character is properly evil, and he manages to be credible enough as an ominous foe, and someone even the likes of Jack Sparrow would fear.

The special effects on display in Dead Man's Chest are properly breathtaking at times. Day Jones' crew are almost all CGI-rendered, but this is a million miles from Jar-Jar Binks, you'll be glad to hear. Also, the set-pieces involving the sea monster are large-scale disaster-movie awesome in their sheer scope.

In effect, Dead Man's Chest, much like 'Curse of the Black Pearl', is one of those movies that is just so damn likeable, that you can't help but enjoy it. The action is fast-moving and at times breath-taking, the characters are well-drawn - both heroes and villains - and the sense of humour is engaging enough to keep you listening to the dialogue, and wondering what will happen next.

I've compared this one to The Return of The King, but perhaps a more valid comparison would be with the Indiana Jones movies (my favourite of those: 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'). These movies are what Michael Palin might call 'ripping yarns'. You watch them to be entertained and that is exactly what they do.

So, although his collaboration with Tim Burton has perhaps a body of work that has brought Depp to the hollywood A-List, it is rather unfeasibly, with Jerry Bruckheimer that Depp has entered the next level. The third Pirates movie has a lot to live up to, but I think it has every chance of being another billion-dollar-movie. After enjoying Dead Man's Chest so much, I think I'll treat myself to seeing 'Pirates of the Caribbean at World's End' in the cinemas when it's released next year. If you haven't seen 'Dead Man's Chest' yet, I can heartily recommend it as a quality option for a DVD night, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who wouldn't think likewise.


The Verdict: Quality entertainment with powderkegs full of crash bang wallop, and more than a few laughs. All in all, a ripping yarn.
The Rating: 8/10

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

You've got to love that title. And really, you've got to love this movie. For once folks, I may break my own rule here by talking about bits from this movie, so if you haven't seen Borat yet, go now, while it's still in the cinema!! You'll have to wait two months otherwise!!

Borat has crashed onto cinema screens at a time when comedy was really in need of something fresh. 'The Wedding Crashers' was possibly the best comedy of 2005, and oh lordy, that says a lot. 2006 has been a little better, but the two best comedies of the year for me so far have one man in common: Sacha Baron Cohen. This name is now associated with big fat dollar signs in hollywood, and with good reason. Talladega Nights was Will Ferrell's baby, and a massive hit, but Cohen was a scene-stealer in that movie. 'Borat' is now that mythical being most comic actors (unless you're Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller) generally only aspire to: a $100 million dollar picture. DVD sales will probably double that amount, so you can expect to see Cohen loitering with intent around Hollywood for a little while yet.

Amid rumours of an Best Actor Oscar Nomination for Sacha Baron Cohen, I thought I should finally drag my lazy ass to the picture-house to see Borat, and although I watched it in the company of perhaps only twelve other cinema-goers, I could get a feel for the effect this movie was having on audiences. Everyone there reacted viscerally to the images on screen in front of their eyes.. when their eyes weren't covered that is!

In many respects, Borat is something of a redemption for Cohen, as his initial foray onto the big screen with Borat, in the lamentably awful 'Ali G in Da House' didn't live up to the expectations generated by the successful television show. As I've mentioned previously though, failure can be a great motivator, and Cohen has picked himself up, dusted himself down and produced a comedy of a quality that, in my book, hasn't been seen on cinema screens for a few years.

The guile of Cohen's creation is extremely duplicitous, as Borat appears initially to be such an innocent. His nationality is unimportant, but perhaps it was useful for Cohen to pick a country most people in the U.S. would have had little or no knowledge of. However, Borat's behaviour is so foreign, and his slightly off-colour English so amusing, that he becomes instantly disarming to the people he meets, and this allows his interviewees to immediately feel culturally superior to him. Borat's apparent innocence reveals character traits in people that they may not have been aware of, and manages to make them voice beliefs of which they may not have previously been conscious. This is Cohen's evil genius at work. By asking simple questions about his interviewees basic behaviour, and why things are the way they are in the U.S. and A, Borat elicits responses that are possibly more revealing about his interviewees than they would like to admit! Perhaps this explains the amount of litigation that the movie has attracted, from people who were paid, say, $500 to appear in a little movie playing themselves! I doubt they ever expected the finished product to end up looking like this!

Also, as to the physical humour on show in Borat - and there is a lot on show at times! - don't be fooled by the crap in the plastic bag being simply a toilet gag. What Cohen is aiming for is a test of the limits of how nice his party hostess can be, and she does admirably well, despite the massive pressure of explaining to a six foot six Kazakhstani oaf in a small toilet "how one wipes one's behind".. this is priceless stuff.

However, it is when Borat helps uncover the less attractive side of people that the awkward comedy of the 'car-crash' variety is really generated. His questioning of a car and gun salesman would have most people telling him to sling his hook, but they hardly blink, focussed instead on the sale they're about to make, and perhaps remembering the story 'for the guys' later. These are instances of politeness perhaps going a little far, in that Borat is so outlandishly weird to American beliefs, that he becomes little more than a caricature of something 'foreign'. His encounter with a southern gentleman at a rodeo raises eyebrows in particular, as the man's deep-seated prejudices simply vent forth, packaged with a smile and a southern twang.

The gatecrashing of the mortage broker's conference is worth the admission price of Borat alone, and you will not see this scene coming. I really did think something around my stomach area was going to burst I was laughing so much.

As to the script, well, it's very coherent and not simply a smattering of set-pieces hastily cut together to make an 80-minute slap-stick vehicle. Borat has a beginning, a middle and an end, with vital moments in the movie continually providing turning points for the central character. He learns along the way - despite his appearance of an imbecile! - and because he is motivated by simple things, love, learning and the fear of loneliness, we can relate to his mission. Also, because of his truly foreign attitudes and behaviour, we never really see Borat as a bad guy, even when his wife passes away. (High five!)

And in the middle of all the belly laughs are some genuinely nice moments, ones which are not really played for laughs. You'll know the ones I mean, after gatecrashing the broker's conference, and after getting kicked out of the 'etiquette' party. Despite these heart-warming moments though, Borat goes through the ringer in this movie, make no mistake!

Leaving the cinema, I knew I had missed parts of the movie, not because I wasn't paying attention, but because I was literally covering my eyes. The humour in Borat literally grabs you, and while other movies make you laugh, this one will evoke many emotions at once: disgust, disbelief, shock, surprise, awe, but mostly just pure enjoyment. So, I was left with the feeling of needing to see it again, and for me, this is a rare and great feeling for a movie to generate. I associate this feeling with some of the movies I'm really attached to: 'Twelve Monkeys', 'Pi', '28 Days Later' and 'Seven', among others. (What can I say, I like movies with numbers in the titles!)

However, my favourite comedies are the ones I can watch when I need to be cheered up, or simply when I want to have a good belly laugh: 'SouthPark', 'Airplane!', 'Napoleon Dynamite' and Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' to name the few that spring to mind most readily. I would have no hesitation in putting Borat in the same category as these, and would heartily recommend it as an intelligent, boundary-pushing comedy to make you laugh and cringe in equal measure. No, actually scrach that, you'll laugh more than you'll cringe.. I think!

So.. I liked it, can you tell!? But the real question we should now be asking about Borat is: will it stand the test of time? In five, ten or twenty years time, will we be talking about Borat in the same terms as other classic and enduring comedies such as 'Blazing Saddles', 'Trading Places', 'This is Spinal Tap', 'Airplane!' or, dare I say it, 'The Life of Brian'? Well, in my opinion, for however much it counts, I believe Borat will withstand the rigours or time, repeated viewings, and the verbose analysis provided by idiots like me. Put it this way folks, 'Shaun of the Dead' still makes it onto british film critics 'top 50' lists. For me that was an good comedy.. but not great, not.. 'Spinal Tap', and definitely not as good as 'Borat'.


The verdict: Great success, high five etc etc. A seriously good comedy with brains, balls, belly laughs and a heart to boot. Thank you Borat, and chin quee.
The Rating: 9/10

Nacho Libre

Success can be a double-edged sword. For those involved in any kind of enterprise, be it creative, sporting or even the world of business, a good year brings with it praise and expectation in equal measure. For those involved in artistic pursuits, success can foster a devil-may-care attitude, and even the likes of Steven Spielberg have succumbed to it's seductive promises. After reaching the dizzy pinnacle of his success with 'Close Encounters' and 'Jaws' - back-to-back - Spielberg embarked on another over-blown, over-budget production and proceeded to make his biggest ever flop to date: '1941'. Another legend of the silver screen, Michael Cimino made 'The Deer Hunter', and this movie was such a phenomenon, he was given free rein by United Artists to make his chef d'oeuvre, and promptly bankrupted the studio with 'Heaven's Gate'. Cimino's career never really recovered.

Flirtation with box-office disaster does not always kill careers however. Spielberg reflected on the 1941 effect and conquered his internal prima donna to great effect with his next movie 'Raiders of The Lost Ark'. The rest, to employ a tired cliche, is history. As mentioned in a previous review, Hollywood loves a good re-invention!

However, the ineviable following chapter to an unprecedented success early in one's career is the 'difficult' second effort. Musicians often complain of the difficulty of following a successful first album, and many are curious to see if this may even knock the holier than holy Arctic Monkeys out of their meteoric orbit. As far as Jared Hess is concerned, he was always going to have an awful lot to live up to after the success of his first movie, the massively popular cult comedy 'Napoleon Dynamite'.

Now, if you haven't seen Napoleon Dynamite, I urge you to stop reading this blog instantly, and go get your hands on the DVD. Hess created a strange animal with that movie, but it is memorable and funny enough to even withstand repeated viewings, one of the hallmarks of a great comedy for me.

So when you have a difficult second effort to tackle, who do you possibly call for help? Why, Jack Black of course. Or, in this case, Jack Black calls you, as Hess was fortunate enough to have been approached by Black, and the idea for the movie was hatched between them.

Essentially, 'Nacho Libre' is a simple enough idea: Ignacio is an orphan, left at a monastery in Mexico to spend his days as a religious brother, preparing food each morning and noon for the orphan children of the village. However, Ignacio dreams of more, and longs to be a luchador, or mexican wrestler. After trying out his skills at an amateurs only event, he discovers that, although it's more difficult being a luchador than he had previously thought, it turns out to be very lucrative indeed. He and his tag-team partner Esqueleto (played by Hector Jimenez) pocket a fistful of pesos even after losing their first bout, and the funds breathe new life into Nacho's grocery shopping, much to the delight of the orphan kids..

So the story is simple enough. As Nacho gets further into the world of the luchadores, he wants more and more. Then, however, the arrival into the monastery of the demurely beautiful Sister Encarnacion gets Nacho thinking about whether the monastic life is for heem after all...

I say for heem, because the Me-hee-can accent is almost a character in this movie. Jack Black's over-pronounced gringo accent is not the only one in the movie, and all the characters speak as if Eengleesh is their a-secon language.. if you get my drift. This didn't bother me, and actually made me laugh on occasions, but I could imagine it getting on some people's nerves.. imagine everyone in Napoleon Dynamite talking like Pedro and you get a clue as to what Nacho's world is like.

By now I imagine you'll be close to deciding whether you will like 'Nacho Libre' or not, and a big influence on that decision will be your opinion of Jack Black. His star has been on the rise in Hollywood since the surprisingly great 'School of Rock', in which he capably demonstrated his ability to shoulder the burden of being in a lead role. Despite his physical appearance, which Hollywood would traditionally have consigned to a casting agent's trash can, or at best the category of 'character actor', Black has somehow crowd-surfed to a position where he can carry hit Hollywood movies. Make no mistake folks, Nacho Libre was a big hit, and Black is now starring in a romantic comedy opposite Kate Winslet called 'The Holiday'. This movie is about as far from 'Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny' as most chick-flicks are gonna get, but it will test the waters of whether Black can appeal to chicks as well as dudes. Let's face it though, most lads do like Jack Black. I mean, he's already a touring rock star with a band that worships at the sacred altar of 'Spinal Tap'. He's mates with Dave Grohl, Josh Homme and billion-dollar-Ben Stiller, and his success has been principally due to his personality and his talent. Personally, I think he must have more fun than anyone else in the world ever, all the time.

Black really does shoulder the weight of Nacho Libre quite well, which is fortunate for Jared Hess as he appears in almost every scene of the film. He even breaks into song in a number of moments which were more Tenacious D than Napoleon Dynamite!

The comedy in Nacho Libre is similar to Napoleon Dynamite, in that the laughs are probably dependent on you getting to know and like the characters first. However, the wrestling scenes are more immediate, and Black's tag team partner screams in such genuine pain at times that it would need a cold heart not to laugh.. These are basic laughs of the 'man being hit in groin with football' kind.. but this is no bad thing as the film has a decent enough script, and doesn't rely on Black for all the gags. Nor does it shoot for easy catch-phrases too often.

The mood of the film is similar to Napoleon Dynamite, and you may find - although I cannot verify this - that there is not one single naughty word between either movie. These are movies your kids could watch with your grandparents, and everyone would leave with a smile on their faces. I think the right word may be 'sweet' but not in the SouthPark sense. Generation X-ers, do not fear however, as the sweetness is balanced effectively enough with enough craziness to make Nacho Libre more than watchable even for the moodiest teenager. Think of an early episode of the Simpsons, when they still had important lessons at the end, that kind of feeling. Plenty of belly laughs, and a bit at the end where everyone goes 'aaaww'.

So is Nacho Libre worth watching? I think so, but like a difficult second album, you need to take it on it's own merits and understand that, while you will never like it as much as the first one (Napoleon Dynamite), it ain't bad in it's own weird way.

So now for Hess comes the difficult third outing... I think Jon Heder might be ready for Napoleon Dynamite 2 right about now, but it would probably take a flop from Hess to make it a possibility... don't rule it out folks!!

(And by the way, if you think luchadores aren't big in Mexico, think again buddy. In the world cup in Germany this summer, about one in ten Mexican football fans sported a luchador mask like the one Nacho wears in the movie.)


The verdict: warm, sweet, and funny, but not hilarious. Seriously though dude, Jack Black, like, rules.
The rating: 7/10

Miami Vice

The movie business, like most areas of the entertainment industry, loves a good re-invention. Hollywood remakes have been hitting the multiplex screens in their droves of late, and the focus has recently shifted to contemporary updating of familiar, but dated tv shows: Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazzard, the troubled - but apparently imminent - Dallas, and of course Michael Mann's recent re-mix of Miami Vice. Now, this list should demonstrate that the TV-to-movie adaptation hasn't exactly produced a string of roaring box-office successes to date. Indeed, audiences are often reluctant to buy into what they perceive to be another re-hash of an old idea.

However, Michael Mann, the director of Miami Vice, is a genuine Hollywood heavyweight. (Think 'Manhunter', 'The Insider' and of course 'Heat'). This is a man who can squeeze an oscar-nomination-worthy performance out of Will Smith (Ali) and who in 'Collateral' successfully experimented with landmark digital photography techniques, bringing Los Angeles to life on the big screen to visually stunning effect. The critics loved Collateral, and it seemd Mann could pick and choose his projects on the foot of this success.

So why then, would he choose to remake Miami Vice? Well, I'm not sure I can provide an answer to that question and to be honest, I'm not sure if the movie can either. The contemporising of a franchise that is so emblematic of 1980's America can only have been something of a personal challenge and labour of love for the director, who has a close relationship with Miami Vice, having produced many episodes of the tv show early in his career.

The movie version of Miami Vice does not bear much resemblance to world populated by Don Johnson's sleeves, that Jan Hammer soundtrack, and all the associated trappings of 80's extravagance. No, this is a grittier more modern world altogether, and this Tubs and Crockett are most certainly not a buddy buddy partnership a la Lethal Weapon. Neither is theirs a frosty-at-first, but thanks to surviving a few scrapes, actually best mates scenario, in the vein of the Die Hard movies. Mann has avoided obvious cliches in the relationship between Sonny (Colin Farrell) and Rico (Jamie Foxx) and this is something I enjoyed about the movie. The closest the two come to a buddy moment is in the build-up to their final showdown scene, where they exchange a few terse words, and, as Colin Farrell starts the Ferrari, a quick handshake. I got the feeling as the two lads exchanged the odd macho word with each other that perhaps Mann was aiming for a knowing familiarity between the two, and a relationship that meant they didn't need to constantly ask what the other was thinking. Indeed, the line "where you at?" is exchanged between the two only a couple of times, despite the almost absurd complexity of what they are routinely faced with in the course of their undercover work.

While Mann has avoided the cliched two-dimensional caricatures of action heroes with his two Miami Vice leads, I was left a little cold by Colin and Jamie. The knowing familiarity between the two characters would perhaps have been better portrayed by two actors who knew each other well, and I got the impression Farrell and Foxx lacked a little of that kind of chemistry themselves.

In terms of their other on-screen relationships, Farrell shares some of his best scenes with the really quite beautiful Gong Li, and although these are pretty hot and heavy more often than not, the two characters at least develop something approaching a relationship. It's in these scenes with Gong Li that Farrell demonstrates his acting ability, rather than simply using his disguise of that truly shocking handlebar moustache, designer mullet and gravelly voice.

Foxx, too has a love interest, but they aren't really given much of a chance in the movie to share anything except a few soft-focus moments, so this relationship was less interesting for me, and one which I always felt was building up to a moment where Foxx cried "noooo!!". (This didn't happen in the movie by the way!)

However, the action scenes, as you would expect from Michael Mann, are expertly crafted. There is a shootout sequence that is very reminiscent of Heat, but modernised, and with more of a feel of the beach in 'Saving Private Ryan' than a Miami dockside, and this was the strongest action sequence for me. However, the tension is always high, as the two lads get further involved with the criminals they are trying to take down, the tempo of the action moves along nicely.

The movie looks amazing, and at times is genuinely breathtaking. Mann has a unique celluloid signature, and his sweeping shots of Venezuelan waterfalls, beachside mansions, and of course the night-time cityscapes of Miami fill the screen and are as cinematic as you are likely to see.

The plot of Miami Vice is tight enough, and the action rolls along with nary a dull moment. Both love interests are involved in the action, and both Sonny and Rico have a lot at stake as the inevitable climactic bullet-fest approaches. The logistical detail of the crime syndicate is dense, and is believable if a little fantastic. However the 'baddies' are basically just that, and are little more than two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. The vice squad themselves though, are believable enough in their roles, in particular the unlikely chief who does a better than decent job.

So, a solid enough actioner then? Well, yes, but like much of the decade of the 80's, it was a little shallow for my liking. Miami Vice is heavily reliant on the performances of its two male leads and, while Farrell was debatably the stronger of the two, I wouldn't single out either as being exceptional. Farrell's accent is particularly annoying, and he mumbles much of his dialogue in a gravelly southern drawl that almost makes him incomprehensible. He is good in the scenes where some vulnerability is required, but not so strong at the action hero routine... My advice for Colin is: try another comedy mate. All these earnest performances are fine, but in my book, his two best performances have been in the excellent 'Intermission' and as Bullseye in the otherwise appaling 'Daredevil'.

One thing the re-make of Miami Vice has in common with another franchise reboot - Casino Royale - is the presence of Chris Cornell on the soundtrack, this time in his more usual day job with Audioslave. Cornell himself is going through a bit of a renaissance lately, so perhaps his presence in these two remakes is no accident. Perhaps the theme of reinvention is moot however, as although Casino Royale left the audience wanting more from Bond, I unfortunately don't think the same can be said for Miami Vice.


The Verdict: Slick and polished, but ultimately shallow. If this movie was a decade, it would be the 80's.
Rating: 6/10

Talladega Nights: the ballad of ricky bobby

'Saturday Night Live' has a lot to answer for. Hollywood would have had a whole lot less comedy classics in its repertoire were it not for the likes of Ayckroyd, Murray, Belushi, Myers and co. But it seems the latest graduate from the hit-and-miss American comedy show is really starting to look like something of a Hollywood bigshot. Talladega Nights: the ballad of Ricky Bobby, co-written by Ferrell, was a massive hit at the U.S. box office, raking in around $50 million in its opening weekend alone. Should we be surprised at his apparently sudden meteoric rise to his current position of the top banana comic actor in tinseltown? Well, for me, I've never been against Will Ferrell, when I think of his scene-stealing turn in Old School and the excellent Anchorman I can't really stay mad at him for long!

Talladega Nights is a comedy about Nascar racing featuring Will Ferrell as a dumb Southern guy named Ricky Bobby, and Sacha Baron Cohen (yep, Borat..) as his gay French nemesis: Jean Girard. Do I even need to say much more? This movie is not a surprise package by any means, and delivers exactly what it promises. Leave your brain at the cinema door folks, it's gonna get a bit dopey round these parts... and that's exactly what makes Talladega Nights so enjoyable!

Farrelly Brothers comedies went through a bit of a purple patch in the 90's with Dumb and Dumber, Me, Myself and Irene, and of course There's Something About Mary. However, I sometimes felt that the level the Farrellys were aiming for meant that the best moments of those movies were a little diluted by interludes of pretty basic farce. What all of these movies had that made them appealing though was a genuine heart at the centre of all the lunacy. Cameron Diaz was at her wholesome best in 'Mary', Rene Zellwegger actually married Jim Carrey after 'Irene', and Dumb and Dumber.. well, sometimes the most complex genius just can't be explained!

'Ricky Bobby' has a slightly different brand of comedy than you would see in a Farrelly Brothers farce, but there is a similar thread of genuine emotion running through the movie, even if it is very definitely tongue in cheek, and never even coming close to the territory of schmaltz. (There's no 'Scrubs' style voice-over summing up the lessons at the end, don't worry!)

Jim Carrey's prat falls and gurning created his own niche in Hollywood which rapidly became a genre, and his comic style polarised audiences. You either loved him or hated him for his over the top, rubber-faced physical comedy... and then came 'The Truman Show'. After that 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. It seems Jim had something to prove, and it could be argued that he shown he can be a serious actor.

Ferrell has made a few comedies at this stage, and has a couple of very big box office hits to his name. However, his next outing looks like it may be the 'Truman Show' moment of his career. 'Stranger Than Fiction' has the look of a good one folks, and I may even find my way to the cinema to have a look.

Back to Talladega Nights though, and here Ferrell is convincing, but not just as a dumb redneck caricature of a race-car driver. He convinces by virtue of the fact that much of the dialogue exchanged by the characters in the movie has his anarchic signature, and is the better for it. His performance is nothing like an early Jim Carrey flick, and the best lines in the movie aren't childish catchphrases, but rather have the feel of something more improvised and spontaneous than that. It's this improvised feel that gives Talladega Nights a kind of unique atmosphere. You get the sense the actors are enjoying themselves, especially in Ferrell's scenes with his best buddy, John C. Reilly.

I had always associated Reilly with tragic characters, but I blame Paul Thomas Anderson for that. If you've seen Magnolia or Boogie Nights, you'll know what I mean. But in this one, he is genuinely funny, and seems to really relish the freedom offered by a comic role. The out-takes in the end credits of the movie give some hints to how many liberties he took with his dialogue, worth staying in your seat for! The relationship between himself and Ferrell is an important one, because it's really the lynch-pin of this movie. Some of their conversations are priceless, watch out for Reilly helping Ferrell say grace near the start..

Sacha Baron Cohen delivers a solid performance as Ferrell's gay French Nascar nemesis, and his big entrance in the movie is worth the admission price alone. He has some of the best lines in the movie, and handles the weighty responsibility of being Ferrell's foil with aplomb. He'll have done his Hollywood credentials no harm with a hit this big under his belt, and now that Borat has hit the stratosphere, we can expect to see more of his Hollywood adventures in the near future. Watch out for him alongside Johnny Depp in Tim Burton's musical version of Sweeney Todd, coming soon, I kid you not folks.

The supporting cast are all decent, with Ricky Bobby's two young sons in particular delivering some classic lines.. until they get disciplined by Ricky's momma that is. That guy from Anchorman and Thank You For Smoking, David Koechner is in there, amongst a few other familiar faces.

But to be honest, Ferrell steals the show in Talladega Nights. He's not a guy who will polarise audiences in the same way as Jim Carrey, and his comedy is more anarchic than ridiculous, so he'll have a broader appeal than old rubber-face as a comic actor. However, if Stranger Than Fiction sits well with cinema audiences, his Carrey-esque departure into more serious stuff might happen sooner than it did for Jim..

Fear not though, for if you think Ferrell is giving up dumb sports comedies to follow his thespian aspirations, you are sorely mistaken. He's already done soccer (Kicking and Screaming) and Nascar (Talladega Nights), but he's got a basketball (Semi-Pro) and an ice-hockey movie (Blades of Glory) in the pipeline, and neither look like they'll be garnering too many oscar nominations just yet. So in the domain of the MTV movie awards he'll stay for the moment, and to be honest, that's fine by me, as long as the quality stays around the level of Talladega Nights.

Overall, The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is generally good for a laugh, and the level of comedy is broad enough to appeal to most, without ever aiming for the lowest common denominator, like the Farrellys - albeit expertly - might have done. You won't be edified culturally by this movie, but fuck it, sometimes movies are just about entertainment... so shake and bake, baby! Yeah! Woo! U! S! A!

The Verdict: Good solid fun.
Rating: 7/10

Thank You For Smoking

For all the bad-mouthing I give the standard output of Hollywood, occasionally you've got to acknowledge Tinseltown's ability to really hit the mark with a piece of cinema. Amid the raft of dreck that gets relentlessly pumped onto the googolplex screens across the globe, there occasionally emerges a piece of work that is genuinely worth two hours of your time and ten euros of your money. The relationship between quality and quantity isn't something Hollywood often understands though, as the existence of a third 'Fast and Furious' movie should underline. However, amid the sequels, prequels and remakes, there are occasional little gems that Hollywood sneaks onto the silver screen. The unfortunate paradox is that these slow-burning labours of love often tiptoe under the general public's collective radar without so much as a squeak of publicity.

'Thank You for Smoking' is very much in this category. A morality play isn't easy to get into one of those jaw-dropping trailers, where a gravel-throated voice-over tells us in no uncertain terms that to miss this movie means we are effectively dead. No, a morality play ends up on something called 'limited release', which in Dublin means that it may show in three cinemas, and for not very long. For the limited release movie to succeed, therefore, Dvd sales must be kind. In the case of 'Thank You for Smoking', I can only hope this is the case.

Based on the book written by Christopher Buckley, the movie tells the story of Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), a lobbyist representing the interests of Big Tobacco, one of the big seven American tobacco companies. We learn very early on that Naylor is a master of argument, and his speeches in the movie are carefully crafted and loaded with wit. In effect he is a spin-doctor, and when he is asked, as he is repeatedly throughout the movie, whether he likes his job, despite the obvious dangers of promoting something as lethal as cigarettes, his responses are logical and intelligent justifications for his role.

What's in a job anyway? Can't someone representing the interests of tobacco companies be a nice guy? It seems difficult for this to be the case, as is evident from Naylor's day-time talk show appearance early in the movie, when middle-class housewives boo and spit on him from the audience. This seems to be the core question in the movie, and we are challenged to dislike Nick Naylor, who is played with disarming charm by Aaron Eckhart. Eckhart is a square-jawed, sharp-suited all-american good guy, and in any other job he would certainly not be vilified in the same manner. We are left to wonder why he puts himself in a position where he is open to such bile and hatred, and this question is also explored in the movie.

In effect, Eckhart's character enjoys winning arguments.. actually, to refine that slightly, he enjoys showing up the other guy as being the loser of the argument! These arguments make the comedy in Thank You for Smoking. Some of Eckhart's exchanges with William H. Macy, playing an anti-tobacco Vermont senator, are genuinely funny, and incredibly challenging for the senator who may have previously thought it would be impossible to lose a debate on the dangers of tobacco.

Eckhart's relationship with his son is the most interesting in the movie. His influence on the Naylor junior is unquestionable, but the virtue of his influence is certainly doubtful. He teaches the boy how to argue, and the effects of these lessons are startling. He takes the boy on business trips - a product of necessity since his job leaves him with little free time - and the kid learns what kind of man his father is by watching him at work. As Naylor seems to find himself repeatedly engaging in morally questionable activities on behalf of 'big tobacco', we are left a little uncomfortable in our seats as junior sponges up his father's influence.

The supporting cast of Thank You for Smoking is as strong as you will see. Robert Duvall even makes an appearance as the tobacco chief, otherwise known as 'the Captain'. Katie Holmes does a half-decent job as the reporter looking to tell Naylor's story, but Maria Bello - who you may remember from 'A History of Violence' - does a great job as one of Naylor's two only friends. She plays an alcohol lobbyist, and David Koechner - the hillbilly from Anchorman - plays the other link in the trio and Naylor's other friend, a firearm lobbyist. The three affectionately refer to themselves as the 'Merchants of Death' and their luncthtime conversations are darkly hilarious. Rob Lowe, Sam Elliott and William H. Macy round out the principals, and this support is genuinely good. Each supporting character aids the telling of the story, and their influence is important outside of their scenes. In the third act of the movie, when we see the cumulative effect of each of Naylor's morally questionable acts slowly beginning to impact on his life, it is easy to recollect each of the characters he has met or had an impact upon.

The production, too, is expertly rendered. This movie looks and sounds great, and the action flows at a jaunty, comfortable pace. However, the script really stands up. Eckhart's dialogue sparkles with intelligence, and while his deivery is to be commended, for his really is an excellent performance, the dialogue is sharp, smart and layered, to the point where you are almost tempted to get your hands on a copy of the book.

Now, I have a fear that 'Thank You for Smoking' will pass most people by, but this is a crying shame. It isn't 'Casino Royale' or 'Crank' by any means, but it is the ideal Dvd for home watching (him/herself may also like it, you never know!). The appeal of the subject matter is broad enough to appeal to most, and while the talent on display may not appeal to fans of 'Torque' or the 'Fast and Furious' franchise, most people should be surprised by how engaging and warm this funny, thought-provoking and entertaining movie really is.

The Verdict: A hidden gem, warm, funny, and thoughtful.
Rating: 8/10