The Guard

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

PCMR Rating: 8/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source Code

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

PCMR Rating: 6.5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

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

PCMR Rating: 5.5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kill List

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

PCMR Rating: 8/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fright Night (2011)

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

PCMR Rating: 6/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all for now...

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

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

Stay classy.

Sweeney Todd

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

The rating: 7/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Country For Old Men

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

The rating: 8/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Mighty Heart

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

The rating: 6/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Man From Earth

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

The rating: 7/10

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

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

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

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

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