And the Oscar goes to...

Well, PCMR may have gambled on Clint Eastwood winning best director, but is never one to pass up an opportunity to say ‘told you so’ – waay back in September, I predicted Scorcese would pick up the gong for the excellent 'The Departed', and the academy have finally invited Marty to the Oscar party, giving him the opportunity to deliver one of the best Oscar acceptance speeches ever to boot.

Your guide to all the major winners are listed below, with links to PCMR’s reviews included for your consideration. You'll find many of the other nominees reviewed here too, just use the navigation bar on the right to browse the titles...

Best Picture
The Departed

Best Director
Martin Scorcese – The Departed

Best Actor
Forest Whitaker – Last King of Scotland

Best Actress
Helen Mirren – The Queen

Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin – Little Miss Sunshine

Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Hudson – Dreamgirls

Best Adapted Screenplay
William Monahan – The Departed

Best Original Screenplay
Michael Arndt – Little Miss Sunshine

Best Editing
The Departed

Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Make-up
Pan's Labyrinth

Best Documentary Feature and Best Song
An Inconvenient Truth

Best Visual Effects
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

Blood Diamond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Dreamgirls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Queen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Babel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Half Nelson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Pursuit of Happyness

Will Smith has something in common with Martin Scorcese, a nagging feeling of insecurity in relation to their work. They feel that, even though they are rich and successful beyond their wildest dreams, there is still something for them to prove before they can say: "Hollywood, I've arrived!". That 'something' is a paperweight in the shape of a little golden man named Oscar. Hollywood hands out these gongs each year in a ceremonial ritual of professional back-slapping, unrivalled in its opulence. The glitterati, the illuminati and the papparazzi all gather annually to worship at the red-carpet adorned altar of celebrity, pay due homage to the deserving winners, and quickly forget about the other nominees (unless they make a fashion faux pas that is!)

Scorcese has unashamedly made clear his desire to be an Oscar winner, and anyone who doubts this ambition need only watch 'The Aviator'. It's a Scorcese film, but not as we know it, as if Marty has taken his signature style and tailored it, made the scale a whole lot grander, added more emotional punch, and replacing the contemporary soundtrack with strings and things orchestal. The Aviator is a great movie, but 'The Departed' is more like vintage Scorcese, and arguably all the better for it. Why try to be something you're not? Ironically, in giving up the Oscar-chasing, and reverting to the style and themes with which he made his name, Scorcese has given himself a great chance of actually picking up the best director gong this year.

Will Smith is tired of just being asked 'who are you wearing?' on the red carpet of the Oscars. He longs once again to describe the 'honour' of 'just being nominated' as he strides purposefully towards the auditorium, grinning for the paps. You see, once upon a time, Big Willie suffered the bitter experience of putting his heart and soul into the performance of Muhammad Ali, possibly the world's greatest ever sportsman, and then losing out on Oscar night to Denzel Washington... a tough break, and 'Training Day' was over-rated and over-hyped in my book.. Also 'Ali' was a Michael Mann movie, and a biopic for god's sake, they always win Oscars! The Big Willie may actually have had grounds to feel a little aggrieved.

So what is the Willennium to do? Well, whether it was the tortuous creative process, the physical and emotional strain he suffered under the pressure of the responsibility of portraying Muhammad Ali, or the wounds inflicted by the globally simulcasted Oscar-night bitch-slap, W2K decided to give up acting for a while, choosing instead to 'appear' in 'Men in Black 2', 'Bad Boys 2', 'I, Robot', and as a voice in 'Shark Tale'. (Willie Will's character in Shark Tale was even called 'Oscar'). Anyway you get the point. The Fresh Prince was possibly feeling a little inadequate, and in need of more box-office success to re-establish his credentials. Whether or not this was his main goal, the movies I mentioned above were all box-office hits..

Then came 'Hitch', a combination of huge box-office success, and also, some semblance of acting effort from Will Willy Big 2K, or whatever he's calling himself these days (Snoopy Snoopy Dog Dog?). Hitch was a romantic comedy, and it proved very popular for Mr. Smith. So popular in fact, that he and his agent now believe that he has a viable platform to push for the Oscar...

And so along comes 'The Pursuit of Happyness', an unabashed 'oscar vehicle' to leave all other Oscar-vehicle pretenders in the shade. The Aviator, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, dude, these are your bog-standard Oscar vehicles. 'Happyness' has been on pimp my ride, baby, and may as well quite literally be a letter to the Academy on Will Smith's behalf:


Dear Members of the Academy,

Please find enclosed a biopic of a 'John Everyman' character who starts from nothing, believes in himself, and follows his dream, and all this despite unbelievable odds. He takes care of his kid no matter what, and did I mention that he believes in himself? Even though the odds are stacked against him? Ok, well, anyway, Will Smith would like to draw your attention to the fact that not only does he appear in this movie, but he even acts, and quite well in some parts too.

The Big Willie feels it is only fair that you should give him the Best Actor Oscar ahead of Sacha Baron Cohen, Will Ferrell, and Aaron Eckhart because, let's face it, they were in comedies! You can't give an Oscar to a comedy?! Also, Leonardo diCaprio can't win it, because he played a criminal. I mean, what kind of message does that send?! Plus, The Big Fresh Willenium is waay more Everyman than that guy!

Finally, I would implore you not to give the award to a dictator such as Forest Whitaker. Not only did he play a really bad man, one of his eyes is kind of funny. Is that the kind of Hollywood image we want to project to a billion people? (I'm just saying is all.)

Yours hopefully (fingers crossed!)

Agent to The Big Fresh Willie Willenium W2k Prince.


Ok, I should talk about the movie really.. (*sigh*). Will Smith plays a guy called Chris Gardner, who is in the process of hitting rock-bottom. His wife (Thandie Newton in a particularly annoying role) thinks he is a failure, and, for most of the movie, she has a point. He struggles to make a living and support his kid, played very well, in a kid actor kind of way, by Smith's actual chiseler, Jaden Smith.

So we know the movie is set in the 80's, because Willie plays with a Rubik's cube in about four scenes, and watches Ronald Reagan give a presidential address on TV in the first five minutes of the picture. (For those who are unfamiliar with the idea of a movie, this is called 'setting the scene', people, got that?). Although he is a salesman, Smith has an ambition to be a stock-broker. So he applies for an internship, where one intern out of twenty will be selected for the job. Doesn't that sound like the odds are stacked against him? Doesn't it? Can you guess what might happen? Can you?

Ok, I'm reverting to cynicism here, but despite the paint-by-numbers plot, script and characters, the movie occasionally hits an emotional note or two. Also, Smith does deliver a decent performance, but ... (trying.. to restrain.. cynicism... failing...) isn't that the only part of this film the marketing men wanted us to care about in the first place? Aside from a few good scenes, the movie is inane, predictable, and essentially, two hours of your life. Do you want to invest two hours of your life and ten euros/dollars in Will Smith?

In all honesty, this movie offended me. It has 'target demographics' in its very genes, is a thinly veiled academy showpiece for Will Smith, and insults the intelligence of the audience with its twee pop-psychology, Dr. Phil, cheap seven-step, self-help message of 'believe in yourself and chase your dreams etcetera etcetera.' Hero wins, Music swells, fade out, and I go back to the box-office to ask for a refund.


The Verdict: Has an Oscar vehicle ever been more clearly defined than this? Smith is good, but he won't win. Let me be clear here: look into my eyes: 'doon't gooo seee thiis...'.
The Rating: 5/10

Pan's Labyrinth

Where movies and music are concerned, I have a real soft spot for artists that demonstrate the capacity to improve, to develop and to produce something better each time they make the decision to sit at the drawing-board. There is a reason for this, and it is the fact that this type of artist is taking a risk, leaving their comfort zone, and perhaps attempting to tread on unfamiliar ground. Risk is universal, we all know what is involved. It can be exhilarating and worrisome in equal measures, and the possible outcomes can, in this case, define careers. The downside may be that your creative departure is not accepted by your audience, and your career is set back by a few years. However, the upside could be not only that a whole new audience comes to discover the great new stuff you've been putting together, but also that you get better at what you do! At the end of the day, isn't that the point of creative endeavours?

Hollywood agents would guffaw at this suggestion, but Tinseltown is over-populated with people in creative comfort zones, their decisions depending more on demographics and dollar signs than any artistic instinct. Think of the litany of Jerry Bruckheimer productions over the last ten years, and you can see the level of creative risk involved. Any creative leaps forward in this long list of big-budget multiplex-fests are generally due to the special effects teams involved. I associate Johnny Depp with the category of creative risk-takers, and admire this about him, but even he can succumb to the relaxing creative time-out offered by a Bruckheimer production (or three!).

However, it is a measure of Depp's talent that, in a movie where most 'stars' would get their sushi chefs to telephone in a performance, Depp delivers something iconic to the world of cinema. I would argue, however, that his acting ability is equally due to the risks he has taken over the course of his career and his willingness to try difficult projects, as to any innate talent or simple star charisma. Where Dean Martin had charisma, James Dean also had real acting talent, and there is a difference. Look down through their careers, and you see the vastly different levels of challenge they gave themselves.

Guillermo del Toro demonstrated more than the seeds of real creative talent when he directed the beautiful, but flawed 'El Espinoza del Diablo', or The Devil's Backbone. Set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War, this suspenseful tale starts off on a track that makes you think it will be 'The Spanish Sixth Sense', and then careers off wildly along different paths, finally ending up like something a little more from the mind of Robert Rodriguez. However, amid the dense story, there is definitely something there. Comparisons are difficult at best, but 'The Devil's Backbone' defiantly resists being compared to almost anything, with a stubborn mediterranean way all its own. In the uniqueness of its style, it made a name for Guillermo del Toro. And this is satisfying as, prior to this, del Toro was really only known for having helmed a couple of horrors, to mixed critical reaction ('Cronos' good, 'Mimic' baad). But del Toro was all the time gaining experience, both in Hollywood and through his native language in Spain and Mexico.

Following the Devil's Backbone, del Toro took up residence in Hollywood, and promptly gave us the over-rated 'Blade 2' and the criminally under-rated 'Hellboy'. Blade 2 felt like an experiment in special effects for me, and while there was much to like in terms of new ideas, the movie itself didn't really grab me, possibly because I was looking for something a little less fantasy, and a little more gritty, like the first Blade movie, but there you go. With 'Hellboy' on the other hand, we have a franchise that Del Toro can make his own, and he is well and truly on the case, with a sequel entitled 'Hellboy 2 - The Golden Army' out next year. Possibly for fans of the comic-book genre only, Hellboy is a tongue-in-cheek actioner, that lovingly recreates a character as portrayed in the comic book.. something that Hollywood repeatedly gets wrong.. (I'm still quite bitter about 'Judge Dredd', that should have been a good movie dammit)

Before I reveal any more of my own nerd credentials, I'll get on to Pan's Labyrinth. I don't want to give anything important away about the plot, because I'm going to recommend you go and see it. However, I will say that del Toro, who wrote, directed and produced 'El Labyrinto del Fauno', has taken a real creative leap forward with this movie.

The visual style he has developed with his Hollywood special effects fests is used to great effect here, and certain scenes are like little else seen on screen before, resembling Tim Burton's style, but with an extra dash of horror added to give the audience a real nervous edge. This is not only wondrously beautiful, it is vaguely threatening, and in the more fantastic scenes the audience is never allowed to relax.

You will have probably heard that the movie is essentially a fairy tale, but this is definitely not a kid's movie folks! The story is very much targeted at adults, even though the central character is a young girl. The 'Alice in Wonderland' fantasy feel to her part in the first half of the film is offset by the real-life struggles of her mother and the actions of her newly adopted father in reality. In Ofelia's newly adopted father, or 'El Capitan', as he is called throughout the movie, del Toro may just have created a truly iconic bad guy to add to the cinematic annals. He is very much 'the bad man' of the piece, and Sergi Lopez delivers a performance that is chillingly restrained, and very frightening.

I should point out that the film is at times unflinchingly violent, and this may turn some people off. Personally, I feel that screen violence should never be taken out of context, and that it's difficult to pin down what makes certain scenes more difficult to watch than others. The 'Reservioir Dogs' ear chopping scene never really bothered me for example, whereas the gritty torture scene in 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' left me officially traumatised. There are scenes in Pan's Labyrinth that may horrify, but there was only one scene where I felt it was slightly excessive, reminiscent of one of those 'Goodfellas' style beatings. It is more the threat of impending violence that really chilled me in Pan's Labyrinth, especially from the relentlessly wicked El Capitan.

Like 'Devil's Backbone', 'Pan's Labyrinth' is set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia, the main character, is a young girl whose father has died recently. Her mother has now re-married - unfortunately for both of them - to a certain fascist Capitan Vidal and they relocate to Vidal's country manor, which is also a fascist command centre, tackling the problem of the resistance. Ofelia is a reader, and takes refuge in her many fairy-tale books to avoid the painful reality she is faced with. Immediately after arriving in the countryside she begins discovering strange, magical things..

'Pan's Labyrinth' is tightly written, well performed, and beautfiully brought to life on screen. The themes it tackles are universal - art reflecting life, fantasy versus reality, children's relationships with adults - but the story is so timeless it is difficult to believe that del Toro has written it himself. Like hearing a really great song for the first time, you have this nagging feeling you've heard it before.

So, as a football commentator might say, all credit to del Toro, for he has without a doubt produced his best work to date. And it is not an easy piece of cinema by any means, either in terms of production, or indeed in terms of an experience for the audience. However, a simple rule of investment states that, the greater the risk, the greater the potential return. In this case, del Toro has gone out on a limb, and taken a creative risk. I recommend you take a risk, and go see Pan's Labyrinth, because the returns are generous.


The Verdict: It is at times frightening, tense, violent and sad, but overall, Pan's Labyrinth is a beautiful story, exceptionally well told.
The Rating: 9/10

Apocalypto

Over the last couple of years, we've seen extensive media coverage of a number of quite public celebrity meltdowns. The Tom Cruise Is Nuts website was in existence long before the man jumped up and down on Oprah's couch, but that episode prompted worldwide questioning of whether Cruise really was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. His subsequent media tour to promote 'War of the Worlds' ironically ended up alienating him from Steven Spielberg, due to his irrepressible desire to hold forth on such topics as the relevance of scientology, and, even more bizarrely, Brooke Shields' post-natal depression.

The manner of Cruise's marriage to Katie Holmes, and also the subsequent mysterious birth of their baby, has done little to dim the media spotlights surrounding the Cruiser. In fact, although he was dropped by his studio following his fallout with Spielberg, he has since been appointed at the reins of a large Hollywood production company, and PCMR would argue that he is now even more famous than ever before. (Incidentally, now that Cruise has been bestowed with the power of the green-light, what price on the imminent development of 'Battlefield Earth 2'? We live in fear!)

Mel Gibson, too, has had a very public meltdown recently. Driving under the inflence, escaping from police officers on foot, a rather comprehensively loopy anti-semitic rant, and the now legendary 'sugar tits' remark added up to a story the National Enquirer couldn't have invented in their wildest dreams. In one of it's more prescient moments, SouthPark pre-empted this episode of lunacy with one of their own, lampooning Gibson for being completely bonkers after the success of 'The Passion of the Christ'. In the sensitively titled episode 'The Passion of the Jew', Gibson appears in Braveheart make-up dressed only in his underwear, ranting and babbling to the four mountain town kids after they demand their seven dollars admission fee back. Stan, shocked, declares that "this guy is crazy." PCMR could be wrong on this call, but believes that this episode was made before the whole sugar tits debacle... possibly following either Trey Parker or Matt Stone running into Gibson in some Hollywood get-together.

That's not to say that being crazy is necessarily bad for the potential of Gibson's artistic output. I would argue that his decision to limit his appearances in front of the camera in favour of working behind it, is actually evidence of a rational mind. His more recent forays as an actor ('Conspiracy Theory', 'The Patriot', 'We Were Soldiers') have generally been in awful movies. 'Signs' wasn't all that bad, but you get the impression his acting career would soon be in need of the potential box office jolt provided by Lethal Weapon 5, god help us..

His career behind the camera, however, has been an entirely different matter. After cutting his teeth with 'The Man Without a Face', Gibson made a giant creative leap forward with 'Braveheart' two years later, and promptly picked up an Oscar for his troubles. Possibly due to the difficulty of following up such a career-defining project, Gibson waited some ten years before making his next directorial venture, the ubiquitous 'Passion of the Christ'. Vilified and adored in equal measure, 'The Passion' provoked extreme reaction from zealots and pagans alike, proof that religious themes will not lose their controversial edge for some time to come. Despite the personal and professional vilification Gibson endured with the Passion, it went on to rake in cash hand over fist at the box office, and was probably the biggest hit of 2005, considering it's relatively meagre $30 million budget.

And so, we come to Gibson's difficult decision to follow up what will most likely be the biggest success of his career. With the creative and financial freedom afforded by one of the biggest movies of 2005, Mel announces... Apocalypto, a film about the implosion of the Mayan people, without a single recognisable Hollywood name, and shot entirely in the ancient Mayan language... PCMR can only conclude that Mel is straddling the line between complete lunacy and cinematic genius here, but after seeing the trailer a few months ago, I was definitely keen to evaluate the results of Gibson's potential folly... Now, finally, the results are in. PCMR has survived a viewing of 'Apocalpyto'... so what's it to be: depraved lunatic or misunderstood genius?

Well, the idea of making a movie like Apocalypto, depicting the demise of the ancient Mayan people, was probably considered to be lunacy in Hollywood. I'm sure the critics that Gibson attracted with both 'the Passion' and his D.U.I. episode were rubbing their hands with glee at the the likely imminence of Mel's career implosion. However, the fact that Gibson even managed to get the movie made, and with a budget of $40 million dollars to boot, must be a reflection of his strength of conviction in the movie's worth and relevance. So at this stage of proceedings, the jury is out on Gibson's sanity, and they're out probably out watching the movie before they deliver their verdict.

The movie is essentially a great piece of cinematic entertainment, and I wouldn't hesitate to compare it with Braveheart or even Gladiator, in terms of its affectionate, pain-staking reconstruction of an ancient culture. Gibson obviously has a lot of love for the Mayan culture, and from very early on in the picture, we see these tribespeople as individuals and can understand them, despite the obvious disparities between this culture and ours. For example, the tribesmen work together, they play pranks on each other, they are family-oriented, and they gather round camp-fires for a good story and a bit of a dance... these are basic versions of activities we still enjoy today... although the influence of technology has changed the appearance, fundamentally, it's the same thing.

Apocalypto is the story of Jaguar Paw and his tribe. Their peaceful tribal life is disrupted when a nomad neighbouring tribe passses through their hunting grounds in the first minutes of the movie. This tribe do not have aggressive intentions, however, but make it clear to Jaguar Paw that their lands and people were ravaged, and they need somewhere new to settle.

This episode has a profound impact on Jaguar Paw, played with ferocious intensity by Rudy Youngblood. His father sees the impact on him immediately, and advises his son how important it is not to let the disease of fear into his blood, for it pollutes, and is contagious. However, Jaguar Paw can't shake the feeling, and it proves to be portentous.

Apocalypto has received much critical press describing the level of on-screen violence, and the degree to which the director really shows us what is actually happening in the more violent scenes. I have to say however, and perhaps I was prepared to be shocked, but I didn't see any violent scenes that shocked me. There is one rather prolonged battle scene, but the evocative moments are not from the violence on screen, rather from the visceral emotions that the battle engenders. Families separated, loved ones being captured or killed, this was more traumatic to me than the actual violence, which to be honest, fit quite well with the story. There is one scene reminiscent of Wallace's torture in Braveheart, but the scene in Apocalytpo is far milder than that, for example, and PCMR doesn't recall hearing such a critical revulsion to the violence in Braveheart when it was released.

While the first act is set against the backdrop of tribal life in the jungle, the middle of the movie is the most visually stunning. This section of the movie sees Jaguar Paw travel to the stone-built centre of the Mayan people, where thousands toil on the construction of a huge stone city, and human sacrifices are offered to the gods before the eyes of a thronging city centre. These scenes are incredibly well put together and beautifully shot, and make this part of the movie quite immersive, as you're paying so much attention to the level of detail on show, it becomes quite difficult to predict what direction the story will take.

The scale of these scenes, too, is reminiscent of Gladiator. Wide shots reveal the thronging crowds, thirsty for entertainment and blood, under the guise of offering a sacrifice to their gods. This is Gibson contrasting the depraved Mayan cities with the peaceful tribes, and is a metaphor for any number of contemporary themes, none of which PCMR is going to venture!

The action in Apocalypto is very well shot, and there is a chase scene which surely will go down in the cinematic annals as one of the best. This chase is not 'The French Connection' however, for it is on foot, through the jungle. This is a signature of Mel Gibson's movies: running. Riggs had a running moment in every Lethal Weapon picture, the Scots did loads of bloody running in Braveheart, and now this! I'll forgive him this one though, for the chase scene is great, and for the third half of the movie, there really is little or no dialogue to speak of, and the action does most of the talking.

Thus, the director is the star of this movie, and the production design is the supporting actor. The script is strongest in the first third of the movie, the dialogue is so limited from then on, the action could quite easily have been shot from a story-board from about half way through. There are obvious enough weaknesses in the plot, however, such as the timescale of the action, which means Jaguar Paw experiences a couple of days that normally only reserved for the likes of Jack Bauer in '24'. That's not a major complaint however, because this is essentially an action movie after all. However, one plot point that rankled with me was in the transtion from the second to third act, where Jaguar Paw's escape becomes the chase. It felt a little forced for me, but the counter-weight is that the action continues to flow at a furious pace. The chase is quite intense, as the pursuers are never more than a few metres behind, and the jungle tends to throw up regular surprises from the flora!

Overall, Apocalypto is a great piece of entertainment, and is unique and original enough to stand proudly astride the line between genius and lunacy. It's no cinematic classic, but it is visually memorable enough to be considered a real success for Mel Gibson. I'd recommend seeing it in the cinema, but not if you're squeamish. If Gladiator was a little violent for you, then you won't like this one.

Who needs a 'Mel Gibson is Nuts' website anyway?! If he's going to continue making entertaining, visionary movies like Apocalypto, I personally couldn't care less if he was crazy.


The Verdict: Memorable, action-packed, visually amazing. Violent, but not in a gratuitous way. Worth a look, sugar tits.
The Rating: 7/10

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