Reviews - 2009

Antichrist

The first fifteen minutes of so of Lars Von Trier's new shocker seems to sets out its stall in no uncertain terms. A child toppling out of a high-rise window to its death, while the parents (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) indulge in a bit of soft focus hardcore sex all in black and white, high definition slow motion. Reminded me of some sort of twisted Calvin Klein advert. However, after this brief introduction the film settles down to a much more earthy and less glitzy psychological horror (in colour), but the intent to shock remains. The couple retreat to a cabin in the woods to get away from it all after the loss of their child, and shortly thereafter Gainsbourg starts to lose her marbles and sees Dafoe as the cause of all her woes. Cue a lot of emotional hand-wringing, psychological probing and, eventually, a whole mess of very graphic violence and much gore. Von Trier was obviously aiming to make the sort of horror film he believes horror afficianados dream of; an involving story featuring realistic and hard-hitting acts of violence in a believable setting with convincing performances from well-respected actors. Alas he hasn't quite achieved this because as the events unfold they get more and more outrageous and gaping holes begin to appear in the plot. Dafoe is fine, but I find Gainsbourg a bit hard to take at times. If horror's your thing you might get a kick out of the extreme gore and violence, but as much as I enjoyed it at all it was as a sort of curiosity more than anything.

A Serious Man

The Coen Brothers' Grand Jewish Epic. Confidently directed, sharply written, minutely observed, brilliantly acted, gorgeous to look at (will someone please give poor Roger Deakens an Oscar already). What else could you possibly want from a film? A definitive resolution? Sorry - that's not part of the deal with the Coens, and one of the strengths in their work, I think. The film starts off with a kind of parable which may at first seem unrelated to the rest of the film, but is actually integral to the piece. A middle-aged Jewish couple are visited by a man thought to have died years previously. The women thinks he is a 'dybbuk' - a demon or curse-bringer, and she stabs him in the heart. He leaves, presumably to die, and forever more the couple will ascribe all the terrible things which may happen in their lives to this event. The rest of the film follows Larry Gopnik - a physics professor and family man whose life is about to unfold in a hundred different ways - testing his resolve to live an honest and decent life. As Larry himself states midway through the film, 'actions have consequences', and this is at the heart of what this film is about. Can Larry rise above his travails and remain true to his principles? What terrible consequences await him should he fail to do the right thing? I reckon this is a film that will improve on second viewing because the first viewing offers much food for thought, in addition to all its other qualities. One of the best films this year and a great addition to the Coens already brilliant body of work.

Avatar

I might have enjoyed this film if I were a wide-eyed pre-teen brought up on eye-popping video games and MTV, and who hasn't seen many films outside of your average summer blockbuster. That's surely who this film is aimed at because it really has nothing of substance to offer any viewer with an ounce of discernment. Take away the clever cgi trickery (and it is extremely clever - credit where credit's due) and you're left with a cliche-ridden rip-off of any number of other movies. The story is that there's a planet which has an abundance of an ultra-rare substance and us humans are desperate to get our hands on it. The indiginous population aren't happy, and it all ends in a big fight. That's it. No explanation beyond the fact that this stuff (unobtainium - seriously) is worth beaucoup bucks. Not too interesting if you ask me but added to that the whole production comes off as some elaborate videogame - lots of super-colourful creatures zipping around, big burly cartoon-like soldiers talkin tough and shooting the place up, and of course the stretchy blue Pandora folks who live in the jungle. It's just the most basic cowboys and indians film when you get right down to it. The dialogue is painful beyond endurance and the acting is perfunctory at best. But the raison detre of this movie is to show off the advancement in special effects and cgi work that Cameron and his little elves have been toiling away on since Titanic wrapped over twelve years ago. Very impressive as far as that stuff goes, but bad in every other way.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

A bit of a departure from German director Werner Herzog, this is at its heart a pretty conventional police procedural starring Nicolas Cage in the eponymous role of unbalanced cop with a host of problems - most of them caused by his incessant gambling and drug-taking. Although Herzog claims to have never seen the 1993 Abel Ferrara film with which this shares part of its title there are obvious similarities - most of which revolve around the main character's headlong rush into oblivion while working for the police department. Cage is having a blast as Terence McDonagh who's crooked because of a back injury and hopped up on some sort of medication or illegal substance at all times. There's much fun to be had as Herzog throws in a liberal dash of weirdness now and agin, from singing iguanas to a dead gangster whose soul gets up and breakdances. It's these bizarre touches that elevate this to something a little more than what it would have been without someone like Herzog at the helm, and Cage's zoned intensity and fluctuating accent just adds to the strangeness. The whole package comes off in the end as a fascinating oddity that should be worthy of your attention. Despite the cliched scenario and characters this is one of the better English language films this year.

Brüno

Sacha Baron Cohen's new squirm-fest featuring the Austrian uber-fashionista Bruno in a series of awkward situations - most of which sound a lot funnier on paper than they play out here. It's hard to believe some of the people Bruno meets are actually real people and not actors because some of the responses they give to Bruno's questions beggar belief. This is the crucial difference between Bruno and Borat - Cohen's previous comedy creation. Borat was a brilliantly conceived innocent abroad who expertly ducked under the radar of the people he targetted and exposed them for the dishonest, bigotted or stupid people they were. He had a seemingly guileless charm that was hard to resist for the people he came across and hilarious for those in on the joke. Bruno, on the other hand is an overtly aggressive and pushy type and consequently leads to more confrontational scenes which have almost no charm and far less humour. A lot of the situations presented seem much more staged, and if the situations are staged then the whole enterprise is tainted. The whole point of these characters of Cohen's is to expose the hypocrisies and bigotry of the people he comes into contact with by giving them enough rope to hang themselves through asking innocent questions in interviews. If the people are actors then what's the point? The bottom line though is this - is the movie funny? Generally speaking - authentic or staged - the answer to that is 'no' for me. There are a few chuckles here and there, but they're few and far between.

Crank: High Voltage

Since when did something as dumb, offensive, misanthropic and just plain bad as this flick become acceptable as mass-market mainstream entertainment? I fear for the future of the industry when brainless garbage like this not only finds a distributor but actually gets a nationwide cinema release on hundreds of screens. Should I even bother to pass along a synopsis of events in this film? You really want to know? Well, I actually saw the first Crank, and sort of enjoyed its over the top silliness for the most part, but the main character did fall out of a plane at 40,000 feet without a parachute at the end of that film so I was a little intrigued as to how they would explain this in the sequel. Well, all the explanation you're getting is in the tagline: "He was dead...but he got better". He just lands on the ground, is scooped up by some random guys and taken in a van to a hospital where they take out his heart and replace it with a mechanical doohickey hooked to a car battery (as if your heart would be the thing to worry about in that situation). Statham soon wakes up, escapes from the hospital and tries to find those responsible for his predicament, and so it all kicks off same as before, only now he can't let his heart battery die. What was kind of quaint in a Wile E. Coyote sort of way in the first film is now just gratuitous scum-baggery in this film. Everyone sneers and swears constantly, bodies pile up in the most gruesome way and the whole thing eventually degenerates into some violence-soaked pseudo-porno sleaziness that I just couldn't be bothered with in the end. Do yourself a favour and go listen to some white noise in a rat-infested room instead - it can't be worse than this.

District 9

I was quite surprised when I had a look around at the reception this film's received because there seems to be something of a consensus that this is a good film. My expectations were consequently fairly high going into this. Those hopes were rapidly dashed though as the film progressed. It starts off interestingly enough, with an alien mothership hovering over Johannesburg but it doesn't really go anywhere interesting from that point on. The film makes allusions to apartheid and racism which are so obvious and clumsily handled that I found myself becoming pretty embarrassed by the whole affair. It does pick up a little from about the halfway point but really there's nothing remarkable about this film at all in the grand scheme of things. Basically it's a chase and fight flick. The main character starts to metamorphose into an alien/human hybrid after an unforseen event then the humans are after him. The rest of the film is then just a series of chase sequences with some combat thrown in to the mix, which is ultimately quite boring. The film's shot like a documentary, complete with shaky cameras following the main character around, interspersed with a variety of journalists and civil liberty reps being interviewed about how the aliens' rights are being abused, and the governments are abusing their position. Aside from most of the special effects this film is quite amateurish, and not nearly as accomplished as it thinks it is.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

If there were any justice in the world this would pick up the best animated film at the the Oscars this year because not only is this a great little stop-motion piece with fantastic voice characterisation from big name stars like George Clooney and Meryl Streep, it's also just a very good comedy that should appeal to a wide variety of people. Children will probably get a kick out of it because it's a spiffing yarn full of colourful characters doing funny stuff, courtesy of the source material by kids' favourite Roald Dahl. At its heart though this is a Wes Anderson film - the fact that it's animated is really secondary to the hallmarks his core audience have come to appreciate; the dry wit, the quietly surreal situations and the quirky characters - albeit this time round they're all foxes, badgers, rats and weasels. Aside from Clooney and Streep a bunch of the Anderson regulars are onboard - Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray and they all give a good account of themselves. Michael Gambon voices the villain of the piece Franklin Bean - one of the triumvirate of the meanest farmers around; Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Mr. Fox, who's finally facing up to his responsibilities as a father vows to take them all down in one last heist before hanging up his chicken stealing boots forever. It's tremendous fun from start to finish. The dialogue is frequently priceless and the attention to detail is impressive. This must surely have been a labour of love for Wes and the gang, but the thousands of man-hours that must have gone into to the lovingly created world and its inhabitants has really paid off. This is a handsome curiosity of a film and it would please me immensely if it found even a tenth of the success this years Pixar offering receives.

(500) Days of Summer

Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zoey Deschannel star in this love story that categorically states that it's not a love story, rather it's a story about love. A big difference when you stop to think about it and a measure of the intelligence and knowing wit this film has in spades. Levitt has blossomed into a fine actor and has consistently chosen interesting parts along the way, and the role of Tom continues the trend. Deschannel has a dry delivery that a lot of people find hard to take to but she's fine here as the self-absorbed Summer of the title. We follow Tom as he meets then falls for Summer and the film then flits back and forth in time to show us various stages of their relationship; the highs, lows, break-ups, chance meetings and so on. Seeing events non-chronologically is refreshingly amusing as one never knows what's round the corner - which is the opposite of most movie romances. It's all presented with such breezy confidence that it's hard not to get caught up in the events that, because the writing is so good, and the performances ring true have a wonderful feeling of authenticity. Anyone who's been smitten by a beautiful girl will identify with young Tom's desperate antics to try to obtain her and will chuckle sympathetically at his futile attempts at trying to work out just what's going on in Summer's head at any given time. This is a great romantic comedy for people who ordinarily don't like romantic comedies.

The Hangover

The way people - critics as well as members of the public at large - were talking this film up made me actually quite excited to see it. It had a very funny trailer to get you hooked aswell. Well, it worked. I sought it out and sat down to watch it, eager for some chuckles. To be honest it's just not that great. It's the same old story as far as comedies go - unoriginal and pretty uninventive. Pretty much anything amusing that happens in the film is in the trailer. It's proficiently shot, as is most Hollywood product these days and the performances are fine for the type of movie this is. Zach Galifianakis steals the show as the befuddled Alan and Ed Helms is pretty good as the doctor among the group. There's some decent knockabout comedy to be had if that's your bag. I would imagine it's the kind of movie that would go down well with a few beers. I suppose the central idea of the film is so popular because most people can identify with that 'what the hell happened last night'? feeling after a night on the town, but being a non-drinker it was kind of lost on me.

Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince

It seems like a lifetime ago that the first Harry Potter film was unleashed onto the public, and there's a way to go yet. This is the sixth of the seven novels to be filmed, and it's been anounced that the final book will be adapted as two films, so the saga won't be complete until 2011. Well, no matter. The films have been pretty uninspired as a rule and each one pales in comparison to its corresponding book. Generally speaking the films have improved with each new release and this one is the best of the bunch. It's a shame it's taken six attempts to get it right - or almost right; it still suffers from some of the same faults that let the previous efforts down, but less dramatically so than the others. Daniel Radcliffe has improved quite a bit over the years, and Rupert Grint is as personable as ever as Ron Weasley, although he isn't called on to do much this time round. Michael Gambon has finally tweaked his performance to a level that suits Dumbledore and the situation the character finds himself in, and Tom Felton has fleshed out the character of Draco Malfoy nicely, but the weakest link remains Emma Watson, who is as horrible as ever playing Hermione. That aside, director David Yates has managed to deliver a confident, interesting and very nicely photographed entry into the Harry Potter canon. The story is an intriguing one, being one of the best novels, and this is the first film to really delve into some of the main players' pasts, revealing a lot of their history and how things came to be the way they are in the wizarding world. Each of the Potter books is more dark and sinister than the last as Harry grows older and gains a more mature, and sometimes nihilistic perspective on events and his place in the world, and this film stays true to that decision. This is an entertaining and professionally crafted Hollywood product that delivers more than most of your average ten year olds would ask of it, and for that alone it should be commended.

The Hurt Locker

This one is probably going to receive a lot of Oscar attention. In fact I'll stick my neck out right now and say it'll win the Best Picture this year. Aside from it being a decent film in its own right, every so often the Academy suddenly realises it's been remiss in awarding someone something and sets about making amends. This is directed by a woman and there's been a distinct lack of female directors receiving any recognition over the years so this is pretty much assured of best picture and best director nominations. As far as Iraq war films go it's one of the better efforts but to be honest, at this point in the game I'm pretty fed up with the whole Iraq war sub-genre and have been for a while now. The focus of this particular film is the travails facing the various members of a units bomb squad, so that's a little more interesting than just a grunts-eye view of the war, but aside from giving a glimpse into an interesting job in a dangerous part of the world The Hurt Locker treads some old ground. Yes, war is hell. Yes, there's injustice and cruelty and the politics of how the US became involved in the whole Iraq affair stinks, and yes it's a shame when fit young men die for an unworthy cause but really any halfway informed person already is aware of all this. The film's well shot and put together though and the performances are decent but it has its fair share of cliches. There are some nice set-pieces where things don't go quite as you might expect and Bigelow is good at creating tension in these and other scenes. It may not bring much originality to the table, but it's an above average anti-war film and it brings what feels like a fair degree of authenticity with it.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

As much as I admire Terry Gilliam and what he tries to do with each film he manages to get made (and heaven knows he seems to struggle mightily to bring a film to completion for one reason or another) I really struggled with this one. Once again Gilliam's misfortune knows no bounds, as his main star (Heath Ledger) dies before committing too much of his performance to the screen. It may have turned out to be a decent performance, but judging by what's left I would doubt it. His accent fluctuates between serviceable East London and his native Australian and to be honest it's really not much of a role. In fact the whole production is one big mess. Again I'm not sure how much the death of the principle actor had to do with this - it must surely have had a negative impact on the film as a whole - but the narrative thread, such as it is, is stretched to breaking point and about halfway through it snaps and everything starts spinning out of control. Individual scenes are sometimes interesting, sometimes visually arresting, but it's really struggling to make any sense. If the film as Gilliam imagined it had been roughly the same whether or not Ledger was the star, it would have failed because it's a mess. If the project was radically different then I wish there had been some other solution to save the film as it was conceived because what we're left with in the aftermath of Ledger's demise is an interminable bore. It's an overly theatrical, overly obscure hodge podge of half-formed ideas mixed in with the odd moment of inspiration. If you think that hit to miss ratio sounds acceptable then have at it, but personally, I can't help feeling my time would have been better spent elsewhere.

Inglourious Basterds

That lazy boy Tarantino is back with his sixth full length feature. On a technical level this is his most accomplished film yet. There are a few scenes here that are very well put together and quite tense. There are a couple of great performances - Christoph Waltz in particular deserves some plaudits for his portrayal of Hans Landa and should be one of the front-runners to pick up a best supporting actor Oscar this year. The film does however have a few flaws: The ending is far from satisfactory - indeed it's supremely silly, and Eli Roth is truly awful as Donny Donowitz, the Bear Jew. However Inglourious Basterds is really three films - each about a different character, and the three strands come together in the last third: The first is Aldo Raine's story; we follow him and his Basterds running around killing nazis and scalping them. The second is Shosanna's story; she's seeking revenge on the nazi's for killing her family years before. The third is Hans Landa's story; he's sniffing out Jews and having a high old time in his position of power. The first film is pure Boy's Own adventure high jinks and is pretty good as these things go. However, the meat and potatoes of the film are the other two stories - we follow the plight of Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) and her efforts to end the war early and thwart those who killed her family, meanwhile Landa has an uncanny knack of getting his nose into everyone's plans and everything eventually hangs on his actions. As always with Tarantino the cinematography is very nice, and the editing is solid. There's a lot of great dialogue to munch on, some priceless moments and a few great set-pieces. All things considered the whole package is a fine film, but it's frustratingly close to being absolutely terrific - which it could be if only it were fifteen minutes or so shorter.

In The Loop

Forget the comfy cosy cut-and-thrust of witty verbiage a la 'Yes Minister' from a couple of decades back. Brilliant as that was it doesn't really reflect the harsh, cynical, guttersnipe reality of modern Anglo-American politics circa 2009 in the way that Armando Iannuci's breathtakingly savage take on modern politics does. Some of the incidents in the film may be contrived and unrealistic, and some of the characters may be outrageous caricatures, yet something tells me a lot of the slimy scumbags present here are not too far from real politicians at all, and it certainly seems true that many of them spend their time trying to look important while not accomplishing much of anything. This film has a pitch black heart, and a willful disregard for anything approaching civility. Seeing these characters interacting with each other is like watching an arena full of rabid pit-bulls tear each other apart. Every character seems hell-bent on destroying all those around them, or at the very least annoying the hell out of them. Peter Capaldi is fantastic as the acid-tongued Malcolm Tucker - Cockney rhyming slang perhaps? - and James Gandolfini deserves a mention as the blustery General trying to navigate his new political waters, now that his military career is behind him. (Very) foul-mouthed fun.

The Invention of Lying

Ricky Gervais is a tricky one. It's easy to not like him; he comes off a lot of the time as smarmy and arrogant. I've been keeping my eye on him over the years and have oscillated between an intense dislike towards him, a begrudging admiration at his achievements, and finally to my current opinion which is that he's very good at what he does. He's especially good at picking roles in movies that suit him and playing them well. Ghost Town was a case in point and I think this film is even more enjoyable because the central idea has more scope for humour. This one really tickles my funny bone. It's set in a world where no-one has ever told a lie. Ricky Gervais is a writer and all of a sudden one day he tells a fib. Because nobody has ever lied he gets away with it, and from that point on Gervais (who wrote and directed this film with Matthew Robinson) runs with this idea brilliantly. Every lie he tells, no matter how outrageous is always believed, and this simple idea is followed to its (kind of) logical and very funny conclusion. This film got a luke-warm reception on release but I think it deserves more credit than that. It's imaginative, clever and well-written and Gervais is perfect for the role of a down-trodden man full of a mild discontentment who will eventually rise to become a somewhat reluctant but impish messiah. One of the most enjoyable comedies I've seen for quite a while.

Knowing

One of these days Nicolas Cage might just pop up in something worthwhile, but judging by his recent choices I wouldn't hold your breath. This is another one of those Hollywood big budget affairs that's trying very hard to be mysterious, profound and revalatory and just comes off in the end as trite, cliched and very silly. It starts off - as so many of these things do - with quite an interesting premise; Nicolas Cage is an astrophysicist (I know, but you've just got to go with the flow) who starts to think there may be a series of predictions in a list of numbers a child wrote on a letter which was put in a school time capsule forty years previous. The number list seems to contain dates of disasters, some of which have yet to happen. Armed with this information Cage sets about trying to find the child - now a middle-aged woman - who wrote the note and figure out what she knows. It's round about this point in the proceedings that Cage's son starts to hear voices and seems to be attracting the attention of an alien stalker. This was where my mind began to wander and eventually shut down. From an interesting premise, to a series of cliched action set-pieces to a nonsensical and slapdash deneoument, Knowing is a lesson in wrong-headed formulaic filmmaking and a good illustration of how not to go about making a standard three act drama.

Last Chance Harvey

This isn't the type of film I would normally gravitate towards being somewhat of a chick flick, but I really think this is way above average as far as these types of films go. The naturalistic and believable performances from both Dustin Hoffman and especially Emma Thompson lift everything up a notch or two and are aided by a great script penned by Joel Hopkins - who also directed the film with a feather-light touch. It's not going to set the world on fire or change the way you watch films, but it's quite charming in its own way and it might give you pause for thought now and again with its observations about people and family, love, loss and regrets. In an age of instant gratification, melodrama, hype and excess this is an oasis of quiet contemplation and restraint and for that alone it should be applauded. This is one of those films that, as you get older you're going to want to pop in the DVD player of a winter evening and wallow in its mature atmosphere and down to earth look at the world. It would be nice if there were more films like this one around.

The Limits of Control

Something of an existential forray into the espionage genre from Jim Jarmusch. It stars Isaac DeBankole as the taciturn spy travelling through Europe and trading matchbooks with various strange characters he meets along the way. Nothing much of interest happens throughout most of the film. Rather we're treated to some pretty scenery and every so often are reminded that this man's here for a purpose. What follows are some shady rendezvous in airy cafes sprinkled throughout Madrid, where our hero has vague zen-like conversations with an assortment of strange characters as gets closer to fulfilling his mission. As becomes clear about halfway through the film this mission really isn't that important to Jarmusch, but rather is a kind of hook on which to hang his travels through Spain and his fascination with the spy genre itself and the weird characters who pop in for a scene then retreat into the background again. It's obvious this film was fun for Jarmusch to make and I did enjoy it, but I really don't know why. It's not the kind of film that will have the masses queued up at the theatre doors clamouring to get in, but if you're feeling a bit lethargic and fancy kicking back and going with the flow you might just enjoy this whimsical spy-travelogue.

The Lovely Bones

I haven't read the book upon which this is based but by all accounts it's a pretty good read. International bestseller and all that. Well all I can say is there must be something lost in translation to the big screen because this film is utterly bland when it's not busy being downright silly. The story concerns the murder of a young girl and the subsequent investigation to first of all determine whether she has in fact been murdered (they can find no body) then to determine who the murderer is. Standard stuff you might think, and maybe if that was all there was to this film I might have appreciated it on the same level as something like an episode of 'Law & Order' - a distinctly average episode. However what we have here is a film half of which is told from the point of view of the dead child - now observing the hunt for her body and killer from heaven. That might sound intriguing but the family dynamics are handled so clumsily and the depiction of heaven is so laughably bad that it just destroys any semblence of credibility the rest of the film may have had. Stanley Tucci - who's normally very good - just isn't suitable for the role he's been asked to play here and Susan Sarandon just seems out of place and superfluous as the bohemian sister of the dead girl's mother. The whole project is just a poorly executed attempt to snatch some Oscar glory, but it's doomed to failure because this is not what the Academy is looking for. In fact I doubt it's what any halfway discriminating filmgoer is looking for.

Moon

Sam Rockwell is one of those actors who showed so much potential early in his career with films like Lawn Dogs and Box of Moonlight, but then seemed to disappear, only to emerge later in such forgettable fare as Galaxy Quest and Charlie's Angels. I had all but lost hope of him ever getting back on track when up he pops in this little gem; the first feature directed by Duncan Jones (David Bowie's son). It's a nifty drama with Sam up there on the moon, with just a HAL-like computer for company. Part of the pleasure to be had in this film is the way events unfold and confound the viewer's expectations at every turn as to what's really going on, so I don't want to spoil it by going into any details. This is very much a diamond in the rough. Rockwell is excellent in a role that has to support practically the whole film and Jones does a grand job of directing on a tiny budget. There are a couple of niggles here and there for me and sometimes you can tell it was made on a shoestring, but special effects and action scenes are not what this film is all about and if you go into this expecting Star Trek you'll be sorely disappointed. It's about isolation, loneliness, identity and in the end, being human - what more could you ask from a film?

Paranormal Activity

Ultra low budget effort which has been sweeping the nation State-side. Think The Blair Witch Project, but indoors. A young couple (Daytrader and Computer nerd Micah and trainee teacher Katie) are being troubled while they sleep by strange sounds and goings on they can't explain. Micah decides to film their nocturnal experiences and leaves his camera running on a tripod through the nights and then reviews the footage the next day on his laptop to try and figure out what's happening. The film is basically all his (edited) footage coupled with some conversations the two have about what to do to solve their problem. Most viewers will very soon assume that the house is haunted and proceed from there, but it turns out that in fact it's Katie herself that's 'haunted' and so simply fleeing the house and settling down elsewhere isn't an option. It seems that some otherworldly being is after Katie and will stop at nothing to separate her from Micah. It's quite creepy watching the nightly sessions - black and white grainy images of the couple sleeping while odd noises can be heard from outside their room, waking them up then the two frantically searching for the cause of the disturbance. Events move at a measured pace and things escalate quite believably as the film proceeds towards an increasingly frantic, ultimately quite predictable, but nonetheless satisfying conclusion. The two leads are perfectly believable as ordinary people and the outlandish situation is handled with down to earth authenticity, and because of this lack of melodrama or any hint of the old-school baroque it's quite chilling.

Precious

This is one of these films that the Academy would have shied away from in years past but now we live in different times they'll probably love. First and foremost it is a very traditional 'triumph over adversity' film and the Academy can't seem to get their fill of those. Secondly, it's about people living under terrible conditions and being treated badly, and that signals a film as having an 'important message' to impart to the masses. I'm at a loss as to why this film has generated so much positive word of mouth though as there really isn't much to it, and what there is didn't strike me as particularly noteworthy. A young black girl living in the projects is abused by her parents - mentally and physically by her mother and sexually by her father. She falls pregnant (to her father) and is eventually entered into a special education programme for students struggling at school but showing potential. So she summons up the courage to escape the shackles of her home life and vows to take the chance she's been given and make something of herself, despite the disadvantages with which she's been saddled. The central performance by Gabourey Sidibe is okay - a bit muted and one-dimensional, and her mother - played by Mo'Nique is very good. There are some shocking scenes of violence, as you'd expect these days, but aside from that and the salty language there's really nothing that would exclude this film from being the latest Hallmark movie-of-the-week weepy. This seems to me to be just another example of frenzied hype triumphing over objective analysis. It's really not that great.

Public Enemies

I had high hopes for this film and had been anticipating its arrival for a few months but as is often the way with these things I came away disappointed. Sorely disappointed as it turns out because this film's a real mess. Michael Mann seems to have become smitten in the last few years with shooting his films with digital cameras. His previous film Miami Vice didn't look great, but was so bad I only saw about half an hour of it. Public Enemies looks okay when the scenes are outside in the daytime. All the rest of the scenes look horrendous. The indoor scenes suffer from terrible grain, motion blur and any indoor lights in the scene are far too harsh and saturated. A lot of the movie is filmed in a jerky verite style which gets old really quickly. I don't know if this is a direct result of using digital but I do know it's extremely distracting and makes the film very hard to watch. Depp's good as Dillinger - he's always good so no change there, but the film's riddled floor to ceiling with cliche after cliche. The portrayal of Dillinger as a noble hero and all the police as evil hatchet-men is pretty irresponsible and disappointing from a filmmaker of Mann's stature. This film doesn't bring anything new to the table in terms of originality, insight or even style. For me this was a complete waste of time.

The Road

This is the greyest movie you'll ever see. It's almost black and white. Come to think of it this film would probably have been better shot in black and white rather than colour, so muted is its pallette and bleak its subject matter. I suppose some commercial considerations were in order though. Shooting in black and white may have been appropriate artistically, but would probably have rendered the final product dead in the water, financially speaking. It has a very limited appeal for your average cinema goer as it is without burdening it any further, from a commercial standpoint. There are only so many people who want to watch such an unrelentingly depressing tale of a man and boy endlessly wandering a barren America looking for food and shelter and trying to avoid those other desperate souls who all seem to be out to murder them for food. It's never explained what happened to decimate the population, and more importantly it's not adequately explained where these two are trying to get to ultimately, other than 'south'. Really there should be some sort of reason for their endless trecking, some destination or goal in mind for us to have any meaningful interest in their plight. Otherwise it's just two folk trudging along purposelessly without end. But that basically is this movie. Two souls wandering a blasted earth looking for food, looking for shelter, trying to avoid being killed by the hostile people they come across every so often. I'm all for an examination of human nature, and how we react under duress, but there's not enough motivation in the characters, and no hope for either the characters themselves to get out of the mess they're in, or for the viewer to see anything other than what they're watching now repeated ad infinitum. This movie thinks it's profound, but it's not - in fact it's really not much more than a zombie movie when you think about it.

Sherlock Holmes

Certain things just shouldn't be messed with. Does Sherlock Holmes need 're-booting'? I don't think so. Everything the original Sherlock Holmes stories had to offer has been lost with this brash, loud and garish modern spin on the man and his trusty sidekick Dr. Watson. Guy Ritchie et al seem to have entirely missed the point of what Holmes was all about. He represented an alternative to men of action who chased villains down alleys and brought them to their knees with brute force and ignorance. On the contrary, Arthur Conan Doyle deliberately set out to create a cerebral detective - one who could figure out who committed the crime and bring him to justice while hardly needing leave his drawing room. Holmes delighted in out-witting his opponents by pure logic and deductive reasoning, and that was where the appeal of the character lay. With this incarnation of Holmes Robert Downey Jr. is playing a character more akin to Bruce Lee than anything Conan Doyle conceived of. This new 'improved' Holmes is a generic man of action, happiest when he's shooting pistols, chasing villains down and busting heads. What has the world come to? I can't think of a more inappropriate director to be given the task of shooting a new Sherlock Holmes film than the brazen, cocksure Ritchie with his cheap tricks and MTV sensibilities, and I can't think of anything more pointless than calling this film 'Sherlock Holmes' when clearly it's an Indiana Jones film.

Star Trek

They say the devil's in the details and it's clear director J.J. Abrams knows this. His new take on the Star Trek franchise ticks all the right boxes to make the old guard feel welcome while at the same time introducing a new generation of fans who wince when they see re-runs of the original series into the Star Trek fold. Judging by the in-jokes and knowing humour present here Abrams would seem to be a big Star Trek fan. Or maybe he just has an elite squad of very knowledgeable trekkies on hand as advisors. Either way what's on offer here should appeal to just about anyone, from those with just a passing interest in the Star Trek universe to the aforementioned trekkies and their ilk. For those fans that are familiar with the original series and have seen the movies made thus far it's like putting on a comfortable pair of old slippers, and it's fun to observe the personality traits we're familiar with emerging in these new versions of old characters. As for the plot, it's easy to forgive the lack of anything very interesting happening as the concern here is - quite rightly I think - to introduce the principle characters and to chronicle how the gang all got together as the crew of The Enterprise as we know it. Aside from some major confusion regarding Spock's future/past/alternate timeline escapades everything we know or have wondered about the characters is explained in a clever and entertaining way while at the same time providing some high octane action sequences for the new generation of fans. Everything about this film feels right and it's the best of the bunch by quite a margin. All the elements are now in place for the next film to have the best possible chance of being the best possible Star Trek film. That's the height of the bar that this film has set, and that's what I'll be expecting. I only hope that Abrams will be back in the captain's chair next time too.

Terminator: Salvation

This is one ugly mess of a film, and bloated too. It's hard to muster any enthusiasm to even write about this kind of project these days. It's all so predictable it's really quite depressing. Salvation is trying to do with the Terminator franchise what Abrams' Star Trek is doing for the Trek franchise but the difference is like night and day. Whereas Abrams directs his film with attention to detail, respect for what's gone before, flair and invention and a sense of humour, Salvation judges trudges on in the same sombre, grey way. The leads are unconvincing (Bale is sleepwalking through the whole film) and while Sam Worthington is much better you can almost see the frustration in his face sometimes at the drivel he has to work with. The action sequences - we're only left with action sequences by which to judge the film - aren't well executed or exciting and shouldn't seem particularly impressive to anyone who's seen their fair share of Die Hards or Mad Maxs over the years. All in all this is a damp squib of a movie from a soulless MTV generation director who's remit was to produce an eye-catching, well marketed product for maximum profit with minimum thought.

Twilight

There's really nothing wrong with this film per se, as long as you realise exactly who it's aimed at, but I personally have a problem with a couple of things about it. The first is I tend to lose interest in any film pretty quickly these days when the vast majority of the cast is under twenty, and all look like models. The second issue I have is vampires in general; I've been conditioned by the Interview With The Vampire novel and its sequels many years ago and the rules set out for vampires in that book are so persuasive and credible that I find it difficult to accept any new-fangled vampire tales that deviate from these guidelines. After all, if for example vampires can freely interact with all the normal folks at school and run around in the daylight what's the point of being a vampire? Add werewolves in to the mix and it was all just too much for me. I can see how adolescents would appreciate this film - strongly identifying with the whole feeling like an outsider thing - and I'd probably recommend this movie to most of them, but if you're looking for something with a bit more texture and depth you'd be a lot better off watching Tomas Alfredson's Let The Right One In or even the film adaptation of Interview With The Vampire at a pinch.

2012

This is tricky, because I've gone on record as saying that great cgi does not make a great film. Usually quite the contrary in fact. Now I'm not about to say 2012 is a great film, or even a good one, but I think it has more merit than the likes of Avatar which is desperately trying to be taken seriously. I can't believe the same applies to this film. I found it funny because of the sheer outrageousness of the presentation. This is an epic disaster movie along the same lines as 'The Poseidon Adventure' or 'The Towering Inferno' except multiplied by a billion. Emmerich has simply taken the disaster movie - where there are a group of people in jeopardy due to some unforeseen event or cataclysmic calamity - to its logical conclusion by extending that group to everyone on the face of the Earth. Why? Because he can. For all you people who like to see things blow up or fall down this is about as close to nirvana as you could wish for. Forget the message, if there is one. Don't bother listening to the pseudo-science talk spouted by the lab-coated geeks and blustery military men - it's all just so much gibberish...who cares why the world is coming to an end? Just show me the the end of the world! While James Cameron sees the possibility of ever more immersive experiences of never-never lands Emmerich sees destruction here on Earth on a scale never before conceived - or rather never before realised visually. Todays cgi boffins can pull off the end of the world as a visually believable spectacle and I've always had a soft spot for a good disaster flick. Is this movie as dumb as a box of rocks? Oh Yes. Do you care? If you do then this is not the movie for you. But if you can ignore the meaningless chatter and instead just sit back and enjoy the spectacle you might just enjoy it more than you think.

Up

New offering from Pixar. Ed Asner voices the main character of Carl Fredrickson - a curmudgeonly old widower who dreams of moving to Paradise Falls in South America. By tying thousands of balloons to his home, Carl ends up doing just that, more or less. Right after lifting off, however, he learns he isn't alone on his journey, as Russell, a young boy scout 70 years his junior, has inadvertently become a stowaway on the trip after trying to get his helping the eldelry badge. Once again Pixar has managed to release a high quality drop dead gorgeous technical marvel, with a nice sense of humour. It's refreshing to have a kids film featuring a main character that's as irrascible as Fredrickson (who bears an uncanny resemblence to Spencer Tracy circa 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner') and although the whole set-up is patently ridiculous, somehow it just doesn't matter. A 78 year old man towing a floating house through the jungle with a chubby boy scout, and a giant bird for company? Sure! I think the talking dogs were a bit much personally, but aside from that everything is just dandy. Nobody can touch Pixar for their quality of execution, attention to detail and quirkiness. From a technical standpoint this is right up there with the best of Pixar and there's no reason at all that it won't be floating off with the Best Animated Feature at the 2009 Oscars.

Up In The Air

George Clooney's as charming and disarming as ever as Ryan Bingham - a man whose job is to fire people from theirs. He criss-crosses the US accumulating an insane amount of frequent flyer miles (his target is ten million and he's closing in on it fast) to tell people in person that their services are no longer required. He's good at his job and he loves the cocooned, commitment-free lifestyle of living out of a suitcase, staying in fancy hotels and being a member of countless loyalty clubs giving him fringe benefits. But is he really happy with his solitary existence? That's the question, and this is where the film falters a bit because it seems to want to have it's cake and eat it too. One minute he's happy he's not like the rest of the working population, and doesn't understand why everyone else is happy doing the nine to five, the next he seems to want to settle down and be like everyone else. These motivational shifts seem to occur simply as the plot, such as it is, demands, rather than the actions of a real character. That being said , although contrived, Up In The Air does touch on a lot of issues central to most peoples lives and although it doesn't go about it with much in the way of subtlety most of the time it is nevertheless an occasionally thought-provoking and consistently enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. Clooney is always watchable, and he's ably supported by Vera Farmiga as his sudden love interest and Anna Kendrick as his aggressive yet naive protege.

Watchmen

I've never been a comic-book afficianado but I have read more comics than a lot of people and I've seen enough comic-book adaptations to know that most of them are far removed from the original source materials tone or intentions. Things have improved in the last few years - the adaptations of The Matrix and V For Vendetta being notable examples of pretty accurate depictions of the world the comics created. The Spiderman franchise falls woefully short of the mark, but the Batman series is heading in the right direction. Watchmen is an odd beast in this debate because as far as I'm aware it's extremely faithful to the original Watchmen graphic novel, yet not all the fans of the original are entirely happy with this. However, the other probelm this film has is that it's such a faithful adaptation that much is lost on people who aren't familiar with the original material. There are some smart directorial flourishes and the cinematography is nicely textured. The performances are perfunctory and it's probably about twenty minutes or so too long but all in all it's a credible effort from director Zach Snyder considering the task at hand.

Whatever Works

It's time to don the old Woody Allen comfy sweater again. With Whatever Works Allen is picking away at the same old scabs - the futility of life, the mysteries of love, the vagaries of human relationships. If you're a Woody fan then this is familiar ground and you'll probably enjoy this just fine, as long as you don't mind Larry David because this is one of these Woody Allen films where he doesn't appear, but the main star is a Woody surrogate - in this case David. Although the script is pure Woody Allen, David has a very caustic edge which doesn't quite gel with the more sedate direction Allen's musings usually take. The other problem is that Larry David isn't the best actor in the world - instead he's really just playing a slight variation on the character he plays in Curb Your Enthusiasm (which is basically himself). The first half I thought was actually very good, but it does slide a bit from then on. Having said all that, I'll take any Woody Allen film over most of the stuff doing the rounds right now. Evan Rachel Wood plays southern dumb pretty well and Patricia Clarkson is as good as she always is when she pops up in anything. There are plenty of choice one-liners, as you'd expect and everything ticks along nicely. I've no major complaints for this one.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The problem I had with the previous X-Men movies was that I was a bit confused about what people could and couldn't do and consequently had no way of guaging how much danger the characters might have been in. Well there isn't as much of a problem this time round (well, not as far as Wolverine goes anyway) because this movies job is to explain who Wolverine was and how he became what he is. Hugh Jackman is a bit of a woodentop as a rule but he's okay here - I'm coming to the conclusion that he can do Wolverine and nothing else - kind of like David Duchovny who can only be Mulder. Liev Schreiber plays Wolverine's brother and he's pretty entertaining, although I'm not quite sure why his character's seen as any more dangerous than anyone else. As usual with the X-Men movies it's nice to look at and the technical aspects of the film - special effects, stunt work, fight scenes etc. are all fine. The script though could use a lot of work and beware of trying to make sense of why a lot of the characters are doing what they're doing - or even on occasion what they're doing - at any given time because you'll come away scratching your head. In short, if you can put your brain on cruise control you might enjoy this film as the ditzy but polished product it is. If on the other hand your looking for something original, inventive or that makes sense then you're out of luck.