Sunday

Time now for my New Years Honours List. I should warn you that this is hardly going to be an accurate survey of films this year. During the first part of it I watched quite a lot of movies, then I slowed off, watching perhaps two a month, and finally I finished the year beginning this blog and almost quadrupling my movie viewing. I haven't of course watched every film, or every major film (Brokeback Mountain, or United 93, for examples), nor have I been in any way systematic in what I see. I think I have had, at least, a reasonable sampling. So, here goes...

In the realm of blockbusters we've had some disappointing sequels to franchises, as well as some surprising ones. Of the first kind we should list Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, X-Men: The Last Stand, and Superman Returns. All were not really very satisfactory. The latter was absolutely dreadful. However, Mission: Impossible III and Casino Royale were pretty enjoyable, the former especially so (a review of which to arrive tomorrow). The Departed too (although not technically a sequel) was very good, perhaps one of the best films of the year. I was a little bored by The Constant Gardener. The Da Vinci Code I thought was ok, not as bad as some people thought, but not great. As always with films that involve such 'quests': the answer is never as interesting as the searching for it.

Moving to more independent films, I thought Brick and The King were excellent (and for some reason I always think of them together). Stranger Than Fiction and of course Children of Men were exceptionally good. I wasn't so impressed with Pan's Labyrinth and Borat as some people were. The Prestige was interesting, but a little flat, Deja Vu not as bad as I thought it was going to be, Hollywoodland ultimately a bit hollow, and V for Vendetta better than most critics claimed it wasn't. Munich was very good, as was Good Night, and Good Luck.

The problem is I can't think of one really great film this year, one that will easily fit in the Halliwell's four star column. Children of Men was good, but it did have flaws (everything with Michael Caine?). Brick was excellently conceived and executed, but it does feel a little like a one time party trick. The Host was brilliant, and is The Squid and the Whale to be included this year or not? If so, it should definitely be in the top five. This was A Good Year, not a great one.

So, Happy New Year to all. Tune in later this week for my hopes and highlights for 2007.

Saturday

How do you know when you've failed your breathalyzer test? When the policeman says to you: 'No, you have to blow, not suck'. I overheard this late on Friday night as I walked home. The police had stopped a man in a sports car near Northcote Road who could barely stand up straight, let alone understand what they were asking him to do. Frightening.

In other news, LoveFilm.com sent me a £40 voucher. I used their internet DVD rental system two years ago when living in Nottingham - simply because there was no store anywhere in the city centre. I cancelled it as soon as I moved. It's not really a great system, although the variety of choice is outstanding. Overall, when I rent a movie I do it on impulse, and don't like to wait 3-4 days to get it. The voucher is effectively 3 months free use, requires no further obligation, so I suppose I shall use it.

Honourable mention goes to the over-enthusiastic video store clerk who served me today. He had a very large forehead and bounced when he spoke. I don't think there's anything he could say that could ever sound downbeat. It must get irritating if you have to live with him, though.

Tune in tomorrow for my New Year Honours List.

Friday

There is only one cinema in central London showing Stranger Than Fiction. This, to me, is strange. After seeing it last night, I think the film is one of the best this year - definitely in my top five. Perhaps its post-modernism would be too much for some people. But the film never revealed itself as a film, if you see what I mean. The characters remained characters throughout. The over-laid graphics were great fun - reminding me for some reason of the recent The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film - although I have to say there weren't enough of them. It was incredibly funny, even though the main plot drive was quite intense and serious. What holds it together, as you might expect, is the ability of Will Ferrell. I think he's best used in half-serious films like this, where he constantly looks awkward and uncomfortable. Although his relationship with Maggie Gyllenhaal was a little odd - he is 10 years older than her - it included some fantastic romantic moments, which I won't list in case I ruin the film for you. The soundtrack was also excellent. The parts with Emma Thompson were a bit slow, but it built to a suitable climax when the two of them met. It was in whole reminiscent of I Heart Huckabees, but I think a better, more complete film than that one - both more serious, and more funny. It feels like I have a lot more to say about this movie, but I'm not sure what it is. I suppose that is the sign of a very good piece of art - it makes you think, makes you want to talk about it.

Best line: 'This was an awful day for you. I know. I made sure of it.'

Thursday

It was pointed out to me that, in possibly the best blog on the internet, Scott Adams recently wrote about what sort of movies he likes: The Downer ratio. He likes movies that make him feel good. In the comments that follow some people accused him of escapism. One person said film is meant to be an artistic close-up on reality. I don't think film is meant to anything. It is an art form, it has no intent. It does not have to be, or do, anything. We all go to movies to feel good. The difference is that some of us like feeling bad - that makes us feel good, if you see what I mean. Others feel good when they see something artistic, something finely created, and so on...

Another person gave the opposite view: 'when the hero dies at the end or the guy doesn't get the girl or the couple doesn't get together, I feel like I didn't get closure on the whole event. I just watched The Break-up with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston. Great movie! up until the end. I hated the ending. They didn't show if they got back together and I was left wanting to watch more to find out if they eventually do get back together, but the movie was already over. I went to bed depressed.'

I want to throw water on a person like this. 'I was left wanting to watch more'. Isn't this exactly the point of such an ending? I thought The Break-up was a good film made better by its ending. It reminds me of the difference between Annie Hall and Manhattan. In the first you know the relationship is over. In the second you are left with a hopefuly uncertainty that it might not be. I find this latter method to be the most powerful way to end a film. A hopeful certainty which, incidentally, is how my (officially now) favourite film of the year ends, The Children of Men.

A long time ago we defined a difference between 'movies' and 'films'. Movies should be escapism; films should endeavour to be art. You can see and enjoy former, and be stimulated by the latter. What I believe you shouldn't do is one to the exclusion of the other. That way leads into dark waters...

Christmas Day

It is something of a tradition, neither rigidly enforced or taken seriously, that we watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation every year for the holiday season. I have always been slightly hesitant about it, but this year enjoyed it quite thoroughly. Perhaps it was the whisky that clouded my judgement, but I suddenly found a hundred more jokes I'd never seen before. Of course it's stupid and tacky and silly, but it is also fun, and Chevy Chase is amazing. Overall, it shouldn't be analysed, like Christmas, and so I won't do it. It is like Christmas itself, or should be: without shame or guilt, or the promise of anything beyond life, but simple, good-hearted fun. Merry Christmas.

Friday

I've always had an interest in watching bad movies. Alex and I used to deliberately watch them late at night and try to understand why they were bad, what made us think so, and what might have made other people think so - what made them a failure in the box office etc. It's not as obvious as it might seem for some movies, and thus makes this quite a challenging exercise. For instance, last night I saw the film Serendipity. Why was this not a huge success?, I asked myself afterwards. Sometimes, I think, no matter how good a movie is, its circumstances undermine it - when and how it was promoted. Serendipity came out in 2001, and I think by then people were quite bored of romantic comedies - all the way since Sleepless in Seattle in 1993. We are too cynical for that sort of thing anymore. Another problem with the film was the over-emphasis on 'fate'. I don't think many people really believe in fate that much, certainly not enough to make a religion out of it, which is almost what this movie does. Again, we are too cynical nowadays. Yet another problem for the film is the slight heartlessness of the lead characters: they seek each other out, virtually ignoring the attractive partners they already have*. One last problem must have been its stars: John Cusack is just not a lead actor, certainly not a romantic lead. Whilst I enjoy his performances, I think he's perhaps a little too creepy for women to really like. Kate Beckinsale is of course very attractive for men, but she's not a big star, not a big name. Somehow, the film just doesn't tie all of its elements together to make a successful film, although it has many successful elements. Eugene Levy has a great cameo, though.

*I intend to post again on this aspect of bullying in American cinema/television. I have often thought Friends is quite a nasty show in this regard: they quite ferociously bully away almost everyone who comes close to their intimate circle.

Monday

Stranded Cinema will now be taking a Christmas Break for a week or so. What this means is that I'll no longer post everyday. However, if and when I see a film over the holiday season I will post a review of it up here. I saw three quarters of The Core last night, and must wait to see the end of it. A very strange film. Expect normal service to be resumed in the first week of January.

Friday

At first I thought Borat was going to be a puerile comedy for overgrown teenagers. Then, recently, friends have told me it's good, I've read encouraging reviews of it from respectable online websites, and it's just been nominated for some Golden Globes. So, today I went to see it. I think it's somewhere in-between those two extremes. I have never really liked comedy which bases itself on deceiving others, so perhaps I'm not a good one to judge this. I therefore liked the parts which were obviously fictional, whereas some people might see these as the worst bits. Nonetheless, there were a lot of insights into a American culture. The character he presents to people, a bit like Louis Theroux, makes them naturally assume they are superior and start talking down to him, opening up in ways they had not expected, and saying things they later regret. It is a very sensitive interviewing technique if you look at it like that. And there are some parts of the film that are genuinely frightening: when they are driving through the black neighbourhoods of a city at night and stop to talk to a gang of youths. Also, is the thing with Pamela Anderson real? I'm still not sure. Overall, though, this isn't one of the best films around, but it is worth seeing eventually. You'll laugh, even if you may question afterwards if you should have been laughing.

Thursday

Having been a little harsh to Tony Scott yesterday I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and see his film Deja Vu today. It's pretty good edge-of-the-seat, popcorn munching stuff. The title has nothing to do with the plot. It is in fact one of those strange films whose trailers, advertising and title doesn't do it any justice. However good the ideas are in it, and however compelling the storyline, though, I would have to say the film-making isn't anything spectacular, in fact quite irritating at times, and there isn't really much that makes you 'think'. The concepts they introduce are never resolved, which is quite irritating, and they seem to skip several corners. Nonetheless, if you want an exciting, tense cinema experience this is one of the better films around at the moment.

I have to mention the cinema I saw it in: the Apollo West End. I believe it's an entirely new cinema. It's quite expensive, and aims itself at the 'luxury' market, although I was seated in front of a group of teenage kids. As such it's quite empty and weird. A bit like a doctor's sugery. Anyway, it's worth checking it out if you have the money.

Wednesday

A few words about Tony Scott. I have for some reason and for some time held a prejudice against him and his movies. Perhaps because I always saw him as the lesser brother to Ridley Scott, or perhaps because some of his films are simply bad. Let's look at the evidence: Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop II, Days of Thunder, The Last Boy Scout, True Romance, Crimson Tide, The Fan, Enemy of the State, Spy Game, Beat the Devil, Man on Fire, Domino, and Deja Vu. Is there a film there that you haven't heard of? It's a string of 20 years of reasonably successful films, but maybe you, like me, didn't realise it was him behind all of those. This, I think, is the problem I have with him. He makes films that fit the mould, that do what they're supposed to do. His films are not outstanding, they don't break any new ground: they're simply good. However, I am more reasonably irritated by his recent style of directing: the very fast cuts and rapid camera motions, the quick zooms and accelerated pans. It's entirely pointless, and serves only as an attempt to make a dull film interesting. Or perhaps I'm annoyed because he stole my idea for deja vu.

Tuesday

Concerning my question over why they've changed the name of Clint Eastwood's new film, thanks to inside information I've received from my Gamboling friend, it turns out that Clint Eastwood has in fact made two films. This may not be new to you, but it is to me. Having seen the trailer for Flags Of Our Fathers several times and it containing no hint that another film was coming, I was going to write an article on here about how bad it looked. Now, however, I am quite interested to see it. It does look overly patriotic, but perhaps that's the point? To give the American perspective? Letters from Iwo Jima does look more interesting, but perhaps just because the Japanese psyche is so much more fascinating than the American. Nonetheless, I suppose I should do more research on how they came to be made (whether they were originally designed as one film, for instance) and then give you a report back here.

Honourable mention has to be made today of the buskers who entertained me on my train journey home. The first song they sang was 'This train is going to Sutton. Change at Balham for the Northern Line'. The second was a protest song entitled 'If you can't have a shave in a public toilet, where can you have a shave?'. I thought they were just doing it for fun, and so was slightly disappointed when they came round asking for money. However, my interest was piqued again when, after they had finished collecting, one of them started shouting and banging the walls. I'm not entirely sure what happened, but he was muttering angrily to himself and, as they stepped off the train at the next stop, he said something like 'that's really upset me that has'. Clearly a passenger gave a remark he wasn't happy with, and I'm really challenged to think of what it could have been. Anyway, apparently they have a CD. I recommend trying to catch them live if you can.

Monday

I'm not sure about this film Apocalypto. The name's not so good, for starters. It sounds like a night-club in Hackney. The trailers have made it look quite unconvincing, and not very compelling, and seeing as I'm normally persuaded by absolutely every trailer I see, this isn't very good news either. It's spoken in an ancient Mayan language, a gimmick which only interested me for The Passion of the Christ when I knew I'd get to hear Latin - because a long time ago I said someone should make films about Romans in Latin. So why should I go to see it? Because it's directed by a proven director? He's only done four, quite similar, films. The plot sounds extremely familiar - a man escapes from his tribe in order to avoid being sacrificed. Of course, I'll probably go to see it in the New Year when there's not much else happening, but this Christmas I'm much more likely to see Night at the Museum. Why not?

By the way, who is going to go to see The Nativity Story? And why have they changed the name of Clint Eastwood's film Letters from Iwo Jima?

Sunday

This week is going to be quite a challenge due to work building up before Christmas, but I shall nonetheless see new films on Thursday and Friday. Until them I'm afraid you'll have to put up with me talking about television films and movie news. Today I'm going to say a little bit about Nightwatch, which I think is possibly one of the best fantasy/science-fiction film of recent years. It is compelling on every level and rivals, I believe, Star Wars as the creation of an entire mythology and world around it. It's also, as far as I'm aware, the first film to use subtitles in a creative way (except perhaps Annie Hall, and the very annoying recent advert that copies it). The subtitles move around the screen, fade and arise in different colours, drip away, and scream out in capitals when the characters do. It's really great, and shows great attention to detail. I'm extremely annoyed that Daywatch hasn't come out here yet, as I know it's been out for a long time in Russia. It's a trilogy I simply can't wait for (Duskwatch is already in production). I suppose I could of course read the novels, but the films must enhance them a hundredfold. Even though I should take the warning of Pirates of the Caribbean and their disappointing sequel, I'm still keeping my fingers crossed (and indeed hoping for a good Pirates three). If you haven't seen Nightwatch yet go rent, or buy, it immediately.

Saturday

Another television movie, I'm afraid. This time The Sum of All Fears. I do intend to stop watching them, or at least stop reviewing them here, because the purpose of this place is to talk mostly about films you probably haven't seen, rather than those you probably have. Anyway, the problem with The Sum of All Fears is not necessarily the bad acting, though it is from the Ben Affleck slump period (and him trying to be Harrison Ford), but rather from the lack of compensation, which I talked about earlier regarding comedies. A nuclear bomb is detonated in Baltimore. This causes far too much innocent loss of life for it ever to be compensated in the film. I think this is what makes it difficult viewing. We are never quite sure who the perpetrators are and they are assassinated at the end of the film in a rather cold-hearted way. There is no satisfaction for the viewer in this. Normally, the main character dealing with them would help in some way. But the loss of life has been too great, and too pointless. Compare films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. In one we feel satisfied by the end, but in the other not. Why?

Friday

With both the coldness of winter and the Christmas timetable at work setting in it seems I'm restricted to watching more and more movies on television. Last night the film Basic was on. It's a strange one, not helped by me not paying much attention to it. I don't think a lack of attention was the main problem, though. Just to warn you, I'm going to spoil the entire plot now, so don't on read if you're really interested in seeing this film. Ok, the main storyline is about six soldiers who go on a training exercise, and return with only two left alive. Most of the film is then taken up with interrogation of these two men, and the varying stories they tell. Each time we return to them they give us a different version of what happened. There are several moments which feel like 'final twists' in the plot, but end up just being one of many. Eventually we do get to the end to find out that the whole thing was a set-up. The four soldiers who 'died' aren't really dead. One of the interrogators actually knew what was going on all the time. This, for me, completely destroys the film. Everything we've seen up to that point means nothing. Every character except one has been lying to us. And, to make it worse, we are then never given a full explanation of how it was all 'set-up'. Generally, one leaves the film thinking you've been cheated, and that the film-makers were trying to be too clever. At the end of the day it's all rather pointless. Avoid this unless you want to know how to make a bad movie.

Thursday

I like the Starship Troopers franchise (or maybe I just like all franchises), and so I was glad to hear that a third film has been commissioned with Edward Neumeier, the writer of the first two, set to direct. He also wrote RoboCop. The second film was strange because it seemed to completely miss the irony of the first one. But if it was the same writer, what happened? Thus I am very curious to see what happens with number three. Will the irony return, or not? Number two was in fact a very simple WWII/Vietnam type movie, with hints of Alien. Still it was a reasonable addition to the franchise - it didn't just follow what had happened in the original - it's just a pity it suffered from lack of funding and, eventually, promotion (going straight to video, I believe). So what would you do if you were asked to direct number three? This is often a question I ask myself. Perhaps Indiana Jones number four interests you more? Almost always we are disappointed in such sequels, but sometimes, just sometimes, the director gets it just right. I can only hope that because they've hired the original writer something great will happen...

Wednesday

Fast Times at Ridgemont High was on tonight. I'd never seen it before. Now I have. I did enjoy it, but with several reservations. I think the director/producer wanted a happy high-school comedy but the problem was the book they based it on - incidentally by Cameron Crowe (which I didn't know before). Yes, it's fun, but the main story of the book is that the lead character's best friend sleeps with the girl he wants, gets her pregnant and then avoids paying for her abortion. This is not happy stuff. The whole problem is resolved by someone spray painting his car and his locker with the words 'prick'. Somehow, for the magnitude of what happened, graffiti doesn't quite compensate for me, and comedies are all about compensation. We go to them in order to feel fully satisfied. I left the film feeling quite empty and disappointed. The year went too quickly, nothing really happened. Some of you might say this is the point, but I don't think it's what the director/producer wanted. They found themselves with the wrong material but just ran with it. What you get is some great moments, in-between some very dubious ones. Have you noticed, by the way, the freedom in showing young girls' breasts in the 80s that now is completely lacking in our teen movies? Just a small point. Anyway, yes I enjoyed it and I'd see it again, which is just about all that needs to be said sometimes. Sorry.

Tuesday

So, Children of Men is perhaps the best film of the year. At least, if someone asked me to name my top three it would be in there. Or, to put it another way, it was the film I left the cinema feeling most changed from when I'd gone in, with the longest lasting impressions lingering in my mind. It was quite incredible. Yes, there were some slow moments, but they were more than compensated for by the amazing vision of the director. The landscape of the near-future was horrifyingly captured. What struck me especially were the very long steady-cam shots where we were turned, and turned, again and again to reveal more and more terrifying scenes, unable to look away, unable almost to breath, as the director held and held the cut through the most stunning scenery. Maybe the effect will wear off after a while, but at the moment all I can do is recommend you see it immediately.

Incidentally, I was quite hampered on my way to the cinema. Leaving work at 6 I had to get to the Leicester Square Odeon Mezzanine theatre for the 6.15 showing. So, I was approaching the square, pretty tired from the walk, at about 6.10 when I heard a lot of noise. It was the premiere for The Holiday. I'm not sure what celebrities were there but there was a lot of cheering. I had to navigate my way all the way round the red-carpet enclosure. I caught glimpses of someone, but now being late for the film I had to rush. With the cinema in sight I was stopped by a very impolite policewoman. 'I'm just going to the cinema' I said. 'Wait a moment please, sir, I'm talking to someone' she said. So I waited a moment and then she turned to me and let me through finally to the ticket office to pay a very over-priced fare. Anyway, all this was forgotten by the incredible film. Go see it.

Monday

I saw School of Rock last night. It's another film I had avoided. It seemed annoying. But, last night, it was free and so was I. Also, scanning the TV guide I noticed what I had not known before: it's directed by Richard Linklater. Seeing as Dazed and Confused is one of my favourite films, I can't see how I didn't know this. Anyway, I sat down to begin watching it with some inquisitiveness. Very quickly I found out that this wasn't a Linklater film, it was a Jack Black one. It must be almost impossible to direct a man like that. He takes over every scene. Really, Linklater must have just let him go. There's very little there that you can say is directorial style. It's all about Black's performance - which, let's not kid ourselves, is amazing. The scene where he sings his perfect song is exceptional: one long take, slowly pulling away from him, as he sings, describes the lighting, mimes the action, and hums the guitar. Linklater must have just decided 'I'm going to let him go', and it works brilliantly. Of course, overall the sentiment of the film is trite, the battle of the bands concept over-used, but otherwise this is a pretty enjoyable film, with Jack Black at his best. It made me really want to go to Hollywood and be amongst this amazing generation of comedians - Will Ferrell, Jack Black, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughan - redefining film in the same way that John Belushi, Bill Murray and co. did in the late 70s/80s.

Sunday

I believe I only once went to the old Piccadilly cinema. I think it was either in my first or second year of university (I am now in my eighth, by the way). Walking along Piccadilly you might not notice the cinema was there. You enter via an inocuous doorway, pay your fee, and are directed downstairs. The auditorium was narrow and, as I remember, sloped up towards the screen. I had the feeling of being underneath the road, but am not sure if this was true. We saw a foreign film, as was typical of what it showed, from Hong Kong. Not long afterwards the cinema closed. Why? And how? And what has replaced it?

ABC was bought by Odeon. Sadly, they did not see the need for another cinema, especially one so small, and that had the reputation of being pornographic (as it was in the 70s). They maintained it for a brief while before selling. It served for a while as a ticket booth for half-price West End shows. Now, however, it has been converted into 'The Pigalle Club' (picture opposite). The name and the colours are horrid.

On another sad note of closure for the movie-loving public, the great video store outside Clapham Junction has been replaced by an opticians. This video store has served me without blemish for over 6 years. It always had the movie I wanted - the range was quite incredible. The foreign films and classics they had were exceptional - the first place I ever saw a Woody Allen section. Now all that remains is Blockbuster, over-priced, over-stocked of the wrong films, and generally soul-sucking.

Saturday

I watched Groundhog Day last night. For a few years I had refused to do so, thinking it annoying and repetitive. My prejudices, as always, were unfounded, and I in fact found myself over-intellectualising it to a perhaps intolerable degree. Is it not an existentialist film? He is confronted with the possibility that life is meaningless - that nothing he does, even killing himself, has any purpose or meaning and will all be forgotten the next day. What is good about the film is that it posits no explanation for what happens to him. The only remaining irritating thing is that it is by doing good that he escapes, suggesting the work of a god (helped perhaps by the occasional knowing look of the black barman). One could argue that the good he does, he does with no expectation of reward, but it is still a little too sentimental. At least, however, it doesn't get to the level of Frank Capra. Anyway, besides all this, and perhaps more importantly, Bill Murray is great. When I saw it when I was younger I must have missed a hundred and more jokes. I imagine he wrote most of them, and delivers them perfectly. Even though it's about the beginning of Spring, this is really a great Christmas movie.

Best line: 'Well what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today'.

Friday

I have a problem with synthetic music in films. It seems to have become a trend lately. Watching Gladiator last night it occured to me that perhaps this film was where it originated - or where it's viability in a blockbuster originated. What I mean is the use of a synthetic orchestra instead of getting a real one to practice and perform for you. Obviously the latter is quite a chore, both in time and in money, but I think it pays off for the audience. The sound from a live orchestra is, naturally, unique. In Gladiator you can quite clearly hear the synthetic nature of the music. But it worked, or it works, and the film was a huge success. On the back of this, then, did studios start to use this method more and more? Immediately my thoughts turned to Pirates of the Caribbean. This was in fact initially prompted by parts of the Gladiator soundtrack sounding almost identical to the later film. Pirates too succeeds with synthetic music, but I cannot get away from it sounding cheap, from it sounding like a TV movie at times. Considering how much money studios spend on a movie, couldn't they just add a little more for real, live music? It makes a lot of difference, to me.

Thursday

There was a bomb scare on my bus yesterday. We had stopped an unusually long time on Waterloo bridge when the driver came up to the top floor and asked 'Has anyone left a bag downstairs? Anyone?'. No one replied. He returned downstairs. There was a few seconds silence as everyone exchanged worried looks. Then, without saying anything, people began to leave the bus. I stayed in my seat. I don't know why. Perhaps it was just stubbornness, refusing to be like everybody else. But I also thought to myself 'Islamic terrorists don't leave bags. They carry them and kill themselves. The IRA would phone and tell the police where it was. It is highly unlikely to be a bomb.' And so I sat there as everyone left. Then the bus began to move again. A few minutes later it was my turn to get off, and, returning downstairs, I didn't see a bag. Somehow it had all been cleared off. Had someone forgotten they had a bag?

I left the bus and immediately was confronted by a similar situation. Waiting behind someone at a cash machine I was shocked when the person turned around and said 'Could you not stand so close please?'. I felt myself to be at a reasonable distance and so said 'Why?'. 'Because I don't like it. I don't like it' he said, and leaving the cash machine deliberately pushed into me. 'People usually stand over there' he added, indicating to a place only slightly further away and, in fact, at an angle to the machine so that they could easily see what PIN someone was typing. I couldn't do anything but laugh. It was absurd. It was 10:30 in the morning in Russel Square. Who was going to rob anybody?

What both incidents showed me, so close together, is the extraordinary amount of fear we live under at the moment. Is this new? Is there anything to be done about it? Is it being propagated by the government? I don't know. You decide.

Wednesday

HollywoodLand could be made in to three different, perhaps better, films. There is the story of Ben Affleck's character, Diane Lane's, and Adrien Brody's. Each one is quite compelling. I would prefer to see the Adrien Brody one: as an inept, disfunctional 50s detective he was quite brilliant. The problem with HollywoodLand was that it couldn't decide between these three stories. Affleck was as good as he's been since Good Will Hunting, but still nothing compared to his co-stars. Some of the dialogue was really quite bad, stilted and grandiloquent, and the characters we've seen before many times. One thing that always aggravates me about period films is that everything from the age (cars, clothes etc.) is so clean, whereas in realilty it would all be dirty and used - this picture was particularly pristine. But otherwise this is a good, challenging film. It refuses to satisfy its audience - people along from me asked 'is that it?' when the credits began to roll. I have to emphasise, however, that from halfway through I was thinking of a movie just about Adrien Brody's character and how much fun it would be.

(Tune in tomorrow for Bomb Scare On My Bus)

Tuesday

There is a problem of class in James Bond for modern viewers. For the original audience the upper society that Bond mixed with was exciting, was the ideal to which people aspired. They played in casinos, travelled around the world and stayed in expensive hotels. However, as I was saying to friends before seeing Casino Royale, modern cinema-goers do not aspire to this sort of thing anymore. Celebrities are our idols, not the upper class, and no one goes to casinos. An interesting way of explaining this is by looking at the original novel: James Bond, at one point, eats an avocado. For readers at the time this is quite exotic and expensive - a sign of class. Nowadays, of course, eating an avocado amounts to nothing more than a healthy lifestyle. So, Bond needs to update himself. I think they were halfway there with Casino Royale, but they need to go further. He needs to be working class (they did hint at this in the film), but able to convince everyone he can be anything. He needs to be rough, cheeky, an upstart and a rogue. He needs to be a celebrity himself.

Monday

Pan's Labyrinth was not what I was expecting. Or, rather, my expectations kept changing the closer I got to seeing it. At first the advertisement made it look fascinating. Then a trailer made it seem unfamiliar. Then, approaching the cinema, I once again became fascinated and was determined to see it instead of HollywoodLand. However, leaving the cinema I was disappointed. I was trying to urge myself to like it, but couldn't do it. Yes, the cinematography is amazing, the imagination and the effects, but there was a naivety to the whole thing, a simplicity. In fact, I was almost sickened as the film ended and I realised what it had all been about. Sickened, perhaps, because there was so much potential for a great film there, but it all ended in useless sentiment. It is definitely worth seeing, and seems to be something of a critic's classic already, but I couldn't get along with the overall tone, no matter how hard I tried.

Sunday

The Ashes this year will never be as popular as they were two summers ago, despite the frantic attempts of the media to make them. What made the event so special back then was a culmination of many factors both fathomable and unfathomable. Not least of which was that they took place in this country in almost every major city, like a touring circus. What also worked was the human engagement. In fact, it might be said that this was the defining factor in the success of the series. Most sport on paper is rather uninteresting. What makes us watch is the human drama. We become involved with the characters, like we would a soap opera, and cannot tear ourselves away. Later we try to define the sport on other terms, intellectually, as a reason for watching. These are always, however, after the fact. What first caught our attention was the people, like actors in an elaborate play. I believe someone even once said that F1 was the greatest sport narrative novel: year long you are engaged in the story of a few men struggling for one reward (and then you are compelled into the next year, and so on). I have been trying to convince a friend to watch Motogp, but he refuses. He gives many perfectly valid technical reasons for doing so, but these amount to little when you are empathetically involved with the characters. Everyone has forgotten who took part in the Ashes two years ago, we have lost who they are and what they do, and hence, I believe, the series will hardly be watched.

Saturday

I’ve been thinking about the notion of free will in The Lord of the Rings. Having watched the movies over the last few weeks (and I should add not read the books) I postulated to myself the possibility that the ring represented free will. This line of thought was also additionally spurred on by recent posts on the excellent Gamboling blog debating the notion of its existence. However, this is not what I’m concerned with. We believe free will, or the possibility of it, exists and I think this is what matters concerning the films. Not wanting to over-intellectualise a movie too much, or pretend to, I shall limit this to a few choice words. The ring is dangerous and must be destroyed because it lets people do whatever they want to do; it lets them act for themselves, by themselves. It breaks down the neatly ordered world of racial and class divisions. Notice how Sam is not Frodo’s equal, but almost his slave, and the hobbits are emphatically a class below the humans, they below the elves. The ring would disrupt this order, which is not allowed. Free will is far too dangerous and must be suppressed or else, read in the context of the Second World War when the books were written, it would lead to unimaginable horror. So, The Lord of the Rings are a set of repressive novels intent on imposing and maintaining social, sexual and racial divisions and hierarchies. This is just an idea.

Friday

There was a cinema critic critic in the newspaper the other day. She was accusing some film journalists of not fully committing to the task assigned them, sometimes not even seeing the movies they are reviewing. This is quite astonishing. How, or why, would they do this? The extent of human laziness and incompetence never fails to amaze me. Her prime, and perhaps only, target was Johnny Vaughan, the writer for the Sun newspaper (incidentally, or maybe not, the one that draws the largest audience). She claimed that he had not been seen at press viewings of films for a long time, yet reviews appeared weekly in his paper. She claimed that his readers deserved better. His argument was that he had special arrangements with film companies. The film companies denied this. She also targetted regional newspaper critics, and whilst I am not sure about Johnny Vaughan I would have to agree with her on this. I've noticed they are almost incapable of making negative remarks about a film, unless it is obviously terrible. I know some people simply interpret the word 'critic' to mean 'negative comments', but I believe only making positive comments is as bad as, if not worse than, this. Incidentally, the best newspaper critic would have to have been John Betjeman with his verse reviews of films.

Thursday

The Prestige is a disconcerting film. I want to say it's good, but I have a feeling that it wasn't. One never knows, of course, when there's a book you haven't read behind a movie: how much of what is good is the novelist's or the film-maker's? Perhaps all that I liked about the film was the creation of the writer. I don't think so, however, as I was struck by much of the photography - as I was in Nolan's earlier film, Insomnia. The film began at its end, which I normally consider the refuge of a director when there's a weak plot. But this wasn't the case: the plot is good. What was lacking perhaps was characters that one could really sympathise with. Not wanting to spoil the plot, but there are several unconvincing similarities throughout. I found myself, in fact, more fascinated by one of the minor characters than by anything else in the film. Michael Caine I wasn't impressed with, where I normally am. The third element, music, I hardly noticed. Overall, as I left the cinema on Tottenham Court Road (good sized screen, plenty of leg room, and staggered seating), I couldn't help thinking what I usually end up thinking about films based on novels - I bet the book is really interesting.

Wednesday

Text messages in films are becoming increasingly more common. What do you think of them? When it is required of the plot for a character to read anything – a letter, an email, a sign – the whole momentum of the film seems to slow down. Only very occasionally does it work – when the thing being read is so important that we are carried through it quickly. Most of the time they are quite an obstacle, especially when the film-maker decides to have the message read aloud, by the character (internally or aloud), by a narrator, or worst of all by the person who wrote it. Often such recitals get in the way of the film’s style, or the character’s naturalism. I don’t really see a remedy, however. Text messages, and mobile phones, are integral to the latest Bond film from the first scenes to the last. They are a new device opening up a whole new range of scenarios to the film-maker. For me, there is still something a little strange about James Bond reading a text message, but maybe that’s just me. (More to be said about this later concerning the film The Prestige.)

Tuesday

Casino Royale is a good Bond film. I was almost tempted to consider it as a film on its own, as I think its makers attempted to do at times, but they eventually, as did I, returned to rely on the conventions of the franchise and the expectations of their audience. Nonetheless, they seem to have at last acknowledged the threat to them, and the excitement for us, of films like The Bourne Identity, and made a much more modern, energetic James Bond film. As I say, it is so good as to almost stand on its own. There was much more sincerity, and a lot less humour and gimmicks, than we’ve seen with Pierce Brosnan. They stretch Bond’s vulnerability a little too much, but then appropriately reel it all back in at the end. Some people may dislike the whole idea of franchises, but then I would say that they have no understanding of cinema, and can not consider themselves ‘cinema lovers’ if they continue to maintain such a position. Franchises are cinema – the ultimate big screen, bag of popcorn, Saturday afternoon entertainment. As such, I was convinced of seeing it in the largest theatre – the Odeon Leicester Square – and don’t regret doing so, or spending so much, for a minute.

Monday

The paedophile controversy is not a controversy. I refer to the recent remarks of Chief Constable Terry Grange on the issue and the 'controversy' that followed them. He said that men who have sex with girls under 16, but over 12, should not necessarily be classed as paedophiles. At first this might seem a shocking statement, and this was the aspect that the BBC news, predictably, pushed. However, if you listen to the details of what Mr Grange said you will find it not so shocking, and in fact quite sensitive. He said that boys under 16 having sex with girls under 16 shouldn't be classed as paedophiles. This is, indeed, perhaps so obvious as to be banal. But the BBC news didn't want a banal news story, they wanted a shocking one. So this 'controversy' over the last few days was entirely created by the media deliberately misinterpreting Mr Grange's remarks. Incredible, if you ask me.

Saturday

The Host is a very good film. I think I read somewhere someone call it a cross between The Royal Tenenbaums and Jurassic Park. I see what they mean, but it's not quite apt. There are funny family moments, and there is a big monster, but there's a lot more to the film than that. For one thing, there's a seriousness to the film that both of those lack, and there is also a real striving to achieve something great, which seems to be lacking in general from American cinema. This is a really exciting, brilliantly acted, shot and conceived film. Perhaps the only problem is that it either isn't funny enough, or serious enough, alternately, when it needs to be. This can only be explained by ruining the film, which I don't want to do. Go see it. It's great.

Wednesday

You can now petition 10 Downing Street via the internet. They will still accept paper and pen ones. This is perhaps one of the most cunning moves to marginalise anti-establishment thought. It flatters them into thinking they are getting a step forward: they can now create a petition at the click of a button about almost anything they want (although some, we are told, will be censored). However, it is that very liberation that Downing Street are relying on to dilute the messages. If there are so many, a single one won't be able to stand out. Also, there won't be the very physical, and televisual, presence of someone knocking on the door and delivering the signed papers that we see on the news. These are the very best moves in politics - give the people what they think they want.

Friday

I began to doubt my ability to make it to a film today. How could I possibly get to Tottenham Court Road in half an hour? I couldn't. Even if I did make it, the film would be very busy and maybe I wouldn't get a ticket. However, before the day was over, little did I know, things would take a series of unpredictable turns.I first decided to ask my colleage and good friend Eugenio if I could leave ten minutes early. He was more than accomodating and said I could leave 30 minutes early if I wanted. I strolled out of the shop casually at 8:30, confident I would make it with time to spare. Sitting on the train, however, I came across a copy of the Evening Standard. Now, my voucher specifically says 'any film any time after 7pm', but there in the paper were the words 'no free guest passes' underneath the film I wanted to see tonight: Borat. How could this be? And if I turned up to see that film and they turned me away, I wouldn't be able to see anything. I had to have a new plan...

As soon as the train stopped at Victoria I began running. I ran to the tube station. I changed at Green Park and ran between platforms. I ran up the escalator at Leicester Square. I ran along Charing Cross road and turned right onto Shaftesbury Avenue. It was 9pm. This was my only option. I was just in time to see the film A Good Year, but I would make sure I asked at the desk about Borat. A cunning plan, and it worked. No, I would not be allowed to see Borat with my free pass. 'One ticket to A Good Year, then, please' I said, rather too smugly, and a little out of breath. I bought a bottle of water and entered the film, before the trailers had even started.

So, how good was the movie? I had not expected much from it, having read several bad reviews, including one in a wine magazine (which was why it was not my first choice). However, I was pleasantly surprised. The film was very enjoyable - funny, well acted, well paced, with some beautiful scenery. Yes, the plot was predictable, but that didn't mean I didn't have fun along the way. Overall, exactly what I wanted, and so much more enjoyable because of how hard I had to work to see it.

Thursday

There was no doubt that I would make it to a film today. I folded the voucher and placed it inside my pocket, certain of my mission once again. The hours went quickly and already it was 5, and I was in Oddbins serving people wine. My manager had not remembered he'd scheduled me to work until 8 only - and he could not remember why, but, seeing what he had done, he could not refuse me leaving an hour early. However, that hour from 7 to 8 took an interminably long time to pass. I stood, and sat, and waited, and only a minute passed. Some customers came, and at last time sped up, and it was 5 to 8. I put my coat on and left.

The film, set to start at 9:20, I had chosen was Red Road at the Covent Garden Odeon. I easily had enough time to get there. I strolled on to Shaftesbury Avenue about 8:45. I had time, and time to spare. The cinema was busy again, as I had not expected. I got my ticket and went in search of an espresso. On the way I stopped at a cash machine. In front of me a man was taking a picture with his mobile phone of his bank balance. I got my cash and strolled around the West End. London seemed alive again, full of people, and full of exciting places. I bought myself an Evening Standard. I stopped at a small cafeteria on Charing Cross Road and had an espresso. I bought a bottle of water. Everyone I met seemed friendly and helpful. London had not seemed so exciting since I was 17, and first came here with my friends.

As for the film: quite exceptional, ruined only marginally by the large group of people coming in 40 minutes late. Who does that? An indicator of the type of film it was is that about 5 people left the cinema never to return. Another one, sitting two rows in front of me, fell asleep after about ten minutes and only awoke at the sound of the credits at the end. The pacing was slow, but the tension at times was almost unbearable. I would like to venture that this film might be more terrifying than Saw III. At times I couldn't look at the screen. A very good movie, very well acted.

Monday

I had not thought I was the only one collecting tokens, but I also had not thought there would be so many. Already at 7 there was a queue for tickets at the cinema. The assistants, I could tell, were tired from serving people with Evening Standard vouchers. Perhaps it was my choice of venue - Leicester Square - but the place was almost sold out. This was a Monday night, and it was a film - The Departed - that had been out for several weeks. Incredible. However, it had to be done. I wanted to see that film and I thought, if anything, it was a great opportunity to see it in the biggest screen in the country.

As for the quality of the movie itself: extremely good. The script was far better than the original, the acting also. A lot was added which worked well, including Mark Wahlberg's character and various other things that would ruin the plot for you. However, the greatest loss was the pacing of the original. Scorsese, I felt, overplayed some parts, and underplayed others, stretched some for too long and cut some short. As such, people around me got restless at various points. Nonetheless, at other points the whole cinema (remember, the largest, and sold-out) went completely silent, and gasped, and laughed, and sighed in unison.