Sunday

Some Christmas thoughts: is there an opposition to liberal, democratic capitalism? Until earlier this year many of us, including me, thought that there wasn't. I'm still very hesitant to say that the current perceived economic downturn (I refuse to use the words 'credit crunch' or 'recession', yet) spells the end of capitalism, as some have rashly declared. Undoubtedly some things will change, but how much? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, so those forces will be hurried out, won't they? Someone always benefits, and this time it's the anti-war protesters: maybe they planned the whole thing? Zizek's last book predicts a way to overcome capitalism, which could perhaps now be coming true. In a crisis, people turn to totalitarian governments, which is what we really have to be afraid of if things do get worse. Perhaps they already have? Isn't Obama's liberalism a kind of idealism that could easily flip over into totalitarianism? I've got lots of questions, lots of 'isms', but not many answers.

Thursday

The astute among you (or those not reading this through an RSS feed) would have noticed I set up a poll last week. The question was, which is your favourite Back to the Future film? You responded with a resounding 100% voting for part one. Undoubtedly this is the case, but the other two films do help to make it a great trilogy. Today, I've set up a slightly more festive poll: what is your favourite Christmas movie? Obviously I couldn't include every Christmas movie ever made, so I have just picked those that I like, with an 'other' option for those of who you are fussy. If I've missed a glaringly obvious one, the poll can easily be amended. The options are: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation; It's a Wonderful Life; Die Hard; Just Friends; Bad Santa; and Home Alone. There's a fairly substantial list of such films here. Happy Christmas.

Wednesday

Most superheroes, I once read, in some way represent America. This cannot be more true than for Hancock. He has great powers but is irresponsible with them, doesn't really care how he uses them, or who accidentally gets hurt along the way. Yes, he will catch the bad guys, but he'll do an enormous amount of destruction in order to do so. No one really likes him. During one such catastrophic rescue he (Will Smith) meets a PR man (Jason Bateman), who pledges to make people like him again. With a little bit of effort, Hancock improves and people start to love him -I know this was filmed before Obama got elected, but isn't it a bit of a coincidence? Anyway, I found this all pretty enjoyable up to this point. However, the film then goes off on another tangent which I don't want to ruin for you. This new tangent is never fully explained, and its origins a dismissed with bad script writing. We never really get to find out who Hancock is and where he comes from, which directly contradicts the nature of the movie. If you're going to make a film about a very realistic superhero, you have to realistically justify who he is, which they don't. It was also quite annoying that the special effects of him flying looked bad by today's normally high standards. So, this was interesting, but also frustrating.

Monday

As you may remember, three westerns came out last year. I reviewed one of them, Seraphim Falls, earlier this year. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford I still haven't seen, but I saw 3:10 to Yuma last week. It stars Christian Bale and Russell Crowe: the first as a man who is hired to escort the second, a dangerous prisoner, to a town where he is to catch the 3:10 train that will take him to prison in Yuma. This is classic western territory, and is indeed a remake of a 1957 film. It's directed by James Mangold, who after the interesting Cop Land is becoming more and more mainstream - Walk the Line and Girl, Interrupted. This film doesn't really contain the moral ambiguity of Seraphim Falls, and whilst Bale is good, Crowe is a bit too smug. It relies on a few cliches, but I can't deny that I enjoyed it, that the tension built well and the conclusion satisfying. This is a somewhat ordinary, but clear, classic western.

Friday

Despite my criticisms yesterday, I do love the Back to the Future films. They succeed in so many ways, but I think the two actors and their chemistry together is what makes them stand out. Watching them again recently I was particularly impressed by the second movie: it's the perfect sequel. In a sequel you want to be reminded of the best bits from the first film, and then have some extra ones on top of that. Back to the Future: Part II actually replays the first film from a new angle. Initially, Marty re-enacts the scene around the town square from the 1950s in the future. Then, he goes back to the 1950s and actually interacts with scenes from the first film. We see him literally behind-the-scenes at the school dance, orchestrating events in order to help his past self. We even get to see him watching action from part one - when his father punches Biff - and enjoying it, as we did. It's genius. Perhaps some of the in-jokes are too easy - it's a simple way to delude your audience into thinking they're clever - but there are so many of them, and they become quite complex by the third movie, that you have to admire the screenwriting here. This is just one of those movies, or trilogies, for which everything came together and worked, and I doubt even the director would be able to tell you exactly why.

Thursday

This is the first of two posts on Back to the Future, the trilogy of which I watched over the last week. Perhaps I had forgotten, but I didn't remember knowing that Eric Stoltz completed about half the film before they replaced him with Michael J. Fox. Undoubtedly they made the right choice. Anyway, I have a few small problems. The first involves the second film. In the first movie Marty had gone back accidentally, accidentally altered the future, and striven hard to rectify it. This all makes sense. However, in the second film they deliberately go into the future in order to make things better for themselves. Something then goes wrong and they have to travel back to the past to rectify it, and that's fine, but it's the first part, as you can see, that is ambiguous. It seems it's ok to alter the future if it makes it better for them. The third film appears to follow the formula of the first: accidentally gone back. However, the only reason Marty subsequently goes back is to prevent Doc being killed. Once again this is to their advantage. My final problem is with some of the last lines of the movie. Doc tells them that their future is unwritten, and they can make it for themselves. Surely, however, the movies have taught us that this isn't the case? It's only with a time machine that you are capable of changing the future. The films seem innocent, but perhaps promote ambiguous morals.

Wednesday

OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies might be one of the funniest films I've seen. I went to see it in the cinema twice last week, which perhaps tells you all you need to know. It's a French film, and might be called a cross between Austin Powers and The Pink Panther. At the moment, I find it funnier than both of those. OSS 117, or Hubert Bonisseur de la Bath, is a spy sent to Cairo to investigate the death of his colleague. He knows nothing of the middle-east, doesn't understand Arabic or the Muslim religion, and of course is deeply misogynist. It's hard to explain, but most of the comedy comes from him being totally inept, but thinking he's brilliant. A lot of this has to be down to the performance of Jean Dujardin, who does sometimes uncannily look like Sean Connery. If you miss this in the cinema, buy it for yourself for Christmas.

Monday

There is something strangely frightening about My Name is Earl. In an episode I watched last night, he meets a very annoying man who seems to have the perfect life: lots of money, a big house, a beautiful wife and a mistress. For Earl, Karma is not right in this situation. In a later fit of rage, Earl punches the man, and due to this punch the man loses his wife, his mistress, his house, and ends up going to jail. Karma has been restored. The conclusion is that Karma used Earl's fist to right the world. Don't you find this a scary notion for a half-hour comedy show? Isn't it a bit too reminiscent of a religious justification for war? 'God is merely using us to purify the world'. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps in a later episode that I haven't seen this incident is explained, but I'm now deeply troubled by the outlook that this show is promoting.

Tuesday

There are, indeed, many other people who have seen the similarities between the Pirates of the Caribbean films and Star Wars. The comparison on the moviefone site is the most user-friendly and entertaining. It picks up on a few things I didn't, such as 'ugly antagonists', 'wise weirdos' 'vile vessels', and 'not-so-smart natives', but some of its links are a bit tenuous. The article at slashfilm is a bit more intellectual, although it only focuses on Dead Man's Chest and Empire Strikes Back. The MTV comparison lies somewhere between these two. As the slashfilm article points out, however, there may just be a limited amount of storylines to go around, so that it's very likely there will be some similarities. Or, perhaps there is only one storyline of the 'hero', thus making it inevitable that the films will be the same. In terms of pacing, certainly, there are very few variations, but I think the parallels between these movies are so similar, and many of them avoidable, that something has gone wrong here. We're a generation still suffering from the success of Star Wars and the box office blockbuster.

Friday

On Wednesday I suggested that the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy owes something to Star Wars. I'm imagining someone else has already said this, but I thought I'd write out my ideas before looking at theirs. Although the concept of a trilogy can be traced back to ancient Greek tragedy, the three-film structure of Pirates undoubtedly draw its inspiration from Star Wars, rather than Aeschylus, Euripides or Sophocles. There are a lot more parallels, however: a young, innocent man in love with a girl, and an experienced worldly man; a lost father; two inferior characters (either the two pirates or the two English soldiers) through whom the audience can see the plot; the loss of a major character at the end of the second film and the search for him at the beginning of the third; an Empire; the illegal, beyond-the-law town and bar where the characters go to find help (Tortuga inn or the Tatooine cantina); and of course ships themselves. One might even go so far as to compare the Force with the Pirates' code, but that's a little tendentious. Of course, there are probably as many differences to match every similarity, but don't you feel the weight of these parallels merits some attention?

Wednesday

I have a quibble with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. At the climax of the film, Jack Sparrow, played by Johnny Depp, takes a coin from the chest. The curse is thus placed upon him. Why, however, when he later steps into the moonlight does he appear as a skeleton, like the rest of the crew? We've been told earlier by Barbossa, played by Geoffrey Rush, that the moonlight shows them for who they truly are, but why does that apply to Sparrow? The crew of the Black Pearl have been under the curse for ten years, but Sparrow has only just taken it upon himself. Moreover, when two of them put on new women's clothes to fool the English, these clothes then appear rotten and decayed in the moonlight. Why is that? Of course, this is a Disney film adapted from a theme park ride, so I shouldn't look for too much sense, but I do think a movie should be consistent within itself, no matter how unreal its universe. Tomorrow, I might say a few words on how much the Pirates films owe to Star Wars.

Tuesday

I'm finding it hard to decide whether I think The Orphanage is a good film or not. True, I was frightened, but was that the film's only aim? I don't think so. It's a Spanish film about a woman who returns to the orphanage where she grew up with her husband and young son. Soon, strange things start happening and the son claims he has some new friends who no one else can see. Very spooky. Without giving too much away, what annoys me (and what annoyed me about Pan's Labyrinth) is the catholic nature of this movie. I was irritated by the overall message of what happens, which has perhaps blinded me to the abilities of the film-maker. Undoubtedly the movie is very atmospheric, and frightening when it needs to be, without too many 'why are you doing that?' moments. Unlike The Sixth Sense, however, I don't feel a great need to watch the film again and unravel what happened. All its suspense is lost, not enriched, by the ending. It is a tight-knit, compact film, but I felt disappointed at the end, much as I did with Pan's Labyrinth. It's definitely a good film, but rises little above that.

Tuesday

Gone Baby Gone is a quite incredible film. Directed by Ben Affleck and starring his younger brother Casey, it's about a private detective in Boston who is asked to investigate the disappearance of a young girl. The voice-over narrator gives away that this movie is adapted from a novel, and although it's hard for me to say, it did feel as if this film managed to keep the richness of the novel and maintain the drama needed in a movie. Casey Affleck is a very natural, relaxed actor. The direction seems promising too - understated and subtle. The plot unfolds brilliantly. Although the narrative relies on a few cliches, overall it feels fresh and exciting, set in what feels like the raw, real suburbs of Boston. It's a well-made, well-written, well-acted drama. There's really little reason not to see it.

Monday

I realised yesterday that I never wrote a review here of Tropic Thunder. Aside from being quite busy at the moment, I think it might have been because I'm not sure what to say about it. Yes, it did have some very funny parts to it. It wasn't, however, consistently funny, and despite its original setting it didn't escape being formulaic, like most of Ben Stiller's comedies. Would I see it again and laugh again? Probably. This might be down to the brilliant performance of Robert Downey Jr as an Australian method actor playing a black man. He's funny throughout, for no obvious reason, even when he doesn't have any dialogue. The most mundane things that he says become hilarious because of the situation he decides to put himself in, again for no obvious reason. It is a likable comedy because it at least tries something completely different, even if it does end up relying on some conventional jokes, and you might begin to find Stiller's style of acting tiring. Now that it's out of the cinema, I'd say it's definitely worth renting.

Friday

It would be hard, if not impossible, to make sense of Quantum of Solace without having first seen Casino Royale. I don't think this should prejudice you against it though. Most Bond films expect you to have some prior knowledge of who Bond is. This movie is, though, very closely tied in with the first and acts as a sequel rather than a separate film. Nonetheless, although I haven't seen Casino Royale recently, I'm going to venture to say this film was better. I always liked On Her Majesty's Secret Service, when most complain it is not a Bond film: he cares too much about one girl, which isn't like him at all. In the two Daniel Craig movies, however, we seem to have returned to that early conception of Bond that didn't work, but now does. There is one element of the film, however, that is worse than Casino Royale (if I remember it correctly) or merely the same (if I don't). Occasionally in Quantum of Solace we return to Bond as doing unbelievable stunts, where I thought the great revelation of Daniel Craig was that he only did 'very good' stunts. The difference is in whether you believe a man can actually do those things. For example, Bond runs across the roof tops of Siena, which is great, but then he jumps on to a moving bus, which is really a bit too much for me. Admittedly, this sort of stunt only happens a few times in Quantum of Solace, but I hope they eliminate it for the next film. In relation to this, there is also a bit too much killing of anonymous bad guys, which seems to return to the Pierce Brosnan days. There is a remote enemy compound, surrounded by men with guns, which I thought we'd got over by now, and there are a few too many big explosions. Nonetheless, this is a much better Bond film than what we're used to. The scene in the opera house, for instance, was incredible. Some might say it was over contrived, or not fitting a Bond film, but I loved it.

Thursday

Why doesn't wine taste of grapes?* Why do some people insist a wine can taste of coffee? When grapes are crushed, fermentation begins. This is a somewhat magical chemical transformation. In simple terms, the constitutive elements of the grape are rearranged. What makes coffee taste of coffee is merely a series elements arranged in certain groupings. Grapes contain the building blocks for these, and much else, and thus when they are broken down in the magic of fermentation, the resulting wine may very well taste of coffee, or liquorice, or cloves. The myriad differences between wines (why there are so many different flavours) depends upon various actions the winemaker can effect. They span from the treatment of the grapes in the vineyard, the land itself, the climate, when the harvest is picked, how long it is fermented for, how it is aged, and much more. No two wines are the same, nor will a wine from the same vineyard in different years be exactly alike. This is what makes wine such a fascinating, and frustrating, subject.

*There are some wines which may taste of grapes, which are an exception, notably those made from Muscat.

Wednesday

When a television channel is going to show a new movie, why doesn't it use the original film trailer to advertise it? The simple answers might be that the studio doesn't let them, or that the channel wants to appear original, but when so much time, money and research has been spent on making the perfect advertisement for the film, why wouldn't the channel want to use it? Trailers are laboured over intensely, often begun before the movie is even finished. Some trailers are better, or suggest better, than the end result will actually be. I try to avoid trailers for comedies, because inevitably they give away many of the jokes. A good comedy will make that joke funnier when you see the full movie. Trailers are a condensation of what is great about films: photography, music, script. In the best trailers you'll see some great, atmospheric shots, listen to some good music, and hear a few good lines. Still, the most original trailers have to be those that completely avoid using any footage from the movie. I believe both Woody Allen and Alfred Hitchcock have done this, but there may be more.

Tuesday

Not long into Silent Hill I thought to myself 'this seems like a video game'. The credits at the end revealed the film was adapted from a game, but this was hardly an expert analysis from myself. Apparently the director deliberately photographed scenes to remind viewers of the game. I did, however, think there was another element that gave this film away, and it exposes a fundamental difference between what a film goer and a game player expect: narrative consistency. I'm sure the director must have adapted the game somewhat, created extra characters and plot-lines, in order to try to drag the viewer along, but he just wasn't successful. Events happen, or the main character does things, that aren't explained. They seem deliberately done for style, or horror, rather than content. There is no reasonable, narrative consistency. Of course, I don't expect everything in a movie to always be explainable, but it must be consistent within the film, and a lot in Silent Hill wasn't. Is this then the reason that almost every adaptation from a video game has failed as a film? In all, twenty have been made. Did you like any of them?

Friday

Two things you may not have known about Joaquin Phoenix: this week he announced that he will not act again. Two Lovers, also directed by James Gray of We Own the Night, will be his last movie. Apparently he has in the past retired from acting for a period only to return. Perhaps he will do the same again, but for now we can say that it is a great loss to the film world.

The second thing you may not know is that in 2006 he was involved in a bad accident that flipped his car over. Lying in the wreck, he heard someone tapping on his window and a voice say 'Just relax'. Unable to see the man, he replied, 'I'm fine. I am relaxed'. Then he managed to see who it was: the director Werner Herzog, who replied, 'No, you're not'. After helping Phoenix out of the wreckage, Herzog phoned in an ambulance and disappeared.

Thursday

We Own the Night came out late last year. It stars Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Wahlberg as brothers, and Robert Duvall as their father, in a New York of the late 1980s. Phoenix runs a night club, whilst his brother and father both work as policemen. They begin investigating his club as a place where Russian mafia are dealing drugs from. Tension inevitably rises in the family, and violence soon erupts as a drug war develops. I imagine parallels were drawn by critics between this movie and The Departed, but this film in no sense copies or imitates that one. The beginning is a little confusing and slow, but afterwards this soon picks up into a powerful drama. It's a well-made, well-performed and well-written movie. Phoenix, especially, is excellent. The director, James Gray, lets things happen without overstating them. The gunfight/car chase in the rain, with little or not music, and the rain obscuring the windscreens, was brilliant. Perhaps overall the film tried to include too much, and should have kept its scale small, but I have very little to complain about really. This is a very good movie.

Wednesday

I was surprised by how quickly the Coen brothers produced Burn After Reading after No Country for Old Men. Perhaps this was exaggerated by a late and prolonged release of the latter, and an early release of the former, in order to gain more publicity. They took three years to make a movie after Ladykillers, but before that made four films in four years. Anyway, in looking up screening times on the Odeon website, I decided to start reading user reviews of the movie, and became fascinated by them. The reviewers either hated or loved the film. Many said it was the worst film they had ever seen, whilst some said it was the funniest. I have a feeling that those who hated it were drawn into the cinema by mis-advertising. They were expecting a comedy with Brad Pitt and George Clooney. They did, of course, get one, but it was a very, very dark comedy, with its two stars playing unconventional, bizarre roles. I loved it. The Coen brothers return to the territory of Fargo, but this is much darker, and Carter Burwell's epic music seems even more brilliantly out of place. I am a little uncertain about John Malkovich, but he does get better as the film goes on. Certain scenes did seem that enough time hadn't been spent on them. There were good jokes there, but the actors didn't deliver them well enough, and there were pauses in dialogue when there shouldn't have been. Nonetheless, this is a good movie. I wonder, however, how far such a script would have got without the Coen name attached to it.

Wednesday

Vantage Point came out earlier this year. I remember wanting to see it, then reading a negative review and deciding not to. The film shows you several different viewpoints, or vantages, of the assassination of a US president. I believe the review said that seeing the same events repeated several times becomes tiring. I can say that this is almost true. I was about to get tired of seeing the same events, but then the movie changed. Every time you return to the beginning you learn something new. You are kept on the edge of your seat throughout. Things are revealed in perfectly arranged sequences. Although on reflection you might think that certain things are rather artificially hidden from you, in the moment of the movie you don't notice them. I think this would've been great to see in the cinema. It drags you along, surprising you every few minutes. Its lack of success owes more to a lack of big name star rather than anything else. If Tom Cruise had been in Dennis Quaid's role, this film might have been huge. I, however, prefer it as it is: a great fun, intriguing and entertaining movie.

Friday

There are perhaps too many things to say about Top Gun. I'll restrict myself to just one element that I noticed upon watching the film again recently. When I was a young lad, joyfully frolicking in the fields of Sussex, I remember loving especially the bit at the end of the film when the pilots finally go to war and fight the Russians. Yet, the other day, I found this was exactly the bit that could've been dropped from the movie entirely. To recap for you, Goose dies and Maverick loses his nerve. He doesn't feel like he wants to be a pilot anymore. However, his superior tells him he has enough credits to graduate from the academy anyway. The ceremony takes place the next day. Maverick isn't there, and everyone worries that he has given up. Suddenly, of course, he appears, receives his award (or whatever it was) and congratulates Iceman (his nemesis) on being the best pilot. Everything has been settled, there is no longer anything else to prove. I would've ended the film there, perhaps the movie would've been better, but less successful, if it had. However, the pilots are then called to war, Maverick once again loses his nerves briefly, but then recovers them. We're shown that he's learnt his lesson, but still keeps a bit of his personality that makes him the best. Perhaps we do need to see this, but perhaps we don't. I felt it was slightly unnecessary and gratuitous, pandering to the boy rather than the man, but then that is who this film was made for.

Sunday

You may not have even noticed the release of Semi-Pro. I'm not sure that I did. The release of a movie in the UK often depends upon how well it's done in America (although, conversely, certain films are promoted here more because producers believe we'll appreciate them better). I'm guessing the film didn't do well either here or there and there are two reasons for this. It stars Will Ferrell as the owner, coach and player of a basketball team in the 1970s. The team faces dissolution when their league proposes a merger with the NBA. In order to avoid being dissolved, his team have to finish in the top 4. As you can tell, this sounds like a derivative mix between Anchorman and Dodgeball, and it is. There's no hiding that. The concept isn't original. And the plot follows the contrived line of every sport movie: success, failure, success (only in the really great films do you not notice this narrative, or not mind it). Nonetheless, I think this is an extremely funny movie. If you like Will Ferrell, and I do, then you'll love this film. The jokes are great, even though some of them aren't built up sufficiently. The characters' back-stories and romances are messy, but then this is a comedy, and it made me laugh. The second reason the film didn't do well, which I'll try to tell you without ruining the ending, is in the team's hunt for 4th place: these guys aren't winners and they never will be. So, as long as you don't expect too much, and love Will Ferrell, this film is a great fun.

Tuesday

Last night I saw Her Naked Skin, showing at the National Theatre. My first problem comes when I attempt to tell you what the play was about. This normally simple task reveals one of the main flaws of this drama. It couldn't decide what it wanted to be about, and so ended up being about nothing. The background was the suffragette movement of the early twentieth century, and the foreground involved two women falling in love. If the play had been about either one of these things alone, it might have succeeded. After all, the acting was superb, and much of the dialogue excellent. But there was no one drive, or focus, to the narrative. I didn't feel pulled along in any way, either through sympathy or hatred towards any of the characters. The first half was composed of many short scenes, with many characters, leaving the audience confused. I felt indeed that it was a play that wanted to be a film. The second half contained much longer, intense scenes, that worked better, but surely they should have come in the first half when the audience had more patience? Whatever the outcome of this pacing, the play didn't work for me, and it also didn't work on the stage itself. Although the set design was intriguing, it couldn't fill the (admittedly large) stage. There were always large empty spaces that distracted your attention when the actors couldn't keep it - which unfortunately was quite often. You may or may not know that this is the first play by a female writer to be on the main stage at the National Theatre. I couldn't help thinking that if you wanted to show the brilliance of female writers, you would want to show that they can write about any topic or theme. By putting on a play about lesbian feminists they help to stereotype themselves.

Saturday

Possibly the strangest film you'll ever see is Lars and the Real Girl. It stars Ryan Gosling as a lonely man who buys a sex doll and presents her (he calls her Bianca) to his family, friends, work colleagues, and neighbours as his girlfriend. The doctor says he is suffering from a delusion, and suggests that everybody in the town should pretend she is real. They do so. What is incredible from the writer, director and actors is the ability to maintain sincerity in what is obviously a ludicrous (but I'm guessing plausible) scenario. Overall, though, the film is a bit twee, and the ending predictable from halfway through, but there is something so unsettling about it that you won't be able to get it out of your mind. The performance of Gosling, above everyone is outstanding, he makes you believe, and perhaps in someone else's hands this might have been a farce. I have a feeling that if, or when, Gosling becomes a superstar this film will be remembered only as one of his 'early, weird movies', but one that made directors and producers notice him. I have a theory that the film can be read psychologically: we are only what everyone thinks of us. Perhaps this isn't suggested by the script, but it's an interesting angle. Undoubtedly you have to see this film, whether you'll like it or not is a different matter.

Tuesday

I'm going to spoil the end of the movie Cloverfield. I'll post a fuller review later for those of you who think you might watch it. If you're undecided, I should just say that it is a great monster movie, definitely worth watching. So, this post remains for those of you who have seen the film, or know you never will. Near the end, the character who has been holding the camera throughout dies. In his commentary to the DVD, the director Matt Reeves says that this is a great and exciting shock to all monster movie fans. It's as if Sam Neill had died at the end of Jurassic Park, or Matthew Broderick in Godzilla. Or is it? Throughout the film the man holding the camera is distanced from us. In fact, we don't begin with him at all. He is thrust on us after five minutes. From the start, he is a comic character, clearly not a main participator. We are shown his weaknesses and failings. He's not involved in decision making. When we see it from this point of view, we realise the director has not been shocking at all when he kills this character at the end. The director has been quite traditional. Remember the rules of the horror genre set out in Scream? If you have sex, you're going to die, only virgins survive. In less crude terms, what this means is that flawed characters will not survive, or at least characters with flaws that are not redeemable. Main characters are usually flawed, but their flaws are forgivable. In Scream, Sidney has sex, but she was tricked into it, she went into it with honest intentions, and so she survives. Both Scream and Cloverfield, whilst pretending to subvert the rules of their genres, in fact maintain them.

Friday

If you loved the previous movies of Wes Anderson, then no doubt you'll love The Darjeeling Limited. It contains all of his, now trademark, stylised camera movements, music, creative set design and dry sense of humour. What happens, however, if you've never seen or liked his films? I have to say that you probably won't like this one. There is not much direction, or drive, to the narrative, and little real interest in the characters. Instead of smiling when you recognise a deliberately unsteady zoom-in, you'll probably feel disconcerted. Wes Anderson has created a world for himself that he might find it difficult to get out of. Nonetheless, as I said, I still loved this film and would happily watch it again. Something should be said, however, about the short film Hotel Chevalier, which prefaces the main movie. It contains one of the characters, and some minor plot points that will reappear later, though that doesn't make it necessary. I read one review that said they preferred the short to the long film. I can't agree. I was left amused, but generally not intrigued by it. Natalie Portman just isn't a good actress, I don't think. So, I would suggest renting if not buying this movie for Anderson fans, but then they knew that already; anyone else should be cautious.

Sunday

You, like me, might have never watched Cocktail. It is one of those films that you either saw at the time, and continue to see, or you didn't, and never will. Unless, of course, you were too young or even (you won't believe it, but apparently this is true for some people) weren't born by then. I myself was nine years old when Cocktail came out in 1988. The impression I gained from other people and popular opinion was that this was a 'fun' movie. When I watched it recently, I found it quite harrowing. Did you know this film was based on a book? I think you can tell - it definitely seems to skip large periods of time where a lot of emotional development has occurred. Big events happen, but they aren't prepared for, or their consequences aren't fully appreciated. Anyway, I'm being too fussy. This movie is fun. Tom Cruise is incredibly young, energetic and exciting to watch. The soundtrack is cheesy (now), but enjoyable nonetheless, and they make cocktails and recite bartender poems. I was surprised by the seriousness of some of the things that happen, but maybe that's because I'm so used to our anaesthetic modern blockbusters? There is something slightly dangerous about 80's cinema, beneath its upbeat surface, that perhaps needs further examination.

Friday

I apologise for one more not directly cinema related post. I will get back to reviewing movies soon. Yesterday David Cameron said something that somewhat startled me. I wonder if you'll agree. Criticising Gordon Brown about the recent 42-day detention vote, Cameron said something like 'we're not here to do what's popular, but to do what's right'. Of course, I agree that the popular option is very often, if not always, the wrong one, but then I haven't been elected to government by a popular vote. Isn't it an MP's job to do what the majority of his constituents want? Or does he sometimes have to go against what they want because he believes they'll thank him later? He can't ask them to vote every time he has to make a decision. They elected him because they trust him to do what they want, don't they? I've always been puzzled by exactly how this reciprocal relationship worked, and David Cameron has muddied the waters considerably.

Wednesday

I get immensely annoyed by the attitude of the UK terrestrial channels in their coverage of major sports events. At the moment, both ITV and BBC share the Euro 2008 games. However, you'll never hear one channel mention that the other one shows the matches they can't. It's not as if they're offering competing coverage - all they can manage is a highlights show later in the day, and that, according to them, is all that exists of the game. It infuriates me that the channels can't see that we, as viewers, are interested in the sport first, before any channel loyalty (which I don't have anyway). It gets worse when the BBC news will, after reporting on the latest action in Formula 1, recommend you listen to the race on radio. Why would I do that when the ITV broadcast it live on television? I understand that the other channel will not shut down when there are events on they can't cover - they put on shows that they want us to watch, and value their ratings greedily - but it seems such narrow-mindedness, and every intentional silence still staggers me.

Sunday

My problem with The Mission, which I watched again recently, is the message, or ethos, it is recommending. Aside from this I believe it is a remarkable film, containing one of the best musical scores ever written, and the most stunning scenery ever photographed. This ethos, however, irritated me. What exactly does the movie suggest? Neither violence or peaceful resistance have any effect. It could be that the outcome of the plot is nothing to do with what the film recommends. Rather, it could be found in nature of the main character. Jeremy Irons seems the 'hero'. He believes in love alone, not that it will conquer over violence in this world, but in eternity. If this is the message of the movie, I find it a bit cloying. Yet, there is something strangely compelling about the film's refusal to give you any clear meaning, any hope, or any particular unhappy ending. You are left saddened but somehow inspired. It is easy to say that this movie is nothing without the score and the scenery - there is little dialogue or action, and the narrator is inconsistent and unnecessary. Overall, it seems, this movie leaves me confused rather than confident.

Thursday

[This is the second part of yesterday's post.]

However, this dilemma reminds me of something that is happening, or has already happened, in modern art. Remember a conversation you had with a friend about Tracey Emin's My Bed. Didn't they say something like 'I could've done that myself'? He, or she, was giving a very old fashioned view that says only art made from hard work, experience, and technical skill qualifies as 'good'. This in turn is connected to the equally old view that anything worthwhile in this life takes hard work. It is troubling that anyone can put a pile of bricks together and call it art, or put their writing on the internet and call themselves a writer, but this doesn't devalue the work itself. Ease of production shouldn't affect our appreciation. So, why do I have a problem with Sky+, with its easy access to any show you want to watch at any time? Perhaps it is jealousy? Perhaps it is Western guilt that makes me reject high technology? And yet I have desktop and laptop computers, a mobile phone, an MP3 player, two TVs, Freeview, a VCR, a DVD player and a Home Cinema System. Where have I imagined there is a dividing line? None of this is 'necessary', in whatever terms. Perhaps I am afraid of change, and perhaps the answer is that we should embrace change, but always be aware of the cost of achieving it, and what was lost in doing so.

Wednesday

Many years ago Alex and I lived together, and as he bought Sky and then Sky+, I remember complaining 'It makes life too easy'. I don't think I had much of an explanation as to why that was a bad thing. With the recent promotion of Sky+, and Virgin's alternative, I find myself feeling the same thing again. This time, however, I might have an explanation. Slavoj Zizek argues that such devices (like the VCR) take pleasure away from you, rather than give it to you, and I can't help agreeing with him. These are devices that make you more dependent, not more independent. Something is being taken away from you, not given to you. The plush, clean, sophisticated adverts for Sky+ with major celebrities recommending it, in some way dishearten me. They seem empty and vacuous, and I can't help thinking this is the type of life they are advocating also: a life where you no longer have to do anything, everything is done for you. The box will not only record the programs for you, it will watch them too, saving you time and effort.

[Part two of this post will appear tomorrow.]

Tuesday

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a movie. You might think I need to finish that sentence, but I don't think I do. It's a 'movie' movie, in the sense that Alien is a film and Aliens is a movie*. It doesn't pretend to be anything other than well-made good fun. Those are its own limits, and we shouldn't judge it by our own. Occasionally we have to say 'Its limits aren't high enough', or 'I don't like the limits it has set itself', but that is a different issue altogether. You can't not enjoy this movie in some way, and I don't think it relies on the previous two films for much of its effect. Although, I did want a little more nonchalant Indiana Jones escaping from near-death and smiling wryly about it. On the other hand, Cate Blanchett's character was a little too much comic-book. Also, several scenes were just a little too fantastic, even for Indiana Jones. You also have to ask more wide-ranging questions, such as: Is he an appropriate hero for the age we now live in? (The fear of terrorism, ecological disaster age? I'm not sure that he is.) I won't say whether you should or shouldn't see this film, it's just one of those that you either feel you have to or not, and that, in a way, has already decided how much you'll enjoy it.

*For more on this, see my previous post here.

Wednesday

There are three things you may have noticed. The first is that I stopped posting for a while and have now started again. The second is that the films I've posted about recently are different to those I usually watch. And the third is that there is a new feature to every post I make called 'Movie News'. This last addition is fairly self-explanatory. I don't want this to be a movie news website, but I thought there might be some readers who'd appreciate the headlines as to what's happening in Hollywood. The first two things I mentioned are related to me spending time with a new girlfriend, and inevitably having to 'compromise' (at least this is what she calls it) on my movie choices. My theory has always been, however, that if you don't watch bad films, you won't know what good ones are. Plus, as I've recently proved, you can find something interesting or surprising even in the worst movies.

Movie News: Iron Man tops the UK and US box office charts; a second movie is already probable.

Tuesday

I was surprised last night by a movie called Prime, starring Uma Thurman and Meryl Streep. You may not have even heard of it. I think its cinema release, in 2006, was muted (at least here in the UK). Inevitably it was billed as a 'chick-flick', but once again this categorisation is slightly off. Thurman plays a recently divorced woman in her late 30s who gets involved with a man only twenty-three years old. It sounds awful, I know. But there is an intelligent sensitivity about this film that impressed me. Yes, there is humour, but I wouldn't call this a comedy. Neither is it entirely a romance. It is at times quite mature and realistic in its outlook. It reminded me of the brilliant The Break-Up, or even the great Woody Allen films of the late 1970s. What was missing was a better actor to play the younger man, and a slightly better script. It needed a sharper edge to it, more humour, and less stereotyped characters. Overall, though, this was surprisingly enjoyable.

Movie News: Amy Winehouse may no longer be doing the new Bond theme tune.

Thursday

It is not without a certain amount of apprehension that a man such as myself sits down to see a movie called 27 dresses. Yes, I had seen trailers, and even read a brief review. I knew what I was letting myself in for. Katherine Heigl had been good in Knocked Up, but that was no reason to see every film she made. The film was written and directed by people who had had some success in the past, but nothing I had, or had wanted, to see. So, I sat down not expecting much, and I was right to do so. This is not a good film. But then you didn't really think I was going to say it was, did you? It was, however, fun in the light-hearted, candy-for-the-brain type way that such movies are. I did laugh, and I did get marginally involved with the dilemmas of the characters. Aside from a few original moments, however, the situations were so overworked and the 'I know how this will end' factor so ubiquitous, that I can't imagine the movie having any lasting value, even to those who like this kind of film. So, if your girlfriend wants you to go to the cinema this weekend, this is the best of your options.

Movie News: Cruise set to make fourth Mission: Impossible.

Wednesday

Three Westerns came out in the Autumn of last year - Seraphim Falls, 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. As you may be able to tell by my formatting of the titles, it was the former of these that I watched recently. I intended to see them all at the cinema, but somehow other films, and other things, got in the way. Now they're out on DVD, I'm going to attempt to make my way through them again. Strangely, this movie stars two Irish actors - Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan - in the main roles. I was impressed by the way this movie began, giving no back-story or explanation for what was happening: a group of five men hunting down another man. Indeed, it is not until the end of the film that things are explained (reminding me of Once Upon a Time in the West). But I don't even think that an explanation should be given. The film would do much better without the flashbacks. The director was lucky enough to work with two experienced actors who I'm sure could've portrayed and conveyed regret and anger over the past sufficiently without us needing to see slow-motion images of it. The meetings with people and communities along the journey become increasingly surreal as the film progresses, and this disturbed me. It took away the brutal, tough reality that the film began with. This is a classic sort of Western, similar to The Naked Spur, attempting to expose a moral, or question the notions of right and wrong, but I feel that it loses track of itself towards the end. They weren't brave enough with a conclusion, and I felt slightly unsatisfied. Overall, though, this is a compelling story, and the inclusion of Liam Neeson is always a reason to watch a film. We'll have to wait to see how it compares to the others.

Tuesday

Be Kind, Rewind is the latest film from Michel Gondry, director of Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep. I think the partnership of Jack Black and Mos Def works extremely well - one exaggerating scenarios as the other understates them. It's an intriguing idea - all the movies in a video shop are erased, forcing the two characters to re-enact them - but it does teeter on the edge of being a 'concept film', or, if you prefer, a 'one joke movie'. The humour and inventiveness of Gondry, however, as well as the performances of Black and Def keep you interested. A fascinating and seductive world is invented for you. The problem here, though, is the sentimental over-used Hollywood plot that runs behind the creativity. The video store is threatened with closure and destruction. The characters must do something to save it, and also the community. The conclusion is unsatisfactory, leaving many plot-lines unresolved, and trying to seduce us with a sickly sweet ending. This could have been a truly brilliant movie, especially if they tried to say more about creativity, copyright, and the current trend for sequels, franchises and reproductions in modern American cinema. Unfortunately, this remains just a sweet, light-hearted movie, but it will be interesting to see if Gondry can adapt his incredible creativity to tackle more serious themes in the future.

Thursday

I should preface my remarks on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street by saying that I have little patience for musicals. I went to see this movie, however, on the understanding that it was a very un-musical musical, and because it was directed by Tim Burton. He's a director that I initially liked, but have come to be suspicious of. Are any of his movies actually any good? Ed Wood, perhaps, is remarkable, but it stands as a rare example rather than a general trend. Anyway, this is a subsequent issue. The singing starts within about thirty seconds of this film beginning, and thus immediately I was on edge. Perhaps what irritates me is the singing of unspectacular lines. I don't mind songs at passionate, dramatic moments, when a character is in tension, but when a character sings 'I'm walking down the street', or something equally mundane, I am tempted to punch them. I was, however, gripped by the plot (this coming from a play by Christopher Bond), and tried to engage with the characters. The stage design, as always with Burton, looks far too artificial, and the speeding camera shots through the East-end streets were unnecessary, annoying, and failed to give the film the scope or size intended. It still felt like a series of solitary sets with nothing tying them together. The songs kept slowing the pace down. Towards the end, however, as the inevitable conclusion drew nearer, the film does pick up, and the finale is satisfyingly grim. The performance of Depp was appropriate, but he is hardly doing anything innovative here. Overall, what was interesting about this movie came from other sources. Of course it is well made and produced, but I don't think it is a good, lasting film, and it's been significantly over-praised in the media.

Wednesday

There Will be Blood is almost a masterpiece. Instead, it is just a very, very good film, which isn't a bad thing, of course. I hesitate to say what you would need to add or remove to make it better, but the answer has to be 'not much'. It is a remorselessly intelligent movie which treats its audience as intelligent. Someone told me P. T. Anderson is too contrived, but I think they have a different meaning of that word than me. The music sustains a grim mood, and the lack of sound effects and silence in horrific moments makes them even more horrifying. The humour at times seemed out of place, and this may have come from the book, but was missing in the rest of the film. Daniel Day Lewis, on screen for almost the entire film, puts in an amazing performance. At times, however, it felt too intense, too 'method', and the difference between this and his role in Gangs of New York seemed minor. The ending was perhaps the only major blemish, turning the film into a biography of the man, rather than a portrayal of part of his life. The brief flashback to happier times, and the last scene itself, felt out of touch with what had gone before. But these are minor complaints. This is easily one of the best films I've seen in a long time.

Wednesday

No Country For Old Men, or 'Old Country For No Men' as the people behind me in the ticket-queue called it, is a remarkable film. The Coen brothers return to the serious themes of some their earlier work (Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing), but with the twenty years of intervening experience added to it. They still retain some of their humour, but it comes from the characters themselves, rather than being contained in the style of the film. The plot is a little reminiscent of Fargo, but that is neither really their fault, nor a great problem. This movie is sombre and threatening with, to begin with at least, little dialogue, and little music that I noticed. For the majority of its length I thought it was superb, but the ending disturbed me. Not wanting to give too much away, but it seemed like a substantial character was dealt with unsubstantially. It felt as if perhaps they had suddenly had to condense a large part of the book to fit it into the film. I don't know. The conclusion itself caught me when I wasn't quite concentrating (such that I had to go find the novel in a bookstore and read the last pages), but perhaps it is a good thing that I can still be surprised by a movie. I did, however, feel strangely unsatisfied, despite this being I think a brilliant film.

Saturday

I never had any intention of watching About a Boy. I'd read High Fidelity when I was younger, and marginally enjoyed it, but it wasn't the kind of fiction I continued reading, or especially wanted to see adapted into movies. So, Hugh Grant in what seemed like another romantic comedy role trying to scrape the last bit of success out of the achievements of Four Weddings and a Funeral. Nonetheless, I somehow found myself with nothing else to watch last night, and decided to give the film a chance. Most reviews seemed to be 'better than you'd expect', which was encouraging. And, overall, I'd have to say it was better than I'd expected. This does not, however, mean it was good. The director simply wasn't brave enough with the material. The first thing to do is get rid of the voice-over narration. And this isn't a romantic comedy, it's been mis-advertised. Hugh Grant's relationship with Rachel Weisz takes about five minutes. The rest of the film is devoted to how he deals with the boy. Without the richness of a book, the film is unbalanced, and becomes bizarre. The ending isn't at all satisfactory or convincing. But I'm being too harsh. This wasn't a bad movie, it's just that it didn't make much of an attempt to rise above a standard that had been set eight years earlier.

Friday

I don't remember the cinema release of Double Jeopardy. I wouldn't be surprised if it went straight to video, at least in this country. It does have big stars, Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd, but I think the problems start with the title itself. When I heard it I thought 'I've seen that before', and that's a terrible thing for a movie title to do. It should excite and inspire you. When I started watching it, however, I realised I hadn't seen it before. The plot, though, felt familiar: a woman's husband dies and she is accused of the murder. She is sent to prison, only to discover that he isn't actually dead. The film tries to encompass too much. The woman spends six years in prison. This is too heavy an experience to drift over in two minutes with a montage (which they do). It would've been better to begin the film with her emerging from prison. Then we could engage with her better. This movie is really not much more than a TV film. It is interested more in story (which would be ok if the story was fascinating), rather than in a way of telling that story. It has a strange mixture of happy and grim moments. Perhaps the director's hand was forced by producers but, overall, there is no excuse for anyone making a movie like this.

Thursday

Identity is a well woven film. For the majority of its length the suspense is well maintained. I don't know anything about the plausibility of the psychological disorder shown here, but its treatment was entertaining and I guess that is the point (rather than a clinical analysis). Not wanting to give too much away, but the twist that comes half-way through the film is intriguing, and the one that comes three-quarters through is even more fascinating. However, I did feel it made the film slightly pointless. The characters you'd invested in turn out to mean nothing. This film is of course incredibly post-modern. It deconstructs the cliches of movies, whilst at the same time using and enjoying them. You can guess the final twist at the end if you're observant, but it doesn't really ruin the pleasure. This is good fun and entertaining, tightly knit and compact.

Wednesday

The ending of Woody Allen's Manhattan counts as perhaps some of the best five minutes in cinema. Suggested by Alex, David Cairns recently included it on his blog in his listing of euphoric cinematic moments. The sequence begins with Woody Allen listing the things that make life worth living. He lists actors, music, films, novels, works of art, food, and the face of the woman he loves. I have long thought that Allen's inspiration for this speech was the poem by W. B. Yeats 'Beautiful Lofty Things'. Here, Yeats, writing at the end of his life, lists moments that he'll never forget. Near the end he remembers the sight of the woman he loved, and wrote some of the best poetry ever written about. I don't know for sure that Allen was thinking of this poem whilst writing Manhattan, but for me the connection enriches the scene.

Tuesday

In a rare breach of security, the plot to the next Bond film has been leaked to the press. The movie is to begin with Bond on a mission that goes wrong. He is shot in the back, falls into the sea, and wakes several days later to find he has lost his memory. He then travels across Europe, trying to rediscover his identity, whilst being chased by the government that used to employ him, now attempting to stop him divulging their secrets. Ok, none of this is true, but the rumour is that the film may be based on Fleming's short story 'Risico'. It's also been suggested that it may in some way be a sequel to Casino Royale, rather than an entirely independent film. Marc Foster is directing, with Paul Haggis (writer/director of Crash) contributing to the screenplay. The title is being kept secret - didn't they used to reveal it in the credits of the previous film? - but some suspect it might be simply 007. It's due for release in November (was originally planned for May). I just hope they're not rushing its production, like a band who had a successful first album and hurry a second in order to exploit the opportunity.

Monday

I was given and have subsequently watched the Band of Brothers television series over Christmas. What did you think of it? Here, I believe, we have another example of television approaching, if not actually rivalling, cinema. Every episode is almost as good as a movie. Certainly the budget must have been, as the effects, the sets, the acting and the direction are all way above what even some films can't do. Certainly there is a sentimentalism here, almost a romance, which perhaps precludes aesthetic judgement (especially in episodes like 'Why we Fight'), but I actually think this series has less such effects in comparison to Saving Private Ryan - a movie you can almost see as its companion piece. In Saving Private Ryan there are slow motion shots, music changes to emphasise emotion, and generally more 'tricks' to lead the viewer to a more subjective viewing of the war. For instance, the film begins with the American flag flying in the wind. Band of Brothers is, moreover, based on true accounts, each episode being prefaced by the survivors talking about their experiences. There seemed to less explanation, or justification, of events or actions to the audience. Perhaps the last few episodes aren't as good as those that begin it, but undoubtedly I think Band of Brothers is a significant work of cinema.

Thursday

The third film of Quentin Tarantino is perhaps the least talked about and least appreciated. I don't remember ever seeing it at the cinema, it came out in 1998 here, but I do remember my expectations were high. This, of course, prejudices us greatly. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were so good. Jackie Brown, undoubtedly, isn't. The first thing to be said is that it's too long. Not that two and a half hours is too much, but it is too much at the pace that this movie runs. We don't get the casual violence that carries us through the earlier films, or the sharp dialogue that kept us amused. The music selection, too, isn't quite as good as it had been. Maybe we were expecting Tarantino to do something revolutionary again, when he actually went the other way and did something quite conservative. The most significant thing that I noticed, however, when I watched it last week, that I'd never noticed before, was that it was adapted from a novel. As you may know, I have suspicions about adapted movies, and I think they're confirmed here. Tarantino wasn't aggressive enough with the material. He added moments of his own dialogue and action, but I doubt he radically altered the plot. Kubrick was great at adapting novels, but on this aspect of directing it seems Tarantino has, so far, failed.