Tuesday

I've found out two more reasons for you to go to see The Bourne Ultimatum when it comes out this week: firstly, it's directed by Paul Greengrass which, admittedly, you may have known already, but I didn't. He's the man who directed United 93, and also strangely the TV dramas The One That Got Away (about the SAS during the first Iraq war, which I remember liking) and Bloody Sunday. The second reason to see the film is that, although he isn't credited, Tom Stoppard apparently did three months of re-writes on the script. So, it sounds promising. The dilemma is, of course, that there's no longer much motive in the franchise - his girlfriend is dead and he killed the man directly responsible. I'm assuming now he's going after men higher up in the organisation, but they need to bring fresh motive and drive to the character, otherwise audiences may be a bit bored. When the first Bourne movie came out the stylistics were fresh and exciting, but now everyone is doing it (including Bond) they really need to raise their game again. Also, the news is that Matt Damon isn't interested in a fourth film.

Monday

If I were to offer you a choice of either cake or death, it's probable you'd choose cake. However, if I offered you Failure to Launch or death, you may end up opting for the latter. But hang on. You might actually enjoy this film. A thirty-five year old man (Matthew McConaughey) still lives with his parents, and so his parents hire a woman (Sarah Jessica Parker) to lure him away into independence. As you can already tell, this sounds a little more bizarre than your average rom-com, treading the murky ground between comedy and legal prostitution. And this is, essentially, where it remains. The movie doesn't fit together, or gel, as a whole commercial package. The lead stars have no chemistry, McConaughey is generally annoying, and the minor characters fit too easily into bad stereotypes. But I did laugh, and I was intrigued by the strange dilemma they found themselves in when (of course) they started falling in love. And there are also at least three genuinely compelling scenes as the film switches briefly into unhappiness (before the happy ending) where the serious performances of Kathy Bates and McConaughey work well. The problem is, though, that strangeness of tone. Mind you, I haven't laughed much harder recently than at the scene between Sarah Jessica Parker and Ben Falcone (Howard in Joey).

Sunday

There is one sequence from a film that has always puzzled and intrigued me - and I was reminded of it by the extract from David Mamet's book published in today's paper. It's from the movie Contact: a girl runs towards the camera, and the camera pulls away at an equal speed. She ascends some stairs, sprints down a corridor and then appears to reach past the camera. The picture of the girl then appears to open outwards - we realise we are looking at a reflection of her from the mirror of a bathroom cabinet. We (or the camera) are now behind the girl seeing her reach into the cabinet for some medicines. Perhaps I haven't described it well - you can try to find a clip online, I couldn't - but you should get a sense of the impossibility of it. Wherever they can, filmmakers try to avoid mirrors. So how did they do it? Apparently the mirror was a blue-screen. They filmed the running sequence, then played it onto the blue-screen in post-production. The one problem with this amazing effect, however, is that it isn't entirely relevant to the film. It seems to have been done just because they could, not because it revealed or emphasised the tone or message of the movie. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is still astounding every time I see it. A good filmmaker is also a magician.

Saturday

You may have heard of the film coming out this week called Waitress. Its release is strangely muted. Having seen the trailer I can tell you it appears to follow fairly conventional lines. An independent woman is struggling in a marriage, finds out she's pregnant, and then falls in love with her doctor. She works in a diner and has several feisty female friends. The most original element of the film seems to be that she makes exceptional pies and gives them ironic titles, such as 'I want to have an affair but the bond of marriage is too sacred for me Pie'. So, as you are sensing, this all sounds schmaltzy and cutesy and annoying. What is giving it more than usual, and strangely muted, press is that its writer, director, and actress, Adrienne Shelley, was murdered in her home by an intruder after making it. Undoubtedly people will see this movie because of this added sadness, or tragedy, or poignancy, and some will try to see the film independent of the facts of its creator. They are now, however, intimately bound up with one another. Is this wrong, or right? The reviewer in The Sunday Times today was exceptionally critical towards the film - and I felt he was being heartless, but was he? Perhaps its better than praising a flawed movie just because of the young death of its director.

Friday

In this week's irregular weekly feature in which I think of possible weekly features or additions to this site: I might want to have an alphabetical list of all the films I've reviewed, with links to the reviews (obviously). Is this possible, and how would I do it? The problem is that some (if not many) of my reviews have been quite scrappy, and sometimes associated only with a particular aspect of the movie, rather than a general appraisal. Regardless of this, I think it might be useful to someone (perhaps only me) that there was a list somewhere of every film I've talked about in some way. Of course, you can just search my blog for the title you want using the box above, but somehow that doesn't feel the same. Any ideas?

Thursday

On Tuesday I casually mentioned Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. I imagine, upon hearing this title, some of you may have thought: 'what the freak?'. It's a film starring Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Giovanni Ribisi (Phoebe's crazy brother in Friends, and now Earl's crazy friend in My Name is Earl), Michael Gambon and Laurence Olivier, and it came out in 2004. I don't remember it in the cinemas, but for some reason I bought it on video (note: video, not DVD). It's a trifle odd. I'll watch it again this week and review it properly for you.

Also, after talking about Down with Love on Tuesday I have belatedly looked up its director: Peyton Reed. His other films have been Bring It On and The Break-Up. So, it seems he's an interesting, slightly unconventional filmmaker. His next film, already in production, is going to be an adaptation of Danny Wallace's book Yes Man, starring Jim Carrey. I don't know about you, but this sounds brilliant.

And lastly, from yesterday, what was the film which sounds good but whose star I don't like? It's The Hoax, starring Richard Gere. Hopefully I'll see it next week, although Rush Hour 3 is out...

Wednesday

Yesterday I had to choose between seeing a film that looks good but whose star I don't like, or a film that looks bad but whose star I do like. For some reason, I chose the latter: Sherrybaby, starring Maggie Gyllenhaal. There seemed to be two types of audience member: women who had come along for a warming story of a single mother's struggle, and lonely men who had come to see Gyllenhaal naked. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. It's a reasonably compelling character study of a woman released from jail trying to re-engage with her daughter, despite the reluctance of her brother and sister-in-law who now look after her, with at least one interesting twist. The performance of Gyllenhaal was excellent, but I also thought that of the daughter was exceptional too - very natural for a kid her age. Sherry is a fairly wretched character, who you don't believe should be allowed to look after the daughter, and I was glad that the ending wasn't sentimentally happy - it's a good conclusion, half-hopeful, and I think some audience members thought 'what? that's it?' at the end. Overall, though, the movie didn't go much deeper than the surface, and glossed over things that needed more emphasis. Some critics have said it feels like a TV movie, and I can see what they mean, but that's a bit unfair. It is much better than that, but it did need a more profound script. As it was, it felt fairly empty, but is definitely worth watching for fans of the brilliant Gyllenhaal.