Frozen River

This if the first feature from writer and director Courtney Hunt, and was actually nominated for two Oscars last year (best actress and screenplay). Despite losing those, it won a string of other awards, and within a few minutes of this film it's not hard to see why. It follows a single mother in up-state New York, close to the Canadian border, who is desperately trying to scrape some money together to pay for a new house. It's a depressing, powerful film, brilliantly written, and perfectly acted. No one here is pretty, or rich, or lives in big houses. For some reason I think back to It's Complicated, and am astonished in the different values that produced each movie. It is a film, like any great work of art, that shows you a new world (or a new aspect to this world). This film shows you a side of America that you would never of thought of or understood. I say this as a European, but I'm going to guess few Americans know about it either. Indeed, the main character of the film stumbles into this world relatively innocent. The frozen river of the title refers to one on a native American reservation that allows them to traffic in illegal immigrants, a quick way of earning money that the mother becomes involved with. The story here is far more important than the form (no flashy cuts, no loud music), and the story is utterly compelling, told with subtlety and sensitivity. You should watch it after watching the latest Hollywood remake, and it might make you never want to watch another one.

Million Dollar Baby

I had avoided watching this film, for no reason that I can now think of. This ignorance, though, helped make the movie much more powerful for me than if I'd known the plot in advance. Yes, I knew that it was about Clint Eastwood's character training Hilary Swank's female boxer, but this is only the skeleton upon which the drama is built. Like every sports film, we inevitably have to sit through a training montage, watch an amateur attempt to perform like a professional, and have the plot revolve around what happens in the arena. However, this movie surpasses a lot of these clichés so that it is a point of contention whether to call it a 'sports film' at all. Hilary Swank is brilliant and believable as Maggie Fitzgerald, and she won an Oscar for her efforts. I was a little disappointed by Eastwood and Morgan Freeman, who seemed fairly lacklustre (and actually hard to hear they spoke in such gravelly voices, as if they trying to out-do each other), although one of them won an Oscar too. It could be said that the film is nastily contrived to produce tears, or that the voice over is unnecessary and sentimental, but these are arguable flaws. It is undoubtedly a powerful drama, played fairly straight, and days later it will catch you again, and make you pause for thought. If that isn't a sign of a good film, I don't like good films.

Alien: Resurrection

Seeing as I'd watched Alien 3 recently, I thought it was a good opportunity to watch the fourth film in the quadrilogy again (the correct word is actually 'tetralogy', but no one uses that). I've actually always liked this film, although when you compare it to the first two movies, and ask whether it successfully continues the franchise, you have to be disappointed. They are really scraping the barrel here. Ripley (along with the aliens) is quite conveniently resurrected. Her character bears almost no resemblance to the interesting figure of the first two films, though. She is now 'part alien'. There is no longer any attempt to slowly introduce the aliens, to terrify us with them again. Instead, the film gives us a series of fairly gruesome and complicated deaths, but we've pretty much seen it all before. There's only so many ways an alien can sneak up on someone and kill them. This film was written by Joss Whedon and directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, however, which must account for the bits of originality that are here, and the sense of humour involved. There is a slightly annoying comic book look to the film, which I can assume comes from Jeunet. Watch out for the underwater scene, which is about as contrived as you can get, trying desperately to show us the aliens in a new light. This film is good fun, despite some bad acting by Winona Ryder, but when you compare it to its predecessors, which inevitably you have to, you can't help but feel that this was an empty exercise.

Leprechaun

A film from the early 1990s to consider today. Not exactly a classic, but it has generated some sort of cult, incredibly spawning five sequels, perhaps because it marks the first film performance by Jennifer Aniston, although we can't give all of the credit to her. It is a terrible movie by most standards, but we have to see past that if we want to understand why some people like it. There's no doubt that it's funny, for instance. It's in fact so funny that you have to categorise this as a 'comedy-horror', rather than a 'horror'. You can't take the Leprechaun seriously for more than about two minutes of this movie, and it's not helped by the bad acting. They could've held back his appearance to build up a bit of tension. Aside from one scene with a pogo stick, he's not frightening at all. His almost OCD-like compulsion to clean shoes is hilarious. Overall, there is little to no character development. Everything is rushed through from one action scene to the text, with a hashed attempt at mythology trying to mesh it all together. The only answer to the conundrum of its popularity is that people must like it because it's so bad, and because Aniston is attractive (and pre-nose job). For a true masterpiece in the 'comedy-horror' genre, you have to see Tremors.

Star Trek

Perhaps the hardest of all franchises for a new director to find his identity within is Star Trek. There have been eleven films and five different television series (let's not forget video games, novels and even an animated show). This is what J. J. Abrams had to contend with, and it has to be said he's done a good job. He did what is known as a 'reboot', but in a particularly effective way that can't be copied in any other genre (any fictional universe that can make use of time travel has the greatest deus ex machina available). As soon as you begin to think 'this didn't happen in the original show', you realise that's exactly the point of the film.We see Kirk and his crew grow up, meet each other, and have their first adventures on the Enterprise in an entirely new context. Indeed, this film in a way cancels out all the films that have gone before it. There are a few cheap moments that rely on our preconceptions about the characters, but this was probably inevitable. Overall, though, I in fact felt that the main plot-line to stop the Romulan ship at many points overshadowed the more interesting stories of who Kirk and his crew were etc. There were also a fair few plot holes and very convenient coincidences, some typical of actions films, but some just lazy writing. I have to say a word about the re-enactments the actors attempted. There seemed to be two different approaches: some tried to copy the  original actor, others gave a new reading of the character. In the first group, I felt Scotty and Chekov were quite awful, but Bones and Spock very good. Kirk and Uhura fall into the second group, and I think they both succeeded. Chris Pine is Kirk, but without imitating William Shatner, which is a very hard thing to pull off. It is though, as I said at the beginning, a very tough thing for all involved to be a part of, and they actually managed produced an enjoyable film which without a doubt can be described as a 'roller-coaster'. I wonder what original Star Trek fans made of it.

Moon

There is surprisingly little to say about this film, except that it is virtually a masterpiece. It falls short because of its small scale (and perhaps because it's not by a 'master'), which is not its fault. It is without a doubt a masterpiece of a small scale drama (compare Drag Me To Hell). The dialogue is pitch-perfect, the music great, and Sam Rockwell brilliant. It doesn't tell you anything you can't figure out for yourself. It's an excellently conceived and complete concept. I can't tell you much more about it without ruining it for you (so if you haven't seen it I suggest you stop reading). Created and directed by Duncan Jones (the son of David Bowie, if that matters), there are now high hopes for what he'll do next. The film raises in a new context fundamental questions about our identity, our memory, and our individuality. You can't help believe in the life Sam Rockwell's character remembers, and you can't help wanting him to go back to Earth, despite him never having been there. This alone is a fascinating dilemma. The final interaction between him and the robot 'Gerty' is perfect. There are virtually no negative points I can make about this movie. The voice-overs at the end were a bit of a cheap trick, but perhaps necessary. Otherwise, along with The Hurt Locker, this is one of my favourite films of the year.

Drag Me To Hell

I have to admit to being disappointed in this film, but I think this might be because of false advertising, rather than any particular failings. I was led to believe it was one of the most terrifying movies ever made, but found it actually more funny than frightening. There were a fair few jumpy moments, but nothing out of the ordinary. Instead, this film succeeds as a small-scale, classic horror, with a good premise well executed. Although the initial insult and curse didn't convince me enough, and I would've liked to see more definition in the progression of the curse itself, this is still great fun. Apparently Sam Raimi planned this film more than ten years ago (before Spider-Man). Could he have been influenced by The Ring? There are a lot of similarities, and that remains the better film. Some of the plot turns here just aren't worked out well enough. Although I believe in subtlety, we need clearer signals in a film like this. Conversely, you can see the final twist of the film coming a mile off. This makes about ten minutes of the movie pretty redundant, which is a shame. It's a movie that is just slight off being very good. Perhaps the production was rushed, or perhaps it was pushed through too quickly due to Raimi's success with Spider-Man. Would a less influential director have worked harder to make sure every element of this film worked? As an interesting comparison, tomorrow I review Moon.