BROOKLYN'S FINEST (2009)

Brooklyn's Finest is a funny type of film. It's very well done, there's no doubt about that, but then you would expect that with Antoine Fuqua in charge, director of the hugely successful Training Day. It's polished, shot in a similar way to that film, shaky camera work, grey colour palettes, bloody violence pulled off with aplomb - it has all the hallmarks of a film made by an accomplished film maker who knows what he's up to and is confident in his own ability.



It's got a good cast as well. Richard Gere, Don Cheadle and Ethan Hawke, with a little treat in the form of Wesley Snipes before he was put in the slammer for tax misdemeanours. They all do a good job, very watchable with plenty for them to play with. Set as tensions between police and drug gangs escalate, Gere is the old street cop 7 days from retirement, made to take rookies out on the street and bed them in as the horror of a war unfolds, Cheadle is undercover, fighting the battle from within, fully immersed in the gang world while Hawke is the cop straying into criminality, stealing drug money from police raids to try and support his family. All characters that we have seen before in 101 other movies and television series over the years.

And that is essentially the problem with the film. It's all been done before. We've all seen the story where the boundaries between the good guys and the bad guys blur, everyone has seen a film before where an undercover cop loses a grip on what he is meant to be doing and there is certainly nothing new about an old do-gooder bobbie on the beat losing faith in the job. Plagiarism isn't the main problem though, many great films have taken on elements from and been influenced by other stories, whether it's movies, TV or books, but if you are going to use a set-up as familiar as this, you must attempt to do something fresh with it. Fuqua and writer Michael C Martin does not. He appears to think that because we are so up to speed on these types of characters, that he doesn't need to flesh them out and build them up. We should already know their motivations.

We are given scenes where back story is shown, Hawke's family, growing now because of twins, are shown in poverty, Cheadle misses his old life and begs his boss to be taken off the case, while Gere muses to himself and a prostitute that he visits. It's all paint by numbers story telling and very much there for the sake of it. It doesn't help us to sympathise or connect with the characters, I was never fully taken in.

Once we get to the end, which, to be fair, is not as predictable as I was expecting and therefore far more enjoyable, I didn't really care what happened to the three leads. It was clearly meant to be an emotional conclusion that would shock and upset the viewer, but the detachment continued and, as I did for the entire film, felt at a distance from the proceedings. I should really have been immersed.

Watchable, but no more than that. This is definitely not Brooklyn's finest.

EXAM (2009)

Exam is a perfect example of the vast distance, a chasm in fact, between a good idea and a good film. It's proof of how a good writer, a good director and a good cast are all vital to turning a brainwave into a memorable piece of cinema.

Simon Garrity (writer) and Stuart Hazledine (directing and writing credits) must have thought they had come up with a nugget of gold, the idea of 8 strangers applying for the same role in a mysterious company, locked in a room taking an exam at the same time. When it comes to the start, they turn their papers over only to be greeted with a completely blank sheet.....The rules don't prohibit the candidates from talking so they begin to co-operate to try and understand the problem that they must solve. It's kind of like The Apprentice meets the first Saw film, with a sprinkling of an automatic lock-in game from the Crystal Maze.



I had heard interesting things and I must admit as the beginning unwound I was intrigued. How could you not be? The trouble is, the suspense lasts about as long as I would do in front of Alan Sugar. The fault of this lies in the first instance with the acting. With the exception of Jimi Mistry (who we know from East is East, 2012 and Rocknrolla), the cast is made up of TV actors and those who have had tiny parts in not very good films. That isn't to say that they aren't going to be talented, they may not have had their big break, but none of them have enough in their locker (including Mistry) to make the opening stages of the film interesting, scenes that rely on the characters not doing much, just talking and gradually coming under psychological pressures. Wooden acting isn't good enough when the people on screen are holding papers up to different types of light. Firth and Franco would probably struggle to keep that interesting.

The acting doesn't pick up either, but then that doesn't really matter as Garrity and Hazledine try to go up a couple of gears and make things interesting. It's as you would expect, factions emerge, tempers fray. Then the plot gets daft. Bits of info about the organisation start to come out and it begins to veer towards  silly science fiction, and not in a good way.

It's not a long film, so I wasn't really bored, as I was keen to know what the mystery was, what clever twists did the movie have in store? I was also telling myself (as my girlfriend yawned and fidgeted next to me, not hiding her boredom from me one little bit) that films like this often hinge on their ending, so I was holding hope of an emphatic denouement.

I should have known better. It was messy, anti-climatic, stupid (despite thinking it's clever) and, somehow, pretentious. I felt wholly unsatisfied by the whole thing, just like this year's Apprentice final in fact. Come to think of it, I have no doubt that Stuart Baggs would reign victorious if he was one of the candidates in this film.

So, next time you're day dreaming at work and you think you've come up with a good idea for a movie, stop, think long and hard, because, judging by this film, it needs to be a lot more than that.

SOUL MEN (2008)

A review that I've written for www.film-news.co.uk

http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Soul-Men&nItemID=250

BLACK SWAN (2010)

I signed up for my Curzon membership in New Year's Day and since then I've been spoilt by the offerings released during January. First The King's Speech, then 127 Hours and now Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan. Rarely do films live up to the hype quite as much as these three, but to have them all released within a fortnight of each other is incredible.



Thought of as a female companion piece to his last film The Wrestler, Black Swan is also the moment where Natalie Portman really steps up a level. Sure she has been in great films and impressed before, but this is a hell of a performance. At the beginning of the film, her Nina is a introverted, overly controlled, almost cowardly dancer who strives for perfection. The dancing is her personality, the be all and end all, nothing else. Portman is a big screen presence but she seems to almost shrink herself during the opening scenes. Her fragility is very convincing and makes her transformation and what comes after even more impressive.

Once she is cast as the Swan Queen in a huge production of Swan Lake the film really gets going. She is told by the sexual predatory artistic director of the production, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) that she must find the Black Swan within her in order to really make the part her own. What follows is a transformation in Nina's character that is at times terrifying, which tests her sanity leaving her constantly questioning what is reality. The duelling personalities and disturbing visions give Portman plenty to get her teeth into and she really excels. The story of the film has parallels to the story of Swan Lake and it very cleverly refers to the story in a lot of the developments.

The world of ballet gives Aronofsky a fantastic canvas to spread his genius across. Rivalry and insecurities are rife in a cut throat world that make it all the more believable that Nina's situation is as serious as a matter of life and death. The main rival (well apart from herself) is Lily, played by Mila Kunis, last seen being as exciting as scenery in The Book of Eli. She is much better on this occasion though, being everything that Nina is not. Confident, unpredictable, impulsive. She acts as the embodiment of the Black Swan that Nina must find in herself, only causing Nina to be even more unsure of herself.

My description so far makes it seem a little like a normal sport-type film, much like the wrestler in fact. Girl wants to succeed but must overcome barriers, blah, blah, blah. However, while The Wrestler is all gritty realism, and to be fair Black Swan does start very much grounded in reality, this film quickly takes a shift into fantasy - dream-like (well more nightmare-like) sequences represent Nina's sanity unravelling. And who better to handle these trips than Aronofsky? There are fantastic moments, involving mirrors, drug-induced visions, some are genuinely terrifying and jumpy, with some quite brutal violence thrown in for good measure. In fact at times it does resemble a horror film and is all the better for it.

Aronofsky also pays a lot attention to the detail of the dancing itself. You see muscles flexing under pressure, you hear bones and toes creak - I was really left under no illusion as to the strain these dancers put on their body. He also manages to put you in the thick of it, the camera twirls with the dancers, almost choreographed itself, the intensity of the performance passed onto the viewer. It's important that special mention goes to Portman's dancing. I've heard that she went through some very intense training, which included a broken rib, to make the performance scenes completely convincing, but it's all worth it as when she is dancing it's beautiful to watch. I'm almost tempted to go to the ballet......

The supporting cast are a mixed bag. Barbara Hersey is very good as Nina's overly controlling and pushy mother, adding to the claustrophobia of Nina's situation. Vincent Cassel does what he is asked to do well, but much of his dialogue is pervy innuendo, a bit Carry On Plie. It's good to see Winona Ryder back in something more fitting to her talent as a bitter, has-been performer. She gets possibly the scariest and most brutal scene which is still sitcking with me now 36 hours later.

Go and see it, I urge you. From the trailer you wouldn't expect it to be one that must be seen at the cinema, but I'm telling you it benefits hugely from the big screen. It won't be what you expect either, you are taken on a ride that you do not want to end. It's an epic piece of film-making, by a creative film-maker with a absolutely first class central performance. Much like 127 Hours then, and if it were up to me, the Best Director Oscar would be a two horse race between Aronofsky and Boyle.

HOWARD THE DUCK (1986)

This film generally creates two reactions in people when you mention it. For people who haven't seen it, or even heard of it, those three words, Howard The Duck, cause a look of bewilderment and a suspicion that you are having them on. 'What on Earth are you on about?'. For the majority of those who have seen it, particularly in their younger years during the 80's, talking about the film sparks smiles and enthusiastic recollections of their favourite bits. I am firmly ensconced in the latter category, and a couple of Friday nights ago I managed to bully the girlfriend into watching it with me.

Trips down the cinematic memory lane can often be a dangerous thing, which I found recently as I relived The Griswald's holiday in National Lampoon's Vacation, but with the webbed-footed hero here, I was surely in safer hands...?



Based on a Marvel Comic, Howard is an ordinary, all be it very sarcastic, duck (if ordinary means talking and the size of a 10 year old) minding his own business on his egg-shaped planet when he is beamed from his armchair to an American back alley. Desperate to get back home he becomes a reluctant hero as he has to save the planet from some monsters from out of space. It all sounds like a load of hokum, and to be honest, it is.  However,  there is still a lot of fun to be had with it.

There's some good laughs there, the writers have a lot of fun at the beginning on Howard's home planet, with some nice satire and Duck equivalents of things that we have here on planet earth. A mallard-related Indy type film poster is one example and a duck porn mag. The other thing that generates chuckles is Howard himself, played by midgets/dwarfs, and voiced by Chip Zien. In fact for years I was convinced that it was the voice of Richard Dreyfuss, I thought he sounded just like him. Ironically, watching it again, Howard himself reminds me of Dreyfuss' Hooper in Jaws.  All one-liners and put downs. It's the source of a lot of the positives and has a lot to do with holding the film together (just). To have what is essentially a normal, grumpy bloke (as a duck) as the central character helps to ground the story, which as I have already established is a load of nonsense.

There are a two very decent actors in this as well as our feathered friend though. Tim Robbins came from his role in Top Gun to this and never looked back from there. He revels in the role as lab assistant Phil, all nerdy and dopey. Then we have Lea Thompson, the 'love' interest. Back to the Future, Space Camp, then Howard. Other than the Back to the Future sequels, her career never took off. Which is a shame because she is more than a decent actress. Both her and Robbins do well bearing in mind that they are acting with a little bloke in a duck suit with an animatronic head. Some of the banter and dialogue between the three is very funny so credit to the two of them where credit is due.

The jokes do miss as often as they hit though. At one point there is a montage of Howard getting a job in a massage parlour. What could have been a good chance for an amusing set up involving a talking duck in the workplace, is instead a tired and unfunny sequence where we are treated to slapstick and people being pushed in mud. Lazy.

There is also an odd sub-text that alludes to the potential for...er....cross-species relations. It feels a little strange, weirded the girlfriend out actually, but it suggests a desire from the writers and directors and George Lucas (Executive producer) to make a bit more of an edgier film that it actually is. It doesn't sit right tonally with the rest of the film that is clearly pitched as an action comedy adventure for the family.

The action and adventure part of the film is perfectly good. Chases and, now dated, special effects handled in adequate style by Willard Huyck . It's all good fun and pushes along at a healthy pace until it's conclusion, which, I have to admit, was a little bit more emotional than I remember it being.....perhaps my 20 year relationship with Howard, even with a 7 or so year separation, means more to me that I thought.

So how did it compare to my memory? Well it's a mess, there's no doubt about that - It's all over the place. But there is enough humour and charm in there, with decent action set-pieces to ensure that it's all good fun. Not quite harmless fun though with the almost sex scene.....How did I brush over that when I was 10?

CRAZY HEART (2009)

Jeff Bridges' turn as Bad Blake, washed out, alcoholic country singer was the one that finally got him his Oscar. He'd been nominated before of course, once as leading man for Starman in 1984 and three other occasions for supporting roles, but this was the one that got him his little statuette. Critics and punters alike raved about him and the film when it was out, but I never got around to seeing it. As a Bridges fan, I should have ventured to a multiplex, and let's be honest if I really wanted to see it, I would have made the time, but for some reason it didn't scream out at me as a film I couldn't miss.

Months later, long after the hype had subsided and Bridge's victory speech was but a distant memory, the DVD came through the post from Lovefilm, and that night my girlfriend and I watched it, knowing that we were about to see an acclaimed and celebrated piece of cinema.



Whatever that nagging feeling was all those months ago, chipping away at me, suggesting that Crazy Heart might not be all it's cracked up to be, must be related to Mystic Meg, because come the end credits, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. And I wasn't the only one either, the girlfriend had the same empty, nonplussed feeling..

It may be down to the hype and constant praise and that it would never be able to live up to that level of hoopla, but I was oddly detached from the whole thing. The film itself felt very safe. The direction was not particularly adventurous, solid enough with the occasional beautiful scene of dusty American country, but to me, I could tell it's the work of a first time director (Scott Cooper) perhaps more concerned with not wanting to put a foot wrong than anything else. Also, for a film about an alcoholic, and one we're not meant to sympathise with for some of the story, it just isn't edgy enough. It smacked a little of a TV movie, alluding to grown up and disturbing themes rather than portraying them and predictable, never once straying from what I expected.

Another thing I wasn't particularly impressed with was Bridges' performance. He was good, but then he is good in everything he does, he just didn't WOW me. It was a very monotone performance, not in a dull way, it just felt like a constant tone. Blake's character doesn't call for a Pacino type shouting and arm-waving, but to me Bridges was at the same emotional level no matter what Blake's state. I'm not arguing with Bridges' idea on how the character should be pitched, I just believe that they way he chose to do it built a barrier between me and the film. Perhaps he was trying to build barriers with the other characters, I'm not sure, it just didn't work for me. I think back to other Bridges films and I can't help but feel he has been better elsewhere. If you ask me he was better in Arlington Road than in this. I saw this in the same week as I saw The King's Speech and 127 Hours and it's telling just how little Bridges' did for me in comparison to Franco, Firth and Rush.

Maggie Gyllenhaal was also nominated (best supporting actress) for her role as Jean Craddock, Blake's love interest. I was much more impressed with her, but it brings me to another problem with the film. The central relationship. I just didn't believe in it. I wasn't sure how she could fall for this past it country singer who can't stay sober. If i can't get past that, the whole thing is going to be an uphill struggle.

Colin Farrell turns up unexpectedly as Tommy Sweet, Blake's younger more successful rival. He is decent, but the role seems pointless. He pops in, it seems as though he might be integral to the plot, then disappears completely, before showing his face at the end but with no real purpose. Nice to see Robert Duvall too, all be it very underused.

The soundtrack is sublime though. Bridges and Farrell both singing their own songs, some of the music was utterly enchanting and, at times, heartbreakingly melancholic and has stayed with me long after watching it. That'll be a definite purchase.

So it's decent, but nothing more than that. It feels worse than it actually is though because it fell so far from the heady heights of all the hype that surrounded it.

Summed up best by a mate of mine - 'The Wrestler with country music'.

127 HOURS (2010)

There is no doubt that the story of Aron Ralston and his extraordinary will to survive is a remarkable one, but the fact that Danny Boyle has managed to make such a remarkable film of such a solitary, isolated, personal event is a tribute to his talents.

Boyle could have had his pick of films after the huge success of Slumdog Millionaire, in fact I'm sure he was offered a whole host of projects from various studios and producers, but he followed it up with this tale of a mountain climber, trapped in a narrow crevice when a boulder falls on his arm. It seems ideally suited to a documentary, echoing Touching The Void, especially when you consider that Ralston himself filmed footage of his ordeal on a handheld video camera, but Boyle saw something in it that no one else would have.



There are two stars to the film. The first being Boyle's direction. In a film about an adrenaline-junkie, he ramps up the visuals, starting in a similarly high-octane fashion, thumping music, energetic camerawork as we follow Ralston through his preparation for a trip to the remote canyons where he seeks his thrills. It suits perfectly to the character, I wasn't given time to catch my breath. These impacting, relentless start is made all the more effective when the accident occurs and Ralston if left helpless. No noise, simple shots of his face, I was, along with our protagonist, brought swiftly down to earth.

That is where we are forced to stay for the rest of the film. Boyle again treats us to his creativity behind the camera. Fast, hurried cuts, the camera, and the viewer, is taken on a journey, at times inside a water bottle, inside his arm, at others flying high above the canyon highlighting the isolation and the gravity of Ralston's plight. They are flashy tricks, but they are far from style over substance. In some films these tricks can put a distance between what is on-screen and the viewer, but in this case I was drawn in further, become embroiled in the intensity. No escape.

As time wears on, Ralston's condition worsens and the dehydration takes hold of his sanity. This gives Boyle license to take us on beautiful flashbacks and subject us to trippy visions, leaving me to question what is real and what is not. I really felt as though I was living the ordeal with Ralston.

It's also worth mentioning the sound. It seems as though the volume has been turned up to 11, you hear every crack of rock, every breath, every bit of wildlife. Again it puts us in Ralston's shoes, it's inevitable that he would hear any sound in the hope that it was help on it's way.

The other star is James Franco, who plays Ralston. It's been clear for some time that he is a very talented actor, but this really is a performance where people will take notice. The whole film hangs on him and how convincing his depiction is. He is utterly believable as the thrill-seeker at the beginning of the film, all pumped up arrogance and selfishness, he thinks he has it all sussed. However, it's when he is between a rock and a hard place (see what I've done there) when he is really impressive. His transition from disbelief to will to survive at all costs, via descent into insanity and hopelessness is incredible. I was hanging on every facial movement, every grimace, every word muttered to himself. Some might thing that Boyle's insistence on using widgets and fancy camera angles is a signal of a lack of confidence in his leading man. Far from it. Boyle's visual flair compliments Franco's astonishing display. I have had the pleasure of seeing three great actors at the peak of their powers in one week. Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and now James Franco. I love awards season.

If there is one minor criticism, it's that we all know what happens at the end, it means that you aren't really, deep down, terrified of what is going to happen. Plus because you know what he does in order to survive, you inevitably are waiting for that to happen. Having said that, it doesn't detract from the intensity of the experience and the zippy style and 90 minute running time meant that I was never bored for one second.

Boyle has created a film that is harrowing ('The' scene is very graphic and not for the faint-hearted) at times, but ultimately one of the most uplifting and inspirational films in recent years. He even gets away with a slightly cheesy final frame as I recovered from the tear-jerking finale. I'm desperate to know what his next project will be.

This film rocks.

THE KING'S SPEECH (2010)

Oscars. That's what everyone is saying whenever this film is brought up. Some are even saying its a sure fire winner, playing the Royal Card - the Yanks love a film about the Royal family. I've had some bad experiences over the years though when seeing films that have Oscar hopes (Titanic for example), so I wasn't sure how this would sit with me.......

So I made my way down to the lunchtime showing at the Richmond Curzon (staggeringly good value at £5 per ticket with my membership) to see what all the fuss is about.



I can tell you that they are all spot on. And the some. Everyone who says this film is great, every critic who says Colin Firth is brilliant in this, every punter on the street who says it moved them to tears throughout, they're all right. The truth is that all the hype still didn't prepare me for how good this film is.

At the centre of it are two mesmerising performances, Colin Firth as George VI (getting the majority of the plaudits) and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue, a speech therapist enlisted to help the Duke of York overcome a debilitating stammer. Firth's George is riddled with insecurities, deeply introverted with a lack of confidence that stems from his condition. His depiction of a stammerer is so convincing, it's incredible, with it only really surfacing when nervous and under pressure. Whilst relaxed with family, it barely surfaces - a nice touch that adds to the teetering, fragile personality of George.  Logue is the opposite. Charming, sure of himself, over familiar with his regal patient. Their evolving relationship is very much at the heart of the film, the historically significant issues of war and abdication become subplots as the friendship blossoms and the future king becomes more dependant on Logue (similar in this respect to the director Tom Hooper's last film, The Damned United with Brian Clough and Peter Taylor's relationship being vital). It's an absolute pleasure to see two such fine actors up against each other in so many scenes, at times battling each other, at others complimenting one another. A real masterclass. Like Federer v Nadal.

The two leads are supported more than ably by a stellar cast that help push the film into the 'special' realm. Helena Bonham-Carter (a joy to see her in something that isn't either a Potter film or directed by her husband) is great as George's wife Elizabeth (who many would know as the Queen Mother). She is a pillar of strength to her husband's vulnerability but is also mischievous with a cheeky sense of humour. You can tell from her looks at George that she is really in love with him and every stammer that he makes is like a jolt of pain on a nerve to her. Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII is perfectly suited as the playboy King (dare one suggest that he is a possibility of what might occur if Prince Harry was made up). Michael Gambon is excellent in his few scenes as George V, throwing gravitas around as King and father. Timothy Spall turns in brilliant show as Winton Churchill, all be it a slightly hammed up version. Derek Jacobi as the Archbishop, conservative and straight, but compelling with it. It just goes on and on. On paper the strength in depth of the cast is astounding but on screen it's ten times better.

The tone of the film was far from what I expected as well. The subject and the cast would suggest a typical British period piece, perhaps suited to the small screen better, however we are treated to a proper cinematic film. Tom Hooper really makes this feel like a proper film and has not let normal expectations hold him back. Sweeping montages, epic camera shots, moody London streets. Special mention must go to how he shows how daunting the prospect of public speaking is to George VI - a first person view where spectators and crowds seem huge, towering over the microphone at the forefront of the screen. You are with George, and you too are overawed.

It's a comedy too. Not in a Jane Austen, chortle kind of way, but proper comedy. There are some hilarious moments of banter between George VI and Logue, confident one liners from the latter, self-deprecating humour from the former. There are some nice, subtle jokes about out of touch Royals, Elizabeth trying to figure out how to use a lift for example, and  Hooper and the writer David Seidler (barely a noticeable credit to his name before this) get real mileage out of the remarkable situation, the King being so dependant on an average speech therapist.

For every laugh though, there is a lump in the throat. It's not just a touching finale, as is so often the case these days. I honestly can't remember the last time that I was so moved, so many times during a trip to the flicks.

I can't recommend this film enough, everything about it is top class, acting, writing, direction, it's pitched absolutely perfectly. Then you consider that it is about one of the most amazing stories in the history of our country and it becomes utterly unmissable.

We have yet to see what the film and it's stars will be up against when it comes to Oscar night, but if something beats this film, Firth and Rush (what a battle that could/should be) to the gong, it will be a hell of a movie or performance.

The best film I have seen in a long, long while.

DOGTOOTH (2009)

I hate not getting a film. Especially when it's been hyped up, critics raving about it, awards being given out like business cards by an estate agent, friends who think they are in the know saying 'Oh you must see this, its aaaaaaamazing'.

And that is, unfortunately for me, the case with Dogtooth, a Greek film about a very odd family. The father is the only one of the five that is allowed to leave the seemingly perfect house leaving his wife and three grown up children (probably in their very early twenties) back in their homely prison. The father and mother make up fake meanings for controversial words (zombie is a yellow flower and a pussy is a large lamp for example), they give out stickers for good behaviour as the siblings compete against one another. Its a perfect example of controlling behaviour. Even more so as the children are told that they will only be allowed to leave the home when one of their 'dogteeth' fall out.



And that's the strange set up. And it only gets stranger. The father brings an outsider to the house, a girl to satisfy his son's sexual urges. Her presence though is a disruption as she pollutes the naive, sheltered minds of the children with poisonous ideas from outside the house. Then incest begins, a kitten is slain, a make believe brother is killed off and the parents tell the children that the mother will give birth to twins and a dog. All of this, the children take in their stride, as they are led to believe that their experiences are commonplace.

I'm not against the weirdness or the left field nature of the film, the last thing I want is a Roland Emmerich film every week, it's just that I didn't get the weirdness, which consequently meant that I was kept at arms length from the film throughout. The performances are all very good, particularly from the siblings, who really are naive, innocent children in the bodies of young adults, and deserve plaudits, but I felt detached and could not engage with the characters.

I was never bored though, it kept me on board from start to finish, enjoying the performances and some the striking visual imagery on show, and desperate to become drawn in and connected to the proceedings. There has plenty of charming, kooky moments (in a European cinema kind of way) to enjoy and flashes of brutal violence that shock as well. I was never sure what I was getting next.

The film has stayed with me since. I have been thinking for the whole week since I saw it about what it was trying to say, and I have taken a few thoughts from it, the corrupting influence of sex, controlling through fear, the impossibility of sheltering our children from the ills of the world. It's clearly had an impact on me.

However at the time, while watching the film, and just after the end credits rolled, I asked myself 'what?', and felt very unsatisfied with what I had seen. It has won plenty of awards and people rave about it, so it must be good.....mustn't it?

I just wish I could decide whether I liked it or not.

THE BOOK OF ELI (2010)

Everyone is seemingly obsessed with the end of the world at the moment. Emmerich is trying to make it into a theme park ride, John Hillcoat using it as a chance to ponder humanity, the Potter films have reached the point where the world is completely under threat and you can't swing a Mayan calendar now without coming across a zombie plague that will sweep the globe. And now even the Hughes Brothers have got good old Denzel Washington in the saddle for their own take on Armageddon.



They take the Cormac McCarthy approach and don't explain fully how we have arrived where we are, there is talk of a bright flash in the past and everyone wears sunglasses in this sandy, Mad Max-like world, so something 'Triffid' like is alluded to. Towns have the feel of those in a Western, looters and murderers line the roads, traps are set to snare you and steal your supplies. It's not as bleak as the situation in The Road, as there are more survivors, but you sense it's a lot more dangerous.

Denzel is the eponymous Eli, a lone introverted traveller who's only mission it seems is to 'Go West' (luckily to rescue the tone of the film The Hughes Brothers resist the temptation to have The Pet Shop Boys on the soundtrack). He is also carrying a book, and quite a significant book at that (there is one great visual nod to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code phenomenon), that seems to be at the root of his quest. Which brings us to the villain of the piece, Carnegie (Gary Oldman in true British bad buy fashion) who wants to get his hands on this book as he believes it holds great power and will aid his plan for ruling the people of his town and others that neighbour it.

The problem with the film for me is that is suffers an identity crisis, it doesn't know what it wants to be. One second its a very tense, well-executed thriller, with fine action sequences, splashes of gore, in fact, again, it's very Mad Max. But then there are ponderous moments where Denzel ramps up his acting and goes into whisper-mode and the film tries to explore religion and how it can be used to rule and the power of words and ideas, which are all very interesting themes, and to the film's credit, it does get you thinking, but it just doesn't sit right alongside all the fast paced action.

It's a shame because the film does a lot very well. The Hughes Brothers have created a great looking movie, the colour palette suits the sun drenched locations, they handle the action fantastically, notably a great gun fight featuring our hero and Michael Gambon (!) where the camera sweeps around the action putting you right into the thick of it. Denzel is, well Denzel. Always dependable, doing what he does best in these types of films. Gary Oldman hams it up as the baddie and clearly loves it, but then he can do that sort of thing with his eyes closed. As far as the cast goes, its only Mila Kunis as Eli's travel companion for the second half of the film, that fails to convince. Her performance felt a bit weak compared to all the heavy hitting going on around her. Oh and Malcolm McDowell turns up at the end which is always a treat.

So when it finished, I asked myself whether I enjoyed it, and the answer is I did. The trouble was the schizophrenia that the films suffers from. It's neither one thing nor the other. I thought that I should have been more upset and affected by the film's conclusion, which is I suspect down to this failing, the action detracting from the themes running through it. At the same time I wasn't as thrilled as I should have been by the action. I was gutted because I wanted to enjoy it, The Hughes Brothers make interesting films (Menace II Society, the great looking but flawed From Hell, but most of all the fantastic Dead Presidents) and they've done it again here (it is genuinely interesting) but it just doesn't quite hit the mark......

WHIP IT (2009)

Drew Barrymore has worked with some of the biggest directors ever during her almost 30 year career. Names such as Steven Spielberg, Joel Schumacher, Wes Craven, McG, George Clooney and Richard Kelly. She must have picked up a few do's and don'ts from her experiences with that lot.....well as the girlfriend finally got something I fancied watching from Lovefilm, I settled down on a lazy Sunday afternoon to watch Drew's first crack at directing a feature film, Whip It.



Based on a novel by Shauna Cross (who is also on script writing duties here) it explores the rugged, at times brutal, sporting underworld of Roller Derby, a sport barely known over here but apparently a big deal Stateside. The film focuses on 17 year old Bliss Cavendar (played by the always watchable Ellen Page), bored of being forced into beauty pageants by her well intentioned mother and desperate for a slice of the 'alternative' she stumbles upon the Roller Derby League in Austin, the nearest big town to her sleepy, homely haven. It's everything she wants, it's grungy, grimy and 'out there', in a warehouse with strong female competitors with great names such as Maggie Mayhem and Iron Maven. She enters in to try-outs for one of the teams, The Girl Scouts, and her life takes a change for the better as she becomes Babe Ruthless.

Ellen Page is, as per usual, superb. There is something instantly likeable about her, she does the tom boy thing very well and has a kind of 'every-woman' quality about her. I much preferred her in this film to her more famous role in Juno, but I suspect some of that is down to the quality of Diablo Cody's script and her intention to make Juno not instantly appealing. Having said that, there are similarities between the two characters, both think at one stage that they know it all, only to see it all unravel before their eyes. Page excels and you genuinely feel for her and her plight but at the same time she conveys a tough girl exterior that you know is a facade for the character, but crucially not for the actress. She handles the comedy superbly as well with some great comic moments, particularly with her best friend Pash (Alia Shawkat).

Page is ably supported by a very good cast. The team mates include Drew Barrymore herself as a comedic nutcase (all good fun) and Kristen Wiig who is very good as Bliss' maternal friend. Juliette Lewis steals the show as Iron Maven, leader of the rival team. Typical Lewis. Mental. The real stand-out support performances though are that of Daniel Stern and Marcia Gay Harden, Bliss' parents. Both very different, they offer two very different pillars and adversaries to Bliss and they really help to give Page's character depth and add much more emotion to the story.

Barrymore's direction is perfectly good, if a little safe. Only a visually beautiful love scene in a swimming pool stands out in the memory, although she does handle the 'action' scenes on the Roller track very well, making them exciting to watch. The kooky, geeky feel to the film has been done before many times and it feels a little tired here.

It's not all good news though. In the final act it goes a little off the boil as it falls on to the familiar path of any old generic sports film. Heart gets broken, friendships fall apart, motivations are questioned - 'will our hero get to compete and win the day?'. Once I reached this point I must admit, my concentration wavered as we bordered on predictability. Credit to the film though, the end is warmly satisfying and does rescue it to a degree.

The other problem with the film is the sport. It's essentially girls on roller skates going round in a circle, occasionally falling over or trying to make someone else fall over. Although Barrymore makes it all very exciting, once you've seen one of these scenes, you've seen it all, including the humour to be found in people falling over (which I must admit I am a massive fan of). Montages help to an extent, but they can't hide the fact that it's not a great sport to watch again and again during a film.

Oh and Landon Pigg annoyed me as the love interest for some reason....although I can't quite put my finger on it.

Those blips aside, it is an enjoyable film with plenty of heart and more than enough to make you laugh. Barrymore does enough with a very good cast to suggest that there could be a future for her behind the camera. Oh and a nice little soundtrack too.

A feel-good film that will not fail to put a smile on your face.

JENNIFER'S BODY (2009)

Diablo Cody made a name for herself with her script for the much loved and hyped Juno, she won an Oscar and a Bafta, she was nominated for a Golden Globe. She was marked for big things and everyone waited with anticipation to see what her next move would be. I'm not sure anyone thought it might take the shape of Jennifer's Body, a high school horror film.



Megan Fox (yes the really irritating one from Transformers) is Jennifer, popular high school chick/slapper. She is friends with, and has been since they were kids, Needy Lesnicky (Amanda Seyfried). I don't think the name Needy is a coincidence, as she constantly craves the approval of her cooler pal resulting in a very one-way relationship. Then after the pair are caught up in a fire at a local bar, a rock band and their devil worshipping ways see a change in Jennifer's behaviour. First there are just mood swings and the occasional bad hair day, then things really get bad as she starts eating boys at her school. The story is all told in flashback by Needy, who is locked up in prison - 'how has she got there' we ask ourselves.

Nothing original there then and all a bit daft - for most of the film I found myself thinking that Cody had copped out and attempted to do a 'genre' piece but forgetting to actually put any effort into it. And when I wasn't thinking that, I was bored. I had seen this sort of thing many times before, and other than the occasional witty quip, it felt staler than the contents of my badly maintained fridge.

Fox is perfectly adequate in this, basically playing the village bicycle which isn't too much of a stretch for her, but she can't quite manage to get as much out of Cody's screenwriting as the undoubtedly more talented Ellen Page in Juno. Seyfried is a bit more interesting, nerdy girl trying to make sense of all this madness while at the same time coming to terms with love, life and growing up.  Oh and saving the school as well. Johnny Simmons makes up the cast as Needy's boyfriend Chip, essentially playing Michael Cera, the now standard issue geek performance, but as well as Michael Cera.

Then we hit the final act and things get a bit more interesting. Jennifer turns up at the High School dance which will effectively be a buffet table for her carnivorous appetite and focuses her attention on poor Chip. This all culminates in a nicely done battle between Jennifer and Needy with some fizzy banter that shows Cody can still do it and doesn't end as you would anticipate. Then we have one final pay off that again, is far from predictable and is also little upsetting.

The best part of the film though is the closing credits (not in a sarcastic way), as we are treated to stills of a vengeful bloodbath in a hotel room with some nasty imagery. It's a great way to end the story, instead of just tacking the scene on at the end of the film which would have made it feel overlong and baggy. A nice touch.

So, a ploddingly predictable and largely unoriginal film until the last 15 minutes, when it all of a sudden becomes enjoyable and a bit left field. If you are a Megan Fox fan, you will probably love it (and you should be ashamed of yourself), but if you aren't, it's just about worth a watch. Only just though.

This is 3rd film I've seen recently where the majority of the film isn't very good but picks up at the end to trick us into thinking the film was more enjoyable than it actually was. This film, Tron: Legacy and The Proposal all had me looking at my watch, then there is a decent finale and I come away thinking, that wasn't that bad....is this a good thing? Well I always maintain that the ending is the most important part of a film, you must get that right otherwise you feel let down (such as Deja Vu). However, having said that, it doesn't give you the right to not bother with 75% of a movie only to ensure that the finale pays off and has us all leaving the cinema in a good mood.

THE PROPOSAL (2009)

Monday 3rd January, day before we all finally return to work. Desperately trying to stave off the impending fear of 'to-do' lists and counting the number of 'get-up's until my next holiday, I decided that a day of films was clearly what was needed. The first was 3 Men and a Baby, then, my choice, The Road. That left decision of the 8 o clock movie in the hands of my girlfriend. She sifted through my DVD collection - nothing there to inspire her, I offered my next Lovefilm rental, Jennifer's Body - nope, not her cup of tea, so she flicked through the film channels.....and stopped on The Proposal....I'm a fair man, it was her turn, and I know that I need to hone my talents in reviewing films that I would not choose to watch....



Sandra Bullock plays Margaret Tate, high up on the food chain in a publishing firm and generally thought of by her colleagues as an evil bitch, often referred to as 'It'. Ryan Reynolds is Andrew Paxton her long-suffering young assistant, who has to run around after her night and day, constantly treading on egg shells. Then Tate is told that she is about to be deported back to Canada and she has the spontaneous brainwave that she can marry Paxton and get her Green Card. Then, for some not particularly clear reason, the proof of the relationship, at the request of the immigration office, rests on the success of a trip to Paxton's parents' house in the back-end of nowhere in Alaska. Oh the hilarity ensues.

I'd like to point out here that I am a Sandra Bullock fan and will always want to enjoy a film that she is in. There is a lot of good will stored up inside me for her. However, being a fan of Bullock is a frustrating thing, because she has really put out some dross over the years. Real, top level dross. Here she isn't very convincing as a nasty boss which is mostly because these films are so predictable and you know that as soon as you get used to her being evil, she is going to see the error of her ways and soften up. Plus she is one of Hollywood's good girls. It just doesn't work. She is also starting to look a bit, well, plastic. A bit too done up.....it's a little off putting. Reynolds is better than this as well, and I think he knows it because he is just going through the motions throughout this film. He seems as though he wants to be somewhere else. Anywhere else.

If you brush over the nonsensical plot set-up at the beginning you end up in Alaska for yet another attempt to recreate the success of Meet The Parents. Four Christmases tried to do it, failed miserably, and here I was having to endure this recycled idea yet again. There are strange, kooky characters that aren't compatible with Tate's big city sensibility. 90 year old 'Gammie' (played with good humour by Betty White) takes Tate to a strip bar, the stripper also works in the hardware store, Craig T Nelson is Paxton's hard to please father (hang on a second....I'm sure that reminds me of another film), Gammie also does strange ritualistic dances in the woods that Tate gets caught up in. It's not original, it's barely funny at all - What was my girlfriend making me watch. Mary Steenburgen plays Paxton mum and her role is incidental to say the least. Hold on a second, Steenburgen was in Four Christmases and Nelson was in Meet The Parents. It's not the idea they've nicked, they're also just re-using the same actors.

The whole story is the two leads needing to convince everyone that they are a couple, and this is another area in the film that fails to deliver on the humour front, awkward affection and accidental nudity is resorted to. It's all rather desperate.

The final attempt to get laughs is through the use of slapstick, which, as the makers of this film have discovered, is not as easy as it looks. There is a bizarre scene involving a bird stealing Tate's mobile as she chases after it. It's painful to watch.



Having said all of this, the last part of the film did win me over to an extent. And I'm not sure why I fell for it, it's over the top cheese, not funny and totally predictable. I can only put it down to the good will for Sandra Bullock and the fact that she can actually act. In fact, now that I really think about it, she is the only redeemable feature of the film. She gives it her all and isn't afraid to make a fool out of herself. It's not enough to even nearly save the film though. An utter load of tosh.

Another dagger to the heart of a Sandra Bullock fan.

THE ROAD (2009)

Cormac McCarthy is flavour of the month at the moment. After the Coen Brothers' lauded adaptation of his novel No Country For Old Men you can't swing a cat at the moment without hitting another fan coming out of the woodwork. In fact this week, it was announced that James Franco will be behind the camera for an imagining of Blood Meridian. Among all of this hoopla John Hillcoat quietly went about his business bringing McCarthy's bleak tale The Road to the big screen.



Viggo Mortensen plays a nameless father trying to protect his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) in an apocalyptic world after an unexplained disaster has left the planet barren and desolate while a select few survivors scavenge, kill and do whatever it takes to stay out of harms way. A real bundle of laughs then.

I read the book recently for the first time on holiday (interesting choice for beach-reading) and if you ever want an example of a director being completely faithful to the source material, then this is it. McCarthy leaves the origins of the disaster unsaid, and it takes a brave man to take the same tack with the film in today's age of the idiot viewer (in this case John Hillcoat, a music video director known for working with a Nick Cave). The plot then progresses in exactly the same way as the book as the father and son encounter a host of characters and situations that put them into perilous situations, but without much really actually happening. For a film about the end of the world, there is no big action set pieces, no race against time, no damsel in distress to save. This isn't popcorn fodder, 2012 fans should look elsewhere.

The story is essentially just about the father and son, as they journey towards in the coast, with the slim, vague hope that something will be different there. Stripped down, it is fundamentally a character piece exploring the paternal relationship, but also, more importantly what it means to be human. The boy constantly needing reassurances that he and his father are 'the good guys' and struggling to understand why the people they encounter won't help them and vice versa. As things become more desperate for the pair, the child's idealism comes into conflict with the father's willingness to do anything to keep them both alive. The film poses the question 'what lengths would you go to to survive, and at what cost?'. It's an interesting theme for the film to be based around and is very affecting.

At the centre of it are excellent performances from Mortensen (as you would expect) and Smit-McPhee even more so. He will be better known for the recent Let Me In but this was his real breakthrough and is far more impressive in this turn. Both are utterly believable in their roles, Mortensen unrelenting in his desperation to protect his son, while Smit-McPhee's trust in his father never wavers. There are nice moments where they find small joy in tins of food or a cuddly toy where there are flickers of what normal life once was, but these quickly evaporate as we have to endure a scene where the father teaches his son how to kill himself if the need arises. Charlize Theron also features as the mother/wife in various flashbacks that offer some background to the family and how it came to just be the two of them. These scenes are a nice contrast to the bulk of the film, with splashes of colour and touching moments that really offer depth to the central relationship but also yank at the heart strings. The legend that is Robert Duvall also turns up which is a nice treat.

If there is a criticism to be had, it's that it is a very tough watch. It's very bleak and dark throughout with very little hope, and culminates in a heart breaking ending that offers very little relief and resolution, to both the story and humanity - both McCarthy and the film clearly don't have a lot of faith if the end of the world were to occur.

However, just because it isn't full of optimism and light, it should not mean that you should not see it. Beautifully acted, excellently made, thought provoking and arresting. Perseverance will bring you massive rewards.

THREE MEN AND A BABY (1987)

What is it with Christmas and New Year? Terrestial channels seem desperate to get out any well-remembered 80's film with a view to getting people in their late 20's and early 30's stuck in front of the telly finishing off the Minstrels purchased by a grandmother, unable to move due to laziness and a fortnight of gluttony. And this is how I came to be watching Three Men and a Baby on 3rd Jan, desperately trying to prolong my last full day off before going back to work.



I watched this thinking to myself that the modern day equivalent would be a film starring Will Ferrell, Sacha Baron Cohen and Adam Sandler, comedy heavyweights (now I must qualify that Sandler hasn't done anything good in a long while and he is not really to my taste, I include his name just because he is a big name and has box office pull) brought together in one blockbuster film. Then I did a spot of internet research and it became clear that it wasn't the juggernaught I thought it might be, Ted Danson and Tom Selleck (has he aged at all since?) were TV actors (Cheers and Magnum PI respetively - both pleasures for me growing up), all be it very popular ones, and Guttenberg was fresh from Police Academy 1 & 2 and Cocoon. Not exactly the dream team on paper.

Having said that, just because they didn't have a bundle of huge films under their belt, doesn't mean that they weren't any good, and this film certainly proves that the trio had something about them. The story of three bachelors living in a New York penthouse together, being left to look after a baby is a simple comedy set-up getting characters out of their depth and seeing the consequences unfold. The expected set-pieces and foul ups are made funny by Danson, Selleck and Guttenberg with great timing, visual gags and some nice one liners as the three exchange banter between them.

The problem with the film is that the makers (the one and only Leonard 'Spock' Nimoy behind the camera after a couple of Trek films) didn't have the confidence in the central idea to last a whole film. Instead they shoehorn in a stupid sub-plot about a drug deal that creates a botched action (ish) scene in the middle of the film, completley out of place with the rest of the piece. Then once that is resolved, we are back to the baby plot, with a well played-out and touching finale as they have to give the baby back to it's mother. It's like a spam sandwich made with exquisite focaccia bread, the vile meat stuffed between to lovely chunks of suculent bread.

It's a real pity that there wasn't enough conviction to concentrate solely on the three characters and the child, because when it's just about that, it's a lovely film, the three stars really shining, both comically and dramtically, with some genuinely funny moments. There is a real desire for everything 80's at the moment and the more I revisit cinematic nuggets from this decade, the more I believe that the films are flawed.....

Now if they're going to remake this one....Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld and Jason Alexander please.

Oh and one more thing, there was an urban legend about this film - was there a ghost behind the curtain....?

TRON: LEGACY (2010)

To people of a certain age, namely around mine, this film needs little introduction. In 1982, children brought up on arcade machines and Atari consoles were given a film that was for them. An adventure set inside a computer, 'The Grid', it looked like a video game and therefore watching it felt like being in a game. Visual effects that were, at that time, state of the art transported us into a virtual reality world and, even for some of it's faults, film makers are still trying to recreate that sensation with countless video game adaptations. And failing. Now almost 30 years on, we are treated to a sequel - a new generation, but more importantly the old guard (my lot), are given access to The Grid again.



There has been a lot of anticipation for this release, people desperate to see what today's technology can do to the world of Tron, in Imax and 3D. The task of bringing it into the 21st Century was entrusted in an unknown director, Joseph Kosinski and a team of writers without a notable credit, other than TV between them (although Lisberger and MacBird are back from the original and credited as being responsible for 'characters), a bit of a risk I'm sure you'll agree.  The big coup that they manage though is the retention of Jeff Bridges. He plays Kevin Flynn again, but also stars, in digital form, as Clu, Flynn's creation to create the perfect system in The Grid that turns rogue. The digital Bridges looks just as he did 28 years ago and is a remarkable creation by the effects team. However, when Clu is moving around, or more importantly speaking, you can tell that he is CGI and it becomes slightly distracting. He is not as seamless as Gollum or Dobby, but knocks the living daylights out of Jar Jar Binks.

The plot is as you would expect, a bit daft and nonsensical but it gets us into the action and provides a conflict to kick the film along. Flynn's son Sam (played as unintentionally wooden as possible by Garrett Hedlund) stumbles across the Tron machine in the arcade and is thrown into a Grid-wide battle between Flynn and Clu. There is a genocide story in there which is now a standard device for action-adventures that need to be child friendly, it's essentially good vs evil. We know who we are siding with, simple.

What we are then treated to is a mixture of spectacular visual scenes involving bikes, planes, fist fights inter-spliced with contemplative scenes where Jeff Bridges sounds a lot like 'The Dude', good but a) seen it before and b) oddly out of place. It's worth saying that the action does look great, when characters die, they dissolve into small pieces (similar to the coins in Scott Pilgrim, but much more effective and better looking), and the cityscapes and panoramas look fantastic. However, when 'stuff' isn't happening it really is dull. It reminded me of the disappointing philosophy of Matrix 2 and 3, blah, blah, blah......It's not as though I'm a simpleton who needs something to blow up to keep me interested, it's just this particular brand of waffle was just too bland to bear. Kosinski thought it would be acceptable to have these long scenes but have something pretty in the background that might distract us for long enough for them to get away with it. Nope, I need a bit more than a modern looking apartment with stars outside to make me blissfully unaware of what people are saying.

Having said that, it does a good job at being faithful to the tone and pace of the original and it finishes with a real fizz and a bang, so much so that I left the cinema thinking I had been more entertained for a sustained period than I actually had. Sneaky....Plus it has a great cameo performance from Michael Sheen, very Bowie-esque, and a cracking soundtrack from Daft Punk.

If you liked the original Tron there will be enough goodwill in the bank and there is enough here to mean that you will enjoy yourself, but there will be a little part of your brain that can't help but feel disappointed. If you didn't like the original, I wouldn't bother, there's not enough here to convert you to a 'User'.....

Quick note on two things, firstly 3D - this is another example where I didn't think 3D added anything whatsoever. After watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, and forgetting it was in 3D (if this happens what is the point?), here I was once again, getting irritated with the glasses and struggling to see what all the fuss was about. The effects would still have been impressive in 2D. Avatar and Piranha 3D are still the only two to have made it worthwhile. Secondly, I saw it at the HMV Curzon in Wimbledon, lovely little cinema, very reasonably priced and another great alternative to the horrible multiplexes....vote with your feet people.

INCEPTION (2010)

I must admit, I've stopped buying myself DVD's to add to the collection, especially Blu-Rays. With Lovefilm, the PS3, Sky film channels, a mum that doesn't seem to know that you can actually rent DVD's these days, there's little point in me filling up my small one-bed flat with rows and rows of DVD's. Having said that, Inception was an exception to the rule. I was always going to get this one, and Blu-Ray was a must. So, on New Years Day, Spag bol made, I plonked myself down on the sofa to revisit Christopher Nolan's summer blockbuster, and as I did so, I wanted to try and explain why I was so desperate to get my hands on this on it's release and why UK cinema-goers loved it so much, pushing it into number 4 in the UK box office in 2010.



Leo DiCaprio plays Tom Cobb, who heads up a team of thieves. But they are no ordinary thieves, they steal thoughts and information which means the vaults they are cracking are people's minds, and the best way to do this is through the dreams of the 'subjects'. Cobb is offered one final job (it's always the final jobs that are the hardest aren't they?) but instead of theft, he must plant an idea - Inception. An apparent impossibility. Nolan, who wrote and directed, has really come up with a genius idea here for an action film. It means that he can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants - no location is beyond the realms of possibility. Irritating things such as gravity and common sense are eradicated immediately. However, if anyone knows Nolan, it's not going to be that straightforward and he isn't going to pin a whole film on one good idea. He adds depth and complex themes by using sub-plots involving corporate espionage and a complicated father/son relationship as well as a back story for Cobb that puts the whole operation in jeopardy.

Cobb has a team in place to help him with this job, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Dileep Rao, each having a specific job, just like an orthodox bank job. Ellen Page plays the architect, it's her job to create the dream world and this premise gives some tremendous scenes where Nolan toys with our perceptions of what is possible. Tom Hardy, pretty much stealing the show here, plays a fraudster, he impersonates other people in the dream world, again an idea that gives Nolan's imagination the opportunity to run riot. And what a riot it is. The action set pieces are a wonder to behold. Fights in corridors that roll, defying gravity, a massive shoot out in an arctic base (very Bond), a kidnap scene in torrential rain as a freight train batters city streets in to submission. Nolan's execution of action is expertly done, every stunt and special effect feels physical, it feels real. Even where CGI is used, it feels weighty, none of the light, bouncy Spiderman effects here. 

As I mentioned previously though, it isn't just this aspect that makes the film so appealing. Nolan wouldn't let one of his films be so superficial and shallow. Cobb's back story about his wife has a darkness and an edge to it, and as it slowly creeps into his sub-conscious you really feel that he is out of control and that he is on the brink of madness. Another fine performance from Leo, really becoming a fine actor and choosing films that are challenging and roles that have a depth, something for him to really get his teeth into. Tom Hardy is all machismo and is great to watch, Page and Gordon-Levitt feel under-used and as though they are going through the motions, Cillian Murphy is always a pleasure to watch (I just wish he was in more), Tom Berenger pops up with a nice cameo, bit of Michael Caine, and the late, great Pete Postlethwaite is dependable as always with the little screen time he is given.

The second viewing of this film did chuck up a negative I'm afraid though. Some of the dialogue at times felt laden with exposition, which I suppose is inevitable when you are dealing with a plot as complex as this - dreams within a dream, within a dream, all coming together at the end - but when you have actors as fine as this on show, it's a shame that some of the dialogue is limited to pointing us in the right direction. Having said that, it's never spelt out to us, we are given freedom to come to conclusions ourselves - Nolan clearly respects his audience.

This negative though is a minor blip on an otherwise faultless film and it is a measure of Nolan's stock in Hollywood at the moment - off the back of the Batman films, a studio has given him a substantial wedge of money, left him to his own devices and this is what he has come up with. An imaginative, expertly crafted, action thriller, set inside the minds of it's protagonists with an ending that exhilarates and moves you in equal measure with the final frame continuing to rattle around in your brain long after the closing credits.

This film's success, and that of Nolan's Batman reboot, is proof that we want films with substance and you can create an action film that can stimulate the grey matter and still rake it in at the box office. Michael Bay take note.

BIG (1988)

As you will have seen I had quite a disappointing experience recently with an 80's film that I fondly remember from my childhood, National Lampoon's Vacation. So it was with trepidation that I began watching Big on New Year's Day, nursing a hangover that should have been far worse than it actually was. Was another of my favourites about to be panned by my new old person outlook?



Penny Marshall's film, co-written by Steven Spielberg's sister, Anna (not a bad fact for you there) about a 13 year old boy getting his wish to become 'Big' (a grown up, nothing more sinister than that for those of you with a filthy mind) is often talked about as a modern classic and people rarely, if ever, have a bad word to say about it. So, after all these years (I hadn't seen it for about 10 years), would it still have the magic?

Yes it would, and emphatically so at that. And in all honesty a lot of that is down to the central performance of Tom Hanks, for which he received an Oscar nomination (losing out to Dustin Hoffman for Rain Man). He manages to have the facial expressions, body language and movement of a 13 year old boy in a man's body, a human being who's body is completely alien to him. It's striking how he pulls it off. He hares about the corridors of his office like a kid desperate not to be late for class, he eats strange looking canapes as you would expect a stroppy teenager to do so, experiencing life through a process of trial and error. But it isn't just the physical aspect of Hank's performance, in fact it's only a very small part of what makes this film so special. There is an undoubted vulnerability to his Josh Baskin. When he first wakes in the morning and discovers his transformation he is desperate to get his mum's help but she is terrified of him, convinced he has done something to her son. He turns to his best friend Billy (great turn from Jared Rushton) and in order to convince him that he is his best mate in the body of a grown up, he has to sing one of their childhood tunes, and Hanks does so with pumped up desperation. He sings it like his life depends on it. He also cuts a forlorn isolated figure as he sits alone in a tatty hotel room in New York, trying to shut out the screams and gun fire outside. It's heartbreaking - he doesn't want this. A true lesson in being careful what you wish for.

Grown up Baskin's relationships in the film are important to giving the character real depth. Firstly, there is his friendship with Billy. Some of the best and most touching scenes are of the two of them just hanging out, eating ice cream in diners, playing with toys in Baskin's office, again Hanks nails it, acting just as you would expect a 13 boy to do so. The second element, is his blossoming relationship with Susan (Elizabeth Perkins), a work colleague. She falls for his love of life and the way he meets all challenges head on with a naivety and innocence. Hanks plays these scenes superbly, countering affection and emotional questions with punches on shoulders and embarrassed looks away. Penny Marshall cleverly avoids obvious jokes about sex, instead opting for nice moments between the two such as Baskin insisting on being on the top bunk bed when she stays over, then giving her a plastic compass ring 'to stop her getting lost'.

A lot of credit should go to Marshall and the writers (the writers were actually nominated for an Academy Award for this, again losing out to Rain Man) for not going for the obvious comedy route in this set up, unlike Vice Versa released in the same year. There are very few generic jokes about a young person in a grown up situation, instead a lot of the humour and joy is to be found in the performance of the actors rather than any slap stick gags.

So it is still a lovely film. Watching it now, as a grown up, I was really impressed at how good a film it is. As a child you don't see how subtle it is and how top notch the acting and writing is. Hanks in the performance that really launched him into the big time, a giant piano you play with your feet, the best apartment ever seen on film, a lovely ending without any needless chase scenes or races against time, it's the ultimate cautionary tale to warn you against growing up too quickly.

Stay youthful and dig out your copy now.