THOR (2011 - Cert 12A)

I can’t decide whether I’m excited about this whole Marvel Avengers thing. Yes I know it’s going to be epic, and the accumulation of lots of hard work and other films introducing us to all the heroes building up to this moment. Granted Marvel seem to have got their house in order with Iron Man 1 and 2 after the low point of Hulk (not to mention things like Daredevil). In fact, even Marvel and the producers involved have disregarded the existence of Edward Norton’s Hulk by casting Mark Ruffallo as the not so jolly Green Giant in the big ensemble piece. Despite all of this, I can’t help but feel that it’s all a little too late. Superhero films have been around a long time, there have been good ones, bad ones but in recent years they have become more and more fashionable, therefore the gang of Avengers are entering a very saturated market. Also, the genre has evolved and grown into one that is interested in being seen as smart and clever and wants to explore intelligent issues. The phenomenal success of The Dark Knight and it’s predecessor Batman Begins has really changed the game. Even Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns with it’s lukewarm box office impact wanted to get inside what it meant to be a hero and whether we need one, Sam Raimi’s Spiderman trilogy was fascinated with the pressure of being seen as a savior and how it affects someone, Watchmen last year was an attempt, all be it not terribly well-executed, to translate the most grown up and heralded superhero story of them all. This trend is all set to continue with the imminent arrival of X-Men: First Class where we see the early relationship develop between Magneto and Xavier set against the back drop of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The two Iron Man films were fun and entertaining but they weren’t exactly thematic or interested in being anything much more than Friday night popcorn fodder. How is this approach going to fare in conjunction with this supposed demand for ‘thinking man’ superheroes?

And so we reach Thor, the next introduction piece in the Avengers universe. As you might expect from a film about a God with a massive hammer it’s not exactly grounded in realism. From the moment the film starts up it’s clear that this isn’t a Nolan-esque origins story, but if you invest into the spirit of it all it easily ranks alongside the first (and better) Iron Man, and arguably even exceeds it.

Asgard, the realm where Thor is from, is beautifully realized, if a little overly CGI’d. Towering and architecturally stunning structures loom over an idealistic plain that reminded me of Naboo from The Phantom Menace but benefiting from the advancement in technology that ten years gives. The rainbow bridge that leads to the gateway to the other realms is visually impressive, standing out and becoming an instantly memorable image to add to the fantastical cinema archives. The inhabitants of Asgard are all big beards and stupid haircuts, dressed up to the nines in colourful armour and massive boots.  In fact, if I were writing a Time Out guide for Asgard, the best way to sum it up would be to explain that as I lay in bed after watching Thor, I couldn’t shake thoughts of Flash Gordon. Camp, colourful, over the top, tongue firmly in cheek and all in all a bit daft. It does all work rather well though, the contrast between the arid desert plains of Earth and the lavishly coloured fantasy other-world from where out hero hails gives the film an extra edge. 

This isn’t an advert for a long and dirty weekend in a Godly realm though, it’s a story of how Thor became the hero that would soon get the call-up for The Avengers. Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth (formerly of Home and Away I am told), seemingly genitcally built to play a massive Scandinavian hulk of muscle with a beard, is about to become King of his realm, the crown being passed to him by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins having the time of his life hamming it up like you wouldn’t believe and looking like Arnie in armour that must be padded with the muscle of several horses). Only just as he’s about to become king, he gets a bit cocky and arrogant and reignites an age old war with the Ice Giants (yes, you really must enter in to the spirit of it all). Odin, understandably is a bit irritated by this threat to peace and outcasts his son down to Earth to live as a mortal until he learns his lesson.

We then follow Thor the mortal, as he gets picked up in the desert by Natalie Portman’s scientist Jane Foster, and her pals Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings. His new friends help him as he tries to get his powers back and save Earth from destruction, as the hands of his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston adding to the Flash Gordon vibe with a sprinkling of Zod from Superman 2). Standard superhero fare. Although with a nice touch of humour. The main laughs from the film come from Thor’s usually acceptable godly arrogance not quite fitting with rural American custom. The ‘California Man’ approach. Hemsworth does it all well enough and through this managed to quickly win me over, as Thor’s arrogance at the outset is far from endearing. Although this could be jealousy because he looks very impressive without his top on. 

Portman though looks a little lost, or perhaps just wasted (I don’t mean drunk of course). Her role is pretty irritating, but saved from the fact that we know it’s Portman

That said, that really is my only gripe with the film. It’s great fun, the action is superbly done although you don't ever really think Thor isn't going to be victorious (I suppose it's the problem with a superhero film where you have a God involved, which is likely to continue when you look at how nigh-on invincible the other Avengers are - how does one get around that?), the comedy fits nicely, it’s all handled very well by Kenneth Branagh, who I wouldn’t have thought was the most obvious choice for this project, but hats off to the man. It’s tone is pitch perfect, standing comfortably alongside the Iron Man films making this build up to The Avengers feel like a proper series. I don’t want to tempt fate but it does appear that they are doing a very decent job at building nicely towards that 2012 release.  Going back to how I kicked off this review, it has increased my excitement levels for the big one, not to boiling point but it’s simmering nicely. It’s not done anything to address concerns with the light-hearted tone of this run of films though…..

Next up Captain America. What have you got for us skipper?

WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (2011 - cert 12A)

While I was at the most recent Secret Cinema I was stood with my friends talking to one of the actors, a child who had lost her mother, and realised that I was stood outside a mock-up of an old cinema in French occupied Algeria. On it's outside wall were posters of old films, and I joked about how all old film posters were the same.  A man and a woman embracing in the foreground with all sorts of flashes of action snapped from the film going on behind them. Gone With The Wind is the perfect example.

Later as I filed out of the Secret Cinema venue and hurried to catch a train to a BBQ in Waterloo I saw a poster for Water For Elephants, which I knew I was seeing the next day, the girlfriend having put in a request after a long sequence of us going to see 'my' choices.

It's clearly a throwback to those posters, the similarities jump out immediately. In many ways it sums up the whole film. It really is an old-fashioned love story, it looks like it, it feels like it. It even starts like it. Right from the opening scene that is only just short of clunky, where an old man turns up at the circus only to do so late and miss the show. He is taken into the office by a staff member who tries to ring round to find out which retirement home he is from. They talk and it transpires that the old man used to work at the circus, not just any circus, the Benzini Brothers Circus years, years ago back in 1931. Cue laboured flashback. Yes, you're right, it's been done before, many times and it immediately reminded me of the opening of Titanic, but fortunately not nearly as irritating.  Anyway, we drift back to 1931 and the old man's voice becomes that of R-Patz, sorry Robert Pattinson, this is a serious role for the heart throb from Barnes as he tries to move away from the teen-vampire-flick market, dispelling with the nickname that the female teenage masses have given him. 

Pattinson plays Jacob, a young man who has it all, about to become a vet and embark on a successful life. It quickly goes wrong though when his parents die in a car crash. Heartbroken, he doesn't finish his training, he is thrown out of his house and wanders the railways searching for the first train he comes across to take him to a new life. That first train is the travelling Benzini Brothers Circus and he quickly snaps himself a job as the vet. The film then focuses on a love triangle involving Jacob, Reese Witherspoon's character Marlena, the star attraction of the circus with her horses act, and August, the owner of the circus played by Chrisopth Waltz (Inglorious Basterds). 

It's fair to say that I wasn't thrilled at the prospect of this film, I said yes conscious of the fact that I was always dragging the girlfriend to the next Superhero film. This hesitancy could be to blame for the fact that while I was in the cinema there were parts of the film where I was bored, it dragged more often than a film should. So much so that when I left, I was convinced I hadn't enjoyed the film at all. I rolled my eyes as we got out, and in my defence the girlfriend didn't enjoy it much either. She thought long stretches were dull as well. Then the more time that passed, the more we both found ourselves thinking about it, the more scenes appeared in my mind, the more moments we kept bringing up in conversation. The weirdest thing was that the more I thought about the scenes, the more positively I felt about them. My attitude now is completely different to that of when I left the cinema. 

I've pondered long and hard about why this phenomenon has taken place and I can only really put it down to the characters and the actors. The film is very tightly written by the experienced hand of Richard LaGravenese, who has things like the Bridges of Madison County and The Fisher King under his belt, so credit should go there where it is due, but it's the actors who really bring the characters to life. All three corners of the love triangle on show here shine, each in different ways. R-Patz, sorry, Robert Pattinson is who the film follows but is probably the least interesting character of them all. That isn't to say his time on screen is dull though. He is assured and confident and keeps the film pushing along with a performance that does suggest he might actually make the transition to 'proper' actor. His Jacob is instantly likeable and although it seems simple and obvious to state the importance of that, it's not easy to actually pull it off. Reese Witherspoon doesn't stand out in Water For Elephants, but again this is not a criticism. She has become so consistently dependable that we just expect her to be nothing short of very good. She has a gift of always being someone different in all of her roles, but not changing much about her at all. She always looks and sounds like Reese Witherspoon, but she is always someone else despite that. Waltz, once again, is the show stealer. Like in Inglorious he plays a charming nutcase, smiling his way through the film but behind that grin you know he is a complete and utter maniac. It's great to watch but it's a shame that it feels like it's been done before, all be it being a more child friendly version in this instance. 

For director Francis Lawrence it's an interesting move. Following Constantine and I Am LegandCGI, highlighted in I Am Legend, is again apparent here, the animals looking cheap, lifted straight from a B-Movie.

So, it would seem that's a positive review, which I certainly wouldn't have foreseen if you had grabbed me as I was filing out of the exit of my local multiplex. It leaves me in quite a difficult position, because I would recommend it, but in doing so I would be stating that it is acceptable to leave me bored during a film if afterwards I gradually change my mind. Yes it's slightly tedious in places and a bit overly soppy throughout, but if you can get past that accept the old-school nature of it then you may just be surprised.... 

SECRET CINEMA - THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS (1966 - Cert 15)

It's that time again. My addiction to the Secret Cinema means I can't stop myself from booking tickets for the next one. It really is FOMO - Fear Of Missing Out. Despite the last selection (The Red Shoes) not being the best film in the world and feeling like an odd choice, there was no doubting that the show and spectacle that was created, 1940's Covent Garden, was worth the admission alone. It's become huge, this offering spanning 3 weeks with two 'performances' on weekend days. I couldn't get a ticket for an evening performance, the tickets had gone like hot cakes, so I had to make do with a Saturday afternoon matinee.

So, slightly self conscious dressed in late 1950's, early 1960's European attire, I made my way to Waterloo to meet under the arches. Then I was transported to French-occupied Algeria in the 1960's, souks are there, native cuisine is served, French soldiers with guns roam the streets, there's a European quarter, an area inhabited by Arabs. It's an incredible spectacle and although not as grand as The Red Shoes, or as atmospheric and fitting as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, it was still quite something.



All of this effort was for a film that I had heard a lot about, but had never seen. The Battle Of Algiers, the Gillo Pontecorvo film from 1966, looks at the battle for Independence from Algerian terrorists as they try to fight back against the French colonists.

I don't think the organisers could have chosen a better film to show at this time. The echoes of the current War on Terror are obvious, especially with the recent death of Osama Bin Laden. This is a film that could be made now about now. It may feel slightly dated in black and white with it's at times odd pacing but those are small gripes as it still feels hugely of the present day. The themes of occupancy, revenge, torture and retribution are still being argued about today it's because of this that the film still packs the punch that it does. The images of the death and violence caused by the terrorism are haunting, they are similar to those that we see on the news every day. Disasters are played out on news channels all the time but it doesn't detract from the haunting images seen on screen in this film. There is nothing dated about this aspect of the film, as affecting and disturbing as anything that can be seen today. There is a superb and distressing montage showing 'interrogation' techniques that include torture devices that we still see in shows like 24. The terrorists used improvised devices left to kill innocent civilians. I'll say it again, this could be a film about current times. It's incredible to see it.

What makes the film even more interesting is that it follows the terrorists, Brahim Hadjadj's Ali La Pointe in particular, rather than the authorities. We sympathise with them, rather than them being presented as evil faceless boogie men. The baddies is instead the French army, personified by Colonel Mathieu played by Jean Martin. Although he is clearly not the hero of the piece, the film still elicits sympathy towards him, greying the moral compass of the film, leaving it up to the viewer to an extent.

Both of those central performances are very good, particularly when you consider that Hadjadj wasn't even an actor. He is moody, introverted and driven, determined in his beliefs. Martin's achievement is that we still feel a degree of connection to his Colonel despite him being the villain of the piece.

The film is constantly driven along by a score (by Ennio Morricone) that is at times classically old-fashioned but at others modern and industrial and builds to an unexpected and uplifting climax that will linger long in the memory. It's not often that you can say that something is timeless, but this truly is, and it will continue to be so as long as the world remains in the state it is in today.

Well done Secret Cinema once again for taking me on a journey into a film and opening my eyes to something that may have passed me by.....

Next time perhaps a warning that it's a subtitled film so that certain people can take their glasses and read the subtitles....

CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY (2009 - Cert 12A)

I recently managed to finally get my hands on Man On Wire, the Oscar winning documentary, through Lovefilm. In my review of that film I referred to Michael Moore's impact on the genre and how popular it has become to the masses, arguably since he hit the scene. I post back Man On Wire, and lo and behold, the next thing to land on my doormat is Moore's latest offering, his insight in to the financial collapse, what went wrong and who is to blame. Coincidence eh?



Michael Moore's approach and execution will be familiar to anyone who has seen one of his films. You don't have to have seen all of his work to know how he goes about things, and Capitalism is no different. It ticks all of Moore's boxes. His sombre monotone voice over. Old and recorded footage used in tandem. Interviews there to emote and generate sympathy. Interviews with the 'baddies' used as an exercise in entrapment. Sequences layered with sarcasm and humour to laugh you into action. Set piece, grand stand stunts where he tries to get a reaction from his prey through humiliation or shaming. It's all there and by the bucket load.

I must point out at this moment that I have been a fan of his previous documentaries. Bowling for Columbine was something new for me. A documentary film that was engaging and interesting yet completely accessible and, despite it's serious content, funny. Fahrenheit 911 and Sicko followed, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the American Health System the focus of his interests, and continued his success using the now tried and tested formula. This reliance on the same devices meant that enthusiasm for his work waned, people saw him as a one trick pony, but I suppose that he didn't really care. The one thing that I have always believed is that he wasn't making these films for his own gain. Call me naive but I had a sense that he just wanted to put his point of view across and try to make a difference. Inevitably, when you wear your political beliefs so blatantly, you are going to ruffle some feathers and consequently Moore made some enemies and his films isolated some viewers. I personally liked them all, didn't agree with everything but I enjoyed them, although my enthusiasm for him and his films has receded more and more by each release.

That receding ceased with Capitalism though, it hit me with the same sort of impact that Bowling for Columbine all those years ago. So, if it's all the same tricks in a different context why did it still work and feel so fresh?

I put it down to the subject matter. Gun control, the so called War on Terror and healthcare are all things that obviously have an impact on our lives, but the recession, the financial downturn is a very different beast. Some of it can be put down to me being older (30, yes 30) when seeing this film and also when the 'thing' actually took place, perhaps I'm just taking more notice now I'm getting on a bit. However, it can't just be that. The collapse of the banks is something that has had an effect on the entire planet. This isn't just a problem with Americans being ripped off and denied medical care. I know people who have been made redundant, I know people who's companies have gone under, I work in a profession that deals with the financial institutions a lot. Therefore this is an issue that I have a connection with and it's clear that this made me experience greater emotions when watching the film. I felt sorry for the family being forced out of their homes and then having to burn their belongings just to make money. I felt huge pangs of sympathy for those losing their jobs and clearing their desks. I was disgusted by the 'vulture' who takes peoples homes and sells them on, preying on those getting in to difficulties. I was properly shocked to learn about companies taking insurance policies on their staff, not management, factory workers, so they can profit from someone's death. By the end of it I was totally appalled by what I was seeing, and although it was clear that these examples were extreme and at one end of the spectrum, it was an insight into the recklessness of what had gone on and he had me on his side.

Which is ultimately what Moore wants, in all his films, to inform us and to change our minds about things. Capitalism presents some very clear evidence that should do that, but what gives this film a bit extra is that it carries on after the usual Moore call to arms. After the grandstand stunt, we are treated to something uplifting. Moore's examples of people fighting back, and making a difference. We see protests, marches, it's all there. Then we have one final case study, a group of laid off factory workers in Detroit who's protest do actually succeed. It's a powerful message and a slightly euphoric sign off. We can make a difference. Then comes the usual call to action, but on this occasion it is so much more more understated, almost an afterthought, but it is so much more powerful because of the few minutes that preceded it.

That is why it feels like a superior film, it offers hope, rather than the damning and depressing presentation of facts that we are used to. Without sounding too preachy, it sticks in the memory, it made me believe rather than want to simply apportion blame.

TRUE GRIT (2010 - Cert 15)

January is always a bit of a busy time in film land. All the studios save their 'for your consideration' movies until that point to ensure they have the best chance possible to pick up the coveted golden statue. You had The King's Speech, Black Swan, 127 Hours, The Fighter and True Grit. I managed to see the first three but the others passed me by. The Fighter never really appealed to me, I sensed it was going to be the standard formulaic boxing pic, but True Grit, the Cohen Brothers' latest offering, that was one I really wanted to see and was gutted that it slipped out of the cinema without me getting to view it.

That is until the good old faithful Firmdale Film Club, this time the Charlotte Street Hotel, my first time there for both grub and films (both of which I heartily recommend).



This Wild West story of a 14 year old avenging her father's death with the help of a Texas Marshall and a drunk, one-eyed US Marshall was nominated for 10 Oscars earlier this year, including best film, best director, best actor (Jeff Bridges) and best supporting actress (Hailee Steinfeld), yet it didn't win any. One of the things I was most interested in was to see whether it was an inferior film and performances to the ultimate winners, or whether it was a case of the Cohen's hype diminishing after it's peak with No Country For Old Men.

Well the first thing to say is that it is 'very' Cohen Brothers. They were very quick to stress that this is not a remake of the old 1969 John Wayne film, it is more an adaptation, or a re imagining of the Charles Portis novel from which that film was adapted. I've not seen the old film or read the novel so I can't comment on where this film hails from, but what I can say is that it instantly feels like some of their other work, particularly No Country. However, it isn't just the dusty, desert settings that they both share. It's also the combination of humour, shock, realism and fear and the way that they hop between those particular feelings in the gradual pace of the film. The Coens create films where a scare is never far from a laugh, and you don't know whether to laugh or cringe at the violence taking place on screen. There are also some brilliantly executed visual elements that have that surrealism that is so often associated with the brothers, such as a man covered completely in bear skin, including head, riding slowly towards the camera, and icily, clinical and realistic violence such as the pause between a rifle being fired from distance and the bullet's impact on it's target. Make no mistake, this film feels real. People bleed and they are surrounded by death, trying to profit in any way they can in the death of others. It's a bleak and desolate Wild West, not an exciting Hollywood version.

The real mystery of the Oscars was why Steinfeld was nominated for best supporting actress when the the entire film hangs on her shoulders. Her Mattie Ross is incredible. The words that she speaks are strong, confrontational and determined, but these lines in the hands of a less talented actress would easily sound hollow and pointless. It's easy to write forceful words but to make them sound believable and powerful coming from the mouth of a 14 year old girl is a real achievement and one that Steinfeld will always have on her CV now. She is brilliant, negotiating with purpose, antagonising and shooting down men four times her age and twice her size. What makes it even more impressive is that as the film wears on, her character develops and the mask starts to slip, Steinfeld shows the vulnerability and the brittle will of this young girl, desperate for revenge, but also terrified of getting it.

She is very ably supported, yes supported, by Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. Jeff Bridges won an Oscar for a performance that didn't have a patch on this. His role in Crazy Heart was dull and two-dimensional.  His Rooster Cogburn in this film is similar in delivery, growling drunkenly, hard to understand, but here is a turn as a character with real depth. At first glimpse he seems to be a bum, someone with barely any redeemable qualities, then the relationship with Mattie Ross grows and brings the best out of Cogburn. Ross does the same with Damon's Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf, another character that we shouldn't like, devious, cowardly and antagonistic. It's good to see Damon as something other than a good guy, he enjoys himself playing someone who has a nasty streak that we easily hate. Ross brings out a bravery in him that we hadn't seen before. Both Cogburn and LaBoeuf are real anti-heroes.

It's essentially a character film dressed up in the clothes of a chase movie. It's great to watch these people develop, especially in the hands of such fine actors. Going back to the chase element, any film like that needs a boogie man to hunt down, and in this instance it's Tom Chaney played by Josh Brolin. He doesn't get much screen time, but when he does it's a joy to watch his bad guy, a truly nasty piece of work. Stupid and violent is not a good combination, kind of an idiotic evil. He rounds off the superbly chosen cast nicely as the Coens prove their class once again.

I clearly love it, so why do I think it didn't pick up an Oscar? Well, I think it's a combination of the Academy wanting it to be someone else's 'turn' after No Country cleaned up the other year, and of a very strong field in the running in 2011. Films, directors, actors and actresses, this was really a bumper year. For True Grit to miss out is really no shameful thing as they all (the ones I've seen anyway) would have been worthy winners.

MAN ON WIRE (2008 - Cert 12)

Michael Moore has proved to be a bit of a game changer. Say what you want about him, but he has had a massive amount to do with making documentary in the cinema more popular. Since he grabbed the Oscar for Bowling for Columbine the genre has been thrust into the mainstream. His films have done very well, but since he picked up the gong that particular category at the Oscars has started to get a bit more exposure. This only increased with March of the Penguins with Morgan Freeman's voice on board and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in 2005 and 2006. Then in 2008 came Man On Wire, James Marsh's film about Philippe Petit's amazing stunt of walking a tightrope between the twin towers of The World Trade Centre.



I must admit that for a while I've felt as though I should watch it, as I had heard some good things, but I kept putting it off because I just wasn't sure how you could make a whole documentary out of that one event. How foolish I was, I could not have been more wrong. There is plenty there to enjoy, it's not just a recreation of a mad Frenchman walking on a rope high in the sky. Although that particular element does feature.

The main thrust of the film is Petit himself. From just one minute of seeing him on screen it's clear that this film just could not be made without his input. He is eccentric, passionate, creative, slightly mental, obsessive, but listening to him talk about his childhood and the motives for doing what he did is so engrossing. He may be annoying to some, but if you can get past that, he's a wonderful character whose spirit just can't be dampened. He has that side to him that a lot of notable artists or creatives have, on the edge of madness but totally charming with it. Much of the success of the film rests on just how watchable he is and how his personality instantly hooks you in.

The structure of the film works superbly as well. It would not be enough to have a bloke explaining how much he likes walking tightropes and then see him walking it. It shows footage and short explanations and recreations of two other stunts he did, walking between two towers above Notre Dame and again on the Sydney Harbour Bridge in Australia. In all honesty, they both impressed me enough on their own for me to be a little bit amazed by the whole thing, and I thought to myself that walking high up is walking high up, once you do it 20 stories up somewhere, not much changes from doing it 200 stories up, apart from maybe it being a bit windier. However, it wasn't the fact that he walked between the two World Trade Centre towers that is so incredible, it's how he, and some fellow conspirators, got up there.

Marsh presents it in a heist-like manner, sort of a Crime Watch reconstruction of Ocean's Eleven, including nick names for all the people involved. It's done with aplomb and bit of flair, the narration and interviews with these bonkers people really helping to motor the story along. It almost seems like it can't be real, but then you remember this is a documentary and it all really happened. It's one of those stories that just seems too fantastical to have actually really took place.

And then it happens, and you see pictures and footage of him up there. It's just remarkable and worth the hour or so before it. I would have gladly watched 3 hours of the build up just to get to see him doing his thing. It has quite an uplifting closure as well, as the story winds up nicely with a real feel-good vibe. It's so worth a watch, I can't recommend it enough, a moving image documentation of an amazing chapter in the history of these two buildings that tragically don't exist anymore.

SOURCE CODE (2011 - 12A)

To my knowledge there have been two significant achievements made by Duncan Jones. One is getting rid of the name Zowie Bowie and the other is the incerdibly well-received and understatedly thoughtful Moon. Starring Sam Rockwell and the voice of Kevin Spacey, it was released a couple of years ago and quickly gathered momentum, being heralded as a return to good old-fashioned science-fiction film making.

In the same way that we are all waiting for Gareth Edwards' next move after Monsters, great things were expected of Jones, and the wait ends with the release of Source Code, another venture in to the world of sci-fi. It's worth noting though that Jones came in fairly late on the project so it won't have had the same level of creative input that Moon, very much his baby, had.



Jake Gyllenhaal is Captain Colter Stevens, a helicopter pilot in the American Army just back from a tour in Afghanistan. He is now part of a special military programme that, through cutting edge technology (and some jargon about electric pulses from people's memories), is able to relive the last 8 minutes of an individual's life and attempt to solve crimes through picking up valuable clues. It's kind of a virtual reality system where our hero is put in the body of someone else. On this occasion he is trying to find out who planted a bomb on a Chicago bound train so that the bomber can be stopped from striking again. This system is known as The Source Code. In terms of the film though, it's kind of Groundhog Day meets Minority Report.

It's an interesting idea and I admit from seeing the trailer a couple of months back, I've been looking forward to it, particularly as it's under the stewardship of Duncan Jones. And, I have to say, it's a very good follow up to Moon. It's not got the same subtle, indie nature, it's much more of a mainstream action pic, but it's executed very well. It rolls along nicely, and at only 90-odd minutes long, the repetition doesn't get a chance to get boring at all, with Jones varying each 8 minute segment nicely and using neat tricks to cover ground that has already been seen. Plus we get to see the explosion from a number of different viewpoints. Action galore.

The other thing that the film does very well is sub-plot. So much so that the story of Stevens' existence on the Source Code programme, which begins as nothing more than an undercurrent, quickly becomes the main focus of the film. You begin the movie thinking it's going to be a different take on the Speed idea, but before you know it things have shifted and that aspect becomes almost incidental, as Stevens tries to uncover the origins and why he is involved. This means of course that Gyllenhaal's role is much more than the archetypal action hero, and he has to flex his acting muscles instead which he does very well. He spends the first 20 minutes or so in a constant state of confusion which in the hands of someone else could easily become grating and increasingly irritating. However, Gyllenhaal is very good and this is much more of a Zodiac or Brokeback Mountain performance rather than Prince of Persia or The Day After Tomorrow. This change of tack does mean that the bomb plot reaches an anti-climatical conclusion, but if you do realise by that point that it's no longer the centre of the piece, then it shouldn't cause too much of a problem.

There is also the sprinklings of a romance story in there as well, which is where Michelle Monaghan's character comes into play. It's not a massive part of the film so doesn't get in the way of things in what is already a fairly congested running time, but she is decent and the chemistry between the two of them gives the film a bit more heart than there otherwise would have been. There's also a bit of humour here and there as well, adding a fluffiness to the science-fiction, in a similar way to what worked so well in The Adjustment Bureau.

Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright make up the remainder of the main cast, the former as the one manning the controls of the Source Code and the latter as it's inventor. Wright is practically two dimensional and a bit pantomime villain in his delivery but Farmiga's is arguably the best performance in the film, restricted to sitting in a chair talking into a headset, she adds some real emotion to the story and the developing relationship between her and Gyllenhaal's character, without them ever really being face to face, is a real factor in making the film feel very heartfelt as it nears it's conclusion.

A conclusion that has split audiences and critics alike, but one that I really liked and was totally invested in. It reminded me in many ways of a lot of the recent Doctor Who stories by Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat, an ending, without giving too much away, that was positive, yet dark, and emphasising the joy and all of the pleasure that can be found in humanity.

It's not Moon, but it is a very well made, exciting science-fiction action film with a heart that should leave you feeling happy yet slightly sad at the same time.