An Acting Masterclass

Breach - 3.5/5

In terms of spy thrillers, Breach provides an interesting counter-point to The Bourne Ultimatum. Whilst the former was an adrenalin- fuelled rollercoaster-ride, this is a much slower paced, but still enthralling movie. It tells the true story of how Robert Hanssen (judged to be the worst spy in American history) was caught in 2001 after 22 years of selling secrets to the Russians.

A film which clearly gives away its ending in its very opening scene has to make sure that the journey to get there is interesting enough and Breach pulls it off, largely through the interplay between two actors on the top of their game. There are no big action sequences here and what tension there is, is very slow-burning. Writer-director Billy Ray (Shattered Glass) handles both the script and the direction with a quiet, slightly understated, but sure hand. However, he is clearly very much an actor's director - after all he remains the only one to have a got a decent performance out of Hayden Christiansen (Shattered Glass).

The supporting players do well. Dennis Haysbert (24's President Palmer) is pretty much as expected and Laura Linney is her usual excellent self as the FBI agents running the investigation. Only Gary Cole in a rare straight role seems slightly out of place. But the movie belongs to the two central characters.

We've come to expect excellence from Chris Cooper - just look at his CV - Syriana, The Bourne Identity, Adaptation, American Beauty to name but a few. But he clearly relishes the chance to get to grips with this complex character. Hanssen has been described as having totally split himself - on one hand devout catholic and family man and loyal patriot, on the other sexual deviant and traitor to his country. The fact the film wisely decides not to offer any conclusive reason why he did what he did is both one of its strengths and its greatest weaknesses - it adds realism but leaves you unsatisfied with unanswered questions.

It is Ryan Phillippe who still manages to surprise. Less touted in his early career than many of his contemporaries, he is starting to put together a string of ever better performances in great movies - Crash, Flags of our Fathers and now this, which might be his best yet as the trainee agent sent undercover to trap Hanssen. The interplay between the two is great and keeps the movie motoring as the ambitious Phillippe is forced to question his own goals and beliefs in the course of the investigation.

The film would probably be worth checking out anyway, but Cooper and Phillippe push it into the recommended viewing category.

The King of the Threequels

The Bourne Ultimatum - 5/5

As we head towards the end of the so-called summer of the threequels, the summer blockbusters have ranged from the downright disappointing (Shrek the Third, Spiderman, Pirates) to the entertainingly better than they should be (Transformers, Die Hard) to the actually quite good (Harry Potter, Oceans Thirteen). What there hasn't been so far is a really great film. Can Matt Damon and co deliver? The answer is a resounding YES! Bourne is a tense, gripping and very well executed action thriller, with some stunning set pieces.

Gone is any real link to the source novel except the title (I'd have to see it again to be sure, but I'm not sure they actually managed to fit in an ultimatum anywhere along the line), but that doesn't matter. Added to the mix are the excellent David Strathairn (Good Night and Good Luck) as a creepy CIA chief and Albert Finney as the scientist responsible for the programme which created Bourne, along with Paddy Considine as the journalist trying to put it all together.

The plot, slightly simpler than last time round, but no less intelligent follows Jason finally putting together the missing pieces of his past and bringing it all back home. They use the bold tactic of taking the final scene of Supremacy and placing it half way through this film, using the first half to show how we got there and to see it in a completely different way.

Since Supremacy, director Paul Greengrass has confirmed his reputation with United 93. He maintains the same visual style here as he did in Supremacy with a slightly grainy look and a jerky, hand-held feel to some of the action sequences. So, this doesn't look like a big blockbuster, but when it hits full gear it is absolutely stunning, as in the cat and mouse games through Waterloo station or the stunning chase through the backstreets of Tangier. In fact, these sequences are so good, that the final chase through New York is almost a let-down, but the interplay between Damon and Strathairn more than makes up for this. The tension is ratchetted up in these sequences by the feeling that this is a franchise that isn't afraid to bump off some of its main players and at least one character makes an unexpectedly ealy exit.

As is fitting for both character and actor, Damon's performance as Bourne is subtle and un-showy. In fact Damon is an unusual a-lister who can walk through a crowded train station without attracting a crowd of on-lookers (the Waterloo sequence was shot with long lenses and Damon and Considine mingling with genuine commuter crowds). One advantage of the restraint of Damon's performance is that the movie doesn't flag when he's off-screen. In fact, the manoeuvrings of rival CIA chiefs Strathairn and Joan Allen (returning as Pamela Landy, the good side of the CIA) is just as enthralling.

They even manage to get in some contemporary references to rendition without it being too grating.

This is a thoroughly well-done in all aspects - if you only see one blockbuster this summer it should be this one! My only hope is that they don't ruin it now by trying to keep the franchise going - whilst the door is not closed, the story is now neat enough tied up to make it sensible to leave well enough alone now.

Entertainingly Kitsch

Hairspray - 3/5




I finally gave in and saw this after everyone I knew who'd seen it enjoying it. There are so many reasons why this should be dreadful, like a director (Adam Shankman) whose CV to date includes such highlights as Cheaper By The Dozen 2 and The Pacifier. Then there's the whole idea of a fat-suited John Travolta in drag - hardly an appealling idea. And that's without raising the whole question of whether our obesity-threatened culture really needs a movie that says its OK to be fat (welcome contrast to the size 0 furore though it may be).








As you might expect the whole thing is irredeemably kitsch, but delivered with enough tongue-in-cheek-iness to be both entertaining and amusing. Of the adults, Travolta is hit and miss until
a spectacular final number. The wonderful Christopher Walken shows that he can't sing, but he can dance and his performance as the father (reminiscent of his turn in Catch Me If You Can) is certainly off-kilter, but curiously endearing. Michelle Pfeiffer vamps it up superbly as the bigotted TV producer - her attempted seduction of an oblivious Walken (trying to sell her joke shop products all the while) is one of the standout moments. Queen Latifah adds vocal depth and a more serious note, whilst The West Wing's Allison Janney is underused, whilst X-Men's James Marsden proves himself a surprisingly versatile performer and showman.





However, the movie really belongs to the kids and they (Nicki Blonsky, Amanda Bynes, Zac Efron, Elijah Keeley and Brittany Snow) are all excellent in their own ways.



The issues of racism are treated in rather a simplistic way with rather caricatured attitudes played for humour, and yet somehow it seems to work. It certainly fits with the feel of the film and maybe its a sign of how much mainstream attitudes have shifted over the past 50 years that it now makes such a fitting subject for light humour or maybe such attitudes just deserve such ridicule rather than being taken seriously.



This is by no means a great movie, but as lightweight entertainment, is surprisingly amusing in a kitsch way.

WARNING: Do Not Watch This Movie on an Empty Stomach

Waitress - 3.5/5

With some movies it becomes hard to tell whether the fuss and acclaim is to do with the film or the events surrounding it. Waitress is such a film - very well received at Sundance and other places on the indie scene, but the question is whether this is down to merit or because of the tragic murder of writer/director and co-star Adrienne Shelly shortly after completion of the film. I suspect a bit of both - this is a good film, but not quite the classic certain reviews and reports make it out to be.

The plot follows, surprisingly enough, a waitress - Keri Russell's Jenna - with a gift for inventing new pie recipes, who discovers that she is pregnant. As her husband (Jeremy Sisto) is a bullying, abusive, no-good-for-nothing type of a fellow, this is not exactly welcome news. She handles it by starting an affair with her gynaecologist (Serenity's Nathan Fillion). In the background are the tangled love lives of her colleagues, including another adulterous affair.

Contrary to the appearance of the trailer this is definitely not a romantic comedy in any traditional sense of the genre. It starts out funnily enough, with most of the characters seeming like amusing caricatures in a smalltown America way. However, as you get to know them they reveal more depth, becoming more believable and likeable (except in Sisto's case, who becomes more brutal as the movie progresses). In the end, it shows quirky humanity in all its strengths and weaknesses with some real laughs, a few touching moments and the odd shock.

Russell (who is perhaps best known for having a bomb in her head explode at the start of Mission Impossible 3) proves a likeable and watchable lead and she is ably backed by the rest of a strong cast. Surprisingly it is Fillion, doing his nervous charm, who is the weakest link - not in terms of performance, which is highly entertaining, but because his character seems to lack in motivation - what makes this happily married doc embark on an affair with a patient? It remains a complete blank. In many ways it falls to Andy Griffith in excellent form as the garrulous cafe owner to provide the moral heart and direction of the story.

The film adopts an interesting approach towards the adulterous relationships - never condoning, or romanticising, but neither does it condemn those involved (such condemnation is reserved for the truly horrible husband) but rather to understand (and this where the lack of depth to Fillion's character weakens the whole), whilst ultimately coming to the conclusion that they are probably a bad idea.

So, an interesting and often amusing film that is well worth a peak, but only after eating a hearty meal because this is one of those rare movies where the food really works and those pies will have you watering at the mouth.

Evan Help Us.

Evan Almighty - 2/5

Bruce Almighty was something of a surprisingly big hit in 2003, in part due to being slightly funnier and a whole lot less blasphemous and offensive than expected, thus managing to win over the American Bible belt. It was an OK film, not a classic by any means, but certainly funny enough to be watchable - Evan is a sequel of sorts, with minor character Evan Baxter (Steve Carrell) taking centre stage and Jim Carrey being totally absent. Depending how you view Mr Carrey this may be a good thing or a bad thing. This has been made possibly by Carrell's rise to the A-list since Bruce was made, with hits like The 40 Year Old Virgin and the American version of The Office. Carrell now has to carry the most expensive comedy ever made, with a budget somewhere north of $170 million.

Evan has moved from newsreader to congressman, but his rise to power is somewhat derailed when God shows up and tells him to build an ark, because there's a flood coming. Which isn't the worst set up for a comedy that there's ever been.

The first thing to say is that it wasn't quite as bad as I was expecting it to be from the reviews I'd read. It had a few funny moments - like Evan addressing the House Committee with an unintended costume change. There are also some clever and amusing touches, like a cinema showing a nice variation on one of Carrell's earlier hits. Unfortunately these moments are too few and far between. Carrell is a more restrained performer than Carrey and tries his best, but can't do much with the limited material.

The expensive effects are hit and miss - the flood is not really convincing. They go for volume and variety with the animals, but fail to really use any of them effectively apart from having the birds repeatedly crap on people, which stops being funny long before it starts. The other characters are weak 2-dimensional stereotypes - from John Goodman's evil money-grabbing congressman to Wanda Sykes sassy black-woman assistant who seems to be there to hammer home every point or joke with a sledgehammer sarcastic comment.

The so-called environmental message is as weak and flimsy as the political conspiracy around exploiting national parks for profit - its all so simplistic and so seen-it-all-before-and-better. In fact, you could argue that what the film ultimately says is that its OK to ruin the environment as long as you don't cut corners and compromise health and safety whilst doing so. The other message of the film - that its important to spend time with your family, is all a bit twee. Even then there's no real sense of character development or moment of revelation, more Evan being forced into things. And the suggestion that the biblical flood was about giving Noah the opportunity to spend time with the family is just way off beam.

Appropriately enough, the film's main redeem,ing feature is Morgan Freeman, returning in twinkle-eyed form as God. He livens up proceedings no end, whenever he appears (which isn't often enough) and grabs the vast majority of the best lines.

All in all, this isn't offensive to anybody's sensibilities, but neither is it funny or engaging. Proof that bigger isn't always better. If you do feel like something from the rather curious sub-genre of religious comedy, I'd save your ticket money and go rent Saved on DVD, which is far more offensive to religious sensibilities, but a much better film and at the end of the day more meaningful.

The Hoax - 4/5

The latest from director Lasse Hallstrom (Chocolat, The Shipping News) is the true story of struggling writer Clifford Irving who almost succeeded in selling the authorised biography of elusive billionaire Howard Hughes, despite never had had any contact with him.

The film relies on the audience having a certain amount of background knowledge about Hughes (and also Nixon and Watergate) and is therefore probably helped by coming just a couple of years after Scorcese's biopic of Hughes The Aviator. Irving himself banked on Hughes, famously reclusive and facing huge lawsuits from shareholders, not apearring publically to refute the book. It was a gamble he lost when Hughes held a telephone press-conference to deny any involvement.

So, while lacking any will he won't he tension, it draws you in through Hallstrom's keeping things moving at a fair old pace and never letting the action drag, but mainly by a great performance from Richard Gere as Irving. After having sleep-walked through most of his romantic-lead-for-the-over-40s roles of the last decade. Throwing his hat into the ring early in next year's Oscar race, he gives us a compelling portrayal of a charismatic man impulsively ruled by his self-destructive tendancies leading to his inevitable downfall both in his lies and his extra-marital affair with Julie Delpy.

Gere is ably supported by Alfred Molina as his ultra-nervous researcher who gets sucked into Irving's schemes and his come-uppance. There also good turns from the ever-watchable Hope Davis and Stanley Tucci as the beguiled publishers. Only Marcia Gay Harden, saddled with European accent duties, really struggles, failing to make Irving's wife likeable enough for some scenes to pay off.

The Nixon-Watergate subplot at times feels under-explained and at others incredible - did this hoax really prompt the Watergate break-ins, did Hughes really secretly supply Irving with information in order to rattle Nixon into doing what he wanted. To be honest, I don't know enough of the real history to judge. However, by the end of the film it really doesn't matter. The point is that, in the film at least, Irving believed this and as the movie becomes increasingly sucked into the point of view of a man who is obviously increasingly losing his grip on reality. We begin to enter territory which is more Confessions of a Dangerous Mind than Catch Me if You Can. It does get a bit messy and confused, but it is never less than compelling and fascinating and that is largely down to Gere.

Some Idle Political Speculation

All the main political leaders have decided to holiday in the UK this summer - how much this is personal preference, how much PR or how much fear of being caught off guard by an early election is a matter of speculation. So will we be looking at an October election?

Gordon Brown has certainly made a successful start to his term in office. He has managed to present himself as different both in character and in policy to Tony Blair. He is projecting the idea of himself as a serious politician with something real to offer, distancing himself both from George W Bush and the war in Iraq, wanting to put the focus on to issues like Darfur (and, as an aside, whilst I celebrate that we finally have a UN resolution on Darfur which draws on African strength and has teeth, I want to cry that we should have been here several years ago!). Of course, the distance from Bush makes political sense on both sides of the Atlantic - Bush has only 17 months in office left, and with the strong possibility of a democrat in the White House soon, a strong tie to the Bush administration probably does Brown no favours.

Domestically, he has come up with a raft of new ideas and enjoyed a considerable "bounce" in the polls. This is by no means a disaster for Cameron's conservatives - in fact, it was almost inevitable. What Cameron needs to do is to keep his party together and not panic. He also needs to come back from his holiday fighting and show what he actually stands for, if not in concrete policies, at least in key principles - other than the environment, nobody is yet clear where Cameron's conservatives actually stand. However, the signs are not good in Tory land - the sound of sharpening knives can be heard and they are already eyeing each others backs for a place to put them. The worst thing for the Tories would be for Cameron to follow the example of his three predecessors, starting out by trying to modernise and move to the centre, but at the first sign of trouble retreating to the unelectable right. His question about Europe during question time last week played right into Gordon's hands.

Meanwhile, the lib-dems under Menzies Campbell continue their rather convincing impression of a rudderless ship. They are going nowhere.

So will Brown call an early election. I think he'll want to, not only to take advantage of the disarray in the opposition ranks, but also to get his own mandate from the country, not a borrowed one from Blair. The other factor is, of course, Iraq. He's managed to distance himself from the war so far, but getting Britain disentangled from the situation is going to take a lot more time and he is now the one who is ultimately responsible. So an election before he gets too bogged down in the fallout will be desirable. But not October - I think Brown will feel its too soon. I also think he'll feel (probably justifiably) that he has the substance and the ideas to keep ahead of Cameron, maybe even do more damage to the Tories for a while longer. And of course, the Labout party is currently broke - they cannot really afford an October election. I think he'll go for Spring 2008.

When it does come, it really will be a two horse race - I think the Lib-Dems will lose seats, the Tories will consolidate in the South, but make no progress in the North and Gordon Brown will have a slightly increased majority. But that's just speculation.