The Dark Knight

There is a tendancy for superhero movies to arrive cloaked in so much hype and anticipation that there is an almost inevitable sense of anti-climax watching them. Even the best of them can sometimes seem disappointing. Batman Begins was a very good film, but for me at least, never quite as good as it was made out to be. It does mean that, however, The Dark Knight arrives with a huge weight of expectation.

Added to that, of course, is the huge burden of Heath Ledger's legacy. There has been talk of a posthumous oscar - is that merely a sentimental nod to a lost talent or is his performance really that good.

It is a great pleasure, therefore, to be able to report that The Dark Knight doesn't disappoint in any respect. It is possibly the best superhero movie ever made , certainly putting into the shade any recent efforts. Director Christopher Nolan is perhaps slightly more comfortable with the quieter character moments than the action sequences, but the later will certainly not produce any complaints - from the great opening bank robbery sequence to the car chase and flipping of an articulated lorry, there are some superb moments here.

Its also among the more intelligent action movies you'll see. The themes of hero as flipside of villain may not be new, but they're very well handled and there are some fascinating psychological games and choices set up by the Joker. Above all there's a psychological and emotional depth that rings true across the board.

Then there's the cast to die for - Bale is reliable as ever in the lead, Gary Oldman likewise in support, Maggie Gyllenhaal an impovement on Katie Holmes as Rachel, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman add a touch of wry humour to proceedings. The undersung Aaron Eckhart makes a very convincing Harvey Dent, the crusading DA whose fate has been well signposted.

Then there's Ledger - no hype in talk of Oscar's, he's superb, brilliant, amazing. He puts Jack Nicholson's scene-munching caricature into the shade. Its more a tribute to the strength of the rest of the cast that he doesn't unbalance or steal the whole movie, so compelling is his turn. Much darker than previous incarnations, the decision not to give him a backstory (in fact, he plays games with cliched ideas of origins) or explain too much his motivation, work well and make him all the more chilling.

There are weaknesses here - its possibly slightly too long (although it does hold the attention). Caine and Freeman in particular are underused, and Harvey Dent's transformation feels a bit rushed and the Two-Face effects are not the best and seem slightly out of place in the film. From an action point of view it also ends with one of weaker sequences, although it works well from a psychological viewpoint. But these are really minor quibbles, given the quality of the whole.

Overall - 5/5. Possibly the best superhero movie ever and a poignant reminder to just what a talent we lost with Ledger's death. See it and be blown away.

WALL-E

It's a strange pitch for an animated movie aimed at a family audience - we'll set it on a futurstic earth that has been totally trashed, we'll have no cute furry animals or even humans for the first half of the movie and the lead characters will be practically incapable of speech. It's a bold movie for Pixar and one which does them credit as a studio never content to rest on the laurels or do the reliably successful. It may turn out not to be one of their most successful commercially, but its certainly among their best.

WALL-E is the last remaining robot left with the task of cleaning up the earth after humanity fled to their refuge in the stars. For a creation with no words and minimal facial features he's endowed with a remarkable amount of personality, especially a childlike curiosity and deep loneliness. In what would be an excessive amount of time if it weren't so well done, we are shown him going about his business, cleaning up our junk and investigating it at the same time. Its full of wonderfully amusing little touches and beautiful flourishes.

Then WALL-E's world is turned upside down by the arrival of EVE - another robot sent to scout for signs of life. There is something both highly comic and simultaneously heartbreaking about WAll-E's attempts to get EVE's attention, especially when she has entered shut-down mode.

The film then blasts off into space, a sequence which includes some of the most beautiful animation in the film (or in many other films) and we meet what remains of humanity, whose desire for instant gratification has reduced them to a toddler like state of existence. It's telling that the robots seem so much more human than the humans. There are some lovely moments where WALL-E disturbs their cushioned existence and enables them to start seeing things again, to develop a curiosity and appreciation of life.

Like Pixar's best, this is beautifully animated - look at the space dance sequence, for example , - full of humour, but also genuinely moving. It references other sci-fi giants, especially Star Trek and 2001 (watch out for the clever use of music from Kubrick's film at key moments), is just bursting with clever little touches.

Overall - 5/5 It's a wonderful film from the masters in the field that easily stands up to their very best. Plenty for children and adults alike. WALL-E may be one of the most unlikely heroes of the year, but he's one of the most engaging.

The Forbidden Kingdom

As the first time that Jet Li and Jackie Chan (probably the two greatest living exponents of on screen kung fu) had ever shared the screen, The Forbidden Kingdom was bound to be greeted with a fair deal of excitement. It was almost as inevitable that it would, in some ways, fail to live up to expectations.

For the first 40 minutes or so, you'll wonder quite what you're watching. The look of the film resembles Hero or Crouching Tiger without really approaching the poetic beauty of those films. The tone is light without ever reaching the humour of Kung Fu Hustle or Shaolin Soccer. The script gets caught between the two, throwing a good deal of 70s Karate movies into the mix and has moments of inspiration, but is borderline dreadful despite Chan's best effort. It also borrows liberally from Karate Kid, Monkey and bizarrely Lord of the Rings. Sky High's Michael Angarano looks as lost in proceedings as his character. Admittedly there's some stunning scenery and a few nice fight scenes.

And then there's the moment where Chan and Li go face to face and fight each other. Its a sequence worthy of its stars and from that moment on the film lifts itself in the action sequences at least into something far more entertaining. There's also some nice interplay between the two after they join forces and make quite a good double act. The final showdown with the evil Jade Warlord and henchman is wonderfully inventive and entertaining. So much so that its almost a shame that we have to return to the States for the final coda which adds little except tying up loose ends.

Overall - 3/5 Its not the classic that was hoped for by any means, its a bit of a confused mess, but it looks good and when Chan and Li get together the action really kicks ass.

Journey to the Centre of the Earth 3-D

This is a film that is really only worth seeing if you catch it in one of the 3-D showings. The whole film seems to have been pretty well built around ideas for effects shots which get the audience jumping as different objects come hurtling towards them.

Less a re-make of the 1950s version or a fresh adaptation of Jules Vernes' novel, than a loose kind of sequel about people who believe Vernes' work to be true and some who discover it is. Brendan Fraser (basically re-jigging his role from The Mummy) plays the muscular scientist who stumbles into the world below the surface whilst on a trip to Iceland with his nephew (Bridge to Terabithia's Josh Hutcherson) and their blonde icelandic guide (Anita Briem), who's there for the inevitable romantic subplots, but does at least get to rescue Fraser as much as she's rescued.

Fraser is on likeable form as the lead, far more convincing as action man than scientist. Briem has her moments early on, but gets reduced more and more to damsel in distress as the film progresses, whilst Hutcherson's talents are largely underused. The script has some good moments, (unfortunately, mostly in the trailer), but this is all about the action sequences and effects and on the whole, these work well. It contains the best mine cart sequence since Temple of Doom and some good use of the 3-D technology. The problem is that after having found a good 3-d shot, it will then be repeated until the impact starts to wear thin. After having Fraser spit toothpaste at the camera in the opening moments, the same idea is used at least twice more. Similarly not just one, but many flying fish are shot at the audience.

The world created is rather patchy, with parts of it definitely more convincing than others. The creatures, especially the gruesome fish and fluorescent birds are rather better realised. The plot is as full of holes as the crumbling landscape. Leaving aside the numerous instances of terribly bad science, little details like backpacks that seem to travel by themselves (always re-appearing after being left behind). And, also, if that's Fraser's brother who disappears into a lava-filled chasm in the movie's opening shot, then who's under the pile of stones on the beech later on and just who buried him?

Overall - 2.5/5 It's all rubbish, effects driven-ribbish at that, but in the hands of Fraser it's actually quite likeable, entertaining and fun rubbish.

Kung Fu Panda

Since the first Shrek movie, Dreamworks Animation have been struggling through adequate movies which fail to even get close to the quality of rivals Pixar. Kung Fu Panda, encouragingly is one of their better efforts. That said, it rarely even gets close to being good enough to be in the shadow of even lesser Pixar efforts like Cars or Ratatouille.

Once again they've attracted a truly stellar vocal cast (Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu) for this tale of a noodle selling panda called Po (Jack Black) who dreams of being a kung fu master and has his dream come true just in time to face off against ultra-nasty bad guy snow leopard Tai Lung (McShane).

The cast are great - McShane wonderfully nasty and Black somehow seeming typecast - the opening dream sequence is so pure Jack Black your response will depend very much on how you view the actor himself. And there are somer great moments - Tai Lung's escape from an impossible prison is visually stunning and inventive. There's a training sequence involving dumplings that's very funny and some good fight scenes, especially one on a rope bridge. There's also some nice almost tongue-in-cheek stuff with the old master.

However, overall the film lacks the sharpness in either visuals or script that we would now expect from Pixar. And (curiously like The Forbidden Kingdom (to be reviewed soon)) thew film clearly comes out of love for Kung Fu movies and gets itself stuck between homage and pastiche at times, which in this case leads to the odd straying into an unnecessary sentimentality.

Overall - 3/5 A solid rather than spectacular effort with some nice flourishes and a good cast. Better than a lot of recent non-Pixar animations, but not in the same league as the leaders in the field.

Les Femmes de l'ombre (Female Agents)

Although allegedly inspired by real SOE agents from the Second World War, you come away with the definite sense that the film owes far more to the staples of the movie genre than any sense of actual events. At times it almost comes off as a female (and reduced numbers) version of The Dirty Dozen, with many aspects of the story straining credulity.

The film follows Louise Desfontaines (Sophie Marceau) and the team of agents (Julie Depardieu, Marie Gillain, Maya Sansa, Deborah Francois) she puts together to firstly rescue a British operative and then assassinate the SS colonel who now knows too much about the D-Day landings (Moritz Bleibtreu (Run, Lola, Run; The Experiment)). What follows is the usual mix of successes and blunders, heroic sacrifices, etc... There's not much here thats going to seem new at all. Its easy to shoot holes in the plot which makes much of some small difficulties but has characters disappear in the middle of a station full of Nazi soldiers and re-appear in London.

However, put that to one side, take it as a slightly silly war-based thriller and its an entertaining and well put-together film that will keep you along for the ride through some good set pieces - witness the escape from the hospital or the failed attempt on the metro. Its aided by some strong performances from the women (especially Marceau and Depardieu) and some good interplay between them.

However, the film's strongest point is perhaps Bleibtreu, who manages to humanise the SS colonel without reducing the nastiness of what he does. He manages to tread the line between cartoonish villain and sympathetc figures. If anything, the human touches and intelligence he brings to the part make his cruelty all the more chilling.

Overall - 3/5 It's nonsense, but quite gripping and well-done nonsense, aided by a strong cast on good form.

Adulthood

It takes a wee bit of a mental leap to disassociate writer/director/star Noel Clarke from Mickey from Doctor Who. Once you're past that potential stumbling block, you can begin to appreciate what an accomplished job he does in all three roles here.

Its the directing thats the new string to his bow (he was the writer for this film's predecessor Kidulthood) and is perhaps his most impressive. He handles matters with a very assured hand and isn't afraid to try things out, even if there is the odd moment where this falls into the new director's trap of being a bit too showy for the film's good. There's really only one major mis-step in the closing moments of the film.

That said, he also does a good job with the writing and the acting, turning his character Sam, the villain of the first film, into the sympathetic character - just released from prison for the events at the end of kidulthood and trying to put his life back together. The film as a whole moves slightly more into standard London gangster flick territory than the earlier movie had done, but there are some strong supporting performances and a bearable cameo from Danny Dyer.

Overall - 3/5 A solid rather than spectacular effort, but confirms Noel Clarke as a talent to watch over the next few years.

Hors de prix (Priceless)

A bit of a strange one to categorise - its not exactly a romantic comedy, but manages to be both hilarious in places and ultimately genuinely touching. In some ways the plot (and the dresses) has distant echoes of Breakfast at Tiffanys, but its both more and less cynical in its approach to human nature.

Audrey Tautou plays a young gold-digger, hooking up with a succession of rich, older men in order to support her taste for designer clothes, fancy hotels and the most expensive food. However, she mistakenly ends up in bed with a hotel waiter (Gad Elmaleh) who then pursues her to Nice. When she has exhausted his credit, he ends up adopting her lifestyle, being taken up by a rich widow (Marie-Christine Adam).

Tautou is superb - a performance that combines her usual liveliness with the subtlest glimpses of the loneliness ands fragility that drive her. Adam is also great, managing to humanise what could have been a merely comic role to show touches of loneliness and humanity in the super-rich. Opposite them, Elmaleh gives a fine comic turn.

Amidst the beautiful shots of a sun-drenched riviera, the film has many real comic scenes, but also manages to find pathos in some of the most unlikely situations. If at the end it strays into romantic comedy genre cliche - the mad dash through the hotel to get to the loved one before its too late, etc... by that time, it will have won you over enough that you will forgive.

Overall - 3.5/5 It might not be the greatest comedy or romance ever, but has enough original touches, charm, humour and surprisingly touching moments to make it one of the best of recent times.

Shut up and sing

I was recently watching a DVD documentary called Shut Up and Sing which followed American county music trio the Dixie Chicks in the wake of the controversy that surrounded remarks made by their lead singer during a concert in London. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq she made an impromptu remark that they were ashamed the president of the United States was from the same state as them. This was picked up first by the Guardian and then by sections of media until it quickly snowballed into a huge scale campaign against the group, including boycotts and, in the extreme death threats.

Several things struck me watching this. One of which was how scary it is, in this day and age, prominent figures can say on live television that women "deserve to be slapped around" and have the female anchor person nodding in agreement and this is far more acceptable than a personal view expressed about a political leader. Somewhere there are some seriously skewed values at work there.

But it also got me thinking on the differences between Britain and America. In Britain we tend to view our leaders, whether government or monarchy, as people who can do next to nothing right, whose every action is deserving of criticism and skepticism. It almost becomes a mark of British-ness to be unhappy with and critical of our leaders. Whereas, in the States, or at least in certain sections of the American population (because I'm aware that over the past few years America has become an increasingly divided country and these issues are kind of core to that divide) criticism of the president would seem to be akin to criticism of the nation and tantamount to treason. America enshrines freedom of speech within the constitution and yet the exercise of this freedom to criticise America or her leaders has become almost taboo and certainly unpatriotic.

So blind faith or cynicism - neither of them seem a particularly healthy option for a national identity or a sense of belonging. It then got me thinking that there is probably something of a parallel that happens in our attitudes towards faith and church in particular. On the one hand there are the complainers for whom nothing is ever good enough and on the other those for whom the way things are done, and especially our beliefs themselves, must never be questioned or re-evaluated as this would be tantamount to heresy. Again, neither attitude would seem to be very helpful in the formation of a healthy faith. The willingness to question and be questioned whilst maintaining a respect for what is there, to reconsider and re-evaluate without losing faith, I am increasingly coming to believe is part of healthy growth as a Christian. The more we have things set in stone, the more limits we have on our concept of and understanding of God and, perhaps, the less able we are to fully connect with him.

But that's a topic I plan to maybe return to at greater length another time.

The Edge of Love

To get one thing clear from the outset, contrary to the marketing this film is not "this year's Atonement, only better". It lacks the intelligence of Atonement, the direction and cinematography are weaker, the acting isn't as good and the score is nowhere near the same league. So beyond the superficialities of being set at the same time and featuring the same actress (Keira Knightley) its not a good comparison and does this film no favours.

The film concerns the women in the life of poet Dylan Thomas (Matthew Rhys) and the unlikely friendship that forms between his wife (Sienna Miller) and his childhood sweetheart (Knightley). The opening half of the film, set in a blitz ravaged London, is promising enough - director John Maybury gives us some good shots and some genuine jolts and an intriguing introduction to the characters.

The acting throughout is good - Knightley and Miller both manage credible Welsh accents, (although certain parts of the dialogue get lost slightly) and Miller, in particular, gives a great performance. Rhys plays Thomas as a kind of Peter Pan figure - refusing to take responsibility or grow-up or take anything seriously and whilst this might capture something of his self-centredness, it fails to account for the depth or despair of some of his writing. (In general, Thomas' poetry is handled pretty poorly by the film - muttered semi-audibly in barely comprehensible snippets rather than given room to shine, but then the focus of the film is definitely on the women). Cillian Murphy, as Knightley's suitor and later husband, has to deal with the stiffest of accents and the dodgiest of lines, but still emerges with the most credit from the second half of the film, giving a convincing portrayal of a man returned from the trauma of fighting in Greece. In fact, its the redemption of his relationship with Knightley that ultimately proves the films most redeeming feature.

It's in the second half - set in a seemingly permananently wet and misty Wales (which doubtless won't please the Welsh tourist board) - that things just start to drift as the relationships become more tangled. I found myself becoming more concerned for the baby, seemingly carelessly left here, there and everywhere, than any of the adult participants and it comes as something of a relief when Murphy finally gets out his rifle and starts shooting up the house.

Overall - 3/5. The opening section is really good viewing, but the film then gets lost somewhat in the Welsh mist. Strong performances from Murphy and Miller will just about keep you engaged till the end though.

Hancock

The story that Hancock is adapted from tells of a superhero who can't make love with a woman without killing her. Obviously that's not a movie that's going to be a summer blockbuster starring Will Smith, but vestiges of it remain in this tale of a man feeling all alone because of his powers who has become a drunken and obnoxious, rather than the stereotypical hero. After being saved from being squished by a train, hapless PR man Ray (Jason Bateman) decides to help Hancock turn his image around.

And this is where the film starts to falter and lose energy and focus. The first 20 minutes or so are amongst the funniest in a recent blockbuster, but the problem is that the unreformed Hancock is actually a far more interesting and fun character than the reformed one. After that the film gets stuck between pastiche-ing the normal superhero movie story and becoming it.

Not that its bad - Smith is his usual watchable self and there's good work too from Bateman and Charlize Theron, as Ray's wife who clearly knows more than she's telling. There's a nice turn too from Brit Eddie Marsan (the driving instructor from Happy Go Lucky) as the villain. There are some good sequences too - the bank hold-up and final hospital showdown hold their own against most superheroes movies. And there are some interesting idea - not just in the loneliness of the hero, but at the end in the idea of sacrifice and giving up a loved one in order to let them live.

It's all very watchable, but loses alot of the humour without necessarily adding believable character development or a clear focus on ideas. The section of Hancock reforming is too long without really offering sufficient motivation for him to change. Things do pick up again when the twists start, but you're left with the impression of something that's mushy rather than moving and full of cod psycho-babble rather than a proper exploration of ideas.

Overall - 3/5 A great opening and never less than entertaining watch, but definitely feels like it was close to being much better with a bit more focus.

Wanted

Wanted would be an easy film to knock – visually it borrows heavily from The Matrix amongst others, the plot makes about as much sense as Boris Johnson on a bad day (there’s some nonsense about a guild of assassins who are guided to their targets by the “loom of fate”), James McAvoy’s American accent is rather dodgy and Angelina Jolie plays the same part she played in Mr and Mrs Smith and seems to be only half-trying. Oh, and the CGi in the train sequence is rather less than convincing.

All of which is true, but rather misses the fun of it all. Director Timur Bekmambetov does borrow from The Matrix’s bullet-time, but there is just as much of his own Russian films, Nightwatch and Daywatch in the mix and he creates some genuinely impressive sequences – watch out especially for the opening rooftop shootout and the car chase.

The plot may be rather silly, but the script is lively and fun and keeps things moving on the whole at a healthy pace (although the training section is a wee-bit overlong) which prevents things getting bogged down in unnecessary explanations.

McAvoy, accent-aside, provides a charismatic lead who keeps you watching. Jolie, even at less than fully trying is far more watchable than a lot of actresses doing their best. And the rest of a talented cast do well, although Terence Stamp feels a bit out of place. It’s also refreshing to see Morgan Freeman in a less than saintly role for a change – he even gets to swear!

Overall – 3.5/5. It’s not exactly ground-breaking or especially deep, but there are some great sequences and good performances that make Wanted one of the best and most fun actioners of the summer so far.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

The recent rush, post Rings and Potter, to get any possible fantasy-themed children’s book onto the screen – for every success (The Bridge to Terabithia, Spiderwicke Chronicles) there seems to be a corresponding failure (The Dark is Rising) and lets not even think about Eragon. The first Narnia movie, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe kind of fell in the middle – it was faithful enough to the book to keep fans (and the American Bible Belt) happy enough to bring huge commercial success as a the Christmas family movie of choice, but if we’re honest, it was a wee bit of a flat adaptation.

Caspian has several obstacles to overcome – firstly the best performances in the first film came from James McAvoy’s Mr Tumnus (now long dead) and Tilda Swinton’s white witch (reduced to the briefest of appearances here, but still a highlight). Secondly, this is not such a well-known or well-loved novel.

The good news is that director Andrew Adamson has improved on the first film. You come away from Prince Caspian with a much greater sense of Narnia as a believable world with more substance. As seems inevitably the way, the sequel is “darker” – the addition of more human roles bringing with it plots and intrigues a plenty, but also making the whole more engaging and interesting. The human city and castle add a more distinctive flavour to the visuals as well.

The battle scenes are also more impressive that in movie 1, but those who have seen Lord of the Rings will both feel a sense of deja-vu and a feeling that Narnia is still an inferior copy in many respects. I stopped trying to count how many shots were directly borrowed or strongly influenced by Rings.

The films major weakness remains the older children, especially William Mosely as Peter, whose performance creaks badly. And as he is required to shoulder the main character arc and moral development in the film, that’s quite a major flaw. Of the other youngsters, newcomer Ben Barnes (in the title role) and Anna Popplewell (Susan) are reduced to exchanging moody/meaningful glances at each other. Whilst the younger children, Georgie Henley (Lucy) and especially Skandar Keynes (Edmund) are better but given far too little to do.

Instead, the real stars of the movie turn out to be Peter Dinklage as the dwarf Trumpkin and Eddie Izzard voicing Reepicheep, the swashbuckling mouse. Together they inject some much needed life and humour into proceedings. Which bodes well for the next film, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where Reepicheep should play a much larger role. Unfortunately, Liam Neeson’s Aslan remains peculiarly flat and unengaging.

Overall – 3/5. It’s an improvement, but in movie terms Narnia’s not quite there yet. Promising signs for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where the lack of big battles might move us more away from the Rings trilogy.

Back on the blog - the summer so far!

Well, I've not been on the blog for quite a long while as life has filled up with other things. With a bit more time on my hands over the next few weeks, I thought I'd try and put a few thoughts down. To start with the main interest of the blog: how's the summer been so far in the cinema.

The Best:

Son Of Rambow managed to be both funny and moving and more original than usual and contained some of best child performances of recent years. Persepolis had a unique visual style, a compelling story and an interesting insight into a culture that is often demonised in the West. More recently, Gone Baby Gone hinted that Ben Affleck might have more of a future in directing than acting, presenting us with a portrait of the part of Boston he grew up in combined with an intriguing mystery where the moral questions became more complex with every twist uncovered.

In Bruges was darkly funny whilst pushing the boundaries of good taste. Mongol was beautifully shot, stunning scenery and an intriguing take on the Genghis Khan story. Caramel was a warm and subtle tale crossing divides in Lebanon. My Brother is an Only Child boasts perhaps the best title of the year and an interesting, well-acted portrait of political differences and families in Italy in the 60s and 70s. And Scorcese's Stones concert flick Shine a Light was well worth checking out.

The Worst:

Brian De Palma's Iraq based Redacted was an intriguing idea let down by acting and scripting so bad it became both unintentionally funny and offensive. Talking of bad acting and scripting, M Night Shyamalan's The Happening was deeply disappointing a featured career-low performances from both Mark Wahlberg and ZooeyDeschanel - the former seeming to think that the way to be convincing as a teacher was to be unbearably whiny throughout.

Elsewhere, Three and Out couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a comedy or an emotional drama and missed both by a country mile. Superhero Movie wasn't the worst spoof of recent years but was still more miss than hit with the gags, as was Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanomo Bay. Fool's Gold featured two of the worst accents of recent years from Brit actors Ray Winstone and Ewan Bremner, and they were still the high points of the film.

Doomsday was enjoyable post-apocalyptic rubbish, if not always intentionally so. Speed Racer was a migraine-inducing day-glo mess of a film, that had its moments, but confirmed the impression of the Matrix sequels that the Wachowski's really need to learn some discipline in editing and keeping a clear narrative. Whereas, Street Kings was very much seen it all before corrupt cop drama with bad acting again, requiring more emotional range than Keanu Reeves is capable of and wasting Forrest Whittaker's talent with poor dialogue.

The Rest:

Horton Hears a Who was a good recreation of Dr Seuss style without, except in the observatory sequence, ever really challenging Pixar's inventiveness. Iron Man was a good start to a franchise, a better than average superhero movie that was made far more watchable by the presence of Robert Downey Jr, whose sparring with Gwyneth Paltrow proved a highlight of the film. Downey Jr also lifted sub-Ferris Bueller Charlie Bartlett, which was good, but not as much as it thought it was. Funny Games was well done and thought-provoking but probably lacked the explicitness to attract the audience it really wanted to challenge.

Of the big blockbusters, The Incredible Hulk improved on Ang Lee's effort but lost its way after a promising opening with the CGI Hulk still being too flat to be sympathetic. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was not the film you'd hoped for, but better than the one you'd feared might be produced. It just about holds its own, but strays too far into the ridiculous for my taste.

Mike Leigh's Happy Go Lucky like its central character, took some work to get used, but then proved surprisingly likeable. Bienvenue Chez Les Ch'tis was an amusing and likeable French comedy which maybe loses some of its humour in translation. And Shotgun Stories was a heavy-going but interesting tale of feuds in small town America.

21 and Leatherheads were both entertaining enough, but left you with the feeling that the talent involved should have produced better. And comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall was marginally more hit than miss and won points for the hilarious puppet musical of Dracula it contained and a performance by Russell Brand that didn't leave you wanting to throw things at the screen.

Well, thats it for now. Hopefully be back soon.

Drillbit Taylor

Owen Wilson, despite his recent well-publicised problems, is an actor with tons of charisma and charm. He has the laid-back stoner act so well honed that he could do it in his sleep. The problem is that too often that's exactly what he seems to be doing. Drillbit Taylor is no exception, and to be honest, we've all seen it too many times before.

Wilson plays an army deserter who is hired by three high school nerds as a bodyguard to protect them from the school bully. The character arcs are as predictable as Wilson's performance - he goes from looking to exploit the youngsters to a genuine affection, they move from passive victims to standing up for themselves.

This is not irredeemably bad - there are some funny moments - but coming from the same school as Superbad and Knocked-up (Seth Rogen is one of the writers here), you would expect funnier. There is a fine line to be trod in a comedy dealing with bullying - how to keep both the humour and the sympathy for the victims. Drillbit Taylor manages neither entirely successfully. All three of the youngsters border on the irritating and unlikeable, with only Troy Gentile offering enough charisma to get beyond this. Meanwhile Alex Frost (Elephant) as the bully offers a performance with enough menace to come close to stealing the whole movie and Leslie Mann is wasted as the teacher who falls for Drillbit.

Overall - 2.5/5 A few nice touches and funny moments can't disguise the fact that this should be both better and funnier and that Owen Wilson really needs to find some more challenging material - you just know he can do better than this.

Lars and the Real Girl

Even for a dedicated film fan like yours truly, the release schedules for the past few weeks have been somewhat ... dull, unexciting, lacking in quality or interest or anything that would make me actually really want to go to the cinema. The shining, solitary exception to this is this surprising indie oddity.

Don't be put off by the plot - which concerns a shy, lonely man (Ryan Gosling) who creates a delusional "real" relationship with a sex doll he buys on the internet. Becoming convinced that she is a real Brazilian missionary called Bianca, crippled by an illness. Following advice from the local psychologist (Patricia Clarkson) the whole community buys into this delusion in order to help Lars.

Don't be put off either by the fact that director Craig Gillespie's only previous film was the woeful Mr Woodcock. Aided by a great script from Nancy Oliver and some great performances, he manages to create a film that is subtle, funny, surprising and tender where his previous film was loud, brash, predictable and more than a little crap. Amazingly, it also a film with barely a hint of sleaze - no mean achievement given the subject.

It's not perfect - it does lack something in realism and is somewhat rosy in its portrait of small town America - surely somewhere there would be somebody shouting abuse or something. But it is a compelling portrait of loneliness and delusion, as well as support and love. Gosling (Half Nelson) is again superb - a picture of stumbling awkwardness who visibly grows in stature as the film progresses. He's supported well by the rest of the cast from the ever-excellent Clarkson to Emily Mortimer and Paul Schneider (you'll know the face even if you can't place it) as his brother and sister-in-law and Kelli Garner as the colleague who really rather likes him.

Overall - 4/5 A surprising delight that will amuse and move far more than it will make you squirm.

Movies to look forward to...

Now that awards season has ground to a halt and your local multiplex is gradually emptying of the oh-so-worthy oscar-bait, what is there to look forward to in the coming months. Here are a few of the films that are exciting me at the moment:

Son of Rambow (due March 28th) - gathering much love on the festival circuit and looking great from the trailer - promises to be both very funny and touching. Possibly the best British film of the year.

Iron Man (May 2nd) Could be the movie to breath fresh life into superhero flicks. The presence of Robert Downey Jr in the lead is promising

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (May 23rd) The movie event of the year! Not the most promising of titles, but the trailer looks great - Harrison Ford can definitely still cut it and adding Shia LaBouef into the mix should be a good move.

The Happening (June 13th) The new one from M Night Shyamalan looks typically intriguing from the trailer and might represent a return to the twist-master's best form.

WALL-E (July 18th) The new one from Pixar - you know its going to be good.

Valkyrie (August 8th) Cruise and Branagh as Germans plotting against Hitler directed by Brian Singer - could be the first contender for next years Oscars. Alternatively, could be terrible, but I'm going with the former at the moment.

Quantum of Solace (October 31) Another odd title, but Bond is back - can they maintain the form of Casino Royale - lets hope so!

And thats without mentioning the likes of The Dark Knight, Prince Caspian, Harry Potter or Sin City 2.

Catch-up

So, as you may have noticed, I’ve not had time to blog much recently, which means that there a few different movies that have been viewed and yet to be reviewed. What follows is a brief summary:

Vantage Point – 3/5
Described as 24 meets Rashomon – an assassination attempt on the president viewed from multiple perspectives – each adding something new to the mix. On the whole it works as good entertainment – the multiple perspectives change enough and add enough new information to avoid a feeling of repetition. There’s a quality cast who guarantee good value – Dennis Quaid, Forrest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt and Lost’s Matthew Fox. Most of the action set pieces and car chases work well and then they rather mess up the ending to leave it feeling too messy and contrived. Good, but should have been better.

Conversations with my Gardener – 3.5/5
OK, this one’s from the French film festival and isn’t on general release yet, but is well worth checking out when it comes around. It tells the story of an artist (Daniel Auteuil) who moves back to his home town and develops a friendship with his gardener (Jean-Pierre Darroussin) who is also a childhood friend. The film successfully treads the line – managing to both be genuinely funny and also giving a touching portrait of the friendship between two men. We’ve seen Auteuil do this kind of role often before, but it is Darroussin who gives the film real heart and steals he credits.

Margot at the Wedding – 2.5/5
Noah Baumbach’s follow-up to The Squid and the Whale treads the same ground – a darkly comic look at dysfunctional families. Margot (Nicole Kidman) and her teenage son go to visit her sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh) as she prepares to get married to an underachieving Jack Black. It maintains the humour of its predecessor, but is a messier and much less likeable affair, mainly due to the fact that none of the characters are particularly likeable.

The Spiderwick Chronicles – 3.5/5
Following a family break-up, a mum (the excellent Mary-Louise Parker) and her teenage daughter and twin sons (both played by Freddie Highmore) move into a big old house in the middle of nowhere. Soon a book is discovered that opens their eyes to the magical world of creatures around them and the danger that brings. Yes, its another children’s fantasy, but a more or less successful one – visually and emotionally (with the underplayed break-up situation) it comes close in feel to Bridge to Terabithia, which is actually a recommendation. The cast, which also includes David Strathairn, are all on good form and there are some real PG-level scares. Recommended for viewers of all ages.

10,000 BC – 2.5/5
It would so easy to knock the latest blockbuster from Roland Emmerich (Independance Day, The Day After Tomorrow) – you could start with the obviously multi-ethnic origins of the stone age tribe (presumably working on the logic that as long as they all look foreign nobody will notice), there’s the not entirely successful mixing of real actors and CGI mammoths, the script which might have been written in the stone ages, the ridiculous plot elements (including one pinched from Androcles and the lion). At the end of the day, though, if you go to watch this, you ain’t going to be expecting high art and as mindless entertainment and spectacle following in the footsteps of Apocalypto, it works OK. It also takes itself so seriously it becomes unintentionally hilarious in places, but it does, mainly, look great.

The Other Boleyn Girl – 2/5
Or Elizabeth:the Early Years. This film has many faults, but the main cast isn’t one of them – Eric Bana, Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman all do a creditable job and manage better than average English accents. The plot is historical soap opera, but that’s to be expected. The script is poor – with heavy handed moments of Tudor history for dummies inserted into dialogue. But the main fault is with the direction and cinematography – I’m not quite sure what was being attempted, but it doesn’t work – the odd camera angles, jerky shooting and odd cuts are more suggestive of a psychological thriller or slasher flick and are far more distracting than effective. Approach with caution.

The Boss of it All – 2/5
Lars Von Trier (Dogville, Breaking the Waves) is not a director renowned for making people laugh . Here he attempts a comedy, or so he tells us at the start. The set-up has good comic potential –company owner, Ravn, is too afraid of offending his employees so he invents a fictional boss to take responsibility for all the unpopular decisions. Due to circumstances he then has to hire out of work actor Kristoffer to play said boss – the problem being that the “boss” has told all the employees different things. The result isn’t without the odd wry smile, but leaves you with the feeling it should be much funnier. This seems to mainly be down to Von Trier seemingly being more interested in picking apart the genre than actually making people laugh – his closing words will leave you with the impression that he is the only one who is truly amused, and that at the expense of the audience.

The Bank Job

Going into an average film with low expectations, one can come away pleasantly surprised having actually quite enjoyed it. And The Bank Job is an average film - despite the apparent true story premise (one suspects that there is one heck of a lot of supposition at work) and political intrigue additions, this is effectively just another London-set gangster movie. From the loveable cockney thieves to the posh spooks, there's not much in the way of characterisation here beyond the stereotypical.

The plot follows Terry (Jason Statham) and his mates, tricked into the robbery of some safety deposit boxes by the intelligence community in order that they might get their hands on some incriminating pictures of a royal personage. In the process they also manage to rob various persons of ill-repute, who all want to get their stuff back.

What follows will leave you with a distinct sense of deja-vu - despite the political element to the set-up there's not much that hasn't been done before and done better. Statham in particular struggles with a role which requires him to be more restrained than usual and only really seems at ease in the last act where he gets to be menacing and violent.

There are, however, redeeming features - the script by Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais keeps things moving at a lively pace and keeps things clear and coherent with all the different groups and their motivations. Peter Bowles is very watchable as the intelligence chief, as is Stephen Campbell Moore (The History Boys) as Terry's photographer friend. On the downside, some of the violence feels a bit gruesome for what is otherwise quite a light tone to the film.

Overall - 2.5/5. Neither as good nor as bad as it might have been. Lacking in originality but fairly well executed for undemanding lively entertainment.

Be Kind Rewind

Writer-director Michael Gondry is certainly a man with an almost boundless imagination. After all, this is the man who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and brought us The Science of Sleep. Be Kind Rewind is not in the same league as either of those films, but it does have its inspired moments of lunacy.

The plot follows Mike (Mos Def) left in charge of the local video store only for his friend Jerry (Jack Black), who has become magnetised following a freak accident whilst sabotaging the local power plant, to wipe all the tapes. Rather than replacing them, the pair decide to shoot the films themselves, in doing so bringing their community together, etc... And yes there are strong elements of that old standard plot about a community uniting to save the store from the evil developers who want to rip everything down and the sentimentality comes pretty thick at the end.

The cast is strong - with supporting turns from the likes of Danny Glover, Mia Farrow and a blink and you'll miss it cameo from Sigourney Weaver. The leads aren't bad - Mos Def borders on the too whiny at times and Jack Black is in full manic mode, but given the overall lunacy of the plot, its more appropriate and watchable than he's been for a while. The film also takes its time to get going and slides into sentimentality at the end, but really hits its stride in the middle stages where the films are being re-shot, often hilariously. As one reviewer put it, you'd probably rather watch their version of Rush Hour 2 than the real thing. Disappointingly, some of the more intriguing ideas are only hinted at - I'd love to see Jack Black doing a twenty minute vesion of Lord of the Rings.

Overall - 3/5. It is a bit messy with too many ideas going in different directions, but at times its very funny and inspired in its lunacy.

There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood is not an easy watch - let's get that clear at the start. If you're looking for an evening's undemanding entertainment (and let's face it, we all need that some times) move along and try something in the next screen. Its starts with about 20 minutes without a word being spoken. The discordant score creates a tense, uneasy almost threatening atmosphere. It features moments that in illustrating the brutality of the early oil industry, will make you wince. There are no clear good guys in this film and it ends on a note that is either perfect or completely wrong - I'm still not sure.

But then director Paul Thomas Anderson has never been one to make easy choices. He followed up his multi-stranded masterpiece Magnolia with an Adam Sandler film (Punch Drunk Love) and now this. Its not easy but it frequently borders on greatness. Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, an oil man at the turn of the last century who adopts a young boy after his father is killed in a drilling accident. Plainview's motives are never entirely clear. He is brought into conflict with hellfire and brimstone preacher Eli Sunday (Little Miss Sunshine's Paul Dano) - both men acting parts as they try to win the upper hand in a power struggle.

Daniel Day Lewis' performance is superb - more mannered than you would usually expect from him, but he's playing a man who's all about a projected public image with little clue as to what lies beneath the surface. That Dano, not only lives with the pace, but challenges for the upper hand in most scenes is a testament to his talent. Together they make these not very likeable men watchable and interesting. The whole is shot stunningly and often beautifully, deservedly picking up the Oscar for cinematography.

Overall - 4.5/5 Another great film from Anderson - not easy to watch, but shot through with brilliance.

The Year Oscar Got it More or Less Right

So the results are in, the campaigning and speculation are over for another year (and no, I'm not talking about the US presidential elections). Oscar has made its decisions and, for once, there's not much you could really argue with.

No Country for Old Men edged out There Will be Blood in the big categories and it was the more enjoyable of the two films. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance was justly recognised as was Javier Baardem's - a talented and undersung actor finally getting his deserved moment in the spotlight. There was finally some deserved love for the Coens and a subtitled performance winning in best actress. It was also good to see The Bourne Ultimatum picking up awards, albeit only in the technical categories.

Atonement thoroughly deserved the best score as Juno did for screenplay and it was nice to see indie-charmer Once holding off the Enchanted three-pronged attack for best song. Ratatouille was always a shoe-in and The Counterfeiters was the only one of the foreign language films I'd seen, but it was good, so no complaints there.

The only slight quibble I'd have would be in the best supporting actress - not that Tilda Swinton wasn't good - she was, but Cate Blanchett was just superb in I'm Not There. At the end of the day maybe her double nomination hurt her or maybe the film was just too inaccessible for many Oscar voters.

But all in all, Oscar has set itself a high standard to live up to in years to come and given the right people the prizes.

Just for fun - some Oscar predictions

So what will happen tomorrow night. Well here are my guesses - I think in general we're looking at a contest between the two Texas-filmed entries - There Will Be Blood (review coming soon) and No Country for Old Men, with There Will Be Blood seeming to have the momentum going into things.

Best Picture - Lets rule out Juno as indie comedies don't win big, Michael Clayton ain't good enough and Atonement seems to lack the buzz, so you'd have to go for There Will Be Blood although I think I preferred No Country more as a watch. Overlooked in the nominations was The Assassination of Jesse James


Best Director - Traditionally this goes to the same film as Best Picture, so could be Paul Thomas Anderson's year, but don't bet against the academy following a recent trend and splitting them and going for the Coens. As a real outside bet, Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Overlooked in the nominations - Joe Wright did a better job with Atonement than either the direction in Michael Clayton or Juno. Also, although it would never happen, Paul Greengrass did a wonderful job directing The Bourne Ultimatum - unfortunately you need to be called Scorcese to get nominated for directing a genre flick.

Best Actor - It's hard to look beyond Daniel Day Lewis at the moment - a neck ahead in a strong field. Johnny Depp will win an Oscar one year, but not this one. If its not Lewis, it will almost certainly be Tommy Lee Jones. Overlooked in the nominations - Brad Pitt for Jesse James and Beicio Del Toro for Things We Lost in the Fire. Along with second nominations for Jones (No Country) and Philip Seymour Hoffman

Best Actress- well it won't be Ellen Page, I've a feeling Cate Blanchett's (stronger) supporting actress nod will count against her and Marion Cottillard's performance is subtitled, rarely a winner with the academy. So, Julie Christie is favourite, but don'tbet against a surprise win for the perenially overlooked Laura Linney. Overlooked in the nominations - Halle Berry for Things we Lost in the Fire.

Best Supporting Actor - a very open and high quality field, ranging from young to old, co-leads to cameos. Will probably come down to Javier Baardem against Casey Affleck, but don't rule out a sentimental vote for Hal Holbrook. I'm going with Baardem to get a well-deserved award. Overlooked in the nominations - Tom Cruise for Lions for Lambs and Chris Cooper for Breach.

Best Supporting Actress - for my money Cate Blanchett is streets ahead of the field in the category. As an outside bet, Tilda Swinton to repeat her Bafta success. Overlooked in the nominations Meryl Streep for Lions for Lambs

Original Screenplay - it's hard to see this not being Juno's deserved moment for success in the category quirky indies traditionally triumph in.

Adapted Screenplau - Will probably be between the big two again, although don't rule out The Diving Bell. I'm going for No Country for this one.

Elsewhere - Ratatouille will win Best Animated film and Atonement's consolation will come in Best Score.With three out of five nominations, Enchanted will surely win best song and The Assassination of Jesse James will pick up best cinematography.

The Non-Oscar Contenders

Amidst all the heavy-duty worthy awards contenders sometimes you find yourself needing some pure popcorn entertainment. Three of them from this weekend:

National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Lets not kid ourselves, National Treasure wasn't a great movie, but what it was was fun and entertaining. In fact, it ended up being a darned sight more entertaining than the similarly themed Da Vinci Code released the same year. It is somewhat bizarre therefore, that for the sequel they seemed to have decided to have emulated The Da Vinci Code. And that's not a good thing.

So gone is any sense of a coherent plot or character motivation. The plot speeds across the globe from set-piece to set-piece, leaving more holes than in a swiss cheese and most importantly having no sense of fun. Character motivations are too obscure to interest and there are hideously glaring lines of dialogue where you can't help thinking that the scriptwriters suddenly realised that talking about native american treasure they'd better stick in something to say that murdering them all was actually wrong.

Whatever chemistry Nicolas Cage and Diane Kruger had from the first film has completely disappeared (the characters have, of course, split up since movie 1 in Hollywood cliche no. 25). Even Justin Bartha's sidekick Riley seems to have had his sense of humour surgically removed. Ed Harris does his usual snarly villain (see A History of Violence) but a last act redemption is a step too far for even this nonsense.

Its therefore left for the older generation - Jon Voight and Helen Mirren - to try an inject something watchable and in their few moments together they almost succeed, but you can't help the feeling that both are thinking they deserve better material.

Overall - 1.5/5 A definite step in the wrong direction since the first film. Save your money and wait for Indy IV instead.


Jumper

Director Doug Liman has a decent pedigree - The Bourne Identity, Mr and Mrs Smith, Go - which makes his involvement in this piece of sci-fi popcorn all the more surprising. And it is, probably by quite a long way, his weakest film to date. After all any movie with Hayden Christensen in the lead is likely to be struggling. To be fair to Christensen he has doubled his usual emotional range from scowling to include scowling in a slightly different manner.

Christensen plays David, a young man who discovers he has the ability to "jump" (teleport himself to anywhere else on the planet he already knows. Being an upright, moral sort of a fellow he uses this ability to rob banks until Samuel L Jackson turns up, one of a number of people called "paladins" whose mission is to kill all jumpers using rather questionable methods including getting at David through his childhood sweetheart Millie (Bridge to Terabithia's AnnaSophia Robb in early years, later Rachel Bilson). Then you throw into the mix possibly slightly deranged jumper Jamie Bell and thats about it.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind it ain't, but actually if you can suspend your disbelief for a while, its rather fun. Christensen is at least bearable, but Bell is on good form and Jackson is basically being Jackson. The special effects are passable and some of the switches are quite neat. There's the odd moment where the jumps happen too quickly to really follow, but on the whole the action is skillfully handled (as you'd expect from Liman).

Overall - 3/5 Great cinema it ain't, but for an evening's undemanding entertainment there's far worse around.

At least the globetrotting in Jumper looks real, which is more than you can say for

The Bucket List

A movie whose leads apparently travel all around the world without ever convincing you that they've left a cosy studio in California. The story such as it is follows Carter and Edward, two men from very different walks of life, who meet in hospital whilst dying of cancer and then team up to do all the things they want to do before dying. Of course, they have that particular movie kind of terminal cancer which is agony in hospital but then allows them to skydive, drive racing cars and visit the himilayas before passing away peacefully. Along the way there's rather predictabke things about being reconciled to estranged family members and so on.

The film marks a new low for director Rob Reiner, who seems like he will never recover from his post 80s (when he gave us the delights of Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally) slump. In fact, but for two things this would be unbearable, irredeemable sentimental tosh - those two things being Messers Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. Nicholson does his growly Jack Nicholson thing with his usual aplomb, whilst I doubt there is anybody working today who can make such twee sentimentality sound as credible and watchable as Freeman. Oh, and Sean Hayes does a decent job as Nicholson's put upon assistant.

Overall - 2/5 Only the presence of two of the most watchable of Holloywood greats makes this bearable.

Juno

Juno arrives on our screens with some sense of expectation and much Oscar-hype. It's the latest in what is becoming its own sub-genre - the unwanted pregnancy sub-genre - following Waitress and Knocked-up and it might well be the best of the lot of them. It maybe is not quite as laugh out loud funny as Knocked-up, but its humour is smarter and ultimately, as a film, it hangs together a bit better and is more moving.

The script, by the oscar nominated delightfully named newcomer Diablo Cody, is smart and witty (if at times a bit too smart and witty to be totally believable for teenagers) - I mean would even smart American teenagers still use Diana Ross as a reference point? Ultimately this doesn't matter a whole lot - despite the High School setting, one suspects the film is ultimately aimed at a slightly older audience and the scripts ultimate purpose is to entertain and amuse, which it does brilliantly.

There's a great, quirky soundtrack - again possibly appealling to a slightly older audience. Director Jason Reitman's last film, Thankyou for Smoking, was highly entertaining whilst neatly side-stepping actually having a stance on the issue - so much so that both right and left claimed it as their own. Here, he tackles teenage pregnancy and again, effectively sidesteps dealing with the abortion issue.

Ellen Page is great in the title-role as the knocked-up teen, managing to suggest the deeper issues behind the front of witty self-assurance. Her performance should come as no surprise to those who saw her, possibly even better, one in Hard Candy. But the cast as a whole work well - Superbad's Michael Cera gives us another slightly wimpy nice guy (who, as far as I remember school, only get the girl in movies). The West Wing's Allison Janney and Spiderman's JK Simmonds are as solid as you might expect as Juno's parents. Jason Bateman is charming enough with a slightly creepy edge as the potential adoptive father. However, despite the plaudits for Page, the real star turn here is Jennifer Garner as the adoptive mother - conveying the heart and fragile desperation just below the surface of her character.

In the last third the movie moves into slightly darker territory as Juno realises that all is not as easy or perfect as she imagined it, but finishes in a place that, bare of the smart wit, is actually genuinely tender and affecting.

Overall - 4/5 Alternatively funny and moving - despite the teen setting, this is a smart comedy for an adult audience and, in Page and Cody, announces the arrival of two very promising new talents.

Defintely, Maybe

Lets's face it, the rom-com has not been the most original of genres in recent years, so it comes as something of a breath of fresh air when a film arrives with something more of a fresh approach. Definitely, Maybe starts with Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) about to sign divorce papers and telling his young daughter the story of his romantic history with the names changed and seeing if she can work out which one of three candidates is actually her mum.

Reynolds shows again that he's a far more talented performer than most of the material he's had to work with and makes a very entertaining and watchable leading man. The three women in his life are all good in different ways - Elizabeth Banks as childhood sweetheart Emily, Rachel Weisz as good as you'd expect as aspiring journalist Summer, but the real standout is from Isla Fisher (Wedding Daze, Wedding Crashers) giving us another of the cute oddballs she's coming to specialise in. There's an unusual depth to the cast for a rom-com as well - Kevin Kline comes close to stealing the whole movie whenever he's on screen as the drunken writer Hampton Roth. It also doesn't hurt that the daughter in question is Little Miss Sunshine herself, Abigail Breslin.

Its not totally original - there's a whole book inscription thing which is lifted from Serendipity (but if you're going to steal, steal from the best). And the audience will work out long before Will does who he's supposed to be with (but then, as his 11 year old also does, this in kind of the point). And along the way there are a few twists and turns and red herrings that keep things interesting.

Overall - 3.5/5 Its that little bit more orginal, smarter and funnier than the average rom-com, which makes it well-worth watching for some undemanding, but worthwhile entertainment.

The Savages

The story of a couple of dysfunctional siblings struggling to come to terms with the need to care for their elderly father who never really cared for them might sound like pretty heavy going. But it would be a mistake to let that put you off, because The Savages is really a very good piece of film-making from writer-director Tamara Jenkins.

She is aided by a cast that includes two of business' most consistent actors in Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman plays Jon Savage - a lecturer specialising in Brecht who won't marry his longterm girlfriend despite the fact that her visa is about to expire and force her to return to Poland. Linney plays his sister Wendy - an aspiring playwright working as a temp and having an affair with a married man. Linney's performance is fully deserving of her Oscar nomination. Hoffman's is his third great turn in a month of releases and perhaps the best of the bunch. His Oscar nominated turn in Charlie Wilson's War is maybe the more memorable character, but this is a much subtler and more nuanced act. Philip Bosco as their increasingly confused father is also excellent.

However, the real star here is the (also oscar nominated script) from Jenkins - successfully treading a fine line between the comedy and the tragedy of the situation - there are both moments of pathos but also of humour. Her characters are rounded individuals - neither saints nor sinners, neither entirely likeable nor entirely unlikeable. Motivations are mixed, torn between duty and self. The past is alluded to, but not dwelt on. Here is humanity in all its weaknesses and insecurities, but not without hints of goodness.

Overall - 4/5. A difficult subject handled with an intelligence and subtlety that keeps it from being either depressing or heartless, aided by some first class acting makes this well worth watching.

Things We Lost in the Fire

Since winning the Oscar for Monster's Ball, it would be fair to say that Halle Berry's roles have ranged from entertaining rubbish (X-Men) to the just plain rubbish (Catwoman, Gothika, Perfect Strangers - anyone?). The fact that she turned up at the Razzies to accept her award for Catwoman, parodying her Oscar acceptance in the process shows that she is only too aware of this. One suspects that she must have been so grateful to have been offered a decent role like the one here.

She plays Audrey, a woman whose husband Brian (David Duchovny) is shot after intervening in an argument. Following the funeral she forms an unlikely friendship with Brian's friend and recovering heroin addict Jerry (Benicio Del Toro). Throw into the mix two children trying to deal with the loss of their father and another ex-addict (Alison Lohman (Big Fish)) who takes a shine to Jerry and you have something that could either end up being relentlessly depressing in an art-house kind of way or fakely uplifting as a Hollywood tear-jerker. Director Susanne Bier (After the Wedding, The Brothers), in her first English language film, manages to more or less successfully tread a line between the two is no small achievement.

She's helped in this by two great performances from Berry and Del Toro - and its a good job they're on top form as the director's penchant for extreme close-ups leaves little room to hide. Bier also plunges the audience straight into the scenes of grief before really introducing Dunchovny's departed character through a series of flashbacks. There's a rawness to some of the most emotional scenes, often presented bare from music of any kind. Where the score does come in, it lends a haunting quality to scenes. And not everything is grim - there's a warmth and surprsising moments of humour here, many provided by John Carroll Lynch's loveable neighbour.

Not everything works so well - the intercutting of the shooting with Berry receiving the news, milk bottle smashing and all, feels very much old-hat, seen-it-all before. And its the wrong kind of movie to have the 10 year old moppet come out with lines like "Do you ever feel like you're living in a movie?". But these are really minor gripes.

Overall - 4/5. Stunning performances and some skillful handling of the details and emotions make this more moving and genuinely heartwarming than the average drama.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Philip Seymour Hoffman has clearly been a busy man - this is his third film released in the UK in so far this year. And following his oscar nominated turn in Charlie Wilson's War and his apparenttly excellent one in The Savages (which I've yet to see), it's another great performance from the man.

Hoffman plays one of two brothers (along with Ethan Hawke) who to get themselves out of financila difficulties, plan a robbery of their own parents' (Albert Finney and Spiderman's mum Rosemary Harris) with disastrous consequences. The dysfunctionality of the family being further exacerbated by the fact that Hawke is sleeping with Hoffman's wife (Marisa Tomei).

Hoffman is the shining light in a universally strong cast. Its just a shame that the film as a whole doesn't live up to the performances. Structurally it uses the Rashomon style trick of repeatedly re-winding to re-tell the story from a different perspective, but there's not enough difference between the re-treads and the end effect is for things to feel unnecessarily slow and repetitive. Its view of humanity also borders on the misanthropic with none of the characters being particularly likeable or sympathetic and attempts to explain their dysfunction feeling contrived and unsatisfactory. Furthermore, where the plot could have lent itself to a promising noir-ish thriller, this lacks any sense of either thrill or lightness of touch.

Overall - 2.5/5 Some great performances, especially from Hoffman, but the film as a whole is pretty hard going without the rewards at the end to make it worthwhile. Approach with caution.

Cloverfield

After the ultimate in teaser trailers, Cloverfield arrives on our screens and despite all the trails of clues and red herrings that fans have tracked down across the internet, at one level there's not much more to it than there was in the trailer. This is basically Godzilla with a little bit of Aliens slipped in and inevitable 9/11 overtones.



What makes it different and more innovative (apart from the marketing campaign) is that rather than focussing on the heroes who fight the monster, this focusses on the ordinary guys and girls caught up in the middle. This combined with the lack of any recognisable stars means that there is a genuine doubt about who if anyone will make it through to the final reel. The other thing that Cloverfield catches on to is that most of the world's big events these days are captured not by professional new crews, but by amateurs on their mobile phones or video cameras. Hence the whole film is supposedly captured by the characters on a hand held camera. At one or two points this stretches credibility, but on the whole it works, actually adding to the tension and occasionally disorientating the viewer.

The monster itself is far more effective when caught in glimpses or heard off screen than when seen full on, but again, on the whole it works and there are some great scenes - like on the bridge or in the tunnels. The largely unknown cast also do a good job, even if the characters are some way off full of well developed and the main cameraman does get a bit irritating after a while.

Overall - 4/5 An old story well re-told in genuinely innovative ways which fairly races along through some great moments and real tension. It will doubtless spawn far too many imitations, so its worth checking out the original.