In the Valley of Elah

Another week, another Iraq- themed movie. so what sets this one apart? Well, two things really - firstly there's a terrific performance from Tommy Lee Jones (probably just about deservedly edging out his turn in No Country for Old Men for an Oscar nomination) as an ex-military policeman struggling to come to turns with the disappearance and then murder of his son after returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. In many ways its a similar role to his one in the Coens' film - a man feeling increasingly out of step with a world he can no longer understand, where he can no longer be sure of the things he thought certain. He is ably supported by Susan Sarandon (underused, but at her best for a long time) in another subtly nuanced role as his wife.

The other thing that has set this film apart is where it has found audiences in the States - despite the eminent liberal credentials of writer-director Paul "Crash" Haggis, the movie has done best in middle America - the Southern and midwest states, in the towns and families who are actually sending their sons and daughters to fight the war in Iraq. It somehow seems to tap into the confusion of patriotic America that has somehow lost its moral compass and no longer feels like it understands whats going on.

Haggis is not always the most subtle either as a writer or director and, the performances of Jones and Sarandon aside, this is no different. The symbolism (watch out for the flags) is pretty blatant but effective none the less.

The touching emotional drama is balanced by a police procedural element that is efficient, but not original. Charlize Theron does as well as can be expected with a stereotyped role as a single mum detective struggling in a chauvinist force. Its definitely the weaker element of the film - not bad, just not really adding much to the mix.

Overall - 3.5/5 A great performance from Jones in a hard-going but touching drama let down slightly by an police element that adds little to the mix. As a whole the film certainly catches something of the despair of an America unable to fully come to terms with events in Iraq.

Sweeney Todd

The take of a barber who cuts the throats of his customers and his landlady who turns them into meat pies is, lets face it, rather strange territory for a musical. Which is maybe one of the reasons why Sondheim's musical has never been amongst the most popular - it combines elements of very dark humour with an arc that dates back to traditional tragedies. It exists somewhere between the fantastical and the downright nasty. Which probably makes it just about a perfect fit for director Tim Burton.

And if you have Burton, its a fair bet Johnny Depp won't be far away. To be fair, Depp is superb in the title role - coming across as a wounded, malevolent Edward Scissorhands. He brings both the pathos and the touches of humour to the part to keep the audience interested. Helena Bonham Carter as the pie-maker Mrs Lovett is equally superb, conveying the unrequited love behind her seemingly cruel choices. Both manage admirably with both the acting and the singing.

Of the rest of the cast the most pleasant surprise is Sacha Baron Cohen in his strongest performance to date. An underplayed Alan Rickman as the evil judge and overplayed oily and obsequious Timothy Spall (and nobody does oily and obsequious better) as his henchman do rather better with the acting than the singing. Whereas you suspect the younger members of the cast were picked more for their singing than their acting. But as a whole, the cast work well.

Burton's vision of Victorian London is more fantastical than real, but hey, it is a musical so realism isn't high on the agenda. His direction is less a straight forward filming of the stage version than certain recent musicals (Chicago for instance). He includes some decidedly cinematic flourishes from the get-go - the camera speeding through the streets and alleys, etc... and trims off sub-plots and songs as unnecessary. However, even this can't mask the theatricality of the plot in the closing stages with characters coming and going in limited locations.

However, overall it works as a cinematic spectacle - visually it looks great, shot in moodily atmospheric muted tones, this is a dark vision of London with the only contrast coming in the bright colours of fondly remembered pasts or imagined futures or the blood that flows freely. It is very gory - but strikes a tone somewhere between Monty Python and the Holy Grail and genuine horror which seems to fit just right. There are also some great set pieces - the shave-off, the "Try a bit of priest" sequence (on of the few comic delights). Burton also manages to create great tension leading up to the first killing - you know its coming, but its a surprise when it comes and shocking in its brutality. Bizarrely though the pace flags just as the killings really start, but its pulled back for the finale.

Overall - 4/5 It's neither Burton's nor Depp's best and is probably to gory for some tastes, but its still an impressive cinematic spectacle.

No Country For Old Men

The Coen brothers used to be the darling of the critics producing a string of films of remarkably consistent quality from Blood Simple through to The Man Who Wasn't There via the likes of Millers Crossing, Fargo, The Big Lebowski and O Brother Where Art Thou. Then things begin to slip with with the mixed reaction to Intolerable Cruelty and totally collapsed with the frankly bad remake of The Ladykillers. Well, they're back and back on form with this adaptation of the Corman McCarthy's novel.

The plot follows hunter Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who stumbles upon a suitcase full of money at a drugs deal gone bad in the Texas desert. He is pursued by fatalistic psychopath Anton Chigurh (Javier Baardem) who is in turn pursued by world weary sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Its part modern Western, part noir, part chase/road movie and, as it turns out, a perfect fit for the Coens.

It's shot with both an eye for detail and an eye for the grand picture which almost makes a character out of the starkly beautiful barren Texas landscape. It both is and isn't very violent - it actually leaves most to the imagination with almost all the worst scenes happening off screen, but it does display a certain gory-ness - delighting in the intricate details of wonds being treated, etc... - which might not be to everybody's taste.

The script is as sharp as the Coen's best - infused with a dry Texas humour and witticisms that take on an almost lyrical quality in the mouth of Jones. And the acting is superb - it is much to the credit of Brolin and Kelly MacDonald as his wife that they are able to live with their co-stars, because Baardem and Jones produce two of the most memorable characters of recent years. Baardem is a versatile actor who can shift roles and genres at ease with usually consistent results (Goya's Ghost being the exception that proves the rule). Here he gives us a cold blooded killer with the genuine chill factor of a Hannibal Lecter before all the naff sequels. In fact, the only thing more frightening than the man is his haircut. His oscar nomination is well-deserved.

You suspect that Jones would also have been nominated had the academy not decided to go with his turn in In the Valley of Elah instead. It is the perfect match of actor and part in a beautifully understated performance that conveys the sense of a man increasingly feeling out of step with the world around him.

Overall - 4.5/5 It might be a bit gory for some tastes, but if not is well worth checking out for some superb performances, great script and a compelling whole. The brothers Coen are back on their game!

Musical Biopics

I'm Not There

When you think about it, to call a biopic I'm Not There is tantamount to an admission of defeat before you start. But when the subject of your biopic is as enigmatic, changing and hard to pin down as Bob Dylan, what do you do. If you're writer director Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) you cast six different actors to play six different aspects of your subject, none of whom are actually called Bob or Dylan. You then weave them all together in a way that is loosely chronological but lacks any real narrative thrust. Dylan, himself, was apparently delighted with the idea. Its debateable whether the results are any less accurate than the truth mangling of the average biopic.

With recent unfortunate events this will also be remembered as one of the last films to star Heath Ledger. Ledger's strand is one of the more straightforward - his Robbie Clark is more of a film star and represents the failed family man opposite the excellent Charlotte Gainsbourg as an amalgam of all the women in Dylan's life. Elsewhere we get Ben Wishaw (Perfume) popping to spout forth poetical utterances, young black child actor Marcus Carl Franklin as the younger artist. Christian Bale pops up twice - viewed only in documentary style footage as the folk singer and later preacher - his is a strong performance which there maybe isn't enough of. Richard Gere is the older Dylan, in a surreal strand which transposes things into the legend of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid - a film Dylan appeared in himself. Following me so far? However, it is Cate Blanchett who is the real star here - her strand is the most difficult to make sense of in some ways - but she best captures the mannerisms, the fragility and enigmatic qualities of the man and fully deserves the Oscar nom she has got for the role - it would be surprise to see her walk off with the statuette come awards night.

Its difficult to follow at times and probably slightly too long. If you know nothing about Dylan then it probably won't make much sense either. There's certainly more here for the fan than the unitiated. And its a movie that takes work on the part of the viewer, but if you're willing to put in the effort there's probably more here that works than doesn't.

Overall - 3.5/5

Walk Hard - The Dewey Cox Story.

Two facts recommend this film of themselves. Number One - John C Reilly and Woody Harrelson's musical numbers in A Prairie Home Companion was one of the funniest things in the cinema last year. Number two - the musical biopic has become such a tight formula in recent years (troubled childhood - musical innovation - drink drugs and sex - redeemed by the love of a good woman) with the likes of Ray and Walk the Line that it is rife for spoof. So this John C Reilly starring spoof should be a sure fire success.

The target is so obvious that its a bit like shooting fish in a barrel - alot of its bound to hit and the writers keep them coming at a fast rate in the tradition of Airplane. But truth be told it falls some way short of the likes of Airplane in the hilarity stakes. They try so many different types of humour from really crude to more subtle that something is bound to appeal to everyone, but simililarly some bits will fall flat for most people. The musical numbers, in particular rarely reach the comic potential the might have had with a couple of possible exceptions. Some of the running gags work really well.

Reilly is as fun and watchable as ever, ably supported by Jenna Fischer (Blades of Glory) and Raymond J Barry as his girl and his dad respectively. Also watch out for Superbad's Jonah Hill as the ghost of his dead brother (who died in a freak machete accident) and the Beatles (played by Jack Black, Paul Rudd, Jason Schwartzman and Justin Long) who provide two of the film's funniest moments.

Overall - 3/5 It's silly and fun and most people will find at least something here to amuse, but you finish with the feeling it could have been that much funnier with a bit more thought.

Oscar Nomination initial reaction

Ok - no real big surprises - except Michael Clayton - a distinctly ordinary movie leading the nominations - Tom Wilkinson deserves the nomination, Clooney possibly, but the film no way should be rubbing shoulders with the others in the best picture category. Should win zero!

Disappointing, but not surprised to see to no mention of Streep or Cruise for Lions for Lambs or James MacAvoy for Atonement. Both Tommy Lee Jones and Philip Seymour Hoffman could have had second nominations (for No Country For Old Men and The Savages) respectively, but only having one might play in their favour. No such problems for Cate Blanchett with two nominations - her supporting turn in I'm not there is by far stronger. Nice to see Juno getting nods, even though I've not seen it yet, but always nice to see the indie comedies getting a bit of praise.

Oh, and Norbit got a nomination (for makeup) - thats just too laughable to comment on.

Dan in Real Life

The Rom-Com has become one of the most cliched and predictable of genres. There's a very tight formula and rare indeed is the film that dares to depart from it. Dan in Real Life flirts with the possibility of departing from formula in its above average set-up, which makes the utter predictability of its last act so much more unsatisfying and unbelievable.

The talent is promising - writer-director Peter Hedges last film was the good oddball family drama Pieces of April and he was the writer on About A Boy. Steve Carrell is playing down and understated (more Little Miss Sunshine than Evan Almighty). Juliette Binoche is usually reliable and there's a strong supporting cast including Woody Allen regular Diane Wiest and Emily Blunt.

The set-up isn't totally original. One of the unwritten rules of Hollywood is that people who make a living giving others advice can never manage their own lives - meet Dan (Carrell) a widower with three daughters who writes an advice page on bringing up children, but sometimes struggles to know how to deal with his own. On a family get together he meets Marie (Binoche) in a bookshop and they hit it off, only for Dan to discover later that she is his brother's (Dane Cook) girlfriend. Not wanting to hurt his brother, Dan bravely struggles against his feelings.

Carrell is on good form here, less manic than usual and you can't help but feel for him in his dilemma. Even Cook is surprisingly good and underplayed - maybe slightly shallower than Dan, but still a likeable guy. Real class is added by Binoche though, who gives a performance better than the material - conveying real emotion with just a look and managing to maintain enough ambiguity to raise the slightest slither of doubt. There are also some genuinely funny moments here in the family conferences and Dan's handling of his teenage daughters. Though The Devil Wears Prada's Blunt, for the second time in a month, is wasted in a lightweight tarty role.

And then the third act comes and we swing into full rom-com mode - ends are tied up far too neatly and predictably, betraying the real elements of loss and desire that had gone before. The performances get noticeably shallower, with Cook's character in particular being let down by the material and losing all credibility and we finish in the usual schmaltz.

Overall - 3/5. A promising set-up let down by a predictable ending. But good performances and some real feeling and humour along the way leave this as an above average rom-com that could have been better.

Charlie Wilson's War

This film presents the more or less true story of the US congressman who, almost single-handedly, increased the covert ops budget for supporting the Afghans fight against the Soviets from $5 million to $500 million, in so doing winning the war and helping to lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The talent on display is impressive - its directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Catch 22, Working Girl, etc...), scripted by Aaron Sorkin (the early seasons of The West Wing) and stars Tom Hanks as Wilson, Julia Roberts as the wealthy Texas lady who inspires him and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the less than diplomatic CIA agent.

And the results? Well, they're almost as good as you might hope - the casting is pitch perfect. Hanks is a delight to watch playing against type as the boozy, womanising congressman and Hoffman is hilarious. Roberts is slightly less used, but makes her scenes really sparkle. The supporting cast (a rather dodgy Israeli accent from Ken Stott aside) is equally strong, including good turns from Enchanted's Amy Adams and veteran Ned Beatty, although Emily Blunt (The Devil wears Prada) is rather wasted in a brief cameo as one of Wilson's women.

As you might expect from Sorkin, the script fairly zings - especially when one or more of three leads are on screen. With The West Wing he showed that he could skillfully write scripts which shifted from humour to genuine emotion and back again. Nichols CV also displays an ability to shift between comedy and drama with ease and the same skill is on display here - moving from witty exchanges to genuine pathos as Wilson visits the refugee camp. The shot where the camera pans back from a distraught Wilson on the edge of the camp to show the vastness of the refugee problem hits hard.

Which makes it all the more incredible that on occasion these changes in tone jar rather hard. The celebratory tone of the montage showing helicopters and planes destroyed is, in particular, rather hard to stomach. I rather suspect this in intentional - because, whilst on one level, this story works as a good ol' American boy refusing to bow to bureaucracy and solving the world's ills by throwing guns at them, both the film and Wilson himself are smarter than that. They know that that's only half the story, and is in itself, symptomatic of an attitude in American foreign policy which creates these situations. So intentional, but not entirely successful.

Which brings us onto the ending - which critics seem to have seen as either one of the film's greatest strength or biggest weakness. I would place myself firmly in the former and would ask those who see it as too overtly liberal how else the movie could have ended. Knowing what we know now - a film about the Afghan war cannot end triumphantly with the defeat of the Soviets - that just won't wash and Wilson himself knows this. (I would also further suggest that the reviewer who described the ending as schmaltzy has completely mis-read the tone of the whole film - I mean, what was she watching?). Instead we are left with the haunted image of Hanks' face - displaying too clearly that he knows the job has been left half done in not helping to re-construct the country. Its one of the film's enduring images and its ultimate point as the final quote in the closing credits from Wilson shows:

"These things happened, they were great and changed the world ... and then we ------ up the end-game".

Overall - 4/5.
A slightly flawed but well done, intelligent and highly entertaining look at some of the origins of some of the problems we face today.




Afghanistan - a movie guide.
Watch this together with The Kite Runner and then rent the excellent 9th Company on DVD for a Russian perspective. Also, you might want to check out some of the growing number of critically acclaimed films from Afghanistan itself, but I can't think of any titles off the top of my head.

Brutal yet Beautiful

The Kite Runner - 4/5

Firstly the confession - I've not actually read the book, so can't judge how good an adaptation this is. Given subject matter that includes child rape and the devestation of Afghanistan it was never going to be an easy film to watch, but director Marc Forster (Finding Neverland, Monsters Ball) has crafted another beautiful and moving effort.

Its not quite perfect - there's the odd moment, especially towards the end, that relies to heavily on coincidence and feels slightly at odds with the tone of the rest of the piece, but in general this is very well done and thought-provoking. The acting throughout, from a cast of relative unknowns, is superb - especially with the children, who in many respects have the most demanding roles. The main characters are fully fleshed - shown warts and all, believable people with believable weaknesses.

We have a touching portrayal of a childhood friendship between Amir and Hassan which crosses both racial and class divides. There's realism too, in the way that Amir fails to deal with some of the events beyond his control and ends up destroying the friendship. There's also the interesting relationship between Amir and his flawed, but loving father. There's an interesting portrayal of Afghan culture in exile in LA, with Amir now grown-up and a writer. Finally there's the shocking devestation he finds returning to his homeland to try and rescue his friend's son from the Taliban and to make amends for his childhood mistakes.

There's also incredible beauty in the cinematography, especially in the kite flying scenes - you'd never have believed that competitive kite flying could be so fascinating.

Not an easy watch, but a very worthwhile one

One Man and his Dog

I Am Legend - 3/5

This film, adapted from the novel by Richard Matheson, tells the story of Robert Neville - apparrently the last survivor of the human race after a genetically engineered virus killed most and turned the rest into vampire/zombie-like Dark Seekers. The novel's been adapted before - as the Charlton Heston starring The Omega Man - and this version has been around the houses for quite a long time - it almost got made at the end of the 80s starring Arnie and directed by Ridley Scott. This would almost certainly have removed both the greatest strengths and the greatest weaknesses of the version we have now.

For one thing, you can't really imagine the governor of California really getting into the psychology of the character left alone for so long in the way that Will Smith does. In many respects, jumping genres, the nearest benchmark would be Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Smith is superb, showing yet again how far he's come from the Fresh Prince days. His is a convincing and touching performance, full of telling little details, like the way he anthropomorphises his dog as his only companion. Incidentally, the dog also gives a great performance.

But where you win, you also lose - and you can't imagine Ridley Scott in the 80s (the man who created such a real sense of terror in Alien) being so reliant on CGI for the Dark Seekers. And what horrendous CGI it is too - at times the movie loooks like a bad computer game from 5 years ago. As these creatures are still essentially human, actors in make-up would have been a better choice. The film illustrates that just because you can do something with technology, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

And then there's the ending, which without giving too much away is real Hollywood deus ex-machina stuff, and feels unsatisfying after the work Smith has put in before. This is a case of a central performance which lifts the film into the very watchable, but is deserving of a better film around it.

Welcome to 2008

It's here again - another New Year and having never completely adjusted to 2007 and its even more of a shock that its now 08. All in all, 2007 is probably not a year that I'm particularly sorry to see the end of - especially the last few months and all the stresses they contained. That said it did have some good moments and I'll probably look back on some of the travels with a great deal of fondness, having enjoyed visiting the likes of Riga and Budapest. The year also ended on a good note with a fun family Christmas and a very relaxing time in Paris over new year.


So, as the sun sets on one year and rises on another, it inevitably leads to some kind of reflection on the state of one's life. An acknowledgement of mistakes made and a statement of intent to try and do better this time around. Which brings us onto New Year's resolutions. Yes, there are all the usual intentions - to try and spend more time with God, to pray more, etc... Although, thinking about it, at the moment I think I would put it in terms of finding spaces and ways to recognise and acknowledge his presence with me more. And if I'm being honest, I'd also probably add something about stamping my little foot and storming off in a huff less when things don't work out. But overall, to have a greater awareness of God in the mundane and, sometimes trivial, little things of day to day life - that surely can't be a bad thing.

But what else, what other resolutions. Well, slightly silly perhaps, but I started the year by stating a resolution about not letting my friends, colleagues or random strangers (Ok, maybe not the last one) try to match make me. I'm sure they mean well and its comforting to know people want me to be happy, but its often handled in such a way that leads to acute embarassment for all concerned. Plus, the fact is, to be honest, most of them seem to be so bad at it (sorry, one and all, but it is true) and have little or no idea of the type of person that i would genuinely like and get on well with. If there's one thing I've learnt over the last couple of years in this area, its that I need to trust my own best judgment more.

Secondly, I think I should have more fun this year, which kind of speaks for itself.

Thirdly, I think I should challenge myself by doing something new or different - not quite sure what yet, although I have one or two ideas. I think the only new thing I managed last year was having the flat broken into, and thats not something I'd recommend. If anybody has any suggestions do feel free to add them.