Review of the Cinema Year - the best.

So following on from yesterday's post, here's my views on the best films that I've seen this year:


Honourable mentions go to Shutter Island, Four Lions, Crazy Heart, The Heartbreaker and The Princess and the Frog which all just missed out on a place in the top 25:

25. Monsters Intelligent and engaging low-budget indie sci-fi which blends several genres effectively.

24. The Kids Are Alright Smart, funny and moving relationship drama anchored by great performances from Annette Benning and Julianne Moore.

23. How to Train your Dragon Dreamwork's best film since the original Shrek. Beautifully animated and for once with a story and script to match.

22. The Town Ben Affleck's sophomore effort as director proves he's got the talent behind the lense. Hard-hitting crime drama given depth by a sense of place and character.

21. The Last Station. Helen Mirren and James McAvoy, quality drama and the story of Tolstoy's last days. Thought-provoking too.

20. The Boys are Back Clive Owen is surprsisingly good here as the bereaved dad trying to bring his sons up by himself. Moving and surprisingly funny.

19. The Road Slow and sombre drama with Viggo Mortensen walking a post-apocalyptic journey. Slightly disappointed on initial viewing as I had high hopes for this film, but it does stay with you. A slow burner.

18. Micmacs Jean-Pierre Jeunet's latest slice of French quirkiness had mixed reviews. I loved it.

17. Rare Exports Delightfully inventive Finnish film based around a gem of an idea of an alternative take on Santa Claus.

16. The Illusionist beautifully drawn animated film with a slice of melancholy charm. A glimpse into a bygone Edinburgh.

15. A Single Man Colin Firth should have won an Oscar for this - its a better performance and a better film than Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart. Fashion designer Tom Ford takes the director's chair and whilst a bit too stylistically showy at times, still delivers a quality film.

14. Lebanon Claustrophobic Israeli war film all from the inside of a tank on the first day of the Lebanon war.


13. The Lovely Bones The critics didn't warm to this, I thought Peter Jackson produced something different and great - visually arresting and tense. Also featured a great turn from Stanley Tucci as the killer.
12. Scott Pilgrim vs the World  Extremely funny and wonderfully inventive, no mean feat for a film that is essentially structured around a series of fights and wonderful cameos. Edgar Wright's American debut (following Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) is one of the funniest films of the year.

11. A Prophet This French prison drama is not for the faint-hearted, but adds something to the genre and features an amazng debut performance by Tahar Rahim.

10. The Hedgehog You could argue that this one is a bit of a cheat, as its not had a UK release yet ( I saw it in the French film festival) but its one of the best, most subtle, funny and moving films I've seen this year, so in it goes.


9. Avatar Another slight cheat, as it came out at the end of last year, but I saw it this, so in it goes. The story's a bit weak, but James Cameron does succeed in creating a very immersive world and the big battles are probably the best since Lord of the Rings.


8. Green Zone Greengrass and Damon re-team, the results aren't quite Bourne and the subject feels a bit like yesterday's news, but its still a superior thriller with raw, visceral excitement.


7. Winter's Bone I've seen this film described as "feminist redneck noir", which is a description I can't beat. Sustained tension and a sense of threat, a real sense of place and an amazing performance in the lead by Jennifer Lawrence make this utterly gripping.


6. Kick Ass The film that may have re-invented the superhero film, rejuvenated Nicolas Cage's career and launched a new star in Chloe Moretz. Killer idea brilliantly executed.


5. Up in the Air is a difficult film to categorise - its not exactly a comedy, a drama or a romance although it has elements of all three. Its funny, intelligent, emotional, original and thought-provoking. Has a central trio of great performances, including an on-top-of-his-game Clooney in a part you can't imagine anyone else pulling off.


4. The Social Network Smart script by The west Wing's Aaron Sorkin, smart direction by David Fincher and great performances from the young cast make the story of Facebook one of the films of the year.


3. Another Year A film in which nothing very much happens and the central couple are pretty sorted, but this could well be Mike Leigh's masterpiece through acute observation and real heart. A very human film.


2. Toy Story 3 It would have been so horrendous if they had messed this up. Thankfully they didn't. A fitting end to the trilogy.


1. Inception Stunning visually, some wonderful ideas, universally strong performances. Again Christopher Nolan has made an intelligent, sophisticated thriller and turned it into a huge blockbuster success.


Well, that's my choices. Feel free to disagree. The links should take you to trailers for the films on Youtube. Let me know if they don't work.


Hope you all had a good Christmas and have a wonderful start to 2011.

Review of the Cinema Year 2010 - the bad.

So the year is drawing to a close. 2010 has been a year when a random trip to the cinema could have you thinking that you had fallen into a time-warp back to the Eighties, with The A Team. Wall Street, The Karate Kid and Tron all on the big screen, together with Stallone and Lundgren headlining a major summer blockbuster. Some trips down 80s memory lane have been more successful than others.

In general, of course, there have been some ups and downs, some surprising delights and some crashing disappointments. Nicolas Cage finally rediscovered his Mojo, but Robert Downey Jr apparrently lost his. Over a couple of posts i'm going to present my views of the best and worst films I've seen this year, starting here with the 10 worst, in descending order of naffness.

There have probably been much worse films released this year, but the likes of Vampires Suck or Fred the movie couldn't even get me past the doors. These ones did out of false hope, blind optimism, desparation or sheer boredom and are presented here with a warning not to bother, even if they're on TV and nothing else is on, these really aren't worth it.

Dishonourable Mentions: Just missing out on the bottom 10, but still to be avoided - Clash of the Titans and The Wolfman were big budget, effects heavy and pretty dire, but still had some limited entertainment value, whilst Valentine's Day was overcrowded, superficial and largely untouching, but not without a few redeeming features.


10. It's A Wonderful Afterlife. This British-Indian black comedy had a few really hilarious moments that saved it from coming lower down, but when it wasn't funny it was pretty dire.

9 Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps There were probably worse films released this year, but few as disappointing and the betrayal of one of cinema's great villains is unforgiveable.

8 Machete Robert Rodriguez' mexploitation B-flick messily sailed well wide of the mark. Nowhere near as much fun as it should have been.

7 Legion For a film which supposedly dealt with the end of the world this was rather too small and limited and took itself far too seriously.

6 Skyline - There were some good low budget sci-fi films this year. This wasn't one of them - the savings were clearly made in the script and casting departments, but its more difficult to see where they actually spent the money.

5 All About Steve Lame Sandra Bullock rom-com in questionable taste. For a Rom-com it helps if at least one of the central characters is vaguely likeable. In fact, it actually takes some skill to take two actors as likeable as Bullock and Bradley Cooper and produce such a charmless film.

4 The last Airbender Confirmation that M Might Shyamalan has lost it (at least for the moment) - over-reliance on special effects, dreadfully wooden acting and awful script. What was he thinking?

3 Due Date Offensively bad attempt at new Planes, Trains and Automobiles featuring Robert Downey Jr's worst screen turn for a long time (possibly ever). Only a few funny moments save this from coming even lower.

2 Our Family Wedding Competely unfunny culture clash wedding film and the low point of Forest Whitakker's career. I think its officially classed as a comedy - still trying to work out why.

1 Get Him to the Greek When Russell Brand is the main star of a film and not the worst thing about it, then you're in trouble. Jonah Hill somewhat reprieved himself with Cyrus, but this was just unfunny and obnoxious.

Would the Telegraph please just stop it.

The Daily Torygraph has clearly not forgiven David Cameron for not winning an overall majority or the Lib Dems for going into coalition with them and are now using undercover reporting to trap Lib-Dem ministers into saying "sensational" things. The ministers in question have undoubtedly been a bit unwise, but these conversation were had in the context of surgeries with constituents where a certain amount of confidentiality should be in place.

Ethically, I have questions about the use of this kind of undercover reporting not to expose serious wrongdoing, but an uncomfortableness about some of the compromises involved in coalition. I means lets face it - the revelations so far have hardly been spectacular -George Osborne can get up your nose a bit - no kidding, David Cameron is not suddenly a cosy liberal - gee, who'd have thought it, Lib-Dems are uncomfortable with the compromises they had to make on tuition fees - go figure! Next week's revelations will probably include somebody saying Theresa May is a bit right-wing, isn't she? and Iain Duncan-Smith doesn't have much hair. I'm sure if they had been so inclined, they could just as easily have trapped tories saying similar things about the Lib-Dems and the compromises that they have had to make.

Leaving aside the ethical considerations, the whole thing seems to show a lack of understanding of the way coalitions work. Two parties who fought the election on different platforms aren't suddenly going to agree on everything and there will be people who they find it difficult to work with. I'm sure there are many Tories who find it hard to work with the likes of Osborne and Fox. But they are still managing to work together and govern the country together, for better or worse.

You also wonder if the Telegraph has thought through the possible consequences. The strengthening of Murdoch's empire by the removal of Cable from the case is definitely an own-goal. But putting pressure on the coalition can't be in the Tory interests at the moment. Yes, they would probably pick up seats from the Lib-Dems at the moment, but the collapse of the Lib-dem vote in Tory-Labour contests could quite easily see them lose more - Labour currently lead in most polls. So a new election now would likely produce either another hung parliament or a Labour majority.

So, all in all, its all a bit stupid on every possible level. So just stop it now and get back to do something like proper journalism.

Some belated thoughts on Tuition Fees

I haven't really had time to get down my thoughts on this issue over the last few weeks, so thought I'd take this opportunity of a break over the festive season to offer some musings. Firstly I must say that I still believe that a university education should be provided free for all students. Whilst, its been the Lib-Dems who have been in the firing line for their u-turn, we shouldn't forget that none of the parties have managed to maintain a consistent line:

Party Inconsistency?
The 2005 Conservative manifesto (written by one D. Cameron) promised to abolish fees and now they are raising them. As for Labour, its very hard to take them seriously on the issue - they promised not to introduce fees and then did, they promised not to introduce top-up fees and then did. They commissioned the report that recommended that fees should not only be tripled but completely uncapped and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't implement those recommendations. Whilst in office they completely dismissed the idea of a graduate tax (the NUS favoured option) but are now supporting it in a cynical ploy to make political hay out of the issue. Their opportunism on this issue is far more cynical than anything the Lib-Dems have done.

Meanwhile in Scotland (where we have free tuition), the SNP are coming up with all sorts of unworkable solutions in order to delay their own u-turn on the issue until after the elections next May.

The only parties who are maintaining a consistent anti-fees line on the issue are the Greens and UKIP (now there's an unlikely alliance).

As for the Lib-Dems. They officially remain committed to abolishing fees and I think would genuinely like to see this happen. We will never know whether they could have negotiated greater concessions on the area in the coaltion agreement, but in coalition you do need to compromise on certain issues and they knew before the election that they wouldn't get anywhere on the issue with either Tories or Labour in a coalition and would have to put it onto the back-burner. The question then arises, knowing this, whether they should have signed the NUS pledge? Probably not, but then how would it have looked if they tried to say we believe in abolishing fees, but won't pledge not to increase them - its certainly a more honest position, but one that would not stand up in an election campaign in our current soundbite political culture, which has no room for nuance or complexity.

The Details

And in that culture, what we get in the media is that tuition fees are to triple for everybody. Which isn't the case. Firstly, in order to triple, rather than double fees, universities will have to do quite a lot to increase access to university for students from more deprived backgrounds.

Secondly, under the current proposals, the 25% of graduates with the lowest incomes after completing their courses (there's nothing to pay up front) will actually pay less than they do currently. Added to that, it is calculated that around 50% will never pay back the full amount in the 30 year timespan. So far from all students three times as much as currently, much fewer than half will actually pay that, and only when they are earning enough to be able to afford it. Somebody who averages £30,000 pa for the thirty years after graduation will end up paying just £2000 more in total, which works out at £67 per year more.

Taking all this, I think that is what is being suggested is probably more fair than what is currently in place. In fact in practice it doesn't work out all that different from the graduate tax the NUS advocates, except that theoretically you could have a graduate tax and still maintain you're sticking to the principle of free university education. Personally, I think that's a bit of a fudge and would prefer no fees and higher education funded by the use of the taxes that already exist, but I'm not sure if I would prioritise it over funding on healthcare or schools, for example.

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale

Usually every year we get at least one or two dreadful Christmas movies - unfunny Hollywood comedies, etc.. - to fill up the cinema through December. This year there has been nothing that I can think of. Instead we get this delightfully different take of the story of Santa Claus from Finland. You see the idea we have of Santa is a lie spread by Coca-Cola and the truth is that he was a rather vicious creature, more interested in punishing naughty children than giving presents to nice ones.

A bumbling group of Americans dig up the original Santa buried in the ice beneath and unleash something on the nearby Sami community. Only bookish Pietari is clued into what is really going wrong. To be honest, for much of the time it plays like a standard creature feature, and none of the scares are particularly original of themselves, but this is lifted well above the average by a number of strengths. Firstly, the filmakers are confident in the genius of their idea that they downplay rather than overplay the horror and gore (none of the locals are killed off). Secondly there is a very real sense of place in the depiction of the Sami community, which is never romanticised or patronised. Thirdly and most importantly, there is real depth in the relationship between Pietari and his father. Finally, the film maintains a really funny sense of dry humour throughout, both in some good dialogue and in the execution of the central idea which sees Santa as an old man/creature running about naked in the icy landscape. There's also a great conclusion where the resourceful locals triumph.

Overall - 8/10 Original, inventive and funny alternative take on Santa.

Somewhere

Somewhere is a very Sofia Coppola film and whether or not you will warm to it might well depend on how you generally take to her work. After the critical lashing for Marie-Antoinette, she returns to territory more familiar from Lost in Translation. Stephen Dorff is movie-star Johnny Marco, living out of a hotel and drifting along until he is forced to look after his 11 year old daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning) for a while.

It is actually a hard movie to love, but in its own rather challenging way, will stay with you. The themes are not new to Coppola, even if the Hollywood setting is, and there are echoes of Lost in Translation in Dorff's isolation and alienation (notice the way that at times the camera won't keep hom shot) with his various encounters with the women who throw themselves at him only serve to highlight his ultimate lack of connection. Cleo thus represents his best shot at redemption. Their relationship is subtly drawn by Coppola, without major drama or histionics, aided by a couple of reallt strong performances. The ending is ambiguous to say the least and will probably infuriate many.

Overall - 7/10 Its an intelligent and slightly challenging film, but that's no bad thing.

Tron: Legacy

For a film that wasn't much of a commercial success, Tron was hugely influential. No Tron, then no Pixar, no Toy Story, etc... and the development of computer generated imagery in movies would probably have been slower and different. I remember watching the original film when I was much younger, but can't say it made much of an impression on me beyond the iconic light-cycle battles.

Now comes the sequel, 28 years later, in which Jeff Bridges' Kevin Flynnn (the hero of the original) disappeared some 20 years ago and his son (Garrett Hedlund, ends up in the digital world where he has been trapped after investigating a mysterious page from him. This world is now ruled by the programme Clu (a digitally re-youthed Bridges) who is following his own plan.

Story was never the main strength of the original and there's little improvement here. The plot is adequate, but the real world sequences actually feel far more interesting and engaging than the digital world where most of the action is set. The father-son issues feel standard and cliched. You also feel there's some lazy scripting which fails to cover over holes in the plot - the appearance of the Isos - some kind of poorly explained spontaneous digital lifeform is just "miraculous"  - no ther explanation is given. And why, if Bridges' Flynn has the almost god-like powers he displays at the end, why hasn't he sorted out this whole mess long ago?

The cast on the whole is good, although Bridges seems to have almost turned Flynn into the Dude. Hedlund makes a solid lead, but the breakout turn is from Olivia Wilde, as Quorra (the last surviving Iso) who fittingly  manages to combine confident action with a childlike wonder and innocence. The less said about Michael Sheen's performance the better - its a serious rival to Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter as the most irritating and misplaced performance of the year.

Visually it works as an updating of the original - the fans' favourites like the light cycles are back, updated and looking great. That similar duels now also happens aerially with planes as well is a good addition. All in all, it feels like a faithful updating from the original and that is both a weakness and a strength. There is a paradoxical truth that nothing dates as quickly as science fiction, and the ideas of technology here still feel somewhat rooted in 80s ideas and aesthetics. So apart from a not so sly dig at Microsoft in the opening sequence, this all feels rather divorced from the world social networking and actual virtual reality that has developed since 1982.

The one unqualified success of the movie is probably the score by Daft Punk, who also feature in the night club scene.

Overall - 6/10 It's a competent belated sequel to the original which will probably keep fans happy, but falls a long way short of greatness and manages to feel strangely dated.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

So far The Chronicles of Narnia films have been fairly middle of the road - decent enough without being great, close enough to the books to be recognisable without being close enough to please the purists. The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe was slightly better than the disappointing Prince Caspian.

The good news is that The Dawn Treader is probably the best of the lot so far as a film. The bad news is that the improvement isn't huge and the straying from the book might not please the Lewis fans.

So on the plus side, its the best looking of the films so far. The Dawn Treader itself looking beautifully done. Its also helped in this respect in that it isn't trying to stage epic battles for the fate of the world with a cast of about 50, which always looked less impressive than it should have. The acting is also better than in previous films, with Son of Rambow's Will Poulter a good addition as Edmund and Lucy's cousin Eustace.

On the negative side, the final act descends into a mess of (literally) flashy special effects that are unnecessary and  a wee but confusing. Also the replacement of Eddie Izzard (one of the few highlights of Prince Caspian) for Simon Pegg as the voice of Reepicheep is a definite backward step

As far as faithfulness to the book goes - all the books story elements are there, but are added to. In some cases, (the extra real-world details at the start) this works well in adding depth to the characters and the period. Most controversial will be the decision to add an over-arching battle against a vaguely defined force of evil on top of the quest to find the seven lords. I can see why they did it - it gives the story a more over-arching, less episodic structure, but it still feels unnecessary and actually detracts from the final scene with Aslan at the edge of the world, with now feels like an epilogue rather than the climax of the story. Its also a shame that along the way we lose some details like the reason Eustace ceases to be a dragon.

Overall - 6.5/10 As a film, its a slight improvement and solid mid-range family entertainment. As an adaptation of Lewis' book, it leaves something to be desired.

The Tourist

The Tourist is a lesson in how you can take a decent script, two of the world's biggest stars and a director whose last film (The Lives of Others) was simply brilliant and come up with not very much at all.

Angelina Jolie plays Elise Ward, who is being trailed by the police (Paul Bettany in particular) who are trying to track down her former lover, Alexander Pearce, who owes about £750 million in unpaid taxes after stealing billions from his gangster boss (Steven Berkoff). Matters are complicated by the fact that nobody seems to know what Alexander looks like following plastic surgery. Acting on instructions in a note from Alexander, Jolie joins up with a random tourist, Johnny Depp, on a train to Venice. There follows many twists and turns and much canal based action before the final act twist is revealed.

The script is smart enough and has some great lines. The plot is good enough for the type of fun action this aims to be, although there are undoubtedly holes if you stop and try and work out exactly what Alexander was actually planning from the start. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck handles the action sequences well and there's good use of the stylish Venice locations and the two major twists work more than they don't. Furthermore Bettany is good as the not so nice cop and Timothy Dalton even better as his boss.

So where does it go wrong? Berkoff makes for a bland villain where the film cries out for him to be chewing up the scenery. Jolie manages a perfect crisp English accent, but apparrently puts so much into it that she at times fails to act - we're used to much better from her. However the main problem is the complete and total lack of chemistry between Depp and Jolie. They are two of the most attractive and talented of the current A-list, but here they totally fail to spark off each other. Depp is good when by himself and has greater chemistry in the scenes he shares with Bettany than with Jolie. Unfortunately, ultimately the film stands or falls on the relationship between Depp and Jolie and thus it falls. The scenes between them feel flat and limp when the should zip with electricity and tension.

Things do pick up towards the end and the last act is engaging, but overall The Tourist leaves you with the feeling that it should be great entertainment, but is decidedly ordinary.

Overall - 6/10 Its not a bad film, but it should be so much better than it is. A damp squib of a movie sunk by a lack of chemistry.

Unstoppable

Unstoppable is neither a subtle nor a complicated film. In fact, its recipe is rather simple and well-used: first take one destructive force, say an out of control, unmanned train. Then have it smash things at regular intervals to show its threat, throw in its path some complicating factors and something to be threatened - say a cargo of deadly chemicals, a large population area and a a trainload of schoolkids heading the other way. Next add a load of corporate suits to make all the wrong decisions whilst worrying about the stock-price and throw in some failed attempts to stop. Finally have a couple of heroes, preferrably from the mismatched buddy tradition, to save the day. How about one knowledgeable, proud veteran who's training a new recruit (who will need to have his own issues) to take his place as he's forced into early retirement. And that is pretty much it as far as this movie goes.

Except that even the most familiar recipe can be a tasty treat if you use the best ingredients. For example, you could pick a director like Tony Scott, the man behind Top Gun, Crimson Tide and Man on Fire, to name few. Subtlety is not his forte, but he certainly knows how to handle action and tension, pitching the camera and the audience right into the thick of things and really gets the adrenalin pumping. He also likes blowing stuff up almost as much as Michael Bay, including at one point flipping a police car for no apparent reason, but on the whole this works to serve the story rather than distract here.

Next you pick your stars carefully. For a figure of experienced, proud blue-collar America could you get a better fit than Denzel Washington. This is Washington's fifth collaboration with Scott, following on from the disappointing but similarly train-themed The Taking of Pelham 123, and to be honest its the kind of role that Washington can sleep walk through, and yet he is never less than a compelling presence here in every utterance and gesture. As for the younger star, you could do worse than the man who managed to successfully re-invent Captain Kirk. Chris Pine is an actor whose good looks probably count against him sometimes, distracting from some genuine talent and versatility. He may never match Washington's career achievements, but he's a good match for him here, creating a believable and not overdone relationship between then two men.

Finally and most crucially, don't overcook it or throw in too many unnecessary twists and turns. At just over and a half, this movie is probably about its perfect length to keep you gripped and engaged without having to throw in  too many distractions that would act against the main story.

Overall - 7.5/10 Don't expect to see any of the cast or crew on the stage picking up Oscars, but its an extremely well -done, thrill-packed, exciting, adrenaline-fuelled ride that will suck you in despite yourself.

Monsters

Monsters proves what Skyline  comprehensively failed to - that low budget sci-fi really can work. This was shot with minimal crew, a cast of two with all other roles being filled in by locals met on the journey through Central America and all the special effects added in director Gareth Edwards' laptop.

The story follows photographer Andrew (In Search of a Midnight Kiss' Scoot McNairy) who is ordered by his boss to make sure the boss' daughter Samantha (Whitney Able) gets back to America safely through the infected zone (an area of Northern Mexico inhabited by strange giant squid like creatures following the crash of a space probe bringing samples back from another planet). Director Edwards has described it as an action movie for girls or a romance for boys or a road trip movie for monsters. All of these descriptions fit. Real-life couple McNairy and Able have a natural chemistry and their gradual falling for each other in underplayed and utterly believable. The main characters are largely on the periphery of what action there is happening, but when it does happen it is extremely effective.

There's also some intelligent and thought-provoking dialogue - look out for the discussion about the relative price for a photo of a dead child and a happy smiling child and what happens when the situation arises for real. The film also implies a certain ambiguity to its title - we never see an unprovoked attack by the creatures and a final act scene at a gas station is amazingly beautiful. So is the the problem here the creatures or the militaristic response to them?

The film is not a total success - some of the supporting parts are notably amateurish and a circular structure is a gimmick that adds little and detracts somewhat from the ending. However, these are minor quibbles.

Overall - 7.5/10 A remarkable piece of ambitious, intelligent film-making on a limited budget.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1

With The Order of the Phoenix, David Yates managed to turn the stodgiest of all the Potter novels into the most spectacular of the films. In light of this, The Half-Blood Prince was something of a disappointment, lacking in tension and energy. Therefore, it is with some relief that we can say that the first part of The Deathly Hallows marks something of a return to form.

The weaknesses of the film come not so much from poor execution as from the nature of being only the first half of a story. Thus the film is almost continually setting things up, but only reaching the odd small climactic moment along the way. It also has to contend with the weight of having to set up not just one, but two sets of McGuffins (the horcruxes and the deathly hallows) - the tension between these will hopefully pay dramatic dividends in the second half, but here it adds alot of exposition and a slight lack of focus. The other drawback being that for much of the first half of the novel, the main characters are somewhat stuck in their quest, stuck in a tent in remote parts of the country rather than having fun at Hogwarts with lots of other characters to interact with.

Bearing that in mind, Yates keeps the action moving remarkably well and will whisk you along to the end without your really noticing that two and a quarter hours have just passed on the journey. His three young leads have now totally grown into their roles and give good solid performances whilst a who's who of characters from the previous films come and go rather quickly - blink and you might miss Alan Rickman or John Hurt here. Only Helena Bonham-Carter of the adults really gets any dramatic moments to play with.

What works and works really well, is the sense of tension that Yates creates - this is now a threatening world that our young heroes inhabit and it starts to show. Visually it is also spectacular - most notably in Yates' depiction of the Ministry of Magic, which has now become a kind of Orwellian nightmare and is the setting for the most stunning sequence in the film. There are other successses - the animated sequence for the tale of the three brothers is an original touch that works wonderfully and the loss of a character in the final act is genuinely moving.

All of this bodes well for part 2 next June, which should start with the raid on Gringotts bank and finish with the battle of Hogwarts.

Overall - 7/10 It can never quite escape the fact that it is only half a film, so its slightly unfair to rate it by itself, but it does its job entertainingly well and sets the scene for what should be a truly spectacular finale.

Another Year

Another Year is one of those film where not much really happens, but you come out feeling like you could quite happily sit through another two hours of it. It also might be director Mike Leigh's greatest achievements to date.

Leigh's method of making films, gathering a cast who improvise in rehearsals and generate script and characters between them, here creates a reality and depth to the relationships that really works. Leigh also takes the unusual step of having a central couple with effectively no problems or issues. Jim Broadbent's Tom and Ruth Sheen's Gerri are a couple in later middle age, happy with each other and fairly sorted. There is little in the way of character development. Gathered round about them are a range of the more damaged and lonely - notably Lesley Manville's Mary, slowly realising her dependance on Tom and Gerri.

Leigh is a very human director, and whilst he's not blind to his characters foibles, nor does he miss the opportunity to bring humour out of their situations, he never allows things to descend into mockery or caricature. There is almost an affection, for even his most ridiculous characters that allows both humour and feeling to co-exist quite comfortably. He also has a keen eye for the awkwardness of much human interaction, especially in one scene where Mary turns up at the house to find only Tom's recently bereaved brother at home.

Leigh is helped by an excellent ensemble performance by a superb cast. Manville grabs the attention with the showiest part and deserves plaudits for making Mary a very real person, rather than an alcoholic caricature. However, the strength of Broadbent's and Sheen's quieter turns shouldn't be overlooked, lovely understated turns with the power to convey much by a single look. Kudos also to Imelda Staunton's not perfect cameo early in the film.

Overall - 9/10 This might be Leigh's best ever film. Melancholic at times, but warm and funny and above all, very human. One of the films of the year.

Chico & Rita

Chico and Rita is, in many ways, an animated Buena Vista Social Club with added romance and a dash of Captain Corelli's Mandolin (the book, not the film - there's a crucial difference that has echoes here).

Chico is a piano player, Rita is a singer. They meet and fall in love, despite complications, in Havana and then proceed to lose and find each other again across many decades and two continents as events and their own mistakes intervene.

Despite the scale, it never feels epic, but a personal and often quite initimate film, helped by some beautiful handr-drawn animation. This a gently, romantic film whose characters feel more human and fallible, rather than heroic. That said, there's enough action in the story to keep you entertained, and if that fails there's always the music.

Overall - 7.5/10 An animated film that makes a refreshing change from talking animals/toys/aliens, etc... A very human tale, lovingly drawn and told.

Burke & Hare

The film of Burke and Hare is something of a mystery. The decision to tell the story as a black comedy could have resulted in many things - it could have produced, given the talent involved (the director responsible for The Blues Brothers and Animal House and veritable who's who of British comic actors), a superior dark comedy with a touch of satire, it could have produced something overly puerile with an excess of gross-out gags, it could have produced something overly gory. All of those would have been more likely than what was actually the result. Thus it is something of a mystery how you can take an engaging story, a talented director returning from a long absence, a talented and likeable cast, a plot that has all the right elements and mix it all together to produce something so completely bland.

Its difficult to put your finger on exactly where things go wrong. There are a few funny moments. The plot has a few ridiculous stretches - like the all-woman production of Macbeth and Burke supposedly doing it all for love - but there are better films with much sillier plots. One or two of the accents are a bit a stretch, but even Isla Fischer's scottish beats Mel Gibson's. The Michael Winner cameo is cut mercifully short by a long drop of a cliff. The performances (Ronnie Corbett aside) are generally decent and Tom Wilkinson, as ever, excels and Andy Serkis and Simon Pegg make invlolving enough leads. Landis handles the action well enough and the setting has enough period detail and atmosphere.

And yet the whole feels somewhat less than the sum of the parts. The gags just feel a bit too familiar. What could be sharp satire about the rich and powerful getting away with their involvement feels blunted.

Overall - 5.5/10 There are many worse films around at the moment, many more offensive films. This isn't bad, there's just nothing particularly good about it either and you can't help feeling their should be.

The Hedgehog

I saw this film during the French Film Festival - as yet it has no general release in the UK, which is a shame, as its a great film.

Adapted from Muriel Barbery's novel The Elegance of the Hedgehog, the story concerns three characters living in the same apartment building - 11 year old Paloma, who is a bright observant girl who sees much that the adults miss, but is convinced that she wants to avoid life in the goldfish bowl and is counting down the days until she plans to kill herself. Then there is the building's concierge, Renee, who hides her passions for books and Japanese films behind the stereotypical image of what is expected of a concierge. Finally, there is the new resident,  the widower Mr Ozu, who sees them both more clearly than others and forms a friendship with both.

The three central performances are superb, especially the two adults, creating believable and engaging characters, despite minimal backstory, through understated gestures and nice character touches. Togo Igawa Mr Ozu) has a real quiet sparking presence about him, whilst Josianne Balasko is amazing as Renee gradually emerging from her hiding place. She is the emotional heart of the story, whilst Paloma as the observer, expounds its key themes of life and death and hiddeness.

"What matters isn't the fact of dying or when you die. It's what you're doing at that precise moment."

The direction, too, is understated, but beautifully handled, bringing humour and feeling together with some wonderful grace notes.

Overall - 8.5/10 Superbly acted and put together, funny and moving. If it does come to a cinema or DVD store near you in the future, its well worth checking out.

Despicable Me

Despicable Me is, in some ways, the evil twin to The Incredibles, showing a world where super-villains are normal - they even have their own bank (formerly Lehman brothers!) and lairs that Bond villains could only dream about.

One such villain is Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell), who in order to hatch one of his plots, needs to adopt three orphans as part of the plan. Needless to say, this being a family friendly animation, the girls soon start to melt his hard heart (not to mention those of his army of yellow minions).

It never quite achieve Pixar levels either in visual beauty, depth or emotion or story-telling, but is certainly among the better of the second division efforts. The action is entertaining for both young and old, there are some good gags both visually and verbally and a healthy dose of inventiveness. And whilst that is going on, it does manage to sneak in some heart without it becoming overly sentimental. Oh, and the minions are both funny and adorable. (Plus the film shows that Russell Brand is much more bearable in cinema as an animated old man than in person).

Overall - 7/10 Good solid entertainment for the family.

Due Date

Director Todd Phillips last film, The Hangover, had broad humour that might not have been to everybody's taste, but it had a sense of fun, originality and energy that was quite infectious and was frequently very funny.

The follow-up, Due Date, is allegedly a more mature film, although what exactly mature means here I'm not totally certain. The humour is often more puerile and the heart is completely missing.

The plot is in many respects a re-hash of the John Hughes classic Planes, Trains and Automobiles with the birth of a first child substituted for Thanksgiving as the reason for the trip. Robert Downey Jr takes the Steve Martin role and Zach Galifianakis taking the John Candy role. As a comedy its hit and miss - more miss than hit, but in a few of the moments when it does hit, it is genuinely funny.

However, unfortunately most of the time it mistakes being shocking for being funny and lumbers of with two main characters who are just unlikeable. Galifianakis is in danger of being typecast as the odd loser, but here is missing something likeable that makes you realise just how much both Hughes and Candy are missed. But the real bum-note comes from Downey Jr, spectacularly breaking his recent almost infallible run. His is supposed to be the normal character, the one we're supposed to relate to, but is just plain unlikeable for most of the film. He also displays such extreme anger-management issues, one must question whether he is fit to be a father at all. So, we're supposed to laugh as he punches a small child hard in the stomach or spits on a dog?

Its also difficult to buy his eventual warming to his travelling companion as being lasting or either of them having learnt anything, coming as it does under the influence of large quantities of drugs.

Overall - 4/10  Fitfully funny, but that really doesn't make sitting through the rest of the film worthwhile

Skyline

Firstly, apologies - not had the chance to update for a wee while, so a few things to catch up on. Let's start with one of the most recent.

Skyline is the first of a wave of alien invasion movies to be hitting our screens soon. Its directed by the Brothers Strause who have quite an impressive track record in visual effects, but in direction their previous effort, Aliens vs Predator Requiem, hardly inspires confidence.

It starts boldly enough - jumping straight into the moment the aliens arrive without any preamble. Then it winds back 15 hours, presumably to allow you to get to know the characters. This might be worthwhile if there was anything remotely likeable or engaging about any of them - stock characters played by supporting actors from TV shows (24, Scrubs, Dexter, etc...). Instead by the time the aliens show up for the first time (again!) you'll be praying that the first one they zap is the scriptwriter.

From here onwards it plays like a mash up of other, better films. You have the plot of War of the Worlds, in the style of Cloverfield with leftover special effects from The Matrix. All the while the cast run around a luxury apartment building doing all the brain-numbingly stupid things you might expect in this kind of film. To be fair, if you want to check your brain in at the door, most of the action and tension are well enough handled and on the whole it looks quite good.

Then it reaches the point where it really should finish, but instead launches into a final act of such mind-numbing daftness (not to mention yuckiness) that it almost takes your breath away. You can't help thinking that  there was some poor misguided attempt to rip off District 9 in there somewhere, but it misses the mark by a long, long way.

Overall - 4.5/10 There are some really good movies around at the moment - this isn't one of them.

Too Soon

I was taking a coffee break in a cafe last Monday (which would have been only the 8th November). I'm ashamed to admit that it was one of the big chains - Starbucks in this case - and was horrified that not only did they have all their Christmas merchandise out, but that they were already playing Christmas music - horrible, tacky, sickly sweet (a bit like their cream-laced fancy drinks) versions of well known tracks at that. Too soon, too soon!

Now I can put up with cards and wrapping paper and decorations appearing in shops earlier in the year - there are even some good reasons for this to enable people to plan ahead for posting overseas, etc... I'm not in favour of decorations and lights appearing in November, especially early November, but its a bit easier to ignore that. There is something horribly invasive about music that worms its way into your consciousness evenly if you're not consciously listening (and believe me with this music, why would you?). My tolerance for this kind of music stretches to a few weeks right before Christmas at most. The start of NOvember is way too early, with the smell of bonfires still in the air. Enough, Starbucks, enough - leave us in peace at least until the start of advent, please....

The Kids are All Right

Julianne Moore and Annette Benning play a couple who both have children from the same sperm donor. When the oldest of the children, Mia Wachowski (Alice in Wonderland) turns 18, she follows  her younger brother's (Josh Hutcherson) request to contact their biological father, Mark Ruffalo, who then proceeds to form relationships with different members of the family.

This low-key indie drama/comedy works well by not making too much out of the unusualness of the family, but rather from nicely observed moments that they share in common with most families - the tensions between parents, the desire of children for their independance, etc... The performances are good and understated - Ruffalo does well to convey the confusion of his character and the gradual realisation that he does want a family. It is somewhat unfortunate that his character arc gets a bit lost at the end, but ultimately he is the interloper in the central focus which is on the relationship between Moore and Benning, who make a very convincing couple.

Some moments are funny, some uncomfortable and some moving. There is the odd moment that drags a wee bit, but generally it is a engaging look at family life.

Overall - 7/10 A gentle, low-key but acutely observed look at family life

The Social Network

A movie about Facebook, whatever next? When first announced, this sounded like a horrendous attempt to cash-in on the internet phenomenon, but when you started to look at the talent getting involved - David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, Benjamin Button) as director, Aaron 'The West Wing' Sorkin as scriptwriter and you began to realise that there's something more going on here.

The film is a suppositional account (most of the key-players remain rather tight-lipped about what actually happened) of how Facebook was created and went from a tool for Harvard students to being a global phenomenon. It tells the story through the two law-suits that creator Mark Zuckerberg ended up defending (one from two rich twins who claim he stole their idea, and one from his former business partner who claimed he had been wrongfully forced out of his share of the company). What emerges is a completely compelling movie.

It has many strengths - the script from Sorkin is sharp and funny, whilst not missing the emotionals beats, as fans of The West Wing would expect. Right from the opening scene of Zuckerberg getting dumped in a bar the dialogue flies thick and fast and positively crackles at time. Fincher handles the action well and together they wisely make the decision not to answer the rights and wrongs of the various lawsuits and disputes, but to leave all the characters in a morally grey area that makes for a far more interesting film.

The cast is strong too. Andrew Garfield provides perhaps the most sympathetic route into the story as Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg's friend and business partner who becomes jealous and gradually eased out of the way by Zuckerberg's growing friendship with Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake - again proving he is one singer who can act well). Meanwhile Arnie Hammer and Josh Pence's privileged Winklevoss twins provide more in the way of comic relief as the Olympian rowers who think they came up with the idea in the first place.

However centre stage goes to the breakout performance of Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland, Adventureland) as Zuckerberg himself. The casting is perfect and not just down to certain physical resemblance. Eisenberg convinces as the geeky, super-intelligent creator, whilst also being able to bring a hardness to the role that, say, Michael Cera wouldn't have been able to manage. This is crucial to the ambiguity that the film maintains towards its central character. Zuckerberg is often not very likeable - he starts out out of drunken revenge after being dumped by his girlfriend and comes across in some of the lawsuit scenes as completely arrogant. However, he is never quite a hard-headed monster. Whilst refusing to definitively answer any questions, the abiding impression of the man who created the world's biggest social network is of a lonely man, uncomfortable in social situations (maybe even with Aspergers tendancies). He is always on the outside of parties and the final shot of him is him continually hitting refresh, waiting for his ex-girlfriend to accept his friend request. How close is this to the real Zuckerberg, we may never know, but Eisenberg creates a compelling character.

Overall - 8.5/10 A fascinating and compelling take on a modern phenomenon.

Woolas vs Watkins the verdict.

I must admit to be surprised at the verdict handed down yesterday in the appeal of the Oldham East and Saddleworth General Election result. Along with a lot of people, I had assumed that Phil Woolas would get a slap on the wrist and sent back to the Commons being told not to be a naughty boy again. However, it comes as a pleasant surprise to see the judges decide to stand up for some level of standards in campaigning and I wholeheartedly welcome the decision.

Whilst standards in campaigning generally have been pretty low and all parties have been guilty of some pretty nasty leaflets and campaigns in recent years, Mr Woolas' campaign was particularly distasteful. For the immigration minister to be so blatantly playing the race card in an area which has, in the not too distant past, had race riots is just unacceptable and parliament will be a better place without him. His statement after the verdict that parliamentary candidates need to be open to question from their opponents and voices should not be gagged, etc... is absolutely irrelevant - there is a huge difference between candidates being open to fair and honest questioning and them being subject to unsubstantiated libel posted to voters.

Which leaves the parties to try and deal with the fallout. Hopefully this verdict will be a warning shot across the bows of all parties to clean up their act. IT will also inevitably call into question the judgement of Ed Milliband as the new Labour leader, who appointed mr Woolas to a front bench position whilst he was under investigation for his campaign. Although the Labour party has quickly moved to expel Mr Woolas, some damage will already have been done.

And then we will have the by-election (probably early-ish next year). It will be an interesting election. In theory the three main parties could finish in any order, having finished fairly close together in May. Under different circumstances, I’d say the Lib-dems were out of it given their current unpopularity, but Watkins standing as the victim of these accusations might just stand a chance. Similarly, if there is a backlash against Labour, the Tories vould come through the middle (especially if they keep the same candidate).

I would make Labour favourites, as I don’t imagine the CSR plays well in this area, but they will have a selection dilemma. Pick somebody local and they could be tarred by the previous campaign. Parachute somebody in and it might not go down too well either.

I suspect that the campagn itself will come down to a past vs present focus. The Conservatives and Lib-Dems will both want to focus on the previous Labour campaign and Labour's failures in government. Labour will choose to focus on the present and future cuts to services under the coalition.

An early prediction, Labour will hold on with an increased majority, but Mr Woolas won't be missed at Westminster.

Easy A

Good teen comedies are not all that easy to find and some of the bad ones can be really bad, so it was rather refreshing when, every few years, a really good one comes along. Easy A  is not quite as good  as the best of the genre (Heathers, Ferris Bueller, etc...) but it comfortably lives with the good films on the second rung of the genre (the likes of Clueless; 10 Things I hate about You; Mean Girls). Its not as dark as Heathers, nor quite as caustic as Mean Girls, but has a bit more bite than the likes of Clueless.

Like many successful teen comedies the ultimate source is literary (here The Scarlet Letter), although there are also knowing references to classic 80s John Hughes movies. You'll feel like you've seen most of the characters before, even Amanda Bynes' christian uber-bitch is  rather similar to Mandy Moore's character in Saved! and its easy to see where this is going from the start.

However, none of that really matters, because where the film succeeds is in being genuinely likeable and funny. There are real laughs to be had in the sharp script and they are got by a talented cast led by a breakout turn from Emma Stone, confirming the promise she showed in Zombieland. She's backed up by some good adult performances, especially from Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as the funniest movie parents in a long time.

Overall - 7/10 Not quite in the top draw, but a very entertaining and funny second-tier effort

The Town

Ben Affleck is starting to emerge as the frontrunner to be the unlikely successor to Clint Eastwood as the actor who wins critical acclaim as a director. This follow-up to Gone Baby Gone is probably not quite as accomplished film as his debut, but is nonetheless an extremely accomplished sophomore effort.

One of the things that aids Affleck is that he has a strong sense of place for his native Boston, which becomes almost an extra-character in the film. Another Affleck strength is that he is clearly an actor's director, marshalling strong performances from a very strong cast (albeit one lacking real star names). He chips in himself with one of his best turns for a while, but is ably supported by Rebecca Hall, Mad Men's Jon Hamm and The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner, with great support even in the minor roles coming from the likes of Chris Cooper and Pete Postlethwaite.

The story is nothing all that new - skilled bank-robber (Affleck) wanting out of the game after meeting a girl from a different background (Hall) (albeit having met whilst abducting her during a bank raid), but persuaded to carry that one last job with a friend who's a bit of a liability (Renner), being pursued by the relentless cop (Hamm). But although he handles the action deftly, Affleck never lets this become another heist movie or loses sight of character or relationship in the mix.

Overall - 8/10  The material is decidedly genre-typical, but the performances and direction lift this into something far better and more engaging.

Some thoughts on Housing Benefit.

Whilst I've not yet got my head round all the details of the Comprehensive Spending Review, I thought I'd share some thoughts on the proposed changes to Housing Benefit as this is shaping up nicely to be the first major argument within the coalition.

There are three areas in particular that seem to be causing controversy:

1) The move to reduce the maximum amounts of housing benefit payable for private sector rents. The most often quoted figure is £400 per week for a 4 bedroom house. In general, I would support the reduction of maximum levels, however, I think applying the same figure across the country despite wildly differing housing costs is a mistake. Hence the attention being paid to London and brewing spat between best chums Boris and Dave. (That sais talk of social cleansing and Kosovo by Boris and Labour politicians is offensive and should be avoided at all costs). Part of the problem here is that across the country there is a real shortage of larger social housing properties, following years of under-investment in housing by both previous goverments. Thus larger families are forced to seek homes through the private sector and pay private rents. Therefore maximum limits need to take into account market rental prices in the area (not averaged across the whole country).

2) The move to reduce Housing Benefit by 10% for those who've been on Job Seekers Allowance for more than a year. This is a move which, in my opinion, is wholly without justification. It is draconian, punitive and stigmatising and should be opposed and dropped. Especially in the current economic climate, being unemployed for a year is not a sign of not trying to find work and there are already enough stick measures in the JSA system, adding another one will produce no positive results and will add further pressure on those who already under too much.

3) Allowing Housing Associations to charge close to market rents for social housing in order to pay for more house building. The aim is right, but the measure might be self-defeating in terms of reducing the welfare bill. It will make many tennants more dependant on housing benefit and needing more money from the state in order to pay their rents, thus the welfare bill will in all likelihood increase.

A Brief Aside on Child Benefit

Again, in principle, I would support the removal of child benefit from those who need it the least, but from the way I understand it the proposals, could lead to a hugely unfair situation: a couple where both work and are paid just under the higher rate tax threshold (say 42.5K each, joint income £85k) would still be entitled to child benefit, but a family where only one works but is paid just into the higher rate tax band (joint income £45k) would no longer be able to claim child benefit (if I've understood correctly). That ain't quite fair, is it.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

I'm not a big Oliver Stone fan at the best of times, but the original Wall Street is one of the two Stone films (alongside Platoon) that I would recognise as an undisputed classic. Which makes it a hard act for a sequel over 20 years later to follow. Even given that, Money Never Sleeps is a crashing disappointment.

Michael Douglas was going through more than his fair share of problems during filming. Unfortunately, it seems to show with a performance that seems less than fully engaged and offers only a fraction of the drive that made Gordon Gecko such a memorable character.

Instead what you get is excessive focus on the young leads - Shia LaBoeuf (who after early promise in his career seems somewhat stalled and offers another performance almost identical to every other Shia LaBoeuf performance) and An Education's Carey Mulligan who struggles valiantly with an underwritten and underused character. Indeed, of the cast only Frank Langella offers any depth and he departs proceedings early. Added to this is a plot that fails to engage, other than the odd gripping boardroom scene, and an ending that seems badly tacked on and clashing with everything that went before.

But probably the film's worst failing is that the backdrop (the global financial crisis) swamps the story. So we are supposed to be bothered about Josh Brolin as the boo-hiss villain when what he was doing (although illegal) was small potatoes compared to what the whole industry was up to. You end up feeling like the target is write there in front of Stone, but he completely fails to nail it.

Overall - 5.5/10 A big disappointment, lacking any spark from Douglas, its shallow and flat and lacking in tension with an unbelievable ending.

RED

Recently back from holiday, so have a few blogging things to catch up. Might offer some thoughts on my travels soon (possibly on a new blog), thoughts on the CSR may or may not follow, if I ever get my head around it. But for now lets think films.

RED (which stands for Retired Extremely Dangerous) is not exactly original. The idea of former spies and hard men proving their more than a match for the younger competitors has been done before. The plot, as such, holds few surprises. Most of the characters are stock characters - from Brian Cox's Russian agent (think Robbie Coltrane in the bond films) to John Malkovich's paranoiac.

However, what RED lacks in originality it makes up for in fun - lots of it. Bruce Willis stars as the ex-CIA agent who in retirement finds himself on the wrong end of a hitlist and gets the gang back together to uncover the conspiracy. But who cares about the plot - it has Helen Mirren firing machine guns! There is something rather ludicrously appealing about Dame Helen firing off heavy weaponry which sums up the appeal of the film. Willis seems much more at ease here than he did in his brief cameo in The Expendables, enjoying having people who can actually act to play off and its a delight to see Morgan Freeman still up to the action. That's before adding into the mix Richard Dreyfuss and Ernest Borgnine. Karl Urban is also a surprisingly strong presence as the CIA agent on Willis' trail.

Not that the film is perfect by any means - Malkovich comes close to overbalancing it at times, some of the effects (especially one really bad shot of Willis stepping out of a spinning car, shooting a gun) really fail to convince and not even the excellent Mary Louise Parker can sell the romance with Willis. That said, the script is strong and witty, the action generally well handled and the gags well delivered.

Overall - 7/10 It won't be troubling the academy come Oscar night, but for a fun, action packed night out, it doesn't go far wrong and shows how a cast can have great fun and still make it fun for the viewer too.

The Hole in 3D

In the 80s, Director Joe Dante gave us some of the most fondly remembered films of the decade with the likes of Gremlins and its sequel and Inner Space. From there on it was downhill and The Hole marks his first cinema release since 2003's rather less fondly remembered Looney Tunes Back in Action.

Its the kind of child-friendly horror that should be just right for him and whilst it maybe lacks something of the anarchic fun and genius of Gremlins, its good enough to make it a welcome return.

The plot has a lot of familiar elements - single parent family move to a new house, where the children discover something mysterious (in this case a seemingly bottomless hole in the basement floor) and when they leave it open, strange things start to appear. Rather than running screaming back to the big city, like normal kids might, movie kids, of course, decide to explore things further.

The three kids (Nathan Gamble, Chris Massoglia and Hayley Bennett as the neighbour) all do a solid enough job without a breakout turn. (It is a sign of how things have moved on from the 80s that the girl is often the one who takes the lead (at least until the end sequence)and is least phased by things - a refreshing absence of screaming). That said, Bruce Dern can teach them all a thing or two with his crazy old man act. The effects are well done, although the 3D yet again fails to add much. There are some real jumps and scares pitched at just the right level to frighten children (as they want to be frightened0 but not enough to give them nightmares. It also goes to a pleasingly surrealist places in the final act when they enter the hole.

A word of warning - if you really do have a phobia of clowns, you're best avoiding.

Overall - 6.5/10 A solid family-friendly horror, lifted by a more interesting ending

Our oil addiction.

Today the UK government decided to allow oil company Chevron to carry out deepwater drilling for oil in the sea west of Shetland.

This decision was made in spite of the following factors:

- yesterday the EU is planning a moratorium on all deepwater drilling for oil in light of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. (Hence, one suspects, the rusging through of this decision).

- Enquiries into the Horizon disaster are still ongoing, which means that new drilling off Shetland will be carried out with the same exacting safety standards as were in place there. The industry is as yet offering no further reassurances or safeguards. Meanwhile, the environmental cost in the Gulf can still not be measured as damage is still being done.

- If the world's existing supplies of oil and gas were used up, the world would still exceed targets set for reducing emissions and climate targets the UK (and Scottish) government claims to be committed too. Surely efforts should now be put into the development of greener technologies to help the world when fossil fuels run out, rather than looking for more oil. We need to plan for this change now.

This is also an issue where Alex Salmond finds himself in bed with the coalition. When pressed yesterday he refused to back the EU moratorium, preferring to leave the door open to deepwater drilling. This despite his recent trumpeting of Scotland becoming 100% renewable. I suspect that at the end of the day the SNP needs the oil industry too much in order to make the economic case for independance and that will stop them ever fully embracing an environmental agenda.

The Other Guys

The Other Guys is a film designed around one central joke - that most police films are action packed thrillers involving drugs and guns, whilst a lot of the most serious crime is white collar cases involving computers and currency transactions. The film tries to bring these two different worlds together, at least one presumes that is the intention from the number of scary statistics over the closing credits. The fact that you need the closing credits to remind you what it was supposed to all be about is an indication that somewhere between that one idea and the finished film, things got rather messier and the actual details of the police case are hazy to say least, and at times almost totally lost in the scattergun approach to humour which is both the film's major failing and biggest success.

Such messiness is almost inevitable when you cast Will Ferrell with his own unique brand of humour. Ferrell here is at his best since Stranger Than Fiction (2006) and his funniest since Anchorman (2004) and gives a timely reminder of how funny he can be with the right material as the forensic accountant who is partnered with Mark Wahlberg's frustrated action man. Wahlberg is a revelation - showing a comic ability that has so far remained almost completely untapped. That said, the film is almost stolen by a hilarious cameo from Samuel L Jackson and Dwayne Johnson as the hero cops. Its a cameo that ends hilariously abruptly, but its almost worth going to see the film just for their sake. Steve Coogan also gets one of his better big screen outings as the financial bigshot at the centre of investigations. Not all the jokes are successful and as mentioned above the plot is hardly worth trying to follow, being little more than a loose structure of an investigation to hang the buddy comedy aroound. That said there's more here that works than doesn't humour-wise.

Overall - 7/10 Its hit and miss, but definitely more hit than miss and thus ends up being one of the funnier films of the year and welcome return to form for Ferrell after a very dodgy patch.

Winter's Bone

If you're feeling slightly down and need some light-hearted fun to pick you up, then you probably want to pick something else to see. If, however, you are tired of the usual multiplex fare and wish to see a superior piece of atmospheric, thought-provoking film-making then this should be first on your list.

Adapated from the novel by Daniel Woodrell, Winter's Bone is the story of Ree - a 17 year-old girl growing up in the challenging environment of the Ozark mountains. In a very closed patriarchal community with its own way of doing things and very pronounced taboos, Ree has to care for her younger siblings and her mum who has mentally shut down. To make matters worse, her dad is missing, is due in court and has put their house up as security against his bail. In order to save the house, Ree sets out to find her dad, dead or alive, despite repeated warnings not to look into things too much.

The film provides an absolutely fascinating look at a hard and closed community whch has little truck with the law. Director Debra Granik also manages to maintain an atmosphere or sustained menace just below the surface, which is all the more remarkable as this very rarely erupts into actual violence (almost all off-screen) and the pacing is slow, if none the less gripping for it. Granik also manages to capture something of the bleak beauty of the region, contrasted with the ragged run-down state of most of the settlements. This is not an easy environment to live in and many of its residents have turned to cooking Meth to get by.

In the central role, Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding - hard and yet human wth dogged determination. Its a performance that is already generating Oscar buzz and deservedly so.

Overall - 8.5/10 Bleakly powerful and gripping. Not an easy watch, but one that is worth it.

Cyrus

The plot of Cyrus can be summarised as follows: a divorced man in a depressed rut (John C Reilly) is given a lift when he starts a relationship with a woman (Marissa Tomei). Everything seems to be going well until he meets her son, the eponymous Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who has an unusually close relationship with his mum and takes an instant dislike to the new man in her life and whilst hiding behind a mask of friendship engages in a battle of wits to get rid of him.

Thus this film could easily have been a broad comedy, playing the situation for laughs (as the trailer might rather suggest it is) or it could have been an emotional melodrama, turning up the heat to a sticky ending. Cyrus is neither of those things, but its also hard to define what it is exactly. Writer-Directors Jay and Mark Duplass have been building up a credible indy-reputation through films not many (including me) have see - The Puffy Chair or Baghead anyone? What they produce here is quirky, darkly funny, but rarely in a laugh out loud kind of way, but also rather an interesting and fascinating look at some rather dysfunctional people.

They are aided in this by a top-notch cast. John C Reilly is a consistently underrated actor who shines here in his best role for a long time, making his character neither too much of a loser to be likeable or too good to be unbelievable in the situation. Marissa Tomei is excellent as ever, but has the least explained character to make credible. Added to the mix is indie-queen and ever-reliable Catherine Keener as Reilly's ex-wife and confidant. Which leaves Jonah Hill - an actor I have given some criticism to before - he was hugely unlikeable in both Funny People and Get Him to the Greek, but here when he's actually playing the unlikeable character he takes his cue from the veterans around him and underplays really well and adds a real human dimension to what could have been a one note joke. This helps with an ending that turns out to be surprisingly underplayed and warmly touching.

Overall - 6.5/10 Hard to categorise, certainly won't be too everybody's taste, but its an interesting and quirky little film.

Have the Lib Dems sold out?

Since the General Election in May, there seem to be have been two competing narratives or spin that have been vigorously promoted and that have gained some considerable traction with the public at large.

The one that the coalition are promoting heavily is the standard new government line that the mess we're in is all the last lot's fault. Or in other words, that we're in a financial mess because Labour ballsed things up thoroughly. Reality however, is always more complicated than spin. Yes, I'm fairly certain that Labour was guilty of some irresponsible spending, especially towards the end of their administration (and probably making some promises they knew they could never pay for in a desperate attempt to sway the election). But we shouldn't forget that it was largely the banks (nationally and globally) that created this crisis. Nor should we forget that most government since the war (of both parties, and not just in this country) have had a tendancy to spend more than they bring in (through a reluctance to either raise taxes or make cuts) and thus produced a generally steadily escalating problem to be paid for by the next generation - the current financial crisis has merely accelerated this. (Indeed, the first few years of New Labour are one of the few exceptions to this).

The second narrative is that the Lib-Dems have sold out their principles for ministerial seats in joining the coalition. For much of the time since the election Labour have focussed their attacks almost solely on the Lib-Dems as sell-outs. Partly, in doing this they come across as spurned lovers, jealous that the onject of theor affections has hoped into bed with a new partner.In the run up to the election there was a cosy assumption that the Lib-Dems were like a mini-Labour and could only ever enter coalition with them. That has proved not to be the case. But have Clegg and co sold out?

The Formation of the Coalition.
In the run up to the election, one of the things that it was clear the Lib-Dems stood for was parties working together. Clegg also made it clear that the party that came first should have the first go at forming a government. Having campaigned so long for a chance to hold the balance of power and contribute to government, the party would have lost all credibility if they had turned their back on the opportunity. Reallistically on May 7th, there were only two real alternative - Tory-Lib coalition or a Tory Minority government. Its difficult to see what the Libs would have got out of a supply and confidence arrangement with a Tory minority which would have led to Cameron having to do far more to appease the right-wing nutters on his backbenches. There's also an argument that it was in the national interest to have a stable government that the coalition provides in order to reassure the markets (although personally I'm uncomfortable with the narrative which seems to give ultimate power to unaccountable market forces, but that is a debate for another time which none of the parties seem to want to engage in). The other issue was that only the Tories could actually afford the risk of another election this year - and it would have stretched them. Labour and the Lib-Dems were left practically penniless, so nobody wanted to risk going back to the polls. Thus far, the Lib-Dems appear to have sold out less than the Tories, who actively campaigned against the idea of a hung parliament or coalition.

The Nature of Coalition Politics.
Part of the reason why the Labour narrative of Liberal sell-out works so well, is that we are unused to to coalition politics here. They necessarily entail a certain amount of compromise and concession and the larger party will inevitably be able to get more of their agenda across. Thus the tories have been able to pass free schools, which raises Lib-Dem hackles, whilst the Lib-Dem pupil premium is agreed, but will take time to deliver. Similarly it will take time for the gradual raising of the tax threshold to feed through. Partly, in all of this the Lib-Dems are losing the media war - they are seen as more subservient to a Tory agenda, whilst their achievements are overlooked and not mentioned. As a balancing point, discontent in the right-wing media and tory backbenches should also be noted. This is not the government they were hoping for either. Chris Huhne at the Deparment of Energy and Environment seems to be particularly hated by the Daily Torygraph, so he must be doing something right under the radar. Of course, there has also been anger over the VAT rise, although it should be noted that both parties rather evaded the issue throughout the campaign. "I know of no plans to raise VAT", etc... As I have blogged previously, I think the anti-progressive nature of this is over-stated and as an anti-consumption measure, I think we should wait and see. Another under-reported context to this is attempts to standardise the rate of VAT across the EU. And what figure do they want to standardise at - 20%. Hmmmm. But of course, the Euro-sceptic Tories won't want to talk about that.

Indeed, Lib-Dem influence could also be seen working in silence of the Tories on Europe and the possible delay of a decision on Trident until after the next election. The Lib-dems have clearly had to step back on immigration, much to Vince Cable's obvious dislike.

Cuts, Cuts, Cuts
But, of course, the main grounds for accusing the Lib-Dems of selling out is over cuts. During the election, Clegg sided with Brown in saying that the economy should be given more chance to grow before cuts are enacted. There was of course a whole heap of disingenuousness all round in this debate. The parties chose to argue almost solely about £6bn in National Insurance, Labour hiding the deep divisions between Brown and Darling and the possible impact of the cuts they had already made (the job lossses currently being announced are from Labour cuts - the Con-Dem ones are yet to come). The Tories swerved admitting the scale of the cuts that would be made and Clegg has since said that he changed his mind on the timing of cuts before the election, but neglected to tell voters until afterwards. So amidst this positive storm of pots calling kettles black, what's going on.

To address the deficit, any government has three basic strategies - spending cuts, tax rises and economic growth (bringing in more revenue from existing taxes and hopefully reducing the welfare bill). Labour's strategy incorporated all three, but centred on fiscal stimulus to try and grow the economy. The economic figures since the election show that this was working to some extent. However, it does seem to me a strategy built on levels of consumer spending which are neither desirable nor sustainable and possibly feeds into perpetuating a boom and bust cycle.

The other issue is that on the election day itself, the EU was plunging into economic crisis. The markets, and particularly the credit-rating agencies demanded a new government that would take a tougher line with the deficit. The consequences otherwise would be a reduction in the UK's credit-rating, higher interest rates on our debt and a spiral that it would have been much harder to get out. So, the coalition's plan is what the markets wanted (as mentioned above, I'm uncomfortable with this particular argument). There is of course counter-exanmples like Ireland, who did all the credit-agencies asked and still had their rating reduced.

Personally, I think that, whilst some cuts needed to happen and the way some services are delivered needs to be looked, the current government's cuts probably go too far and would have liked to have seen a balance slightly less cuts heavy in a way that possibly does threaten continued growth and will cause a lot of pain to a lot of people (and I'm not convinced that the effects will be felt equally by all). That said, it remains to be seen how much spin there is in advance of the reality. I still suspect that the 40% figure is put out there to make the 25% seem less bad. I also think that Osbourne is aiming to eliminate the deficit in order to make sure he meets Labour's target of halving it in this parliament - cuts being harder and more expensive to implement than to plan. So, to a certain extent I am disappointed in this aspect of the Lib-Dems involvement, but not to the extent of buying the Labour spin of selling out.

What has this meant in political terms?
In opinion polls since the elections there has been a steady decline in Lib-Dem support from 24% at the election to about 14% now. The main beneficiaries are Labour (who are benefitting from not having a leader or direction at the moment - they are "not-the-coalition" without having anything fixed to be shot at in return), but also gains for the Conservatives and Greens. In part, the Libs always fall back in-between elections, there might also be a slight over-compensation in polling companies methods and weightings from the general election where they all over-predicted the Lib-Dem share.

However, this isn't being totally born out in real results at the polls yet. Local council by-elections are bad predictors for the national picture, but they are all we have to go on at the moment. Since the election, the main gainers have been Labour, who are up something like 10 or 11 seats. Surprisingly the Libs are also up by 3 or 4 seats, whilst the Tories are down by around 10, the Greens holding steady (1 gain, 1 loss, 1 hold) and independants and the continuing Liberal party making up the other losses. What is slightly surprising is where the Libs have been making gains - you would expect them maybe to make progress against Labour with tactical support from newly reassured Tories, but here they have been losing seats and gaining against the Tories where you would have expected them to lose Labour tactical support. To a large extent this can be explained by the fact that the last few sets of local elections (to which these by-elections are compared) were exceptionally good for the Tories and bad for Labour, so there is a certain normality being restored (independants and smaller parties usually do worse in by-elections as the big parties are free to target more resources there), but as much as there is a pattern it is that the Libs are falling back in the North of England, but making slight gains in the South. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few years - Clegg is clearly playing a long game and won't be overly troubled by current polls. The Lib-Dems have been this low before in recent years and recovered. Will they this time? The jury is still out...