Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets (2002)

So my original plan was to settle down and try and watch all the Harry Potter films in a week or so (The plan failed, as 9 days into April now and I've not got round to watching number 3 yet), but I still intend to. The film I was least looking forward to watching was this one, The Chamber Of Secrets. This is actually no fault of the film, it turns out, but is in fact a result of the second book always being my least favourite book. It was my least favourite for a simple reason, it got real dark, real quick, and it dragged out what is essentially a similar storey to the first one, but with more confusion (things that only really get explained in the later books). The main problem with the film is still the story, and whilst I can't ignore that about the film, I also find it hard to pin blame on anyone but the author for that.

The story picks up a month or so after the last film ends. He's back with his aunt and uncle, he thinks his friends have forgotten him and he's miserable. He meets Dobby the house elf, who warns him not to go back to Hogwarts because he is in danger, but Harry is whisked off by the Weasleys and finds his way back to school. There are sinister things going on at school revolving around 'The Chamber Of Secrets', and it is up to Harry, Ron and Hermione to save the day once again. It's in this film that Harry begins to question his loyalties and we learn a little more about Voldemort and his past. Like I say, much of the film makes a lot more sense in the context of the later books/films, so this time watching it I found it less jarring than the first time I watched it.

The actors have somehow, in the course of one year, gone from being bright eyed children to teenagers. It's really weird and I can't believe how fast they grew (it was films basically straight after the first one). That being said they're still very much at the early stages of their learning and still find themselves making new discoveries both of a scholarly nature and socially. It is in this film that we learn just how rotton the Malfoy family are, and where we see the beginnings of a blossoming romance for Harry. It is really quite refreshing watching the film again having seen the rest.

The film keeps much of the same aesthetics from the first film, probably because it's the same director, there is still a strong colourful flourish to the film, and some of the performances could still fit in nicely in  panto rather than in a film, but again, it's a kids film so you kind of forgive it. What this film is missing that the first film had (and indeed the third one had), was some of the pure inventiveness that makes Harry Potter so refreshing. You get your first mention of Azkaban, but no real reason to dread it as much as we are indicated we should (we realise why in the next film).

This film isn't bad, it's not as good as the first one, and indeed is probably one of the weakest two Harry Potter films, but it's enjoyable enough, it won't put you off watching any more, and like I say, I was never keen on the book, so my views on the film are slightly marred by that.

Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone (2001)

It all seems like so long ago. I think I started reading Harry Potter in 1998 or 1999, I was at school and it was only by chance that I started reading them. At the time The books pretty much mirrored my age and as I grew up it did so in a pretty accurate manner. By the time the first film came out, I was in my first or second year of Secondary School, so basically still the same age as the characters. As such I've always had a sort of fondness for Harry Potter, because I feel as though the series has grown up as I have. It was an absolute joy to rediscover some of the lighter sides to JK Rowling's inventiveness; whether it was inventing an entire wizarding sport, the paintings that move around, the chocolate frogs that actually jump around or any number of other whimsical things, it really captured my imagination as a kid (as it did many other children).

The film was the second time I'd seen Daniel Radcliffe act, the first being a Dickens adaptation on TV (David Copperfield perhaps?) so in that respect he was pretty famous as far as kids my age go. I actually don't think he's as bad as some people have made out in this film. I think he shows genuine enthusiasm for the role and perhaps because he is as overwhelmed by the events of a major Hollywood film as Harry is of a school for witchcraft and wizardry, or perhaps just a wonder that he was chosen to play the boy who lived. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are also better here than they are given credit for, and I actually think that it was during the middle films where their performances perhaps slipped a little.

Having not read the book or seen the film for a good 5/6 years or more I could only really half remember the story, but started remembering it as it went along. There are a few things that are almost shocking when revisiting this film. To begin with you get the reminder that Michael Gambon wasn't the first choice for Dumbledore (despite him being so perfect for the role). Instead we get Richard Harris who plays the role as a much more externally fragile, but incredibly clever and thoughtful man. It is absolutely fine, and I think that had he lived to complete the series he would have made a fine Dumbledore in the later films when he gets more involved in matters. Next is the shock of the colours! In the later Harry Potter films, well probably everything from 4 onward, everything is very dark and troublesome, but in the earlier films the characters are still so full of joy and hope, being children. The house colours are prominent throughout, and the whole pallet of the film is just one of brightness and optimism. It being aimed mostly at children this is again, absolutely fine. The final shock is simply how young they all look, but just a year later, it's all changed.

The story is just fine, everything ties into itself nicely, whether it's the chess game Harry and Ron are playing at Dinner or Hermione's natural ability to learn linking in to the final challenges of the film, nothing feels out of place or forced. This is a kids film though, and it definitely feels like one. It's sometimes a little too cheesy or panto for my liking, whether it's Harry's grin, or Hagrid constantly letting slip things he shouldn't, these are moments aimed at people who were me 11 years ago, but not so much me now. Although, it could just be because I'm the perfect age group for Harry Potter the first time round, but the film was an absolute joy, brought back loads of nice memories and blew by in no time. Well worth a watch with your kids, hopefully they'll love it like I did when I was a lad.

Muriel's Wedding (1994)

Toni Collete's Australian?! Whilst that may have been common knowledge to most of you, I had no idea, it was the biggest shock when settling down to watch this film, also how different she, and indeed everyone, looked in 1994. I often forget that the early 90s was basically the same as the late 80s, which is such a shame. However, Muriel's wedding manages to get beyond the 90s schtick and is a nicely comic Australian film, with some familiar faces, and some new, it's both funny and touching and well worth a watch.

Muriel is the daughter of the city Council Chief, and she is deeply unhappy, she's trying to fit in with her bitchy friends, she is constantly getting into trouble with her family, she failed receptionist school and is basically looking for a purpose in her life. Then whilst on holiday (paid for with money stolen from her family) she meets Rhonda. Rhonda doesn't look down on Muriel for her love of Abba, or her sense of humour, she embraces it. Indeed she encourages it, and the two form a close friendship. Then, when her family discover she has stolen the money, Muriel runs away from home and goes to live in Sydney with Rhonda. The two girls party hard in the way that you can only really do when you're young, and Muriel seems happy. However, when an accident leaves Rhonda paralysed from the waist down, and Muriel's family catches up with her things start to unravel. Muriel has a deep obsession with getting married, firm in the belief that if she could only get married her life would be different, she'd have made it. But when the opportunity to get married presents itself, it relies on her turning her back on the matters of love that she values so much.

I never thought I would like a film that has Abba so close to its heart, and indeed so involved in the soundtrack. I hate Abba, but somehow in the songs work well in the film, providing a slightly cheesy aspect to the girls lives which makes them more endearing, they don't care what people think of them so long as they are happy. In fact this is probably the overriding message of the film, about individuality, about how you shouldn't conform to someone else's idea of happiness, stop trying to please other people, whether it is your family, or your friends. Your family will love you no matter what, and your friends, well they might just not be your real friends.

The film manages to convey this message without ramming it down your throat. It also has the advantage of being funny, because if it was ever starting to get too serious or preachy, suddenly a great gag would present itself and you'd be back where you started, rooting on the good guys. The film gets the balance of humour right too. Some of the film is really exaggerated, but within the context of the film it all makes perfect sense and you accept the characters as they are.

Overall I think there are funnier Australian comedies (The Castle & The Dish are probably my two favourites), but this is certainly a sure footed entry into the cannon, well worth checking out for a few Aussie laughs.

Wild Bill (2012)

Wild Bill was not what I was expecting, and I mean this in the best possible way. The trailer kind of made it look like a Lock Stock East End Gangster thing with some kids involved too. It could work, but it would be much more likely to be shit. Thankfully then Wild Bill is actually a story about redemption, about a father learning to be a good man and a good father, and of his kids learning to trust him once again.

Wild Bill is released from prison after serving 8 years for an array of crimes from assaulting a police officer to attempted murder, but as he tells his parole officer: It's not as bad as it sounds. He first of all heads back to his home, where he assumes he'll find his ex-wife and kids; with no reply at the door and after being told the room was empty by a neighbour he goes down to the pub where he meets some of his old criminal buddies. Meanwhile, his kids have been living alone for the last 9 months as their mother has gone to Spain with her new boyfriend, probably never to return. They've been avoiding the authorities, but after Bill is brought to their home after getting very drunk, and then mentions that the boys have been living alone for 9 months to his parole officer, they get involved. At first Bill is blackmailed into staying by his older son, who steals some of his drugs, but as the film progresses he learns genuine affection for the boys and takes an active interest in their lives and tries to help them sort out both their flat, and their lives.

Bill is constantly being threatened with a return to the criminal world, but is genuine about never wanting to return to prison, but this just makes his old friends angry and turn on him, seeing him as a threat. The main basis of the film is about the struggle Bill undergoes in not simply returning to his old ways, and his children are a real help in this. The film is filled with really positive examples of human spirit, and not in a cheesy way. I suspect that many will come see this film thinking it is something else, indeed during the screening I was in a few people actually left half way through not to return. But hopefully those that stayed will feel like I did about this film.

The acting is all top notch, not just Charlie Creed-Miles as Bill (who is superb), but also Liz White as his prostitute girlfriend (she really shines), and the kids, Will Poulter and Sammy Williams do a real good job as well. The script feels really natural, and even the slightly OTT criminal element works well in context, something which has to be down to Dexter Fletcher's really nice script and direction.

This is a gangster film, but it's far removed from the Guy Ritchie school of thought. For too long London Gangster films have been dominated by dull lazy screen writing and clichés, hopefully Wild Bill marks the beginning of a new era, where the 'hard man' gets his punishment, and start to break away from convention and bring British cinema back to where it should be. This is a really strong effort.

Oceans Thirteen (2007)

Oceans Thirteen; the final (hopefully) film in the Oceans trilogy. We've had the oh so smooth first film, the dodgy middle film filled with cliches, bad gags and smugness, so what does the third film hold for us. Well thankfully not a repeat of the second film. Instead it reverts back to the easy charm that made the first film such a winner. We're again looking at a way to bring down a corrupt casino boss (Al Pacino), we're enlisting the help of the team (with some repeat offenders from previous films), and thankfully we're leaving any element of romance at the front door.

The Basic principal is that Reuben was originally going to open a Casino with Al Pacino's 'Bank', but Bank betrays him and forces him to be bought out of his shares, and his land so that Bank can make all the profit and reap all the rewards himself. As a result Reuben finds himself ill and the doctor's prognoses is that unless his mood improves, and he can have a reason to survive, there's a good chance he won't. So after giving Bank a chance to reverse his decision and make amends, the boys embark on a way to ruin Bank, by making his new Hotel/Casino loose money, and loose acclaim. They enlist the help of Andy Garcia's Terry Benedict and Eddie Izzard's Roman Nagal and set about the toughest challenge yet.

The film is quite clever, instead of stealing from the Casino like they did in the first film, they instead choose to simply rig all the games so that they pay out big to the public and then move the public out before they can put the money back into the casino. This presents a unique set of challenges. Alongside this there is the prestige gained from winning the five diamond award for the hotel, an honour that Bank has managed for each of his hotels so far. So the team must also rig this and sabotage the hotel so that he doesn't get the award, bruising not just his purse, but also his prestige.

The film moves along in a light hearted manner, with humour and style to spare. But it does fall down a little in its ambition. Once again we see Vincent Cassell throughout the film, but with a screen time of maybe 5 minutes in total (being generous) he is once again sorely underused, and indeed anyone could have been that person, there was no reason to bring him back except to avoid having to explain who he was. It's a shame, and perhaps if he'd just not been there at all the film would have played out much better. It is also a bit derivative of the first film. I appreciate the efforts that have been made to avoid simply remaking the first film. The differences are there, and they are good, but sometimes you feel as though the actors and characters are perhaps falling back into their comfort zones and living up the characters rather than being them.

Overall this is a fine effort, and a good film, very enjoyable. It's not a classic, but it's a nice end to the trilogy, especially after the awful middle. I hope that they don't make any more films, particularly now that Bernie Mac is dead, I think that they could never capture the magic of the first film again, and whilst this effort doesn't, it makes a damn good effort and ending it here makes it a worthy trilogy overall.

Pirates In An Adventure With Scientists (2012)

Pirates In An Adventure With Scientists (or for ease; Pirates) is the new feature film from Aardman animation, them behind Wallace & Gromit, and Chicken Run. It's a return to claymation after Arthur Christmas' more standard animation, but it is missing Nick Parks. It follows the adventure of Pirate Captain, the nicest Pirate Captain around (not a good thing in the pirating community), who is constantly striving for recognition from his peers. He's not likely to win Pirate of the Year, so when Charles Darwin and he come to meet, and it is pointed out to him that his parrot is in fact a Dodo (thought to be extinct) he is told about the Scientist of the Year award which he is a dead cert to win. However, Darwin may have his own agenda.

This is a kids film, and was billed as being one of those films with loads for adults too. Most of the adult related jokes are through the background, with some very amusing pictures/articles people in the background. The foreground is mostly taken up by the bright pirates, wonderful clay figures and visual gags that work to varying degrees. Whilst this film is visually very nice to look at, the sound is where it kind of falls down. There is an important lesson to be learned that, just because a song is a good song, doesn't mean it will work in a given situation. In this film we have songs from The Clash, The Specials, Flight Of The Conchords and other great musical acts. However, in the situations they are used are sometimes okay, but often very jarring or confusing, such as the flight of the conchords song, which is a comedy song, but used in a serious situation. This was off putting throughout the film and one of the major flaws.

The other problem with the film is that it is missing one of the key ingredients of an Aardman film, it's missing Nick Parks. Whilst Wallace & Gromit is filled with great subtlety and wit, charm and so much more. Pirates is enjoyable enough, but it doesn't ever take off beyond the mediocre. It's a real shame, because there are some really nice ideas in this film. The main plot is an interesting one, and some of the jokes are a treat (I particularly enjoyed the John Merrick gag).

I think one aspect of my issue with the film is that I'm a little fed up of Pirates. After disappointing Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels and numerous spoofs I'm a little pirated out. So the film was already a little stale even before it came out. It also is perhaps a little too aimed at children, with not quite enough for older viewers, or rather, the gags for older viewers aren't as clever as the jokes for kids, which is a bit of a shame. I'd recommend this film for the kids, I'd say it was an enjoyable film, but it's far from a classic, very average, which Aardman shouldn't be.

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games has unfairly been compared to Twilight. I believe that this was less to do with the traditional things that link together films, such as themes, actors, plot, directors etc; and more to do with the fact that it is based on successful books, is aimed at teenagers and is probably going to take the world by storm. It was these initial comparisons that really put me off the film, and It is unfortunate that it may have done the same to others too.

The principle idea of the Hunger Games is that it is Battle Royale with a 12A rating. For those unfamiliar with Battle Royale, that means it is a film where 24 teenagers are put in a situation where they must kill each other until there is only one left standing, the winner will be allowed to survive and will be adorned with riches and fame. The reasons for these 'Hunger Games' are to keep the civilians in check. It seems that at some point in the past there was an uprising, particularly among the outer sections of the land (the further out they are, the poorer), and it is said that to keep them in line you must offer them some hope, but too much would be dangerous. So it keeps the citizens in line and provides a hit TV Show as well (Imagine a futuristic Big Brother).

The film is interesting in a few ways. To begin with, it's a film that is very much aimed at a teenage audience, yet it deals with issues such as social inequality, the growing concern with what the public views for pleasure (Reality TV), our role in life and other worldly issues. Sure it does so with a 12A rating and teenagers in mind, but the fact it does so at all is quite impressive. However, that wouldn't matter if the film were crap.

Luckily then it's not. The cast are all strong, and whilst they're not yet note perfect, they are far from wooden, a curse that has befouled many a teen series, which is nothing but a godsend. The story is again an engaging one, and knowing that this is part one of a trilogy is intriguing too. On the one hand they've made a film that could stand up in its own right, with no need for another film, but there are some very evident seeds for where the future films could lead. It would be all too easy to buy into the hype as a studio, and knowing there are two more books simply make a film with a cliffhanger ending, but they've gone for the tasteful route.

You've got a film that despite being derivative of other films (Battle Royale), somehow manages to remain memorable and retain a personality of its own. One of the things I really liked about it was the manufactured nature of the show. It's supposed to be reality, and a reality where you see gruesome deaths, yet all the while you have sinister forces orchestrating a story for the audience at home, and what's more worrying is that those in the show buy into it. It feels almost as if the film is concerned that modern society is too controlled by those in power, those who organise our lives and subconsciously tell us what to do, which we blindly follow. It's another nice little sub point.

Complaints about the film then. It's long, at 2 1/2 hours it could be a little too long, perhaps there was too much build up, perhaps too much hiding in trees, I don't know. I know this is me and not the film, but whilst I enjoyed it, and felt that it was actually dealing with some interesting issues, it was a little too teen oriented for my liking. I know it's for teenagers, but it was mildly offputting.

Overall though I was impressed, a really solid effort that has left me wanting more. I am very tempted to just read the books to see what happens, I think there's going to be a repeat uprising? But I could be way off the mark. Either way, check out the film, for once, the next big thing could be justified.

Funny People (2009)

Funny People is a rare thing, it's an Adam Sandler film that I don't hate. Wohay! And not only that, but it's a film that I like partly because of him, and not in spite of him. Funny People is about Adam Sandler, playing an ageing Comedian who is fed up with his life, who discovers he has serious Cancer and has to undergo a series of experimental drugs to cure it. After getting the news he goes to a local comedy club to do an impromptu set where he bombs, but he meets Ira (Seth Rogan) a comedian with good ideas, but no real way of getting them out in the right way. Adam Sandler ends up calling him for jokes and the two strike up an unlikely friendship/employment situation which benefits them both in different ways. There's also a side story involving a past flame, but I'll get to that.

For the first 90 minutes or so, the film moves along at a really nice melancholic pace. When one of your leads has Cancer, you don't want to be bombarding the audience with a joke a second, because quite frankly they won't appreciate it. The film works during this segment mostly because it provides brief chuckles and smirks to break the tender scenes in between. It is a character piece, looking at the way that you view your life when you think it may be coming to an end, and from Ira's view, how you deal with your life changing in monumental ways, and you're still the same guy as before. There's a really nice relationship between Ira and Daisy (Aubrey Plaza) the girl next door. She's also a comic and is attractive in a kinda geeky/cool way that intimidates Ira so he can't simply ask her out. For all the knob gags he tells on stage, he's actually kind of a sweethearted shy man. His flatmate (Jason Schwartzman) gives him an ultimatum, in 10 days, if he's not made a move, then he'll sleep with her. It's crude, but it provides an honest and sweet look at their blossoming relationship, whilst also providing a nice look at the dynamic of the group who live together.

The film is filled with melancholy looks back at life. When Sandler attends Thanksgiving with Ira and a bunch of other young people he tells them that this will be the best Thanksgiving of their lives, when you're young and living your life, free and independent, surrounded by your friends. It's a really nice moment. The film isn't all nice however. You've got the relationship between Ira and Sandler as his boss, who seems prone to these magnificent mood swings which leave him berating Ira for the littleist thing. The implication in the film is that he's scared, but deeper down he has issues.

The reason I like this film is because the lead character feels like Adam Sandler holding his hands up for past mistakes, there are numerous movie spoofs in this film, all of which look terrible, and none of which would be out of place in the Adam Sandler catalogue. The film lampoons him, but reveals underneath that there is a man who does have taste, and who simply wants to be around people who like him. It's revealing, and could be completely false, but I like to think that that is the case.

However, the final third of the film is what really lets down what could have been a great film. When his Cancer is shown to be in remission, Sandler goes to visit his ex girlfriend, the love of his life. She's married with two children, but that doesn't stop him trying to get back together. There are some nice moments in this segment, but it really jars with the rest of the feel of the film, and feels far too tacked on for me to really care about it. It's almost as if studio bosses said that the script needed more romance, and rather than weave one into the existing story, maybe bulk out Daisy & Iras relationship (which I really liked), they just added one on at the end. This portion of the film does allow Sandler and Ira to fall out properly though, and that fall out provides a nice ending, which may seem initially downbeat, but is actually really quite wonderful.

This film may be flawed, it's too long and the final third isn't really all that, but I really honestly liked the first 2/3 a lot, and that is what brings me back each time, to prove to myself that Adam Sandler isn't a complete waste of space.

The Last Of The Mohicans (1992)

Okay, so honesty time, if I'd known this was a Michael Mann film, I probably wouldn't have bothered.Heat was good, but then Miami Vice was awful, Ali was over long, Collateral just had no substance to it and Manhunter is overrated. Heat is pretty good, and Public Enemies wasn't as bad as it could have been, but on the whole I really struggle to get Michael Mann. So after I learned he directed this, half way through watching it, I suddenly understood why I was so bored.

This film, like all Michael Mann films, looks nice enough. Lots of forestry, everything has a sort of sharpness to it, which is ironic, because the substance to the film is so fuzzy. Nothing really happens, which isn't so much the issue, except that whilst nothing is happening..... nothing else happens. You've got a fairly impressive battle in the latter half of the film when the British are ambushed by the Native Americans, but the build up to that is incredibly tedious, and after that is also pretty tedious. The romantic element to the film was irritating and I felt nothing for either of them.

The worst thing about this film though is how disappointed I was in Daniel Day Lewis. It's not for choosing to do the film, but more that he just isn't all that good. He's not bad, but he's not great either, and this is one of our finest living actors. Maybe this film has just aged badly, maybe that's why I found it so utterly tedious throughout, or maybe I wasn't in the right mood. Either way I was entirely disappointed with this film.

I don't even feel as though the film has enough substance for me to write a normal amount about, so I will have to wrap it up here. I would steer clear of this film; unless you're a Michael Mann fan, in which case you'll probably love it. I am not, and really did not.

The Devils (1971)

So almost as if there was some sort of cosmic plan, The Devils came into my life in all sorts of ways over the last couple of months. First of all I heard Mark Kermode talking about it a lot, like a lot, the exact reason I can't recall, but I don't suppose he really needs a reason, he loves it. Second of all my Dad brought it up in conversation one day, again, out of the blue, just because the thought had occurred to him. He told me it was excellent and that I should watch it. I also gather he is a Ken Russell fan and has made me want to watch more of his films. Then of course I learned that there was to be the first ever release of The Devils on DVD, and the first time the original cut has been available for decades. So I thought to myself, I should probably buy that DVD when it comes out, it's a BFI release as well, and I do feel like I should support them more. So I bought it, at a time when I should have been saving my money I bought a new release DVD. You know what? I actually don't regret it one jot.

I wasn't sure exactly what to expect from the film, I knew of the controversy, that there was still footage missing that Russell had originally wanted kept in, that was deemed blasphemous by some who had seen it, and not by others (tellingly one of the latter includes an American Priest interviewed in the extra features). Some feel that the footage that was left in is also blasphemous because it deals with religious people doing things that they really shouldn't be doing.

The whole thing is based on documented events that really occurred in France. A nunnery seemed to become overrun with madness soon after Father Grandier (Oliver Reed) came to town. Father Grandier had recently upset the Cardinal by refusing the demolition of the city of Loudun's walls. He felt that their destruction would signal the end of the city and as long as he was around, so too would the walls. The Nuns called in an exorcist to rid them of the demons that they were convinced were making them have sexual thoughts and act in an inappropriate manner. However, during the exorcisms (which are tantamount to public rape by the looks of it), they accuse Father Grandier of setting the demons that possessed them loose. He is then put on trial and executed for his crimes against God.

Father Grandier at this time was dealing with his own personal demons, he had known many women (biblically speaking), and was struggling with a faith that would not allow someone to feel love this way. He meets a woman who he marries, and during this time he becomes more religious and filled with faith, his faith becomes purer as the nuns faith runs wild. He is obviously being set up by the Cardinal (who has political ambition) and has nothing to do with the nuns, who he actually hasn't met. The modern theories surrounding their collective madness involve a hallucinogenic that can be found on a popular bread at the time which when stored in the wrong way can turn quite badly.

The film is insane, like insane insane. You've got these long sequences of madness going on in as the film progresses. I understand that this was pretty much a Ken Russell Hallmark, and boy is it effective in this setting. You've also got these absolutely wonderful Derek Jarman Sets, the nunnery in particular I found stunning, with these great white brick walls, it is somehow both historically sound and futuristic all rolled into one, and these sets provide the film with a strong visual style.

Oliver Reed as Father Grandier is the best I have ever seen Oliver Reed, I think it was Russell who said that the camera simply loved him, and he was right, this seems to be the role he was born to play - he also has a great moustache, which is just a great addition to a fantastic performance. But then everyone is great here, Vanessa Redgrave as the head of the nunnery, the first one to go insane, both strict and a rule breaker she is mad, but you can see her struggling with her actions as they unfold.

I can't actually convey how much I enjoyed this film, from start to finish it was incredible. It makes me all the sadder that Ken Russell died to recently. It is a treat both visually and audibly (the soundtrack is a wonderful avant thing too), the story is both insane, and scarily prescient, looking at brainwashing, at a time when the media tell us what to think every day of our lives, we get told who the bad guys are, who the good guys are, and we never question it. In one of the interviews in the special features of this film, someone describes Ken Russell as having Bad Taste, and Thank Goodness for that. I couldn't agree more, because this film is as tasteless as they come, and I can't imagine it any other way. Incredible, if you've not seen it, please do, and with an open mind.

We Bought A Zoo (2012)

There are two major reasons to go and see We Bought A Zoo. Firstly Matt Damon is in it, and he's playing a nice guy, think Good Will Hunting. Secondly It's a Cameron Crowe film. Forget nonsense like Vanilla Sky and just remember the great Cameron Crowe films like Say Anything, and one of my all time favourite films 'Almost Famous'. The man may not make perfect films, but he makes films with a lot of heart, and films with great musical backdrops, which really helps warm this film to me.

The story is that Matt Damon, having lost his wife to Cancer a few months previous, is trying to raise his two children, a young girl, and a fourteen year old boy. The boy is starting to get into trouble at school and eventually gets himself expelled, he also has issues with his dad, who is doing the best he can to help him. Because of this, and a general feeling of being trapped, Damon quits his job as a columnist and decides to relocate the family somewhere new so they can start afresh. After viewing house after house and nothing really exciting him he stumbles across one house which seems perfect, wide open spaces, a nice big house, a decent price. The one catch is that it is a zoo. So he decides to take on the responsibility (he's a bit of an adventure addict) and despite no knowledge in zoo maintenance decides to get the zoo into ship shape condition and open again in time for the summer. To help him he has a very small staff lead by Scarlotte Johansson, and also involving Patrick Fugit (of Almost Famous fame... but all grown up).

First of all, to those people that are put off by the very idea of a film based on such an absurd story, it's true, it happened in England, though the film is set in America. Second of all, whilst the story may seem a little hokey, designed to tug at the heart strings and such, it doesn't feel like that when you're watching it, because Cameron Crowe knows how to make an audience feel without actually making them aware of it. Don't get me wrong, the film is far from perfect, it's probably a little too long, and yes, the whole thing is a little by numbers, but it's got heart, so you forgive it, and it has Matt Damon, so you forgive it some more.

There's a healthy dollop of humour in here as well, ranging from the absurd to the really rather clever, you've got romance, the young boy and a girl who lives on site. You've got the brother, played by Thomas Hayden Church, who is initially sceptical but is won over (he provides a lot of the laughs by the way). You've even got a genuinely good message for people watching it. That all you need is just 20 seconds of insane courage to do something; the example is to ask a girl out that you like, but it also applies to any of the dangerous adventures that Matt Damon goes on in the prelude to the film. It's important because it teaches people that sometimes you've gotta take a risk, and that if you put everything you have behind it, then it will work out somehow, if you really want it to, and I worry that too many people play it safe these days.

Overall the film was really enjoyable, I recognise that it has flaws, but sometimes you have just got to ignore them and watch a film that is just enjoyable and nice. Okay? So yeah, niceness won me over.

L'Atalante (1934)

L'Atalante; proof that you should always listen to your friends/go see the one film you've never heard of that's on at your local independent cinema. Because yeah, sometimes you'll catch a stinker of a film, but just as often you'll probably end up seeing a gem like this one.

L'Atalante was made before World War Two, when films were pretty conventional affairs (not to say there weren't some beauts, but the stories were linear and so forth). Then you have the French New Wave around the 50s with people like Godard and so on. Yet before that you have L'Atalante, a film where you can actually see the influence it has had on people throughout the film. The film follows a young newly wed couple, a woman who has never left her village before, and a captain of a boat, and the crew on the boat which consists of an old man, a young man and countless cats as well. It follows them to Paris, and beyond, and then back again. And that's about it. It's a film that just looks at a snapshot of life rather than any encapsulated story or theme.

The surprise I had with this film, much like with Strictly Ballroom, was that it was a comedy. To begin with I wasn't sure if what I was laughing at I was supposed to be laughing at, but as the film went on I realised that there simply couldn't be this much accidental laughter. Most of the laughs come from the old crewman (pictured above), who forms a friendship with the young bride (much to the grooms annoyance) and helps ease her into life on the rivers. The husband is fairly restrictive of the young woman who simply wants to go out and see the world that she's heard about. He even goes so far as to abandon her at one point in a fit of anger toward her.

The film has a refreshingly modern feel to it, I can't begin to imagine what it would have felt like in 1934, but today it doesn't feel dated at all, except on occasion when the picture crackled (some of the damage to this film is unable to be repaired). The characters feel pretty true, perhaps exaggerated versions of the reality, but that's what cinema is for. As the film goes on new themes emerge, the theme of true love, destiny, and it is tied into following ones path, both in life, and on the river. It's a neat little concept that you're never explicitly let on to, but is something I am fairly sure was intended. Visually the film excels too, with special effects that whilst being of their time, don't look naff these days. Images of a loved on dancing in visions under water are the main ones and they work really well.

Overall I was very impressed by this film. It amused me, it had a nice story, and felt fresh and original, despite the influence it must have had on the New Wave of cinema. A treat.

21 Jump Street (2012)

21 Jump Street is based on the old TV Show starring Johnny Depp, where a young police officer is made to go under cover at a high school to infiltrate criminal activity there and catch the bad guy. I have never seen the show, nor did I ever really have any intention to. Also, after the mess that was the Miami Vice film (all style, no substance) I didn't really fancy another film based on an 80s TV show. However, 21 jump street had a few things going for it. To begin with, besides the premise, they've changed everything, and whilst that may upset purists (does 21 Jump Street have any purists?), to someone like me, who had no interest in the original series, this is a blessing. Instead, what we have is a comedy about friendship, growing old, fitting in and whether school really was how you remember it. The film also has Jonah Hill, someone who I will normally give a chance to, though I'm not sure why, because he's been in some clunkers, but he's normally pretty likeable, so what the heck.

Okay, so the film is funny, very funny, but it won't be for everyone. Just as the cops are going back to school, so do many of the jokes, with the film relying less on wit, and more on immensely silly events and things. Personally I am not a snob when it comes to comedy, and if something is pulled off well, then I am pretty much open to anything, and in my opinion 21 Jump Street pulls silliness off very well indeed. The real revelation here isn't Jonah Hill though, it is actually Channing Tatum, who has now impressed me in two films in as many months, so hey, maybe I was wrong about him. Either way, he's funny, plays the simpleton very well and the outsider even better. He really helps the film stay in place.

Aesthetically the film kinda feels like the 80s again, but I think that has more to do with the fact that for some god awful reason the 80s are back in fashion, so we have the horrible white suits you see above, vintage cars, and Ice Cube. Ice Cube is another great thing about this film. Playing a self confessed Angry Black Cop, he provides a lot of laughs, whilst remaining the straight one in any scene. The film is very knowing of its heritage, referencing the fact that adapting an old TV show probably isn't the most original of ideas. It is also very knowing in general, with numerous comments made about the fact that the two of them simply don't look like real High School kids... because they're like 10 years older than everyone else. But the jokes work and never feel too self knowing or referential.

Overall you have to know what you want from this film. If you want a serious, or witty film then stay away. But if you simply want a good time film, something to put on with your friends, something that will make you laugh like a little child, then this is the film for you. Cock jokes and all.

Bel Ami (2012)

You know when you go and watch a film and you expect to dislike it, but you cling to some hope that you are wrong. This was one of those films. On the one hand you've got the charisma vacuum that is Robert Pattinson, the man who has less personality on screen than he does in real life, which really is saying something. On the other hand you have a trio of women who I actually really like. Kristin Scott Thomas, who always seems to try and take on interesting projects and as such I really respect her, Uma Thurman, who I like mainly, but not solely, for her work with Tarantino, and Christina Ricci, who I think is a great young actress and who I hope will get back to making good films soon. So I threw caution to the wind and hoped that 3 actors I liked could trump one I did not. Unfortunately I was wrong.

The film follows Pattinson, who having just returned from the war is in Paris, where he is trying to make his fortune, and failing. He encounters an old army buddy who invites him home for dinner where he will meet a man who can give him a job. That he does, but here he also meets three women, one is his buddies wife, one is the man offering him a jobs wife and another is just someone elses wife. He is told that the real power in Paris lies with the women rather than the men, as the men all listen to their wives. As such he begins to work his way into the women's lives and indeed their bedrooms as he begins elicit affairs with each of them in order to get what he wants. The main problem, he basically ruins all their lives. YAY?

With the lack of charisma coupled with quike frankly playing an absolute arse of a man, you not only don't care if anything bad happens to him, you end up actively wanting it to in order to speed up the ending of the film if you can. The story never really had much appeal, but as the film goes on, my interest in it began to diminish even more. All he seems to do is have sex with women, never really do any work (yet still somehow get money) and try his hand at politics where he fails miserably.

Added to the fact that this is simply a bad story (or at least told in a bad way) is the message that this send out to people that in order to succeed in life you have to treat everyone around you like tools in your own little game. I am not by any means saying that every film must focus on people who are kind and loving and treat everyone nicely, that would result in really boring films after a while. But what I am saying is that when a film like this has no critical merit, and a star who appeals to a young audience, to have a film where he quite literally gets everything he wants with no price to pay himself (besides having to be Robert Pattinson) you send out a really bad and dangerous message.

So this film fails on every level, it's not interesting, even a trio of great actresses can't save it, and I found it morally repugnant to boot. Avoid!

Strictly Ballroom (1992)

I avoided Strictly Ballroom for ages, like years and years, for the simple reason that it is a Baz Luhrmann film. Other films by Baz Luhrmann that I have seen are Moulin Rouge and Romeo & Juliet, and I liked neither of them. Romeo & Juliet isn't necessarily his fault, I'm not exactly mad keen on Shakespeare, and Romeo & Juliet remains my least favourite of his works by a country mile for the simple reason that after studying the story relentlessly in school I want to kill myself every time the SAME BLOODY STORY comes up time and time again. I get it, forbidden love, I simply don't care. It wasn't original when Shakespeare wrote it, and it's not original now. Even so, with everyone raving about how it was a fresh modern take on the work, I gave it a go and got fed up. Then we have Moulin Rouge, the film that basically everyone I know seems to love. I must have seen that film about 4 times now, each time I become convinced that this time I will get it, this time the story will make sense and I will see the fresh originality that everyone claims is there. I never do. So I made a point of avoiding Baz Luhrmann films, as his visual style really pisses me off. I broke that Rule with Strictly Ballroom, and I will be breaking that rule with The Great Gatsby, as the book is one of my all time favourites, and I think Leonardo could do the text very well.

The biggest surprise when I started watching Strictly Ballroom was that it was a comedy. I think, as I only became aware of this film after the success of Moulin Rouge, that home video marketers have been trying to market this as an early prototype for Moulin Rouge, with singing, dancing and a romance for the ages, neglecting that it's actually a comedy that mocks traditional ballroom dancing and indeed any sport/activity that refuses to adapt and move along with the times. In fact, this film is closer in tone to other Australian comedies such as The Dish, The Castle or Muriel's Wedding. It has a very Australian style and that really makes the film as good as it is.

The film follows Paul Mercurio who is tipped to be the next Ballroom champion, and he is very good, until one competition, when backed into a corner he decided to break out some of his own moves, which are even better, but which are rejected by the judges as too non traditional and therefore wrong. His dance partner leaves him and he is determined to dance his own moves, despite pleas from his mother and dance instructor to do the opposite. He begins a search for a new partner, which is where he encounters Fran, who whilst technically not a very good dancer, has a fantastic spirit and a natural rhythm that you can't teach. They begin rehearsing in secret and are all set to enter the competition, whether or not they win or not. Then a surprise comes along that could ruin everything.

It's a fun story, and the cast are all great, really playing into their roles with comic timing and a believability. Once I got over the fact that I was actually watching a comedy rather than a romantic drama, I really relaxed into the film and let the story overtake me. Whilst ballroom dancing isn't what I know, it actually speaks more about individuality and following your dreams on a universal level, trying to say that you shouldn't conform if it means betraying who you are. It's a good message to preach and it comes across really well without ever being too in your face.

I really enjoyed this film, It was amusing and touching and showed a young director with a great talent. The worst thing about this film though is that it is seriously making me think about watching Moulin Rouge again, it's been a good 5 years or so after all, and if I like this maybe I will like that. Probably not, but we shall see.

Chico & Rita (2010)

Chico and Rita is an animated feature about Love, passion and music. As such it appealed to me, as did the promise of a soundtrack put together including people such as Thelonious Monk, Buena Vista Social Club and many Jazz greats. It follows young composer Chico, and looks at the relationship he had with Rita, a singer who blew him away when he first saw her he began writing with her in mind. It follows the ups and downs of their relationship, the lies, the deceit as well as the touching moments where the love really happens.

To begin with, the animation. The animation is absolutely wonderful. It's quite basic, but somehow conveys textures and scope brilliantly. Each character is fully developed and it rarely feels like you're watching a cartoon, instead simply a nice piece of drama being played out. That isn't to say that they don't use the animation well. For example the use of colour to display mood is done very well, with deep blues and vibrant contrasts used to convey their struggles and hopes respectively. There is also a strong sense of depth, with the film at times feeling like a 3D feature (without ever actually being so), which is both fascinating, but at times a little over played.

The story is fairly basic, couple fall in love, they get torn apart by various circumstance, then again they get together and fall apart again. It is this that I feel is the weakest thing about the film. However, the story is really well played out, so whilst the concept may be stale, the execution is not, the film is filled with warmth and heart and is all the better for it. The soundtrack too is wonderful. You've got great Jazz numbers mixed with newly composed latin numbers, they provide the type of soundtrack that makes you want to go back to the 40s and 50s and experience all of this first hand.

As far as adult animated features go, this is another interesting example to go alongside Perespolis and Waltz With Bashir as examples of great cartoons don't have to be just for kids. The animation is wonderful too, and any more films that look like this will well and truly be on my radar.

John Carter (2012)

A lot of noise is being made about John Carter lately. It looks likely that this will be the biggest flop ever. I for one contributed to the meagre box office it took, though I am not sure what led me to this film. The only thing I can think of is that the trailer looked pretty schlocky and I thought it could be amusing. I'm not really a fan of Disney live action films, unless we're talking Mary Poppins, and like I say, the trailer looked pretty bad.

The film turned out to be a bit of a mess. Visually it is stunning, you can really see where they spent their money because the special effects are flawless, and in that respect I think I appreciated going to see it on the big screen rather than sat at home where it would have been even worse. However, whilst the visuals are stunning, the script frankly stinks. To begin with there were certain things that didn't make sense; like when John Carter eats something that means he can understand the martians (that's not the part I have issues with), in fact the thing I have issues with is that when everything else is perfectly in English, the names of the planets are still the names that are chosen by the people on the planet. I just don't understand why that wasn't translated, and why we had to put up with constant reminders that when they said one thing, what they actually meant was Earth, or Mars, it detracted from the film and served no point.

I can sum up the story like this - Strong White Man with muscles saves planet from evil. You could say the same thing about loads of other films, Conan, 300, Tarzan, and none of those are really very good either. This is arguably the biggest flaw with the film, it is dull, and you simply don't care much about any of the characters. I don't know if they are aiming for children, but all the CGI monsters in the world couldn't keep a child engaged for the length of this film. John Carter is played well by Taylor Kitsch considering the material he is given. Mark Strong plays the type of bad guy you could imagine him playing in any number of dreary films (I like Mark Strong, but I do fear he has the worst type casting), and Dominic West seems to be trying to break into the mainstream, and unfortunately fails.... again, I like him... but.... no.

In short the film is a flop because it stinks. The story is tired and old hat, I don't care about a single character, except for John Carter's nephew who is put through a horrible ordeal that is never really dealt with, and in the end the film has no audience, not enough action, not enough story, just not enough. Visually though it is a treat that will hopefully be the standard soon enough.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

There Will Be Blood immediately became one of my all time favourite films when I first saw it. It's a 3 hour epic about an oil baron dealing with personal demons, faith and the corrupting power of money and power, yet it never drags or feels old. Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, the oilman who travels America with his son and partner HW Plainview looking for drilling opportunities. He is approached by Paul Sunday, a quiet, unassuming young man who claims to have knowledge of a place where oil seeps up through the ground. After some interrogation Daniel thanks Paul and send him on his way with payment and goes off to investigate. It is here that he meets Eli Sunday, Paul's identical twin brother and his family and church who are on to his oil seeking ways and try to manipulate him to get money for the church. Drilling is set up in the town and everything seems to be going well. However, a series of events show a change in personal fortunes for Daniel and he becomes more and more bitter. The less said about the rest of the story the better, besides a blinding last 30 minutes which will remain in your mind for weeks after you see it and if you're like me and my friends, you'll quote to each other all the time.

The film is scored by Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead, denied an Oscar Nomination because of a technicality he provides one of the most affecting soundtracks of the year, creating lots of tension throughout the film which will not be relieved until he is good and ready to. This, paired with the natural imagery Paul Thomas Anderson provides with his direction creates a film which will appeal to all your senses (well... maybe not smell...). Paul Thomas Anderson has had a very interesting career so far. Starting with Hard Eight (the only one of his films I have yet to see), then moving on to Boogie Nights, a very long film about the Porn Industry in the 70s, not the type of film you would think could be a masterpiece, but it showed an early sense of pace and storytelling that is missing from most directors early films. After that we had his first near perfect film with Magnolia, the film that he claims he will never be able to beat. That film looked at the intersecting lives of numerous people and how everything in life is linked, coincidence does not exist. Then we had Punch Drunk Love, the film that made me question everything I thought I knew about Adam Sandler. Then we arrive at the second near perfect film, There Will Be Blood.

He's not a classically trained Director, seeming to have a natural talent for direction, with the only discernible influence being Stanley Kubrick (though lets face it, who isn't influenced by Kubrick). He is a one of a kind director and I would love to say that it was a travesty that he didn't win the Oscar that year, but the Coen Brothers won it instead, and as a big fan of theirs I will instead have to settle for disagreement. However, where the academy got it oh so right was with the best actor gong for Daniel Day Lewis. It's tough to imagine a better performance. It's pantomime and over the top, but fitted into context it works perfectly, it progresses as the film does, as Daniel descends deeper into his own personal hell he gets more and more extrovert.

The film has numerous themes running through it. Capitalism is a pretty big one though, and Religion. With Daniel representing Capitalism and the need to make money, and Eli representing Religion, or possibly religious institutions, it could be argued that he on the same path, but instead of personal wealth, he is after more and more power, and when he doesn't get his way he is more than happy to use people and abuse people until he does. It is a film which questions human nature in this way, makes us think that maybe there's not so much difference between us.

I could talk for hours about this film. But I have decided to stop here. I don't want to put you off with my waffling on about themes and ideas, and I also don't want to reveal too much about specific scenes. Sufficed to say that the film is powerful, thoughtful and surprisingly brisk considering. It encapsulates life into one fragment and I think it does so wonderfully. Watch it now, I couldn't tell you this enough.

Rampart (2012)

Rampart, a James Ellroy story (he who wrote LA Confidential) about a cop accused of violent assault in LA during a time when the LAPD had pretty much the worst reputation of any Police Force in America. Woody Harrelson plays that cop, and he's pretty much guilty of it, and it's indicated at many times that he is guilty of much more than that. However, the police force is in a tight spot, as they are in dispute with the unions and therefore are reluctant to fire him. It's an okay idea, and Woody Harrelson should play the hell out of that role. So why did the film feel like a let down at the end of it.

It's not that the film is terrible, it's not, it's more that it contains numerous occasions that are a little confusing. His family situation for example. He seems to live with two women and two children. Each of the women is the mother of one of the girls, and he is the father to both; the two women are also sisters. Now, I get the whole keeping the family together, but why either of the women would have agreed to this is never really explained, and really left me feeling odd. The story isn't the only thing that is confusing about the film. The camera work too was sometimes just bizarre. In one scene when Harrelson is being confronted by the DA (Steve Buscemi) and the head of the Police Force (Sigourney Weaver), it's a stationary scene set in an office, yet the camera just won't stop moving. I don't know whether they were trying to create movement whilst the actors all stayed stationary, but to have the camera panning side to side constantly during the scene was very off putting.

Oh, on the subject of Steve Buscemi , I love Steve Buscemi. When you have Steve Buscemi in a film he makes the film better, each and every time. However, this principal can't really apply when you only allow him one scene, one scene which is marred by unusual camera work. He's not some bit part, he's not even on screen enough time to warrant that title, and I honestly believe that they could have used that character so much more and had a much stronger film.

At its heart though the film is trying to be a little too much. It's trying to focus on a father trying to prove to his kids that he's not a bad guy; it's a film trying to say something about policing methods, what works, what doesn't and so on. It's got what feels like a side story about a DA trying to clean up a corrupt police force, and in amidst all this, any real point the film may have gets kinda lost.

Woody Harrelson is great, as is everyone really. The love interest between him and the lawyer works, it feels pretty honest, his pain and struggles with trying to justify what he has done not just to other people, but also to himself comes across well. It's a shame that this film couldn't have been more. James Ellroy writes good stories, Woody Harrelson is a great actor, but somehow this film is weak and uninteresting for a lot of the time.

The Raven (2012)

I am a massive John Cusack fan, so much so that I make a point of watching pretty much everything that he is in. I think it's based mostly on the films that he co-wrote, Grosse Point Blank and High Fidelity, both of which played a big part in my youth. Either way it's led me to some wonderful films like The Sure Thing, Say Anything and Broadcast News. Unfortunately it has also led me to films such as 2012, 1408, and just to prove it's not just films with numbers in "The Contract", all of which were pretty damn bad. The Raven kind of falls between these, though I'm fairly sure closer to the latter than former.

The story is an imagining of what could possibly have happened during the last days of Edgar Allen Poe's life, a period which the film kindly tells us very little is known about. Now, I am pretty unfamiliar with Poe's work, indeed my only real knowledge of him comes from the Simpsons, from the brilliant Treehouse of Horror which parodies The Raven, and the episode where Lisa betrays a classmate which mimics The Tell-Tale Heart. However, with the writers of The Simpsons amongst his fans, and his standing as one of America's greatest poets I figure I should know a little more about him and actually get round to reading some of his work. Indeed, just the other day I was in a book store looking at one of the various collected works of Poe books when an attractive young woman picked up the same book next to me. I was tempted to say something until I realised that the only things I actually know about Poe would make me sound like a Socio-path were I to include them in casual conversation with a stranger. So there's one incentive to read something.

Anyway, with my limited knowledge of Poe I wasn't sure what to expect from this film. It's an odd one because it's not quite an action film, the nearer you get to the end the action does pick up a bit with the final chase of the criminal. however, it's not quite a detective film or a thriller either. It's gruesome throughout, something which I am not squeamish about, but that seemed unnecessary in the context and as we'd already been told that the events were unknown, it was a little too over the top to be a reasonable explanation, and therefore seemed like an odd thing to just show people.

The film's strength lies in Cusack (and remember I'm bias here). He portrays Poe as a bitter, alcoholic poet who feels undervalued in his day, frustrated with his lack of success whilst other, lesser, poets thrive. He lives under no illusion that critical success feeds a man and is a sore point. Cusack plays the role very well, his natural delivery suits the poetic style of the dialogue well. It must be said though that for someone who sees themselves as highly intelligent, the Poe in this film does not talk as you would have imagined a master poet to speak, but never mind. The rest of the cast are fine enough, but I am finding it difficult to recall what they look like, let alone what they did.

I think this film will end up in bargain bins, or fogotten before too long. It doesn't really have an audience and I can't imagine it did well at the cinema. It's too much reliant on cheap thrills for Poe fans, and the idea that a film with Edgar Allen Poe as the lead character will appeal to the masses is a little laughable. I watched it for Cusack, put nearly anyone else in the role and I lose interest, so I can't say that this film is a flop, because it had elements that were interesting, but it is far from a classic, very MOR unfortunately.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012)

When I first saw the trailer for The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel I wasn't sure exactly what to think. On the one hand you've got a dream cast; Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson top an all star cast with Dev Patel there to entice younger audiences. However, the story seemed to be a little bit too much of cultural clashing and old people jokes, by which I mean jokes about old people, not jokes for old people. So I was unsure. Reviews too were very diverse, ranging from calling the film sublime, to saying that the film lived up to all my worst fears. So the only way to get around this confusion was to simply go and see it myself.

The opening to the film I found a tad confusing, it was only later in the film that I realised that all their flights out there had been paid for, and had a vague memory of this being alluded to, but not specifically said. The characters that are outlined all had their own individual personalities that fell nicely into the cliches we expected. However, the cast really bring them out of these cliches and give them personality and bring warmth to the roles. In particular Tom Wilkinson as the retired Judge looking for a lost love and Maggie Smith, the old racist forced to go to India for an operation.

As the film progresses the characters don't really develop all that much in terms of their willingness to accept change, with a couple of exceptions. Maggie Smith definitely realises the error of her racist ways (otherwise the film would be much darker than it is), and Judi Dench learns to develop to the working world after a lifetime of being a housewife. Perhaps the unwillingness to change of some of the other characters is a reflection of their age, perhaps the film makers were trying to say that by this stage we are the people we already are? Though the idea of destiny falls into this as well. With young Dev Patel certain that his future lies in hotel management, no matter what his mother, or siblings may say on the matter, he is convinced that this is his destiny.

The film is an odd one. It definitely falls into numerous cliches, and sometimes the culture clash thing is played out a little too much. However, it works, the cast are the primary reason for this of course, but the film is a pleasant film, it's amusing where it needs to be amusing, and touching where it needs to be touching. It's far from perfect, but it is very nice, I can see why it would appeal to people of my parents age, and as I was brought up on films that they recommended, I can see why it would appeal to me. So yeah, a pleasant Sunday afternoon film.

Peeping Tom (1960)

Peeping Tom intrigued me a great deal. For a start, it's the first film by Michael Powell I have seen without Emeric Pressberger's involvement. Secondly I heard it was the film that destroyed his career. Unlike now, when the only things that can really destroy a directors career is if their films stop making money, this film ruined Michael Powell because it was deemed too shocking, too sick for public consumption. However, 52 years later, times have changed. The film has been reclassified a 15 (though I would argue that that is still too severe) and it has gained quite a reputation for itself. The biggest supporter of the film that I know of is Martin Scorsese, a man who seems obsessed with all Powell & Pressberger films (with good reason) and who introduced Powell to his last wife, Thelma Schoonmaker (Scorsese's editor). He appears on this release too, giving a passionate introduction to the film.

The film focusses on a young man who seems to film everything he sees, including the murders he commits. He later revisits these moments, watching the final moment of terror on their faces as they realise what is to become of them. He begins a relationship with a young girl who lives downstairs in his building. He is scared that he will do something to her, so refuses ever to film her for fear of what he will do. She falls for him, and knows something is wrong, but is never sure what. The police are tracking him down through the entire film, but unassuming as he is, whether they will catch him or not truly remains a mystery. There's a great backstory involving his father which goes a long way toward explaining his current behaviour.

The film is remarkable, I must start by saying that, because I fear that somewhere amongst this, my real views on the film will be hidden. Basically, created here is a man who is the template for many modern villains. You see, he is not a bad person, indeed you sympathise with him at numerous points in the film, even like him. Powell had a theory that the reason that the critics found the film so distasteful was because they could not get their heads around a film where they liked or identified with a murderer. He is a timid, ordinary man. The film often gets compared to Psycho in that respect, but released before Psycho, this film was hit by much harsher criticism.

The major theme of the film is voyeurism. As a child, his father would study people who would watch other people kissing in public etc, he would film these moments and commit experiments on his son to this effect, this lead in later life his son to commit the acts of violence to the women he loved on camera, so he could watch these most intimate moments time and time again. It also looks at what happens when you turn the camera on someone. There is an old belief that the camera steals your soul. Powell takes this further, as the main character ends up killing every woman he films, hence why he refuses to ever turn the camera on the new woman in his life, he likes her too much.

This film is wonderfully paced, beautifully shot and the acting is all superb. This stands up there with the red shoes as one of the finest British films ever made. You can see the influence it had on film makers in the 70s and 80s. It is a shame that this ended his career, because the film shows that Michael Powell could make superb films on his own, and was pushing boundaries in a way like no other, I can't begin to imagine where he would have gone from here. Instead we get a film that was a decade ahead of its time, still refreshing, a true revelation to a modern viewer.

Top Gun (1986)

So, like, what the hell? This film is a film that always crops up in lists of best films, favourite films, important films etc. But That's a joke right? Right? Apparently not. This is a Tony Scott film, the same Tony Scott who made the amazing 'True Romance', but I guess also the same Tony Scott who made Deja Vu & Domino. This is a big 80s film, it's got power ballads, Tom Cruise before he had his teeth fixed, Val Kilmer and Dr Mark Green from ER (Anthony Edwards). It's got lots of shots of aeroplanes and a love interest with big blonde hair.

Top Gun is the story of Maverick (Cruise) who despite his reckless (or Maverick) attitude toward being a Navy Pilot is also a great pilot, so he graduates to the Top Gun programme, an American programme to train fighter pilots in the skills of mid air combat; dog fights. Here you get the best of the best (or at the very lease the most arrogant) pilots who must compete with each other to take home the trophy Top Gun and get the chance to teach themselves. There's also a tacked on love story where Tom Cruise meets a woman in the bar who happens to be an instructor of his, and some back story involving his dad.

The first problem with the film, a problem which is evident right at the start and then throughout the rest of the film, is that aeroplanes all look kinda similar. So you get these lovely shots of aeroplanes diving in and out of each other, chasing each other, one pursuing the next, and to be quite honest you feel no sense of danger as you have no real clue who is chasing who. This gets worse as every shot you ever see of Tom Cruise he seems to have that shit eating grin on his face, very cocky. But even when you take that out of the equation the film falls behind in a number of other ways too.

• The characters aren't really fleshed out. Edwards whole character development involves his habit of taking polaroids, and that he has a wife and child, whereas Cruise clings to the back story of his dad because it is the only thing that makes his character even remotely interesting.
• None of these people are really that nice, they're frat boys. The closest you get to liking a character is Anthony Edwards, that may just have been the fact I really liked him in ER, or it could be because unlike the others he didn't spend his entire time with a grin on his face and topless.
• It is constantly brought to our attention that Maverick is a reckless, dangerous pilot, and yet he continues to be allowed to fly. He constantly disobeys orders, flies too close to the towers and generally puts other people in danger. Yet somehow he is allowed not only to remain a pilot but also advance on to the Top Gun Academy.
• The whole film is a cheesy mess. I mean, the 80s was filled with cheesy films, some of them are incredibly charming. The Sure thing for example is really quite cheesy, but it has a bucket load of heart and is therefore a great film. This film does not.

Basically the film, had it not starred one of the biggest stars in the world, would probably have been forgotten into the annals of film history. It's a curio for Tony Scott fans, it is not a classic. I get the impression that you had to watch it at a certain time in your life, or simply have been alive when it was released, but as I was not, and am watching it at presumably the wrong time, I was left wondering what all the fuss was about, because power ballads, a topless arrogant man don't really do it for me in films.

Hunky Dory (2012)

Hunky Dory is set in a 1970's Welsh school where a failed actress, now working as a drama teacher, is trying to bring the spark back to the creativity of the students there. She doesn't feel much like a teacher, and tried her best to inspire the kids and get along with them also, being part of the new generation. This creates a lot of criticism from other teachers in the school of an older generation who feel that what she does has little to no value to the education of the students and should be scrapped. She claims she wishes to put on a musical that both Shakespeare and David Bowie would be proud of, and it was the David Bowie aspect of the story that had me much more interested than the Shakespeare.

I used to hate Minnie Driver. I can't tell you exactly why, I think it was a combination of the fact my sister liked her, and the Phantom of The Opera (which she was in, and I hate). However, then I saw Grosse Point Blank, and suddenly my respect for her grew immensely, not only was she one of the main parts in a John Cusack written/starring film, but she was actually really good in it, and since then I've been willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I kinda knew this film wasn't going to be groundbreaking, but I thought with some good 70s music and Minnie Driver I could be steered through okay.

What I got from this film was these things, but also a little more. The film, yes, looks at the making of the school musical, but it's also a pretty fair representation of school life (though admittedly through the eyes of a film), so you've got heartache, crushes on teachers, students losing interest and teenage issues. Thankfully, whilst these things are all evident they are never rammed down your throat as too many shows/films about teenagers do, they are merely there and you accept them. The issues of Minnie Driver too are interesting. Integrating herself back into her old town after moving to the big city, trying to get by in a school that seems resistant to her ideas and wishes and basically going against the grain in every way.

The film is shot through the lense of nostalgia, you've got a constant slight blurring of the imagery and a yellow hue to the film which do evoke feelings of the seventies (though I can't exactly tell you why). This is a well made film. Like I suspected, it is far from revolutionary, but for fans of Bowie/Slade/The Ramones and generally any great 70s band, the music and the feeling of the film will win you over and provide you with a pleasant couple of hours, though I'm not certain how likely I would be to return to the film, I was pleasantly surprised upon viewing. So I say give it a rent, feel pleasant, then take it back for someone else to do the same.

Wanderlust (2012)

Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston are big city folk, they enjoy stress, cramped apartments and working jobs they don't really like, then when Rudd loses his job they are forced to move out of the city and get a job working for his brother. On the way there they encounter a hippy commune disguised as a B&B and spend the night there, he likes it, she doesn't. So they leave the next day and roll up to the brothers. He is a dick so they escape back to the commune to see if they can live like that. Free Love, drugs, veganism, guitar jams etc. She likes it, he doesn't. Then a conclusion I guess and that's basically the film.

I went to see this film based on one funny remark in the trailer and Alan Alda. Unfortunately I ignored the reviews... This film is abysmal. It's a comedy that isn't funny, which is surely one of the biggest movie crimes. You see, they fall in to pretty much every single cliche imaginable, there's deceipt, there's the wise old drug addled man who believes in the spirit of the place but not every practice. But worse than that is the crudity of the film. You see a woman deliver her own baby, it's not funny, it's not shocking, it's just gross and doesn't add anything to the story. You see Paul Rudd stand in front of a mirror saying things like "I'm gonna stick my penis in you" for about 2 minutes (it felt like forever) - apparently this was one of the comedy highlights as it was reprised in the obligatory out takes during the trailers. It wasn't funny and after a while was actually a little repulsive. Elsewhere you get excessive shots of a penis (which nobody wants to see - and unless in context like 'shame' simply is confusing). You get jokes about pubes, shitting and not a lot else.

I imagine this film will appeal to 13 year olds, except they probably won't get the hippy references, which aren't funny either so I guess it doesn't matter. You get a couple of R Kelly references.. .I mean, is he still big? I don't know, I just thought he'd dropped off the map a little, either way they seemed really forced, as though he was exec producer or something and fancied getting his name mentioned.

Jennifer Aniston is a decent comedy actress, and Paul Rudd a decent comedy actor, they can do better than this, and yet this film is awful, I would struggle to think of anything good about it. It's dull and unfunny. Avoid, avoid avoid. Yes, three avoids. Even Alan Alda, who is usually so wonderful on screen (though may not have the best choices for projects) can't help this film being shit.

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010)

I'm not entirely sure what I thought about this film. To say it's a little odd is understating it somewhat. The film revolves around Boonmee, living in the country in Thailand as he is dying, surrounded by his family in his dying days. One day when sitting down to eat his dead wife materialises in a seat at the table. No-one seems entirely shocked by this event, as the two of them begin to talk about life, death and mortality. Shortly after, an ape like creature appears in the doorway. He introduced himself as Boonmee's son, explaining his appearance on his having mated with a monkey spirit. This isn't even the strangest scene in the film.

This film won the Palme D'ore at Cannes, which is the main reason I bought it, out of curiosity. And I think it's good to compare it to last year's winner, Tree Of Life. Both of the films are slow, very slow. Both look at the idea of life, what we perceive as life and our own mortality; both have segments in the middle that don't really seem to add much to the rest of the story, merely sit there and by osmosis add something to the film, and both have confused the hell out of audiences. Tree of life, when I first saw it, I hated it. I thought it was a pretentious load of crap, that had little worth besides some good performances. And yet I went back to see it, coming out the second time thinking that the film was fantastic, that the middle segment didn't work, but that the surrounding part was fantastic; yet the girl I went with hated it.

So Boonmee - first viewing and I really don't know what to make of it. It's a very peaceful film, and it definitely makes you stop and think about what's important to you. The ending is very interesting as well, and I think personally tells an important message about modern life. However, I don't quite know what happened, and I don't know whether this impaired my enjoyment or not. I feel as though I want to watch it again, but am also put off doing so. It's not often a film leaves me feeling this way, and in a way it's refreshing, to have seen something that has definitely left an impression on me, yet confuses me to the extent that I don't know whether I enjoyed it or not.

I guess the biggest question is would I recommend it to a friend. I would have to say yes, though it would have to be a friend with an open mind. I think a lot of people would hate this film, with a passion; an equal number could potentially love it. So I would say yes, watch it, make up your own mind, hopefully by then I'll know how I feel too.

The Artist (2012)

So technically I've already reviewed this before... here - The Artist Review - However, I had a couple of hours to kill in town so I went to see it again, and I think I enjoyed it even more than before, and I just thought that I should say that this film, whilst not the best film of the year, is not a bad Oscar winner. It's an unconventional winner, French, silent, black and white, not an A lister to be seen, and yet it wins best picture/director/actor... And whether or not you agree with the ruling, it's a good step when the Oscars seem to be getting a little duller every year.