Director - Jason Reitman

Writer - Diablo Cody

Starring - Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Alison Janney

Review:

You would have to have a heart of stone not to fall for recent Best Picture nominee Juno. It has so much heart, soul and sweetness that it approaches the level of it being impossible to resist. It has everything a film of its kind should but at the same time it feels fresh and original. But it’s the dialogue, for me, that holds it back from being the masterpiece it is hailed by many to be.

After finding out she’s pregnant, off-beat 16- year old Juno makes the unusual decision if giving her baby up for adoption.

The beauty of this film is its simplicity, at least on the surface. It has a simple storyline, characters we can instantly grasp hold of and connect with and an easily accessible script. But to counter how simple it at first appears to be is all the complex issues and humanistic feelings underneath. Juno is one of the most likeable characters to grace the screen in the last few years and as hard to believe as some of the things that come out of her mouth are she still manages to win you over before the closing of the even the first scene.

All of the actors involved in the film are just top-notch. After her breakout role in 2005’s fantastic Hard Candy, Ellen Page proves that she is an acting force to be sorely reckoned with. It’s amazing how good of an actress someone so early on in their career can be. Usually it takes yeas to gain such talent and deliver such great performances but it looks like Miss Page has accomplished that before her 20th birthday.

Superbad’s Michael Cera plays the baby’s father and he is fittingly awkward but at the same time very likeable. He’s the sort of guy you see in every high school and Cera really sells the role. Jason Bateman plays the part of the adopting father, someone who Juno relates to through her taste in music and movies. Just hearing the name beforehand I couldn’t quite see him in this role but he fits perfectly. But who really did surprisingly well in her role was Jennifer Garner. Although her performance is not award worthy it still proves she can do something different and not just go for the big-cheque roles. J.K. Simmons and Alison Janney, as Juno’s father and step-mother, bring maturity to the table and obviously they are brilliant. It’s nice to see a group of actors being assembled like they are in Juno; perfectly cast and yet weirdly original.

Juno will probably make me do something I rarely do after seeing a movie; buy the soundtrack. Long after I have seen the movie I am still humming the various songs from the film as I go about my life. Rarely does that happen to me so the soundtrack will no doubt be on my shelf in the near future.

I think what is most enjoyable about Juno, and the reason I think it’s so popular, is the fact that it makes you smile. It is a feel-good, true-to-life story that I think most can relate to in some way. I can’t recall at any time during the movie not having at least a smirk on my face and at most a huge smile. Most movies are about the bad things in life so it’s refreshing to find one which celebrates the good.

So after all that what exactly is my problem with Juno, I hear you ask? Well it lies with the script. It is two things; firstly it may very well be a masterpiece of one but at the same time it’s brilliance is its downfall. Most of the dialogue in the film is almost too well written in that it hardly ever feels realistic. There’s no way a 16 year old would say words like “cavalier” and “expediential” in natural conversation. There are countless other examples of conversations in Juno that in real life just wouldn’t be as hip, cool and intelligent as they are presented here to be.

Although I had an issue with the fact that the script is very obviously a script it didn’t annoy me as much as it did some. I still massively enjoyed the movie, and at times I just went with the unrealistic script and my enjoyment was better off for it. Ellen Page is fabulous as the title character and she is supported by a host of great actors and even better performances. You can kick, scream, stamp your feet and struggle all you want but it’s futile because in the end Juno is simply irresistible.

Director - Matt Reeves

Writer - Drew Goddard

Starring - Michael Stahl-David, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Mike Vogel

Review:

Originality is pretty hard to come by in movies nowadays. In particular in the action/blockbuster kind of areas. It’s usually the same stuff recycled over and over because it’s safe, predictable and comfortable to the masses. Cloverfield aimed to and has succeeded in breaking that trend for at least the time being as it is an exhilarating, involving and sometimes downright scary new take on the monster movie, and to steal a quote from many different people, “it’s a monster movie for the YouTube generation.”

The film revolves around a group of people throwing a party for a friend who is soon leaving for Tokyo. In the middle of the party an earthquake-style rumble is felt and heard and everyone makes their way to the roof to see what’s going on. They soon find out that there is some sort of giant monster attacking the city and that their lives are severely in danger. Because of a friend who is still stuck in the middle of the city they decide to make their way there to save them.

What drew me to this film in the first place was curiosity. The genius marketing campaign, overseen by Lost creator J.J. Abrams, of the first trailer having not given the name of the movie and just the general “hush-hush” approach to it all had me eagerly awaiting the film’s release. The film had a lot to live up to in terms of satisfying the audience members after all this mystery and hype has been built up. And in my opinion, although it isn’t a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, it accomplishes in fine style what it set out to primarily do; entertain.

Although the movie does borrow some ideas here and there (most notably from films like Godzilla, including a shot of people getting crushed by the monster’s foot, among others) it is generally an innovative and original take on the monster movie. The whole film is filmed from the point of view of the group of friends and we see the film through the view of a video camera. When I first heard about this style of shooting I was sceptical but it started to grown on me. During the first few minutes of the movie I had a real problem with the hand-held technique and the amount of shaky cam which bothers me if done hap-hazardly. But after about five to ten minutes I completely got used to the approach and done in any other way I think would take away the point and focus of the film.

What makes the hand-held technique, at first bearable in every way, and so well done is it brings an extreme sense of realism to the whole thing. Normally in a monster movie we would get full shots of the monster, the camera swivelling and flying between buildings and other places it naturally wouldn’t be able to go. With Cloverfield, however, we see it like a home movie and as a result the film seems believable. Sometimes it’s so real that that aspect becomes actually genuinely frightening. You feel almost if you walked out of the cinema then and there you would find the monster trundling through your city. This kind of dead realism is hard to accomplish, especially in the movie society today, and I loved that Cloverfield managed it.

Something which might annoy or even outrage some movie goers, in fact a lot, is the fact that it remains a mystery what the monster is and why it’s in New York City. People have come to expect from movies like this that we get scenes of scientists and military men trying to figure out what the monsters is and by the end we are all in the know. With Cloverfield we never find out, there’s just a monster attacking the city so deal with it. I for one thought this was one of the best aspects of the movie, the sheer guts and attempt at being original by not letting us in on just what the hell this creature is.

In the style of United 93, the film uses mostly, if not all, unknown actors to the fill the roles of the people we see on-screen most of the time. No doubt they have appeared here and there in a couple of small movies and TV shows but they aren’t A-list actors or celebrities. This, again, adds to the realism of it all and allows us to invest ourselves in these characters instead of watching someone like Tom Cruise or Matt Damon trying to survive this giant monster attack. We think of these people as the characters they are playing and not the actors that they actually are.

Like I mentioned the movie obviously isn’t perfect. It may be a bit unfair bashing the movie for some of it’s weaknesses if you take into account what kind of movie it is and what it’s aiming to be but in a review I must. First of all some of the extreme realism created is kind of broken in a few scenes because of the way the film is edited. What we are watching is supposed to be a tape, ‘property of the US government’ as the movie states at the beginning, and we are supposed to be seeing it as it happened. And yet in a few scenes the tape will cut back to a month or so beforehand to remind us the main characters love for the person he’s attempting to rescue. It happens not enough to dampen the movie but enough to be noticeable. And also, and this is probably the biggest weakness, is the glaring question of why are they still filming? If there was a threat like this in real life you would be running for your life rather than worrying about capturing it on video. Even though I was involved and feeling all these different emotions I still had this question in the back of my mind the entire time.

Overall the film is one of the most purely enjoyable cinema experiences I have had in a while. It’s a film worth making the trip out to the cinema to see rather than waiting for it to be released on DVD. If you like to just lose yourself in a film then this is one hell of a cinematic experience to take. It delivers in what it was trying to accomplish and any my opinion should satisfy the excitement and curiosity of the movie going audience. In a nutshell? Cloverfield is a flawed but thoroughly enjoyable time at the movies.

Director - Paul Haggis

Writer - Paul Haggis

Starring - Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, Susan Sarandon, Jason Patric, James Franco

Review:

Paul Haggis, the writer of 2004’s award winning Million Dollar Baby and writer/director of 2005’s Best Picture winner Crash, brings his talent to the subject of the Iraq war with In the Valley of Elah. I was expecting the same high level of quality that was found in his mentioned earlier work and I am saddened to say it’s not completely there.

After a soldier returns from Iraq and promptly goes missing, his father (played by Tommy Lee Jones) heads out, with the help of a police detective (Theron) to uncover the truth behind his disappearance.

What bugged a lot of people about Haggis’ award winning Crash was that it had too many characters and tried too hard to make them intertwine with each other. Although I didn’t have a problem at all with that aspect I still recognized that the film could have been a bit more focused in what it was about. In The Valley of Elah doesn’t have that problem to face, as the film is about one thing and it stays focused on that throughout. This gives us a chance to keep our attention firmly on the situation at hand and watch closely the performances given all round, particularly from Tommy Lee Jones who just recently got nominated for this very role. The fatherly role was a complex one to tackle in many respects but the Jones has long since proven he can handle such complexity and I don’t need to tell you he’s stellar here. This, along with his performance in the excellent No Country for Old Men, just goes to prove he is one of America’s best actors.

Charlize Theron also has a complicated role as the detective helping out with the case. And she also has proven long ago, particularly with her Oscar winning performance in Monster, that she can handle any kind of role and she handles this decisively difficult one with apparent ease. No one else in the film is given much screen time to speak of, especially a criminally underused Susan Sarandon. If you go to the bother of getting a master class actress such as her you might want to make the effort of having her in the story a little more. Some might say the character doesn’t need any more screen time, and although I could stretch to agree with that I none the less wished that Sarandon was on-screen a hell of a lot more than she was.

The film’s intentions are admirable, and for the most part it’s heart is firmly in the right place, it’s just the film is done in a manner that doesn’t suit. Although the screenplay may be well written in terms of affecting dialogue and such it still, none the less, rings a bit false. Most of the time it feel likes you are listening to dialogue that was meant to be delivered rather than eaves-dropping on natural conversations.

What also bugged me about the film was the amount of unnecessary scenes. Some of the scenes felt like the deleted ones you would find on a DVD instead of integral parts of the actual film. There are even some I would go as far to say that if you took them out you wouldn’t notice any difference within the story. A lot of the film is slow, sometimes in a good way but sometimes not, and some of the supporting performances, as brief as they may be, feel a bit clunky and forced. As if they were just there to fill in some sort of information Haggis thinks we couldn’t have worked out for ourselves. Throw in some wholly un-called for plot turns and you’ve got a film that doesn’t work nearly as well as it should.

There was a pretty major problem I had with the film that in the end caused me to like it a lot less than I thought I would. I couldn’t quite comprehend the complex, but key, plot twist and the ultimate explanation given towards the end. I won’t say what it is in fear of giving away a big spoiler but let’s just say it comes right out of the blue and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe I missed something or just didn’t click with the film but I am stilled confused as to what the outcome of this dramatic mystery was.

Take away the integral problems I had with the film I think it just comes down to the fact that it didn’t affect me neatly as much as his previous films did. Crash in particular had me invested in its story and characters in a way I had never experienced before. This film, however, just lacks a certain on-the-ball flair for me to get attached to it in the same way. It’s worth seeing, though, if nothing else to see the stellar performance by Tommy Lee Jones. I expected a lot more from In the Valley of Elah and writer/director Haggis. I just hope he delivers a lot more with his next project.

Director - Colin Strause, Greg Strause

Writer - Shane Salerno

Starring - Steven Pasquale, Reiko Aylesworth, John Ortiz, Johnny Lewis, Ariel Gade, Kristen Hager

Review:

The first AVP, as bad of a movie as it was, I had some fun with. It at least had some of what fans of the previous films wanted within it and overall it wasn’t as bad as it could have been. There was some hope for AVP 2: Requiem in that there was opportunity for some kick-ass fight sequences, edge-of-your-seat intensity and perhaps some genuinely scary moments. I am sad, but at the same time not at all surprised, to inform you that the film has nothing of the sort and has little redeeming qualities to keep it from being borderline disaster.

Battling alien and predator races descend on earth and unto a small town where the unsuspecting residents must band together to have any chance of surviving.

What made the previous instalment of these franchises work, in particular the first Alien, is the overwhelming sense of dread, mystery and flat-out fear that it conjured from the viewer. Co-director Colin Strause said about this film that they tried to recreate some of what the first Alien had. Perhaps he was joking, and in all hope I beg that to be true, because all sense of anything that made the first Alien (and even some of the subsequent sequels) work is absolutely nowhere to be seen here.

Now no one was expecting a masterpiece of a film from this, nor was anyone expecting a great film in any way. But what people wanted and for some reason expected was a fun, action-packed 90 minutes of aliens actually fighting predators. We are painfully subjected to getting to know people that we quite frankly couldn’t care less about. Not only do we have to endure this bore-fest but there is also a ton of clichés as far as what the characters and sub-plots are. First off we have the pizza-boy who has a crush on the high school hottie, and then we have the hottie’s boyfriend who is a jock and an all-round total jerk. We then have the soldier returning home from war, someone who would later have some expertise in combat; if any unforeseen situation should arise that is. We also have the ex-con returning home and who is just looking for work. Throw in a dose of naiveté into the characters and a handful of oversimplified situations and what we have is one hell of a boring, waste-of-time movie.

“Well that must just be for the first 15 minutes or so, to get us relating to and attached to the characters,” I hear you say. You would think so. But no, we are subjected to this for over an hour with only a tiny pinch of aliens and predators sprinkled throughout. By the time we get to the action I almost couldn’t care less and to be completely honest I couldn’t wait to get out. When the action finally does kick in, with the exception of a few great moments, it leaves a lot to be desired. Whenever a situation, that we all want to see, involving the aliens and the predator in fighting mode it is either below-par in terms of what a fight scene should be and have or it is far too dark to see who is doing what and to whom. If I had to pick something out of the many, many flaws in AVP 2 that stood out as the biggest problem it would be the darkness of most, if not all, of the scenes and the inability to see pretty much anything that goes on.

To think of any good points about the film is a difficult task to say the least. But just off the top of my head I guess a plus point was the creature design and make-up effects. It is amazing what they are able to do in those departments in movies nowadays and it seems to me that those guys were the only ones doing their job well in this case. There are also a few moments that admittedly had me smiling and giggling at the extremity of the gore and such. Apart from that I literally can’t think of anything else good about the film, any pointing out all of the unmentioned weaknesses would take longer than I care to think about the film for.

I can’t wrap my head around how the makers of AVP 2 could mess up such a simple concept. You get some aliens and some predators and you make them fight for 90 minutes, showing humans getting killed if they get in the way. Although the first one was a bad move it at least was successful in some of its attempts, keeping in tune with the previous films from both franchises among other things. But this one seemed like it tried too hard almost to pay homage (as I’m sure the makers like to think of it as) when really it just comes off as ripping it off but obviously not as well. It has a couple of little things that are positive about the film that are unfortunately massively overshadowed by the negative. I’m sure I’m not the first to have said this but c’mon, Hollywood, I think it’s now time to lay those aliens and predators firmly to rest.

Director - Tamara Jenkins

Writer - Tamara Jenkins

Starring - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Laura Linney, Philip Bosco, Peter Friedman, David Zayas

Review:

Everything about writer/director Tamara Jenkins’ film The Savages was destined to just work. There was nothing in the mix that suggested otherwise. And lo and behold the film more than works in pretty much every department.

Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman play a brother and sister who have to face the realities of family responsibility as they have to start caring for there ailing father.

There are many factors that contribute to how The Savages works so well. Probably the most notable factor is the performance by Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Both give excellent performances, each standing out in their own brilliant way, in an equally excellent film.

Linney is perhaps the most believable in her role, although not knocking Hoffman in any way. She seems to put her all into her performance, really committing herself to do and portray some things than many actresses would refuse to do. Many times she is seen in a very unflattering light and I give her major credit for that alone. Any actor who is willing to throw the make-up to one side and show themselves looking anything less than their normally presentable selves I have much respect for. I have said for a long time that she is one of the best actresses, going on pure talent, working today. Even in bad movies she manages to shine and when an actor can accomplish that it is a sure-fire sign of talent.

Hoffman is equally impressive in the brotherly role, playing a downbeat character that we all know he can play perfectly. Regardless of the fact that we have seen this kind of thing from him before you have to give credit where credits due. His character seems to have his head screwed on a little tighter than his sisters, being the one who makes the difficult and logical decisions while Linney is the more sympathetic one. Both characters are realistically flawed, at times starkly contrasting each other which just makes it all the more believable.

As just mentioned with regards to the characters the other biggest strength of the film is how real and honest it feels. There isn’t a moment where you don’t believe what is happening on-screen, helped by the fact that extravagance is kept to a minimum and at the same time down-to-earth realism is turned way up. It’s rare that you get such brutal honesty that The Savages has to offer in films nowadays and when it comes along every now and then it’s wise to latch onto it.

Although not the biggest strength of the film the thing I think I admired most about it is the way it gets the audience feeling sympathetic while at the same time not forcing it. It doesn’t feel like you are being manipulated in any way but rather you are feeling the emotions completely on your own.

What I think makes The Savages ring true is all the little true-to-life things scattered throughout. Anyone with an elderly relative will find something to connect with in the film, whether it be trying to find a good nursing him or something smaller like helping them remember something. Everything in the film feels honest and wholly realistic in every way.

There is nothing I can think of it which sticks out as a weakness in the film. Perhaps the ending doesn’t fit as well as it could have with the rest of the film, and there are a couple of minor characters who don’t really seem needed but those are very minor complaints. They certainly don’t retract from your involvement in the film in any way.

The film has a brilliantly handled mix of drama and comedy. In every dramatic moment there is always an undercurrent of comedy and vice-versa. It sort of marries the two extremes in such a refreshing way regardless of the unoriginality of the concept itself.

So in the end the film is well written, with taut and witty dialogue, excellent performances and a well judged mix of drama and comedy. Unfortunately I think this film will go unseen by the masses, which is a real shame as, to put it quite plainly, The Savages is a real gem.

Director - Tim Burton

Writer - John Logan

Starring - Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen.

Review:

I am usually the last person to sit down and watch a musical. I just can’t quite get into the notion of characters at one moment speaking and the next spontaneously bursting into song. With a few exceptions of musicals I hold dear to my heart I am not a fan of the genre. But it was the notion of a new Tim Burton offering that lured me to this film and although I am decisively disappointed with the result I still rather liked it.

Based on the hit Broadway musical of the same name, the film tells the infamous story of Benjamin Barker aka Sweeney Todd who, after being sent to prison on false charges by the evil Judge Turpin for 15 years, returns to London to find his wife dead and his daughter being looked after by the man who sent him away. As he plans his revenge, Todd sets up a barber shop where he slits the throats of his customers and the helpful Mrs Lovett bakes the victims into pies.

Sitting in the cinema watching Sweeney Todd for the first 15 minutes I had an overwhelming feeling of dislike towards the film. As I have said I am not a fan of musicals to say the least so this unusual format director Tim Burton has chosen to showcase the film as was not to me liking. My dislike was verging on hate as the minutes went by, that was until Sacha Baron Cohen turned up in a brief appearance. His inclusion in the film must have sparked something in me because from then on the format the film is told in sort of started to grow on me at the same time that I started to get used to it. By the end of the film I almost forgot about the fact that every few scenes the characters would start to sing for no apparent reason.

I think what I enjoyed most about Sweeney Todd, as I do with all of Burton’s other films, is the look of them. It has the trademark gothic feel to it that adds to the feeling of the story rather than just seeming flashy. What I admire about Burton as a filmmaker is he does what he wants to do, puts what he wants to into his films and rarely sacrifices his personal touches for anyone else’s. There’s no other director who does what he does, at least not as well, and Sweeney Todd continues his streak of doing what he wants to do.

The cast of the film, for the most part anyway, was chosen just right. This is Johnny Depp’s sixth collaboration with Burton and some might say this is arguably his finest. It may have been a bit of an obvious choice for Depp to fill the title role, especially since Burton was at the helm, but apart from the obvious reasons Depp was perfect for the role. Despite his general status because of his looks, among other things, Mr Depp is one hell of an actor. Out of the most famous actors in the world he is one of the most interesting to watch and he brings that strange way he has about him firmly to the table here. Along with him we have Alan Rickman as the evil Judge Turpin and for me that was a real treat. Whatever Rickman does he’s always an interesting person to watch, his mannerisms and in particular his unique voice makes him a pleasure to watch in just about everything he’s in. Then we have Timothy Spall in a smaller but still very memorable role as Turpin’s “assistant” and I am happy to say, as I believe this was obviously the aim, I hated his character. Who was, perhaps, my favourite character in the film though was Pirelli played brilliantly by Sacha Baron ‘Borat’ Cohen. Not surprisingly he brung the more comical touches to the film, something that I also enjoyed a lot about it.

The mentioned perfect casting choices are somewhat dampened by the one I had a problem with, that is Helena Bonham Carter as the pie-making Mrs Lovett. I have no problem with Carter as an actress, in fact I find her fascinating usually, but she was most definitely miscast here and the only reason, it seems to me anyway, that she was even in the film was the fact that she’s dating the director. It didn’t ruin the film by any means but it certainly stood out like a sore thumb.

The film doesn’t hold back in any way when it comes to displaying the killing of Todd’s victims. We see, in all it’s bloody glory, throats being slit right in front of us. But what made it completely bearable to look at was the comical and cartoonish manner it is done in. Although pints of blood are spilled by film’s end it is done in such a way that is seems glossy and fake almost. It may be a bit full-on for some but I can’t see a reason why anyone couldn’t handle it, to some extent anyway.

My biggest problem with Sweeney Todd was the very fact that it’s done as a musical. Although, like I said, it was kind of cool to see the film be done in such a unique way I couldn’t help but think, at every turn, that this would have been much better if it were done as straightforward, narrative film. Although a lot of the songs are well written and some even listenable out with the film I still felt like it didn’t need to be a musical. That may just be my personal dislike for the genre rearing its head again and causing me to complain, which in retrospect it probably is. But I seriously think that this story would make a fascinating film without the music.

Despite it’ shortcomings, of which there are many, I can still comfortably recommend Sweeney Todd. The film has a compelling look abut it and it has some fine character and performances to invest yourself in. And although it is plenty bloody sometimes it is still at the same time a very watchable film, even for the squeamish, in a lot of ways. The film did however leave me disappointed and wanting much more from it. Sad really; as the prospect seemed a lot tastier.

Director - Jake Kasdan

Writer - Jake Kasdan, Judd Apatow

Starring - John C. Reilly, Jenna Fischer, Matt Besser, David Krumholtz

Review:

Parodies are not generally my cup of tea. There will be the odd one that I will find something in to enjoy but for the most part I would rather avoid them. Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story is the latest offering and I am pleasantly surprised to say that I enjoyed it thoroughly.

The film is a parody of the musical-biopic, in particular 2005’s Walk The Line. It tells the story of Dewey Cox, an Alabama born musician who sets out to become a musical icon.

Walk Hard comes courtesy of comedy man-of-the-minute Judd Apatow, the mastermind behind such big successes as The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and Superbad. Although he doesn’t take full control here he has co-written and produced the film so his pungent, on-the-ball flavour is all over this one. The film is co-written and directed by Orange County director Jake Kasdan, a man with little experience when compared to some. But despite his somewhat inexperienced touch he brings to the table he seems to show a real flare for comedic direction and this is a sure-fire hint that he will go on to direct many more comedies in the future.

The obvious choice to play the role of Dewey Cox would probably be big-screen comedy regular Will Ferrell but instead they have opted to cast John C. Reilly in the title role. And although Reilly hasn’t necessarily got some of the physical comedic touches that Ferrell offers he still fills the role adequately and it shows promise in the actor for future leading comedic roles. And if nothing else it was wonderful to see such an unconventional choice of comedy actor. I may be in the minority here but I am getting quite tired of the same old Will Ferrell act over and over in every movie he’s in so like I said it was nice to see someone else fill the role that he was the obvious choice for.

Although there is a lot more in the mix here than the simple “boy leaves home to become famous” storyline it is safe to say that Walk Hard is a straight-up spoof of the Oscar-friendly musical biopic. It parodies everything from Ray to 2007’s I’m Not There but primarily the  Oscar-winning Johnny Cash biopic Walk The Line. But whatever the film happens to be playing on at any given moment it is relieving to say Kasdan and Apatow hit all the right notes in all the right places. It seems to be a trend with recent comedies that all the best lines are in the trailer and as it turns out the film has about 20 minutes of funny stuff and the rest is just filler. Walk Hard, however, had me consistently laughing the entire way through. What also seems to be a problem with comedies, although this is decisively rarer than the mentioned one, is that they have too many funny jokes thus making you miss some or not having enough time to laugh before another comes along. Again not with Walk Hard; the film’s jokes are timed in such a way that it allows for enough time to laugh at one joke before moving onto the next one.  This resulted in me having laughed plenty and I walked out feeling very satisfied.

One of the things I found funniest about the film was the way it used the cameo-appearances of different legendary musicians. Usually in a biopic it is painfully obvious when the main character comes across another famous musician but at the same time they don’t really mention flat-out who it is. In Walk Hard they realise this and go out of their way to mention the characters name, in full, every time they talk to them. It’s quite hard to explain unless you’ve seen the film but whenever Dewey meets someone like George Harrison, Buddy Holly or Elvis Presley the movie will set aside a couple of seconds to clearly point out that’s who Dewey is talking to. In retrospect this was the parts of the movie I found myself chuckling at the most and to my enjoyment it happens fairly frequently throughout.

I can’t really think of anything overly major about the film that I could complain about. I guess by the end of the film the jokes seemed to dry up, as did the story and by the very end it seemed like they didn’t know how to end it. And also the film sometimes didn’t seem as if it was being pushed to its full potential, some of the jokes seeming as if they could have been polished a bit more. But those are minor gripes on my part and I can easily forgive them because the rest of the movie is so funny.

I didn’t expect this film to be half as funny as it turned out to be, mostly because of the track-record of comedies having the best bits in the trailer. Luckily the film has much more to offer than the trailer-shown gags, including some fine comedic performances from John C. Reilly and pretty much the rest of the cast. It won’t win any Oscars by any means, with maybe the exception of “best original song”, but is that what was expected? Apatow seems to be tickling the movie going public’s funny bone at the moment and I am sure he has a lot more up his sleeve before his time is up.

(Copyright - Movie World - Reviews you can trust…)

Director - Joel and Ethan Coen

Writer - Joel and Ethan Coen

Starring - Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelsen, Kelly McDonald

Review:

As one of many long-standing fans of the Coen brothers it’s a bit of an obvious statement to make that I was looking forward to No Country For Old Men. Everyone who has seen it has been saying how good it is, that it should win all sorts of awards in various different areas. And although, for me anyway, it isn’t quite as good as I’ve heard it is still none the less a stellar piece of American filmmaking.

The film is about Llewelyn Moss (Brolin), a man who stumbles upon a drug-deal gone wrong and two million dollars in cash. Hot on his trail is Anton Chigurh (Bardem), a relentless psychopath who’s hell bent on retrieving the money and killing anyone who gets in his way. Trying to find Chigurh is the county sheriff (Jones) who is having little luck in doing so.

The Coen brothers have long since established themselves as two of the world’s greatest filmmakers, certainly America’s and this is another fine piece of work from the twosome. For the first time both brothers share a directing credit instead of their usual “take-turns at it” mentality. Perhaps they wanted to try something new, perhaps they realised they had something so good on their hands that they wanted to equally share the glory (of which they surely will receive) but who knows? Whatever the reason what the both of them have come up with is one of the best films of 2007, a chilling portrayal of life and crime to rival, in some ways, a lot of their other work. I can’t quite go as far as to say they have topped their masterpiece Fargo, or that I like it more than The Big Lebowski; but those are at tough levels to beat.

The casting choices of this film are just perfect. We have Josh Brolin, on a roll after turns in such recent films as Planet Terror and American Gangster, and Tommy Lee Jones in a performance that rivals his similar one as a cowboy in Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. But who everyone is going to be focusing on and who will no doubt be the centre of discussion after viewings of the film is Javier Bardem as the psychopathic killer Chigurh. The way he plays the character, his cold stare, emotionless face, intimidating dialogue and relentless nature is sure to have him stored in the memory of many-a-moviegoer, me most certainly included, for months to come. He is without a doubt one of the most memorable villains of the last fifteen years or so and I doubt he will be beaten any time soon.

Aside from the stellar lead cast we also have a host of supporting actors who all fill their roles admirably. Kelly McDonald plays the naïve and slightly dim-witted wife of Llewelyn, who factors in and out of the film here and then but later on becomes a bigger part, that’s all I’m going to say. We also have Woody Harrelsen, who works surprisingly well, Garret Dillahunt (seen in 2007’s best film The Assassination of Jesse James) and Stephen Root whose character’s name seems to be left out. All of these plus a plethora of other very recognisable faces are scattered here and there throughout various points in the film which always adds to the quality of a film as opposed to trying to have too many main characters on-screen for any unnecessary amount of time.

Having not read the source novel of the film I can’t quite say whether or not it sticks closely to it. But from what I have heard it does exactly that, some people even going as far to say it is one of the most faithful adaptations of a novel in cinema history. It’s the first time in the Coen brother’s careers that they have opted to adapt from another source rather than create the film completely from scratch. And as much as I love the stories they are able to create it was nice to see them try their hand at something new and for them to a put a fresh and different stamp on their style of filmmaking.

While the film is completely different from any of the Coen brother’s previous work it is still very much a Coen brother’s film. Laced throughout the film is their trademark wit and black humour, along with their skill of showing violence without glorifying it and of course at least one or two extremely memorable characters. For any big fans of the brothers’ work there is also a few homages here and there; such as the satchel of money (ala Fargo).

What is, perhaps, the most significant thing about this film is the scoring, or lack thereof. With the exception of the end credits, and a couple of moments of ambient tones, there is no musical score whatsoever. Although I have always loved the music that usually occupies the Coen’s work I welcomed this rare treat of having a film devoid of any music. This technique needs to be utilized by many more directors in the years to come. As a result of this the movie has a huge dramatic impact, delivering almost unbearable moments of tension that have you on the edge of your seat. It also gives the actors and dialogue the chance to be the main focus of the film, allowing the viewer to actually hear completely what is happening. The Coen’s recognise this music-less technique as being extremely effective and make the best and full use of it.

Apart from Javier Bardem the other thing that will factor in most people’s discussions about the film is the ending. Although I won’t give too much away some of the following may be considered as a spoiler by some so be cautious as you read on.  There will be two sides to the audience; you will either hate the ending or think it’s perfect. I can’t quite say I’m on either side but if I was forced to decide I would opt to say I really liked it. It’s one of the most unconventional endings I’ve seen in a long time, to be so abrupt and completely skip over a major event is a bold move on the Coen brother’s part and for their sheer brashness I can admire them. It’s normal for someone to immediately think, “Is that it?” Most people will walk away maintaining that disappointment while those who choose to ponder it more will realize its greatness.

What may surprise a lot of people about the film is that the violence that takes place isn’t all that graphic. Apart from a few bloody moments (which aren’t all that bloody compared to some films I could mention) most of the violent acts happen off-screen or while the viewers attention is held somewhere else. Personally I think it gives the film a sort of classiness it otherwise probably would not have had.

No Country for Old Men certainly isn’t my favourite Coen brother’s film (that would be The Big Lebowski) nor do I think it’s their best (that would be Fargo) but it is still worthy of the Coen brother’s label a lot of film fans hold in such high regard. The attention to detail and moments of jarring tension are just a couple of things that add to the overall quality of the film. A lot of people may have a problem with where we arrive by film’s end but trust me; mull it over for a few days and I guarantee you will recognise just how well judged the film is. Oscars are bound to be thrown at the film when it comes that time of year again and I can’t say I would be upset with any of them.

Director - Cristian Mungiu

Writer - Cristian Mungiu

Starring - Anamaria Marinca, Laura Vasiliu, Vlad Ivanov, Alexandra Potocean

Review:

Winner of 2007’s prestigious Palme d’Or award at the Cannes Film Festival, 4 Months, 3 weeks and 2 Days has a lot to live up to. Up against such films as a personal favourite of last year, Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof, and one of the best films of last year, David Fincher’s Zodiac, this film had some tough competition. But as much as I loved some of the other films in the running at Cannes I simply have to concur with the decision to give 4 Months one of the most respectable awards in the film world.

The film follows two university friends, Otilia and Gabita, in Romania in 1987. A few months after Gabita falls pregnant the two friends arrange a meeting with Mr Bebe, in a hotel, for him to perform an illegal abortion.

To say the subject matter and content of this film is going to cause some controversy is a bit of an understatement. Those who are “pro-life” are inevitably going to be in an uproar about the central plot of the film and thus get it even more attention than it otherwise would. After the first few showings of 4 Months it was known as “the Romanian abortion movie” but once more people got a chance to see it and word of mouth got around people soon realised, as I myself do now, that this film is so much more than that. Abortion may be the thing that is central to the story but there is so much else to think about and envelope yourself in that at times you almost forget about that.

What makes 4 Months work as well as it does is the sense of rare realism achieved, due to many contributing factors. First of all the whole film is set literally within the timeline of a single night which gives it it’s first dose of immediacy. Secondly the director often uses the handheld camera technique we have seen in quite a few films as of late but he uses it in such a fresh and unique way that it almost seems as refreshingly different as it did when we first saw the technique. Many of the interior, dialogue driven scenes (which most of the film is) is shot in a very static manner, allowing for everything within the scenes to take president over the viewer’s watching of the film. And in a strictly opposite fashion the scenes of someone walking or when a scene becomes erratic in any way the camera will act in the same manner. Director Cristian Mungiu uses the shaky-cam technique extremely well to give us the sense that we are right there “in the moment” with the characters.

Another equally major reason why 4 Months achieves its quality is the three central performances, in particular that of Anamaria Marinca who plays the “patient’s” friend Otilia. Although the abortion storyline isn’t central to her character she is, arguably, the focus of the film. We see how such an act, because of the legal factors among many others things, affects her as a person and how it shakes her to her very core. Not too dissimilar to the core of the viewer, and how the film achieves a powerful impact rarely seen in film nowadays. Most of the film’s screen time Marinca is on-screen acting her heart out, in particular a scene where she is almost forced by her boyfriend to sit through dinner with his parents as Gabita is waiting back at the hotel room. The mentioned scene stands out for many reasons, not least because it is done without any cuts and how Marinca is able to get across what the character is feeling without saying much. She is supported superbly by Vasiliu and Ivanov who both provide standing ground for Marinca to be even better than any viewer could imagine. If we don’t see some Award nods for the cast, and specifically Marinca, it would be an absolute travesty in my eyes.

For anyone out there who has read the plot outline and is wondering; is it graphic? Well in the sense that, “do they show you explicitly what is happening?” then the answer is no. But that doesn’t mean it’s any easier to watch. A couple of moments in particular spring quickly to mind that may shock and inevitably test some audience members. But take my word for it; even though it may be a tough watch it is most certainly a worthwhile and rewarding one to view in its totality.

Every scene within the film is completely memorable, and I for one can’t think of the last time that has been achieved. Usually a film has some unnecessary dialogue, moments or whole scenes that you just feel could have been shortened or removed completely. In this case, however, every single scene is pivotal to the overall experience and ultimately it brings the very rare word “masterpiece” to mind. Is it good enough to be awarded with that title? In my opinion absolutely.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is one of the most rewarding experiences of the past few years and I doubt in the coming months there will be a more rewarding film released. Gritty realism hasn’t been captured like this in film in a long, long time and with three master class performances also included I can’t see a reason why anyone wouldn’t recognise just how good this film is. And I am sure it will stay in the memory much longer than the title suggests.

Director - Ang Lee

Writer - Eileen Chang (story), James Schamus (screenplay)

Starring - Tony Leung, Wei Tang, Joan Chen

Review:

It is amazing what director Ang Lee is able to get away with in some of his films. Both in what takes place on-screen and in their subject matter. He tackled a very raw and almost taboo subject of homosexuality very gracefully but still at times graphically with Brokeback Mountain. In his latest film Lust, Caution he has conjured up some of the most sexually graphic scenes in recent cinema history that seem to add little to what is otherwise a thoroughly engaging and extremely well made film.

Set in occupied Shanghai during Word War II, newcomer Wei Tang plays a young woman who gets swept up in a dangerous game of emotion and intrigue with a powerful politician (Leung).

The decision to cast a newcomer as the leading lady in Lust, Caution was a stroke of genius in my books. First-timer Wei Tang is nothing short of mesmerizing as the young woman gaining the trust of the dangerous Mr Yee played brilliantly, as always, by Tony Leung. Unless you did your research before watching this film you would swear blind that Tang has a plethora of acting experience when in fact this is her first acting role. Her performance is not only high up on the list of best newcomer performances of 2007 but just in the general performance category, she really is that good. I have absolutely no doubt we will see more of Miss Tang in the very near future and I welcome her with open arms.

Tony Leung may have been obvious choice for the role he plays here and in a respect it was almost inevitable. But I say if you’re good at something then stick to it and Leung certainly is good at playing this kind of role. There is something special that only he can bring to the table and he just seems to be able to bring it in every performance he gives. Anyone who has had any experience of watching Leung, particularly in Wong Kar Wai’s ‘2046′, you will know that he isn’t afraid to bare all for a role. He certainly is “In the Mood for Love” in this film, a few times a little too much.

What will be, and already has been, on everybody’s lips is the graphic sex scenes in the film. Given the nature of the film they should work as part of it but as it turns out the opposite effect has occurred. The graphic nature of those particular scenes adds little to the film overall and instead they stick out like a sore thumb. Other than the fact that the film wouldn’t be as much of a hot topic as it is I can’t see the film being any worse, most definitely better, off than if those scenes had been dialled down or perhaps even removed altogether. Some may argue, and I think the director included, would say that the graphic nature is necessary but personally I don’t see it that way.

Apart from those mentioned scenes I have little other complaint with Lust, Caution. The most regarding thing about it is the cinematography and just how beautiful the film is to look at. It’s something we’ve come to expect from an Ang Lee film, shown in Brokeback Mountain and Crouching, Tiger Hidden Dragon among others, and this film is no different. It is one of those rare cases where most, if not all, of the film is stunning to look at and you could virtually pause it at any moment and you would get a stunning frame of cinema to feast your eyes on.

The film attempts to have an equal measure of things on the surface to enjoy and to have emotion and power underneath for anyone wanting and willing to dig a little deeper. I have heard from various other people that the latter is lacking from the film but I for one didn’t find that at all. I thought the film gave a very balanced sense of almost everything in the film, making you both admire it from afar and engage with it emotionally. For a film to have both of those effects on me is rare and so far that I applaud it.

Perhaps what it most admirable about Lust, Caution is the way in which it takes you on such a personal journey in such an involving fashion. Almost all of the 160 minutes of the films runtime had me concentrating on every little detail, except of course from the graphic sex scenes pulling me out of my engagement somewhat. There was a lingering chance that the long-ish runtime may hinder any enjoyment the viewer may get from this love story but Lee handles it just the right way for that not to happen.

This may just be the most sexually explicit film of the past while and I am certain it will remain that way for a good few months. But don’t let the thought of an uncomfortable few scenes put you off an experience such as this. It’s well worth the almost three hour runtime as it takes you on an extremely intimate, personal and ultimately rewarding journey of deceit, political intrigue and dangerous relationships.

Director - Francis Lawrence

Writer - Mark Protosevich, Akiva Goldsman

Starring - Will Smith, Alice Braga, Charlie Tahan

Review:

It is unusual I will come out of watching a film not entirely sure what I thought of it. Normally I immediately have either a more negative or more positive opinion of a film as soon as the credits roll. With I Am Legend, however, I am torn between two extremes; enjoyment and annoyance.

Based on the novel of the same name, I Am Legend tells the story of a virus which spreads throughout the world either killing everyone or turning them into flesh-eating, vampire-like creatures. Will Smith plays Robert Neville, a military scientist who is immune to the virus and who seems to be the last surviving virus-free human. The film follows him as he tries to survive in the city as, apparently, the last man on earth.

Much of I Am Legend’s strong points are contained within the first half of the film. The film opens with a sequence that lets us know that humankind has found a cure for cancer but unfortunately most of those who are cured start to either die or mutate into vampire-like creatures. Then we jump to three years later to New York City which has been deserted by most humans, and only Neville and wild animals seem to remain. We watch Smith’s character, along with his dog, survive in the city; hunting for food, exercising, searching for other possible humans and just generally doing the best he can with what he’s got. I seem to find films fascinating that have one person in it for almost the entire movie. It gives the audience a chance to see an actor show off any true acting ability that they might have by having to act by themselves. Smith proves here, as he already did with The Pursuit of Happyness, that he can act and this is shown not necessarily from the beginning but once the film progresses. We see him go from as happy as a person could be in his situation to almost a complete wreck after everything takes a toll on him. The film has a lot more heart and sentiment to it than I was expecting and for that I must give it credit.

Having not read the source material, or the previous incarnations of it, before seeing this film I almost literally went in blind. I have came across a few people who have literally been angry at the film for doing so many things wrong and almost nothing right due to their love for the source novel and previous films. But since I didn’t have any experience with the story I wasn’t annoyed at it for doing wrong what the other material did right. What I am annoyed at, however, is a few of the little things that happen. A lot of the film substitutes logic and sense in the name of entertainment. Although you can’t take what happens too seriously, because the whole idea itself is ludicrous to say the least, but there were just certain things that just would not happen even within such an unbelievable story as this.

But for the most part the first half of the film at least provides some all out entertainment, some genuine chilling moments and that much welcomed heart to it. It is at around the hour mark that things start to turn sour. There is something that occurs (which I won’t spoil for any of you) that comes completely out of left field and almost completely removed me from my involvement in, what was up to that point, a pretty effective film.

From them on, save for a few moments of glimmering hope, the film took a dreadful nose dive. Although it may satisfy action fans out there anyone looking for anything else will surely feel as annoyed as me. It takes what made the first half of the film effective, creepy, enthralling and attention grabbing and almost completely flushes it down the toilet. And all this in the name of turning up the action dial, something which I severely hold against the film. So with regards to the direction the film takes at around the hour mark you are going to be in one of two groups; thrilled with the increase in action or annoyed with the unnecessary turn of events. Unfortunately I am more in the latter category (although admittedly some of the later actions scenes were pretty impressive on their own).

Now when it comes to special effects I can take a bit of inconsistent moments and even moments which look fake. But the main special effects, of the vampires, in this film look completely fake as does most of the surroundings of the destroyed and abandoned city. Why they couldn’t use real people as the vampires instead of these clay-looking wasted money special effects I will never know.

The ending of the film is what I had the biggest problem with. If they had come up with a better ending I could have forgiven all the mishaps up until then but sadly they have what is bordering on a cop-out and what is certainly an anti-climax. It left me feeling almost cheated and disappointed that I had got my hopes up for an effective ending. Whether or not the source material ends in the same way I for one do not know. But if it does then I will have the exact same problem with it.

I Am Legend is a strange film for me; I both liked it and didn’t at the same time. There are a lot of good things in the movie, which fortunately prevail over the bad, but too much is done wrong for the film to be great. Further reflection and a second viewing may alter my opinion to a clear “liked” or “didn’t like” but for now I Am Torn.

Director - James Gray

Writer - James Gray

Starring - Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duvall, Eva Mendes

Review:

Crime/gangster is a firm favourite genre of mine. Some of my favourite films of all time are of that genre and recent films like The Departed and American Gangster have been impressive instalments. We Own The Night is the latest ‘cops and robbers’ sub–genre flick that, despite it playing in familiar territory, is handled the right way to make for a perfectly enjoyable two hours.

Its New York in 1988 and Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix) is a respected night club manager in a part of the city that’s riddled with crime. But unknown to everyone in his world except from himself and his girlfriend (Eva Mendes) he has changed his last name to protect his policemen brother (Mark Wahlberg) and father (Robert Duvall). They ask Bobby to inform for them against a Russian drug dealer that hangs around and deals in his club. After refusing to do so, his brother authorizes a raid on the club and Bobby is taken into custody. As a result sparks fly between the family as a debate arises about sooner or later Bobby is either going to be with his family or the drug dealers.

With We Own The Night there is admittedly nothing all that special in play. We have the familiar issues being dealt of family values, loyalty, gangster, drugs, cops and everything else that goes along with those things. But does that mean that you can’t have another movie involving them? In my book it certainly doesn’t. If it’s done in the right way, as it has been with this particular film, even the most familiar fair can be entertaining.

As mentioned previously the film walks the same territory as a lot of films before it, most notably last year’s The Departed. It’s not as similar as I expected from the trailer but still similar enough to bring about comparison. Although it doesn’t do it’s job as well as The Departed (although the conclusion is done a hell of a lot better) it still does enough to be thought of as worthwhile. The Departed was a winning success, both personally and at the Academy Awards, for director Martin Scorsese but it is undoubtedly the level of skill and depth that the film had that garnered it its praise. And like I said although We Own The Night isn’t working on the same level as The Departed, and I can’t see it winning any awards as such, that doesn’t at all make it a bad film, far from it.

Mark Wahlberg is one of those rare cases where I will give anything he’s in a shot. Even if it’s the same old stuff he’s been doing for the last few years (i.e. films like Shooter). There is just something compulsively watchable about the guy; he was certainly someone that pulled towards seeing We Own The Night. His character here is pretty much the same as it was in the aforementioned The Departed, although not quite to the same degree. The police uniform and loud moth led me inevitably to keep thinking of his previous role, which was sometimes a bad but often a good thing.

The standout role of the film and one of the best things about it overall was Joaquin Phoenix. Shown in 2005’s excellent Walk The Line he has some serious acting talent which he brings very professionally to the table here. I was unjustly sceptical at first about him playing this kind of role but after actually seeing him fulfil it I now realise how wrong I was.

Phoenix’s girlfriend in the movie is played by the lovely Eva Mendes. She serves no other purpose than to be eye candy for all the male viewers out there and even though she was pretty useless you could do a lot worse to have her as the love interest in your movie.

Apart from Phoenix the other stand out thing are some of the extended sequences, action or otherwise. One chair clawing car chase sequence springs particularly to mind, along with a drug related scene and the final inevitable shootout. There are plenty of other more than engaging scenes sprinkled throughout to keep the viewer interested until the end.

There are a few problems I had with the film but none of them major enough to put too much of a dampener on it as a whole. Like I said the film doesn’t tell the most original story in the world and there are few inconsistencies and mistakes that I noticed throughout but for the most part I have little complaint with it.

So in the end the film may not be the most original in the world but so what? If done right the old stories can still work fine, especially with the right cast and adequate director on board. It may walk a road well travelled but it does so in a thoroughly satisfying fashion.

Director - Richard Kelly

Writer - Richard Kelly

Starring - Dwayne Johnson, Sean William Scott, Sarah Michelle Geller, Justin Timberlake

Review:

After writer/director Richard Kelly made such a deserved splash with his debut film Donnie Darko, which is a personal favourite, he has a massive reputation to live up to. Was it beginners luck? Was it a fluke? Is Southland Tales a worthy second feature? Well both yes and no.

I don’t think it’s humanly possible to give a short plot synopsis to this film as there is far too many characters and plot threads to do so. But the basic idea is there is an apocalypse fast approaching and a famous movie star by the name of Boxer Santaros (played by Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson) might be the key to it all. A cop with a twin brother (Sean William Scott) is somehow involved with everything along with a controlling government, terrorist underground groups and an ex-pornstar turned talk show host (played by Sarah Michelle Gellar).

I have an instant bias when it comes to any film from the mind of writer/director Richard Kelly because of, like I said, my love for his debut film Donnie Darko. It rarely happens but on the basis of one film I will automatically see anything he makes afterwards. Ever since I heard the original cut of this film shown at the Cannes Film Festival was booed and there being a plethora of extremely negative reviews of even the new cut I was inevitably disheartened. I couldn’t quite believe that the man who created the wonder that is Donnie Darko could ever make anything less than a good film. After seeing Southland Tales I can certainly see why all of those people didn’t like the film but on a personal note I rather liked it.

Now let me just say that I didn’t completely love the film. There are many problems I had with it and primarily I agree with everyone that the film is a mess. But the general consensus with the negative opinions is that it’s too weird, random and insane for it’s own good but personally that’s what I think I liked about it. I am in the minority I am sure but it’s the films wackiness and lack of sense that made it fun and enjoyable. I general praise films that try to do something different instead of just being something ordinary and this film is included in that. It was literally like an amalgamation of a number of different dreams, weaved together without a pattern in mind. And as a result it’s like nothing you’ve ever seen before, including its predecessor.

Another way to describe the film would be this; it was literally like having a guided tour of the inside of an insane person’s brain by a crazy tour guide. Nothing makes much (or any) sense, even within the world of the film which in most eyes would be seen as a negative. But again I keep coming back to the fact that it’s for that exact fact that I liked the film.

Besides from the actual film itself and the nonsensical gear it is in the casting is also very strange. This is without a doubt one of the strangest casts ever to be assembled for a film. We have The Rock (now known in a more respectable manner as Dwayne Johnson), Sarah Michelle Geller in a surprisingly redeeming role for her and Sean William Scott aka Stifler from American Pie. We also a host of familiar faces, mainly comedic, including some from the aforementioned Donnie Darko. We have people from Amy Poehler, Jon Lovitz and Nora Dunn to people like Christopher Lambert, Ling Bai and Miranda Richardson. If you can think of a weirder cast please let me know. But I think that the bizarre choice of casting is something that adds to the charm of Southland Tales.

What can be said largely in the film’s favour is how well made it is or more specifically the level of detail that’s gone into it by Kelly. The opening ten minutes in particular is fascinatingly detailed and it’s almost impossible to lap up everything happening screen as we get presented with multiple news coverage, shots of nuclear attacks and various different graphics representing strange information. If nothing else you can admire the film or more so it’s creator for having such a vivid imagination and the ability to put on film however the results turns out.

The film might have been a lot easier to digest if it well cut a little shorter. Since the original cut of the film was an hour longer than the widely released one you would think it would have been entirely satisfactory. But coming in at just under two and half hours I think it was still a little too long, my patience running out around the two hour mark. Perhaps an even shorter version will be released on DVD at some point and I can only seeing it working better.

On a pure quality point of view there may not be much of that in it’s purest form but I assure there is at least some quality to be found here. For most of the film it borders dangerously on the fence between nonsense and genius and from where I’m sitting there is at least a little of the latter. Unfortunately the film teeters too far on the former side of the fence and for the most part quality is hidden behind the sea of randomness.

So in the end Southland Tales is many things. Original, nonsensical, random, weird, pretentious, genius and many more things that would take up the entire internet trying to list. But what the film isn’t is boring, there’s always something going on to keep the eyes darting about from one end of the screen to the other and to keep the brain on edge. Some may see that as a bad thing while others, including myself, welcome that. Whatever you think of the film you can’t deny that it’s different from the norm and we all need some of that on occasion; why not with Southland Tales?

Director - John August

Writer - John August

Starring - Ryan Reynolds, Hope Lange, Melissa McCarthy, Elle Fanning

Review:

So peculiar yet strangely engaging is John August’s directorial debut The Nines that it surely leaves each individual viewer perplexed in their own way but ultimately satisfied that they gave this rarity a chance.

To explain the plot of this film would be an exercise in futility without giving away everything that happens but I will at least try to give some sort of synopsis. The film is split into three parts; one about a troubled actor, one about a television writer/director and one about a videogame designer (all played by Ryan Reynolds) and the film unfolds by the three stories intertwining with each other in mysterious ways.

Cult cinema is a sub-genre (of sorts) I am a huge fan of. Donne Darko is one of my favourite movies of all time and there are countless other films I just love simply for their weirdness. The Nines is not a film I would immediately say I loved but upon further viewings and dissections I could come to that opinion. If you found the aforementioned Donnie Darko to your taste then you will probably find something to enjoy in this film. It is a brain-fizzing triple-whammy journey into the meaning of life, personal identity and the state of the world as we know it today. And although the film may be a bit too ambitious in its ideas and maybe it doesn’t fully convince the audience of what it’s attempting to say but you have to admire it for its attempt at doing so. So many films nowadays are formulaic, boring schlock that have no merit but to shut off your brain for a couple of hours. At least The Nines tries to be something different, tries to accomplish something most wouldn’t and I for one give it credit just for that.

As strange and confusing as the film is I have to admit I was in tune with it. Although, for the most part, I had no idea what the hell was going, within the context of the film and in losing myself within it I was sort on the same wavelength. Now I don’t claim to be someone who can understand what most are left confused by but there was just something about this film that had me firmly in its perplexing grip.

I can’t go too much into depth with what actually happens in the film and my thoughts about specific things as that would enter the uncharted spoiler territory. But what I will say is the way the film works in three different sections I thought at first was a tad pointless but by the end it would make even less sense if it were done in any other way. As we are slowly given clues as to what it’s all about, the film’s structure strangely works in its own peculiar little way. There is no doubt a plethora of things that I have missed upon first viewing that I would more than want to notice on a second.

Ryan Reynolds is an actor I like most of the time. He has made some stupid role choices in the past (ala The Amityville Horror remake) but most of the time he is a solid, quite underrated actor. I was surprised and yet happy to see him take on a role (actually three) like this as it proves he has versatility and a nose for unique projects. I can’t quite say he is fantastic here but he was certainly more than adequate. I think the same goes for the rest of the cast; perhaps not perfect but good enough.

This is writer John August’s (writer of such films as Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) debut film as a director and for a first timer this is impressive stuff. It would perhaps be a bit odd for an experienced director to make this film but in a weird way it makes sense for a debut director to do so. And despite August’s brave ambition’s being not entirely convincing I admire them none the less.

But in the end I can’t quite recommend The Nines, at least not to a general audience. Personally I had a fun and thought-provoking time with it but any general movie goer who just happens to stumble upon it will no doubt be left confused and annoyed. Whether you are the former or the latter you will have to find out for yourself.

Director - Andrew Dominik

Writer - Andrew Dominik

Starring - Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck, Sam Rockwell, Sam Shepard, Brooklynn Proulx, Dustin Bollinger

Review:

The western is a genre rarely seen on the big screen nowadays. One or two will crop up every now and then, such as The Proposition and Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, proving that they can still be made. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is the latest and a film almost indescribably good.

Casey Affleck plays Robert Ford, a young man who ever since he was a boy has looked up to and admired a notorious outlaw by the name of Jesse James (Pitt). He heads the James gang, made up of petty thieves and crooks. The gang is planning on pulling off their last train robbery before retiring to a simpler life. Ford manages to tag along on the last train robbery to show James what he’s got and to hopefully gain the trust and friendship of him. And he manages to earn it and he ends up tagging along with James as he goes in search of a simpler life. But no sooner has the James gang split up when the law begins to find various members and bring them to justice. The paranoid Jesse takes it upon himself to kill all of the ex-members of the gang to avoid them giving him up or killing him for the ransom money. As Jesse becomes increasingly paranoid Ford begins to fear for his own life which leads to the destiny of the two men.

Although not a western in the traditional sense the film still has the open freedom of them but at the same time maintaining the intricacies, feelings and a close view on the personal lives of its characters. In particular the lives of Affleck and Pitt in the title roles. We first see Robert tagging along with his older brother Charlie, quietly watching James and his gang as they eat and swap stories. He is a quiet, observing man who wouldn’t as much as hurt a fly unless he had to. We see him slowly go from quiet observer to an almost sidekick of his outlaw idol. Affleck plays the character with such grace and commitment that it’s almost impossible to imagine anyone else in the role or that anyone else could have done a better job. His shifty eye movements, his ability to appear unconfident and meek and just his general sense of making the character believable is simply astounding. In my opinion he hasn’t really been given the chance to show off the talent he clearly has until now.

As good as Affleck is in this film I can’t fail to mention the wonderful supporting performances. From the normally criminally underused Sam Rockwell to the surprisingly well acted turn by Jeremy Renner. But of course the highlight of the film is Brad Pitt in the title role of Jesse James. Despite his magnanimous celebrity status he still is one hell of an actor, one who is particularly fascinating to watch when given the meatier roles. He has the rare ability as an actor to say so much without even opening his mouth. His eye movements and his tension filled moments of brooding silence allow you just to bask in the magnificent performance given by him. Although not my favourite performance of his career, that would be Fight Club, but it is arguably his best. I will be gob smacked if Pitt doesn’t get some sort of recognition at the Oscars next year as I will be if the rest of the cast don’t either. It’s almost criminal that there can be so many amazing performances in one film.

For many this may one of the films of the year that they walk out of. Not because it’s a bad movie, as this is clearly the opposite of that, but because they no doubt expected an action packed, shoot-em-up western. And although there is a little gun-shooting sprinkled here and there throughout the film for the most part it is deliberately slow paced affair, concentrating less on money-shots and more on getting up close and personal with its characters.

Besides the amazing performances and wonderful storytelling the film has some of the best cinematography that I have seen in years. Similar to Terrence Mallick’s The New World, a film I didn’t like except for the visuals, this is a breathtakingly beautiful film that made my jaw drop more than a few times. It has what I have come to expect and enjoy most about westerns and that is wide, full and open shots of the landscape, often with mostly sky on-screen or up-close shots of the western fields. The colour of the film is crucially washed out at certain points while vivid and eye-catching at crucial others. From moment one of the film, as we see a fast-forwarded shot of clouds moving across the sky, I was hooked until the very end.

An element of telling the film’s story is through the use of narration. This can be a needless and boring thing to have in a film but here it is used perfectly in the set of key scenes it is used within. At any moment we will be told by the narrator what a character is about to do and then we get to see it a few seconds later on-screen; it may sound a little annoying but trust me it is crazily effective.

A notable technique employed in the film is the use of a blurred vision at various points. This is used to accentuate a certain character or object leaving everything else within the frame less important. It is an interesting thing to do but again it is so effective.

Yet another brilliant aspect of the film is the musical score. It is not used to force emotion or reaction, writer/director Andrew Dominik allows the characters, dialogue and visuals do that, but simply used to create atmosphere or mood. The score had my spine tingling more than once throughout the movie which is very rare for me.

If Jesse James himself were to hold a gun to my head and force me to find a flaw within the film it would be an extremely minor one. Many found the film’s weakness to be it’s very conclusion but personally I had no problem whatsoever with that. My tiny problem was the way the film mentioned different characters that were a little hard to keep track of. A name will be mentioned at a certain moment and it would take me a few minutes to think back to previous scenes to remember who it is they’re talking about. Like I said this is a minor flaw, one that can be forgiven in a heartbeat.

The Assassination of Jesse James is pretty much brilliance personified. It has almost everything you could want in a movie; amazing acting, gorgeous cinematography, unique direction, chair-clawing tension and much, much more. The precision and attention to detail from everyone involved is simply stunning. This is not, however, the mainstream film it may at first seem to be. This is a slow paced, long and sprawling film that will no doubt leave the average Joe movie-goer a bit under whelmed if expecting an action packed, shoot-em-up. I strongly encourage any quality seeking cinema goers to see Jesse James to simply witness the best film of 2007 so far.

Director - Matthew Vaughn

Writer - Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman

Starring - Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Mark Strong, Sienna Miller

Review:

Fantasy movies that are aimed primarily at kids are not really my cup of tea. Sure I will watch the odd one on DVD but rarely will I make the trip to see it in a cinema. But there was just something that looked special about Stardust that ultimately urged me enough to see it. The film had a lot of promise but in my opinion it doesn’t fully fulfil it.

The film tells the story of Tristan, a young man who makes a promise to his love that he will retrieve a fallen star for her by venturing into a magical realm which borders his small town.

The most noticeable thing about Stardust is the plethora of familiar faces sprinkled throughout the movie. Although the actor who plays the main character is fairly unrecognisable almost everyone else you will have seen in countless other films and TV shows. From the bigger actors such as Michelle Pfeiffer, in one of the best roles of the movie, and Robert De Niro (in an role that ends up being an extended gay joke) to the smaller but annoyingly familiar actors such as Dexter Fletcher (who you ay remember from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) and Mark Strong, who is one of better cast actors in the film. All of these amd more familiar faces make for a fun but at the same time annoying experience as you try and place them while trying to concentrate on the movie at the same time.

On the acting side of things in places it is accurately on-the-spot while in others it leaves something to be desired. Perhaps the mishaps in acting can be forgiven as this happens only in the smaller roles and for the most pat I really don’t have much complaint with that aspect of the film.

The story of the film itself I felt was a bit too big for it’s boots. It has a lot of ambition, more specifically the ideas employed, but I don’t think it carries it off all that well. Some of those ideas do, however, work extremely well and are impressive and mind-boggling in equal measure. I’m not going to get into details of each specific idea employed but let’s just say they are easily noticeable. Also on the positive side of the story aspect it is a tale at least I am unfamiliar with which allowed me to immerse myself in a completely new world instead of being fed the same stuff we have all seen a thousand times before.

One of the major impressive things about the film is the visuals effects ala use of CGI. Although sometimes they go overboard with it for the most part the CGI is used effectively and entertainingly. It certainly makes a welcome change from the completely overboard use of it in such films as the Spiderman and Pirates franchise.
Now on the down side of things, and this may go on a bit longer than the positive, first of all there are far too many characters. And it’s not just the very fact that there is too many characters, as we have seen it been done right ala Lord of the Rings, but that it’s not done properly. Instead of us feeling like there is this entire magical realm filled with all these wonderful and mysterious characters it ends up feeling really forced and almost as if there are only a few ‘special’ people that we just happen to see on-screen throughout the movie. It’s quite difficult to put into words but in seeing the movie you will get what I’m saying.

Something else which bothered me a lot was the amount of storylines along with the amount of characters. Although not quite as confusing and contrived as Pirates of the Caribbean 3 it still was a little too much on the confusing side. Although I had a firm enough grasp on the overall story of the film I still was left puzzled abut more than a few story arcs and the nature of some of the characters by film’s end. Imagine, if you will, a pile of books tied together by a piece of rope (a not-so-subtle reference to the Alfred Hitchcock film) only the rope is too slack and the books are almost falling; that’s what Stardust felt like to me. If only writer/director Matthew Vaughn and just everyone involved had pulled the knot on the rope a little tighter I think it would have made for a much tighter, easier-to-completely-grasp film.

But perhaps the biggest downfall of the film is the sense, or lack thereof. Everything in the film makes no sense whatsoever. Now I know you have to forgive that because it’s a fantasy film but there were just so many unbelievable (and I mean that word literally) things in the film for me to take them seriously. For instance at one point in the movie a pirate ship appears flying in the sky with Robert De Niro and crew aboard who are there for a reason that has something to do with collecting bolts of lightning. This would be fine if it had been established in some way instead of it just appearing literally from nowhere within the story. There are other countless things throughout that didn’t make any sense and were just too much for me to take.

Having said all that I didn’t hate Stardust. Like I said the CGI is impressive, some of the ideas mind-boggling and the host of familiar faces make for a fun time at the movies. However I feel the film is too ambitious for it’s own good with too many characters, plot threads and it doesn’t make a shred of sense in any way. The film’s heart is in the right place, though, even if its head isn’t.