filmbuff20 Reviews

Nurse Betty (2000)

Charming comedy, despite one jarring yet necessary scene that shot the rating to an R.

[8/10 · 9 May 2009]

Betty Sizemore (Renee Zellweger) lives her life through soap Opera "A Reason to Love" as a way to escape her slob husband and dull life. After a shocking incident involving two hit men (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock), Betty goes into shock and travels to LA, believing that she is destined to marry the show's main character (Greg Kinnear).

Nurse Betty is that rare thing, a lesser known film with an all-star cast and a fluffy Rom-Com plot that surprises with it's terrific script and spot on acting. Indeed, such a plot makes one question the R rating, but it's warranted all right. The shocking incident that sends Betty over the edge is a tad too graphic compared to the light, amusing comedy that is to come and feels like something out of a different movie, but at the same time it is necessary to believably show Betty's transformation into the doe eyed, lovable nut job she becomes.

As we go along with Betty on her journey, director Neil LaBute works some extraordinary magic which makes the movie unique and high above your bog standard comedy of error. An example of this would be Betty's first meeting with her crush. She pours her heart out to him and he plays along, thinking she's auditioning for a part on the show. Even as we are aware of the ludicrous nature of Betty's ramblings, the music swells as she speaks, giving us, the audience, Betty's emotional perspective. We almost believe what she is saying, yet we understand that her mind is fractured. Whereas other filmmakers would try to accent the ridiculousness of the situation to wring every ounce of possible comedy out of the scene, LaBute is sensitive to his main character and treats her with the utmost sympathy and understanding.

The banter between the hit men played by Freeman and Rock is priceless, the excellent script doling out clever line after clever line for them to riff off of. Freeman in particular is excellent as always, pacing himself as his character slowly and blindly falls in love with his own ideal of Betty, not even truly knowing who she is or what has happened to her. Aaron Eckhart once again shows versatility in the thankless role of Betty's no-good husband and he is almost unrecognisable. The other revelation here is Kinnear, whose portrayal of the soap's star is not too overcooked. There's a tendency to lay on the celebrity bastard cliché as thickly as possible, and Kinnear resists, instead imbuing him with a pompous yet restrained self importance, despite simply being a soap star.

The soap opera is realised so well, it could almost exist. LaBute and co hit the nail on the head with this one and a good thing too. If the soap opera had been too satirical, a large part of the film would not have worked. To do a "Days of Our Lives" spoof as seen in Friends would have been the wrong move for this movie. The dedication to detail pays off, as the style and feel of the soap opera begins to bleed into Betty's reality more and more, while keeping with the overall unintentionally comedic aspect of the genre. The scenes on the set feel real, as opposed to some films in which the atmosphere feels so manufactured, you wondered why people who do it for a living can't get it right.

The neat resolution of the final act, while being a tad predictable, is wholly satisfying overall. It's a shame that after LaBute directed this wonderful film, the mainstream came calling for him to direct the abysmal remake of The Wicker Man, a fine example of a man so totally above the material given to him. Unfortunately, one cannot absolve him of all responsibility.

If you haven't seen Nurse Betty, it's something to discover. If you have, it's worth a re-visit. There is a charm to Nurse Betty that is infectious, even if it may not leave you thinking that much afterwards. A hidden gem nonetheless.

Casino Royale (2006)

Electrifying comeback for the man in the tux.

[9/10 · 28 April 2009]

After the disappointing Die Another Day, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson needed a change, and in the midst of all the newly found gritty realism in the spy movie genre, it couldn't have come at a better time. Surviving the press and internet critiques of a film not yet even finished shooting, both producers, director and their put upon lead star were spurred on to bring out the very best product they possibly could. The result is Casino Royale, a stylish, glossy, sophisticated and at times brutal Bond movie.

When reviewing a Bond movie, three things have to be taken into account. 1) It was not made to win awards, 2) It is highly likely that if you saw the last one, this one will bear more than a passing resemblance to it, and 3) If you're a die hard Bond fan, you're probably going to love or like it no matter what. It's something to do with the swell of the music, the shaking and not stirring of a vodka martini and that bloke introducing himself again. After each film began coming out cloning it's predecessor and, more recently, a spill over into 'xXx' territory (with more cheesy one liners than you can fit in the boot of an Aston Martin) it was understandable that Bond fans would start to become restless.

So when it was announced that Bond was going back to the beginning, taking a leaf from Batman Begins, naturally the Bond fans rioted, because you just can't please some people. Next, they find out that the new Bond of the noughties was going to be a short fellow with a shock of blonde hair. How outrageous. The performance, however, speaks for itself.

Going back to the source material, Bond is now what he should be; a cold, calculating, womanising bastard with a taste for anything over 40% proof and a thirst for the kill. Craig's performance is damn near perfect, giving Bourne a run for his money in the hard-arse department. Suddenly, post Brosnan, Bond is now apart of the "who would win in a fight?" game once again.

Almost every risk taken with this film works wonderfully. We first meet Bond in black and white before securing his licence to kill, in fact, while securing his licence to kill. The unconventional gunbarrel sequence that follows integrates the familiar staple into the story. Next we follow Bond on his first mission, making sloppy mistakes, annoying his boss 'M' (the always amazing Judi Dench), gambling and hooking up with married women, all the while leaving a trail of dead bodies behind him. His mission takes him to Montenegro, where Le Chiffre, a banker with terrorist affiliations, is trying to win back the money he lost in a bad stocks call by setting up a poker game at the Casino Royale. Bond is slipped in to play Le Chiffre and win the money himself, with the buy in provided by the treasury represented by the beautiful Vesper Lynd played by the alluring Eva Green.

The film very closely follows the book in it's plot beats, changing necessary details to fill in time, action set pieces and to update to 2006. Now Bond is human, he has emotion, he feels remorse, he makes mistakes, and it helps to have a main character whom you not only secretly aspire to be, but whom you can actually invest in. There's very little wrong with this film, except perhaps a slightly uninspiring climactic set piece which is more or less for the sake of it and a few snippets of corny dialogue. The poker game that dominates the mid section is nail bitingly intense, whether you play the game or not, and the dialogue benefits from a polish by Crash scribe Paul Haggis.

The music is by far David Arnold's best James Bond score, with certain measures sounding like they were taken straight from John Barry. The main theme itself, You Know My Name, resonates throughout the entire film, standing in for the Bond theme which doesn't make an appearance in it's full glory until the end. The fact that it's not jarring to be without the Bond theme in a Bond film is a testament to Arnold's achievement.

The best thing about this movie is that it's follow ups should all be in the same vein, giving an air of "I want to see what he'll do next" rather than "oh, and this where he uses the gadget we saw at the beginning..." I hope all the naysayers are feeling, to put it in the words of Rowan Atkinson, like a right bunch of nitwits.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Casino Royale emerges from it's pre-release tabloid bashing as probably the best Bond film since Connery's hairpiece started going grey. Craig is certainly one of the closest to the Fleming vision and does cool and vulnerable at the same time, while the movie itself manages to become a Bond film that can actually have some surprises in store for it's audience.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Entertaining, but not up to the standard set by Raimi himself.

[6/10 · 28 April 2009]

In this third instalment of the popular comic book franchise, Spider-Man is up against not one, not two, but three opponents. A black gooey alien symbiote that's just conveniently crash landed from outer space and heightens the inner evil (or mildly testy, as the case is here) of anyone it attaches itself to, The Sandman who is yet another product of a freak accident and The Green Goblin's son, Harry, who slips onto Dad's glider for a little revenge, plus the addition of rival love interest Gwen Stacy to complicate Spidey's relationship with girlfriend Mary Jane Watson and the issue of Eddie Brock, a photographer who is vying for Peter's job to further complicate matters for the wall crawler.

From reading that overlong sentence, you can just about get an idea of the movie - unnecessarily jam packed with too much information. The movie begins where the last left off, with Peter and Mary Jane very much in love and Peter and Harry very much in hate. On his way home, Peter is ambushed by a newly re-muscled Harry on his glider, providing us with our very first set-piece of the movie. This is a painstakingly planned sequence, director Sam Raimi doing what he does best with his camera. Unfortunately, one cannot help but notice some of the awful full body CGI stunt men doubling for Harry and Peter. If you are eagle eyed enough to notice, you'll see this popping up throughout, jolting the viewer out of the movie.

Next we are introduced to Flint Marko, a criminal on the run who, after visiting his dying daughter, falls into a sand pit in which an unexplained particle experiment is going on (don't people read danger signs anymore?) and becomes one with the sand particles, able to shape shift and get in places people didn't know they could get sand in. The Sandman seems nothing more than another version of The Mummy, but nevertheless, Raimi manages to conjure up some interesting new visuals. The shame of it all is that the poor guy is in fact non-essential to the movie overall. His back story is a wholly unnecessary addition to events in the first Spider-Man movie and serves only to provide evil, black suited Spidey with some questionable actions to execute as a result of emotional turmoil. By the end of the film, Sandman is nothing more than a big, hulking, growling CG creation and finally, a footnote to be checked off the list of loose ends to tie up. The most telling piece of information is in the very first featurette on the DVD. Producer Avi Arad's first words to camera are how Sandman was a great opportunity for CGI. Ah. It all makes sense.

Now we come to yet another plot point, in which the alien goop connects itself to Peter's suit, creating a black suited Spidey, or 'evil' Spidey. Evil Spidey is not given a great deal of evil to actually do. Evil for Spidey is simply combing his hair downwards and behaving like a lad who has had one too many pints down the pub. Maguire does quite an impressive job conveying the 'quasi evil' side of Spidey and is obviously having fun with it, but is constricted by the limitations of the script.

There are some potentially rich character developments which are squandered in favour of packing in as much as possible. Gwen Stacy, a pivotal character in the comics who was forfeited in favour of skipping straight to Mary Jane for the first film, is wasted here in a silly subplot to make Mary Jane jealous. For what it's worth, Bryce Dallas Howard is still charming in the role, but she is short changed in favour of simply having her show up and say 'hi' to comic book fans. There's also a jarring bit of lazy resolution in the use of a shameless deus ex machina to resolve Harry's story, something which sours the rest of the film more than the overstuffed showdowns and multiple endings. Finally, Venom, fan favourite, is created by Peter's leftover goop attaching itself to Eddie Brock, played sarcastically by Topher Grace. Criminally, this happens in the last reel, giving Venom precious little screen time and rendering him another side note. He would have been better served either as main villain or as an appetite whetter for part 4 in the final frame.

This is a prime example of sacrificing the integrity of story, character and structure simply to give the fans on the internet what they're screaming to see. Ironically, it's the same fans that tear the film apart after it's release. Despite that, there are still plenty of things to enjoy about this film. The various action sequences, while seemingly rushed are still spectacular and fun to watch, the now famous Saturday Night Fever strut equally so and an amusing, if slightly out of place cameo from Raimi regular Bruce Campbell as an inept Maitre d' is bound to raise a smile.

As a cinematic experience, Spider-Man 3 is not completely unsatisfying. It contains all the fun, zest and passion for the material as the first two but the over-stuffed narrative and short changing of potentially dynamic characters is an unforgivable mistake and the law of diminishing returns threatens to plague the web crawler still further should this series continue. By the finale, all the story lines have crashed into each other messily, culminating in yet another MJ hostage situation, begging the question, do these villains have no imagination?

THE BOTTOM LINE: Good solid blockbuster fun with all the trimmings of the first two, but bigger, faster, louder and more is not always the best policy. Multiple story lines are deftly woven together for most of the running time but clumsily crash together in the finale. Better than most sequels, but not as good as the standard that this franchise sets for itself.

The Terminal (2004)

Fun, warm and engaging with Spielberg written all over it.

[7/10 · 28 April 2009]

Inspired in part by a true event, The Terminal tells the story of Viktor Navorksi (Tom Hanks), a native of the fictional Eastern European country of Krakozhia, who flies to New York to keep a promise to his father. While Viktor's plane is in the air, there is a military coup, rendering his native country unrecognised and rendering Viktor with an invalid passport and no where else to go. In short, he is unacceptable. Unable to leave the JFK transit lounge or to fly home, Viktor settles in the airport and begins to find new ways to make money, amuse himself and make friends while learning English. In the process he meets Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a troubled flight attendant whose relationship with a married man is beginning to take it's toll. She finds solace in Viktor's friendship, and Viktor develops that inevitable crush...

First of all, the obvious. Spielberg had production designer Alex McDowell build an entire terminal from scratch in an unused airplane hangar. The finished product is extremely impressive, even more so if you know that bit of trivia, so it should stand to reason that the star of the movie would be the set. Not so, as Spielberg proved with Jurassic Park, character and performance can work with technical brilliance rather than be outshone. The evidence of this is in Tom Hanks' mesmerising performance. Hanks infuses Victor with the same childlike wonder as that of his characters in Big and Forrest Gump. He loses himself in the role, from the accent right down to the walk and the blank expression, to the point where you can actually forget you're watching Tom Hanks. Although amusing early scenes have Viktor struggling with the language barrier, it's never at his expense. He's portrayed as a character with obstacles to get over and his resourcefulness in getting over them, never as an object of ridicule. In contrast, Catherine Zeta-Jones' character Amelia is not as likable as one would expect from a love interest, possibly because her character was not originally intended that way and during filming the chemistry between the two made it clear that the connection should be somewhat romantic. She isn't unnecessary, but she does give the impression that she is there solely to develop Viktor himself.

However, the other supporting players, Enrique (Diego Luna of Y Tu Mama Tambien), Gupta (Kumar Pallana) and Mulroy (Chi McBride) as airport employees never fall into the trap of 'annoying comedic padding' and are always amiable, funny and touching when they need to be. This motley crew formed a friendship during filming and it radiates off the screen. The role of workaholic immigration officer Frank Dixon is realised wonderfully in the hands of character actor Stanley Tucci. A flawed and complex creation, Dixon serves as the antagonist of the piece, trying desperately to get a promotion while trying to get Viktor out of his terminal so that he can be someone else's problem. Like Hanks' Carl Hanratty of Catch Me If You Can, it's difficult to label Dixon a bad guy. He's just doing his job, heartlessly and efficiently but is visibly conflicted about what he has to do, following the rulebook stubbornly and ruthlessly. The humanity that Tucci brings to the role elevates him beyond the usual moustache twirling villain.

On the directing side, Spielberg fills each of his frames with goodies. He has an entire airport set to play with and he uses every inch of it with a boyish delight. Despite the enormity of the set, it would still have been easy for it to become claustrophobic, but there's always something pretty to gawk at, Spielberg achieving the seemingly impossible task of making you want to live in an airport terminal. Spielberg has deliberately shied away from all out comedies since his flop '1941', but this movie's comedic element shows that he's gotten over that, flitting effortlessly between action blockbusters, sci-fi and serious historical movies. The only drawback is the overt sentimentality that dominates the last third of the movie. Some would say that this movie earns it's right to be sentimental, but it becomes a tad uncomfortable. Spielberg has been unfairly labelled as a sentimental director, due no doubt to films such as ET, Always and AI, but these people fail to realise that most of his films, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Jaws, Duel and Minority Report to name a few are at their core dark and disturbing in places, so Spielberg earns his right to lash on the weepies once in a while.

Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski's lighting and use of colour is always magnificent, but here he fills each shot with wonderfully rich golds and blues and his style, which has always complemented Spielberg's sleight of hand direction, has never been more suited to his director. The main feat achieved here is the use of artificial light doubling as daylight, something which the average film-goer won't notice, but without it, the illusion of the set would have failed.

John Williams' music is from the same ilk as his Catch Me score. Viktor's theme is an eastern European influenced riff in the form of a mischievous clarinet at the forefront which is instantly memorable and is the kind of theme that'll play a loop in your head for hours afterwards. It adds a further lightness to the film which in turn adds considerably to the overall feel good factor of a film already warming the cockles.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Spielberg has created another 'dessert' of a movie, which occasionally gets a little too sweet and sickly for it's own good, but is engaging enough that it always ensures you'll want to come back for that second helping.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Excellent Bond. Just pay attention...

[8/10 · 28 April 2009]

For the second time since Daniel Craig took the mantle of agent 007, Eon productions has once again delivered us a true spy thriller as opposed to overblown fantasy movies that were declining once again into self parody. There's nothing wrong with a good romp. In fact, Die Another Day, with all it's faults and awful innuendo, is still an entertaining Bond adventure. Now, however, Bond needs to be something more to survive in a world where franchises that have gone back to their source materials are enjoying more critical and financial success than ever before. Bond needed to go home, back to Fleming, creator of a hard drinking, womanising, cold blooded assassin who cares for no one, trusts no one and is devoted to Queen and country. A man who has more depth to him than 60% of the films would have you believe. A true, unashamed bastard.

The result is a gadget and catchphrase free Bond film that doesn't spoon feed it's audience with exposition. It manages to still feel like a Bond film without whacking you over the head with the Bond theme (although it is there) and having him introduce himself every few minutes to remind you. No, there is no Q. No, there is no Moneypenny. Are they necessary in this story? No. They would simply be there as a box to tick off which the writers and director have smartly side stepped this time around in favour of a lean thriller with a purpose.

After the events of Casino Royale, Bond is now on the tail of anyone connected to the mysterious and dangerous organisation behind the events of Casino Royale, which culminated in the death of Vesper, the woman he loved. In the process he stumbles upon Dominic Greene, a tycoon who plans to monopolise Bolivia's water supply and hold it to ransom, but first he must topple the current regime so that he can do business with the corrupt General who is positioned to inherit the land.

Along the way, Bond meets Camille, a Bolivian agent who also has a score to settle. Amidst the usual fist fights and explosions, there are some great character moments and resolutions to the loose ends of Casino Royale. Some complain about an over complex plot, but the trick is to pay attention and listen to the dialogue (a tall order for some it seems). Judi Dench plays a larger role here as M, fleshing out her relationship with Bond further. Her outward distrust and frustration with Bond belies her inner faith in him and we begin to notice that she may know him better than he knows himself.

The finale is a spectacle, of course. A hotel in the middle of the desert built on unstable hydrogen fuel cells is pure Bond. Ironically the same critics complaining about Quantum being too serious have a problem with this. The only thing that really and truly looks out of place here is Craig's bomber jacket.

The final scene caps off this two parter, with a cryptic yet poignant exchange of dialogue that moulds Bond into an island, finally. Craig's performance is pitch perfect here. He balances the hard exterior with the pain of loss inside without under or overplaying it. He is simply Bond. This scene is followed by what most believe to be one of the big no-nos of the film: The iconic gunbarell sequence. This could not be further from the truth. If Bond got his theme at the end of Casino Royale, he's certainly earned his gunbarrel here, signifying the completion of the character into someone more familiar. Let's hope he can still continue to develop in subsequent entries.

This is more in depth than anyone has any right to expect from a Bond film and hopefully this sets the bar. Maybe Craig will give us a few more 'spy thrillers' before the inevitable relapse into self parody begins again. For now though, a good script, pro acting, some blistering action and some fantastic Bond development round out a satisfying conclusion to Casino Royale. Comparisons with it's predecessor are inevitable, but despite being a sequel of sorts, Quantum continues the story while managing to be wildly different, as every new Bond entry should be. This film has had a mixed reception so far, but as a Bond fan (since age 5) I'm entirely satisfied and excited to see where they will take him.

(Please refer to the 'Help' section for information on how to vote on comments. Disagreement is inevitable with a film that has split this many people down the middle. That's not what you're voting on!)

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

A sequel easily dismissed, but worth reevaluation.

[7/10 · 2 April 2009]

Nine times out of ten, a bad Spielberg film is usually better than most. This film has a bad reputation and is usually dismissed as a less than perfect sequel, but it deserves another look, if only to show how good it really is. Sure, there are plot holes and some bad choices, but those shouldn't tarnish the overall film.

So what's the good? The dialogue for one thing is well written and well delivered. Early exchanges between field equipment expert Eddie and lead Ian Malcolm are snappy and amusing ("violence and technology - not good bedfellows!" "I would have squeezed a little tighter..."), while Pete Postlethwaite's character is magnificently arrogant and snide. Even Vince Vaughan, deprived of his usual schtick, is not given short thrift. Part of Spielberg's genius is his eye for situational character beats and his way of dealing with actors. If you notice, almost none of his films short change the characters. Hook, for example, is strongest in it's first half hour, in which we witness Banning's family problems and inability to let go of his work. Notice also Poltergeist. If anyone had any doubts as to the answer to the question of who really directed that film, compare the family scenes with Close Encounters or Jaws. Here too, Spielberg shoe horns in those moments.

Aside from the actors, the dinos are still breathtaking four years on. Why are these creatures so awesome and more recent CGI (including Spielberg's own War of the Worlds and Indy 4) are so underwhelming? The action sequences still have the punch of the original: Sarah Harding desperately trying not to move on the cracking glass that is the only thing between her and the abyss below. The velociraptor attack. The T-Rex sniffing out our heroes behind a waterfall. All wonderfully crafted sequences. Now have a look at Jurassic Park 3 and see the difference. An entertaining film, sure, but lacking the sheen and quality of a Spielberg film.

While the missing Raptor sequence that explains the deaths on the boat near the end provides the film's biggest plot hole and the King Kong homage is a little too much, the film still doesn't lose it's sense of excitement and fun, driving it to a rousing finale.

Like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which is much maligned, but I think it's the second best of the series) The Lost World is frequently dismissed, but to my mind worthy of another go.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

Welcome to a world where The Mummy Returns is a masterpiece...

[3/10 · 16 August 2008]

If someone were to have asked me about this film prior to my having seen it this evening, I would have replied that director Rob Cohen may not be the greatest in Hollywood, but is pretty reliable for entertainment value. See The Fast and the Furious, xXx and Stealth for example. Fun, action packed, nothing more. My one major mistake in that logic is forgetting that the director's last foray into the world of fantasy was the woefully abysmal Dragonheart. Needless to say, I now advise anyone to avoid all Rob Cohen films with the word "dragon" in the title at all costs.

We begin with the obligatory Mummy prologue which as it happens is as good as it gets. It pumps the juices and readies you for a thrill ride that never comes. We learn that an evil Emperor (Jet Li) was encased in molten rock back in ye olde China by a sorceress who plans to leave him there for all eternity. Then we flash forward to London 1946, in which we find retired adventurers Evie and Rick O'Connell increasingly desperate to get out there for more action, while their son sets about predictably unearthing the aforementioned Emperor over in China. In a twist of contrived fate, Jonathan, Evie's brother (once again played as irritating toff by John Hannah) happens to have a night club in Shanghai, prompting everyone to meet up for a spot of Mummy reviving. Chaos ensues and Jet Li spins around quite a bit, while not being the least bit intimidating.

Maria Bello, so wonderful in such films as The Cooler, A History of Violence, and even Coyote Ugly, puts in the worst performance of her career, turning even the most cringeworthy portions of the script into excruciating torture, her nasal Brit accent like nails on a blackboard. Dick Van Dyke beware, she's trying to nick your throne. The rest of the cast struggle with a screenplay that must have been produced by a 'type genre here' kind of script generating software. Only Brendan Fraser comes out mildly unscathed, while his director blows things up around him as messily as possible, chucking in everything from crappy CGI yetis, flawed fantasy logic and some poorly judged humour. I'll be happy never to have to hear John Hannah yelling for Brendan Fraser to spank his arse ever again, while the Yak incident hits rock bottom so hard that it's a wonder anyone on set wasn't hit by the flying shrapnel. The soundtrack blares over the pointless one liners, pillaging from both the previous scores, saying nothing new or memorable, and while the sound may be hard to make out, Cohen's Bourne-infected camera tries very hard to make each set piece harder and harder to see. These films are inspired by Indiana Jones and 40's serials, and part of their charm is their style of old school cinematography, so the jerky MTV camera here is jarring to say the least.

While the film may have it's small moments, overall it's a waste of time and talent. The change of setting is not enough to give this franchise anything particularly new, since it continues to follow the same beats of it's predecessors religiously every step of the way. The first two movies may have had their short comings, but both were still highly entertaining Jones rip-offs and quite obviously a labour of love for their creator Steven Sommers. This is just another blockbuster off the factory line for Universal, in no way a challenge for the disappointing but infinitely more enjoyable Indy IV. My advice? Go and see The Dark Knight again.

Over Her Dead Body (2008)

Entertaining. Isn't that what these films are meant to be?

[6/10 · 7 May 2008]

By now, we all know the formula of a romantic comedy. The basic framework revolves around a guy meeting a girl, a love triangle, a little white lie and an event that causes them to split before the soggy finale where they kiss and make up, living happily ever after. If you go into a rom-com expecting much more or something that deviates from that path, you'll probably be disappointed. After bar setting movies like When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless In Seattle and Four Weddings and a Funeral, the constant stream of lazy efforts in recent years can cause one to be seriously jaded by the genre. So it is with this skepticism and desire to switch off my brain, that I pop Over Her Dead Body into my DVD player. It is apparent from a mere glance at the synopsis that this film will not last long in my memory, change my life or be any kind of profound filmic experience for me, but I was entertained. The script was amusing, the delivery from the four leads (Bell, Rudd, Biggs, Longoria) precise and well timed. The premise was an interesting spin on an oft used plot device.

So what's not to like? An entertaining, funny and endearing romantic comedy. At best, a competent entry into the genre, quite a way ahead of most of it's type and at worst, a movie that feels like a sitcom without a laughter track. As someone who likes sitcoms, that isn't a particularly bad thing. In a nutshell, you could do a lot worse.

Cloverfield (2008)

Not worth the hype, but entertaining all the same.

[7/10 · 24 February 2008]

It's obvious that Cloverfield had a bout of over-hyping, mainly due to the innovative ad campaign which basically equates to the idea that anything hinted at in a trailer sends internet fanboys in a flurry of excitement and speculation. The downside is that all the anticipation can result in a resounding thud (Star Wars, but hopefully not the upcoming Indy flick). Thankfully, this film geek chose to acknowledge yet ignore all the internet madness and wait for the flick to be released. That means none of the meticulous freeze framing of the trailer to get a gander at the antagonistic 'thing' that decapitated the statue of liberty and the like.

So, was Cloverfield worth all the brouhaha? Well, yes and no. The fact is, the premise is not revolutionary and nor is the style, it's most obvious comparison being The Blair Witch Project which debuted 9 years ago to a similar fanfare (we had the poster in our common room before we even knew what it was). The main pull here is the use of character and perspective as we follow a group of New Yorkers desperately trying to survive in the wake of a monster attack. Despite reviews to the contrary, these characters are pretty well realised compared to conventional fare such as Godzilla in which we are given a linear and straightforward introduction to them, whereas here, we are treated to fragmented pieces of overlapping footage to tell the story so far.

The way the film has been shot, as if on DV camcorder, feels authentically like a home movie, which at the beginning is to the film's detriment, but it becomes obvious why the first act needed to be as it was once disaster hits. It may take a little getting used to, but it's worth it. The CG is integrated almost perfectly, glimpses here and there and feels more real than any of the robots or web slingers of last year that Hollywood offered us. In fact, the weakest point of the film is seeing the creature in full, whereas the aforementioned flicks would have thrived on that very thing.

So the point is not inherently in the idea, but the execution which is pretty effective. At one point I found myself holding my breath when dust engulfed the characters and gripping the seat when several memorable shocks presented themselves, the most notable instances involving a tunnel and later a helicopter. At the end of the day, whether you care about the characters or not is irrelevant because director Matt Reeves and exec producer JJ Abrams don't care whether you do or not. Each is expendable, however painstakingly they are established and it's this anti-Hollywood, anti-cliché attitude towards a very Hollywood idea that gives Cloverfield it's uniqueness and entertainment value. If all this seems like tosh to you, that's all very well, we can't agree on everything, but you can't deny that Cloverfield, if nothing else, is a fun night at the movies and isn't that what we missed in the summer of threequels?

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Wonderfully twisted macabre musical from a visionary.

[8/10 · 24 February 2008]

Mixing the lyrical and musical talents of Steven Sondheim and the twisted macabre of Tim Burton, Sweeney Todd is a unique beast, not neatly fitting into any one genre and therefore struggling to find it's audience in a world of viewers who seem to take their musicals and splatter-fests mutually exclusively. But Sweeney Todd is so much more than either of those two things and each serves the other to tell a rich, funny, tragic and visually wonderful story about love loss and revenge.

From the very first ominous note, we're in for a Gothic treat, the wonderful CG title sequence acting as visual overture to the musical one playing over it. We are introduced to Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), a barber whose life is stolen from him by the villainous Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman). Reminiscent of the path taken by The Count of Monte Cristo's Edmond Dantes but far less honourable, Barker returns under the name Sweeney Todd and vows revenge on those responsible.

The slightly jarring first songs can take a few minutes to adjust to for newbies, amidst the quintessentially Tim Burton looking design, but once the story's background is established and Johnny Depp's duet with Helena Bonham Carter, My Friends, begins, it is clear that the marriage of Sondheim's genius and Burton's twisted sensibility is a sound one. The lightning fast lyrics hold more cleverness in subsequent viewings and the musical nuances become more and more apparent with multiple listens. Burton draws on his influences, the washed out treatment of the picture evoking an almost black and white feel (although in colour) comprising of a blues, greys and golds with the occasional burst of vibrant colour in the dream/flashback sequences for punctuation. This is nothing new, Burton having used a similar palette for Sleepy Hollow, but just as it fit then, so too does it seem like Sondheim's Todd was meant to be lensed in that way. The character design further services Burton's filmic obsessions. The wild hair, pale skin and sunken eyes recall old horror films like The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari and Bride of Frankenstein.

The standouts among the cast, ironically, are not the certified singers. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen and Alan Rickman all give superbly shaded performances heightened by their surprising vocal talents, while Burton sprays blood everywhere as a metaphorical emotional release for Todd's ailing psychopath. The final reel is a juggernaut of tragic happenstance, with a gut wrenching final shot that makes you realise that you care for these flawed nutcases more than you'd care to admit.

In short, Sweeney Todd is a wonderful adaptation. Those coming from experience with the show will adore it and it will gain more fans who haven't seen the show as it becomes the cult film it's destined to be.

Big Nothing (2006)

Big Nothing. Or at least not very much.

[3/10 · 24 January 2008]

Big Nothing revolves around Charlie, an everyman who gets caught up in a blackly comic mess of cash and dead bodies after meeting Gus, an American accented Simon Pegg.

The initial setup is pretty thin, the call centre setting a missed opportunity, as is the plot, characters and motives. One would hope that when embarking on a scheme, that it would be smart looking to begin with, at the very least smart enough to rope in someone you've only just met, but this scheme is quite foolish from the outset. Charlie's problems are not even fully realised enough to make him look desperate. The slim running time and impatience to get to the meat don't help. Charlie is also irredeemably stupid. An ex teacher with a PHD should know how to check for a pulse or that leaving fingerprints all over the scene of the crime is not the smartest thing one could do. Pegg's character just whines and bitches throughout and doesn't even cut a likable rogue figure. In fact, surprisingly, there's nothing to like about Gus, so why should we care? Director Jean-Baptiste Andrea conjures some nice images and uses some good ideas. The opening moonlit scene, the little girl's perspective from the swing and the animated description of the plan are all quite good, but often goes too far stylistically, for example his breaking the 180 degree rule constantly in the first act which serves only to disorientate and annoy.

The plot is full of twists which is normal for a film like this, but none really stick, aside from perhaps the closing. The rest just keeps getting more and more ridiculous as it goes on. In all, Big Nothing is a mixed bag with an ironic title, one of those films you watch and then immediately forget about. The Ice Harvest did a better job at this kind of thing and that was no masterpiece either.

Let's hope that Pegg and Schwimmer's Run Fatboy Run fares better than this. In the meantime, if you want black comedy, watch Very Bad Things instead.

Tru Calling (2003–2005)

The little show that could, but wasn't allowed to. One of many.

[8/10 · 5 January 2008]

I have a new rule when selecting TV shows. If it's been cancelled, chances are it's worth a look. Sure, there are some exceptions. Blade The Series and Daybreak were cancelled with good reason. Mildly entertaining both, but not enough to sustain ratings or even individual interest in some cases. Then we have a group of tragic cancellations that were seemingly unnecessary. Firefly, Kevin Hill, The Class, Six Degrees, Commander In Chief have given way while shows like 24 and Lost, entertaining as they are, may have already jumped the shark a while ago and are in desperate need of either a makeover of a wrapping up. Ratings become more important than quality and shows like Unan1mous and The Simple Life splurge all over our screens in their stead.

In the case of Tru Calling, a clever little show riffing on themes of time travel and fate, a satisfactory ending was never allowed to see the light of day and, in the wake of some story lines heating up to the boil, was canned near the beginning of it's second season.

As we meet Tru Davies, her friend and boss Davis, her screw-up brother Harrison and (in season 1) best friend Lindsay, we are settled into a comfortable structure whereby Tru is asked for help by dead bodies and relives the day in order to save them. By episode 11 of the first season, The Longest Day, the formulaic episode structure is shaken up as Tru relives a day multiple times until she gets it right and begins to ask whether or not what she's doing is right. From here on in it gets juicier as we are introduced to Jack, Tru's counterpart who exists to make sure she fails so that fate can take it's course. It's here that the writers begin to question Tru and her abilities raising doubts in her heroic but distinctly grey re-shaping of fate. Jack is certainly a hardened, callous soul, but can we call him evil, or is doing the right thing just harder? He even goes so far as to state several times that he hates his job, and we believe him. Episode 4 of season 2 notes a challenge for Jack that he almost doesn't come back from and if developed, Jack and his arc would have been fascinating, especially with the direction the writers have said that they were planning to go in.

Unlike shows like Ghost Whisperer, in which the same thing truly does happen every week, Tru Calling was becoming more and more interesting, but a premature cut off at episode 6 of season 2 saw the end of a perfectly good show that could have been great.

The Amateurs (2005)

Joke. Thud. Joke. Thud. The flat coke of sex comedies.

[1/10 · 2 January 2008]

You may remember a little movie being advertised back in 2005 called The Moguls. It starred Jeff Bridges playing a riff on his "Dude" persona and a whole load of other respected character actors such as William Fichtner, Joe Pantoliano, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes, promising up and comer Patrick Fugit (Almost Famous) and Ted Danson. The film looked amusing, quite possibly a fine night in, one could do much worse. Time goes by and we hear nothing more about it. Then suddenly, out of the blue in November 2007, we begin to see a little movie being advertised called The Amateurs, a sweet little comedy romp starring Jeff Bridges, Ted Danson and a host of respected talent.

The reason for this pull back and re-release is simple. The Moguls, The Amateurs or whatever you want to call it, just isn't very good. In fact, it stinks like a big pile of dirty knickers. Brace yourself, because now, I'm going to tell you why.

The Moguls/Amateurs begins with Andy (Bridges) a divorcée who visits his son on his birthday to discover that his ex's new partner is filthy rich. Andy goes to his local bar, head hanging, realising he's never done anything with his life. Finally, Andy comes to the conclusion that the only way to win his son's respect is - to make a porno.

As we are introduced one by one to the characters, we meet Mo and Ron. Of course, they call them Mo-Ron. We also meet a character named Some Idiot. ("Amateur porn, the stuff that Any Idiot can make with his video camera," "hey Some Idiot's got a brother!") Moose (Danson) is gay, but doesn't want anyone to know, yet of course, they all do because he acts like your average stereotypical homosexual. Crickets. Tumbleweed. Otis, played by William Fichtner, wants to know if there's a guy who just stands around on the set and so he is made executive producer of the porno. And so the lazily written and completely unnecessary voice over goes on, pointing out each and every thing in the movie that we can quite clearly see or work out for ourselves. Andy's inner monologue delights in it's quirky pausing of the film to slip in a quick jokey point about a character or point something out to us that we may need to know later on. A neon sign saying "Look! Look here for a plot point!" would have been less obvious. This voice-over even has the audacity to tell us that when making a film, one of the main things you must do is to show and not tell. You would think that writer-director Michael Traeger would have caught the irony.

This opening half hour is rushed and unconvincing, with very little actual character development with which to care about anything that's going on. A film similar in overall character to this one would be Dodgeball in which we have a group of likable underdogs who are not only developed but have quirks that are actually quirky. Here, the characters only need a few seconds of pointless voice over to describe their entire lives and make the caricatures of Poseidon look they strolled right out of Of Mice and Men.

The script itself is a lame duck and that reflects in the performances. There are, for example, some potentially funny situations put forth here, for example the porno production meeting at Some Idiot's house where he lives with his mother, but the execution is so bland that none of the actual comedy gets across. Another scene in which Andy has an argument in a crowded coffee shop with Isiah Washington about big black phalli as customers leave in disgust also falls short and ends up being a tad racist as well as being as unfunny as, well, someone shouting the word 'd*ck' in a coffee shop. The constant, feeble, desperate attempts at euphemistic humour are about as funny as listening to a conversation between a group of 14 year old boys giggling about sex.

A burning question here is, how, if the entire crew are made to stand with their backs turned the entire way through shooting a scene, do the pans and alternative angles get in there? Extraordinary. How do industry professionals get it so wrong? You'd think they would be their own technical advisors. As it is, the cinematography in this film is flat and uninteresting, making Year of the Dog look positively vibrant.

One wonders how this cast were attracted to such a script. Lauren Graham seems to be wondering exactly what it is she's doing there as her character is nothing but a potential love interest for Bridges to bumble over. Ten Danson's buttocks look to be particularly self conscious, an image that I would have quite happily gone without. It's not sordid enough to be shocking or daring and not amiable enough to be sweet or heart warming. By the end, the film has degenerated into one big schmaltzy love-in without having earned it, culminating in an awful slow motion conga montage of respected talent acting elated in the most unconvincing way possible. The final 'twist' ending, if you can call it that, is at first glance interesting and suggests that there may be hope for the film yet, but the neatness of it all brings us right back to contrivance once again, inane voice over checking the characters' fates off the list one by one as it did at the start.

It's easy to see why this film was so desperately pulled and re-issued under the guise of quirky low budget indie. Apparently, the film is slightly re-edited in it's 2007 form, although I can scarcely imagine that a few re-cuts could improve on such a dud. I wonder if writer-director Michael Traeger really does believe that Any Idiot can make a movie. Maybe he should have just let him.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Visually and intellectually stimulating.

[9/10 · 24 December 2007]

Guillermo Del Toro's previous work was always a cut above and incredibly distinctive, so much that he could potentially become an adjective, although Tim Burtonesque is slightly easier to say than Guillermo Del Toroesque. From Cronos to The Devils Backbone to Blade 2 and more recently Hellboy, Del Toro has invited the viewer into his world of machinery and monsters. No more so than Pan's Labyrinth (more literally The Labyrinth of the Faun) in which he creates some of the most tantalisingly sumptuous images he's put to celluloid so far. In post Civil War Spain, 1944, Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) and her mother Carmen go to live with her sadistic stepfather Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez). While there she meets The Faun (Doug Jones) who tells her that she may be a lost Princess and she must complete several tasks in order to prove her identity. She agrees readily partly out of childish curiosity and partly to escape the horrors of her real world life.

From the very first frame, this film grabs you. It's absorbing to the point of being glued to the screen despite several moments which may make you want to look away. The Pale man is one of the creepiest creature inventions of recent years and Del Toro's other monsters are so fully realised and imaginative that it's hard not to be awed. In a film like Blade 2, these creations are cool. In Pan's Labyrinth, they are strangely beautiful and arresting. The acting is superb all around, Sergi Lopez more evil and twisted than anything in Ofelia's world, bearing many similarities to Ralph Feinnes' Amon Goeth and Maribel Verdu, here playing a very different role to Luisa in Y tu mamá también is wonderfully understated until her final breaking point. Newcomer Ivana Baquero acts all the recent child actors off the screen in her quietly confident performance, slowly coming of age before our eyes. The greatest thing about the fantasy of this film is that nothing is explained, just as a fairy tale would be. The habit of needing to explain everything in Hollywood films kills the wonder of the fantasy and here, Del Toro simply presents everything as 'that's the way it is.' Why do I need to go and feed these stones to a toad in a tree? That's the way it is. In the same way, some of the extreme violence in the film is presented in a brutal, shocking way to convey more or less the same message. That's the way it is.

There are parallels made between the real world and the fantasy world that are constantly revealing themselves throughout the film and almost act like easter eggs on subsequent viewings. This film was well thought through and carefully constructed and it shows through with all the details from the set designs, to the colour schemes to Guillermo Navarro's beautiful cinematography. The icing on the cake is the haunting score by Javier Navarette, guaranteed to have you humming it well after the credits roll. As far as the ending, Del Toro explains it as he sees it in interviews, but the great thing about a fairy tale is that it's whatever you want it to be and that's a rich film experience. Pan's Labyrinth is a dazzling, mesmerising piece of work that will become something of a classic in the future.

Carnal Knowledge (1971)

Challenging

[8/10 · 20 December 2007]

With Jack Nicholson's fame rising and Mike Nichols still hot from the success of The Graduate comes Carnal Knowledge, a challenging film dealing with relationships and the hardships therein.

The film begins over black screen credits in which we hear a conversation taking place between Nicholson's character Jonathan and his college roommate Sandy (played by Art Garfunkel) about women. Soon after we see the dynamic between them. Jonathan the all-knowing advice giver and Sandy the wide-eyed naive, both desperate for a chance to cop some action from the opposite sex. Sandy meets Susan (Candice Bergen) and they begin a relationship. Sandy spends his evenings disclosing all information about this to Jonathan who becomes intrigued. Jonathan and Susan start an affair behind Sandy's back. Suddenly, we're in New York. Jonathan and Sandy are grown up, Sandy is married to Susan and Jonathan is still looking for fresh meat.

Jonathan is the character we spend the most time with after the college segment. Nicholson's character is weak, angry and confused and he plays him with so much passion and complexity that it's often hard to figure out what he wants, which is true for the character himself. Garfunkel's character arc is played surprisingly well by the singer, visibly hardening and maturing while Jonathan remains childlike. Ann-Margret plays Bobbie, Jonathan's eventual girlfriend and she underplays her role to perfection, never resorting to the teary-eyed mess that most women were stereotyped to be at the time.

Nichols' style is even more evident here than in The Graduate, sometimes to the point of overkill. He uses devices like training his camera often on only one subject during scenes involving several subjects, long single shot takes and stylish lighting schemes. The film is shot almost as a play, the camera spectates and lets the performances do the talking, telling you where to look as would a spotlight. As a result, some people may find it difficult to watch, although anyone who enjoyed Nichols' more recent Closer will find something interesting here. This is not a light and happy film. It's subject matter is heavy and at times disturbingly bleak. Groundbreaking for it's time, Carnal Knowledge is definitely worth a look for Nicholson fans and a must for Nichols fans.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)

Utterly enjoyable blockbuster with a sprinkling of entertaining nonsense.

[7/10 · 20 December 2007]

A sequel is something that is never needed, unless continuing a specific story arc, so a sequel to 2004's National Treasure is without a doubt an unnecessary venture. Basically, this film is a take it or leave it kind of entertainment, though if you enjoyed the original, this one won't disappoint.

Picking up a few years after the events of National Treasure, we find Ben Gates (Nicholas Cage) living with his father (Jon Voight) after being booted out of his own house by girlfriend Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger). Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) has written a book that no-one wants to read and has had his beloved Ferrari towed. Life is hard for our characters, but you can be sure that a new treasure hunt will take place sometime in the next two hours to give them a new equilibrium to look forward to.

From the rousing opening scene depicting the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, we are thrown into a non-stop whirlwind of globe trotting and treasure seeking. We find out that a man named Wilkinson (Ed Harris) is in possession of a lost page from the diary of John Wilkes Booth which suggests Thomas Gates' involvement in the conspiracy. Thomas Gates is great, great grandfather to Benjamin Gates so naturally Gates will do anything to clear his family name.

There are quite a few familiar faces from the first film in this second outing, right down to Harvey Keitel and Jon Voight, and all seem to be having a great deal of fun with this enjoyable nonsense. Cage is at his crazy best, be it running from rival treasure hunters or staging a hilarious argument with his ex girlfriend in the middle of Buckingham Palace, he's unrestrained and is allowed to go wild which is exactly the kind of thing this movie needs. It saved Ghost Rider from being anything less than diverting, anyway. Justin Bartha's return as the wisecracking sidekick, still cracking wise, is either annoying or charming, depending which way you lean. Diane Kruger is still beautiful and has great timing, the only thing that really elevates her from her eye-candy position. Helen Mirren also makes an appearance here in a role that she didn't really need, but she looks like she's enjoying herself anyhow. She serves simply to squabble with Jon Voight as Cage squabbles with Kruger, which doesn't amount to anything more than a few extra comedic elements. Ed Harris plays a carbon copy of Sean Bean's role in the original, which in itself was a cardboard cutout bad guy role. It's not essential for the antagonist to be particularly formidable in these movies, sneering will do, but Harris' supposed ambiguity is a real weak point in the script. It's a waste considering Harris has experience in this area, what with The Rock and A History of Violence under his belt, but here he doesn't manage to be a particularly memorable or well drawn character.

It feels like the two films were made back to back. The energy is still the same, all the actors seem like they never took a break, right down to the musical score, shooting style and Cage's toupeé. If it ain't broke, don't fix. It's maybe not as tight as the first film, allowing a little flab to get in, mainly towards the middle and again during the finale, but it doesn't last very long and soon we're back in full flow again. The outcome of the clues is of course preposterous and on too large a scale to simply dismiss, the contrivance of the treasure resting place too familiar, but this at least doesn't diminish the overall fun of the flick.

Of the two treasure hunting movies to come off the back of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, National Treasure was always the more fun, beating the other movie hands down, even though it was directed by Ron Howard and actually was The Da Vinci Code. This second instalment doesn't want to do anything more than the same and, against all the odds, they churned out a crowd pleasing thrill ride of pure entertainment. It's a tad smarter, funnier and more endearing than the average blockbuster (especially when looking back at 2007) and the action, while by the numbers, doesn't disappoint either. For a fun night out, it's a sure thing, if almost instantly forgettable. If this movie does well, a loose end in the plot promises yet another sequel. Do we need it? No. Will it be as good? Probably not. Will we see it? Quite possibly, because we never learn.

Five Easy Pieces (1970)

Great characterisation, even better interpretation by Nicholson in one of his best roles.

[9/10 · 19 December 2007]

Five Easy Pieces stars Jack Nicholson as an oil rig worker who spends his life mistreating his girlfriend (a delightfully nuts Karen Black), bowling and sleeping around. After finding out his father is sick, he returns home to a very different way of life.

Nicholson is obviously one of the main elements that makes this movie great, but the rest of the cast give as good as they get and the script is astute. Anyone who feels persecuted by familial expectations can relate to this character and meet him at least halfway in his actions, but the beauty of the script is that for the most part of the film we don't understand why he does the things he does. The slow reveal is compelling and Nicholson's performance absorbing. The film is paced slow and introspective, never spoon feeding the audience how to interpret like so many films these days. Director Bob Rafelson (who later went on direct Nicholson in The Postman Always Rings Twice, Man Trouble and Blood and Wine) is not particularly showy, allowing the characters to tell the story, but his subtle visuals add depth to certain scenes, such as Nicholson's Bobby playing piano whilst the camera pans around the room over photographs showing the life he was meant to have. The ending is surprising and at the same time inevitable, guaranteed to leave you thinking about it after the credits end.

Anyone interested in character driven films should check this out. This is also one of Nicholson's most controlled performances, up there with Carnal Knowledge, Cuckoo's Nest and About Schmidt.

The Nutty Professor (1963)

False teeth and funny voice. What's not to like?

[6/10 · 15 December 2007]

Mention The Nutty Professor these days, and you'll most likely get a reply like "oh yeah, that Eddie Murphy flick where he played his whole family..." Or words to that effect. Well, it all started here. Jerry Lewis' Julius Kelp/Buddy Love combo is a marvellous creation, the Kelp side being the more comedic in nature although the Love side no less so. Word has it though, Lewis was more like Love than Kelp.

This basic Jekyll and Hyde tale is simplistic in plot but offers a wide range of comedic opportunity. Lewis is on fine form here, wringing the most out of the concept. Kelp being put on a cupboard shelf, trying out at the gym, Love charming the pants off the dean, all classic moments. The pace is a little slow in places and viewers watching for the first time may only find it funnier the second time around, but if you enjoyed the remake, you might just enjoy this.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

PT to a T.

[9/10 · 15 December 2007]

The key aspect to appreciating Paul Thomas Anderson's work is knowing before going in, that you may NOT appreciate it first time round. PT's work is an acquired taste. He utilises several devices which can be off putting to some, but absolute genius to others, such as a long wide angle takes, juxtaposing music and images to get a feeling rather than to strike a simplistic emotional tick box and realistic but stylised dialogue, delivered almost spontaneously. These aspects create a rich film experience, even if some can't quite grasp it. All of his previous films contained these things; Hard Eight, Boogie Nights and Magnolia were all PT Anderson movies to a T. Punch Drunk Love on the other hand, is a little more towards the abstract, eliciting feeling and empathy as opposed to simply showing a conventional story.

A lot of the criticism of Punch Drunk Love is inevitably down to the disgruntled Sandler fans expecting a farce. Well, this movie is funny in it's own quiet, offbeat manner. Sandler's performance is captivating, a heightened verisimilitude of his on-screen persona, hyped almost to insanity, while at the same time quiet and introverted. It's a difficult role and one that he should have had more acclaim for. It's another proof that comedians make some of the best dramatic actors. Another stand out notable is Philip Seymour Hoffman, briefly on screen, but stealing every scene he's in.

I rate this film high, not only because of it's undeniable brilliance and the fact that if I ever met Anderson I would have to shake his hand enthusiastically and beg him to tell me how he does it, but also because I know that when I inevitably revisit this film again, I will have a whole new experience. Everything here is symbolic of something and I look forward to seeing what I missed the first time round with the benefit of hindsight.

Recommended to anyone with more than a passing interest in film and a bit of patience with which to experience a small masterpiece.

Ratatouille (2007)

A Rat's Life

[8/10 · 6 December 2007]

First there were toys. Then there were bugs. Then there were one eyed green things with Billy Crystal's voice. Then there were automobiles. Pixar has asked us many favours over the years and we have all happily, gladly and willingly obliged. Empathise with the things in this world least likely to be empathised with. Inanimate objects. Insects. Now - rodents. Pixar have succeeded in everything so far, but rats must always have been tricky. Specifically, we're talking semi-real world rats, in a semi-real world setting. In this case, a kitchen.

It is a testament to Pixar's genius that I even mention having a problem with this. Most of the little animated cuties in films like Basil the Great Mouse Detective or The Rescuers etc are set apart from all other vermin by being distinctly cuddly and humanoid. Basil, for one, was Sherlock Holmes, wearing human clothes and adapting the rodent underworld into a human-like environment. But in this case, we're dealing with Brad Bird, director of The Incredibles, who gives us little gems of nuance to give his animated reality an identifiable sheen. The Incredibles, for example, is as preposterous as Sky High, yet includes such themes as bored in the office, family troubles and the like. His storytelling is unique and the animated world is so very layered that it is lifted high above some of the child fodder put out by Fox animation and, ahem, IDT Entertainment. It is this that gives Ratatouille some of it's magic.

Yes, these rats talk, but only to each other. All human ears can hear is squeaking. But really, this movie does not delude itself or it's audience. These are cute and cuddly rats, but nevertheless, rats in the kitchen are disgusting. So, once you get past that aspect, you can begin to invest. The plot involves a rat named Remy who loves good food and likes to experiment with cooking. A chance meeting with a young man named Linguini in a restaurant kitchen causes them to team up and begin cooking together, garnering acclaim. I won't tell anymore than that because it's much more fun to find out for yourself.

The film's voice talents are spot on. The trick here is that no-one is particularly recognisable (aside from Peter O'Toole who is absolutely marvellous as usual). In animated films such as Shark Tale, the focus is taken off the story in favour of showcasing Jack Black! Will Smith! Angelina Jolie! much to the detriment of the final product (the excessive pop culture referencing is enough already as well). In this movie, the story is it's own boss, even going so far as to continue to be real-world even in light of certain ridiculous developments (which are a lot of fun, just ridiculous!). There is slightly less laughter than one might expect, but it's not really noticeable as everything else is so absorbing. The existing one liners however never miss ("we don't mean to be rude, but we're French!"). The animation, shown up wonderfully on the crisp, clear DVD (that's normal DVD, HD can kiss my butt) is perfect, showing Shrek the Third up easily. So, my only comment would be the slow start. Normally these movies get better when I watch them again, so maybe opinion will change. Until then, any further analysing would be overkill. It's a cartoon after all, and a damn entertaining one at that. Now, who's hungry?

The Golden Compass (2007)

"It's just a little cut..."

[7/10 · 5 December 2007]

Hyped by New Line Cinema as their new Lord of the Rings-style moneymaker, The Golden Compass is an adaptation of the first in a trilogy written by British Author Phillip Pullman and couldn't be further from the Rings trilogy or the Narnia books to which it is always compared. For a start, Pullman has been accused of promoting atheism, something that Tolkien and Lewis were clearly combating and this is the second book-to-film in as many years that has been attacked by the Church, the first being the Da Vinci Code which thrived because of the fuss, not because it was actually any good. Despite such controversy, the film will be taken as an entertaining fantasy by most viewers and does not deal directly with some of the more inflammatory issues of the books. The story takes place in a parallel universe only slightly different to our own in which the human soul is manifested as an animal known as a 'daemon.' The heroine is a young girl named Lyra who goes on a quest to rescue her kidnapped best friend from the sinister Oblation Board.

The first thing to remember when going to see an adaptation of a book on the big screen is that books are not films. Films that are translated literally from their book counterparts run the risk of failing miserably. An example would be the aforementioned Da Vinci Code, a surprisingly dull affair given it's 'thriller' moniker. Thankfully, The Golden Compass does not fall prey to this, from the get go explaining all there is to know about this strange new world unfolding before the viewers' eyes before allowing them to settle into it. Put simply, this movie captures the essence of it's novel counterpart to a T. It's handling of the complex other world and it's societies is more or less faultless, even going so far as to explain more than the book does in some places. The special effects are grand and do not show obvious 'joins' like some other blockbusters using CGI of recent months. But this is not a CGI movie. This movie uses CGI to realise itself and that is commendable in this day and age of movies.

The cast is comprised of some fine actors, such as Daniel Craig, underused in a role that could have been more (more on that later), Christopher Lee (whose fleeting appearance gets almost top billing in the end credits for some reason), with Ian McKellen and Ian McShane as Armoured Bears. The rest of the cast, Nicole Kidman as the cunning and evil Mrs Coulter, Eva Green as Serafina Pekkala of the Witch Clan and newcomer Dakota Blue Richards all fill out their roles nicely, the latter proving that not all child actors need to grate on the nerves. She shows fire and promise for the future and embodies Lyra.

It takes a while to get going, but once invested in the world and it's idiosyncrasies, the viewer is transported, empathising with things that are new and original ideas, things the viewer would not necessarily understand had they not been handled correctly. There is a rush of elation during the battle scenes, the swell of the score, while not being particularly recognisable, causing the action to soar with emotional resonance countering other movies' action for action's sake (such as the recent Shoot Em Up, in which no-one could really care who lives or dies).

The decision making for most departures from the book are, as mentioned earlier, pretty good. There is an additional scene involving Daniel Craig's character which is only hinted at in the book that provides him with an exciting 'Bond' moment and a switching around of certain scenes that does wonders for the pacing. Some others do not fare so well, for example, if our heroine Lyra gets across a chasm using a bridge that crumbles behind her, how do all of her adult companions make it over there later on to join her? Other things are scrapped, not in favour of the movie but obviously by rule of the studio, Hollywood being afraid of ambiguity or questionable character in their big money making summer blockbuster machines. This also serves to dampen the experience a little (for those who have read the book at least) in which an otherwise deep and richly thoughtful adaptation of an equally rich book is short changed by being slightly dumbed down. In relation to this, book fans will be crushed to find that the last few chapters have been excised in favour of a more upbeat ending. An unfortunate move on the part of the studio as this serves to dull the ending of the first film and convolute the beginning of the second. This also affects the overall structure of the film, Weitz having to change events around in order to accommodate it. Viewers unfamiliar with the books may notice that there is no payoff to speak of in act III leaving less of a reason to return for the sequel than if the original ending had been left alone.

Director Chris Weitz does a fabulous job with the material despite the obvious studio interference, and hopefully he will be asked back to direct again, just maybe with a new screenwriter to tighten things up a bit.

In all, an enjoyable film save for these minute, but in the long run heavy problems. One wonders if Mrs Coulter was actually in the editing room with her golden monkey, whispering sweetly in the editor's ear "it's just a little cut..."

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

More adolescent than specifically designed adolescent movies.

[1/10 · 31 October 2007]

I sat in the darkened theatre pondering this question: if the 7 teenagers in front of me were having such a great time, why wasn't I? Was I missing something here? Did I not get it? I came to the conclusion as the credits rolled, that I got it alright. It just didn't work. I glance at the kids in the rising light looking like they just got off a roller-coaster, and I understand. I'm not a teenager.

This is more of a kid's movie than any of the so-called kid's movies I saw this year. Stardust was an adult oriented fantasy. Ratatouille had distinctly adult oriented humour that no doubt went over most kid's heads. Yet a film that is supposed to be adult, Die Hard 4.0, was aimed directly at the kids. And now this, the kind of movie I would have lapped up at 15 or so. It has everything I would have wanted back then: Gunfire, swearing, boobies, bad puns, lots of blood, increasingly gory deaths. Oh, and er, lactating hookers. This is a film that is decadent and racy for the sake of it, possibly to have it's pre-pubescent audience snigger at the use of a rude word. There are those who would frivolously use the word 'satire' to describe this film. Shoot 'Em Up does not even come close to being that deep. In the end, it just becomes a pale imitation of the folly it pokes fun at.

The plot is non-existent. I expected this much, only I half expected for there to be at least a thread to hold it all together. I was wrong. Instead, it has different variations on that cinematic darling, the gunfight. We have gunfight while eating carrot, death by carrot, firing a gun with a carrot, gunfight during sex, gunfight while birthing, gunfight while parachuting and gunfight with no workable fingers with which to fire (that's where the carrot comes in again). Imagine if you will, an E! Entertainment special, Top 1001 movie gunfights and you have Shoot 'Em Up. It's trying to be desperately clever and winds up being desperately generic. Some are even pretty well constructed, but others, the majority, instantly forgettable.

There's no character development to speak of, which again, I expected, but these people are literally made of cardboard. How can an audience be expected to be thrilled by a gunfight if they don't care about anyone in it? Furthermore, the script is so full of cringe-worthy lines, it's hard to see why writer Michael Davis may have thought he was being clever when writing them. Clive Owen's mythical charisma is lost on me. I see him at his best in small films such as Croupier or Children of Men in which he actually plays a character, but so far his blockbuster roles have been disappointing. His King Arthur was about as stale as they come and his deadpanning in this role feels forced and unenthusiastic. Paul Giamatti looks like he's having fun chewing the scenery, but chew the scenery is all he does and try as he might to be menacing, he falls short of creating any kind of tension.

Director Michael Davis brought us some teen comedies early in the decade such as 100 Girls and Girl Fever, neither of which impressed me due to their complete immaturity and their utter tastelessness, compared even to the likes of Tomcats. Shoot 'Em Up has done nothing to change my mind about his work. Thanks to Girl Fever, I'll never be able to think about Clint Howard the same way again.

So, to sum up, a gormless mess of action sequences, starring the 'almost James Bond' with less plot than a Michael Bay extravaganza and a large abundance of carrots. Movies need a certain amount of substance to survive. This had none. A waste of time and money.

Tru Calling: The Longest Day (2004) Season 1, Episode 11

"There's a plan for everyone."

[8/10 · 20 April 2007]

"The Longest Day" marks a change of pace for "Tru Calling" after 10 rather formulaic episodes. This day rewinds a total of 4 times, each time resulting in a different death, and Tru must Groundhog Day her way to the end of it, replaying the day until she gets it right.

The main question posed here is: Who lives and who dies? Who decides? This is the first episode where Tru really begins to question the moral consequences of her abilities. In one scene she asks Davis "How do I know what fate wants?" Does Tru have the right, just because she can, to change the life plan for the people she saves? Is it not their time to go? SPOILER These questions raised pave the way for Jack, her opposite, played by Jason Priesley in later episodes, who's job it is to make sure the day plays out the way it's supposed to and to stop Tru from saving these people. The great thing about Jack is that we don't know if he truly is a villain, and, had the series continued, these questions would have been dealt with in greater detail. I'm sure it would have been a richer series had it been allowed to get going. Having said that, series 2 is very, very juicy stuff.

As for this episode, as I've said, it's pivotal to the change in the series and the change in structure. Definitely recommended.

Ghost Whisperer: The Ghost Within (2006) Season 2, Episode 4

Intriguing

[7/10 · 7 December 2006]

Why the low rating? This episode is more interesting than the usual "someone's dead, now I have to convince their family I can see ghosts so they can move on(and don't forget the tears).

In this episode, Melinda buys a collection of ornaments from a flea market that have a mute spirit attached to them. I won't reveal anything else, that'd spoil the fun if you haven't seen the ep yet.

I used to think this show needed more evil. OK, it could do with it in light splodges here and there, but Supernatural can take care of all evil spirit needs. What this show needs most is exactly what this episode (in part) provides. Mystery. The more anomalies, the more intrigue, the more Melinda can't quite grasp what she's up against, the more bums will be on seats come airing night. Oh, and the more Jay Mohr we'll get. I never laugh during Ghost Whisperer, this guy provides some much needed comic relief. Oh, and there's a CGI sequence here that really surprised me. For a show with a budget like this, that's some nice, creative work.

So, aside from evil and mystery, we need a through line, something connecting the episodes together and it looks like that's coming back. Call it this season's 'laughing man' or whatever. We're at a stage where this show is just getting better and better, because, let's face it, there's a few more solid spirit oriented shows out there, so this one needs to pull it's socks up. There are a few 'formulaic' bits that need to be shaken up. There are things one can't avoid like in this episode for example, Delia's oh-so-obvious role in the series, to replace Andrea, is played out in a way where one can almost lip-sync with the scene without having ever seen it before. So, not perfect, but surely entertaining. And I'm not ashamed to admit it!

The Fog (2005)

Worships the original, then defecates all over it.

[3/10 · 19 February 2006]

When a remake is released, fans of the original can pick it apart for two reasons. Either it is too reminiscent of it's predecessor and therefore a pointless exercise (see Gus Van Sant's Psycho) or it isn't close enough to the original hence undeserving of it's title (see The Italian Job.) This remake of a low budget John Carpenter horror flick, the second to be released in 2005, manages to fail miserably on both counts. I warn you now, this deconstruction will contain spoilers.

John Carpenter was a master filmmaker in his heyday. Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, Escape From New York, all cult classics. The Fog did less business than Halloween had done a year before and a lot of people missed it. A shame, because it's Carpenter at his schlocky best, laden with cheese and bad acting, but great fun. Carpenter's gift for creating wonder is evident in the first minutes as a craggy old sailor tells a group of wide-eyed sprogs a tale of the sea that occurred exactly 100 years ago to that day, in which we learn that the founding fathers of Antonio Bay murdered a ship full of sailors and stole their gold to build the town. We are then introduced to the principals. Nick Castle played by Tom Atkins (Lethal Weapon), Jamie Lee Curtis as hitchhiker Elizabeth Solley and Hal Holbrook camping it up as the impending-doom-fearing Father Malone. That's a tradition of that time in which all horror films needed a worried looking priest to hold it together. Chaos ensues, there are jumps and scares galore and if someone comes knocking at your door in the middle of watching this movie, you will jump six feet in the air, as the wronged sailors return through the fog to wreak vengeance on the towns people.

Now, to 2005. Smallville star Tom Welling, Lost star Maggie Grace and Hellboy's Selma Blair all play roles taken straight from the original's screenplay. Hell, even some of the lines are direct from the 1980 flick. The first hour for the viewer who has seen the original, is deja vous as the movie plays out much in the same way. There are a few changes. The budget is bigger so the gloss shines through and some minor character changes are weaved in. Still, you're watching the same movie. In a 10 minute period, all mystery and fear (if you had any to begin with) evaporate as the story that our craggy old seaman told at the beginning of Carpenter's Fog is played out in flashback. Then, the ghosts start talking. Then the main honcho who could just as well be Cap'n Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean, kisses Maggie Grace's character and, well, it just doesn't bear talking about. Gone is the fear of the creeping fog bank. Gone are the faceless ghouls who will stop at nothing to get their revenge. Now you just wish they would have left it alone. Where the original had a dynamic ending, in this film the ghosts just leave. Honestly. It's like Michael Myers taking off his mask and sitting down to have a cup of hot tea with the kids.

Normally I would judge a remake on it's own merits, but this doesn't have any and it's insistence on following the original so closely for most of the run time revokes it's "stand alone film" privileges. Despite some creepy images, the direction from Stigmata helmer Rupert Wainwright is downright tiresome. Some of the film's most intense scenes are intensity free due to his overuse of slow motion and the uneven but overall snail like pace. Tom Welling and Maggie Grace are dull. Simply dull. They aren't like that on their respective TV shows. They have potential. It just goes to show that sometimes, actors need to do the high profile movie, good or bad, to get money and attention. In summation, see the grainy, low budget, badly acted original and enjoy, because this big budget update can't stand under the weight of it's unnecessary CGI and poor direction. If you see one Carpenter remake this year, see Assault on Precint 13.