Adam's 2008 Preview

With the Writers Guild of America on strike the 2008 movie season is a little up in the air. Some big films have completely fallen by the wayside - most notably (for me at least) was a film I was immensely looking forward to in Pompeii - Roman Polanski's adaptation of the brilliant Robert Harris novel. Others have been indefinitely delayed, including Ron Howard's Da Vinci code follow up, Angels and Demons. Many films slated for release in 2008 will only complete if the strike ends reasonably soon. With that in mind some of the following may not actually find themselves released this coming year, although I think I've chosen a top 10 that should be unaffected by the strike. Some other promising films may have made my top 10 but their future is still undecided. And of course there may be a couple of films that are completely under the radar that I haven't got my eye on, and they'll probably be the films that I appreciate the most. That all said, here are the top 10 films I am most looking forward to in 2008...

10. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – Well this had to appear on this list somewhere. I pretty much write off every summer as a complete waste of time – in fact not since 2000’s Gladiator have a I seen a summer film that could be considered awards worthy. That’s not to say all summer films are bad. Just 95% of them. This though has the potential to buck the trend. The three films in the series to date are all highly recommended and with the pedigree involved you’d hope that the same will be true of this. Lengthy delays in production will have the doubters writing this off already – there must have been more rewrites on this script than on all of the scripts Spielberg’s previously worked on put together. After ditching versions by M Night Shyamalan, Tom Stoppard and Frank Darabont, they finally went with a version from David Koepp – he of Jurassic Park, Zathura and Mission Impossible fame. Maybe I’m not looking forward to this after all.

9. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – David Fincher’s follow up to the brilliant Zodiac tells the story of Benjamin Button, a man who starts aging backwards with bizarre consequences. I’m not normally into either Brad Pitt or fantasy films but with Fincher at the helm it’ll be hard to imagine this being anything less than very well executed.

8. The International – Looking at my list there’s more than a fair share of thrillers. When thrillers are done well they are probably my favourite genre of film. The number of Hitchcock films in my top 25 is testament to that, as is the high placings of films like Silence of the Lambs, The China Syndrome and The Conversation. Smart adult thrillers are as satisfying as anything cinema can offer – they leave you breathless and excited n a way that other genres can not often match. The trouble is thrillers are so rarely done well – in fact aside from last year’s 36, there hasn’t been a thriller on my year end lists for years. After such a long barren spell 2007 proved to be a very welcome surprise with half a dozen intelligent thrillers coming along at once. Michael Clayton, Breach, Zodiac, Eastern Promises, Tell No One and The Lookout will all be vying for a place on my best of 2007 list. IMDb tells us that The International is about an Interpol agent attempting to expose a high-profile financial institution's role in an international arms dealing ring. The agent is Clive Owen. He costars with Naomi Watts. Can it continue the trend of high quality thrills that 2007 offered? We’ll have to wait and see. Tom Twyker directs.

7. Star Trek XI – Okay okay, I’m a trekkie. But not a real one. I only like Star Trek: The Next Generation. And that’s allowed, because it is absolutely undeniably awesome. Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner were brilliant week after week and there were some absolutely genius episodes – even Emmy took notice and gave it a Best Drama nomination in its 7^th season, making it the only incarnation of Star Trek to be so honoured. I told you it was the best one. So then I was naturally disappointed to learn that the eleventh film adaptation of the Star Trek franchise has dispensed with the Next Generation crew and started afresh. I loved all the film incarnations – even Insurrection, which seemed to have killed off the TNG crew as it performed poorly at the box office. There is some good news though – producers have not gone with the crews of Voyager, Deep Space Nine or Enterprise. That would’ve been too much to bear. So we’ve a brand new crew with JJ Abrams taking Star Trek back to its roots instead. Matt Damon was once rumoured to be Kirk, but they’ve gone with relative newcomer Chris Pine instead. Who knows how this’ll pan out, but I’ll be there to watch it regardless.

6. Valkyrie - A Tom Cruise film is not one you’d expect to see on my top 10 most anticipated list but this is not your typical Tom Cruise film. Or at least it doesn’t look like it is. With a supporting cast of British greats which include Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, Terence Stamp and , most notably, Tom Wilkinson, this has piqued my curiosity and I’ll be eager to see how this plays out. Valkyrie is the historical drama about a plot to assassinate Hitler. This could be a complete misfire but, quite possibly could be one of those rare films that resonate equally with critics and the movie-going public alike.

5. Shine a Light – A Martin Scorsese documentary on the Rolling Stones is the year’s surest bet. I’ll give it an A right now!

4. Burn After Reading – The Coen brothers found great form and critical acclaim with this year’s No Country for Old Men – a sure-fire Oscar nominee and already recipient of a huge number of critics awards. I’ll see it on Jan 18^th (stay tuned for my review) but this is all about next year’s films – so my eyes are already looking ahead to the Coen’s next one. Here they re-team with George Clooney in a comedy drama about two unscrupulous gym employees who attempt to sell a CIA disk. Joining Clooney are Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich and Frances McDormund. This looks a fairly safe bet.

3. Body of Lies – A raft of Iraq based films in 2007 tanked at the box office but that hasn’t put off Ridley Scott in developing a William Monahan script (he of Oscar winning The Departed fame) of the David Ignatius novel. IMDb tells us a former journalist injured in the Iraq war is hired by the CIA to track down an Al Qaeda leader in Jordan, but the most interesting news on this film is the casting of the two leads – Leonardo Di Caprio and Russell Crowe. It seems compulsory now for Crowe to star in all Ridley Scott’s films, and when you work as well together as they do (A Good Year notwithstanding), why not. Leo is finally getting the critical acclaim to match his legions of fans worldwide and they consistently deliver great performances in everything they do. It'll be fascinating to see them work alongside each other. Joining them is an actress who also features in Valkyrie: Carice Von Houten. That’s a couple of impressively high profile movies to have snagged a role in in the same year - I wonder whether this’ll be a break-out year for her? One thing is for sure, with one of my favourite directors at the helm, this will be handsomely shot, beautiful to look at and if the substance matches Scott’s legendary vision then it could well be one of the best films of the year.

2. MR73 – My favourite film of 2006 was Olivier Marchal’s 36 Quai des Orfèvres, a stylish French film starring the equally brilliant Daniel Auteil and Gerard Depardieu – the latter taking 5^th spot on my year end awards list. Marchel treads a similar path in MR73 – it’s another police thriller starring Auteil and if he can capture half the excitement of 36 then this’ll be well worth seeing. 36 had so many outstanding things going for it, from the a blue hued palette of the cinematography; a moody, tension magnifying score; a cracking plot full of unexpected yet convincing twists and turns; wonderful acting and direction that was both elegant and straight-forward. Marchal didn’t go down the quick-cutting, handheld route that seems practically obligatory in recent action thrillers, instead creating a stylish film with substance through good old fashioned trick of building suspense from start to finish, drawing the viewer in, taking hold and never letting go until the credits stop rolling. I hope MR73 can offer some similar brilliance.

1. Revolutionary Road – Sam Mendes has made 3 films. I’ve graded them A+, A+ and A-. Mendes is absolutely the director whose work I look forward to the most – heck he directed a film I saw 3 times in cinemas, one which tops my Greatest Film of All Times list. That film is Road to Perdition, his other A+ entry is American Beauty and his worst film to date – one I’d unhesitatingly recommend - is the brilliant Jarhead. In our year end awards, American Beauty and Road to Perdition top their respective years and Jarhead finds itself in the runner up spot. This is an impossibly high bar to live up to but I have faith in Mendes especially with a bit of casting that is every bit as fascinating as the pairing of Leo and Russell.

Leo’s in this as well, and alongside is Mrs Sam Mendes herself, Kate Winslet. It’s the first time Mendes has directed his wife. It’s the first time Winslet and Di Caprio have been paired since their star-making turns in Titanic, 10 years ago. For all Titanic’s detractors (and I’m certainly not one of them) I haven’t seen too many complaints of the chemistry between the two leads and their acting ability is unquestioned. Di Caprio has won three Oscar nominations; What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Aviator and last year’s Blood Diamond. A strange nomination the last one, being as he was far better in The Departed.  Leo will be pleased to have noted he earned a prestigious runner up spot on my 2006 movie years ballot for his effort in Scorsese's film.

Winslet’s critical acclaim is through the roof. 5 Oscar nominations by her 30^th birthday is the most in the history of the Academy Awards. That’s more nominations than Kathryn Hepburn and Meryl Streep had by their 30^th birthdays. The only blemish is that she’s not won one yet, maybe that’ll change this year?

Revolutionary Road is a drama exploring the troubles of a couple trying to raise two children. There are no gimmicks here. No fancy plot twists or quirky characters. Just (I expect) great acting and direction. Roger Deakins is doing the cinematography and Thomas Newman is scoring. If I don’t see this on opening weekend it’ll be an interminable wait.

The Last Extras

Caught this last night. It's a pretty good end to a brilliant show, featuring a great performance from Ricky Gervais - who closes with as impressive a scene as the closing scene at the end of series 2 of The Office. Cameos from George Michael and Clive Owen are enjoyable. Owen actually channels Gervais a little bit in his biggest scene and it's great. It's also wonderful to see Simon Pye return as Greg - truly the most consistently funny supporting character in the show.

However the christmas special is not played purely for laughs. There's some substance to this and Gervais' diatribe about the public obsession with celebrity suggests he may well be capable of something significant in a dramatic role at some point in the future.

In the end though, the special is once again about friendship, and although I feel the plot is a complete rehash of season 2 episode 6, in which Gervais lets fame go to his head, treats his friends (well, friend) badly, and then belatedly realises the error of his ways, it's done well enough to make it well worth watching.

It also features an absolutely kick-ass song from Kate Bush, which may well be the best thing in it, but that's not to say the rest is anything less than very very good.

V For Vendetta

Avid readers of our great site will have clocked, in our recent rundown of grade-boundaries, that F-graded films are rare...

Well, V is almost one. Very almost. It's actually just a piece of subjective prejudice that keeps it at D- and if you want to know why, you'll just have to read on...

This film is completely hopeless from start to finish and pretty much everything about it is atrocious. It's actually very difficult to review films as bad as this because you have very little interesting to say and that is as big an indictment of a film as they come really.

Natalie Portman is as god-awful as her accent, the normally brilliant Hugo Weaving is incredibly annoying as the hero you couldn't care less about, the chemistry is terrible between the two leads, the plot is garbled and unclear (if timely, I'll come back to that), the dialogue is among the worst I've ever had the misfortune to sit through and the boring, predictable, violence serves no point whatsoever. Utter garbage.

As you can probably tell, I'm not the Wachowski brothers biggest fan. They dress up cliched and pretentious in a ridiculous cloak of intelligence draped in pointless violence that achieves nothing. The result is that a would-be interesting point is lost somewhere in the vast terrains of egotistical nonsense they heap on us. I've seen three films they've been involved in and they'd score D+, F, C+ and... well you'll just have to wait and see.

And I really can't tell you how irritating "V" - the 'hero' - is. Two or three minutes in you are already desperate to smack him in his grinning mouth. Would breeze into my top 20 worst characters ever depicted on screen.

Look at him! Don't you just want to smack him?

The long and the short of all this is that this is a hopeless, awful, film that has nothing to recommend it at all and I would seriously advise all to ignore like the plague. It is, therefore, completely and fully deserving of an...

F

But...

I'm a lefty and this film, does, at least, make a couple of relevant points about the society in which we live. I did, the next day, catch myself thinking about the nice way it suggests a revolution can be brought about by a symbolic firework (so to speak), and it does make a point about the facistic levels of immigration control and immigration policy in 21st Century Britain, so, because of that I'm going, purely on the basis of subjective prejudice which got me thinking about it again the next day, give it a very very generous:

D- Or perhaps that should be "V for Very (Very) Bad"

BTW, this is voted number #144 on IMDB's list of all-time great movies. How is that possible? I genuinely am stumped, this is a completely awful film from start to finish. Even the guy who wrote the graphic novel disassociated himself from it. I don't blame him!

The Philosophy of Film #1

Ethics


Thought I'd start up a new thread. Not sure how it's going to go, so please bear with me. I know some of these longer posts can be a bit of a slog, but I'll try to keep it interesting.

The philosophy of film and cinema can be approached from a number of angles. The famous French philosopher Gilles Deleuze wrote a two volume work on it and, of course, there are all kinds of books, courses and thoughts on the matter. I cannot even pretend to be an initiate, let alone an expert, but I can claim to be interested in the effect film can have and passionate about the reasons for that (among other things), so here goes. Be gentle with the comments.

There is a huge controversy in moral philosophy and ethics over whether our moral values are, or can be, objectively true. Most philosophers tend to think not, I disagree (though I am not a philosopher). This might seem an unlikely debate film can shed some light on, but I strongly believe it can.

It is certainly true that (as the philosopher Donald Davidson puts it) in our weaker moments we all tend to be moral objectivists. When, in everyday talk, I state that 'the current state of world poverty is unjust', it's plain that I believe that statement to be true. True, objectively, that is, not just true for me. In fact, this is a good example to employ, as most people (I believe and hope) would agree. Though they certainly disagree over what obligations this gives rise to, for us as individuals and as citizens of individual countries.

Some respond that our moral values are not objectively 'out there' in the 'fabric of the world' or some other such talk, which suggests that ethics eventually must always come down to subjective opinion. J.L. Mackie's book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong is an excellent illustration of this.
The title of Mackie's book is inherently misleading. It is completely implausible to say that you can just invent a language, or a means of talking, that just suits you and that makes no sense to other people. This is key. You just would not be able to make yourself understood. Imagine that some person sees a creature in her dreams she hears called 'Landasti'. Her talk of 'Landasti' in everyday communication will result in puzzled looks and raised eyebrows. Where is the evidence for her belief in creatures called 'Landasti'? The answer in short is nowhere. She might be able to make herself understood by describing the creature in detail and a picture may well form in the minds of her hearers, but if she persisted in her talk of the existence of 'Landasti' in the world, she would most likely be considered delusional. She would fare no better than if she began speaking about an emotion called ‘Borabora’ which she offered no other explanation for other than the name. Of course, her Borabora might, on reflection and conversation with others, turn out to be something else which does make sense to her listeners, but that is another matter.

And yet, with ethics, there is clear evidence for the existence of basic shared truths and common moral ground. Okay, you cannot 'see' ethics and morals (in one sense at least) somewhere out there in 'the fabric of the world' in the way you can see 'leaf', 'chair', 'train', 'tree' (and so on), but the same process is surely involved. It is this. The existence of such things is confirmed by a fundamentally intersubjective process relying on three varieties of knowledge. Knowledge of my mind, knowledge of other minds and knowledge of a shared outside world. Knowledge is not, when looked at in this light, subjective and it doesn't need to be. This translates into a triangle of speaker, hearer and shared outside world. The infant learns 'leaf' in the presence of leaves (which she is seeing 'in the world') and with the correct prompt from the parent of the word 'leaf' (who are assuming, yes assuming, that the infant is noticing the correct phenomena). We are generally prompted to say the sentence 'that's a leaf' by the presence of leaves. Sounds obvious, I know, but it's fundamental. That will be confirmed by conversation with others who will (we can be sure) be noticing the same thing.

It's the same with ethics and moral judgements. At least, I think it must be. Imagine two people see a man kicking a dog. They may well say (if they enjoy stating the obvious) that 'there's a man kicking a dog' because there is some appropriate event occurring in the world involving humans, dogs and kicking. They are also very likely (though, regrettably, not 100% certain) to find that objectionable. If they speak with one another about the event they are both noticing they may well come to understand that they are feeling similar things, just like the infant with the leaf. Ethics were not invented. They couldn't have been. Ethical language just wouldn't make sense to people who do not think or feel or believe or act ethically. This does not mean that ethical language cannot be manipulated and distorted. It can, and history proves it.

This, finally, is where film comes in. I think that film and cinema stand hugely in favour of the objectivity of values and ethics. In fact, I think this explains why film is, in the first place, so successful (or why good films are so successful). It speaks to us.

The film functions by communicating with you on a level that makes you sympathise with its characters when they are heroes and deplore other characters when they are villains. No one wants Blofeld to win, everyone wants Bond to win. No one wants Bridget Jones to go for Hugh Grant's character. No one wants Spiderman to die. At least, generally speaking. We cheer for the heroes and boo the villains. It is amazing that such a cinematic commonplace can have such significance which, I suspect, we don't generally think about. And if you started having a conversation with your cinematic neighbour about why you don't want Spiderman to die and Venom to win, it would quickly become clear why you both thought this. And it would be based on some level of common moral understanding. It must be. A common, shared, outside world is causing us to think and to behave in appropriate ways.

Now, this is not to cast aspersions on one other fascinating aspect of moral philosophy, disagreement and diversion. If you look around the world, we clearly don't all think the same. We disagree. And yet, films from cultures all around the world can have the same oppositions of hero and villain, of good and evil and of the morally powerful and the morally bankrupt. This is very very interesting and, I suspect, very very important.

Moral disagreement is a fact of life. Film confirms that too, and yet I still don't see how that impinges on moral objectivity. Take an obvious, but still telling, example, Million Dollar Baby. Some like it because it argues on behalf of euthanasia in some circumstances and events whilst others detest it because it seems to suggest that the life of a quadriplegic is one that is not worth living. And if the film was saying that (I'm not sure it is, straightforwardly, at least) I think it would be morally objectionable. Clearly the quadriplegic life is worth living as there are many quadriplegics living happy and very full lives the world over. No one could countenance the idea that all quadriplegics should have their lives terminated. Such a suggestion would be morally reprehensible. Does anyone disagree? Surely not.

Yet, isn't there a case too, to suggest that some quadriplegics (just as some other individuals capable of making the free, rational choice, though I accept that 'free' and 'rational' are contentious here) ought to be allowed to pass if that was their deepest wish. It is, of course, very tragic that they essentially lose the ability to make that choice for themselves. The means of suicide available to most of us are denied them. This is, then, an issue about freedom and free choice.

Whereas in most other areas of life we like to say that all individuals ought to be left free to do whatever they want providing they don't harm others, in more contentious ones we want to deny this thought. When we're being pig-headed we like to deny the reality of this observation and we end up looking hopelessly inconsistent. And still, the objectivity of values is not touched. Freedom is still the basic value, we just don't like to admit it and for a number of reasons.

There will come a day, surprising as it might seem now, when this issue will be resolved. Most of us will think the same and we will do so for the reasons I have been outlining above. Doesn't science (the most 'objective' of all fields) work like this too? Someone puts forward a hypothesis, it's argued over and then some proof or evidence eventually wins the day. The same goes for ethics. Just as, unlike in the 15th Century, we don't generally believe that witches exist (note, some people do still believe that witches exist and this is significant), nor do we believe that burning people at the stake is a good way to behave. In other words I take it as basic that most people believe the statements 'witches don't exist' and 'it's wrong to burn people at the stake' to both be objectively right, correct and true. Ironically, I suspect fewer people would object to the second than to the first and that is pretty damn significant too.

Think, for example, about the current debate(s) around global warming. Has science established the objective truth? Some scientists think they have, others deny those scientists are right (and just who are we to rely on and why? We’re not scientists). We might actually even have more common ground over morals than science, though, if true, that would be incredibly surprising. We disagree, but this does not touch objectivity or ‘the fabric of the universe’ (so to speak). It is quite plausible that we might one day attain a degree at least of moral agreement, though this might be found in unexpected places. Freedom, to be sure, will be key. Humanity agreeing over such things (or the majority of human beings agreeing over them) is a warming thought indeed. But this will come down, like in science, to the testing of thoughts, ideas and hypotheses.

Now, take Ikiru. I love that film (in fact it's my favourite film) partly because I believe we have a clear and unavoidable duty to help to assist those less fortunate than ourselves so that they can be lifted into a position of equality. Takashi Shimura's Kenji Watanabe speaks to me on a number of levels because of that. It's also a film that speaks to most of us about another cherished human value, redemption. We like to believe people can change and that they can make a difference. Watanabe does both. Whilst an ethic of duties takes priority over an ethic of rights in a number of cultures across the world (it is particularly prominent in African philosophy and culture) it doesn't in ours in the West, which is, regrettably, the hegemonic one. I hope this changes and it is our job (those of us who believe this) to put the case to human beings and let them judge the hypothesis that this is an objectively valid means of speaking about ethics and human values. There is a lot more I could go into here in relation to what I have been saying above but I'll leave it there, for now at least, as this is an issue beyond film and the cinema. Or, is that actually fair? Doesn't Ikiru suggest that film can have a great power to inspire, and to change, minds? And what could be the effect of that?

Can film have the power to change the world?

I leave you to make your own minds up...

Thanks for listening : )

That whisper

I came across a link to this video on youtube. It's the last scene in Lost in Translation and has been digitally amplified so you can hear what Bob whispers to Charlotte. Once I saw this I had an urge to watch the film again and it reminded me how highly I thought of it and that my original A grade was actually stingy - it deserved an A+. Anyway I decided to write a quick review as part of linking to this video but realised that I'd rather just post an extended review of a film I love and leave this til later.

I love Copolla's decision to make the whisper inaudible and some people might not want to know what he says. But if you do...

Miller's Crossing (1990)

One of the Coen brothers earliest films, this violent tale of 1920's gangsters is generally considered one of their finest. The plot revolves around Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), the most trusted advisor to Albert Finney's mob-boss Leo O Bannon, as a war breaks out among warring factions. But whose side is he really on? The issue is complicated by Reagan's feelings towards Verna Bernbaum, O Bannon's girl and the sister of the man who is dividing the two camps. There are multiple twists along the way and the film is sure to keep you guessing, so make sure you concentrate otherwise you might well miss something. I think I would need to see it again to appreciate the full picture, though, perhaps unusually, that is not to the film's credit.

The plot is okay, if contrived, and it gets a little silly towards the end, even though aspects of it sparkle. In terms of gripping story-telling and taught narrative, it cannot stand comparison with the obvious, the first two godfather movies, on whose territory it is definitely trying to muscle in.

However, this film is really all about the performances. In all honestly, they could almost fill the MyFilmVault performance lists all by themselves. It is difficult to know where to start.



The highly watchable Gabriel Byrne is excellent in the lead role. Marcia Gay Harden will top 1990's female performances for a deep, layered and troubled turn as Bernbaum; J.E. Freeman's Dane is a truly fearsome henchman, Jon Polito's brilliantly-named Johnny Caspar is perfectly judged, and John Turturro is very effective when on screen. However, the star of the show is Albert Finney. Finney's character O' Bannon looks on the face of it like a slightly dull, world-weary guy whose possibly just about had enough of the world he inhabits. Until, that is, the bedroom scene where a hard-as-nails Finney confronts the thugs who have entered his home to kill him, and with spectacular results. The coldness and determination in Finney's eyes is remarkable and the character is a superb example of a truly great actor at work. O' Bannon is one of the most living, flesh-and-blood, gangsters ever depicted on screen. He worries, he's nervous, he's calm, he's collected, he's solid, he loses trust and gets it back, he's weary, he's determined, he's relaxed, he's furious and so much else. In short, he's human. And he is far far harder than any action-film muscle bound hulk. I have no doubt who would win in a fight between O Bannon and (Die Hard's) John MacClane. Timothy Olyphant has been recruiting the wrong people. Miller's crossing is worth watching for Finney alone.

In short, the good bits far outweigh the flaws and this is a recommendation quality film. It could, in all good faith, be recommended for Finney alone.

A-

Modern Classics. #1

Lost in Translation is all over my 2003 list like white on rice. The film itself is number 1. Bill Murray wins best actor of that year and Scarlett Johansson comes in third in the actresses. It fares almost as well with my esteemed colleague landing a spot in all categories as well - almost certainly the only film in recent years that can boast such a feat.

Sofia Coppola's film is about an attraction between two tourists who somehow manage to capture a chemistry that bridges the generation gap between. Bob is a jaded movie star in Tokyo to film a $2 million ad for whiskey when "he could be doing a play somewhere." Charlotte is just out of college but has no idea what to do with her life. She's been married two years but doesn't recognise the man she wed. They share a sense of disillusionment with life and are, as the title suggests, lost - searching for a sense of purpose. They begin to explore whether they've found that in each other. In so doing a wonderful and completely understated relationship develops between them.


Is there anyone alive that doesn't absolutely love Bill Murray? He's one of the very finest actors around and here he's at his downbeat best - perfectly capturing the desperation he feels at the inevitability and futility of everything he does. His despair is not conveyed through breakdowns and histrionics. It's a wry smile here or a bow of the head there or maybe just a complete silence. He's simply brilliant. Murray's Bob manages to be both touching and hilarious at the same time. He infuses his performance with so much humour that you can rarely watch him in a scene without smiling. Yet it's all deadpan and restrained that it perfectly suits the material. Credit Coppola for a skilled screenplay injected with the sort of comedy that feels completely natural and never forced.

Johansson found her big break with this - smaller roles in film like Ghost World notwithstanding. She's terrific and convinces completely. Playing against Murray when he's at his absolute best must be both exhilarating and daunting. Trying to hold your own against him is no mean feat yet she's every bit as good and they are just so perfectly suited - the chemistry between them seems effortless.

Whilst the film is principally about these two, it's also a look at the idiosyncrasies of life in Japan. It's clear that Coppola (who both wrote and directed) has a real affection for Tokyo and it's people (she's spent some considerable time there). Although Bob and Charlotte feel completely lost both in life and in a city that's so alien it plays like a love letter to Japan. I for one felt like jumping on a plane as soon as possible and spending some time there.

Everything about the film is terrific. The cinematography from Lance Acord is absolutely first rate - he was BAFTA nominated for his work here and it's disappointing that his efforts weren't more widely recognised. Kevin Shields score and a soundtrack featuring brilliant songs by Air and Phoenix is perfectly selected. The album is an essential purchase for anyone. The real marvel though, aside from the two leads, is Coppola herself. Both her direction and screenplay are just magical. At just 32 she became the only American female to ever be nominated for the Best Director award at the Oscars and that still holds true today. That's a rather sad indictment of the industry that has nominated just 3 female director's in it's history, but only serves to highlight the brilliance of her accomplishment. Copolla quite rightly won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, although it would have been no more than she deserved to take home 2 Oscars that night.

Lost in Translation is captivating from the very first frame right until the credits role - and even beyond. It's the mark of a brilliant film that you speculate what may happen to the characters when it's all over and in this movie you do exactly that. In the final scene Bob is on his way to the airport and catches a glimpse of Charlotte. He stops the cab, runs after her, and whispers something in her ear. It's a terrific decision by Coppola to make the dialogue inaudible. This is a private moment and what he says to her is personal and not even the audience deserve to know what it is. It adds a lovely touch that further establishes the idea that they connect and it's genuine. But you can't help wondering what he said and you can only guess as to whether they'll see each other again and whether their relationship - one of the most convincing I've seen committed to celluloid - can and will continue.

A+

Tell No One (Ne le dis a personne) (2007)

You know that feeling when you've really been looking forward to seeing a film and it turns out to be a disappointment...

Okay, this wasn't a huge disappointment but it was a disappointment nonetheless, especially after a stunning first hour or so that simply was not maintained. And, once again, as is so often the case with thrillers such as this, the ending was a huge letdown, though I won't spoil it for any readers waiting to see the film.

The story centres on Dr Alex Beck, whose wife is killed (or so it appears) on a visit to a picturesque lake. Years later, he receives an email with some cctv footage that seems to show his wife is still alive. A cat and mouse game then begins, involving the police, some shadowy figures, Beck, and some Parisian gangster-thugs. The tension is heightened by the fact that Beck becomes (again) the prime suspect in his wife's case.

It sounds like a good premise and it is. It's just a shame that the final result is a little convoluted, confusing and, ultimately, over-indulgent. The first hour or so is incredibly gripping, approaching A+ material, but the ending hugely lets it down.

The performances are sound. Francois Cluzet is good as Beck, Marie-Jose Croze effective as his wife and Philippe Lefebvre makes a good detective. The star of the show, however, is Gilles Lellouche, as Bruno, a Parisien thug who owes Beck a favour and repays it in style. Truth be told, Lellouche is the only one worthy of a nomination for year-ending lists, but it's a good, effective, performance and the character, though not on screen a great deal, has more depth to him than the other somewhat one-dimensional players. Still, a solid, if unspectacular, cast.

This is by no means a bad film and it's certainly not a case of (excuse the pun) tell no one but neither is it recommendation quality. interesting, brilliant in parts, but ultimately flawed.

B-

You Kill Me

Ben Kingsley has played baddies before and created one of cinemas all time greats in Don Logan, in 2001's Sexy Beast. He turns his hand at playing the bad guy once more as Frank Falenczyk in John Dahl's You Kill Me, however, despite his best efforts, a weak script and pallid direction can't liven up a comedy drama that is neither comedic or dramatic enough to satisfy.

There are similarities between Kingsley's creations of Don and Frank. Both have a certain nervous twitchiness about them whilst somehow maintaining a hugely imposing figure and despite their huge moral deficiencies they both manage to be rather sympathetic characters. With better material Kingsley may have been able to snare awards notice once again, however that is not to say he gets anywhere close to the level of brilliance he created with Logan - truly the best performance of that and many other years. Indeed it's one of the rare occasions where Matt and I are in total agreement.

This might be worthy of a Best Comedy Actor nod or something of that nature at the Golden Globes but he's really paddling upstream against a current in the form of a screenplay that is at worst very dull and at best mildly entertaining. I'm not sure I've ever seen a good film starring Tea Leoni so that doesn't help and none of the supporting characters, even those that are truly good actors (Phillip Baker Hall), make an impression. Luke Wilson should be asking his agent why he's got a small, insignificant part in a film like this.

The action sequences are poorly constructed and offer no excitement or tension. There are some moments, all of which involve Kinglsey, that make you smirk and you maybe wonder whether there's a decent film in here trying to break free but at the end of your 90 minutes you'll instantly forget everything you've just seen and feel an uncontrollable desire to watch Sexy Beast and catch Kingsley tear up the screen with a performance in a film that has a screenplay to match.

C

Bat Poster

Wasn't crazy about Batman Begins but liked it. No idea what to think about The Dark Knight but it's a cool poster at least...
Wasn't crazy about Batman Begins but liked it. No idea what to think about The Dark Knight but it's a cool poster at least...

The African Queen

Well liked and well respected upon release, this John Huston classic starring two of America's best loved stars is a pretty painful sit 50 years on. The African Queen is the name of Humphrey Bogart's boat, which he uses it to deliver mail to expats in Africa. One of his regular stops is at a Christian mission, run by the brother and sister team played by Robert Morley and Kathryn Hepburn. Bogart arrives one day with news from Europe: World War I has just started. Soon after Germans arrive at the mission and round up the villagers in his mission and burn their houses. The Germans rather inexplicably leave the good old English siblings alone - a fairly odd decision given who they were at war with in Europe.

Morley can't cope with it all and communicates this by staring blankly and repeatedly mumbling something that I can't recall, but suffice to say this sudden onset of madness is not only a ridiculously written turn of events, and completely unrealistic, it is also completely unrealistically played by Morley, who gives one of the worst acting performances I've ever seen. So that's an unrealistic thing performed unrealistically, making it doubly unrealistic and at that point it was all I could do to stay with the damned thing.

However it does star Bogart and Hepburn, both of whom were nominated for Best Acting Oscars, alongside Huston and the ridiculous screenplay, so I stuck with it. After my two hours or so I realised all these nominations were a complete sham and, remarkably, Cardiff's cinematography - the one true asset this film boasts - was of course completely overlooked.

Hepburn and Bogart take to the river for refuge in the African Queen. The obvious thing to do next is to find a way to escape to safety and being the intelligent beings they were, they decide the best way to do this is to navigate an unnavigable river and then modify the African Queen into a supersized torpedo which they'll use to blow up the biggest ship in the German fleet. The obvious solution.

So we trundle along with these two buffoons who become increasingly irritating the longer they're on screen. Hepburn, playing a woman from the English Midlands, seems happy to go with her New England drawl. Bogart plays a jack the lad type who also does a great impression of the entire A Team. When a propeller breaks he actually sets up a fire and welds it together. Since he can weld a propeller blade using only a moderately warm coal fire, converting the boat into a torpedo-loaded killing machine proves no trouble at all. Hannibal and co didn't know what they were missing.

Other irritants include some appalling special effects, which I suppose were pretty amazing in their day but I can't possibly give credit to a film whose green screen work is so obvious you actually see a green glow surrounding Hepburn at one point. Either this was dodgy green screen work or Huston was implying Hepburn was half alien. Maybe she was. It's also very very clear at several stages that we're watching a toy boat instead of the real thing.

The whole story's so silly it's amazing they played it so seriously. Despite the talent involved, and despite all the great notices this has received over the years I am more than happy to encourage you to avoid.

D

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

"When James was around clocks slowed, sounds amplified, rain straightened."


The world's fascination with outlaws is a little bit of a mystery. If anyone these days notched up multiple killings in the same way Jack the Ripper, Ned Kelly, or Jesse James did, they'd be rightly vilified. However if you did it in the late 19th century, you were regarded with anything from respect to outright adulation.

Jesse James has been portrayed 35 times on film as well as countless other times on the small screen. Actors such as Robert Wagner, Tyrone Power and Robert Duvall have taken on the role of America's most fabled outlaw. Brad Pitt turns his hand at this larger than life character to cinemas for the 36th time in Andrew Dominik's second film as director.

Pitt's Jesse James is as the end of his career and both tied to, and tired of, his celebrity status. The Assassination... begins with Jesse and his brother Frank, attempting their very last heist on a railroad in Blue Cut. Their regular gang all killed or captured, the James brothers have recruited a local gang of misfits. During the heist, James has to be pulled off of a postal worker who he attacks not because he has crossed him, nor opposes him, but because he is frustrated by the lack of money in the train's safe; it's the first sign of James losing control. His emotional stability descends throughout the film. He sets upon a young boy. He cries for no reason. He struggles with paranoia.

Unable to trust even his most loyal of friends, James ditches practically everyone that has known him and allows just two men, the Ford brothers, to ride alongside him. The elder brother (Sam Rockwell) is someone James has known for years. His younger brother, Robert (Casey Affleck), is new to the scene but knows more about James, or at least the legend of Jesse James, than anyone. Having idolised him since he was a young boy reading dime novels, Ford realises his dream in living alongside his hero.

Dominik's film follows the path taken by these three men towards a denouement that we know is inevitable from the title of the film, but this is about how we get there, and, more importantly, with who. In a year that already featured as many character driven pieces as the last 4 years combined, we have yet another that confidently and unapolegetically dispenses with a sophisticated or elaborate plot, instead focusing on characterisation.

Pitt's James is probably the best performance of his career, but can't quite stack up to many of the great performances we have seen this year. It also cannot stack up to a brilliant turn by Casey Affleck in a role that will lead to a plethora of scripts landing on his agent's doorstep. I've seen Affleck in throwaway roles in the American Pie and Ocean's etc films and that very small role in Good Will Hunting. He played a teen in that film, and, 10 years on manages to get away with playing a teen again. At 32 he looks much younger and totally passes for an immature 19 year old. The one substantial performance of his I've caught was in The Last Kiss, and I have to say it wasn't an enjoyable one.

I kid you not when I say I had to turn the subtitles on every time Affleck spoke. It was an absurdly hushed and inarticulate delivery and one that made me question his ability. However here any inarticulateness is absolutely perfect in capturing a character who openly admits in the first scene of the film that he creates an awful impression on everyone he meets. Ford is almost impossibly mumbling and nervous. Frank James (Sam Shepherd) announces after meeting Ford for the first time that he gives him the willies and not to be within earshot of him for the rest of the evening.

It is a joy to watch Affleck's performance as the strength is that his is not an overtly affected one, rather like Pitt's delivery in Twelve Monkeys for instance. His mannerisms and anxiety are more subtle. There's also a charater arc here that is convincing and substantial. He totally convinces and certainly finds himself on the shortlist for year end awards consideration.

I've read that Dominik's first cut ran at 4 hours long. The cinema release runs 2 hours 40 minutes. Nothing is rushed. Nothing is forced. Dominik's screenplay is an adaptation of the 1983 novel by Ron Hansen, one that was shortlisted for the PEN/Faulkner Award. Indeed the screenplay is extremely literary, in the very best sense of the word. Much of what we learn about James is delivered in Hugh Ross' narration, with wonderfully poetic passages, that ensure that this device, which is rarely used well, and often completely ruinous to a film, actually adds to the quality of this picture. The first line in this review is an example and this is, I believe, amongst the best narration committed to screen, although I'm sure many will see even this as a distraction or perhaps even a sign that the story wasn't being told through the characters themselves. Whilst that may be a criticism of narration in general, I don't feel it's fair to use that here.

Perhaps though it does bring some slight negatives. Pitt's James never quite captures the iconic, "clock slowing" grandeur that is described to us. Whilst certainly good, perhaps even very good, it's not a performance that screams Oscar, nor in fact should even be considered for a nomination. Affleck out-acts Pitt in every scene they share and should receive any acting notices the film gets.

Other quibbles include a pointless turn by Mary Louise Parker as James' wife. Parker is a very talented actress, but is completely wasted here and her one reasonable scene towards the end doesn't work. At 160 minutes this is not necessarily too long - indeed it is not a tough sit at all and if trimmed would have felt rushed, however there are some moments that do drag ever so slightly.

But this is a very good film , featuring one very very good performance and stunning cinematography from the always brilliant Roger Deakins. Deakins is the director of photography of choice for the Coen Bros, for Sam Mendes and undoubtedly for many other who would jump at the chance of working with him, if only he wasn't so in demand. He delivers visuals that are as beautiful as anyone else working today and a career that boasts just 5 Oscar nominations, and zero wins, is bordering on travesty. He'll surely be nominated this year and must stand a good chance of winning.

Also notable is Nick Cave's score. Perhaps not quite astonishing enough to throw superlatives at, it is certainly very good and a wonderful composition.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is another fine entry into 2007's catalogue of great films. It demands to be seen on the big screen, so do so while you have the chance.

B+

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Is not on for a single showing at a single cinema in Leicester. What a disgrace. This is so typical of my luck. The film I've been most looking forward to all year is not even on where I live. It's been a stressful week and this just tops it off. Just hand me the JD now. If anyone from a Leicester cinema is reading this, could they please take pity on me and put on a single showing somewhere. Please.

Review Criteria

A+ (10/10) Film perfection. Pure genius. Very rare, almost certainly top 50 of all time material. One or two a year, if that.

A (9/10) Exceptional, rare, highly enjoyable and hugely effective at whatever it's trying to do. Perhaps something not quite executed to perfection, thereby preventing it from attaining the highest grade. Very highly recommended.

A- (High 8/10) Pretty damn good. Not worth an A-film but better than a B-film. This is why - grades are nice, because they give good flexibility. A- suggests the film is A quality but with certain, relatively minor, blemishes.

B+ (Low 8/10) Anything from here above is very good and is highly recommended.

B (7/10) Nothing which is just a B is shortlisted for year ending awards. Still it's a good grade which suggests that the film was enjoyable and has much to recommend it, especially for fans of the genre or talent involved.

B- (High 6/10) An above average film but one with enough flaws that they detract from the picture. Unambitious, well executed films may also wind up with this sort of grade if they do exactly as promised in the poster, but without going for anything with enough depth or uniqueness to warrant a higher grade.

C+ (Low 6/10) Slightly above average picture that does not really distinguish itself from the competition. If you're stuck for something to do then you could find worse.

C (5/10) Getting pretty dodgy. Some redeeming features but generally a disappointment.

C- (4/10) Little to recommend now. Very mediocre.

D+ (3/10) Some serious problems. For complete die-hard fans of the talent involved only, and even then they must take caution.

D (2/10) Just not worth the effort at all but perhaps there's a feeling that the film is not an abject failure.

D- (1/10) When films are getting this bad there is very little to choose between them. An awful, awful film but perhaps not offensively bad.

F (0/10) Atrocious. Nothing to recommend it at all. Avoid at all costs. Probably offensively bad. Very rare I've seen such a bad film. Definite "walk-out" standard, which recalls the old critics' joke, 'I saw it on a plane and still wanted to walk out.' One example would definitely be The Matrix Reloaded.

Wishing Stairs (Yeowoo Gyedan) (2003)

I search high and low for decent horror films that will genuinely scare the pants off me and the result is almost always failure and disappointment and clean Calvin Klein's (oh yes, I am that classy). It is with great delight that I can tell you Wishing Stairs does not follow suit.

The Wishing Stairs of the title are a set of steps leading up to a dormitory of a girl's boarding school in Korea where ballet dancing is the name of the game. There are normally 28 stairs, but if you walk up them counting, sometimes a 29th step appears and will grant whatever you wish. Ohh, scary, I hear you all say in unison. Well, trust me, it is.

Naturally, as with a lot of 'I'll grant whatever you desire' fairy and folk tales, things don't go swimmingly and when you throw a rivalry over entry into a prestigious ballet school, together with an intense homosexual relationship, the 'stage' is set for wishing catastrophe.

It isn't perfect. It starts a little too slowly, some great opportunities for some great scares are missed and the last fifteen minutes is too confusing. But there are some genuine shocks here and, more than that, it is very, very, creepy throughout.

Hollywood, take note. You don't have to churn out horror film after horror film centered on a load of vacuous, shallow, heterosexual teenagers stalked by some cretin in a suit or monster. More engaging story lines are possible and the result (as with the Blair With Project) is likely to be more intensely scary. There is definitely a clear sense in Wishing Stairs that the intensity of the relationships (and, I might add, the performances) add a great deal of intensity to the terror.

Much of the first half hour of the film is taken up with involving the viewer in the relationship of the two leads. There is genuine time and effort invested in characterisation and character-relationships and it pays off. Especially when (in that dreaded phrase I'm prone to (over)using 'universal human themes' - particularly jealousy, envy and rivalry - come on to the horizon.

The three leads give good performances, and I should particularly mention An Jo, who is very effective as Hye-Ju, a girl with learning difficulties who's own affection towards one of the other girls (Kim So-Hie) leads to problems. The material is much more challenging that your typical Hollywood horror fayre and the young cast handles it well. The result is that the film is 'more than just a horror film' and concerns itself with human relationships as well as shocks. Hollywood would, as I say, do well to sit up and take notice. Non-American horror films seem generally to be far more effective examples of the genre and that is particularly damning, given the resources and funding available to American studios (not of course, as Blair Witch proved, that you always need a lot of money to make a good horror film).

Of all my years of watching horror films, a genre I do enjoy a great deal when it is pulled off, there are few I could recommend. This is one.

B+

Beowulf

Beowulf arrived in cinemas a couple of weeks ago and is offered in both 2D and 3D. Unfortunately only certain cinemas are capable of showing it in 3D and therefore many fans will be leaving this picture thinking that they'd seen nothing special. I suspect, and judging by the applause in the theatre at the end of the showing I was at, those watching in 3D had seen a different film altogether.

Watching a product as visually impressive as Beowulf, it is hard to imagine that 2D films will be continued to be made once movie theatres worldwide have installed the hardware, and filmmakers work out how to cut production costs associated with producing in 3D. There are still flaws that are noticeable onscreen, particularly around the edges of the frame, that need to be ironed out. Filmmakers will also hopefully resist the temptation to create certain shots just for the gimmicky 'coming at ya' 3D effect. Zemeckis and co were reasonably restrained here. The 3D actually works better when you forget your watching it and instead are marveling at the sweeping vistas that we zoom through with impossible camera angles and gloriously animated sets.

Beowulf is not the first film to be shot in 3D. Far from it. 3D technology has been in around in one guise or aniother since the late 19th Century and the first feature film shot in 3D was back in 1939. But what Beowulf offers is a huge advancement in the quality of the process. Never have visuals been as wondrous as here. Plus you have a film that's telling a pretty decent tale to boot. Ray Winstone, in motion-capture animated form, takes on the role of Beowulf and must have appreciated the rather generous touching up (or complete creation) of a set of perfect 6 pack abs. Beowulf, at the request of a Danish king (Anthony Hopkins) slays a monster in order to rid a town of its curse, but he then becomes enchanted by the beasts' seductive mother and the curse he thought he lifted lives on. Angelina Jolie is perfectly cast in the latter role and is, unnervingly, unbelievably hot despite the not quite perfect clay-like appearance in the face that motion capture offers, although the rest of the body seems pretty damn perfect - all the way to the end of her huge golden tail. The supporting motion captured cast are all good too - Robin Wright Penn, John Malkovich and, particularly, Brendan Gleeson as Beowulf's right hand man.

Leaving the theatre I cannot believe for a second that 3D is anything other than a new era of film - a breakthrough as every bit important as sound or colour. It's obviously just one that is taking much longer to perfect. It has been reported that Steven Spielberg is amongst a group involved in patenting a 3D cinema system that doesn't need glasses. A computer splits each film-frame, and then projects the two split images onto the screen at differing angles, to be picked up by tiny angled ridges on the screen. This may be the advancement needed to bring 3D into all cinemas.

Whatever it is that needs to happen to either make the shooting of a film or the projection of it profitable even for small budget, independent films, I expect this will happen. I suspect that eventually 3D will be the norm and Beowulf is proof that that's something to look forward to.


B+

Malcolm X (1992)

Another Denzel-starrer to follow on from my colleague's comprehensive review of American Gangster. And it's even on slightly similar territory in the sense that both films are true to life, though I don't think Gangster is a biopic in the same way as Malcolm X.

The material brings me back to a previous thread on MyFilmVault, biopics, why and how they're made and what makes them, and performances which define them, good or bad. This is a difficult topic, and I'll be coming back to it in a forthcoming 'Sunday Morning Political Slot'. But what, for now, of Malcolm X?

Unlike Mahatma Gandhi, I knew very little about X's life, except for the fact that he was a radical civil rights campaigner and that he was brutally and tragically assassinated. The film, therefore, had extra value for me than just being a film, I was genuinely interested in X's life and ideas and will explore his autobiography further as a result of this.

This is, essentially, very solid biopic stuff. Weighty, timely material (the film begins with high-impact footage of the beating of Rodney King in LA by police officers), good performances all round, epic running time and a nice balance between character and ideas. It turns out better, I think, than Gandhi, the most recent example I've seen to compare, but it doesn't reach the heights of arguably less-weighty biopics like the stunning Walk the Line.

Washington is good (as he so often is) as the charismatic and ambiguous X and he's ably supported by a supporting cast, especially the always magnificent (and underrated) Delroy Lindo, Angela Bassett and Albert Hall. The movie feels very well cast and plays out effectively. So much so, in fact, that the 3 hour plus running time breezes by (a high compliment indeed) and leaves you wanting more, particularly around X's early family life.

The real star of the show is Spike Lee. And I don't mean his occasionally dodgy acting (he was very good in Do The Right Thing, but not here). Lee is obviously a very political director and has made a number of important political statements on film, not least with the sublime Do The Right Thing (which I've just realised I've under graded on this site) and the recent Inside Man. And yet, especially for a man with such strong and passionate beliefs, he somehow manages to not rub your face in it. He doesn't tell you what to think, he leaves it to you to make up your own mind. This is personified by Ossie Davis' (real) eulogy to X at the film's end.

There are some outstanding scenes, brilliantly handled, not least the shocking (!) demise of X's father at the hands of the KKK. As I have said, more on X's early life would have been interesting. There are also apparently some inconsistencies concerning fact against fiction. For instance, I have heard that X actually met with KKK leaders because they shared some views about non-integration (X was, initially at least, a fervent black nationalist and was completely and wholly in favour of non-integration) I honestly don't know about this and the circumstances behind it, but it would, of course, have been interesting to include it, although Lee obviously must have had one eye on the clock as the film is lengthy anyway. One thing a good biopic should do is encourage you to go and find out more about its subject's life. And this is something I'll certainly do.

I'll be returning to this film, if not for a while, and I'd recommend it as an interesting introduction to X's life and thought, though gaps and inconsistencies should also be borne in mind.

B+