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+

American Gangster

Another week another A- film, in what is the now comprehensively the best year since 2002. If this continues we'll have another 1999 on our hands.

American Gangster is of course Ridley Scott's latest. A Ridley Scott film is something that would probably go to the top of my start of the year 'top 10 films I'm most looking forward to' list, were I sad enough to make such a thing, which I hasten to add I'm not - in fact I can hand on heart say I've never made such a list.*

Scott is quite simply the best visual director of his, and indeed maybe any, generation. His stunning visual style help realise worlds in diverse arenas such as outer space, war torn Somalia and ancient Rome. You know a few things in advance of a Ridley Scott film. You know every single millimeter of film will be lovingly assembled. Every single frame of celluloid postcard quality crafted by a director that manages to elicit Oscar worthy cinematography in every film he directs. But Scott's films are not empty vessels that are only spectacular to look at. He has managed to direct some of the greatest performances in recent times. Russell Crowe and Oliver Reed in Gladiator. Giancarlo Giannini and Gary Oldman in Hannibal. Sigourney Weaver in Alien. These are absolutely first rate acting masterclasses and it is testament to Scott's ability as a director that he gets the best out of the actors he works with.

One of those is Russell Crowe. This is the third time they've teamed up, following the critically acclaimed Gladiator and the not so critically acclaimed A Good Year (which I'm yet to see.) They will also be working again in Nottingham, a intriguing sounding revisionist take on Robin Hood.Crowe has a reputation for being difficult to work with but I've no idea how fair that is. Certainly it never seems to come across in his work since he's good value in pretty much everything he's ever been in. He was terrific in both The Insider and Gladiator, pitch perfect in Master and Commander, wonderful earlier this year in 3:10 to Yuma and was even good in the atrocious A Beautiful Mind. He has to be one of the best actors working today. Here he teams up with Denzel Washington for the first time in his career and it's a great bit of twin casting. Both these guys are magnetic, dominating screen presences and in a tale such as American Gangster it was essential to cast both roles to actors that carry equal gravitas on screen. Whoever pulled off that masterstroke in this deserves credit. There's some fine casting in supporting roles as well with the likes of Chjwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, Ted Levine and Ruby Lee adding quality to every scene they're in.


Washington plays Frank Lucas, a genuine American Gangster, responsible for bringing in millions, if not billions of dollars worth of cocaine into America in the 70s, and organising its distribution throughout New York. He was the king pin - indeed the only pin in his organisation. Despite being such a dominant figure in the crime world, Lucas went undetected by law enforcement for an unbelievably long time. Eventually Richie Roberts, played by Crowe, comes on the scene and Lucas belatedly comes under investigation. Roberts slowly realises the significance of Lucas within the New York crime world and from there pursues his arrest with vigour.

Scott's American Gangster is as handsome as you would expect. It is brilliantly shot as always and the set design is impeccable - you genuinely feel like your watching a movie made on location in 70s New York. What makes this rank amongst his best work however is the brilliance of Steven Zallian's script. This is a cop vs bad guy movie with a difference. There's no expansive cat and mouse chase, there's no elaborate action sequences where Crowe and Washington go toe to toe. In fact for a large chunk of the running time they are not even aware of each other's existence. That's the beauty of American Gangster and what sets it apart from other movies in this genre.

Washington seems to have few moral qualms about the life he leads and openly murders one of his rivals on the streets of Harlem. Crowe on the other hand is a completely straight shooter, one who discovers 1 million dollars in unmarked bills, and hands them over without thinking about it. Such polar morals may suggest these two are completely different but it's fascinating to see that they're not actually that far apart at all. Crowe's social life reveals his own deep flaws, whilst Washington's seems to reflect a fine upstanding family man. Scott and Zallian have crafted a film that takes it's time in introducing us to two brilliantly realised characters. Lucas and Roberts have so much in common you wonder whether if their upbringings had been reversed they may both have found themselves on opposite side of the law. A film featuring just one terrific character study would be worth watching but this features two.

Scott's Gangster is return to form for both he and Crowe after their disappointment with A Good Year. It should get Scott back on the Ocsar map and he's certainly overdue a Best Director Oscar having been passed over twice whenhe should have been the logical choice. Alien in 1979 and Gladiator, which absurdly managed to win Best Picture, but still Crowe couldn't get Best Director. Gladiator is a film that relies on its brilliant direction and even single handedly reviving a dead genre couldn't get him ythe prize he desetved. I suspect he won't win this year either but it would be nice to see him nominated. Heck Scorsese was nominated and won for the far inferior The Departed. I'd love to think they'll see fit to reward Scott this year.

American Gangster is not the perfect movie. If I had a criticism I'd say at 2 hours 37 minutes it's a little short. Things are wrapped up a little too quickly for my liking in the third act. There are some brilliant sequences that echo great films such as The Godfather and Goodfellas but come the end of the running time, I just felt it had been a little rushed in places but that's as much praise as criticism. I could have easily gone another half an hour and how many times can you come out of a 160 minute film and say that?

A-

*look out for my top 10 most anticipated films in January

Persona

Oh well here's another film that will ensure I don't win critic of the year any time soon (and were it not for occasional things like this I must have surely been right in contention?) Persona is the 1966 release from the late Ingmar Bergman who is heralded by many as one of the greatest directors of all time. I've only seen 1 of his other works: Cries and Whispers - a film I enjoyed to some extent but have reservations about. Yet Cries and Whispers now seems like a masterpiece compared to Persona which at 90 minutes felt around 88 minutes too long. The opening 2 minutes are taken up by a montage of shots which play like the sort of composition you'd find in a modern art gallery. There's an erect penis, an upside down cartoon man falling, a nail being hammered into a hand. These images may be chosen to represent those things most important to man: sex, religion, cartoons (okay not sure what the cartoon was for). But it is not as if Bergman's film runs with these things throughout his film. Maybe there's a sexual overtone to it, and there's a scene in which one of the characters explicitly recounts details of a sexual liaison, but I don't really see the significance of the opening montage. Especially not the part crucifixion or falling cartoon man.

My biggest criticism of Persona is that I really didn't feel that this is a movie designed for the cinema screen. It's challenging and unique for sure but is it superbly acted? Is there a wonderful score? Is there stunning cinematography? Is there a cinematic scope to the film? Is the production design something to behold? Is there in fact anything that demands that Persona should be delivered through the medium of cinema?

There's a sparseness to the entire picture that would suit a small intimate playhouse. It's not as if you can't have challenging and unique and make it cinematic. Give me David Lynch any day for that. Ingmar Bergman's Persona just didn't work for me as a film and would have worked far more as a play. Stagey films can work - heck I like the stagiest of them all: Dogville. But Persona is not a film I'll be returning to any time soon and they'll have to delay that critic of the year award as I'm going to give it a:

D-

Mr and Mrs Smith (2005)

I'm really not quite sure why I watched this. The first half an hour or so is quite enjoyable and watchable but the rest, well, the less said the better. Let me just get one thing straight right off. I have no hatred of, or vendetta against, action films. A well done action film can keep you glued to the edge of your seat. This didn't. The film concerns Mr (Brad Pitt) and Mrs (Angelina Jolie) Smith, two hired assassins neither of whom know the other is an hired assassin. A job goes wrong and they suddenly realise (shock horror) who the other one is.

The plot is laughable and the last 45 minutes or so of the film is spent running away from balaclava-clad bad dudes who want, for some reason, to kill poor old Mr and Mrs Smith just because they're married. Jesus, hitman companies have pretty exacting standards. Count me out, I'll be a spy. Arnie never had this much trouble in True Lies. The worst scene of all involves them beginning to shoot each other for no reason without even questioning whether or not they might actually want to kill their partner of many years. Then they suddenly stop trying to shoot each other with a like amount of questioning. It was at this point I lost faith, though I did persevere until the end. Oh yes, the end. Well, there isn't really one and the film ends very abruptly.

Pitt and Jolie sleepwalk their way through the film, there is no chemistry between them (quite surprising really), and the only good performance comes courtesy of the ever-dependable Vince Vaughn. Adam Brody is sadly far, far, too underused, which is a shame, as his character might actually have been vaguely interesting. At least it can go down as one of the very few 'egalitarian' films we've been harping on about on the site for over a month, it's just a shame it doesn't do such films many favours.

There are a few laughs to be had, but not many, and a few god scenes, but not many. It has very little to recommend it actually, despite a solid first half hour. Avoid.

D

Reds (1981)

When my colleague reviewed this and gave it a great mark, I was excited, though I have to confess to never having heard of it before. Pretty shocking really since I consider myself to be of a like mind (at least generally speaking) with the characters of this film, American communists living and writing in the second decade of the twentieth century. Now, I have come to understand it is one of the most important leftist films that have ever been made and I'm pretty gutted I didn't discover it before.

The film centres on John (Jack) Reed, author of 10 Days that Shook the World about the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, and his turbulent relationship with fellow journalist Louise Bryant. I'd never heard of Reed before and, as famous socialists go, together with typical socialist reading-lists, he's not high up. I might well check out some of his work now. America actually has a pretty poor radical leftist tradition (compared with other nations the world over) so it was very interesting to get an insight into the American left and the film piqued my curiosity and interest to go and investigate further.

Anyway, onto the film. You'd think a three and a half hour epic about a group of communists and their lives and loves would be a hard sell. It is, but Reds, manages the material, and the length, brilliantly and beautifully by focusing on such an intense and moving relationship. Politics comes second. This is not so much a film about the left as about love, and that is something I'll come back to. Warren Beatty is excellent as Reed, who plays a little like a socialistic Han Solo (I'm not kidding) and Beatty uses his not-insignificant charm to great effect. Although it's pitched as his film, it's ironically made as good as it is by Diane Keaton's Louise Bryant, with whose struggle it is impossible not to feel a lot of empathy. Keaton is magnificent and Bryant feels so alive, so multi-dimensional, you at times forget you're watching a film rather than a documentary (a feel the film goes for anyway with a very effective use of talking heads). Exquisitely judged and performed, a truly list-busting performance and, to be honest, Reds is worth seeing for Keaton alone, she eats up every scene and the denouement left me in floods of tears for a good while. Two scenes in particular are worth mentioning, a surprise meeting with Emma Goldman, a character she had a difficult relationship in the film, is emotionally vast and a reunification with Reed is simply emotionally perfect. A true, and rare, joy.

A number of other performances are well worth mentioning. The underrated Paul Sorvino (excellent in Goodfellas) is perfect as Louis Fraina, Jerzy Kosinski is good as Zinoviev and Gene Hackman is as good as always, if underused. However, the supporting star is undoubtedly Maureen Stapleton as the prickly, idealistic and likeable anarchist Goldman, a famous historical figure of the anarchist movement. Jack Nicholson is strangely off-kilter, however, as the playwright Eugene O' Neill. All in all, though, an effective supporting cast.

It's difficult to know where to stop, but if I don't end soon I'm sure most readers will give up (if they haven't already), so I'll just say this. One point the film does make, perfectly, I might add, surrounds free love. Free love and the sharing of sexual partners might sound like a good idea in practice but love itself (and all that goes with it) has a tendency to get in the way. Bertrand Russell famously supported free love then got in a massive huff when his wife had an affair. This has always been an odd one for me, since I am very much one for questioning society's basic values and premises. In the end, it should always be up to individuals whether they wish to choose one partner or many. Bryant and Reed try the latter option but, as you watch Bryant traipsing through the snow (I won't say more than that) as the film draws to a close, you're in no doubt which side of the fence the film is on. And I suspect that speaks to many people. Socialism is not about free love (though it is commonly misconstrued as such) and Reds stands as a perfect testament as to why. And that, to bring us full circle, is also a perfect testimony to what a great film it is. I challenge anyone not to be emotionally spent at the end which is also, ironically, what a first foray into socialistic ideas can do to you. I hope both leave you as breathless as they did me.

A+

Into the Wild

Sean Penn is a director whose films can be best described as serious and earnest. It's also a pretty fair description of the man himself. At the 2005 Academy Awards, after host Chris Rock had made a joke about the fact that Jude Law had appeared in 6 films that year Penn came on stage to present his award and prefaced his introduction with a fairly unnecessary defence of Law (although Rock was completely unfunny, it was only a joke).

Penn's resume as director spans 16 years and has seen him tackle 4 films, starting with The Indian Runner, whose plot synopsis on IMDb reads "an intensely sad film about two brothers who cannot overcome their opposite perceptions of life." His next project, The Crossing Guard, is synopsised thus: "Freddy Gale's life was never the same after his little girl was killed in a hit and run accident." His third film, The Pledge, is a look at a man haunted by a promise he can't keep and his slow decline in mental acuity. It's depressing as hell but it does feature a knock-out performance from Jack Nicholson, who would make my number 6 in 2001, which makes him extremely unlucky since he was also my number 6 in 2002!. Despite his ability in eliciting great performances from his leads, Penn's directorial record is so dour you almost want Penn to tackle a Richard Curtis script just to see what he does with it.

6 years since his last feature film, Penn brings us an adaptation of Jon Krakauer's factual book of the journey undertaken by Christopher McCandless. McCandless graduated college with near straight As but instead of following a path into Harvard to study Law, he gave all his money to OXFAM and left home. McCandless rebranded himself as Alexander Supertramp and ventured to live in the wilderness, with the ultimate goal of making it to, and living off of the land in Alaska.

In many ways this is an atypical Sean Penn film. In many other ways it is an archetypal Sean Penn film. Whilst it lacks the intimacy of his previous material and possesses a grandeur that is now unique amongst his work, Into the Wild, like his other films, possesses a central character tortured by inner demons that he cannot, and will not overcome. Penn obviously knows how to direct actors and here he has cast Emile Hirsch as McCandless. Hirsch is practically in every frame of the 220 minute running time and it's an impressive performance. He does not dominate the screen like Nicholson but is certainly very enigmatic, even when his character is a little irritating (like dishing out sage advice to people more than double his age). There's an interesting decision about two thirds of the way through the film when McCandless breaks the fourth wall, which seems to suggest that Penn had done so much research for this and was so true to the details of the actual events that the film could very well have been McCandless' own video account of his amazing journey.

Supporting Hirsch are the likes of Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt as the worried parents, Catherine Keener and Brian Dierker as a couple of hippies he meets during his travels, and, most notably, Hal Holbrook who excels as a friend he meets along the way. In fact Holbrook was so good that I was irked that he was restricted to so little screen time.

Penn's film never quite reaches the level of great, although there's plenty to admire throughout. There are however an equal number of rather poor decisions that make this a film that is less than the sum of its parts. It needs editing. I didn't understand the need for the sister's voiceover. There was too much slo-mo. The titles annoyed me, and the way the postcards he wrote were written on the screen in yellow as opposed to being narrated was just bizarre and weird.

There are enough quibbles to keep this from being anything other than a solid film. It's neither great nor bad but rather somewhere in between, but at least it is a very noble effort, unlike much of the dreck released in theatres these days. Into the Wild is in cinemas everywhere now.

C+

Superbad Halloween

Prob a bit behind on this with it being November and all, but yesterday someone linked to a very cool animation and I liked it so much I've reposted it here.

It's unlicensed but it's so good I'm sure Apatow and co would approve. If you've seen Superbad and you enjoyed it, then this is essential viewing.

Movie Years Meltdown

Huge problem with the actors this year. I still reckon there's at least 10 awards worthy films to be seen: including, and not restricted to, American Gangster, Sweeny Todd, Into the Wild, No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James.., There Will Be Blood and Charlie Wilson's War.

Trouble is I'm struggling badly to find any room on my top 5 actors. It's currently a resolute 8 and I really don't like the idea of bumping any of them. 3, and maybe even more, of these would have walked into my top 5 in many other years.

George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Chris Cooper - Breach
James McAvoy - Atonement
Russell Crowe - 3:10 to Yuma
Gordon Pinsent - Away from Her
Christopher Mintz-Plasse - Superbad
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
Joseph Gordon-Levitt - The Lookout

The Lookout

The ever-reliable Jeff Daniels and the stunning Joseph Gordon-Levitt in The Lookout

As I sit here listening to James Newton Howard's 39-minute score to The Lookout on endless repeat I am struggling to come to terms with the fact that I haven't seen this many good films in one year in ages. Already this year we've had 7 films that are essential viewing: 3:10 to Yuma, Breach, Eastern Promises, Michael Clayton, Superbad, Tell No One and Zodiac are all A- quality. And now along comes a film that wasn't even on my radar until last week and it goes straight to the top of the pile.

The Lookout is by first time director Scott Frank, whose distinguished writing career has seen him write for Spielberg and Soderbergh, amongst others. Now he turns his attentions behind the camera (although he's directing his own original screenplay) and has had the good sense (or maybe it was his casting director) to employ Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Levitt is, by any measure, one of the most consistently interesting actors of his generation. Lead roles in the very highly regarded indie films Brick and Mysterious Skin reveal his good taste in projects (everyone's allowed one mistake: his is a supporting effort in the straight-to-video Shadowboxer with Cuba Gooding Jr and Helen Mirren).

Here Levitt has taken on the role of Chris Pratt, a young, carefree, high school student with the world at his feet. However that lasts just 2 minutes as a tragic accident costs him a huge chunk of his brain, reducing his life to labeling appliances with what they're used for and jotting down even the simplest of tasks in case he forgets to do them. Chris earns a living cleaning at the local bank and understandably yearns for his old life back. When a stranger befriends him and offers him just that, Chris becomes embroiled in a scheme to rob the very bank he works at.

Once again though I find myself not wanting to focus on the plot because this is very much a character-driven movie, and, like Eastern Promises, features a captivating performance from the lead. Chris Pratt is a guy tortured by the knowledge, if not the memory, of that fateful night of the accident. Levitt's restrained and powerful acting conveys this wonderfully well; you sense the enormity of Chris' guilt and frustration not through histrionics or outbursts but in his silences and pauses. Levitt's maturity as an actor betrays his years and I for one felt a wealth of empathy for his character. This surprisingly emotional film has it's flaws. It's a little predictable: you know exactly where it's going fairly quickly, but it's how it gets there that's important. The Lookout gets there with grace, with rich characters, stunning cinematography, the best score I've heard in a couple of years and that amazing lead performance. Very highly recommended.

A

Eastern Promises

Without being Russian or having any kind of exposure to the Russian mob, it is hard to know precisely how convincing Viggo Mortensen is in this, but if he's anywhere near as convincing as I think he is, then he's delivered a simply stunning turn in David Cronenberg's new film.

Cronenberg's follow-up to the equally bloody A History of Violence swaps middle America for London but the lead is the same. Mortensen, who certainly gained some critical notices for his turn in Violence, goes one or better (actually more like ten or twenty) here as the driver for a Russian family, one of the most powerful criminal families in Europe. His character though has a gravitas that betrays his lowly position as a a humble chauffeur and in that respect it nicely mirrors the secrets hidden within Mortensen's Tom Stall, who's modest countenance in Violence masked something much darker.

The plot, whilst elegantly simple, is actually not easy to describe as it feels a disservice to strip the film down to a choice couple of lines for a synopsis. This is a film not so much driven by plot but by character, and with Cassel, Watts and Mueller-Stahl you have 3 actors who are able to bring out the best in their respective roles. Jerzy Skolimowski and Sinead Cusack also provide able support but this film owes so much to it's stupendously engaging lead. Mortensen inhabits his role so precisely that every mannerism, every movement and every line he speaks is disguised in his heavily tattooed, heavily accented form. In lesser hands an actor would have taken this role and spent the film chewing the scenery and hamming it up to the max. Not here though. Mortensen delivers a subtle and nuanced performance that is the best of his career.

A-

Outlaw

Was intrigued by the trailer of this, the latest offering from Football Factory's director Nick Love. Although interesting at times, ultimately the film does not live up to its trailer or the interesting subject material.

Focusing on a diverse gang of Brits hacked off with the British justice system who set up an avenging vigilante type band, the film features a number of famous Brit actors, not least Bob Hoskins and Sean Bean. It's an interesting idea and the first half an hour or so works very well but, unfortunately, the direction and editing is poorly handled and the second half of the film feels like it's been hacked together by a reception class and flows poorly. An interesting premise ends up disintegrating into a conspiracy film crossed with cliched shootouts involving criminals vs cops. The ending restores a little bit of authority, but not much.

The characters are generally well thought out and are certainly not one dimensional, although Bean and Hoskins could be accused of sleepwalking at times and their performances aren't particularly challenging. The star of the show is Danny Dyer.

I actually really like Dyer, he has a particular quality about him which invests his characters with likability, depth and subtlety (much more than you might think). He is on fine form here and I genuinely think he's one of the more promising Brit actors and I think he has a lot more about him than the likes of Jude Law, although I suspect that assertion will be controversial to say the least. Dyer might not have the classical training and the leading-man looks but he speaks to me more and I find his performances easy to get involved with. He might be in with a shout on my lists for this year, although I suspect Ruffalo et al in Zodiac might have put paid to that.

Anyway, this is certainly not an awful film and it wasn't a difficult watch. It's just that it could have been so much more. A great film is waiting to be made on this material but it isn't this. It's also very right wing in it's attitude to social justice and I found that, in particular, very hard to swallow, although I tried to keep it separate from judging the film purely as a film.

C+

2 More Weeks...

It's all set to be the number 1 film in the States this weekend. We have to wait 2 more weeks. Heard some good things and I love Ridley Scott so have my fingers crossed.

Water

Have been wanting to see this since it first came out. An aesthetically stunning look at female oppression through cultural norms in prewar India, the film focuses on an ashram for widows who are supposed to live a live of chastity, withdrawal and abstinence according to strict religious and moral laws. The narrative principally follows Chuyia (Sarala), an 8 year old widowed before her marriage has even got going and before she can even hope to understand what love, devotion and widowhood could even entail.

The beginning of the film really drags. Drifts might actually be a fairer word and I almost turned it off after 45 minutes or so, but I'm glad I didn't as the last hour is far superior and far more engaging. The beginning is just not compelling or thought-provoking enough and it leaves the last hour of the film with too much to do, even though the end is, itself, very thought-provoking and stays with you. However, you certainly feel that chances were missed earlier on.

The relationships are only averagely developed (except for that between Chuyia and the beautiful Kalyani (Lisa Ray), an older widow) and what becomes the key focus of the story, the love between Kalyani and the idealistic Narayan (played by the incredibly handsome John Abraham), is not handled well, leaving an emotional hole at the end. Ray is the high-point of the performances and is the only one who would threaten my lists, although the young Sarala also gives a commendable performance, especially given her age.

It's far from being a bad film but it's certainly not brilliant. Which is a shame since, at times, it threatens to be.

B-