Scene of the Year 2008

See below : )

With the note: Yes, this is a scene that lasts, perhaps, 20 seconds at most, but the greatest scenes own no temporality, existing purely on their own plain. This still sends shivers down my spine, the perfect, stunning, shot of meaning, beauty and sense in a few, perfect, ephemeral, seconds.

2nd Watch

The Dark Knight (2008)



In this, new, segment, sponsored by Ronseal, we watch a film a second time to judge whether it has longevity and, with that, whether it has lived up to the hype either we, or others, initially heralded it with. Perhaps it might also be a forum for us to challenge our own views on things we have welcomed, and things we have dismissed. So, I start with this, an effort destined to appear, in one form or another, in my end of year lists.

It is impossible to watch this without sadness since you are constantly reminded of what a truly great talent each and every one of us has lost in such tragic circumstances. It was not only a fitting tribute to Heath Ledger that he picked up Best Supporting Actor for his performance as the psychotic joker here, but a fully merited one. As things stand, Ledger, too, will be my number one male performer of the year, an opinion that has only been enhanced through my recent second viewing of The Dark Knight. Ledger's astonishing Joker is a sublime character and a delicious villain. You feel the revulsion towards him of every character he approaches in the film, good or bad (or neither or both), apart from the Batman, intrugingly, a deliberate touch, surely, on Ledger's part, on Christian Bale's (Batman) and on director Christopher Nolan's. Malevolent, driven, but certainly not mad - the Joker has everything planned down to the last, anarchic detail. Perhaps there is order in anarchy after all. There is a message here, isn't there? Even anarchy requires planning of the highest order. The Joker represents both the darker side of the world and the darker side of human nature, the yearning in each of us to break out into disorder and chaos from our rigid, computerised lives, but unable to do so without allowing the world to burn in immorality, injustice and confusion. The Joker doesn't care about any of this, of course, and we are given tantalising, contradictory, hints as to why. Is there, after all, some tragic humanness, some awful unresolved, deep trauma behind it all? The hideous scars, bejewled by distorted and frightening make-up, are an all too constant reminded to the Joker of whatever trauma it is he is unable to face up to. A deep character indeed. Is there any 'deeper' villain in film history? That I can even ask the question is a measure of Ledger's achievement. The film belongs to him, and it always would have done regardless of the tragic events that were to befall him before the film's opening. There is some order, some meaning, some history, some reason, behind the Joker. And it is a touch of genius that we never see it.

Of course, Ledger is not alone. Nolan has assembled a tantalising cast to support the film. Bale is a good Batman, and, like his character, is in the shadows here. Caine and Freeman provide perfect, and very different foils, and Gary Oldman is full of an earthy humanity as Comissioner Gordon in a role different from those he usually plays (perhaps, for a lesser director, Oldman would have been the Joker and Ledger, Gordon). Maggie Gyllenhaal is a great improvement on Katie Holmes and is, bravely again, given an interesting and early demise which contributes hugely to the story arc of two major characters.

There are two disappointing factors. The first, a major one, is that Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is not given another film to let his fascinating portrayal of Harvey's tragic story arc come full circle in the extra cinematic space it deserves. The second, a minor one, is that Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow doesn't return for more than a single, tantalising, scene. A shame, but a minor quibble. Dent's demise, on the other hand, comes too quickly, as does his transformation. At least the make-up doesn't look as bad and actually holds up better under the microscope of a second viewing.

I haven't, yet, said anything about the film itself. So many high points and very few lows. The major low is the unbelievably irritating digitisation of Bale's voice. So many people I know have commented on this it is becoming almost scandelous that it was not picked up in first screenings and changed. Aside from that, it is very difficult to formulate criticisms. The action is well judged and well paced and punctuated by interesting scene after interesting scene, from the very first, during which the Joker's gang gradually bump one another off as the result of the clever machinations and planning of their devious and cunning boss. A scene towards the end (captured in the picture above) where the Joker, a passenger in a squad car, is driven around the city, hanging out of the window, with a beautiful gloaming falling behind him to near-darkness and the quiet silence of hollow solitude hanging and resonating deeply in the coming night air. It is a stunning moment, 20 or so seconds to make your hair stand on end, and is my scene of the year. It is, again, a testament to Nolan, and to cinematographer Wally Pfister, that a big-budget actioner such as this pays such attention to cinematography. Credit to Ridley Scott's Hannibal here, one of the pioneers of such an approach (I remember a similarly beautiful, silent and still, moment in that film where, amidst carnage and terror, neon police lights cross a suspension bridge with great delicacy and lightness of touch). It is hard to describe how such a seemingly meaningless moment can have such an effect on you, and, indeed, to describe the kind of effect that it actually has, but, if you can bottle meaning, it is there, in that moment, as the Joker parades deadly amidst Gotham's twilight.

There are other sublime moments too - the Joker's face as he realises he has underestimated humanity and the essence of his plan has failed (Ledger deserved the Oscar for this moment alone); the entire last set piece is brilliantly done and, as I wrote in my original review, a priceless testament to the intersubjective character to ethical truth; the scene where Freeman's Lucius Fox offers his resignation, and its sister scene, some half an hour later, when he voicelessly withdraws it; the Hong-Kong grab; the Joker at the party. The Dark Knight is just full of these moments and it never feels a moment too long, or like it is dragging. And not to forget the great lines (e.g. "I wanna drive") and the great dialogue (particularly the moments where the Joker offers up his contradictory histories, a great touch, effortlessly delivered by Ledger).

As you might have guessed, the Dark Knight's grade is going to improve on second viewing. Certainly not an easy effect to acheive and, particularly, for a superhero film. There is so much to enjoy with this, the performances, the cinematgoraphy, the script, the dialogue, the scenes, the set-pieces, the direction, the Joker...And there is potential for it to improve for further viewings, so vast this universe is, and so deep the character who inhabit it are. Perhaps those reviews that acclaim this to have changed movie-going forever are premature - it is no Jaws - but this is still an incredibly original, brave and beautiful way of pulling punters in through the doors. Incredibly impressive and improved by a second viewing

A-

Not to mention, of course, those last, great lines:

Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight

I've Loved You So Long - Il y a longtemps que Je t'aime (2008)

Three 2008 films in a row. Unbelievable. So what did I make of this, a lyrical French film about Juliette (a marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas), returning to live with her sister Lea having been released from prison 15 years after murdering her son? Beloved by critics, including my colleague, though not by Oscar, this didn't quite manage to inspire me as it has others, despite good performances from the leads.

There is no doubt that this is Scott Thomas' film and my colleague is right to feel indignant at the lack of nomination, though, sadly, this is what I've come to expect from the Academy. That said, Elsa Zylberstein, who plays the sister, delivers a more understated, though no less compelling performance. There are some interesting male efforts here too, particularly from Laurent Grevill, as Michel. But this is a feminine film, drawing on tender, emotional, themes of sisterhood, belonging and togetherness and it is right that the two leads dominate proceedings.

A slow- burning film, this still never fails to engage it's audience, largely down to the sublime performances. Juliette is a very human character, invested with huge emotional and psychological depth by an excellent script. This is a complex character, but Scott Thomas is more than up to the task. Although you can catch her English accent in places, this is nicely, and very plausibly, explained away and that can, besides, hardly be a criticism coming from someone with as dodgy French as mine. And Lea is an equally deep character, with just as much of a history and with just as many issues, though they are naturally different and perhaps not as insurmountable. In short, this feels a truly human drama, full of human life, struggle, beauty and redemption, many of the themes that are present in films of the highest order.

I would, however, urge caution about putting this in the very top rung of cinematic achievement. It's good, and I enjoyed it, but, ultimately, it failed to inspire me that it was a work of genuine greatness. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, what is an incredible, show-stopping, last scene (for the brilliant emotion-fueled exchange between the two sisters) is dulled by a shocking piece of editing leading up to it, which can be put down to little more than laziness. Unfortunately, for me at least, it had a negative effect. Secondly, as good as Scott Thomas is, I couldn't fully believe the historical actions of her character as explained in the final reel, which left another slightly bitter taste. And thirdly and finally, I couldn't help but feel that the bravery of the film-makers ebbed away slightly towards the end and they didn't quite have the bottle to make a fully empathetic film about characters who do bad, even unforgivable, things. This remains generally uncharted territory, the latest final taboo, for film-making. It will be a spectacular, epoch-defining, film that crosses those boundaries, but this isn't it.

Perhaps I shouldn't criticise this for being something it isn't and should just have enjoyed it for what it is. But I genuinely think I did. And, ultimately, my enjoyment was spoilt by the fact that this, good as it is, didn't quite deliver on all its promises.

B

The Mist (2008)

Warning: SPOILERS
Frank Darabont directs Stephen King story means form. This combination has brought us top-10-film-of-all-time The Shawshank Redemption and the very well received Green Mile (which I haven't seen sadly). So can this, a brave 18-rated horror film about a mysterious mist which hides all kinds of hideous and demonic creatures, live up to past form?

Yes and no. There are flashes of brilliance - and great bravery - here but, ultimately, the film disappoints, which is not, however, to say that it's bad. I hate to do reviews which include spoilers, but I can't avoid it here since vital elements of the plot and story impact heavily on my judgement of the film, so apologies for that and, if you're interested in seeing this, stop reading now.

It's a really good premise - most of the action centres on a group which have been trapped in a supermarket by the enveloping mist. And much of the film's emotional and psychological arc centres around the idea that the greatest danger to humanity is humanity itself. Few things are spared here by Darabont, not humanity, not milataryism, not mob justice, not technological development and definitely not religion. The message is loud and clear - all these things, and more, are responsible for the messes human beings get themselves into. And, in the Mist, they are in the middle of one big heap of a mess, which just gets worse and worse the longer the film goes.

There are some great set-pieces (a scene in a Chemists as the group looks for vital medicines) is taught, frightening, tense and brilliantly put together. Others are less convincing - particularly an early-ish one in the garage at the back of the supermarket which displays very poor CGI that, regrettably, impacts on the film's believability and the brilliance of some stunning and powerful later images.

Still, the temporal centre of the film is gripping and tense, helped by some believable characters and good emotional symbiosis between lead character and ordinary Joe David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his son Billy (Nathan Gamble). Two excellent contributions by a terrifying Marcia Gay Harden and previous MyFilmVault-lister Andre Braugher (wonderfully obnoxious and drenched in so many of the bad, individualised, aspects of modernity) might well result in spots in my end of year lists. Possibly.

Before the last 30 seconds this is possibly A grade material, but certainly worthy of a B+ and then the unforgivable happens. I cannot stand films which suddenly betray their own landscape of believability. It is absolutely paramount for horror and fantasy films of this type that they inhabit a consistent universe for their running time. Believability is contingent. If a horror film, or a fantasy film, is asking you to suspend belief in the everyday reality before your eyes, it is, then, to go a step too far to ask you to suspend belief in that realm of believability it itself has fictionalised. I apologise for the mouthful, but horror films live and die by this. And the Mist, ultimately, dies.

After escaping with his son and a few others, in a small 4 by 4, Drayton pilots the jeep through a wonderfully eerie, smoky, wilderness, stunningly captured and genuinely gut-wrenching. As ever more strange creatures appear, and as the needle on the petrol indicator slowly falls, you get this awful aching sense right in your gut not only that everything is not going to be okay, but that it cannot be. This is A grade stuff, polished, deep and highly effective. The Mist has enveloped America, if not the world. Finally, the fuel runs out. Drayton takes his gun, with four remaining bullets, shoots his son and the other two passengers to spare them, quite rightly, a fate worse than death, then leaves the jeep to call on the creatures to take him. Then the Mist disappears with a load of military guys following behind it with tanks and flame-throwers. I almost threw the remote through the TV in anger and disappointment. I felt totally cheated. I'd invested 2 hours of my life, caught up in this tension, only to be hit with this incredibly brutal ending which, yet, made no sense according to the film's own universe. Absurd. Utterly absurd. There is no way this mist could have lifted so quickly without Drayton hearing all the tanks, flamethrowers and military planes etc, not to mention other problems (why didn't he at least try to look round for other cars to syphon petrol off - they pass hundreds on the way). Completely gutting. It was a brilliant and brave ending without the absurd extra 30 seconds which revealed the 'twist', which made the whole thing, including Drayton's sacrifice, just seem completely trivial and pointless. This exemplifies everything I mean - good films (like, for example, REC and Cloverfield) are so effective at collapsing believability they don't leave you asking these kind of questions because, simply, these questions don't matter. The film just exists, perfectly and exquisitely, on its own plain.

Also, Jane is just not good enough an actor to pull this off and his effort at the end (which had been perfectly commendable up to this point) is as lamentable as the situation his character finds himself in. Hugely disappointing. What should be lauded as brave, innovative and good film-making has to, instead, be marked down as a disappointment.

This is such a shame as there are great things about the Mist, but it is impossible to recommend a film that leaves you feeling so deeply frustrated. It's still better than the average, so I won't let my disappointment get the better of me and settle on a B-. Like The Happening, a great concept, but a delivery that is ultimately flawed.

B-

The Happening (2008)

Surely not? Surely even I couldn't like this, M. Night Shyamalan's latest effort, about a 'happening' that suddenly causes people to commit suicide, which has been universally pilloried and castigated by all (it's currently at 19% on Rotten Tomatoes)? Could I? Could I?

Well the short answer is yes, and that brings me onto my rant, which I might as well get out of the way first. Yes, this has its problems, but I fail to see how it has been brutalised as strongly as it has. I personally feel that it has to do with Shyamalan. Here is an Asian-American film-maker daring to write and direct his own movies, based on interesting original personal material and he gets castigated for it. What would you prefer instead? Ten-a-penny Brett Ratboy's helming live-actioner after live-actioner on monstrous budgets, with inflated egos and salaries without a shred of originality anywhere? Being original means being brave and sometimes it doesn't come off as it should do - as here. But I'd rather salute someone for daring to have a go than pillory them for getting it wrong from time to time. More than any of this, you can tell that Shyamalan just loves making films, just loves telling stories and has also clearly understood the vast potential the moving image has for getting messages across to mass audiences. Again, I think the few who dare to speak up about something important (whether that's to them or to us all), rather than tow the line, deserve our applause and admiration. They are a rare breed.

Anyway, the film. As I say, it focuses on a small group (Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo and Ashlyn Sanchez) who are fleeing some kind of natural disaster, which causes people to commit suicide in the American Northwest. Unusually for a Shyamalan film the performances are fairly poor, and Deschanel, so good in All the Real Girls, is perhaps the biggest disappointment, though there are still signs she will go on to great things. Leguizamo is the stand-out, such as there is one, and Wahlberg sleep-walks his way through.

For sure, the story is at times preposterous - it is implied that trees talk to one another through the wind which carries 'the happening' - but this kind of thing is not unheard of in Hollywood films, including those like The Fog and The Mist (review forthcoming) which have been heralded as classics or near-classics. And there's a nice moment of self-effacement as Walhberg's character catches himself talking to a house-plant. Critics just seem to have missed this kind of thing, as they always do with Shyamalan, who clearly has the ability to take the piss out of himself and has a nice, sensitive, ear for humour.

The end is also rushed and unsatisfactory and adds another layer of unfortunate implausibility to the already fairly implausible proceedings, meaning that this is, in sum, a far from perfect film.

All this said, none of it can take away from the fact that I enjoyed it. And that is what I want most of all from a film. Is this not what everyone wants? Great films are great because they are great at entertaining. There's little more to it than that, or there should be, but pretentiousness seems to demand something more for some reason. Okay, this is far from being a great film, but it's still a perfectly good one and I've certainly seen far worse and far worse that has been far better received for little reason other than prejudice or arrogance.

I saw a director's screening with Shyamalan when The Village came out and was very impressed with him as someone who loves making movies, loves telling stories and understands the importance of the reception of moving images. There is no doubt that Shyamalan pushes my cinematic buttons and I don't see any problem with that. Yes, he can get preachy - this is even more so than the Village, but, again, I'd rather be challenged by a film than sleep-walk my way through it. And I happen to think that Shyamalan is right, we should all be thinking more about our relationship to the environment. There are many things about nature, and the way nature works, we still simply don't understand - I was just the other day reading about the sharp increase in the number of young people being diagnosed with allergies which no one can explain. Of course, there will be an explanation, and it won't be as far-fetched as Shyamalan's here, but nature is a mysterious, and unforgiving, mistress and this inevitably opens the way for some interesting and innovative film-making. The Happening makes a lot of Einstein's interesting comment that, if the honeybee was wiped out, humanity would be dead within 4 years. And the honeybee is, in fact, dying, and at alarming rates. Therefore this is something we should be thinking about.

There are some awful moments here, but there are some striking and startling images as well - Shyamalan hasn't forgotten how to shock and how to scare - and the whole thing is perfectly watchable and enjoyable as a novel take on the disaster movie. Shyamalan is someone who has the courage to stand up, speak his mind, and challenge an audience. He fluffs his lines here and stammers through on occasion, but that does not mean he should be subjected to the kind of ridicule which might silence him in the future. Shyamalan will be back and those who demand challenging and innovative film-making, and are even prepared to accept that it may go wrong from time to time, will be all the happier for that and cinema, as a whole, all the richer.

B-

Joaquin Phoenix: Certifiable

Bit late with this - caught it a few days ago and been meaning to post here. Definitely worth sticking with the entire thing. The word is that Phoenix is faking but, regardless, this is hilarious to watch.

Life of Pi

Our film wishlist has not been updated in a while (practically ever) but even though we have been too lazy to add titles to it, the powers that be have been working hard to remove one. The Life of Pi is finally heasing into production with one of the greatest living directors at the helm - step forward Mr Ang Lee. Read Matt's take on the book and why it would make a great film here.

And finally, here's the story.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

13 Oscar nominations. 13? THIRTEEN????

How is that possible?

Admittedly, some of these are deserved but others are most assuredly not. This is complete Oscar bait stuff - an adaptation of an F Scott Fitzgerald short story, it is lengthy, weighty and expensive. It runs the gamut of emotions - or at least tried to elicit these from the watching masses - tears, laughter, joy - you're supposed to fall in love Benjamin and Daisy and 1920s and 30s America. I genuinely had a sinking feeling within 30 seconds - I realised quickly that this was another Forest Gump/Big Fish style shaggy dog story, and that is historically not a type of film I've enjoyed at all. I'm afraid I didn't enjoy this either.

Nominations that are completely deserved:

Make-up & Special F/X - the only reason to stay with this interminable thing is to see whether the make-up crew and the special f/x department can make Brad Pitt look 20 again. Well, as it turns out, they can - and very convincing it is too. Kudos to them for that - have a well deserved Oscar nomination.

Best Score - Alexandre Desplat is a very talented composer and, while not his best work, it is of sufficient quality to merit awards notice. I probably wouldn't have had it in my top 5, but it would not have been a million miles away.

Art Direction - Probably just about deserved, although a win would be a real stretch when you have The Fall and Hellboy II: The Golden Army released in the same year.

Nominations that are probably undeserved but that I can handle:

Best Actor - Brad Pitt is not a particularly strong actor. The guy is incredibly good looking and I think this helps mask any deficiencies in charisma and screen presence. He is never the most nuanced of actors, and his only previous Oscar notice came for an exaggerated, tic-riddled mental patient where nuance went out the window. Well, to give him his dues, this is probably the best thing he has ever done - there's a subtlety and restraint (and he's not so restrained his comatose a la Jesse James) to his performance that makes it worth noticing and in many other years a nomination would have been deserved. Just not in a year when Rourke, Penn, Langella, DiCaprio and Jenkins gave far superior work though.

Cinematography - Seen better, seen worse. Presumably people remember the ballet scene where Daisy is silhouetted. At the time I was watching this I actually thought, maybe this could have been lit a little better. And in any case, The Fall is clearly the best cinematography of the year by something like a zillion miles.

Nominations that are completely undeserved but not catastrophically bad:

Costumes - Bleh. Who cares. Why is this even a category? Only 20% of the films made are even competing for this award. As if would ever go to something contemporary like American Beauty or The Departed or Crash (all of which won Best Pic.) They always lavish attention on period pieces and let's be honest, when was the last time you came out of a film and thought - "great costumes!"

Best Supporting Actress - What did Taraji P. Henson do that was noteworthy? Anything? Anything at all?

Astonishingly unfair, undeserved and embarrassing nominations that border on clinical insanity:

Best Picture: I detest pictures that for some reason decide they need to bookend and punctuate a story with a pointless modern day setting. Think Titanic or Saving Private Ryan. What's the point? It is always the weakest aspect of the film and serves no purpose. This one is punctuated by a masturbatory, death-bed, hurricane Katrina setting. I see no point to this other than to get Cate Blanchett and Oscar nom for playing a 90 year old and even that didn't work. And if there was some symbolic relevance to setting it the day before Katrina, then clearly it wasn't necessary since the original short was written in 1921, and I dare say was a much finer piece of work than this.

Best Editing - What editing? I dread to think how long the first cut ran but if this is a well edited film then I look like a 20 year old Brad Pitt. If it had been half the length, maybe there would have been an enjoyable film there, but at 166 minutes it is at least an hour too long. Any editor with balls would have told Fincher the whole Katrina thing was getting canned anyway.

Best Adapted Screenplay: - Take a novella and bloat it so immensely, you make Forest Gump look like a live action short. The aforementioned modern day setting is indulgent and completely ruinous.

Best Director - I am actually a huge David Fincher fan but this is so self-indulgent I cannot believe this is the guy that directed Se7en, The Game and Zodiac. Very disappointing stuff from someone I greatly admire. Even his previous misses like Panic Room and, dare I say, Fight Club, had a huge amount of directorial verve and originality. This is just Forest Gump lite.

Grade: D

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

What more is there to say about Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, a film which has wowed audiences, critics and awards ceremonies in the early part of 2009? Well, hopefully, a little bit otherwise this review will be a little pointless. Nominated for 10 Oscars, including some love for Boyle in the director's category, does this deserve the praise which has been heaped on it?

The answer is yes and no. Yes, because this is a terrific film, thoroughly enjoyable and intense throughout (except for perhaps a 15 minute or so period of drift), though it perhaps falls short of being the absolute classic it has been heralded as.

So, in case anyone needs reminding, Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), who ends up on the Hindi version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Accused of cheating because he answers the questions correctly, Jamal is interviewed by the police, during which it becomes clear why he knows the answers to the questions he is faced by...

This is a brilliantly put together film. Reminiscent of my favorite film of all time, Ikiru, in the way it narrates the story backwards. Slumdog stands as proof of the emotional effectiveness of focalising the drama in this way - as opposed to the traditional, linear, narrative fare of much mainstream cinema. Telling the story - effectively - backwards just seems to be a highly effective way of scoring emotional points and hitting the right psychological notes. This is done very effectively here.

I think I would echo my colleague's comments on the lead performances. Dev Patel and (the absolutely stunning) Freida Pinto are perfectly decent but should not, in reality, trouble our end of year lists (as they haven't my colleague's) nor, for that matter, any other, though, of course, far less prestigious, awards ceremonies. The stand out performance here is undoubtedly provided by Anil Kapoor, who plays Prem Kumar, the host of Millionaire who somehow manages to convey a character even more obnoxious than Chris Tarrant. Kapoor's performance bristles with energy and presence and he produces a very effective counter-vision to Jamal's wide-eyed innocence. The rest of the performances are all fine, though nothing special. That said, perhaps Ankur Vikal, as abusive and sleazy local hood Maman, deserves special mention - although I did feel that the 'gangster' sideshow was often superfluous to the film.

Despite the positives I was left feeling that I didn't enjoy this quite as much as I should have done and I would certainly question how well it would stand up to a second viewing. And I don't think that was all down to the people in the row in front, and in the row behind, giving the answers to the fictional questions on the gameshow and getting them wrong in all cases. When the geezer in the row behind said "D'Artagnan" for the last one, he almost got a faceful of what was left of our popcorn. In the end, though, the film just didn't resonate quite as it should have done, despite being fully enjoyable and generally satisfying. Further, there is enough here for many to enjoy and I don't recall, yet, hearing anyone say a bad word about it. Recommended but, in the end, perhaps only just.

B+

Movie Years 2008

My top 5s for 2008 are complete. Click on the logo!

More 2008 Notes

Vicky Cristina Barcelona - Stunning. Best Woody Allen in ages, maybe ever. Terrific dialogue and the wonderful Spanish setting is like another character in this excellent ensemble piece. A sheer delight from start to finish. A+


Frozen River - Saw it for Melissa Leo's Oscar nom and she is certainly deserving, trouble is I can't help feeling she took Kristen Scot Thomas' spot. You're never exactly hard pushed to guess where the film is going, but it gets there with no shortage of skill. A great debut from Courtney Hunt. B+


Wendy and Lucy - Michelle Williams stars as Wendy, and gives a decent performance, but I have to say I found her character fairly irritating. She makes a series of illogical decisions and I had little sympathy for her, although this is once again a well made film and a good debut by a female director. C+


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - AKA Forrest Gump 2, and it might be wort noting that I hated that film too. Tedious, much much much much much much much too long self-indulgent wank. I love David Fincher's work but this is borderline unforgivable. 13 Oscar nominations??? Pah. (More to follow) D


Let the Right One In - Swedish horror film riding high in the IMDb charts, and it ain't bad. It's not the best horror ever, in fact it isn't even the best horror this year but it is the best Swedish horror film I've ever seen. Actually it is the only Swedish horror film I've ever seen - it it is nicely shot and atmospheric, but found slightly wanting in terms of real suspense or intrigue. B-


The Fall - Spectacularly beautiful film - amongst the most visually pleasing I've ever seen in fact. The cinematography and art direction are outrageously good. It proves there no excuse for poor visuals as this was all accomplished with a very modest budget - the makers of low budget films everywhere should take note and be embarrassed with their half-hearted efforts. A-


Doubt - Enjoyable Meryl Streep - Philip Seymour Hoffman double act. The 10 minute long scene featuring a tempestuous confrontation between them is wonderful. Nicely written although slightly irritating direction with director John Patrick Shanley mistakenly believing tilting the camera 30 degrees adds something to the shot. There's a reason no-one else does that John. B+

Christian Bale Going Nuts

Terminator 4 is my 10th most anticipated movie of the year and clearly Bale is taking it very seriously. One thing that struck me though was his weird pseudo American accent. Last time I heard him speak he definitely had a pretty normal British accent - maybe he was screaming in character?

Quick Notes

Valkyrie - the makers of Valkyrie commit that most unforgivable of sins - their film is so dull that I couldn't care less whether Hitler lived or died. Tom Cruise is Colonel Von Stauffenberg - a soldier selected to assassinate Hitler and overthrow his government. Sounds like a great premise for a film but even a solid director like Bryan Singer, someone who certainly knows how to craft a thriller, can't eke any thrills out of such plodding material. Sure it looks handsome, and is nicely photgraphed, but much of it borders on tedium. C-


Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - the quirkiest title of the year in a self-consciously quirky film - think Juno, but far less successful. I don't mind quirky. I liked Juno as much as the next man (as long as the next man isn't Matt.) But if I'm honest I was fairly irritated halfway through the opening credits, which is a pretty impressive going. The cast are all likeable but the script just didn't do them justice. C-


Defiance - another WWII film - the third of 2008 - and the third WWII film of '08 that blows hard. It's dull, unconvincing and... well isn't that bad enough? Ed Zwick isn't everyone's favourite director but I actually liked The Last Samurai a lot. This is the sort of worthy bore-fest that makes him hard to defend though. D


Revolutionary Road - stunning Sam Mendes film (goes without saying) that was criminally overlooked by those fine folk that nominate the Oscars. The only actor to get a nomination in this terrific film was on screen for about 3 minutes. DiCaprio and Winslet are wonderful and deserved better. Winslet's nomination for her role in The Reader instead of for this superior effort is inexplicable. Review to follow. A