Il Postino

Not sure I've used the adjective 'lovely' to describe a film before but there's nothing else that seems more appropriate. The elegant, simple story, the wonderful setting, the restrained, subtle and superb performances make this a really enjoyable experience. It's a great film that does so much with so little.

The title character is played by Massimo Troisi, who died just two weeks after filming ended. It's a dreadful shame that he never got to see how successful the film, and in particular his performance was. He received posthumous nominations at the Oscars, BAFTAs and Screen Actors Guild awards. All were completely deserved.

Massimo is Mario Ruopollo, a simple villager living on a beautiful Italian island in the 1950s. When a famous Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda (an excellent Philip Noiret), is exiled on the island the postmaster places an ad for a postman solely to deal with the poet's mail, an ad Mario applies for and accepts despite the offering of a wage described as a "pitance".

Mario has no care for money and takes the job principally to meet a man whose poetry he becomes captivated by. He sets about befriending the poet in his own understated, slightly awkward way. The two become close, with Mario inventing metaphors with Pablo's help - metaphors he will use to try and win the heart of the most beautiful girl in the village.

Il Postino was made for just $3 million. It went on to gross $75 million worldwide, including $20 million at the US box office. It was nominated for 5 Oscars, including Best Picture. It won the Oscar for Best Score.

Every success afforded this delightful film is no more than it deserves. It relies on nothing more than exceptional characterisation, realised by truly gifted actors, the principle being Troisi whose death just after filming is a real tragedy. How wonderful though that he left behind a piece of work that will unquestionably be remembered for many years to come.

A-

The Bank Job

Can you tell the quality of a movie from the trailers that play before it? Generally I can't stand watching trailers and aim to turn up to a film about a minute or two before the opening credits role. However you can't always time it right and I sometimes get there too early and have to sit through previews of films I either don't want spoiled in any way, or films that I have zero interest in seeing.

Before Roger Donaldson's The Bank Job we had trailers for:

The Eye - an unconvincing blind Jessica Alba undergoes an eye transplant and starts seeing things. The trailer asks us if we can believe our own eyes if they are not our own. I think the answer is yes, unless your trapped inside a stupid horror film.

21 - the film about the MIT students who took on Vegas at Blackjack. Good story, lousy looking film.

Never Back Down - whose title I think says it all.

Street Kings - Keanu Reeves plays a cop struggling to overcome a plot that looks like the sort of thing we've seen done before. Many times.

It seemed the sort of crowd that the distributors were expecting was easily pleased and not particularly discerning, so when the main attraction started I wasn't exactly hopeful. However this adaptation of a true story is actually pretty entertaining.

Jason Statham is not someone whose films I look out for but he's not someone I'd refuse to watch either. He's effective enough in this as the car dealer who is approached, indirectly, by MI5 to rob a bank in order to recover some sensitive photographs of a member of the royal family. The twist being that he doesn't realise that's what he's organising - he thinks it's a straight-forward bank robbery. Statham assembles a motley crew of slightly irritating East End wannabe gangsters and gets to work on digging a tunnel through to the floor of the vault.

Donaldson is an effective director and London is presented fairly nicely in retro-fashion, which adds a little bit of interest. The are problems. The robbery is not particularly gripping or ingenious, like it was for example in Rififi. There aren't any characters that keep you glued to the screen, like there were for example in Sexy Beast. It's simply a decently put together film, decently acted with a decent script but little that stands out as excellent. Perhaps the only stand out in fact is David Suchet as a sleazy, evil porn baron. It's the one noteworthy performance in the movie.

The Bank Job is not something you should try and see on the big screen. It'll work perfectly well on your TV, but is is certainly an above average piece of work that'll hold your interest throughout. C+

One Minute Bad Reviews

That is to say these are all reviews of bad films rather than bad reviews. Maybe they're both. And of course when I say they are bad films, what I really mean is that they are alleged masterpieces or at least quite highly regarded. I just didn't like them...

The Seven Samurai

It is no secret that I can't stand the pained expressions and histrionics of the style of acting that characterised Japanese cinema in and around the 1950s. Actors of the era performed with the idea of emulating the Noh form of theatre where actors wore masks. Their facial expressions are designed to appear mask-like but it just ruins the film for me and this is one of the worst examples. I tried watching this before but gave up after 20 minutes. This time I stuck with it but didn't particularly enjoy it. I really don't see the hallmarks of a masterpiece here. It is needlessly long - scenes are painfully extended with the director cutting to face after face to see the same sort of reaction. There's one quite elderly guy (possibly Yohei) who looks like he's about to cry every single time he's on screen and it is infuriating. Not my cup of sake at all. D

Radio Days

I've been on a Woody Allen role of late with Hannah and her Sisters, and The Purple Rose of Cairo cracking the A+ barrier and Zelig and Broadway Danny Rose also faring very well. This however didn't do it for me. There are a couple of wry observations in Allen's semi-autobiographical look at the end of the golden era of radio, but it doesn't have the engrossing characters or plot nor is it consistently funny enough to hold one's interest. C

The Ladykillers

This is the British comedy of 1955 that was remade by the Coens a few years ago to little success. Judging by the original though they were hampered by the source material. A gang of would be crooks plan a bank raid from the home of an old woman who they lodge with, pretending to be classical musicians. It's not very funny, it's not very well acted (yes even Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers can be off their game) and it's so low budget that consecutive shots in the same scene look as though they were filmed in different seasons. One minute it's brilliant sunshine, then we cut to a reaction shot and it appears overcast. All the interior shots are appallingly lit and the whole thing just doesn't hold together very well, with scenes badly strung together, badly edited and even the simplest of action sequences having no coherence. D

The Grapes of Wrath

Another alleged masterpiece another bad grade from me. Maybe I'm just not in a very charitable mood of late, I guess after such a spectacular year in the cinema my expectations are sky high. This though doesn't come close to its Best Picture nominated billing. John Ford won Best Director ahead of Alfred Hitchcock, whose Rebecca won Best Picture and must have directed itself. This was in the days of Picture/Director splits being very rare. Hitchcock never won an Oscar despite deserving at least 3 and the decision to reward Ford here was a strange one. The film doesn't hold up well although I suppose at the time, a young Henry Fonda starring in a very American epic (an adaptation of a pulitzer prize winning Steinbeck novel no less) was the sort of thing that went down well. They should have gone with the Brit though since his film was far more accomplished and the direction in Rebecca is exemplary. The Grapes of Wrath just did not hold my interest at all. Maybe the novel works better. D

Slow Movie Month

The post-Oscar season is always a slow one in terms of new films. There's nothing of any quality released since all the decent films came out in order to qualify for awards consideration. I've not been to the cinema in over a month (shocking!) and there's not even anything around that looks like it might be a decent guilty pleasure. I may try and catch The Bank Job before it disappears and maybe The Orphanage looks half-decent.

So apologies for lack of posts. I should be catching up on films on DVD to fill this void. I've seen a couple so I'll get some reviews up this weekend. In the mean time it is only 2 weeks until the Rolling Stones/Martin Scorsese film Shine a Light comes out on IMAX. I can't wait.

Modern Classics

#2 The Talented Mr Ripley

With the sad passing of Anthony Minghella yesterday I decided it was about time to do another extended review of a recent film that I believe to be near perfect in every way. You can find the first entry in this series here.

The Talented Mr Ripley starts at the very end of the film with a voice over that gives us a glimpse into the tortured mind of Tom Ripley. "If I could just go back. If I could rub everything out. Starting with myself. Starting with borrowing a jacket." As he delivers this briefest of prologues, Ripley's face is revealed, one shard at a time, each one symbolising the many different facets to his character. The movie's title is revealed on screen with the word "Talented" being last in a string of adjectives that flash up in turn, including Mysterious Lonely Confused Haunted and Passionate. Matt Damon is handed the unenviable task of portraying every single one of them over the 133 minutes if the film.

The jacket that Ripley mentions in the opening voiceover is a friend's, who he substitutes for during a musical performance overlooking Central Park. Among the very well off guests are Emily and Herbert Greenleaf, who spot the Princeton emblem on the borrowed jacket and comment on how he must have known their son Dickie, who also attended the University. Out of embarrassment Ripley doesn't correct their error and from this initial misunderstanding, Ripley soon agrees to travel to Italy to persuade Dickie, who is enjoying southern Italy at the expense of his father, to return home to New York and do something more worthwhile.

The opening exchanges fly by in a matter of minutes but so much is established here in terms of plot and characterisation that you imagine that Minghella (who wrote the screenplay) must have condensed scores of pages of the novel into just a few brief minutes on screen. Scenes are short, sharp but packed with insight and detail. Ripley is shown in the washroom brushing down the jackets of guests at a classical concert and is then seen playing on the main stage at 1.30am before a caretaker turns on the lights to stop him. In these two scenes, which take seconds, we understand that Tom Ripley is a nobody, yearning to be a somebody. There's no exposition here, the audience aren't treated as idiots with a Ripley voiceover telling us what we can see on screen. We understand Ripley wants to be someone. It may be for this reason that he introduces himself to an American tourist, Meredith Logue (Cate Blanchett), as Greenleaf at an Italian dock. It may also be, as the Greenleaf chauffeur puts it, that "the Greenleaf name opens a lot of doors".

Once in Italy, Ripley sets his sights on ingratiating himself with Dickie (Jude Law) and his girlfriend Marge Sherwood (Gwyneth Paltrow) by convincing Dickie he knew him at Princeton and pretending to be huge fan of Jazz since Dickie is obsessed by it. In no time at all Tom befriends the couple and is invited by Dickie to stay at his apartment.

I remember just prior to The Talented Mr Ripley's release in 1999 that Anthony Minghella was telling the press that "the whole world will be at Jude Law's feet" when they see the film. To this day it probably remains his most perfect role. Dickie is the carefree playboy who oozes confidence and a magnetism that has everyone enraptured. As Marge puts it to Tom later in the film "When you've got his attention you feel like you're the only person in the world." Law captures this perfectly.

Yet for this to be convincing those around him have to be faultless as well and Damon and Paltrow also deliver turns that should be regarded as highly as Law's was. When Dickie plays sax at a Jazz club early in the film, and invites Ripley on stage to sing along, there's a delight on Ripley's face that perfectly illustrates what Marge's point. They sing Tu vuo' fa' L'americano on stage and Damon doesn't take his eyes of Law for even a split second. It's perfect choices like that that build characterisation and help the viewer completely understand these characters.

The other side of Marge's illustration of the world of Dickie this that while you have his attention "it's like the sun shines on you and it's glorious, then he forgets you and it's very very cold." Everyone in the film feels the cold shoulder of Dickie at one point or another, but none feel the pain that this brings as intensely as Tom, not even Marge. Dickie suggests that Tom should return home once he can no longer pay his way, and after Tom suggests he return in the new year under his own steam, Dickie rebuffs the idea, saying instead that he'll be moving in with Marge. An argument ensures in which Tom cracks open Dickie's skull with the end of an oar. It's a beautifully filmed scene withe Tom and Dickie aboard a small motor boat floating in the middle of the pristine bay of San Remo - the water as intensely blue as the cloudless sky.

We cut to the same location minutes, maybe hours later. As Minghella puts it in his script: 'The boat rocks, gently, the sun sparkling indifferently on the waves. Ripley lies by Dickie in the bottom of the boat, in the embrace he's always wanted.'

Jude Law's absence from the rest of the film is, incredibly, not felt at all as the tension mounts with every lie Ripley tells to the police, to Marge and to Dickie's family as Ripley keeps everyone at arm's length, trying to conceal what has happened to him. Tom passes himself off as Ripley, withdrawing money with his passport and checking into hotels, in order to create the illusion that Dickie is still alive.

Suspicions grow, particularly a friend of Dickie's: Freddie Miles, played by the impeccable Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman makes a brilliant entrance earlier in the film: "Don't you want to fuck every woman you see. Just once,". Freddie Miles is not quite the playboy Dickie is, but certainly has the confidence and the swagger and sees through Ripley straight away, sneering at him when he reminds Dickie not to forget to catch the 8 o-clock train.

In the best scene in the film Miles pays a visit to what he's been told is Dickie's apartment, only to find Tom there and Dickie nowhere in sight:

FREDDIE
Did this place come furnished? It doesn't
look like Dickie. Horrible isn't it? - so
bourgeois.

Now he's poking at the Hadrian bust.

RIPLEY
You should watch that!

FREDDIE
In fact the only thing which looks like
Dickie is you.

RIPLEY
Hardly.

FREDDIE
Have you done something to your hair?

Ripley starts to smile, his eyes darting around the room.

RIPLEY
Freddie, do you have something to say?

FREDDIE
I think I'm saying it.

And the thing is he is saying it: in every word, in every gesture, in every disparaging look.

Damon's perfect here too and completely shines in scenes where Ripley is confronted by someone. He's note perfect when being accused by the police in Venice, and again when confronted by Marge back in Rome. Marge finds Dickie's rings, which he had promised to never remove, amongst Tom's possessions. He tries to convince her of an innocent explanation but fails and loses his towel in the process. He returns to the bathroom, scrabbles around for some sort of weapon, which he secretes in the pocket of a bathrobe and again tries to convince Marge of a reason for him having the rings.

Tom desperately tries to persuade Marge that Dickie gave the rings to him, with such intensity that he doesn't notice he's gripping so hard on the razor that he cuts his hand open. Blood drips from his robe. Marge is retreating all the time as he advances, eager to appear sincere and sympathetic, but actually appearing more ominous and calculating. Marge is seemingly the only person in the world who knows the truth and as she backs away from him, her face reveals terror, devastation and pure hatred in equal measure. Paltrow is absolutely breathtaking here she responds with "I don't believe a single word you've said" and it's astonishingly convincing. The scene ends with another a friend of Marge's, Peter Smith Kinglsey, arriving at the front door. Marge, terrified, screams and sobs into his arms.

I would go so far as to say that this film contains the very best performances in the careers of Jude Law, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett and Matt Damon. All are sensationally gifted actors, amongst the very best of their generation and they all given note-perfect turns in Minghella's film. Credit to a director who not only had the foresight to bring such talent together, but to get the very best out of them. Paltrow, Hoffman and Blanchett are all Oscar winners, Law and Damon both nominees but I truly believe their work here is better than anything they've done since, and all have done some pretty amazing work -it's just that they're so good here that it eclipses anything else.

The film ends with Ripley destined to get away with the murder of Dickie but cursed to a life of loneliness. His chance at happiness with Peter Smith Kinglsey is vanquished when Meredith Logue runs into Ripley, who's on a cruise with Kinglsey, as he watches the sunset. I'm coming across as way too obsessed with this film here, but Matt Damon's line reading is just unbelievably good. Meredith calls out "Dickie" for she only knows Ripley by that name several times. He turns in disbelief greeting her with "Hello Meredith" - his voice filled with anguish and desperation. When she points out that she's traveling with family he knows at once that there is only one way out. Peter knows him as Ripley. Meredith knows him as Dickie. Peter and Meredith know each other. Someone has to go, and it can't be the one traveling with family in tow. His cries as he strangles Peter play over a closing shot of Ripley as he sits on his bed, staring blankly as the film closes with the exact shot with which it opens.

Anthony Minghella created a breathtaking film. It is stylish captivating and beautiful, featuring wonderful cinematography a haunting score and as detailed and thoughtful a screenplay as you could wish to see. Quite clearly the source novel is a brilliant piece of writing but Minghella's adaptation is simply perfect. He brings to life an array of characters that are vivid and dynamic. They evolve over the course of the film, none more so than the Mysterious Yearning Secretive Sad Lonely Troubled Confused Loving Musical Gifted Intelligent Beautiful Tender Sensitive Haunted Passionate and Talented Mr Ripley. Matt Damon plays every facet of his incredibly complex character to absolute perfection. It's just one of a number of world class performances that are realised in Minghella's masterpiece.

A+

Juno (2007)

Okay, so I know that it has become trendy and cool to say that you like and 'get' this film. I don't know if I 'get' it, I think and hope I do, but I certainly like it. In fact, I more than like it. I love it.

I am actually surprised to be sitting here saying that. The film never really took my fancy and even when I did agree to go, I expected nothing greater than a jolly, quirky, light piece of afternoon fare. Not so.

Well, it is all these things. In places, it's a film with a soul lighter and more full of grace than air and it's certainly quirky, with a masterful performance by Ellen Page delivering that aspect to such great effect. It's also so much more than all this, though, and the film is simply littered with great, genuine, characters, who are as ordinary as any I've ever seen on screen, with the possible exception of the late Roy Scheider in Jaws.

That last sentence should point to what a complement this is. Nothing is more difficult to portray than ordinary. Most characters are just that, characters. Some, of course, are deeper than others, many hued, and full of emotion, but so few surpass that to portray the humanity we see before our eyes everyday, a humanity it is so difficult, if not impossible, to bottle. It is to Juno's vast credit that it is a film flooded with performances that take its protagonists to such a level. This is particularly the case with J.K. Simmons' masterful (and I do not use that term lightly) turn as Juno's Dad and Alison Janney's similar effort as her stepmum. They simply do not get enough screentime, though, in fairness, that is more forgivable in a film of this nature than it often is. Olivia Thirlby is also great as Juno's friend Leah. The one slightly less satisfactory effort is Michael Cera as the superbly named Paulie Bleeker. Cera has much work to do to leave the large shadow of George Michael Bluth behind and this performance sailed very close indeed to that wind. I haven't yet mentioned Jennifer Garner and Jason Batemen who are both perfectly cast in roles that end up lending that vital extra dimension to the film that, ultimately, makes it so damn good...

...Their relationship also ends up providing the film's best scene, truly one of those rare and beautiful moments which stay with you long after you've left the stale popcorn smell and stained carpets of the Leicester Odeon. Perfectly pitched and delivered. I have no shame at all in admitting that I cried like I haven't cried for a while.

I know this is a review of Juno but I can't help ending by echoing my colleague's comments about 2007 as a whole as this will be the last film I'll see at the cinema from 2007. It has been a great year, and I've still got many - potential - treats (American Gangster, Into the Wild and others) waiting for me on DVD. Fantastic. So that's an...

A+

For Juno.

Has any film year ever produced three A+ films for a single person before? Well, dear readers, you'll just have to re-read our lists to find out. Unbelievable. And 2008 has delivered another one already.

I'm in dreamland.

2007 completed list to follow soon. Where will Juno - and its protagonists - find themselves?

Anthony Mingella

At 1.35 today I heard the shocking news that Oscar winning director Anthony Minghella had died at the age of 54. He was a director whose work I looked forward to every year and his death is very sad not only for his family and friends, but also for an industry that will never again be touched by his immense talent. By way of tribute, rather than look at a career retrospective, which is certainly warranted with such films as the 9 time Oscar winner The English Patient, multiple Oscar nominee Cold Mountain and 2006's absorbing Breaking and Entering, I'll concentrate on what I believe to be his best work: The Talented Mr Ripley. The extended review will appear tomorrow.

Laura Linney

The daily poll on IMDb is which Laura Linney performance is your favourite of this deacde. Tragically the biggest vote-getter is the answer that basically says I've no idea who she is.

That's a real shame since she constantly delivers outstanding work. She features on my Movie Years awards 3 times, winning for her terrific turn in You Can Count On Me, which doesn't even make the top 5, as shown here...

I am not that familiar with Linney's work. 1991 (17.7%)
Sarah in Love Actually 1949 (17.4%)
Annabeth Markum in Mystic River 1173 (10.5%)
Joan Berkman in The Squid and the Whale 889 (7.9%)
I don't have an opinion here. 827 (7.4%)

For those that haven't, go rent You Can Count On Me and see not only a terrific film but one of the best female performances of the last 10 years. Stunning.

Slow Movie Week

Little bit addicted to this...

There Will Be Blood (2007)

This is a strange film. In all honesty, it's difficult to know how to judge it but I'll give it my best shot.

I must confess that I've been looking forward to this as much as any other film this entire calendar year. It did leave me feeling disappointed, as I was expecting pure excellence, but I'll try to be as impartial as possible.

The story centres (and I do mean centres) on oil baron Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) who will seemingly stop at nothing to see his empire grow and grow. But when Plainview's lust for fortune takes him to the town of Little Boston, California, in the second decade of the 20th century, he comes into conflict with the town's church and preacher (played by a very off kilter Paul Dano), his own family, and, ultimately, with himself.

To say this is Daniel Day Lewis' film is something of an understatement. He is in every scene, certainly every scene of note, bar one. His performance is so outstanding that the character eats up every moment with sublime force and power. A truly tour-de-force performance if ever there was one, Day Lewis brilliantly depicts a highly complex and dynamic character, who has so much going on inwardly and psychologically, it is difficult to depict, even in a (near) three hour film. Despite my snooty denunciation of the Oscars the other day, it is hard not to call Day Lewis a worthy winner. He is. But will he win the Matt nomination for male performance of the year 2007? You'll just have to wait until Friday, until I've seen the final film still on at the cinema on my 2007 radar, to find out.

The main problem with all this is the complete lack of support for Day Lewis. Yes, there's Paul Dano, who is good at times and I really must emphasise at times because at other moments it feels like he's some terrible child actor auditioning for the college play and failing to be cast. His line delivery is, at times, that bad. This is ultimately a great shame, as an otherwise interesting character is lost somewhere in Dano's unconvincing delivery. The ending particularly suffers in relation to this. Dano aside, the only other performance worthy of note is Dillon Freasier, who is good as Day Lewis' son, H.W. Plainview. For a film with designs on 'epic', this is ultimately unsatisfactory and it is an aspect of the film that falls a little flat, detracting from the overall feel.

Yet, and despite the near 3 hour running time, this is, at no point, a difficult watch. The character is interesting enough, and Day Lewis' performance captivating enough, to maintain a firm hold on the viewer's attention. It is also a further testament to Day Lewis. The film would have hugely suffered in lesser hands. The cinematography, by Robert Elswit, is also excellent and a shot of an oil rig burning against the deep California night sky lingers long in the memory.

I think that final judgement will have to be reserved for a second watch and it says enough that I am looking forward to watching it again, at some point. Though it in no way leaves you hankering for more in the manner of The Assassination of Jesse James or (the very different) Cloverfield, to name two recent examples which have succeeded in drawing me in deeper.

Flawed but well worth a watch. Day Lewis' performance just demands to be up in lights and is truly worthy of the entry fee alone.

B+

What They're Up To Next

With the Oscars now well and truly behind us, and some analysts looking forward to next year's race (Reservation Road is my tip), MyFilmVault are looking at where are lucky Oscar winners are headed next. Obviously we expect all readers to ensure they've seen their Oscar winning work first...

The Coens (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay)

Burn After Reading

On my top 10 Most anticipated for 2008, this sees the Coens back in the comedy game with George Clooney cast alongside Brad Pitt. Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormund and John Malkovich complete an impressive cast. Critics will be worried that this sees the Coens return the lighter and not altogether successful fare of the likes of Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. I happen to be a big fan of the former though and Clooney is of course a living legend so I can't see any potential pitfalls. Now watch it bomb.

Daniel Day Lewis (Best Actor)

Ruining my column (selfish) Daniel Day Lewis is rather choosy about his projects having made just 3 films since the turn of the millennium. He is well known for other, often quirky, interests and may well put his feet up at least in the acting sense for a while before committing to another picture.

Marion Cotillard (Best Actress)

Public Enemies

Rather excitingly, Cotillard has been cast in this Michael Mann's project. Unsurprisingly (for Mann), Public Enemies is listed on IMDb as a crime/drama which tells us little, but costars Christian Bale and Johnny Depp tell us quite a lot more. Both have a pretty good track record with their choices (the horrible Pirates of the Caribbean sequels notwithstanding) and, although Mann can be hit and miss, his films are always ones to keep an eye on.


Javier Bardem (Best Supporting Actor)

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

This looks a little dicey. Not only does it have the worst title in recent memory, it's a Woody Allen film which these days can mean anything from brilliant (Match Point), to distinctly average (Scoop) although I think it is fair to say his latest films are more the latter. Bardem stars alongside Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz so all may not be lost but I fear this one may be one to avoid.


Tilda Swinton (Best Supporting Actress)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Limits of Control

We'll gloss over the Narnia sequel (zzzzzzzzzzzz) and ignore what seems to be a supporting turn that she's set to deliver in the aforementioned Burn After Reading and focus on two very exciting looking projects. The first is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - another film on my 2008 preview. It's David Fincher's new one and stars Brad Pitt as a man who ages backwards. Fincher rarely puts a foot wrong and this is being talked up as one to look out for. Her other project is The Limits of Control which perhaps sounds even more exciting. Slated as a 2009 release, Jim Jarmusch tackles a (according to IMDb) crime/drama/thriller. I loved Jarmusch's Broken Flowers and it'll be really interesting to see him take on a completely different genre. It also features an unvbelievably great cast as well, with Bill Murray, John Hurt and Gael Garcia Bernal joining Swinton, which I dare say is even more exciting than the pant-wettingly exciting ensembles listed above.

Rambo

Arriving in cinemas with its much publicised 236 body kill-count in a meagre 91 minutes of running time (that's 2.59 kills per minute) Rambo is the 4th entry in the franchise that started with First Blood in 1982 - a movie that featured a kill count of zero and was actually fairly highly respected.

This is of course absolute nonsense. No one's going to watch it for great dialogue, great acting or anything resembling originality. This is murder-porn which may very well be the new form of torture-porn, a sub-genre that became popular with the increasingly absurd, disgusting and atrocious Saw franchise and Eli Roth's two (despicable) Hostel films.

If torture-porn is repugnant (which is is) then why am I going to give murder-porn a (semi) pass (which I am)? The answer is maybe that the violence here has a video game/cartoon like quality that makes it possible to detach yourself slightly from what would otherwise be fairly disturbing. Bodies go flying at a rate of 10 a second, limbs flail, blood spatters. It has such a weak grip on reality that you find yourself amused by proceedings rather than outraged. Rambo even manages to explode a WWII bomb that generates a mushroom cloud (and then impressively outruns the aftermath) which you have to admit is a pretty neat way of dispatching multiple bad guys at once. And these bad guys are set up to be so evil that killing them doesn't really matter anyway.

It's very violent. It's dreadfully scripted. It's appalling acted. It's also very funny. I'm not sure it always intends to be, but it is. And for that reason it's almost worth your time. D+

Oscar Predix

8/10 which was probably not bad. Bonus points to me for getting Tilda Swinton and for predicting a Best Actress upset. Minus marks for guessing the wrong upsetter. I went for Ellen Page. It was of course Marion Cotillard. The only other one I missed was Best Cinematography which was a travesty.

Oscar Reaction

Little late with this but...

The Good:

Tilda Switon winning Best Supporting Actress. Good speech too.

Javier Bardem showing a lot of class whilst accepting Best Supporting Actor. I prefered Casey Affleck but I'm not complaining at all about Bardem's win at all since he was outstanding.

Jonah Hill and Seth Rogen 'filling in' for Halle Berry and Judi Dench. That bit was funnier than anything Jon Stewart managed, aside from the pretend snide 'so arrogant' remark about Glen Hansard's Best Song win.

Marion Cotillard showing how much she cared about her Best Actress win but not breaking down in hysterics a la Halle Berry.

The Bad:

Why invite The Rock aka Dwayne Johnson to present an Oscar? Rubbish.

Why invite some girl no-one's ever heard of to present an Oscar? Double rubbish.

Me correctly predicting an upset in Best Actress but picking the wrong upsetter. I went for Ellen Page but Marion Cotillard got it. I actually predicted she'd win just before it was read out but too late to count.

Jon Stewart as host. Not bad per se but just not in the league of Steve Martin who anyone with taste must recognise as easily the best host of recent years.

The Ugly:

The cinematographer Roger Deakins has been nominated 7 times in his career. He's yet to win. He was nominated twice on Sunday and still couldn't win. His The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford work was the best of the year. How on earth was he snubbed yet again? This was a complete travesty. When Robert Elswit's name was read out Deakins just nodded as if to say "thought so". The man's cursed.

My Film Vault's 2007 Movie Years

You've been on the edge of your seat hitting that refresh button every hour of every day since the new year. Well avid reader the wait is over.

We proudly present My Film Vault's very own Movie Years Awards. The hit Australian film "Kenny" gets quote of the year and in all honesty I could have gone with any one of 5 or 6 brilliant one-liners. To find out what the quote was, and for the more prestigious awards of Best Film, Actor and Actress check out this link.

Matt's side will appear very soon although splitting his two A+ viewings of The Assassination of Jesse James and Jindabyne may prove more troublesome than splitting the atom. No ties though Matt!

I also think we may expand these awards (as per Matt's suggestion) to add in, at the very least, Best Cinematography and Best Score. We'll announce this as and when.

One final thought - my list of recommended films for 2007 runs to 18 off the back of just 43 viewings. Incredible year.

The Oscars

Here is what will in time become my legendary annual pre-Oscar predictions. If I get any of these wrong I'll be totally stunned...

Picture

"Atonement"
"Juno"
"Michael Clayton"
"No Country for Old Men"
"There Will Be Blood"

A pretty solid list - I only disliked There Will Be Blood, although even with this I understand its merits. Just didn't do it for me. Some are predicting a Michael Clayton or Juno upset but I think they'll go with the front runner. The Coens are due and splits between the directing and picture categories are rare (although less rare recently), and I can't see it happening here so I'll go with their film.

What will win: "No Country for Old Men"
What should win: "Michael Clayton"
What wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: "The Lookout"

Director

Julian Schnabel - "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Jason Reitman - "Juno"
Tony Gilroy - "Michael Clayton"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen - "No Country for Old Men"
Paul Thomas Anderson - "There Will Be Blood"

This has been the Coens to lose for a long time. They wont.

Who will win: The Coens
Who should win: The Coens
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Ang Lee - "Lust, Caution"

Actor

George Clooney in "Michael Clayton"
Daniel Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood"
Johnny Depp in "Sweeney Todd"
Tommy Lee Jones in "In the Valley of Elah"
Viggo Mortensen in "Eastern Promises"

Happy with everyone nominated except Depp, who's often great but not here. Why give a Best Actor nomination to the lead in a musical when he can't sing? Not that he was bad mind you, it's just that this was an absolutely terrific year for leading men. There could be at least another 5 worthy nominees.

Who will win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Who should win: Viggo Mortensen
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Gordon Pinsent - "Away From Her"

Actress

Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"
Julie Christie in "Away from Her"
Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose"
Laura Linney in "The Savages"
Ellen Page in "Juno"

You couldn't pay me enough money to sit through another 2 hours of Elizabeth (well if any readers are actually thinking about offering me vast sums of money to test my resolve, maybe we can talk) so I congratulate those that did, but nominating Cate Blanchett again, for playing the same role seems a waste, even if she was terrific. She's absolutely no chance at all. Linney too will be just happy with the nomination. I really feel any of the other three can win, which flies in the face of most handicappers who have Christie as the prohibitive favourite. I'll stick my neck out and plump for an Ellen Page upset. Two reasons for this: 1. She's likely to be the only homegrown acting winner of the night if she wins, 2. She's young and youth seems to help in this category (Helen Mirren's win last year was the first 'older' winner for years).

Who will win: Ellen Page
Who should win: Julie Christie
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Wang Tei - "Lust, Caution"

Supporting Actor

Casey Affleck in "The Assassination of Jesse James"
Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men"
Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Charlie Wilson's War"
Hal Holbrook in "Into the Wild"
Tom Wilkinson in "Michael Clayton"

Terrific set of nominees. Any one of them a worthy winner.

Who will win: Javier Bardem
Who should win: Casey Affleck
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Christopher Mintz-Plasse - "Superbad"

Supporting Actress

Cate Blanchett in "I'm Not There"
Ruby Dee in "American Gangster"
Saoirse Ronan in "Atonement"
Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone"
Tilda Swinton in "Michael Clayton"

Tilda Swinton seems to have edged ahead of Cate Blanchett in the running, who having won an Oscar a couple of years ago may not be ready for her second.

Who will win: Tilda Swinton
Who should win: Saoirse Ronan
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Vanessa Regrave - "Atonement"

Original Screenplay

"Juno" - Diablo Cody
"Lars and the Real Girl" - Nancy Oliver
"Michael Clayton" - Tony Gilroy
"Ratatouille" - Brad Bird
"The Savages" - Tamara Jenkins

Who will win: Diablo Cody
Who should win: Tony Gilroy
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Steven Knight - "Eastern Promises"

Adapted Screenplay

"Atonement" - Christopher Hampton
"Away from Her" - Sarah Polley
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - Ronald Harwood
"No Country for Old Men" - The Coens
"There Will Be Blood" - Paul Thomas Anderson

Who will win: The Coens
Who should win: The Coens
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: James Vanderbuilt - "Zodiac"

Cinematography

"The Assassination of Jesse James": Roger Deakins
"Atonement": Seamus McGarvey
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly": Janusz Kaminski
"No Country for Old Men": Roger Deakins
"There Will Be Blood": Robert Elswit

The most important category of the night in terms of what a travesty it'll be if they don't win is this one. Roger Deakins is nominated twice. He should win for Jesse James. I'll be fine if he wins for No Country. If however he comes home empty handed I'll be so distraught I may never be able to watch films again.

Who will win: Roger Deakins - "The Assassination of Jesse James"
Who should win: Roger Deakins - "The Assassination of Jesse James"
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Rodrigo Prieto - "Lust, Caution"

Score

"Atonement" - Dario Marianelli
"The Kite Runner" - Alberto Iglesias
"Michael Clayton" - James Newton Howard
"Ratatouille" - Michael Giacchino
"3:10 to Yuma" - Marco Beltrami

Who will win: Dario Marianelli
Who should win: Marco Beltrami
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: James Newton Howard - "The Lookout"

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Here's the trailer....



Comments please....

Some encouraging signs here I reckon.

Jean de Florette (1986)

Often dubbed (in the usual patronising way) 'the most popular foreign language film of all time', this classic tale, charming and haunting in equal measure, is well worth a watch. There are few people I can see not enjoying this, even if it does not quite measure up to other 'foreign language classics'.

The story focuses on Jean (Gerard Depardieu), a city-dweller, who inherits some property in rural, picturesque, Provence and his attempts to make a life there. Against him stand the elements, in the form of the dry, hot, Provencale weather and the locals, in the form of the cunning and two-faced Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) and Papet (Yves Montand), Jean regrettably being oblivious to the latter.

This is a genuinely classic tale of human struggle in the ongoing battle for survival. Does Jean win? Well, you'll just have to watch to find out. The drama is compelling and the characters are as deeply and subtly drawn as the lines on the sun worn faces of the Provencale characters who flood the film. Depardieu is undoubtedly the star turn, though, oddly, he is given less to do than Auteuil and Montand who are both utterly watchable as the villains of the piece, especially Auteuil.

There are some stark and shocking scenes which live long in the memory after the curtain falls and a strange tension lurks throughout, brilliantly depicted under the wide, acquamarine, skies of Provence which would (in lesser hands) promise a lighter and more delicate touch. This is hugely to the director's (Claude Berri's) credit. Some things, however, don't quite sit right and you are left questioning the actions of some of the characters (and some of the results) more than you should and these, combined, suggest a higher B grade rather than an A.

There are strong messages here about what corrupts, what endures and what could prevail in humankind's ongoing battle to survive in an ultimately hostile environment. This doesn't at all feel like a political film, but it is. And, in a world where 50,000 people die each day from preventable causes, it offers lessons that ought not to be forgotten.

B+

Oh, it also produced a sequel, which I'm just going to go downstairs and watch!

Gone Baby Gone

Yanked from UK cinema screens shortly it was due to be released, this is the Oscar nominated directorial debut from Ben Affleck, who adapted this story of child kidnapping from a novel by Dennis Lehane. The decision to remove it from UK screens was probably sensible given some eerie similarities between the film and the over-publicised Madeleine McCann story, the most startling being the resemblence that the young girl and focus of the film has to McCann. It fared pretty well on its US release without exctly setting the box office alight. Critical reception was positive with Affleck earning numerous citations for most promising newcomer, as well as a whole heap of critics awards for supporting actress Amy Ryan, who will find out next week whether or not she can add an Oscar to the awars she's received for her performance here.

The star of Gone Baby Gone is Ben's brother Casey who will surely always look back on 2007 as a banner year. His immense turn in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford quite rightly earned him an Oscar nomination and for my money should earn him the win. He dominated the screen at every opportunity, comprehensively out-acting far more seasoned co-stars, and this in a film that doesn't feature a single false note let alone a poor performance. His effort in his brother's film is a little after the Lord Mayor's Show yet he's just as convicing here. Affleck is a private investigator who, along with his girlfriend and partner (Michelle Monaghan), is asked by the girl's uncle to investigate the disappearance. Working alongside a couple of cops (Ed Harris and John Ashton) they start unravelling a mystery that leads them on a trail to the missing girl and, although I don't think all of the plot twists are particular convincing (or indeed surprising), I'll not spoil them here by revealing any more.

The hook of this particular film is that the girl's mother is very obviously unfit to be a mum. Questions are soon raised over whther or not she deserves to have the child back, and such questions lead into the thought provoking moral conundrum that dominates the final act of the film. Gone Baby Gone asks some intelligent questions and offers no answers although Affleck certainly hints at his own feelings in the closing shot. If the ethical questiosn the film raises are its strong suit - the plot itself is perhaps its weakest. Once the mystery is ultimately revealed it doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny, instead playing more like a plot that the author felt needed am additional twist or two rather than one that demanded a sense of realism. A scene atop a quarry makes little sense either at the time or in flash back. The motivation of some of the characters also seems questionable.

So flawed it may be, but there's no denying that Affleck shows promise here as screenwriter and director. This is the first script he's penned since his Oscar winning collaboration with Matt Damon and the first time he's taken the reins behind the camera. He handles it nicely, not falling into the trap of trying to differentiate his work with any flashy quirks or novel camera angels that are sometimes seen by a first-time director. It's a very solid effort, which although hardly sounds inspiring, befits the material well. Whilst Gone Baby Gone wont be in my mind for awards consideration, it has enough good things going for it to recommend as a DVD rental next time you find yourself at a loose end.

B-

The Golden Compass (2007)

Saw this a few weeks ago and it is represents another one where I find myself in general agreement with the reviewing public. It's all over the place.

The story (sorry for being so far behind here, since this came out before Christmas!) centres around a young girl, Lyra Belacqua, who inherits a magical device, a Golden Compass, which can answer any question it is asked. The magical device helps her on her quest to liberate some friends from experiments being conducted at the hands of the evil authorities in "the North".

It's a traditional, and fairly typical, story of good against evil but it's, frankly, a completely baffling one. I left the cinema understanding very litte. There's a golden compass, some Egyptians, some witches, and a lot of fuss about dust and parallel universes being investigated by Daniel Craig's professor. In short, it's one huge confusing mess and that leaves it well, well, short of par. However, to be fair, par is probably impossibly high, standing somewhere around the Fellowship of the Ring, which stands as a true testament to brilliant narrative film-making. On the positive side, this nowhere near plumbs the insipid depths of the first two Harry Potter films. Still, you should rarely leave a cinema more confused than when you went in, especially not in children's films of this ilk. Messy.

On the positive side, the performances are sound. Dakota Blue Richards is excellent as the cheeky and very watchable Lyra and Nicole Kidman shimmers and dazzles with icy sublimity as Marisa Coulter, the glamourous villainesss of the piece. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, sleepwalks his way through as Lord Asriel.

Interesting characters flit in an out, not least of which is the Ian Mckellan voiced Iorek Byrnison, a huge great armour-clad bear exiled from his rightful place as king of the bears, but others are silly and/or underdeveloped, as, regrettably, is Byrnison's fate. And, most shamefully of all, would-be interesting sidelines are rushed through and not dealt with with the care and attention they deserve and, once again, Byrnison suffers here.

It hasn't turned me off from seeing the next two films in the trilogy, but neither has it got me remotely salivating for the sequel in the way the Fellowship achieved so brilliantly.

C

My Nomination for the Republican Candidate

In honour of the returning Monday Night Political Slot, I thought it only fair to actually comment on a genuine, and of course movie-related, political issue.

The world has been abuzz this past week with Arnold Schwarzenegger's endorsement of a certain candidate for the republican nomination for president come November this year. Well, since MyFilmVault is never one to shy away from political issues, I wish to confirm that I endorse Arnie's endorsement completely and, therefore, with him, endorse John McClane for president:



I don't know which is more surprising, McClane actually running after such a tough, gruelling, year domestically, or Arnie's endorsement of such a long-standing rival. Perhaps Arnie has finally come to terms with the fact that he will never be able to run and therefore has endorsed a like-minded soul.

So, what does McClane have going for him? First of all a first rate record on Terrorism. He's responsible for more terrorist deaths that GW's own 'War on Terror'. McClane also has an astounding record on domestic security. Popular with the ladies, he also scores high on family values, having very publicly shown his protective qualities of family members when they have been in trouble.

Will also score points with the gun lobby.

Of course, I'm not American and hope the facists (sorry, republicans) lose hands down, but I'm sure McClane will make a great candidate. He'll certainly die hard in the poles.

The Monday Evening Political Slot...

Is the astonishing new name for the Sunday Morning Political Slot. The latest installment is just below this pant-wetting (possibly) post from my colleague.

It concerns that age-old debate... Arthouse films or Hollywood blockbusters??

The Best News I've Heard, Like, Ever

Please let this happen!

Cloverfield (2007) vs Silent Light (Stellet Licht) (2007)

This week the Monday Evening Political Slot combines a du(a?)(e?)l review, offering two for the price of one. With political commentary in tow. So, who will win the battle of these two behemoths? And, just as importantly, why?



Cloverfield first...

Much hyped and brilliantly marketed, this J.J. Abrams vehicle, directed by Matt Reeves and starring a bunch of unknowns, centres on an attack on New York. But by who? Or what?

Now, I'm afraid I can't really review this without revealing what or who the mystery attacker is, so if you don't know look away now and you'll just have to come back to find out the punchline of this political slot when you've seen it. Anyway, the movie was released on friday and it is now widely known what this attacker is.

It's a hacking great monster.

Anyway, this is a truly revolutionary film. Not really in the way that it uses handheld cameras and provides a first hand perspective, nor in regards to the subject material, characterisation, editing or direction. What then? It's difficult to pinpoint and describe exactly, but it's essentially the combination of incredible realism and utterly stunning visuals the likes of which have never been joined before to such incredible effect. It's a disaster movie crossed with sci-fi, but it is handled so perfectly I genuinely walked out of the cinema and drove home casting a wary eye towards the horizon in case a hacking great monster there lurked. Now, I would personally say that a fictional film starring a huge CGI creature which has this effect on a viewer deserves a huge amount of kudos. Never before have I witnessed the normal and everyday so dramatically collapsed by something that should absolutely, on the face of it, be absurd. Unbelievable. Could never have imagined a monster movie could ever make anyone feel like this. I expected to enjoy it (on the same kind of level I enjoyed War of The Worlds say) but I never expected this. I cannot wait to see whether it will stand up to a second viewing. I might even go back and watch it again before it finishes its run at the cinema.

It gets extra credit because, as I say, there is nothing spectacular about the basic plot, or narrative (it's a very basic disaster movie set-up) and the performances are no more than okay. They don't need to be anything more than that, however, as the dialogue takes care of that. One further aspect worthy of commendation is the very original way there is absolutely nothing (except one tantalising hint in the last shot) of monster backstory. Perhaps that's why it works so damn well.

A word of warning. This will split audiences straight down the middle. Some will simply hate this and find it laughable and part of me can see why, though I will not be able to accept the reasons for it. For 85 minutes you are living in a city attacked by a mysterious creature and it is completely believable and totally absorbing as a result and nothing will change that for me. Also, the camera work (literally) nearly made me sick, but that was all part of the fun for me. It won't be for others. All reservations aside, this gets a provisional:

A+



Now, Silent Light. This is a slow-burning drama, set amongst the medieval German speaking Mennonite community in Mexico, centred around the philandering Johan's (Cornelio Wall) extra marital affair with Esther (Miriam Toews). The film begins with a 7 minute long shot of the sun coming up and ends with a 7 minute long shot of the sun going down.

Could any two movies be more different?

No, and on two levels.

Silent Light represents everything that is bad about film making. It is an overly-indulgent, pretentious, vacuous, garbled, heartless piece of nonsense. It is a character piece without characters, an artistic piece devoid completely of any artistic beauty. The director, Carlos Reygadas, is the "enfant terrible" of Arthouse Cinema, apparantly. Perhaps it's because he makes such shockingly bad films like this which turn people away from the genuis that can be Arthouse Cinema.

Reygadas is clearly of the opinion that he has a real gift for cinematography. Who else could be so arrogant so as to presume his or her viewers will be completely captivated by 7 minute long shots of the rising and setting sun? But someone needs to tell Reygadas and his cinematographer Alexis Zabe that photography is about more than pointing a camera at something that appears beautiful. You still have to show the audience why it's beautiful, and therein lies the art. Reygadas possesses none of this skill, even though he clearly presumes he has it in abundance. He would do well to look at Roger Deakins' much lauded (by us!) efforts in The Assassination of Jesse James. Here images mean something and represent the larger, bleaker, troubled world they (in totality) capture. There is nothing of that here, even though Reygadas' film aims at a similar darkness.

The performances are okay, but the characters they portray are so utterly lifeless, unengaging and ultimately one dimensional that those performances scarcely matter. This just drags and drags and drags. Appauling. It never for one moment allows you to forget that you're watching a film.

It is not the none thing among arthouse lovers to say that slow, ethereal, (supposedly) thoughtful, 'artistic' films like this can be terrible. So, take it from me, they can be. If you don't believe me, go sit through this. I dare you.

F

So, then, it's pretty obvious which film wins the battle! This has been interesting for me, because I (obviously) did not deliberately go and see these two films with a post like this in mind, they just came to unexpectedly represent something that is constantly on my mind when I see and discuss film.

The typical response of arthouse fans to people like me who post reviews like this of such a 'glorious' film as Silent Light is that I just didn't get it, I'm not on the same plane, as witnessed by my hopelessly high mark for Cloverfield. To that snobbish reposte (which I'm sure most of us have heard at one time or another) my reply is this:

The true 'art' of film comes in collapsing the unreal into the real. The ironic thing about this, I guess, is that it is usually character driven arthouse films which are best credited for doing so, and yet a blockbusting monster flick can manage to do it so much more successfully than an artistic slow burner. And that says as much about the acheivement of Cloverfield as it does the abject failure of Silent Light. It is not a film's provenance that matters, only its result.

Cloverfield

The much hyped Blair Witch style monster movie opened in America two weekends ago and promptly took the number one slot in the box office charts. It then proceeded to drop by 76% the following weekend which is just about, although not quite, an all-time record. So either all the Coverfield fanboys had scrambled to see it on opening weekend and there were none left who hadn't seen it the week after, or word of mouth was pretty abysmal.

Maybe it was a little of both. I can certainly understand the word of mouth being poor. The first comment I heard upon leaving was "that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never have back". There were groans of disappointment when it finished. No clapping. No murmers of approval. I think you get a sense of how an audience is gauging a film when you're there and I certainly didn't sense an audience on the edge of their seats.

For those who have no idea, Cloverfield is filmed from the perspective of a group of young friends celebrating the imminent departure of one of their buddies, who's off to Japan. The first half hour sees us become acquainted with what'll become a group of 5 through video tributes filmed by Hud, whose been given the job of documenting the entire night. Around 30 minutes in a series of explosions over downtown Manhattan disturbs their celebrations and causes them to leave the apartment. Whilst outide they witness what seems to be a meteor or something similar crashing down the street, but which then appears to be the head of the Statue of Liberty. In the ensuing panic our friends get broken up and we follow a group of 5 of them, one of whom is Rob - the guy who was off to Japan, and the person they all look to for leadership.

Comparisons with Blair Witch are pretty reasonable since, although the set-up is completely different, the style of each film and the marketing of both has trodden a similar path. Not being a fan of The Blair Witch Project I have to say Cloverfield surpasses the only real notable hand-held movie to precede it in every regard. However some of that wouldn't be too difficult. The quality of acting is better here, which is a little like saying it would be better to go blind in one eye rather than two. They both suck, one's just not as bad. Largely though this is very well executed and there is one very notable department in which Cloverfield far outstrips its counterpart and that is the quality of the direction, which here is very well - in places superbly - executed, for example the head of the Statue of Liberty sequence is terrific. The editing too is nicely handled, especially in the cuts between parts of the tape we're watching from Rob and Beth's day out at Coney Island back to the events of the night.

Whilst 90% of this film is good or better, the remaining 10% is so abysmal that it destroys a lot of the good work. That 10% is largely the writing of the dialogue. It may be just one part of a screenplay, but if it doesn't work it sticks out like a 90-foot monster and it really doesn't work here. Most of the ridiculous lines are handed to Hud and it doesn't help that he's the weakest actor in the film. I enter the following into evidence...


Hud: What time is the last chopper?
Rob: 0600 hours
Hud: What time is that?
Rob: 6 o-clock
Hud: Oh yeah, I knew that.


Hud: Thanks for saving me. Otherwise I'd be, like, dead.


(3am, our 'heroes' trapped in the subway, war rages on street level)
Rob: Wait a minute, this track carries the 6 [train].
Hud: Uh, Rob, I don't think the trains are running.


(Rob realises his battery is dead. He's desperately trying to retrieve his voicemail. He runs towards an electronics store that's being looted, quite obviously to get a battery)
Hud: Uh Rob, I think the store is closed man.


(A 90-foot monster rages along the streets of Manhattan ripping up buildings.)
Hud: Rob, something strange is happening outside.


He gets my vote for the "you ruined the movie" which they should consider creating as a new category at the Oscars just to spice things up. A shame really as there is some very good work and a lot of effort gone in to making this film. It just didn't quite do it for me.

C+