Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

Don't you just love it when a film comes along and exceeds all your hopes and expectations and leaves you with that wonderful trembling feeling of joy reverberating all throughout your body like a guitar string strum in the darkness of a quiet, empty, attic. This, in essence, is 2005's Me and You and Everyone We Know.

In a way, this is typical American Indie fayre and it has scooped a number of prestigous awards along the way. It tells the story of Richard (John Hawkes), a young divorcee struggling to adjust to a new life as a single parent, and Christine (Miranda July), an equally struggling artist, and a strange and intimate connection the two forge following a chance encounter. Of course, in typical Indie tradition, it's about a lot more than that too...

...Particularly kids. This film has some magical performances in by kids (particularly the excellent Brandon Ratcliff), who depict some very interesting and strange young relationships of the kind forged by young people today as they, too, struggle to cope with an ever changing and often frightening world. And yet, that's possibly the best thing about this film. It has a great lightness of touch and that message gets lost in a dynamic screen environment where the word cynicism has no possible meaning or reality. This is a film that, at times, touches on some very serious themes (including the threats, both phsyically and emotionally, faced by this generation of kids), but somehow you never know it. It has to be seen to be believed that a film can carry such strong messages without being in any way preachy. July wrote, directed and starred in this and she deserves unbelievable credit for her astonishing achievement. Contained in this, too, is by far the scene of the year, the first to be nominated by me as such. It is a sublime scene, somehow touching on the dangers of todays internet technologies whilst delivering a totally unexpected moment of sublime and unashamed joy. Perfection.

Don't get me wrong, this is not for everyone and it does have its flaws. I say that a lot. But unlike most times when I say that, this time, I've got to add that everyone should watch this and give it a try. I can readily imagine a large part of the film-watching fraternity and sorority hating this, but I'd still recommend that everyone, everyone, give it a try. You might just find joy, fun, tragedy, tears, vast vast dollops of well-judged quirkiness and, most importantly, a slice of that wonderful, amorphous, indistinguishable, thing known as life.

A-

Teeth

When will filmmakers realise that we've had enough of vaginal castration horror-comedies? However, what first time director Mitchell Lichtenstein's film lacks in originality, it makes up for by being the very best vaginal castration film I have ever seen. In fact, it makes all the other gash gnasher movies look positively inadequate by comparison.

For those that are wondering whether vaginal castration might in fact be a euphemism for something else entirely (what, I'm not sure), I'm afraid not. The film features graphic scenes of men being literally dismembered by something referred to as vagina dentata, which is exactly what you think it is: a toothed vagina.

The lucky/unlucky girl (you'll have your own view) with the affliction is a pro-abstinence teenager named Dawn. She prides herself on pledging to hold on to her virginity until her wedding day, and takes time to encourage other teens to follow her example. By following a strict adherence to complete purity, Dawn is still a stranger to her own body, which will turn out to be bad luck for a number of men because her own body really is quite strange. When she meets a new student Tobey and finds herself unable to stop dreaming of being with him, they very soon start cavorting in a lake in the woods. However, Tobey turns out not to be quite the dashing gentleman we perhaps thought, starts to quite deliberately ignore Dawn's wishes, and quickly gets what's coming to him. The castration that you know is coming is handled well, but Lichtenstein (the director, not the country) is only just warming up because we've got 3 more such scenes and they get better and better!

Lichtenstein cleverly ratchets up the black comedy with each intimate encounter, arguably saving the best 'til last. There's a particularly hilarious scene when she visits a gynaecologist, which I wouldn't do any sort of justice if I even tried to begin to describe it. Safe to say though that out of the 20 people in the theatre, 20 were laughing out loud; everyone seemed to be enjoying it immensely. This wasn't the sort of cinema experience where you're laughing at all the humour and you're wondering why no one else is.

The unenviable task of portraying the afflicted female falls to the talented Jess Weixler. Whilst she has some missteps with her portrayal here and there, this is largely a very impressive debut in a role that could scarcely have been more challenging to convince in. Support is solid without being spectacular, and if one was feeling grumpy I could focus on a few other annoyances, but it is extremely difficult to come out of this film and feel like that. It is the most unlikely subject matter to put you in a good mood but it did just that for me. Lichtenstein has poked fun at the American pro-abstinence crowd, homing in on the fervent religious nutcases that believe masturbation is a sin, children shouldn't be taught about the anatomy for fear of making them want to fornicate and that even watching kissing on TV is something to be avoided at all costs.

Teeth is a surprisingly intelligent and funny sub-horror, that is well worth 90 minutes of your time. I may see better films this year, but I'll wager I wont see a better vaginal castration movie for a fair while.

B+

MyFilmVault's Greatest...

Had this in my mind for a while but wasn't quite sure how I wanted to lay it out. Think I've solved it - I'm happy with it at least!

Over the next few weeks I will be putting together pages for our most honoured actors, actresses and directors. First up a triple bill of 3 of our most nominated men:

Tony Leung

Morgan Freeman

James Stewart

The Woods (2006)

Why, oh, why, am I constantly seduced by the idea of horror films? I think it's something akin to my colleague's unwavering optimism that a good Saw film can be, and eventually will be, made. I search high and low for quality horror only to be disappointed. So, does this fill any gaps?

Put it this way, there is a reason none of you have heard of this. This atrocious piece of filmmaking centres on a young "delinquent" girl sent to a mysterious boarding school (located, oh yes, in the middle of some eerie, haunted, woods) to be reformed. There is some absurd backstory about some witches possessing the school and the woods. Come to think of it, why did I rent this again? Should I not at least have been warned by the fact that it's directed by someone called Lucky McKee?

Anyway, it's not at all scary, there are no thrills and spills and I turned it off after an hour. I did last an hour, however, and I'm proud of that. It's atrocious, completely unfrightening tripe, which at times crosses over from the absurd to the offensive (the heroine is referred to as "firecrotch" by her bitchy classmates because she has red hair. Oh dear, oh dear.)

However, there is one truly scary and frightening thing about The Woods. Patricia Clarkson is in it. Yes, that Patricia Clarkson. The Patricia Clarkson revered by critics and the indie-film watching fraternity. Yes, the same Patricia Clarkson who acts the screen off to awesome effect in the wonderful Station Agent. And it was made in 2006, so no excuses there Patricia. I think Patricia should have taken the advice I'm about to give you:

Don't go down to the woods today!

F

All I'm saying is that it's a odd feeling watching a career end before your very eyes.

A well-respected critic talking about M Night Shyamalan's new film. Wonder what Matt, a bone fide Shyamalan fan, will make of it.

Thought of the Week #1

Thought I'd start up a 'short' new segment on an interesting issue raised in the world of film during the week. This week's inaugural effort comes courtesy of an insightful commentator on this very site - titles that can get lost in translation.

Our commentator noted that 'Lust, Caution', in translation loses a large amount of symbolic allegory from the Mandarin original and a clever play on words. The Mandarin ('Colour Ring') makes an important symbolic nod to the film's pivotal scene as well as retaining the force of what is implied in the English translation. I also happen to think Lust, Caution is one of the worst titles ever, but that's by the by.

Can anyone think of any other titles which suffer in translation? I'll kick off with two.

1. Indigenes - The Translation, Days of Glory, loses a large amount of the political force implied in the original French and reflected in the political tone and disillusionment of the film, particularly the spectacular last reel. The original French points to the isolation and huge sense of irony felt by the North African soldiers we follow during the film upon the supposed 'integration' of these men, and thousands like them, into French indigenous life following the 2nd World War and the battles over equal rights and respect for non native-born Frenchmen that followed. These men fought and died, like indigenous Frenchmen, for those (supposedly) French values of 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' but the reward for their heroic sacrifices was continuing isolation and inequality, the lot of outsiders. The huge sense of poignancy of the last scene, as the last surviving soldier sits alone, in his small room, at the end of the film is regrettably not reflected in the English translation of the title. A huge shame.

2. Okay, so if we got that one wrong, let me leave you with a spectacular failure by the French to capture the essential essence and frightening terror of one of the greatest films ever made. Jaws is called 'Les Dents de la Mer', 'The Teeth of the Sea', in French. A truly spectacular example of how such an expressive and essential title (in both sense of that word) can be so easily lost.

Lust: Caution (Se Jie) (2007)

There have been some very full and interesting reviews and comments on this on the site, so I'll (try to) keep mine brief. It may differ from the others as well.

I had been waiting for so long to see this film, having (yet again) missed it during its cinema run, it was, to be honest, beginning to enter that territory where the ache to see a film enters the protagonist into that otherworldly irrational arena of deep yearning love which, we all know, can lead to great disappointment. How many films have each of us seen which don't live up to the preconceptions we've given them in the deepest, cobwebbed, confines of our souls?

So, if I had this down, pre-viewing, as an A+, did it live up to it?

Ultimately, the answer to this is no. But this does not mean that it's a bad film. It isn't. It just isn't a great one, especially when compared to some of last year's fantastic offerings.

It was very interesting to note the NottingHillBilly's comments on the title. Very relevant indeed. I hadn't known any of that and could not agree more that something very significant has been lost, particularly, as the NHB (sorry!) points out, the scene referred to by the Mandarin title ('Colour Ring'), is easily the film's best and it's high point. The violin-bow taughtness and tension as Mr Yee (Tony Leung) and Wong Chia Chi (Wei Tang) pick out a diamond ring is almost on a par with Sonny's spectacular demise in The Godfather: Part one. Does Mr Yee meet his demise in a similar way? Well, you'll just have to watch and find out. It would certaily be no waste of anyone's time.

Reading people's comments, I cannot help reflecting that I should watch this again as my expectations could well have been too high. Although I concede that this shadowy, sinewy, film twists and turns like vines interweaved in old, crumbling, trees, it just didn't grip me in the way that it should have done and certainly in the way that it clearly aims to. That, for me, was the bottom line, but I may well watch it again and be forced to rethink my view.

I will dwell a little longer on the performances. They are spectacular. Wei Tang is magnificent and the level of torn, deserted, anguish in her eyes is, at times, too real for the viewer to imagine that she's actually watching a film. She delivers a bold, but subtly drawn, performance that anchors the film in a delicately ambianced emotional reality and takes the viewer directly into the heart of those anguished war-torn times many of us have never seen.

However, the star of the show is once again Tony Leung Chui-Wai. He will, once again, top my acting lists for a jaw-droppingly perfect performance. Leung is the kind of actor you watch and wonder why certain Hollywood types are as revered as they are. Leung has a range that surpasses all. By far. From Happy Together's lovestruck Lai Yiu-Fai (who is somehow grounded and dreamy in one breath), through Leung's two drasticly different reimaginings of Chow in In the Mood For Love and 2046 (this gap, more a chasm really, demonstrates Leung's ability more than anything else - I can't remember any one else even attempting, let alone accomplishing, something so dramatic regarding one character's development from one film to the next and the effects of what has got him there. It goes way beyond what even Pacino manages in the Godfathre films), to the bloodthirsty, sadistic torturer on show here, Leung always manages to collapse that boundary between audience and film. I'm not sure who is supposed to be among Hollywood's most revered males, it changes so frequently, but I cannot image a DiCaprio, a Clooney, a Norton, a Foxx, even playing any, let alone all, of these characters. And Leung has, of course, played many more besides. On show here, in other words, is the greatest living actor, at the very peak of his game, showing just how successfully great performing can collapse that irrepressible barrier between moving image and those lacy images of reality which ultimately inspire them. And that seems as fitting a place as any to end.

B-

I'm Back

(Real life image)

Still battling a computer that crashes every five minutes and a dodgy internet connection, I return to give you even dodgier opinions on the world of film.

Some great reviews of late, I'll try to emulate them. I'll start where my colleague points to - Ang Lee's Lust:Caution.

The Best Show on TV

Loved the 2 part season finale. 16 paltry episodes in season 4. Curse those striking writers!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

"What are you, like 80?"

Probably a wise decision for scriptwriter David Koepp to address the notion that Harrison Ford is can still trying to cut the mustard as an action star a good 20 years after he last turned out as Indy (and he wasn't exactly a spring chicken then either). Wise for two reasons: first, it's the best line in the film and Ford's reaction is spot on; second, it makes the absurd notion of a 60-something playing the action hero slightly less absurd if you add a dose of self-deprecation and humour.

Ford has been in need of a sizable hit after a string of not particularly successful releases and this, as much as anything, probably made this movie happen after years of dithering. George Lucas had approached some fine screenwriters and summarily proceeded to reject every effort: most notably those of Tom Stoppard (Shakespeare in Love) and Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption). Why then settle on David Koepp's version?

Well the element of the fantastical is obviously something that appeals to Lucas and it plays a strong part in this. Whilst the entire series has had undercurrents of mystique, this movie, more than the previous three, pushes it more to the foreground. There's also a large dose of silliness that the franchise has not really seen before - certainly not to this degree. Indy's new sidekick Mutt (Shia Lebouef) actually swings from tree to tree in unabashed Tarzan style absurdity (and what's more manages to catch up to a speeding truck). This comes seconds after we have to endure Spielberg treat us to some tree-hitting-crotch style "humour" as Mutt straddles two trucks speeding through the forest. Such nonsense hasn't been seen since the Ewoks with twigs and stones battled and defeated the Imperial force armed with real weapons.

So the real question is (to borrow a line from that other recent franchise reload) "is Ford too old for this shit?" Well things do play a little bit slowly at times. Perhaps in 20 years since Last Crusade, we've become too accustomed to the films like the Bourne trilogy or the rebranded Bond and anything that is played at normal speed seems pedestrian by comparison. Indeed in the run up to this film's release it was exactly the Paul Greengrass quick cutting style that Spielberg said he had deliberately avoided. Whilst it might not have been completely successful, I certainly like the sentiment since hyperactive editing totally ruins any action sequence for me - credit to Spielberg for not going down this route. Ironically though, it may have been more suited here than in Bourne since it may have better hidden the fact that Ford is getting on a bit and was doing his own stunts. That isn't to say it doesn't play well as it does - it's just not a home run, instead just a pretty solid base hit. Indiana Jones never has performed the hyperkinetic action sequences of the likes of Jason Bourne so if any character could continue to be played in his 60s it would be he, but at times you do feel it is a bit like action-lite.

What's never in doubt though is Ford's presence on screen and he again delivers in a role that he made his own. Ably supported by Cate Blanchett deliberately hamming it up as the Russian baddie, and a trio of Brits (Winstone, Hurt and Broadbent - in descending order of the importance) this is always engaging without ever setting your world on fire. Lebouef too is fine in his biggest role to date. After getting notices for Disturbia and Transformers last summer, he returns this year with his supporting turn here, and later on in Eagle Eye - a film that looks silly enough, but may increase Lebouef's star power if marketed correctly.

What made Indy IV a little more special for me was that the very day I saw this I saw Steven Spielberg in the flesh, completely at random, on Hollywood Blvd. If I'd seen him after the film rather than before I'd have congratulated him on a decent effort. Perhaps if I had summoned up the courage I'd have also told him to ditch George Lucas, since his influence on this franchise doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy. Then again the Stoppard and Darabont screenplays may have been complete trash?! One final word - I'd much prefer to see these sort of summer blockbusters than anything in which the hero wears a cape, turns green or shoots webbing out of his wrists.

B-

Sex and the City

Someone noted in the run up to the much advertised release of the Sex and the City movie that it would be easier finding a needle in a haystack that it would be to find a straight guy eager to see this film. Well last time I checked I was both a) a guy, and b) straight, and whilst "eager" is perhaps not the most appropriate adjective to describe the feeling in that part of my brain aware of the impending release, I was admittedly quite looking forward to it.

HBOs Sex in the City aired its last episode 4 years ago and it was an unquestionably hugely successful. Smartly written and very well performed, it was a series benefiting from great casting, most notably in Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Cattrall, neither of whom had found more than limited success as actresses before Sex, and both of whom won multiple Emmy and Golden Globe nominations for their work on the series.

Costars Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davies couldn't match the charisma of the other two but both brought something to their roles and the chemistry between the four was always abundant on screen, which made the tabloid tales of infighting somewhat surprising. It was this supposed rivalry that kept the movie from happening. First mooted when the show wrapped, it has been a fairly protracted effort in bringing it to the big screen but judging by this Monday's US numbers, fans of the show have been waiting patiently and turned out in force on opening weekend.

That last episode saw Carrie and Big (and if you have no idea who Carrie and Big are you've done very well in getting this far - thanks for trying but you'll probably want to give up any time now) finally commit to a relationship with each other and the logical centrepiece for the movie was always going to be their marriage. This being 2 hours and 20 minutes as opposed to just 20, there was obviously going to be a snag along the way and you'll be hard pressed not to guess what it'll be long before the seeds of doubt are sown into the plot. Like the vast majority of the TV episodes, the film completely focuses on Carrie and, like the vast majority of the TV episodes it is all the better for it. Nixon and Davis try and give their scenes some gravitas: Nixon succeeds, Davis fails - particularly with an embarrassing "No, no" wail at Big; Cattrall rather more effortlessly makes her scenes hugely enjoyable. She was always the comic focus of the show but wasn't always quite as funny as she is here.

Seeing it in LA with a packed theatre was an experience in itself. Sitting next to my girlfriend was a very small dog who had either been smuggled in by the SITC-cast-member-wannabe or who was such a big fan of the show that he didn't want to miss the big screen version. The human members of the audience were very vocal. Whoops of delight greeted the opening credits, cheers and tears met the closing credits and generous laughter and applause lauded even the slightest of jokes. To be fair the film is successfully humorous - Samantha once again gets all the best lines, like she always has, but then Cattrall did always have the best comic timing of all the cast. A line about Samantha being last happy 6 long months ago and "that being quite good for LA" went down particularly well with the hard-bitten West Coast crowd. It was not hard to discern that the movie did everything these people were expecting and that they collectively gave it a very hearty thumbs up. I don't mind admitting I agree with their verdict.

Michael Patrick King, who writes and directs, has a surefire hit on his hands because he has essentially just filmed an extended episode of a show that was a huge success. If it ain't broke, don't fix it they say. It wasn't and he hasn't tried to. Fans of this will lap it up and everyone else will probably not watch it anyway. The opening credits serve as a "here is what you missed" for anyone dragged along but really this is quite unapologetically not a film for them. This is for those that wanted to wear the Manolo Blahniks and Jimmy Choos of the characters, to engage in adult sex talk in swanky NY clubs or to fantasise about dating rich guys who'll buy you a penthouse Manhattan apartment at the drop of a hat. Which one of those fantasies was the reason I watched? The Jimmy Choos obviously.

B

If May was the Month of Driftwood...

June will be the month of... Whatever the opposite of driftwood is...A wood? A copse? A forest? Anyway, I'll soon have the internet again and plan to post a number of things I've been working on whilst I've been internetless including my much feted "A Defence of Episodes I-III". I have now rewatched them all twice in the past year and have a lot of evidence for my defence.

One thing... I think some of the lack of activity on MyFilmVault reflects just what a shocking month May has been. Some solace has now arrived in the form of the archaeologist and also Jeff Nichols' interesting looking Shotgun Stories, which, surprise surprise, is not showing in Leicester.

"[Ron Howard ] substantiated recent rumors that he and his collaborators are hard at work trying to bring an Arrested Development movie to fruition."

The world would be a poorer place without it.

Renewed!

Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut

-- Before I lose it, I will burn it to the ground. Your holy places - ours. Every last thing in Jerusalem that drives men mad.

-- I wonder if it would not be better if you did.

There's much in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven that may be seen to portend to modern day struggles. Scott's film is set during the time between the 2nd and 3rd crusades, when Christians have seized Jerusalem as their own and Muslims fought to reclaim it. Its existence as troubled then as it is now, with battles fought with equal conviction and righteousness on either side. William Monahan's script never preaches but instead offers a few wry observations about Jerusalem and religious conflict that very clearly could equally apply today. It cleverly eschews the temptation to present one side as good and the other as evil. This is a film that, whilst features a fictitious main character, presents a balanced portrayal of a number of historical characters and events.

While other movies could so easily have portrayed the Muslims as religious fanatics, Kingdom of Heaven instead presents them as arguably the more sympathetic race. This is helped, in part, by the impeccable performances of Ghassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig. Massoud in particular, as the Muslim military leader Saladin, excels in a role that he plays with understatement. His Saladin is compassionate and thoughtful; a man who speaks with authority and intelligence. William Monahan's script nicely reveals more about his character in subtle touches like Saladin's picking up a fallen Christian cross before placing it carefully upright. One simple action does not tell us that Saladin understands more about Jerusalem, religious conflict, or humanity than anyone else, but it does reveal how Saladin is both moderate and considerate.

The Christian's are led by the dying King Baldwin (an uncredited Edward Norton) who is hidden by bandages and a mask because of his advanced rabies. Power struggles between the various Christian Knights, Lords and Templars undermine Baldwin's truce with the Muslims, a truce that is completely vanquished upon Baldwin's death. His death heralds an epic battle in which the Muslims attempt to recapture Jerusalem, which comes to be is defended by a peasant blacksmith, Balian, who only came to Jerusalem to beg forgiveness for an act of rage inthe opening minutes of the film.

This is a Ridley Scott film, so it goes without saying (though I'll say it anyway) that it is exquisitely shot. Scott handles everything from the close ups to the battle scenes with style and this director's cut unquestionably enhances the film. The theatrical release ran 145 minutes, but this 194 minute cut gives more context to some of the conflicts in the film. This is not some self-gratifying extended version that puts in a couple of reels of film we could have done without. They're essential to the story and to the film. Monahan's final draft apparently ran an incredible 260 pages - equating to over 4 hours of film. This is simply not a story that can be adequately told in just over 2 hours. We learn more about the politics, the struggles and the relationships of the principles. Motivations become clearer; people's actions are more understood because we can see the consequences.

However, there are a couple of serious flaws that not even a director's cut can overcome. I'm sorry to say that one of the things that held me back from raving about this film as much as I do Scott's other work, was the performance of Orlando Bloom. I'm afraid that it isn't any better in this extended version. He simply has not got the standing required to pull off the role. He is so badly miscast that I just can't understand how Scott could get it so wrong. This is nothing against Bloom, who seems like a thoroughly decent guy - anyone who starred in Ricky Gervais' Extras gets some large brownie points in my book, but he is badly out of his depth here.

In these sword and sandal epics, there comes a point in the film where our hero delivers a rousing speech to rally the troops. Bloom just cannot convince as someone who will light a fire that burns inside you. He doesn't strike me as someone who can inspire or motivate someone to accomplish magnificent achievements. He just has not got the gravitas for a role like this, and it doesn't matter whether he has buffed up or not. Everything else, from the voice to the delivery, is all wrong. It's not as bad as Brad Pitt's effort in Troy, but it pales into complete insignificance if stacked alongside Russell Crowe's performance in Gladiator. Comparisons may be unfair but if you are aiming for greatness, you have to put yourself up against the best. I'm afraid Bloom falls a long way short.

There are other flaws, though none as damaging. Eva Green is not particularly effective in her role as Baldwin's sister, although she fares better in the director's cut, enjoying a number of scenes that were originally left on the cutting room floor that actually (and I come back to a word I used earlier) give her character more context. Yet in the longer version she's still not very memorable and again I'll (probably unfairly) compare her to her Gladiator counterpart - and in so doing you have to say she is completely out-acted by the stunning Connie Nielsen, in a not too dissimilar role.

I've mentioned Gladiator twice now but comparisons are perfectly valid since this a genre that Scott himself reinvigorated - in fact he practically reinvented it. Gladiator is a brilliant piece of filmmaking - something beyond doubt, even if it's not a film you particularly enjoyed. Scott's directorial accomplishment on that film was magnificent but he has created a rod for his own back since it is his own film that'll be held up as the torch-bearer for any future such epic. Well Scott has made another very good film here, but one that just doesn't compare that well to its superior predecessor.

Director's Cut: B+
Theatrical Cut: B-

La Vie En Rose

This is of course the Edith Piaf biopic that saw Marion Cotillard win the Best Actress Oscar this year, the first win for an actress speaking in a foreign language for 4 decades. The win was more than deserving - it's a terrific turn in which she manages to inhabit a character so convincingly regardless of whether she's playing her in her 20s or late 40s. This may not be the stretch it sounds, but when Piaf died at the age of 48, she inhabited a body that wouldn't have been out of place in that of an 80 year old. Ravaged by arthritis, addicted to drugs, alcohol and audiences and plagued by heartache and sorrow, Piaf's turbulent last few years are hauntingly portrayed by the 34 year old Cotillard who truly gives an extraordinary performance.

So often, Oscar rewards actors for playing real people simply by doing a great impression of them. Cate Blanchett is a terrific actress but in no way shape or form did she deserve an Oscar for her extended impression, albeit a good one, of Kathryn Hepburn. The level of difficulty was tiny compared to someone having to create a character from scratch, with mannerisms a voice and an emotional complexity that no-one has seen before. However every so often Oscar get it right and their love for 'real life portrayals' isn't misguided. This is one of those times.

The film itself drew some criticism - indeed many critics suggested Cotillard carried it. I'm not totally convinced by this. The narrative is chopped up so much it's as if the script was thrown into a blender and the scenes pieced together in no particular order. Indeed it makes Alejandro González Iñárritu's films, with their characteristic timelines that whip back and forth, look positively linear. Much of this is designed to convey Piaf's disintegrating mind, where associations, memories and even dreams start to take hold of her life. She is frustrated by not being able to recall the memories she wants to, instead remembering things she'd like to forget. But is the film's structure a flaw? I'm not sure it is. It does mean that scenes that would be more poignant later on, are thrust upon us earlier, without us being able to see Piaf's startling decline. I wonder whether it would have been more effective if it had played out in a more straightforward chronology, but I don't think it is a serious flaw.

Perhaps more of a problem is that so much of Piaf life is covered, that few strands or moments can be dealt with in much detail. We flash forward or back so quickly that we never really get to spend much time in the moment. Quite momentous events in Piaf's life a fleetingly shown, and I think the film would be better had the director had not been quite so ambitious from the get go.

There is no denying however that Cotillard is far and away the best thing about the film. Her performance lands her in second place on my 2007 list, just behind Tang Wei, but on another day I could quite easily see myself reversing their spots. The film ends with a captivating rendition of Je Ne Regret Rien. It's poignant and captivating and the perfect way to end a film that may have its flaws, but one that features a star-making turn.

Be patient. It's good.

Enduring Love (2004)

After getting a good Ian McEwan fix with Atonement, I wanted more. Okay, this was on FilmFour and someone told me it was based on a book by Ian McEwan and this happened to be a couple of days after I saw Atonement but hey, who’s counting?

Sadly, this was no Atonement - the film that is. I haven't read either book and am in no place to comment on the literary merits (or otherwise) of either. I really want to read Atonement and also quite want to read this, but the film has not inspired me to head down to my local library to grab a copy.

It’s an absolutely fascinating premise which, again, suggested A+ possibilities. A couple picnicing in a field suddenly catch sight of a hot-air balloon ballooning (excuse the pun) out of control, up into the ether. Containing a small boy. With his grandfather hanging onto the anchor rope. Joe (Daniel Craig) and some other bystanders, including Jed (Rhys Ifans), attempt to come to the rescue and end up floating up heavenwards themselves. Joe and Jed and the grandfather jump but another would-be rescuer leaves it too late. Joe and Jed set out to find him but discover only his body imploded in on itself. Jed then feels an instant, spiritual, connection to Joe which grows and grows throughout the following weeks and ends up leaving Joe questioning his own sanity...

If that sounds like an interesting premise, it is. Sadly, the moment the body hits the floor and the balloon disappears into the sky, things go rapidly down hill. Essentially a story of a bizarre obsession, that obsession is left rootless and ultimately becomes deeply unconvincing to the audience. This is not helped by a below par performance from Craig, who is yet to convince me, and a poor piece of casting in Ifans, who is simply not up to the job of such a deeply unsettled and unhinged character as Jed. The chemistry between the two is poor and the film is ultimately unsatisfactory as a result. Samantha Morton, on the other hand, is typically excellent as Joe’s beleaguered girlfriend Claire. Sadly though the director does not invest enough trust in her character for the amount of screen time she gets to save the film.

A real shame as this could have been genuinely great. Sadly it just ends up being all hot air and little substance.

C+

Is In Bruges worth paying £2 to avoid?

I certainly thought so. After 30 minutes of "humour" that had all the wit and creativity of schoolyard name calling I left. Indeed schoolyard name calling might actually be wittier than calling fat people elephants then getting them to chase you, calling others "spastics" or "retarded" and then saying that someone would tip the balance like a big fat retarded black woman on a see-saw. Noel Coward-esque, I think you'll agree.

Anyway I couldn't take any more, I couldn't believe this had scored 78% on rottentomatoes, I couldn't believe that anyone in the cinema was actually laughing and so I up and left. The car park was free to exit after 8pm. I left at 7.15 and think it the best £2 I've spent this week.

Atonement (2007)

I have to say, I was surprised by this one. Very surprised. Okay, I didn’t expect it to be awful, but I didn’t expect it to blow me away either. But it did.

It’s a little difficult to describe the plot without giving the game away but here’s a taster. Essentially a love story which has to endure a misunderstanding with horrendous consequences, the film charts the lives of Robbie (James McAvoy) and Cecilia (Keira Knightley) as they attempt to get back to one another. I shouldn’t say any more.

The set-up, the first half an hour to forty minutes or so, is superb, faultless, film-making, with the possible exception that the audience is left in no doubt about some things it might have been better to leave them in doubt about. It then loses its way before ending everything pitch-perfect and allowing the tears to flow.

I don’t like, nor have I ever liked, Keira Knightley. I find her performances typically hollow and unconvincing. Not here though. She’s not top five for 2007 quality (or most other years for that matter) but she delivers a performance that is certainly noteworthy, although she is upstaged by the excellent Saorise Ronan, who plays the jealous, confused, spiteful, younger sister to perfection. Although there’s more for Ronan to play with and the character has much more to her than Knightley’s, the delivery is excellent and well worthy of a top five finish.

I do like, and have long liked, James McAvoy but felt a bit like he didn’t have much to do here. Although I didn’t find the two lead characters all that challenging, the chemistry between them was again, pitch-perfect, especially in the first act which fizzles and cracks like electric summer thunder. It’s a shame this wasn’t quite sustained. If it had have been there was definite A+ quality in the material and the staging. It’s not quite there but it’s not far away either and I can certainly see myself returning to it and I don’t normally say that for films like this. This had something about it, that great, indefinable, quality that lingers long in the mind, put there by a quality film’s sinewy tangles, threads and mysteries.

Recommended.

A-

Hallam Foe

Jamie Bell is certainly one of the best young actors working today. Since his breakout in Billy Elliot 9 years ago, which won him a BAFTA at the age of 14, he has gone on to star in 9 films. The three big projects, a Peter Jackson remake, Clint Eastwood war film and a Doug Liman sci-fi film are all interesting choices, even if I'm not a fan of any of them. His smaller, independent choices seem similarly thoughtful, even if some are more successful than others. Undertow is probably the best film on his resume, aside from that breakout debut and I though it a very decent effort. Indeed my colleague rates the film considerably higher than that and Bell, and the film, land on his 2004 year end list.

Bell's latest film sees him star as the title character in Hallam Foe, who lives in a tree-house, wears his dead mother's make-up and clothes and demonstrates difficulty or an unwillingness to accept the that his mother has gone, and that his father is engaged with to a much younger woman. Hallam also has problems with social interaction although one suspects these were present before his mother died.

This is a coming of age story that features a main character with a clear past (credit to screenwriter David Mackenzie), and exhibits quirks not just for the sake of being quirky, but for believable and sometimes touching reasons. Very few young actors can boast the feat of being able to carry a film single-handedly. Bell is one of them and he has again proved it here.

B

Shine A Light

To fully hammer home the dramatic impact of the world's best group playing on a screen taller than 5 double-decker buses stacked one on top of each other, Martin Scorsese, a lifelong Stone fan who conceived and documented the film, decides to precede the concert footage with an 11 minute introduction that takes place on about a 6th of the full IMAX screen. After that short black and white intro: bam: Jagger and co are out on stage in all their 60 foot tall glory, blaring out Jumping Jack Flash on a digital sound system that is just stunning.

Jagger works a crowd better than anyone and the wow factor of the energy he brings to the stage is never diluted, no matter how many times you've seen it. You see it on the reaction shots of those in the front rows - helpless grinning, everyone in awe of a showman who basically careers over every inch of the stage like a complete nutter. That infectiousness transcends from the Beacon theatre in New York to the IMAX in London and, whilst nothing can quite match seeing them live, this was very very close to the real thing.

The old standards sounded great but it was a couple of the lesser known tracks (at least I hadn't been aware of them) that were amongst the most satisfying. Everyone in the band seemed to enjoy playing She Was Hot - Jagger's interaction with the backing singers was brilliant. Watts, Richards and Wood all kill it - it's I think the 3rd track in but it played like the last encore; they leave everything out there and it is quite brilliant. Other highlights included Jagger's duet with Jack White on Loving Cup and a terrific Faraway Eyes which sees Wood enjoying playing a pedal steel (no I hadn't a clue what one was either) and Richards and Jagger delivering lyrics with comic flair.

I don't know enough about music or even the Stones to compare this to other tours, other eras or other bands. What I do know is that I spent so long smiling, my jaw ached; people in the theatre were enjoying it so much they were giving their own secret rounds of applause after each song; and that I have an urge to see them play again right now.

Scorsese is quite clearly a huge fan who has used their music in many of his films as background music or even in place of a traditional score, as he did with his frequent use of Gimme Shelter in The Departed (sadly they didn't have that great song on their setlist here). What he's achieved here is a captivating look at an amazing band on one amazing night. Songs are interspersed with archive footage, carefully selected for insight or comic value. He and his team must have pored over hundreds of hours of news items and interviews to get what they wanted. Scorsese has cut together a brilliant film that is essential for any Stones fan, and highly recommended for everyone else. The last shot with which Scorsese closes the film is quite brilliant too.

A

Movie Years Awards Redux

Some belated Movie Years Awards for last year. Matt has finally awoken from his film coma and supplied me with his finalised year end award lists. Very interesting reading they are too, especially his left-field choice for Best Actor! Check them out here.

I've also rejigged my side of the page as well. Having bought on DVD and rewatched my original #1 and #2 choices for last year (The Lookout and Michael Clayton), I've decided Michael Clayton should get the numero uno spot. The Lookout actually drops down a couple of notches. It doesn't quite play as well second time around. It's still a terrific film, but it has a couple of flaws that hold it back from being the best of the year. I still absolutely adore the A+, 10/10 score by James Newton Howard though. Joseph Gordon-Levitt also falls off my Best Actor list, allowing room for Casey Affleck, who I was actually going to put in for Tony Leung anyway. Now they're both there.

Random American Idol Post

At risk of revealing how sad I am, I watch American Idol. I tend to watch it on the internet and edit it quite heavily if that makes me any less sad?! Probably not, but anyway - there is a reason I am posting this confession. There's a very decent contestant this year called David Cook. This is his version of Mariah Carey's Always Be My Baby. It's excellent.

Oh and by the way I once had dinner with Ryan Seacrest, which is to say I didn't have dinner with him at all, but he was on the very next table to me once in Nobu.

The track is audio only - sorry about the rubbish photo. Very interested in getting Matt's opinion of this. I suspect he loves the original version too much to enjoy this (< /joke>).

More Short Reviews

Music Box

Costa-Gavras is a director of some repute who I have to admit I'd not heard of until recently. He is best known for directing politically charged films, including Z and Missing, both of which won Oscars and were nominated for multiple awards. I rented Missing recently largely because Jack Lemmon starred and received an Oscar nomination for his work in it. The film itself was nominated for Best Picture and obviously was well received at the time. I found it rather dull and Lemmon, and indeed fellow nominee Sissy Spacek, have done much better work elsewhere.

The same can be said in discussing Music Box. Jessica Lange was the recipient of an Oscar nominee for her work in this but it really isn't award worthy. She plays a lawyer whose father is accused of war crimes, and takes on the case to defend him only to learn things aren't as straight forward as they appear. Lange is fine, she breaks down in tears at one point and fights with her father but at no time did I think Lange was doing something extraordinary. Perhaps her character just wasn't interesting enough. Perhaps she hasn't the screen presence needed. Perhaps the story just wasn't gripping enough. Whatever the reason, Music Box didn't hit the right notes. C+

Love Story

According to some reports, and adjusting for inflation, Love Story is one of the highest grossing films of all time. Okay it's not in the league of Star Wars or Gone With the Wind. I'm talking top 40 rather than top 5, but even so, being amongst the top 40 highest grossing films of all time is quite something, especially when the movie was shot for just $2 million. For that sort of budget, being in the top 40 grossing films of the year would have probably been quite an achievement, but this is truly outstanding. The film was a bit of a phenomenon, as well as the incredible box office gross, it went on to secure multiple Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Actor and Actress. Incredible. So surely the film is totally captivating? Not even close.

Maybe it's aged badly. Maybe it just wasn't that good in the first place. Maybe I'm a cynical, hard to please bastard. Or maybe spending 90 ultra dialogue-heavy minutes with two infuriating, totally unrealistic individuals who have about as much charm as a particularly uncharming traffic warden just isn't for everyone. The leads, Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw went on to have startlingly dreadful careers for two Oscar nominated newcomers. O'Neal has starred in nothing of note and racked up an impressive 6 Razzie nominations since, which I think is rather more reflective of the quality of work in Love Story than an Oscar nomination. A bit unfair perhaps, because his performance is certainly not awful, but it is an insult to anyone who's been nominated for an Oscar to see a performance of such blandness being nominated alongside them. MacGraw's post Love Story career is even worse than O'Neal's, although she doesn't have the Razzie noms to boast of. A 14 episode stint on Dynasty is just about the highlight. 1970 must have been a poor year at the movies for such banality to find itself grossing over $100 million and scoring Oscar nominations in 7 categories.

If you want a plot summary, two irritating college students fall in love, spend some time being ungrateful, churlish and rude to his parents, get married before "tragedy" befalls them. It's described as one of the greatest "weepies" of all time. You can probably guess what happens. I lasted 50 minutes then watched the rest on fast forward, playing the DVD only when the great Ray Milland was on screen. D

Curb Season 6

I was a sad young man on tuesday night as it was the last one in the series of Season 6 of - I would say - the best Curb yet. Hilarious from start to finish. It also introduced Leon, one of my favorite comedy characters of all time. The chemistry between him and Larry was pitch-perfect. Genius. Favorite line whilst they were discussing a fake mugging:

"I'll fuck you up Larry."

Doesn't sound funny on it's own. But, trust me, the scene was just about perfect. The whole damn series was just about perfect. And the last episode? Well, that was perfect.

Please please make series 7

Slow Movie Month

It really is. Just thought I'd reinforce the point. There has been nothing that has even remotely captured my interest for weeks. Really want to see The Orphanage but, surprise surprise, it's not on in Leicester!! Maybe Son of Rambow will be next for me.

Have seen quite a few things on DVD. Need to catch up with reviews.

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-