Australia

"Baz, you know that last act that you worked so hard on and thought would be the perfect way to end it?"

"You mean the segment featuring the Japanese bombing of the Northern Territory - that hugely important cultural event that was such a powerful event in the lives of the people we're portraying here, and ultimately shaped our nation? The segment we spent 3 months shooting, sweat blood and tears over and spent millions on."

"Yeah that's the one."

"What about it?"

"Well - how can I put this - it's shit."

read the rest

Slumdog Millionaire

Despite continued success and solid reviews for just about everything he has ever done (The Beach excepted) Boyle has never made that transition into the big time. I expect that is about to change. Oscar success seems imminent. People are knocking on his door. He's the hot new thing in cinema and all thanks to an obscure, low budget, star-less Indian film about a boy on a quiz show.

read the rest

The Reader

One half of Kate Winslet's double Golden Globe success from Saturday landed here a couple of weeks ago and I caught up with it upon its release so it is about time I reviewed it. Whilst I'm happy for Winslet - there are very few, if any, actresses working today that are as overdue as she is in terms of big awards - one can't help wishing that she was being rewarded for something truly outstanding. Perhaps Revolutionary Road, which she won the lead actress award for on Sunday, may feature that performance. The Reader certainly doesn't.

Read more

Che: Part One

I knew very little of Che Guevara before I saw the first part of Steven Soderbergh's documentary-like take on the man, and now that I've seen it there is one one thing I know for absolute certain: there's absolutely no way in the world I'll be watching part 2.

Read more

Twilight

Stephanie Myers' vampire trilogy is the hot new cult thing amongst teens and Twilight is the first film in what is almost certainly been an already greenlit series. I suspect the they've got the green light for a few reasons: 1. it made a decent return at the US box office; 2. it didn't cost very much to make; and 3. it is actually surprisingly good.

Read more

2009 - Adam's take

Such are the vagaries of the film release calendar it doesn't feel as though 2008 has finished, and indeed it hasn't. I've still got Milk, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, Gran Torino, The Wrestler, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Frost/Nixon, Nothing But the Truth, Rachel Getting Married and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button all to see before I can possibly announce my side of the much coveted, highly prestigious movieyears awards. All land in the UK in the next couple of weeks after being released late in the year in the US an attempt to snag awards glory.

But for a brief moment let's look ahead at the 2009's genuine releases. Take this list with a pinch of salt. Of those films in my 2008 list, Valkyrie, Star Trek and The International were bumped to 2009 and MR73, Oliver Marchal's follow up to the brilliant 36, didn't even get a UK release; I'm awaiting the DVD. Of those three bumped films, Valkyrie and The International no longer hold much appeal - if they'd been any good they'd have been released when they were originally slated to, or at least that's what one would expect. I am still looking forward to Star Trek though but I can't have it on both my 2008 and 2009 preview, so with that in mind my top 10 most anticipated of '09 are...



10. Terminator: Salvation

The first two Terminator movies are rightly very highly regarded but the 3rd one is actually a very good film as well. Breathtaking chase sequences, particular one involving an enormous truck, complemented what was actually a very nicely written plot, one that advanced the SkyNet/John Connor/T-800 storyline whilst staying true to the previous films. I have concerns over the director and also the 25 year gap between T3 and T4. Nick Stahl did well as the younger John Connor but they seem to have cast well in Christian Bale as the adult Connor. If they have a decent script, and with Bale on board that seems likely, let's hope they can do this thing justice, however McG is best known for directing Charlie's Angels, and that isn't exactly a stellar resume (although I have to confess I thought the sequel, which he also helmed, was pretty good!)



9. Avatar

Well anyone who directs a film to almost $2 billion worldwide, completely obliterating any previous box office record, wins a record 11 Oscars and then takes 12 years off certainly knows how to ramp up expectations for his next project. James Cameron has done just that and we have to wait til December to see how he follows the most successful film of all time.



8. Inglorious Basterds

Well I have a couple of concerns, one: that's not how you spell bastards, and two: Tarantino has been off form over his last two films. I didn't care for Death Proof at all and was disappointed by Kill Bill Vol. 2. However, the guy is still an incredible talent and one of the most unique filmmakers in the business so any new Tarantino film has to be something to look forward to. Basterds stars Brad Pitt in the long-awaited WWII project.



7. Man Who Stares at Goats

Grant Heslov co-wrote Good Night, and Good Luck with George Clooney and that was unquestionably one of the smartest screenplays of that year. The film was very highly received and Heslov has graduated to the director's chair for a film that at the very least has one of the more intriguing titles of the year. Clooney, McGregor, Spacey and Bridges head an impressive cast in an Iraq based comedy.



6. The Informant

I'm not convinced Soderbergh has done anything of especial merit since Traffic but he is still a name I look out for when composing something like this and The Informant looks interesting. Matt Damon stars as the vice president turned informant Mark Whitacre, who accuses the US government of price fixing. It appears it doesn't know what it wants to be however as IMDb lists it as a comedy/crime/thriller/drama. A shame it's not also a sci-fi/western as well.



5. Duplicity

Tony Gilroy's Michael Clayton landed atop my 2007 list so his follow up is a no-brainer in any preview list. Duplicity stars Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, which is also a no-brainer. This has quality written all over it and one hopes this can capture the absorbing atmosphere of his debut film. He certainly knew how to get great performances out of his actors so at the very least we should be in for an acting masterclass. The plot sees Roberts and Owen team up pull the "ultimate con job" on their bosses. Sounds like there is comedic potential but IMDb assures us this is a pure thriller.



4. State of Play

Tony Gilroy's second appearance on this list, this time as writer, in Kevin MacDonald's State of Play. MacDonald's last film, The Last King of Scotland, was complete crap and saved only by an astonishing lead performance, but he is sure to fare better with this adaptation of a well-received British TV political thriller. Rachel McAdams, Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman and Helen Mirren star.


3. This Side of the Truth

Here's why this is going to be great:

1. Jeffrey Tambor
2. Ricky Gervais
3. Rob Lowe
4. Jason Bateman
5. Tina Fey
6. Patrick Stewart
and 7. Jeffrey Tambor.

Have I mentioned before that Jeffrey Tambor is quite possibly my favourite actor in the world? For the uninitiated, check out The Larry Sanders Show and you too will be convinced of his brilliance. His Arrested Development efforts weren't too shabby either and I know Gervais is a big fan of both shows so it is no surprise to see him team up with him in his latest film, the first feature film that he has written and directed. Gervais added his own inimitable style to Ghost Town, a highly enjoyable Hollywood debut, but this promises to be even better. In a world where nobody has ever lied, Gervais invents dishonesty out of boredom. Jennifer Garner, Jonah Hill, Jason Bateman and Christopher Guest also star.



2. Shutter Island

Martin Scorsese directs Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow, Jackie Earle Haley, Patricia Clarkson and Ted Levine in a "Mystery/Crime/Thriller." It's from a Dennis Lehane novel, he who also wrote Mystic River, which didn't fare too badly come Oscar time winning 2 of it's 6 Oscar nominations, all of which came in the most prestigious categories. With one of the best casts of the year, it's a decent bet that this may follow suit.


1. Arrested Development: The Movie

So it hasn't even been officially announced, they're not even in pre-production and it certainly doesn't have a release date, but I figure if enough people like me make this their most anticipated film of 2009 then the powers that be will make it happen. Please please please please please.

Hancock (2008)

Hancock (Will Smith) is a beleaguered, down-on-his-luck, superhero, living in present day LA but unwanted by the American public, and generally unloved, because he seems to create more destruction than he prevents. Drunk and moody, Hancock drifts aimlessly through his days, mixing drinking with the odd bit of heroism, until he saves the life of Ray Embrey, who works in PR. As a thank you, Ray offers his services to help Hancock's public image and help him come to terms with his past and who he is today...

Read more

We're back

Apologies for a total lack of posts over the last 2 weeks. I have been sunning it up in Mexico and my colleague was obviously having fun in England, which I returned to Saturday, but it felt like I'd landed somewhere more like the picture above.

Loads for me to catch up on asap - I have seen and will review:

Twlight (surprisingly good)

The Reader (surprisingly bad)

Lakeview Terrace (somewhere in between)

and am seeing Australia later, although I approach with trepidation after mixed reviews, and I pledge to see Che and Slumdog Millionaire by the weekend. Reviews forthcoming.

2009 Preview Baby

Well, 2009 is here and us dedicated types at MyFilmVault have disregarded our hangovers, put off clearing up the beer cans and shaken off our disappointment at the lack of football today to bring you this preview of the year ahead. And what a year it promises to be. As I was putting this together I was struck by the amount of quality that will be coming our way. I could easily have doubled this list and, further, have made one for January alone, such is the quality coming our way over the next 31 days. We have the first part of Che (though not in Leicester, sadly), Sam Mendes' Revolutionary Road (a GREAT book), Australia, The Wrestler and Slumdog Millionaire all to look forward to. So, I'll leave these off my preview, even though I've earmarked Che as my most mouthwatering prospect over the next 12 months. That said, a number of other tasty morsels are being offered up. The question is...how many of these will I actually go and see at the cinema? A market will shortly open up on Betfair.

1. Watchmen

Although this is in no particular order, watching Hancock (see next review...) has really put me in the mood for this forthcoming, bound-to-be-brainy, superhero film. Set in an alternate 1985, an age still riddled with cold war paranoia and despair, being a superhero is not uncommon. However, superhero status has now become outlawed and 'vigilantes' have been discredited and run underground. But when one of their number is brutally murdered, a rag-tale band of former heroes reunites to track down the murderer and uncover further sinister goings on...

If this sounds like a novel take on a superhero movie, it is. This is bound to be dark, claustrophobic, deep, thoughtful and brutal. Having been knocking around Hollywood in one form or another for a number of years, it is amazing it has even been made at all. Both Stallone and Schwarzenegger were reportedly attached at one time or another, but directed Zack Snyder has thankfully gone for a bunch of by-and-large unknowns, although I note Patrick Wilson has been getting some love from my colleague's lists and reviews of late.

In a way (and discounting the January flurry of promising movies), I'm most looking forward to this in 2009 as it promises something different and something interesting, following on from the equally interesting and brave Hancock from 2008. And we don't have to wait too long for this. It should be with us on March 6th.



2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Okay, a somewhat dull choice I know, and perhaps an inevitable one given that I've posted on it before. It's worrying that it was put back a year (this should have been released this past November) and I haven't yet heard an explanation as to why it has been put back, but I still hold out hope.

This is the best of the Potter books (which I've read), and that's saying something given that book 7 is also superb. But Book 6 has even more than the thrilling climax and, if done well, this should be dark, claustrophobic, tense, compelling and thrilling (a bit of a theme emerging here...). There are signs that the actors are getting better, that Gambon is beginning to fill Richard Harris' rather large wizard-shaped shoes as Dumbledore, and that things are beginning to come together. Film 5 (Order of the Phoenix) wasn't great, but, then again, neither was the book. Book 6 is almost as long, but not a word is wasted. They'll do well to cram it all in, and cram it all in effectively, but this is the moment I fell back in love with Potter. For those who hate the books and the films, this is the time to give it a second chance.

Another look at the trailer...




3. Where the Wild Things Are



Oh dear, only at number 3, and two 'children's' films already previewed. And, like Watchmen and Potter 6, this is also courting controversy, particularly among the fanboys of Maurice Sendak's book. I've never read it so I can't comment. I don't understand, however, the hostility fans of books, comics, theatre productions have to the very idea of their beloved artistic treasures being made into a film (not that they can't be disappointed with the final result). Isn't it good that a piece of genuine art will reach a larger audience? Give the filmmaker a chance. After all, if it wasn't for Spielberg (with a little help from Messrs Scheider, Dreyfuss, Shaw et al), where would Jaws be?

And director Spike Jonze (whatever else you may feel about him) can hardly, in all fairness, be called cynical. Add that to the fact that the screenplay was penned by the brilliant Dave Eggers, you just have to call on people to give this a chance. Please...

Anyway, the film centres on Max, a young boy sent to his room without any supper. Angry, he creates an imaginary world inhabited by creatures, who crown him their ruler. We are promised more darkness, more scares, more fear. This just sounds very interesting and well worth a look, particularly for someone like me who works with children and particularly enjoys working with their imaginations. Well worth a look.

4. Drag Me To Hell

Moving away from children's films onto horror movies...



This also sees Sam Raimi move away - briefly - from his Spiderman baby to this tale of a Loan Officer (Christine) ordered to evict an old woman from her home. The old woman then places a supernatural curse on Christine, who is forced to turn to supernatural forces of her own to help liberate her from the curse.

This sounds, in all essentials, like a genuine, old-fashioned, chiller which, like this years brilliant REC, will aim to bridge an unsettling gap between modernity, superstition and religion. And if the result is anything like that achieved by REC, the results could be fantastic and genuinely chilling. This one is heading our way in May (a shame it misses Halloween, which seems to be devoid of decent, even promising, films year on year).

5. The Road


I finished reading this novel, by current literati darling Cormac McCarthy (fully deserving of adoration by the way), a few months back and loved it. Set in a post-apocalyptic nightmarish America, the entire landscape of which is awash with black ash and ruin and which is ravaged by roving bands of carnivorous, brutal, survivors.

It sounds fairly by the by from that description, yet it is anything but. For, through the ash and charred remains of humanity and human landscapes, walk a father and son, desperately striving, against all hope and against all the odds, for some form of redemption.

Don't get me wrong, this is such an emotionally note perfect book it will be very difficult to pull off well. But the signs are promising. Helmed by John Hillcoat, who did a great job with The Proposition (which, vitally, looked great, as this will have to as well) and starring Viggo Mortenson (who is, believe me, perfectly cast), this also features cameos by Guy Pearce, Robert Duvall and Charlize Theron, a cast that certainly gets my juices going. And the noises coming out of the camp, particularly about the key relationship between father and son (the latter played by the largely unheralded Kodi Smith-McPhee), are equally promising. This will be probably be very good, but, if pulled off, could be great. I await with great interest.

Well, that's my first five, the next five will follow later. A fairly eclectic bunch of films and no doubt some surprising and controversial choices, but we here at MyFilmVault like to keep you on your toes, so I hope you enjoy perusing this little selection. January promises to be a great month and I hope I'll actually manage to see some of the cinematic fare served up in the post-Christmas period. So, enjoy, and back soon with more previews.

You Can Count On Me (2000)

This was recommended to me eons ago by my colleague but it has only just arrived via my LoveFilm account. So, was my colleague right to endorse this understated Americana drama?

In short, definitely. This is a brilliant film, which I enjoyed from start to finish. Even Matthew Broderick didn't manage to ruin it for me and was actually quite good. He even made me laugh out loud through his delivery of a line. Wow. This augers well for a good year in film in 2009.

You Can Count on Me focuses on the life of Sammy Prescott (the once again stunning Laura Linney), who raises young son Rudy (Rory Culkin) on her own. Following the death of Sammy's parents in a car accident when they were very young, the family has disintegrated. But an opportunity for redemption arrives when down-on-his-luck younger brother, the dreamy and disaffected Terry, comes to visit.

Films like this live and die on the quality of their performances, being insular, quiet, understated and totally focused on story and relationships. The leads do not let director Kenneth Lonnergan down one bit.

Is Linney the greatest actress performing in Hollywood today? This website would seem to suggest yes, as she is one of the few performers who seems to elicit the same response of adoration from us both, yet she is still relatively unknown. Linney has generally chosen indie flicks to showcase her vast talents and she still perhaps awaits that genuine breakout movie, which it seemed for a while the Truman Show would be. Perhaps it is a good thing that she hasn't 'broken out' and continues to make stunning films like this and 2007's Jindabyne (although my colleague was not as blown away by her performance there as I was). Linney is, again, the best thing in this and that is no mean feat, given the other performances, especially Ruffalo's. Her range and emotional depth is perfectly showcased in the love Sammy clearly has for her troubled younger brother and Linney invests the character with multiple dimensions of being, thought, emotion and behaviour. The character lives and this means the film gasps and breathes deeply the emotional wilds and vistas it inhabits. Linney is, like a true virtuoso, note and tone perfect throughout.

Ruffalo is great as well, brilliantly awkward, funny and distant as a character who clearly carries a lot more with him than he is ever willing to let on. He does some stupid things, but they always feel human and very real and the audience is sympathetically tied to his fate. Rory Culkin, too, clearly got all the acting talents in his family and he is now beginning to break out into the mainstream after measured performances in this and Signs. And as I say, even Matthew Broderick, who I dislike immensely as an actor and consistently fail to understand how he still gets acting jobs, is decent in this, only on occasion lapsing into his normal inconsistency and poor delivery.

This is well worth an hour and a half of anyone's time, imbued in the life and struggle of an interesting, mostly charming and engaging family. The characters are neatly drawn, lively and, crucially, human and the performers have the requisite talents to live up to them. Add this to your LoveFilm wishlist or seek it out at your local video store. Lovely.

A-

Quick Notes

Two feel good films that are getting some attention as the critics start handing out their end of year prizes. Having much in common, both are independent films, one US the other UK, featuring strong lead performances and both are easily worth your time and money.

The Visitor

Thomas McCarthy's The Visitor stars Richard Jenkins in a rare leading role and after this one can only hope that more follow for he is wonderful. The title might very well refer to Richard Jenkins' character Walter - a stranger to his own NY home - he spends all his time in Connecticut trying to appear as busy as possible when in fact he does very little. It might be Tarek (Haaz Sleiman), the illegal immigrant he discovers living in his apartment when he makes a rare return to New York for a conference. It may also be Tarek's mother Mouna (Hiam Abbass), who arrives in New York when she does not hear from her son for a few of days. All 3 touch each other's lives significantly and unexpectedly.

Impeccably acted by all, but especially Jenkins and Sleiman, the former deserves all the awards notice he is getting. I had a smile on my face for large chunks of the running time and, whilst the film certainly ha a point to make about the American immigration system, it by no means batters you over the head with it. It is a warm, funny, even touching film that invites you to spend 90-odd minutes with some wonderful characters, and that can never be a bad thing.

A-

Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy-Go-Lucky is Mike Leigh's latest, and whilst it doesn't veer away from his usual low budget take on the working class trappings, it does present a far happier portrayal of British life than much of his work. I've enjoyed Leigh most when he has explored subject matters outside his comfort zone - Topsy-Turvy being, in my eyes, easily his best work. Well Happy-Go-Lucky is also a little outside his comfort zone and features a wonderful Sally Hawkins as Poppy, who's character biography can be accurately synopsised by reading the title of the film. Quite unlike any character Leigh has written before, indeed quite unlike any character I have ever seen on screen before, Poppy is an infectious, inexorably delighted 30 year old who can laugh at anything, including severe back pain, make jokes out of the smallest of situations and who has a unwaveringly sunny outlook on life.

Some have found her carefree character irritating and I confess 5 minutes in I was itching for the off button, but that was more to do with there being five such individuals in the room together - an assault on anyone's senses. Poppy on her own though is pretty great and is highly enjoyable to watch especially when playing opposite her perfect counterfoil Scott, who is the antithesis of Poppy. Uptight, highly-strung and angry, Scott has the unenviable task of teaching Poppy how to drive - his exasperation providing frequent comic highlights.

There's no plot to speak of, Leigh, like McCarthy, has invited you to spend some time with some wonderful characters - in this case Poppy and Scott. Played to perfection, Marsan has sadly been overlooked thus far in the end of year awards circuit but Hawkins is racking up wins and nominations like there's no tomorrow. An Oscar nod is likely, and would be well deserved.

Just one minus point - the score is woeful. Everything else is great though. I really would love to see Mike Leigh get $100 million to spend on a movie one of these days. Until then I'll continue to enjoy great work such as this.

B+

Your 2008 Oscar Host

Changeling

Apparently Hollywood's highest paid actress, Angelina Jolie certainly has a decent amount of range - at least in the genre of films she appears in. Happy to appeal to the young testosterone juiced males in ludicrous (although quite fun) action heavy films like Wanted, she also makes sure she appears in enough films with higher pretensions in order to be taken seriously as a - well - serious actress. Very few actors have such a successful dual career - a number jump from one camp to the other for the odd film, but generally appear happier in the dumb popcorn stuff or the not so dumb award bait stuff and rarely both.

To date her more serious roles have yielded just one Oscar nomination and that was back in 2000 for Girl Interrupted - a role she went on to win for. A Mighty Heart was supposed to change that last year but Oscar looked away when everyone else at least saw fit to nominate her. This year though a nomination looks even likelier than it did this time 12 months ago, for Jolie has landed a role apparently highly sought after; Christine Collins - a woman whose son disappears one day when she takes on an extra shift at work, triggering a 5 months man hunt for her lost child. After an exhaustive search the LAPD, desperate to receive some good press, announce that they have found her son when in actual fact the boy they found is someone she's never met in her life. Worse, they refuse to acknowledge their mistake once they "reunite" mother and son and forcefully suggest Collins should take the boy home to "try him out" for a few weeks.

This was a time when the police had an incredible amount of power but very rarely used it wisely. Corruption was rife and mistreatment commonplace. Incredibly the police department didn't even require a medical examination to have someone (almost exclusively a female) incarcerated for mental illness. This was the 20s and women were largely second class citizens. At work Collins is told her manager had to lay his job on the line to get her promoted to shift supervisor - his bosses telling him women couldn't do the job. But inequality in the workplace is one thing, the ability to lock someone up without cause is quite another. Embarrassed by her protests that the boy is not her own, the department start actively campaigning against Collins, indicating that she is an unfit mother and mentally unstable - getting her sectioned under a code 12 internment, code 12 being a term used to jail or commit someone who was deemed difficult or an inconvenience. Enraged by the injustice of this and other cases involving the LAPD, a preacher Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) complains daily of police mistreatment in his radio broadcasts and takes up the Christine Collins case as a personal mission to right the wrongs she has faced.

Clint Eastwood's first of two late 08 releases (the other being Gran Torino) is a typical Eastwood helmed picture. Sparse, understated, efficient. He has a confidence in the director's chair that comes with having directed films for nearly 40 years. Filming takes just a few weeks, he apparently rarely does multiple takes of a particular scene. If he likes the way his actors have done it first time round, he'll call cut and move on to the next scene. There's no irritating little tics like "clever" camera placements, edits or swooping pans. He is totally comfortable with placing the camera in the middle of the shot, letting his actors do their thing, then moving on. And where he excels, is getting excellent performances out of his cast. This is very much Angelina Jolie's picture and it is not hard to work out why both Hilary Swank and Reese Witherspoon lobbied for the role. This has serious awards potential - a heck of a lot of screen time, period piece, wronged woman etc. Whilst I wouldn't say she knocks it out of the park, she is certainly very good and has probably done enough to secure the second Oscar nomination of her career. This is not a performance on the same level as Kristen Scott Thomas' but then nothing else this year will be.

The other strong points in Eastwood's film largely revolve around his production crew, for Chageling is as handsome a film as I've seen for a while. It retains a 20s feel throughout - wonderful sets, impeccable costumes, hair and makeup. Its photographed wonderfully - retaining the 20s look through the lens. You feel a lot of time and effort went in to recreating the time period and the entire production team deserve an art direction nod for their efforts here.

Good support comes from Jeffrey Donovan who delivers one great line in particular - the one on the trailer: "why would we be looking for someone we have already found" - a wonderful mix of embarrassment, exasperation and desperation. If myfilmvault.com was sad enough to have an award for best single line reading I dare say this would be in my top 5 for the year. Changeling is an enjoyable film, one that never drags and a film that effortlessly changes gear and focus as the story unfolds. The story itself edges towards incredulity - indeed were it not a true story you might even suggest the screenwriters had pushed things a little too far. Normally I roll my eyes whenever I see those dreaded words "based on a true story" come up at the beginning of the film. On this occasion it is both necessary and actually enhances the film.

B

Miss Potter (2006)

My shameful lack of up to date reviews goes on. And I just can't muster up any enthusiasm to write a full review of this disappointing and ultimately dull film.

Is it fair to criticize a biopic for its poor characterization? Couldn't the director and stars simply reply 'well, why bother watching the film if the characters don't interest you?' Clearly, that will not do. Not only would a director with this attitude be very unlikely to sell tickets for her films, it is perfectly reasonable to expect nuanced, sophisticated characterization from a biopic. For one, you might just not really know the characters - as was the case for me here. Indeed, a biopic will live and die on its characters and whilst this doesn't irredeemably guillotine its audience we are still subjected to a slow lingering cinematic demise equivalent to those unfortunate souls who fall into Saarlac's pit.

In short, this is a dull, uninteresting pastiche of cliches, contrivances and annoyances lumped into 90 poorly put together minutes. The end result is very unsatisfactory and it falls well below the emotional waterline which it is trying to tread. The film does eventually find it's feet in the last third, but it's too late to save it from mediocrity.

Very briefly, the film tells the story of Beatrix Potter's attempts to have her books published and the young editor Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor) who falls for them and her. Renee Zellweger, who I like, is disappointing as Beatrix and the character feels annoying and largely charmless, which I, like the film itself, am sure she wasn't. McGregor is given little to do and is even denied the one scene which might have added an extra layer of emotional meaning to the film. The best aspect of the characters is certainly Ruppert Potter's (Bill Paterson's) awesome sideburns.

Okay, I'm being unnecessarily mean, but some of the accolades showered on this are way wide of the mark, particularly that dreaded adjective "enchanting". Whilst Beatrix Potter clearly was an interesting character, she is anything but enchanting here and I just found the characterisation and development annoying and cliched. Emily Watson, as Millie Warne, Norman's sister, is probably the best thing in it (as she often is) but that is not saying much.

I just can't recommend this. It's not awful, and the last part of the film is far more satisfying that the clunky moments that lead up to it. Perhaps I just wasn't in the mood and this is better than I give it credit for but, regardless of whether I was in the mood or not, this is certainly not recommendation quality. I think a

C

is fair...

I await disagreement.

Cinematography of the Year 2003

Yet another very difficult call this year. You could potentially make a case for all of the five films in my top 5. Although, really, the cinematography in Return of the King, good though it is, is essentially just a follow on from the efforts of the previous two films, the visualisations of the City of the Dead (in particular) and also Minas Tirith (the City of the Kings) is especially stunning and the film is worthy of inclusion in any discussion on those two visual megaliths alone.

Another two films outside my top 5 also merit attention for visual thrills. The first is the spectacular bloodbath that is Zatoichi. Katsumi Yanagishima clearly has an eye for blood and the powerful effect copious amounts of it can have on an audience. When done well, that is, and not crudely, as in another 2003 film, Kill Bill: Volume 1. Tarantino could take a lesson here (which, or so I would argue, he did for volume 2).

Three of the films in my top 5 (The Station Agent, All the Real Girls and Mystic River) come from the same visual plateau (Americana) yet each, especially taken together, show just how light, atmosphere and backdrop can so heavily both influence, and reflect, mood. Mystic River feels dark and foreboding throughout, like the secrecy and undercurrents of discomfort that layer the town and its inhabitants. All the Real Girls is classic David Gordon Green (though it is Tim Orr and not Adam Stone - see my previous post - on photography duty here), dreamy, sleepy, soulful, romantic, all light perfectly reflecting and encompassing sound, like the quiet ping of a raindrop on a spring pond. Beautiful and sensuous. And the Station Agent - quiet, lazy, dreamy, backwater America washed with a cinematic landscape which makes you want to live it and, indeed, live in it. If I had to choose between them, All the Real Girls would win. I just love the look and feel of Green's films and can't wait to see his latest effort, Snow Angels.

Lost in Translation (cinematography by Lance Acord) is a different animal entirely, looking radiant and dazzling, bejewelled by the throbbing neon lights of a Hong Kong reminiscent (but no more than that) of Christopher Doyle's heartached Hong Kong landscapes in the films of Wong Kar Wai. Lost in Translation pushes the eventual winner close too.

However, the 2003 award goes to the second film not in my top 5, the Polish brothers' Northfork. I would watch this again purely for M. David Mullen's photography. The look is a perfect balance between dreamworld and reality, as though the stark, ethereal and dolorous bright light, inhabited by its strange, unearthly creatures, is itself the delicate and lonely bridge between this world and the next, into which the town of Northfork is shortly to disappear. Atavistic and brilliant, the light divides the two worlds, and moods, of the film perfectly. Northfork is a very good film, though one that disappeared too quickly, and its cinematography is well worthy of this award, which it steals ahead of more famous, and more heralded, company. Indeed, the company it finds itself in, and, ultimately ahead of (in this category) in 2003, is testimony to Mullen's strange and beautiful achievement.

Shotgun Stories (2007)

My colleague is going to despair. I finally get around to writing a review for (what I thought was) a 2008 film, then IMDB tells me it's 2007, even though it's only just come out on DVD. What to do? Well, I'll just have to go ahead and review the film anyway.

Shotgun Stories, a classic Matt-pleasing lyrical, pensive, beautifully shot, drama, set in the American south, focuses on three brothers, named Kid, Boy and Son who feud with four half-brothers following the death of their common father. Hated by Kid, Boy and Son, but beloved by the other brothers, Cleaman, Stephen, Mark and John, their father's legacy divides an already unstable family and shatters an uneasy peace, leading to inevitable tragedy, as plain and as sure as the sweet Arkansas sun laying in the rivets and shards of cotton in the fields which form the sumptuous and delicate backdrop to this unassuming, but engaging, human tragedy.

From the start, this is a powerful film. You begin by thinking that Film-maker Jeff Nichols has chosen very poor names for his lead characters but, following the powerful and foreboding funeral scene (eaten up on screen by Son, played by Michael Shannon, more on whom later), it soon dawns on the viewer that their names bear the indelible mark of a neglectful and abusive father who couldn't give so much of a damn as to give them a proper name. Notably unlike his other four sons, who proclaim, with all honesty and integrity, that their father was a changed man after he ran out on Kid, Boy and Son. It's a powerful message - a history, a legacy, is a hard thing to shake at the best of times, but harder still when your name, and how it contrast with that of more favoured and fortunate siblings, stands as a constant reminder to pain, loss, struggle and turmoil, never clearer than when Son, at his father's funeral, reflects that their father ran out on them "to be raised by a hateful woman" his voice bleeding with pregnant rage.

As required by character-lead dramas, the performances here are high end and the characters deep, fluid and interesting. Michael Shannon, as Son, steals the film. An incredible mixture of Joaquin Phoenix, Di Caprio and early Brando, Shannon gives a performance here that suggests he will go on to greater things. I hope he does, he deserves to. Son is one of those rare characters whose fate you just feel tide to and in whose world you have some strange urge to belong, despite its difficulty and struggle. A great performance. Douglas Ligon and Barlow Jacobs, as Boy and Kid respectively, have more to do than the brothers from the other side of the family, and both ably support Shannon and all three brothers are deep, interesting, characters that stand well above the level of caricature, not always easy with a film such as this. The other four brothers are less developed, with the exception of the interesting and pained Cleaman (Michael Abbot Jr.), and this is a flaw, but one that will have to be excused, given the film's running time. It doesn't, I think, have designs on being 'epic' and that will be reflected in the final grade.

Shot by David Gordon Green (on producer duty here)'s favorite cinematographer Adam Stone (who photographed Green's George Washington, All The Real Girls and Undertow), this looks accomplished, lyrical and stunning, the images deliberately provoking contrasts with one another and the overall mood of the film (Green's influence on Nichols is palpable here). The score, by Lucero Pyramid, is suitably haunting and compelling as well.

I really liked this and will add it to my collection as soon as possible. It's very much my kind of film and that is reflected in my grade, so the recommendation comes with that warning that this is very me, but that is not to say it isn't very you either. Well, well, worth a go and well worth an

A-

Body of Lies

After a spate of spate of middle-east based failures released by Hollywood over the past 12 months, you have to approach yet another one with some trepidation, even if it comes from an acclaimed director and has the one-two punch of Crowe and Di Caprio above the title. It's been met with a muted response from critics - Body of Lies currently polls a mediocre 50% on rottentomatoes, which means half of those critics polled would class this as a failure, putting it behind the likes of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Quantum of Solace, and, incredibly, RocknRolla. Point me out the raving lunatic that thinks Guy Ritchie has done anything in the last 10 years that comes anywhere close to the quality of this film and I'll beat him to death with a big black rubber sex toy. To be fair, that memorable scene actually came from the one film that Guy Ritchie has ever done that was any good, but I digress.

Body of Lies opens with a skilfully directed action sequence set in Manchester and then another in the Middle East involving Roger Ferris (Di Caprio), a covert Arabic speaking CIA agent specialising in counter terrorist work. After almost single-handedly dispatching a terrorist cell he is given a promotion of sorts to work out of the US embassy in Jordan. After quickly putting his predecessor in his place over the half arsed job he and his team have been doing, Di Caprio approaches the Jordanian head of security (Mark Strong) with whom he sets up an uneasy alliance - one where they clearly prefer the tag of friendship than enmity but where neither has the confidence to share classified information with each other. The film explores Ferris' attempts to root out terror in Jordan with the ultimate goal of capturing Al-Saleem, the man responsible for the Manchester bombing as well as others throughout Europe.

Critics have said this is a very Tony Scott film, and it is true that this is the most technologically up to date film of the Ridley's career, and the most action heavy piece since Black Hawk Down. Ridley's younger brother hasn't really done anything of note since Enemy of the State, but that particular film is genuinely great in my opinion and, like this, was technologically savvy and covered much ground quickly.

Body of Lies though is a completely different beast. It has a smart script penned from the David Ignatius novel and adapted by Oscar winner William Monahan, with whom Scott work on Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps a perceived lack of focus hurt the film in terms of critical reception, and it is true that there is a lot going on here. We only settle into the meat of the plot half way into the second act, but the build up to that point has been so satisfying that you almost didn't need a clearly defined goal, although when it comes it is a strength of the film. Ferris hatches a clever plan to entrap Al-Saleem by setting up a rival terrorist cell and getting Saleem curious enough to initiate contact. The way Ferrris goes about setting it up is smart and brilliantly executed and could easily have merited its own 2 hour picture.

However I wouldn't fault the structure of this film at all and it was extremely entertaining to be plunged into the hi-tech world of counter-terrorism. Di Caprio is once again on top form in a film in which he probably should have got sole billing. That honour was shared by Russell Crowe who, despite being one of the finest actors working today, I have yet to mention. That's because he really is a secondary player to Di Caprio and has very little to do other than speak on the phone to his man in the field. If Di Caprio is a bit like Jack Bauer, Crowe is a bit like a one man CTU - someone who phones in advice and instruction from Washington and a man capable of making extremely tough calls instantly, and without giving them a second though. Crowe carrying an extra few pounds and in the Jeffrey Wigand build from The Insider, plays his small role perfectly and is possibly the star of the show, although it's a close run thing between him and relative newcomer Mark Strong. Strong plays the Jordanian minister with a quiet gravitas that has you completely convinced that the guy is extremely powerful. Oozing charisma and authority in his role, Strong really should get a significant career boost from his impressive performance here.

Body of Lies is far far better than critics will tell you. Whilst it wont go down as a home run in the Ridley Scott canon, it a film I would unhesitatingly recommend. The strong performances and the wonderful visual flair that you a guaranteed with Ridley, make it worth the price of admission alone.

B+

Quarantine

Well it just couldn't be as good as myfilmvault's virtual lock for film of the year could it. Could it? [Rec] is the only film in both mine and Matt's top 3 - it got an A+ from him, an A from me. The last time we agreed on a film, Scorsese was just an Oscarless journeyman director and Arnold Schwarzenegger had as much political clout as Jean Claude Van Damme. We nevr agree on films - yet on [Rec] we agree; it is essential viewing.

Watching an original film and virtual shot for shot remake in the space of 6 months feels a little more like homework than going to the cinema should. I couldn't help myself making frequent comparisons to the original: comparing characters, comparing actors that played those characters, spotting deviations in plot or structure, comparing dialogue. Certain things were done better, some felt pointless, many changes however simply made the film weaker, and a couple made you scratch your head and wonder what the director was thinking.

The main points for comparison are the quality of acting and screenplay. Jennifer Carpenter is surprisingly accomplished for a relative newcomer in her first starring role. She convinces throughout and deals with some difficult scenes very well. However, she is simply not as good as Manuela Valesco who was near faultless in the [Rec]. Supporting characters are a mixed bunch in the remake, whilst I don't remember any weak links at all in the original. Unless you are really anti subtitles, there is little doubt that the Spanish film has the finest script. A couple of crass jokes in Quarantine take you out of the picture and characters behave a little more stupidly in this than they do in [Rec]. It is a typical horror film complaint of mine for inexplicable behaviour, but that was a complete rarity in the original. Not so here, although it is nowhere near as bad as many contemporary US horrors.

Plot variations are admittedly slight, although those minor changes do feel completely unnecessary. Why focus at length on a open fracture for instance - horror films are surely at their best when eliciting a sense of dread, fear or, well, horror. A rather gross looking wound elicits none of those emotions and for me it's a disappointing nod (albeit a slight one) to the appalling likes of Hostel where the torture porn aspect seems infinitely more important than actual plot, structure or intelligence.

Ultimately of course, if I'd seen Quarantine first these quibbles would disappear and I'd be on hear telling you to go and see this wonderful film. After all they've done very little to it and based it on an excellent film. How could it possibly fail? Answer: it couldn't, and it hasn't. However since it is the lesser of the two trapped-in-an-apartment-block first person video camera filmed horror films released in 2008, you really should check out the better one.

B-

The Baader-Meinhof Complex

Germany's entry to this years foreign film Oscar race is the ambitious retelling of the early years of the West German terrorist group the Red Army Faction. The RAF were responsible for at least 34 deaths and many more injuries during its existence, many of those coming in the group's early years as depicted in Uli Edel's film.

Screenwriting 101 will tell you to define your main character and to define his or her need - the desire of the character will drive the story forward. Think of the classic screenplays and you'll be able to work out quite easily who the protagonist is and what they want. Clarice Starling needs to find the senator's daughter, TE Lawrence wants to help the Arabs lead a revolt against the Ottoman empire, Rocky wants to be a heavyweight champion, LB Jeffries wants to discover whether a murder has been committed across the courtyard. Well for the life of me I couldn't work out either either who the main character in this was in the Baader-Meinhof Complex, nor what he, she or anyone in the film wanted.

Ostensibly the RAF want to establish themselves amongst the plethora of revolutionary and radical groups. They want themselves to be heard, for people to take notice, for American to pull out of Vietnam. The pledge to prevent what they see as the rise of fascism once again, to fight West Germany's capitalist establishment and to "annihilate, to destroy, to smash the system of imperialist domination, on the political, economic, and military planes." But what on earth motivates such a group to commit heinous acts? Vandalism, theft and murder are all within what the groups sees as acceptable acts, but the viewer never gets a sense of how they came to this conclusion. Perhaps there isn't an easy answer to this question, and perhaps it is not in the remit of a screenplay to explore such motivations, but after 2 hours 45 minutes you do feel shortchanged when such an unfocused, overloaded film leaves you knowing nothing more about the RAF than you did when you went in.

There are saving graces. The Baader-Meinhof gang, as they were known initially, come across as a rather morally bankrupt bunch of hypocritical, senseless extremists and not the courageous, activists that I feared they would. This is after all a gang of indiscriminate murdering, vandalising thugs, and not some misunderstood intelligent politically savvy left wing crowd. Hard to believe reports that a high percentage of Germany's youth sympathised with the gang, but apparently it is so. Fortunately Edel resists any temptation to glamorise the gang but despite this, there is still some concern that any film focusing on the now disbanded organisation would give them some unnecessary coverage and only serve to upset the many victims of the RAFs attacks. This controversy upon its release in its homeland did little to help ignite it at the box office, as might have been expected and in fact it flopped quite badly - a severe blow to Uli Edel and his team who reputedly made the most expensive German film in history. It seems likely then that it may also be the German film industry's most expensive bomb.

Why then has it been entered in the Oscar race by a country who must surely have had others films to choose from? Perhaps this may play better overseas where the controversy very clearly doesn't exist. Few people will be at all familiar with the RAF and fewer still with the key individuals within the organisation that are portrayed here. The film has technical merit, screenplay aside. Edel is more than competent with his direction, the acting is impressive and the production values are strong.

Yet if you, like me, find you learn nothing from a film that has sacrificed plot and narrative for character study you have to chalk this one up as a pretty sizable failure since those characters reveal very little about themselves in the entire duration. A very noble failure no doubt, and one that has some very large plus points, but a failure nonetheless.

C

OSS 117: Cairo - Nest of Spies

James Bond spoofs have a history of failing to be as funny as they think they are. This is just another example and the second Bond parody to fail this year alone. This is certainly a notch up on Get Smart, but the latter set the bar so low that it was barely off the ground. This French farce has probably raised it a couple of millimetres - or, as the French like to say - millimètres .

This went down well in its homeland, earning several Cesar nominations, including a Best Actor nomination for its star. Jean Dujardin is certainly well cast and performs his role with gusto, however he just can't shake the limp, uninspired script that weighs the whole film down. 95% of the jokes just don't work and that simply doesn't make for a very good comedy. I did love the stylish opening credits however.

D+

Pride and Glory

Colin Farrell is one of those actors that inexplicably has a career in which he continues to get starring roles despite none of his films doing particularly well at the box office, nor indeed garnering much praise from critics either. I certainly remember some good notices for his supporting turn in Minority Report - a breakthrough performance that pushed him into the big time, however you have to wonder what he has done in the last few years to deserve getting his name on the marquee. Flop after flop has been released - all films taking well under their productions budgets at the US box office. Neither Intermission or A Home at the End of the World could even cover a quarter of their very modest budgets. Alexander was a spectacular bomb in his biggest budgeted film to date - a film in which undoubtedly people would either come to see it if the Colin Farrell name carried some sort of cache. They didn't.

Since then we have been treated to The New World (Terence Mallick flop), Miami Vice (Michael Mann flop) and Casandra's Dream (Woody Allen flop and his 2nd worst box office return in his 37 film history). 3 great directors all clamouring for Farrell's services but look where it got them. Farrell is box office poison and you have to wonder what he has to do to get himself relegated to supporting roles again - something I suspect he'd fare better in.

So we come to his latest box office crashing disappointment: Pride and Glory - a film that currently hasn't even taken two thirds of its production budget at the worldwide box office. To be fair Farrell probably is more of a supporting character in this, although still shares top billing with Edward Norton for reasons that remain elusive. Norton plays a cop assigned to investigate a multiple police homicide that seems to be more complex than some want to believe. Farrell plays his brother-in-law and fellow cop. One's corrupt, one's not. You can work out for yourself which is which. Except you wont, since you almost certainly wont watch this film, because it isn't very good.

Any good will built up by moderate first act success - a decently staged opening American Football match, some good scenes with the underrated Noah Emmerich - quickly evaporates as things descend into absolute farce. It's as if the screenwriter got half way and thought "fuck, I've got absolutely no idea how to end this things. Let's have the two main characters fight." It is completely laughably, embarrassingly stupid. It makes no sense. It makes less than no sense. And that's only one of several ridiculous contrivances that drive the story to its inept coda. Think of the worst ending you've ever seen in a film. Double it, and you've got the ending to Pride and Glory.

D

Easy Virtue

This thoroughly appalling British film marks the 6th occasion this year that I have bailed on a film before the credits rolled. One leading American critic got into trouble a few weeks ago after it emerged he reviewed a film he'd only seen the first 8 minutes of. I stayed for significantly more than that, although I don't think I quite made it to the hour mark. Perhaps one shouldn't review a film unless they've seen all of it, or perhaps if you do you should be upfront about it. Well here's me being upfront: if you don't think I should review a movie I didn't see to its conclusion, treat this as a review of the first 45 minutes.

It is very possible that Easy Virtue defied all expectation and suddenly found some shred of competence in a screenplay that had thus far adapted a Noel Coward play so badly that it made the playwright seem positively humourless.

It is possible that every single attempt at humour suddenly hit the mark where they had hitherto missed so badly that is was excruciating to watch.

It is also possible that the makers of this thing realised that watching interiors shot as though they have been illuminated by candle-light was unacceptable and that they drafted in a proper cinematographer for the second half.

It is quite possible that the powers that be realised that a period film with a jazzed up soundtrack featuring covers of songs written decades after the film was set, Rose Royce's Car Wash being one example, was completely inappropriate and did nothing more than convey a hopelessly desperate attempt to appear whimsical, funky and cool.

It is certainly possible that Kristen Scott Thomas was given a character of substance in the second half rather than a two-dimensional pale imitation of her Gosford Park character.

It is possible that Biel and Barnes discovered some sort of screen chemistry that had eluded them.

It is possible that the actresses playing the two sisters were recast with actors with more charisma.

It is definitely possible that the director (Stephan Elliot) realised that you don't have to invent new camera angles or movements to make your mark on the industry. Turning the camera 90 degrees to shoot a car sideways on is not clever. It's just irritating.

Yes, all this is possible.

Is it likely? No.

D

Catch Up With The Classics? Part Two - Killer of Sheep

Taking over from where my previous post left off, why have we had to wait until 2007 for this film, an undoubted classic, to appear on the big screen and receive a full distribution? The answer appears to be that the music rights were too expensive, because the soundtrack features famous American artists like Paul Robeson, Dinah Washington and Elmore James. What? How much were the rights eventually bought for in the end (thanks, in part, to a donation by Steven Soderbergh)? $150,000. What? Are you seriously telling me that no Hollywood studio could afford to spend $150,000 dollars on some music rights when - to pick a few random examples - Saw 4 had a budget of $10 Million, Cradle 2 the Grave had a budget of $25 Million and Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 had a budget of $25 Million. Not buying that one at all. Here we have the selective tradition at work again, the process by which great works, Whitman grass-level cultural artifacts, become lost in the cultural ether because of the strange choices and decisions of certain powers that be. At least Killer of Sheep has now been saved and is available to buy on DVD. It is a shame that it only saw a limited cinematic release in 2007, 30 years after it was first made, it deserves a much wider audience.

This is a film where nothing really happens but nothing happens brilliantly. The film is as invigorating as the first summer rains or the sight of a single star shining bright through a city's smog, dust and ether. The narrative loosely follows Stan (Henry Gayle Sanders) as, in what amounts to a series of vignettes, his life drifts aimlessly on through the Los Angeles ghetto of Watts, where he works in a slaughterhouse. Other characters drift in and out (it reminded me of the Thin Red Line, which is perhaps one reason I loved it so much) and Stan's relationship with his unnamed wife (Kaycee Moore) provides some of the most beautiful and perfect moments of simple, everyday, tenderness that have ever been seen of screen. One scene where the pair dance to Dinah Washington's 'This Bitter Earth' is a perfect symbiosis of musical and cinematic soul and might have made it into my top 25 scenes of all time, but I don't have the heart - yet - to start again. This moment of everyday beauty encapsulates both the film and human life at its most beautiful, its most tender and its most shy.

Burnett clearly has an eye for the brilliant and the beautiful. The cinematography - done by Burnett himself - here is stunning. Although notable for looking strikingly everyday, the film's images retain a power that transcends the everyday. One shot of the local kids playing and running across train lines (see above) more than resembles a war zone, surely no accident given the year (1977) this was filmed and, therefore, its global context. Striking image follows striking image and the black and white only adds to the depth, beauty and realism of the whole thing. Burnett also said that he wanted the film to stand as a testament to the history of African-American music. That's a grand claim and it clearly doesn't live up to it (the film is, after all, only 81 minutes long), however, this does not detract from the amazing symmetry between sight and sound, as though the music is plumbed deep into the veins and lifeblood of the film's rhythmic and soulful heartbeat.

Aside from Sanders and Moore and the children in the film (one of which was played by Burnett's daughter, Angela), the rest of the performances are pretty bad or simply appalling, though none are in the film long enough to tarnish it, nor are any as bad as Charlton Heston's 'effort' in A Touch Of Evil. Sanders invests Stan with a quiet, meandering, dignity and charm and every look and expression reflect the feel of a man whose life is a self-defined struggle and whose quest for purpose and meaning is lost in the depression- and-isolation-scarred landscapes and tenements and found only in life's tender little moments, like the pressing of a warm teacup against a cheek. You really feel for Stan and that is some achievement (to be shared by Gayle and Burnett), given the total lack of narrative or plot of the film. Killer of Sheep is just life.

This is a classic example of brilliantly drawn realism. Realist films don't tend to be considered 'high' culture, perhaps being, in their very essence, too gritty, pavement-centred and down-to-earth. What becomes 'high culture' and why? No one really understands this, especially, perhaps, with cinema, because the infinitesimally small-level, ants-eye, processes by which films get selected, made, produced, distributed, reviewed are totally beyond the sight of both films critics and those of us who form the general film-going population. The same is true of literature, theatre and art (among other things). We just will never know in the vast majority of cases primarily, of course, because the inner processes of selection and choice go on in the privacy of the mind, which can only be shared by communication and, in such cases, rarely is shared. If Killer of Sheep has remained hidden for thirty odd years, what other gems lie unearthed in film-school vaults and studio filing cabinets? Perhaps I can suggest that Indy 5 should be called 'Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Lost Reels', where Indy battles evil film executives, producers and critics to give the world a true view of global culture now lost and hidden.

In the meantime, I'll just have to enjoy Killer of Sheep. And enjoy it again I will. I'm sure this will make it into my top 25 of all time, I've already watched it twice and might watch it again this weekend. A stunning, unusual, imperfect, tender, beautiful film, unlike any other you have ever seen, even other classically 'realist' films. Killer of Sheep and Burnett as a film-maker stand on their own. Not least in the fact that the film is unique in - ultimately - surviving the dreaded clutches of the selective tradition.

Killer of Sheep: A+

Quantum of Solace

This review is brought to you by Sony Ericsson: Yours to Create; Virgin Atlantic: No Ordinary Airline; and Aston Martin: Power, Beauty and Soul.

Quantum of Solace bowed Friday in the UK, two weeks before its stateside debut, and promptly rewrote the record books for a Friday box office take. Quite obviously the producers and Daniel Craig have re-energised the franchise with Casino Royale and expectation is high for Bond films once again. Trouble is, this just isn't very good - but then again neither was Casino Royale.

If I wanted to watch a Bourne film I would go and watch a Bourne film. Why the Bond overlords decided audiences would prefer all the humour and fun stripped out of these things? Quantum of Solace is just a tiny bit depressing. Relentless action with barely time to cobble together a plot. Precisely 2 very mild quips from Bond - both of which Craig could have timed better - you almost long for Roger Moore.

Read the rest