Reviews

I throughly enjoyed Pirates 1 and 2, but felt three was drifting off too much.. this one is the worst yet.

It starts off OK, wonderful sets of 18th century London and has the typical Pirates action from the very beginning. The first 15 minutes or so are quite entertaining however it then drifts into a disconnected story (losely based on several factual characters) and the continuation of the Jack Sparrow story. Not wishing to spoil, but it becomes all a bit too supernatural and ridiculous, there are moments of humour but few and far between. The location is clearly Hawaii and does not look remotely Caribbean which was rather annoying, perhaps it should have been called pirates of the Pacific.

Anyway, all that aside this is a poor reflection of the first two films and honestly it was disappointing, somewhat laboured and one couldn't help feel it's A sour end to what should have remained a trilogy.

The Next Three Days

The best films are those where you are introduced to characters who do the unpredictable believably, or people you think will be key players die in the opening scene, someone you least expect turns out to be the murderer, these are the films that keep you guessing and keep you involved. In Paul Haggis' intense thriller he chooses a wise and well crafted angle to lure you in and hold your attention. The development of John Brennan and his gradual transformation over time before your very eyes.

Meet John Brennan, he's a normal average working man, slightly nerdy even, living a fairly dull routine life. When his wife is imprisoned for murder John, as you would expect of a normal average slightly nerdy working man follows the rules of appeal in an attempt to win her freedom. Three years pass and the realisation that his wife will remain behind bars for life hits home. When normal people find themselves in hopeless situations desperation can drive them to do very abnormal things.

What Haggis works brilliantly into both his screenplay and direction is the gradual metamorphosis of Brennan's persona as he becomes fixated on breaking his wife out of prison. Brennan doesn't suddenly become the all American action hero capable of great feats of courage. We have a knowledge of his character from the beginning of the film and Haggis does not treat the audience as idiots, we know that Brennan cannot walk into a phonebox and there's a sudden change into superman. This would not work for John Brennan, the nerdy schoolteacher, what we see however is how little by little, piece by piece he falls more and more out of control, deeper and deeper out of his depth. We know this is not the normal behaviour of Brennan, but the screenplay is so well crafted and Crowe delivers the character to us perfectly that both the scenarios and Brennan remain at all times, believable. He makes tremendous mistakes and shows real human failings and frailties that as we ride along with him we're never far from the belief that it will all go very wrong, very soon. Haggis treats us to a wonderfully woven story that rolls along with ease, then suddenly the momentum builds into a Tsunami of real tension. Brennan is completely exposed and you fear for his outcome.

If a director can pull you into the story, make you care about a character, and if during the course of that film allow you to watch that character change in a very real and gradual way then he has delivered a truly great film.

Haggis' screenplay does not allow the audience to get ahead of the story. Developments are unexpected and plausible scenarios affect action and reaction. Some events have no bearing on the outcome but you cannot know which are red herrings and which are genuine avenues rather you find yourself wondering where this will all lead to, making The Next Three Days a complex and intriguing thriller very much in the cerebral and classical sense such as North by Northwest or Vertigo.

A tremendous, faultless film.

10/10

Pride & Prejudice Pride & Prejudice is one of English Literatures all time classic novels, one which has over the years been adapted into television drama, stage play and film. This 2005 re-working directed by Joe Wright sadly misses the mark.

For me, the film falls down tremendously in so many areas beginning with the director and cinematography, or lack of. One might argue that good bread doesn't need butter and likewise such a wonderful novel needs no directorial spin, but given the locations in which P&P is set, and that it was an age when the British were becoming aware of nature and the concept of appreciating natural wonders, I felt that there is such scope for beautifully shot scenes of English countryside with dew covered cobwebs in hedgerows and misty morning sunrises. With the exception of one sweeping landscape filmed in Yorkshire there is nothing in the way of cinematography. Scenes were shot often from a few limited camera angles and whilst I'm not suggesting the film needed CGI and gimmicks I did feel it lacked any real sense of the director input and in that way failed to stand out from any of the previous adaptations.

Another failing for me was the casting of Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennett and Matthew Macfadyn As Darcy. It must be said that in 1995 Colin Firth claimed the role his own and even twenty years later it must be a fairly daunting task to take it on given the standard set. Which begs the question why cast Macfadyn, a Welshman with a Welsh accent? As distracting as this may be it pales in comparison to his expressionless face. A more dull and tedious portrayal of Darcy I am yet to see, and hope I never do for ?Macfadyn I believe would have been far better cast as the Intolerable Mr Collins as he lacked any of the charisma one associates with the character of Darcy. Donald Sutherland was also poorly cast I felt. Has had a wide an illustrious career, but Sutherland's portrayal of characters is often limited in their depth and he is not an actor who immediately springs to mine when thinking of Mr Bennett. Given the immense depths of British character, film, TV and stage actors far more capable of playing the role, and without the monotonous Canadian accent of Sutherland, the viewer is left to believe that he was cast purely as a 'household' name to put large US buttocks onto US cinema seats, perhaps the money behind the film felt Keira Knightly herself and the title of Pride & Prejudice alone was not enough.

Which brings me to Keira Knightly. From the moment we are introduced to Knightly as Elizabeth Bennett I could not see how this adaptation could redeem itself. There is nothing eighteenth century about Knightly, not her frame, features, mannerisms and she never looks anything other than a 21st century girl dressed by wardrobe. You only have to go back 100 years to see that any woman over 5' was considered tall, 5'2" was a veritable giant. I'm not suggesting the cast should all have been short, but a tall talentless actress in a Georgian frock does not an Elizabeth Bennett make. Yet it gets worse, Keira must have convinced herself that the little nose wrinkling snigger and Cheshire cat grin would somehow be endearing when in fact it was irritating and off putting.

It was then, a disastrous adaptation, one not befitting of the weighty name it carries and a shameful disappointment. Those wishing to see this classic novel in celluloid form would be better off finding the 1995 BBC dramatisation with Colin Firth.

3/10

Red and Knight & Day I decided to review these two films on my facebook reviews together as they are in some ways comparable.

In the first, Knight & Day, Cameron Diaz, Day, is returning home for her sisters wedding when she stumbles upon Tom Cruise, Knight, a CIA agent who having been set up as a patsy is forced to go undercover and on the run. Through a set of unbelievable circumstances the two embark on a farcical roller-coaster ride of espionage and death defying feats.

In Red, Bruce Willis is a retired CIA agent who having pressed the wrong switches upset someone lurking in the shadows. Forced out of hiding he joins up with fellow CIA retirees John Malkovitz, Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren. Together they too embark on a farcical roller-coaster ride of espionage and death defying feats.

This however is where the two films part company.

When Cruise and Diaz appeared on Top Gear, (UK) Jeremy Clarkson said of the two Hollywood actors "this is where humans will be in 100 years when evolution has reached perfection". Sadly I disagree. What comes out from this film that you do not have in Red is that very Hollywood obsession with appearance. The need to have endless cosmetic surgery, reconstructive dental work and lifts in your shoes. Peel away the make up, remove the implants and fake faces and what you have is very normal looking people. This is relevant to the cause as Knight & Day seems lost where as Red knows its own identity. Action packed and full of CGI and exploding things, stunts and gun battles both films are fun to behold. Cruise leaps from moving vehicles and hand to hand combat with sharks, it is the consummate Tom Cruise film, but in the same breath it's not an action film. It has the underlying feeling that it's a comedy action. A problem arises however, because it's not funny. The key element in comedy is humour and in Knight & Day there is at no point a moment when you laugh. It is then simply a film of no substance, same old same old, which rides on the back of America's, and now the world's, obsession with 'beautiful people looking beautiful'. The problem with beautiful people sitting around looking beautiful is that nothing ever gets done. God made most people either ugly or normal looking so we could do things slightly more important than walk up and down a catwalk. And this brings us to Red.

In Red, the lead characters are all old, wrinkled and gray. There's not cosmetically enhanced beautiful people leaping from rooftops but normal people undertaking equally improbable things as in Knight & Day with the exception that they can all act far better than Cruise or Diaz. There is as much action packed exploding CGI things and despite their age none of the cast look out of place or struggle to be convincing. Red mercifully never takes itself too serious but with tongue in cheek catapults the ridiculous characters into the impossible with full vigour and there is more humour to boot.

I enjoyed both films, both are best described as 'cerebrally relaxing' and would give them each 7/10 for entertainment value, the downside is that one ends with the overwhelming feeling that a sequel will be following along behind and it's not actually the one you want to see more of.

Red is Good Fun 7/10

Wall Street 2 : Money Never Sleeps Oliver Stone's continuation of his earlier work Wall Street. If you are like me, and have not seen the first film, fear not it makes no difference as there a few characters carried across into the sequel and those which are, well you're very quickly introduced to them.

The main thread of this film is the sub prime stock market crash of 2009 however there are several interlinking sub plots which run through the film. Firstly, Michael Douglas is investment banker Gordon Gekko, jailed, presumably at the end of the first film, and this vehicle begins with his timely release just before the stock market crash of recent times. Secondly Shia LeBeouf is Jake Moore a young up and coming investment banker who's dating Douglas' daughter Winnie. Thirdly, Winnie And Douglas have not spoken in years and fourth, everyone in the investment banking world is ruthlessly trying to screw each other over.

There's nothing new or inventive about any of this. The relationships between each of the characters are routine and could have come from any one of a thousand film scripts. None of them are particularly deep or well developed so it's hard to feel loathing for the bad guys or sympathy for those inadvertently caught up in the mess. There are several well know actors, Oliver Stone makes his customary Hitchcock-esquire cameo but no one stands out as being exceptional and the entire film feels weak in all areas.

One thing Stone does get across, with the occasional intimate close up of botox injected faces and cosmetic reconstruction or panning a crowded room and glimpses of decadence, is the sheer vulgarity of the excessively wealthy. However, when it all comes crashing down little is done by the director to show the calamity of the mess so many of these people found themselves in, nor is there any attempt to show how their joyful games of pushing paper across desks and shouting figures across a trading floor affected the lives of millions.

Wall Street 2 passes as a film, it's watchable but unremarkable and sadly Stone let a good opportunity to make something powerful and shout loudly with a moral voice simply slip away.

4/10

Staring the highly promising cast of Robert De Niro and Edward Norton, Stone is the story of a prison inmate and the relationship between himself, his wife and the parole board officer in charge of his release.

Norton is as thorough as to be expected and provides a convincing performance as the incarcerated man. De Niro is solid and dependable in his portrayal of the complex correctional officer. These two established actors are the films saving grace. The script is mediocre, the film itself drags and leave you with that familiar taste in your mouth, It's not sweet, it's not savory, its not even umami, it's one of "well that was a waste of time".

Basically it's very disappointing and to quote Shakespeare "much ado about nothing".

2/10

Eat Pray Love I sort of liked this film. Is it a great film? No. Is it as profound and enlightening as it would perhaps like itself to be? No. Is it self indulgent? Possibly.

Julia Roberts ( I never quite understood the attraction) enters the female equivalent of a mid life crisis and feels trapped in a dead marriage to a man she no longer loves. Robert's character Liz yearns for something more fulfilling in life. Not just in love and relationship terms but life as a whole. Following a brief fling and a period of unrest she embarks on a global quest to rediscover herself ( she must be one of the very few American's to own a passport) and heads off to Italy.

This is obviously the 'Eat' part of the film. Not since 'Eat drink man woman' have I felt so hungry watching a movie. There is shot after shot of wonderfully sumptuous food and the Italian way of life, food and family is very well presented to the viewer and you find yourself drawn into a world that seems as comfortable as old slippers and one you do not wish to leave. There are wonderful scenes of Rome and the atmosphere oozes out of the screen. It's so captivating you don't want it to end, but end it does awakening us from a sense of relaxed slumber by the in your face intensity of India.

The introduction to India is superb, and the immediate intensity of culture shock is apparent. There are the mandatory street scenes of wandering cows and children foraging in the garbage, beggars and the lame. Liz heads for the sanctuary of an Ashram where she hopes to not only find herself but connect with God. There is a strong performance here from Richard Jenkins who's character seems to single handedly carry this 'Pray' section of the film. In some ways this middle third, needed to express the transition from self indulgence to happiness by way of enlightenment yet it lacks real substance or the ability to express its purpose on the journey. Perhaps by avoiding tackling a strong message or becoming bogged down in the whole eastern mystical cliché the film manages to stay light and sidesteps reality.

Next Liz jets off to South East Asia where amongst the rice paddies and lush palms she finds herself plunged into the 'love' part of her journey. In the final chapter of Eat pray love there are the classic elements of every romantic film that has come before it. The initial accidental meeting, the general indifference toward each other and the eventual sailing of into the sunset, literally. A bigger cliché ending one could not imagine. The film is as slushy as fresh sleet on Tottenham Court Road, though there is not thankfully, any vomit inducing montage scene of Julia Roberts trying on hats or dresses. Despite being a woman's film it manages to avoid being saccharine sweet or as bad as Sex In The City but remains predictable and naively optimistic.

So why did I like it? Firstly, having been to all the places where the film was shot, it was heart warming and reminiscent to see beautiful shots of exotic places my foot had once trod. Secondly the soundtrack is wonderful. Without either of those two elements I don't think I could have stomached it, but joined at the hip together with some good acting all round, it soothed the intestines like Pepto Bismal and made a potentially painful ulcer more bearable.

Inoffensively Enjoyable 7/10

There's an art to cooking fresh tuna, it should be very lightly seasoned and seared, too much seasoning you ruin the taste, too long on the grill you kill the fish. Making a film about the abolition of slavery is very much the same, you need a light hand or from the outset it can very easily fall into a pit of despair and political correctness. Amazing Grace then, seems to be seasoned just right as rather than focus on the atrocities of the slave trade it concentrates on the battle the abolition movement faced in parliament.

Set in the late 17 hundreds, this is the true story of the abolition movement. It chronicles the life of William Wilberforce, a dashing young politician from the North of England driven by a spiritual awakening influenced by John Newton ( writer of the hymn Amazing Grace) and a sense of moral duty to bring forth the end of slavery.

It's a fairly historically accurate film, the sets are truly amazing, especially the historic dock scenes, and costume design is wonderful. There are however a number of points where I felt the film fell short. It's true William Wilberforce fought tirelessly to get his anti slavery bill passed and it did almost kill him, Wilberforce has always been the name most rewarded with ending slavery, but I do not feel enough was made of the role played by Thomas Clarkson. To truly understand Clarkson's efforts one first needs to view this age through different eyes, it's hard for us living in a world of Google, iPhones and 24 hour CNN to imagine a world without radio or television, a world where 90% of the population could neither read nor write or a place where newspapers and books were in short supply. This is indeed how the world was at the end of the 18th century. So whilst we can sit back in judgment of those we perceive allowed slavery to continue, the reality is that very few people even knew about it. The slavers, plantation owners and sugar barons controlled the media, putting out propaganda, suggesting that slavery conditions were indeed better than those many people in Britain faced themselves. There were of course those who knew otherwise but they were an elite few and for the most part kept quiet whilst making money. It took Thomas Clarkson's efforts of traveling the length and breadth of England non stop, to every town and village with his exhibition showing the people of Britain the real conditions of slave ships and the cruelty of life on plantations. To understand the politics of the time we must think about the current Iraq war and the special interests. Just as today a majority of the people are against the Iraq war, troops are there because of special interests, the government contractors and military suppliers making money from war, the oil industry controlling the media and despite us living in a world of information technology there is still a massive amount of people who have no idea what's really going on. The slave trade was no different, it was allowed to continue by parliament because the traders, tobacco growers and sugar barons were able to bribe parliament for such a long time, so whilst the guilt falls on that small group of profiteers involved we can at least forgive the people as they did not have TV or google and knew nothing of it. So it really was Clarkson's efforts down in the street in the trenches informing the people as much as it was Wilberforce's efforts in the chambers that brought about the abolition for once there was public change and public opinion against slavery Parliament had to follow. I did not feel this film went far enough to convey that, Clarkson it seemed was just an auxiliary character.

The second point, whilst seemingly trivial, is that some mention was made of the American war of Independence, it was however omitted that a major part of the American intent to separate from Britain was due to the fear in the colony of abolition. The American's themselves wanted to break free of debt to the crown by creating their own monetary system and take control of the cotton, tobacco and hemp industries which depended on slavery to be economical. Franklin, a spy for the French and Coloialists attended a masonic lodge in Scotland was very aware that the abolition movement was a growing force. To secure an economical future America needed to be independent from the crown before Britain abolished slavery or their economy would be destroyed. Other than one line in the film where William Pitt mentions the letters between Wilberforce and Jefferson there was no real mention of this, perhaps then not wanting to offend American viewers the writer Steven Knight chose a 'politically inoffensive version' of events rewriting history as Hollywood often does, rather than an historically accurate one.

Those annoyances aside it is a pretty good film. It's less heavy handed than Amistad for example and there's some generally good acting. Nothing outstanding but I did like Michael Gambon as Lord Fox and Toby Jones as the Duke of Clarence. Costume and make up is superb and it has its cinematographic touches. There were some deeply touching moments as you would expect from a film on this subject but the style of direction from Micael Apted deals mostly with the facts making this more palatable than say Schindler's List for example.

8/10

ROBIN HOOD This review contains a spoiler.

As I sat down to watch this film, my first thought was; 'why would anyone remake Robin Hood?, after all it's been done 100 times already, what is there you can possibly do that's different? If anyone can bring something new to the story then I guess Ridley Scott can".

In many ways I was right, Ridley Scott did indeed bring something new, and at the same time there is nothing you can do to the story of Robin Hood. Perplexing? The film itself is a good film. The set and costume design is fantastic carrying the audience back to the middle ages without being all 'middle earth'. The pace at first is quite slow but interesting as Scott reverts back to the long lost art of story telling, beginning in France at the tail end of a crusade he does pull you into a fabulously woven story. There's a wonderful scene where the lead character and his band of men are rowed down the Thames to an unknown palace to present the crown of King Richard the Lion Heart to Queen Eleanor. Then we are whisked away to rural Nottingham and introduced to it's citizens including the blind but deft Sir Walter Loxley. Adopted by the elder man as his son, Robin becomes part of the community and when the barons of Northern England are called together, Robin attends on behalf of Loxley. The film which had very much been a preamble through the open fields of England suddenly takes a turn. Robin, a lowly archer is now in command of an army, and speaking to Knights and Lords as their equal, even interrupting the King in public. As the French attempt to invade, an immense battle takes place on the beaches of southern England, hand to hand fighting, wielded axes cut through chainmail, arrows pierce the air, one man, possibly Harold, takes on in the eye, horses buck and their riders fall to the bloodied sand. The English occupy the high ground and despite charging onto the beach beneath their own archers arrows, battle is a slaughter, the French turn and retreat, England is saved.

Finally when the dust has settled, the peasants and surf returned to their villages, the Barons and landed gentry meet with King John at .. (Runnymede possibly.. We're not told) to sign the Magna Carte, at the same time, the Sheriff of Nottingham pins a note upon an ancient oak tree, that Robin Longstride is an outlaw and abruptly the film ends…. And so we are told, the legend begins….

For the most part a well told story, and as expected from Ridley Scott a wonderfully shot film. However… the story told is nothing to do with the actual legend of Robin Hood, whilst the main body of the film was good, until the rushed and ridiculous fight scenes at the end, you just spent the entire film thinking 'what does this have to do with Robin Hood?" Then to end it with a closing shot of an old hand calligraphed parchment saying .."And so the Legend begins" is not just absurd, but insulting, yes 'The legend" the 'real' legend of the real Robin Longstride, known as Robin of the Hood. Isn't that what we sat down to watch? Not some made up fictitious nonsensical film which serves only as a 'taster' for the inevitable sequel. Talk about a scam.. Getting ripped off. This film is the celluloid equivalent of being sold swamp land in Louisiana.

I would expect a director to start with a 'fill in the background' story tracing Robin's steps from the Crusades back to Nottingham and explaining what drove him to become the outlaw he did as that is an integral part of the story, but Ridley Scott could have told that in 20 minutes, and should have told it with historical accuracy. What we didn't need was an entire film to be a fictitious background story.

Clearly it's made for the US audience who in general can probably sit in large numbers and watch an epic tale of olde not noticing the inaccuracies. Nor are they likely to notice that Russell Crowe's accent is that of a relatively unknown regional dialect from midway between the Lancastrian town of Annoy and a small Northumbrian village called Distract. It is in fact a mix of an Annoying and Distracting accent, a masterful interpretation by Crowe.

For us Brits though from the beginning to the end you can pick both historical and geographical faults with this film, and that wonderful scene of Robin rowing down the Thames to present the crown of the dead King Richard to his mother, do we really need to go into that? It is simply pointless mentioning any of the inaccuracies as the entire film is so outrageously far fetched that honestly Ridley Scott would have been much better off just inventing a lead character's name, 'Sir Ethelred Longshadow' and calling the film "A Tale of Ye Olde Middle England" perhaps. That way without preconceptions or any subconscious associations to factual history I probably would have enjoyed the film.

At the end, 2hrs and 29mins, during the end credits it said 'The characters and events depicted in this photoplay are fictitious, any similarity to any persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental' … well luckily for the lawyers, even though Robin Hood, King John et al were real people, in this film there was no similarity.

3/10

SHELTER It's hard to review this film too much without giving away the whole thing. It is a psychological suspense thriller of two halves and the film has a real feeling of schizophrenia, not just from Meyer's lead character but it's direction from Swedish duo Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein, the first half is tense and gripping, the second half becomes more action and fabled story telling. This schizophrenic nature is reflected in how I received the film, I thought Jonathan Rhys Meyer's performance including his shift in personality was brilliant but detested the crass narrative at the end when watching faux sepia film footage in the library.

The first half of the movie concerns itself with character and plot development, there's a well studied and crafted build up. Meyers is excellent in helping this aspect along, and what is appealing with Julianne Moore is that by being completely normal and not at all the first person who comes to mind for this role, makes her somewhat perfect for it. Moore's character Caroline makes some questionable decisions, the kind that make you say " no… why would you go in there.." but they're not running in your underwear through the woods holding a toothpick when Jason's around type decisions and actually it doesn't hurt the film but create real moments of suspense. The first half is a both entertaining and an enthralling suspense film, bordering on horror as it does have its horror moments.

The second half of the film then moves into a supernatural thriller. You are never behind the plot, always a step or two ahead but again this doesn't hurt the film. As our main characters head into Appalachian mountain country they seem to get trapped at the end of a lane and possibly directors Mårlind and Stein didn't know how to get out from deep in the Pennsylvanian woods. They make an effort to put in a twist or two and so wriggle their way out of a corner, unfortunately up to that point I was engrossed in the film but it rather loses it's way a little. I will say that it does end well and is worth watching, it's just because of the midway turn it takes from suspense thriller to supernatural drama it's hard not to compare the second half of the film to 'Skeleton Key' which ultimately is a much better film all round.

7/10

Following WW2 Britain was almost bankrupt. Having given every penny to the American's for food & weapons in 1958, Britannia was so broke the Empire had to be taken apart every colony given independence by 61. The government had a plan to deal with mass starvation bread, cheese, milk, etc was rationed for fifteen years after the war. During the 60's/70's there were three TV stations on British TV and all finished by 10pm, a government directive as there was not enough coal to waste on power stations for TVs. From this economic hardship grew a youth of anti establishmentarianism, a sixties youth, somewhat different to that in the US who fought street battles over civil rights and Vietnam, the British revolution was one of youth culture.

By the mid sixties Britain was the cultural center of the world, Carnaby street was a Mecca for fashion,Twiggy and Audrey Hepburn drove Mini's, and British music took over the world. Beatles, Stones, Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Van Morrison, T-Rex, The Who, Kinks….

Despite all this there was nowhere for all this incredible music to be played, the BBC controlled the airwaves and would not play rock music a week. And so in 1966 as England lifted the World cup at Wembley, pirate radio was born. Transmitting from ships just outside UK waters these pirate stations gave the nation the music they wanted to hear played 24 hours a day by DJ's who were radical and far removed from the stuffy British BBC presenters. It was a golden age of rebellion.

Now the history lesson is over… how about the movie? It's centered around a Pirate radioship somewhere in the NorthSea. A Richard Curtis film, the man behind those British films with red buses,blackcabs, BigBen and red phoneboxes on every corner. You expect a very British feel, a very sixties feel, but somehow neither are there. There's certainly a lot of 60's crockery, paraphernalia, posters and clothes but the sense of the sixties is missing. Apart from it all being a bit too bright and sunny ( we tend to remember powercuts,candles,and rain when we think of 60/70's Britain ) it's the cast who are a major problem. Casting Director Fiona Weir has dipped from a pool of cliché Brit actors and one token American ( Seymore Hoffman ), Bill Nighy plays Quentin, the only character with any sixties feel, however the character is no different to the part Nighy played in Love Actually and is more like a has-been living trapped in the past than actually being there. The direction is not strong enough to compensate for the names and faces we are too familiar with and associated with other things. I believe it would have been far better to cast relatively unknowns, perhaps Tow Waits instead of Seymore Hoffman and Geoffrey Rush instead of Nighy. Whilst set decoration, props and costume design are marvelous ultimately the dialogue, plot and director let it fail.

The roll of Carl is disappointing. From the beginning Carl feels like a lead character but as the film progresses there is no development or lead character. The film ambles through its plot,a thread here and there but nothing of consequence, whilst all the time none of the characters are developed. Carl is seen several times with a camera and I wanted him to become involved, perhaps gradually becoming a photo journalist or something, becoming integral to the story, but nothing other than an iffy love interest.

I don't like making comparisons but taking Pirate Radio and compare it to Scandal or Almost Famous that in Almost Famous characters are well developed, the young journalist becomes engrossed in the world around him, it's not about a band being on the road or about the 70's, it's about a boy, full of admiration who through his experiences realises that the people he admires so much are just people with weaknesses and flaws. It's about self discovery, learning and all the time the film has a definite 70's feel. Scandal is biographical based on the political life of Profumo and is masterful at recreating the sixities using three actors and one popstar who were relatively unknown at the time. Pirate Radio has none of that. It's a film project that really could have gone in two ways, Curtis could have taken a literal biographical approach and told the story of real events as did Scandal. Or he could have focused on a single aspect as did Almost Famous, but instead he goes for a 3rd weak, wandering, nonentity of a story.

What is glorious about Pirate Radio is the soundtrack. Given that everything else is so weak it does leave you wondering if Richard Curtis was home one day thumbing through his record collection and though "how can I get all these great tracks into one film.. Oooh I know.. Pirate Radio" and that's where the inspiration ended. But the soundtrack is possibly one of the best movie soundtracks ever and as a huge music anorak type person I loved the end credit sequence with the album covers.

Don't get me wrong, Pirate Radio is not an atrocious film, it harmless and worth watching for a bit of fun, It's just this is the music of my youth, I recall whilst growing up, listening to Radio Caroline a pirate radio station that broadcast from a ship offshore right up until the late 1970's and I was just expecting and wanting something much more from the film, something celebrating that wonderful British 60's and early 70's culture, a film that given the subject could have and should have become a great British Cult Music movie, it's quite saddening because Pirate Radio never will and Curtis completely missed the opportunity. Instead the film is just OK. I give it three as a film and ten for the soundtrack which averages as 6.5

6/10

I saw the trailer for this film and thought that with two big names, Steve Carell and Tina Fey it would become an instant box office hit. However, not being a fan of Steve Carell as his films are generally farcical plus he ruined 'The Office' (side note; the Americans call Rikky Gervais' "The Office" the 'UK version'. It's not a 'version' at all, it's the original, and if you're British and you've watched the 'US version' it completely misses the point of Gervais' comedic masterpiece and Carell is simply awful). But feeling for a good laugh we opted for Date Night, and I expected Tina Fey ( the US's 'version' of Ronnie Ancona and famous for her Sarah Palin impersonation) to be good.

First of all there's little point deconstructing a comedy because there is nothing profound about them, the plot can be stupid, the dialogue poor, the acting weak none of which matters when a film makes you burst your sides with laughter. Date Night manages to achieve all those things, except unfortunately the laughing part, that's the one thing Date Night doesn't do. Because it's not funny you then begin to pick holes in the ridiculous story line, attack the bad acting, the stupidity of scenes such as the dance scene in the night club simply felt that the story boarders and director had thought "Ok.. How do we get from here to here…ooh.. I know lets…" and it's just so embarrassingly bad as a scene, there is simply nothing funny about it. I honestly cannot imagine how that scene didn't end up on the cutting room floor.

What really stood out for me in this film was that had the director cast Ethan Hawke and Charlize Theron for example you would perceive the film as a whimsical action film that's not taken itself too seriously and actually forgive all the negatives, they wouldn't have mattered. Because however, they cast Steve Carell and Tina Fey you expect it to be funny and it just doesn't deliver, making it quite pathetic. This is emphasised when for some unknown reason the director inserts several scenes that are supposed to be profound, sentimental and touching which do absolutely nothing for the comedic aspect of the film and if anything make it slightly more schizophrenic than it already is. Carrel is not funny neither is Tina Fey who disappears into a roll any female actress could have played, Ray Liota probably cashed the cheque and ran ( need I mention that Mark Wahlberg is as wooden as ever?). I may be being a bit harsh because this is ultimately an inoffensive pointless piece of nonsense that the majority of people could quite happily watch and exit the cinema feeling good and happy about it but to put it in context, it's supposed to be a comedy film and there were two moments when I laughed out loud, one was the escape by boat on the lake, the other were the out takes during the end credits and for a 1 hour 40 minute so called comedy that's really quite dire.

2/10

INCEPTION The dialogue in this film is preoccupied with explaining what is happening, rather than being natural. This is very possibly due to the director feeling the concept of the film was too complicated for mere cinema goers to comprehend and instead of enhancing the film as a good flowing natural dialogue might it in fact has a tendency to spoil the film. It is also very repetitive, continually repeating the rules of inception, the inner workings of the dream construction. It becomes very annoying and I'm sure Inception holds the world record for saying the word 'dream' more times than any other.

There is a concept in teaching, developed by the Americans which goes like this, tell the people what you are going to teach them, then teach it to them, then tell them what is was you just taught them. It seems the director has adopted this method of explaining to the audience, just in case they are too stupid to get it for themselves, what the film is about and what is happening.

Di Caprio who in my opinion is a talented actor that often picks challenging roles was neither commanding nor outstanding. Partly due to the lack of any real structure to the film as the whole thing seemed too fluid and poured out in a tsunami of CGI. Additionally there is no kind of character development, something Di Caprio is generally masterful at, leaving the film feeling hollow and a waste of an otherwise talented cast. Something Hollywood studios will often do when trying to portray highly intelligent criminals (or evil masterminds) is cast British actors, and it is noticeable in Inception that director Christopher Nolan has not broken away from the stereotype.

A previous reviewer wrote "The stupid dialog is there, because Nolan did not know, how to push the plot forward in an integrated way" and i totally agree.

I've heard a lot about how Inception is the new Matrix and I must confess I have never watched Matrix, I did sit down and try, on three occasions to do so, but all three times i fell asleep out of sheer boredom. That is not sarcasm it is real. I know the Matrix story as it's so well known, whether or not Inception is the new Matrix i cannot say but I can confess it's a fairly redundant mediocre film with an over contrived plot strung together by cliché action scenes. The plot concept is not so difficult to comprehend and seems to be hyped up for what it really is. The only real thought needed is that of the closing shot, (this is not a spoiler ).. does it tip or does it keep spinning? I smell a sequel.

3/10

THE LOSERS Those of you who bother to read my reviews know that I do not watch any adaptations of cartoons, such as Spiderman, Batman, X-Men or whatever. I did not know when i got this DVD that it was in fact an adaptation of a cartoon. My own fault as i totally admit i got the movie based on two facts, being that it starred Zoe Saldana who is really cute, and Idris Elba a talented British actor.

And that's where the good points end.

The film is so full of holes in the plot you could strain cabbage and actually straining cabbage would be preferable. Because it is a cartoon based film there are huge leaps of faith, such as you just have to accept that five guys were smuggled from Bolivia to the USA in coffins, no questions. And so it goes on. Jason Patric is terrible and i mean really terrible as Max, the arch villain. A worse piece of acting I have yet to see in a very long time.

It's Kitch, camp, juvenile and a waste of time, money and celluloid.

Its full of action and guns and explosions which if your 12 years old or stimulated by such banality will have you drooling. If i'd known it was a film adaptation of a cartoon i never would have watched it and frankly this is the perfect example of why i don't watch those types of film.

0/10 I'd rather drink wasps!

I could write a long review on this, explaining in detail the how's and why's but in all honesty it simply isn't worth the effort. So in brief; 1. Sci-fi futuristic movie in which the world has moved on to build artificial organs from hearts and livers to vocal cords and eyeballs but still has normal 2010 ignition keys in cars.

2. mediocre acting 3. Pointless Matrix influenced fight scene toward the end which was done far better in Matrix so why bother 4. the whole thing just falls so short of what it could have been 5. Ridley Scott directed Bladerunner 30 years ago which is both timeless and infinitely better than this pile of tripe.

Written and directed by Robert Cavanagh, who also plays the lead role of Woody, an underworld pimp who moves amongst the shadows, dealers and whore that work the streets of London's Soho.

Being a big fan of British films, and the London gangster genre I had high hopes and expectations of this film. I was very disappointed.

A mix if faux documentary and crime/drama/love story, Pimp seems not to know it's own identity and Cavanagh as a director is completely lost. Throughout the entire film there is a barrage of clichés and heavy handed influence from far superior films.

It takes too long to get into it's stride and when it finally does the premise is just nonsensical. Danny Dyer, who has impressed in previous vehicles was poorly cast and somewhat contrived rather than convincing. Really, I'm struggling to write a review about this film because I was so disappointed.

In short, Avoid.

Dylan Moran I'm not sure about Dylan Moran. I cant decide if i find him funny, or pathetic. He seems to have this physical presence of someone who suffers from slight parkinsons or serious alcoholism and i honestly don't know which it is but its somewhat disturbing. The point is though when it comes to casting he's limited to the roles he can play but for this one he's ideally suited.

This film is very dark and slightly funny film. The story, humour, dialogue is all uniquely Irish and will appeal to most but to those who get it especially. The premise is in the tradition of British comedy, unfeasibly ridiculous beyond belief. Two down and out wannabe script writer/film makers bundle their way through a series of explainable but hard to believe accidents which are made all the more worse by their bungled attempts to cover them up. No where does the film make sense but it's not supposed to, if you approach this film with logic you're wasting your time. You have to submit yourself to total fantasy and Irish wit. This film is in fact Murphy's Law.

There are no perfect teeth American heroes to save the day, no beautiful people to carry the film on their looks, no slush no montage scenes of pretty woman hat changes, this film is as dark, damp, dreary and miserable as the dank basement flat it's set in and that's how it's supposed to be, a good British film.

Is it hilarious? No not really, is it funny? yes.

6/10

Shohreh Aghdashloo & Jim Caveizel The Stoning is a foreign film with English subtitles. Some people sadly lack the concentration for such films but this is worth every moment. The film is set in rural Iran, shortly after the ousting of the Shah and the introduction of Sharia law. From the producer of The Passion of The Christ it deals with the true story of Soraya, a young married Iranian woman who's abusive husband is seeking to divorce her and how he manipulates the Sharia law to solve his problems.

Soraya's story is told by her aunt in the form of a narrative as French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam stumbles into the small rural village of Kupayeh. The film has several levels to it. Firstly it's a beautifully shot film with some wonderful cinematography. Secondly the story itself is riveting. It's so well told that it is totally compelling and despite subtitles you are completely riveted. The pacing of the narrative is perfect. There's a few moments of lighthearted daily life to remind you that Soraya was just a normal woman, living a normal life in a difficult male dominated primitive society. However for the majority of the film you're swept along by the events of the moment and whilst it's a celluloid narrative you somehow feel as though you're there witnessing it all and frustratingly unable to stop what's happening.

There is a third level to this film. It doesn't jump out at you and shout, grabbing you by the shoulders and shaking you, no, this one is very subtle indeed . It's hidden, almost subliminal in the occasional line of dialogue or a single scene where there is no dialogue but in the tradition of a picture can paint a thousand words. This third level is the evil that is sharia law. A law which neglects the rights of women and allows men to use and manipulate it twisting it to suit their needs and always claiming that it is God's law, God's will. It's important to know that the original book was written by Freidoune Sahebjam and like many Iranians who fled after the Shah was exiled, he loved the Iran of old and could see how under the Ayatollah and the Muslim clerics Iran had lost all of it's ancient culture and civilisation to become a primitive land of brutal, dictatorial, hypocritical tyrants. This view is very cleverly and subtly woven into the fabric of the film like a delicate pattern that you see without seeing.

There was something else I found myself wondering whilst watching the stoning, where was it shot? Clearly it was in the Middle East. I found myself thinking perhaps it was Turkey or even Israel? The extras all looked Iranian. But knowing how sensitive fanatical Muslims can be about criticising their religion or laws which Islamic country would have agreed to make this film in their country? And would making it in Israel only serve to fan the flames of hatred? Interestingly no where in the ending credits does it say where the film was made. Normally you would see credits such as Lebanon casting, Turkey production or Israel transportation. The only relevant credit was right at the very end, hidden in small text, almost the last thing credited it simply said Shot entirely in the Middle East. Clearly then, the producers knew they were making a film that would anger the Iranian Mullahs and Islamic fundamentalist.

The Stoning of Soraya M is a powerful, compelling film, one which makes you feel angry but one that should not be missed and left wing do-gooders should understand it is the same Sharia law which some Muslims wish to bring into practice in the UK and other Christian countries which allows this kind of evil to take place in God's name.

I loved this film in the same way that i loved Schindler's list or The Passion, if to say "loved" is the correct word, i fear not. But it's a beautiful, poignant, powerful film.

9/10 Would be 10/10 if not for the little Hollywood bit at the end with the car not starting.

A serious man I've read many of the reviews already posted. The deep theological arguments, references to Schrodinger's cat, the relationship to the story of Job. All of this i understand and i see withing the film, and as a Christian who is well versed in the Old Testament, or Torah, i get the Job references. However, thats not what i had in mind when i sat down to watch this film. Rather like dissecting an art-house movie it's all rather pompous and self inflating.

So forgetting the theology lessons, how is it as a film? The Cohen brothers. You either get them or you don't. A little on the dark side of humour, personally I do. I like their films very much and would go as far as to say "Fargo" is absolutely one of my all time favourite films. Oh yar. So when A serious man came out on DVD I was quick to get hold of a copy. On the box cover it said "Audaciously funny, original and resonant" Entertainment Weekly.

It's set in a suburban USA town in the early 60's, and centers around the lives of a Jewish family living in a Jewish community. The father, a professor at a local college, is going through the trials of Job, his wife a high maintenance annoyingly vocal woman, is tormenting him at a time he most needs support, their teenage daughter is narcissistic self obsessed and the son is struggling to find his identity, drifting off in Hebrew class, smoking weed and listening to Grace Slick.

For me this film was immensely sad, as you would expect Job's life to be. Everything which could go wrong does and he continually spirals downward in a supreme test of faith. It had, however none of the humour I was expecting and I love that famously dry, dark, sarcastic Jewish humour. The Cohen's certainly missed the mark with this one. It plods along at such a slow pace it's like a one legged horse pulling a fully laden cart up a steep hill, frustratingly slow and painful to watch. Unless you're Jewish or well versed in the Old Testament, the little 'in' jokes just aren't funny, not even in the normal dark humour way the Cohen's are famous for. It is indeed a completely and utterly boring, nothingness so extremely disappointing waste of time. I would go as far as to say that even if your Jewish it's not funny, perhaps if your Jewish and American and born in the 50's it might be different, it might be hysterical, may even be the "Audaciously funny, original and resonant" film the Entertainment Weekly claims it to be. But that's a pretty limited demographic. I found that the only thing I was interested in was the wonderfully shot cinematography and the 60's soundtrack. Honestly though I think the Cohen's had way too much time on their hands, way too much money to spend and decided to make an over indulgent film to satisfy themselves and a very minority audience, for the rest of us, I think we just got ripped off.

Rendition Jake Gyllenhaal Reese Witherspoon The film begins with a pair of obviously CIA American guys in stereotypical suits and sunglasses driving through a middle eastern town in an unmarked black armored SUV, there's people on donkeys selling fruits in the market and Arabic music playing and you think " oh no.. here we go… another BS Hollywood propaganda movie where all Arabs are terrorists and we're supposed to feel so sorry for the US and aren't they the heroes of the world". Thankfully though, the film doesn't go that way.

Back in the USA a normal everyday white collar worker sets off on an overseas business trip. He just happens to be a Muslim of Arab descent, his wife is a white teeth and blonde haired all American girl. Our innocent Muslim boy is stopped by homeland security as he re-enters the USA, accused of terrorist connections he is spirited away out of the US without trial or due process, without his family being told or even an explanation offered. Instead he disappears into the hidden dark world of torture, extraction and secrecy that is not only disturbing but so very scary and very true. Rendition, even under the full of promises presidency of Obama continues to this day.

Now somewhere in the middle east, our innocent US passport holding, American citizen but Egyptian born Muslim is held in a dark dank cell and tortured while his wife back in the US tries to get information on his where about and why he's disappeared. Of course she faces stone wall and cover up tactics from all corners.

It's a very important subject, one which sadly so many Americans aren't even aware of. It's dealt with by some powerful emotional scenes and graphic torture scenes without coming across as condescending. It's pleasing that the film is not filled with propaganda or despite the All - American hero stepping up to save the day it's not brimming with over zealously patriotic nonsense as you would expect. Reese Witherspoon's acting abilities are stretched to breaking point, perhaps not the best female actor cast for the role but she copes, just about. Jake Gyllenhaal is pretty convincing as the CIA agent torn between his career and his conscience and there's some good supporting roles from Meryl Streep and Peter Sarsgaard. However, it says a great deal about American society that a film of this nature, of such an important subject, that nowhere have I seen on any of the film's promotional adverts, posters or DVD covers the name Omar Metwally who plays the role of the lead character, the innocent Muslim who is taken away and tortured, the most integral part of the film.

Good film, important and gripping, frighteningly real. 8/10

Invictus Morgan Freeman Matt Damon Nursing a hangover in a flat somewhere in Upton Park, East London that's where I was. Not when I watched Invictus, when Mandela was released I mean. Isn't it supposed to be one of those 'where were you when' moments? Well I'd crashed the night in Upton Park after a party and everyone sat around watching it on TV.

Invictus is about those early years of the new South Africa after Mandela became president. A new nation, a new democracy, a new anthem and a new hope. The film chooses to focus on one aspect of those moments, South Africa's rugby team the Springboks. For those who don't know rugby, due to the aparthied system the Springboks were alienated for decades unable to play in international tournaments. By the time Mandela was president of the new RSA, they were awarded the hosting of the 1995 Rugby World Cup as a reward. Rugby at that time was considered a whiteman's sport in South Africa, not taken to by the black population who preferred soccer, and rugby was a symbol of the apartied oppression. Director Clint Eastwood focuses on how against all odds Mandela helped the Springboks not only manage greatness on the rugby field but using the world cup and the rejuvenating national pride to became a truly national team and a unifying force.

The story is well told in a good chronological and factual order, nothing is hazy or left unexplained. It would have been easy if not tempting to fill the movie with rugby but no doubt at the risk of alienating some of the audience and Clint Eastwood, who as a director has always found great human interest stories has created a good balance between action, character development and drama, although I felt the onfield rugby action was a little soft. It's always hard to capture sport in film, and I would go as far as to say only the 1960's 'Grand Prix' and 'Any Given Sunday' have successfully managed to do it. One wonders whether Eastwood would have been better off using actual game footage but for those non rugby enthusiasts it was probably fine as it is.

Freeman is more than excellent as Mandela. He is able to capture the warmness Mandela projected, his mannerisms and body posture to make himself believable and likable. He also brings a subtle enough attempt at Mandela's vocal range that whilst it slips from time to time and you know it's not Mandela and you are aware Freeman is trying to be Mandela it doesn't spoil the character. Matt Damon puts in a strong performance as François Pienaar but I felt that not enough was made of Pienaar character and this it must be said is not Damon's fault but Eastwoods. I remember those days well, and as much as I detested seeing South Africa win rugby, it must be said that Pienaar was indeed a fantastic spokesman, ambassador even not only the sport but for his country.

Eastwood Concentrates on Mandela pushing the Springboks and pushing the country to get behind them and yes it was a tremendous act of reconciliation given their political and racial attachments, but Pienaar was instrumental in making Mandela's plan work and without him both on and off the field the Bokke would not exist today. Sadly Matt Damon was limited to playing Pienaar as a sportsman , the occasional motivational speech and a limited dialogue I just felt not enough was made of Pienaar's real ability to lead by example both on and off the field. I never liked the Springboks as a team, especially after the most recent World Cup ( or Australian video referees) but it must be said Pienaar was a superb ambassador for the sport and his country and this does not come across in the film. Other than that it's an engaging film, there's some nice character development threads amongst Mandela's staff, the security forces and the Springbok players, the script is strong and there's a definite positive energy about the film, it leaves you with that sense of hope South Africa had back then. Looking at South African then and the South Africa now is as much as testimony to Mandela's greatness and it's such a shame it's all gone downhill since Mandela handed over the reigns. You don't need to be a rugby fan to enjoy this film, excellent.