Reviews

One Friday night, in April of 1990, a young boy, around five years old, sat down to watch a film. This was a film that he had been anticipating seeing for almost a year, his eagerness to see it augmented by a love for an old 1960's television series and a comic book he always had his mother buy him. When he watched this film, in the company of his aunt, he was a changed boy. That old television series would never be the same, his love of the comics would be cemented throughout his childhood and his list to Santa Claus that year would feature every piece of Batman merchandise under the sun. The film (if you hadn't guessed) was Tim Burton's Batman and to this day remains one of my favourite films of all time. Yes, Christopher Nolan's reboot is a work of genius as well, in many ways an exclusive piece of work from that director in the same way this and Batman Returns are to Burton, but, and it may be the rose tinted glasses I wear anytime I watch this film, or the fact that I was very young and the film represents a rite of passage for me, this film will always be my favourite of the Batman movies. Sure, Nolan's are more realistic, get better reviews and universally popular, but there's something about the inherent Gothic quality of Tim Burton's direction and style in this film, the psychotic humour and quirkiness of Michael Keaton's rendition of Bruce Wayne and Jack Nicholson's tendency to got over the top that he ends up pretty much higher than he really should that I really respond to. Then there is the batmobile. Yes the tumbler is good and it turns into a batpod, but let's be honest, Anton Furst's design for the Batmobile in this film is sleek and cool as hell.

The look of the film is quite simply wonderful. Gotham City is truly a wonderful looking hell hole of Gothic proportions. The art deco architecture, the smoky, noir like back alleys, Bruce Wayne's beautiful mansion and hi-tech batcave, the Notre Dame like Cathedral, Burton and production designer Anton Furst have truly made Gotham into a living, breathing and plausible city and none of it was filmed on location, instead using the whole of Pinewood Studios to create their vision of Batman's world. Yes, Nolan may have used Chicago, but Burton's Gotham has imagination, although thankfully he never allows it to become as ghastly as Joel Schumacher.

Then there is Michael Keaton. I'm not going to compare and contrast Michael's performance with Christian because actually I think there are many similarities, but focusing on Michael Keaton he brings a lot to the plate as Bruce/Batman, a lot more than many of his critics claimed at the time. What I love the most about him is how much of an emotional mess his Bruce Wayne is, incapable of claiming his love to Vicki, his inability to tell her he is Batman and his constant need to push her away makes this version of Batman a very complex individual, but one that is layered with some beautiful humour and a possible psychotic undercurrent ("You wanna get nuts? Come on, let's get nuts"). If a brooding nut job is going to dress up as a bat, I can really guess it's this one. Sure you can tell when he is or is not wearing the suit in the action sequences, but he has where it counts and his is a performance you can never forget. Just look at that haunted look as he remembers the reason he became Batman.

As for Jack Nicholson. Well, people still talk about him to do this day and it says something about how memorable a performance it is when nearly twenty years later it's still viable enough for comparisons to Heath's rendition in The Dark Knight. Heath's maybe the anarchist, but Jack's is a cackling killer, a psychopath with a grin who may not have the relevancy of the current incarnation, but is just as dangerous, mainly because Jack's Joker is funny when he is at his most psychotic. This adds up to a nice comparison with Keaton's Batman as the two characters through fate and destiny become the architects to each other's origin tale, a lovely storytelling stroke that Burton mines for all its worth.

I suppose its wrong to compare the movie to The Dark Knight as both are vastly different films set in extremely different universes (I feel really bad now, I really love The Dark Knight), and I guess my love for this film is offset by, as mentioned earlier, nostalgia, but I love this film, I just love it for the dark look, the gadgets, the action sequences, the effects and the Batmobile. My God is that the greatest car to appear in a film, or what? I guess you could say my love of films really started here.

Yes, I know, the title to this review is a quote from Richard Donner's Superman The Movie, but there's a reason for that, and I am going to get to it, so bare with me.

In a summer dominated by the darkness of, well, The Dark Knight, it may be hard to remember than a month of or two before it we were all basking in the universe of another comic book character, a multi millionaire, too, and, what a coincidence, a character who uses his quite considerable wealth to turn himself into a superhero. All similarities end there (don't worry comic book fans, this is not a review of compare and contrast proportions). For as The Dark Knight falls into a darker and darker pit of despair, terrorism metaphors and increasingly dark plot twists and even darker cliffhanger ending, Jon Favreau instead creates a world of blue skies, brightly coloured costumes (well, for the hero anyway), witty dialogue and, above all else, a lovely atmosphere of fun. Iron Man is, pure and simple, unadulterated fun, amazing when you consider that a good half hour of the film takes place in war torn Afghanistan, with the lead character in the hands of characters who are essentially terrorists. Of course, if the film was in other hands, this would lead to many a darker moment, probably using the comic book genre and lead character as a means to explore modern day warfare in the war on terror. Not Favreau. God bless Jon Favreau because what he chooses instead to do is have fun, lots of it.

I have a confession to make. I didn't get to see this film until recently. At the time of writing I only watched the movie on DVD for the first time the night before. Another thing, I loved The Dark Knight. I levelled some mild criticism at its darkness, but loved the movie nevertheless, but here, we get something that is positively giddy, funny and very, very enjoyable. I can't believe I missed it on the big screen, because this is great, and as a sci-fi adventure/comic book adaptation, it's got everything that I love to see in a Hollywood blockbuster of this nature. Imaginative action, funny dialogue, humour whilst retaining an ability to keep the film serious so it can remain engaging and great acting. The latter is particularly impressive. I know it has been said by many elsewhere, but let it be said again, primarily because I want to say it, Robert Downey Jr is fantastic. If played right this should be a comeback of John Travolta/Pulp Fiction proportions. He was always an actor that I liked (please check out Hearts and Souls if you have a chance) and here he brings that cheeky, comedic quality he always has, but filters it through a wonderfully engaging heroic complex. Quite simply he plays Tony Stark in such a way that you want him to be a hero, you want him to make the right choices and by God you want him to save the day. There are no Christian Bale style brooding moments here. Tony Stark is a lot like the movie itself, it's a hell of a lot of fun.

I still haven't mentioned Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges or Terrence Howard, but they all put in good work too, particularly Gwyneth, the will they/won't they chemistry between her and Robert is lovely and played almost in a 1940's screwball comedy way. Did I mention she is gorgeous throughout, not that it's important. She is though.

And the final scene is brilliant. I want another one and I want it now.

I remember going to see this film, at the time of writing that was almost a year ago. The cinema was packed to the last available seat and everyone there seemed to be enjoying the film immensely, myself included. You could hear murmurings when something major happened and everyone shuffling with anticipation when the action sequences started. I have to say it was easy to get blown away by the film, as summer blockbusters go, this one has it all. A comic book character for the hero, a truly spectacular villain, gasp, horror, a great plot and one that is at times quite complex seeing as it takes in aspects of terrorism, organized crime and finance, wonderful supporting characters, great actors and some of the best action sequences in many a year (Hong Kong, the car chase, the boats and the hospital). It was after watching the film that I realized something and that was just how dark the whole film is and I mean it is dark, pitch black. If Batman Begins was a comic book movie through and through, albeit an intelligent one, the optimistic first act bathed in a dark orange glow of fighting today for a better tomorrow, then The Dark Knight is genuinely the darker second, this time in a blue glow carried along by the message that sometimes just fighting for what is right is never enough, that bad things will happen no matter how hard we fight for it because no matter what good you try to do there will always be someone who just wants to watch the world burn, who will kill those who are good and innocent and corrupt the seemingly incorruptible. It amazes me that a film as dark and pessimistic as this has become the second most successful film in history after Titanic (then again that film features a sinking boat with a high death count so maybe mainstream tastes are darker than I ever considered).

I don't want to seem I'm knocking it, because I'm not. Truth is, like Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan has created a perfect film once again, a near flawless work of art that roots his re-imagined Batman universe in the real and plausible, it's just here things aren't just as entertaining as they were last time, at least not overtly so. Begins felt like a comic book adaptation, but an intelligent one, a film rooted in the comic book nevertheless with it's love for ninja vigilantes, creepy villains and wonderful action sequences taking in trains and tumblers. Although a lot of those elements are still there, this time they are rendered with a pitch black view. None more black than its villain. It has been said in many places but it must be said again, Heath Ledger is terrific and watching this film you cannot help but feel gutted that we will never see this talent again. His Joker is mesmerizing, a darkly humorous take on the character, like Jack Nicholson, but one rendered not through a comic book frame work, but one more real and relevant, for what is the Joker of Christopher Nolan's imagination but a terrorist, a metaphor for the villains of our world, the ones who truly do blow things up, kill and stab. Is any coincidence that the Joker uses knifes, just as the 9/11 hijackers were said to?

All this elevates the film above a summer blockbuster, albeit one that many of us flocked to, again and again (I admit, I seen it twice on the big screen and have watched it many times on DVD).

It's nearly a perfect film, it's just that the darkness can be a bit overwhelming, like being hit with a baseball over the head for two and a half hours, but there is a lot to love here, with amazing performances from everyone, including the much criticised Bale, although special word must go out to Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and, for reasons I won't get into, out of respect for the two people on the planet who have yet to see the film, Aaron Eckart, who deserved an Oscar nomination as well. It's wonderful stuff, and for a film as long as it is, it never drags, the pace is unrelentless, especially in the second half as it builds and builds to a truly superb climax, one that leaves you gagging for a third movie in a way that is truly even better, if that is possible, than Batman Begins did when leaving you chumping at the teeth for this one. Let's just hope the real star of the Batman franchise, Chris Nolan returns, but if he does, I would like to see that orange glow make a return with it.

I guess you could say that the title is almost a joke on many levels. It speaks as in an in-joke to the fans (it appeared as a line of dialogue in many episodes as well as the phrase on that UFO poster in Mulder's office) as well as being the feeling that many people wanted to have for this film, a film that everyone would by into. Sadly it wasn't to be. There are many people or aspects that one could blame for the supposed failure of this film, commercially or otherwise. One could blame Carter for not delivering the fast paced action packed film that one would expect to see in the summer. Another could be Fox for affording Carter a measly thirty million dollar budget and then opening the movie within a week of The Dark Knight, one of the biggest box office successes in recent years. For all the supposed faults and problems that have been labeled at this film, I guess I'm going to be very brave in saying the following; I love this film. I have awarded ten stars, not merely out of loyalty to the franchise (it's my favourite television series, so there), but to the fact that as a fan this is a film that did exactly what I wanted. It continued the story of Mulder an Scully, one of the great fictional partnerships of recent years, it presents a well thought and engrossing mystery, as well as one that is just plain gross without resorting to the exploitative pornographic violence that a horror film needs to have nowadays, instead presenting a wonderful Silence of the Lambs style mystery with places emphasis on plot and character set in a world that could still haunt your dreams.

I suppose in some sense nostalgia could blind me to the film (I practically grew up watching the series), but I am not blind to it's faults, which there are. First of all the script, like the script to the first X Files feature film, is almost structured like a two part episode of the series. The first half is all build up with a crushing plot development in the middle of the film after a well filmed chase sequence that could be the cliffhanger that leads into next week's episode which involves Mulder heading out into the snowy Virginian country to find the missing victim at the heart of the film's mystery. The characters of Agent Drummy and Whitney don't really add much and I can't see why these two characters could not have been Doggett and Reyes from the series who are never mentioned despite the series finale never explaining what happened to them after the climactic desert sequence.Hell, even their characters are similar, Whitney, the female, is open to believing, whilst Drummy, the male, although not as sensitive as Doggett, is determined in his skepticism.

Where the film works, and to me it does, is in the central relationship and its portrayal of Mulder and Scully in this day and age. David and Gillian are wonderful throughout, making us believe, once again, that Mulder and Scully are back. The idea that Scully has become a doctor and Mulder a hermit like recluse in the six years since we last seen them is wonderful as is their determination, or lack thereof, to step back into the darkness they have left behind. Carter as writer, along with Frank Spotnitz, and director crafts their scenes wonderfully, especially in the final moments when one realizes that The X Files can always be seen as the most honest and most platonic love story one could hope to see, one in which two polar opposites can find love and happiness with one another.

Of course I haven't mentioned Billy Connolly yet. An amazing portrayal of a fallen man trying to find some semblance of redemption for his disturbing crimes in the past, he strangely brings sympathy to Father Joe, a man, who like Mulder wants to believe despite the pull of darkness into is world. The scenes between Joe and Mulder and later with Scully (especially with Scully) are stunning and show a side to Connolly that I do not believe have been tapped by any other film he has been in. Trust me, you'll never be able to watch another one of his 'stand up' DVDs the same way again. Add to this a wonderful atmosphere where the film makes the most of its creepy Virginian, snowy locations (in actuality Vancouver, British Columbia) and a superb post credits moment that left me with a smile on my face for days, I just find it to hard to fault. I guess we have, as Gillian Anderson said at the film's British premiere, grown too accustomed to CGI and over the top action that when a film comes along that presents something more slower, thoughtful and glowing with two wonderful lead characters who react to events than merely standing around admiring the special effects most audiences turn away. It seems we'd rather watch the umpteenth Saw film or something where the explosions put in better performances than the leading actors.

So there you have it. Rant over. The X Files:I Want to Believe, a film that everyone seemed to have hated, except for a few hardened X Philes like myself, and got lost amongst the dark grandeur of Batman and the popularity of Mamma Mia. Shame because in the end I wanted to believe, and I still do, I really do.

There is a moment, around thirty minutes from the end of Francis Ford Coppola's film, when Mina Harker drinks from the blood of Count Dracula, an act that in the space of the same moment mixes brazen sexuality with blood curdling horror for the Count soon turns into a hideous bat like creature before dissolving into a pile of rats. It's a scene that encapsulates the romance, the beauty and the ugliness that is the cornerstone of the movie. The first thing I should really say about this film is how much I love it. To me it is a superb slice of film-making from a man who, at this point in his career and twenty years after the masterpiece that put him on the map, was not regarded as highly as he once was, at least in terms of the films he was currently making at that time. Certainly his previous film, prior to this, was the third installment of his Godfather series and that was a film that divided just about everybody based on whether or not it was a necessary film, to plot developments right through to the casting of the actress playing Al Pacino's daughter.

Admittedly, and I will be the first one to say so, there are some issues here to be had. Some of the performances, or more so, the accents of some of the performers leave a lot to be desired, and yes, I'm looking at you Keanu Reeves. There are moments where one does expect an utterance of the line "it's the Count dude", and while, thankfully, we never get that, it says a lot about said accent that no matter how many times one watches this film, you can't help but expect it. The whole aura of the film also feels over the top at times, the bloodletting, the overt sexuality (Sadie Frost's performance as Lucy comes across as a walking orgasm for most of the film, but this only seems to add to the fun considering the character comes across as nymphomaniac even before she becomes a vampire) and Anthony Hopkins' accent, but it works in the spirit of the film. What does work triumphantly well are the performances of the two leads. Gary Oldman, probably one of the best actors working today in film, and Winona Ryder, forever and always my favourite actress despite her inability, supposedly, to pay for her shopping, sell the love story of Dracula and Mina in a way that is almost heartbreaking beyond belief, with furtive glances, genuinely moving chemistry without resorting to playing it in a "I want to remove your clothes now" sort of a way, is backed by sensitive direction from Coppola and a terrific music score that never intrudes and tells the audience how to feel, instead complimenting the emotion on screen. Winona's performance is beautiful and understated, as always, selling you her character's feelings and thoughts without overplaying it, whilst Oldman, seemingly, until the Christopher Nolan Batman films came along, forever and always playing villains, actually gives us a villain, although not as black and white as that description would suggest, that you want to root for, a man who has fallen into darkness based on an emotional loss that in turn places all those he comes into contact with into a similar place but who eventually fulfils a redemption in those haunting, final moments.

The best performance could be held over for Francis Ford Coppola, here working as a director for hire in a studio film, but making it, as he always has done, through his own personal eyes. Instead of relying on modern technology available at the time, Coppola utilized old fashioned filming techniques and technology that was only available during the birth of cinema to present his vision of the tale. Old fashioned models, in camera trickery with not even a whiff of CGI. It's refreshing and original and brilliant. Of course not everyone will speak of the film in the same breath as the Corelone's or the Kurtz's but to me this is a crowning achievement, despite some bad judgments (again, I look to you Keanu Reeves), from a director who we all have to thank for the cinema that we have. At the time of writing (2009), horror has become a genre that is creatively dying, with torture porn and remakes of films that really shouldn't be remade when they were already good to begin with. Here we have an adaptation of a piece of work that has been made so many times, yet here it feels fresh and original, almost new. How many horror films, or even better yet, romantic films, can say that in this day and age?

After a depressingly long gap of four years which has seen countless rumour and the departure of my personal favourite Bond, Pierce Brosnan, the Eon series returns with what may be one of the finest films yet in the Bond cannon. Of course what makes this such a fantastic film is not just the usual refinements (to quote, although in this case absent, Q) such as action and spectacle, but is the risk that the filmmakers take with this, the twenty first Bond epic. The most popular leading man, at least commercially speaking, that the series has had is gone, as our some of the usual trademarks. The gunbarrell doesn't open the film outright as it does the title sequence, the latter of which does not feature naked ladies for the first time in history from what I recollect, although Daniel Kleinman, the titles designer since Goldeneye, still does a great job with the card motif, there is little in the way of hardware and gadgets and we have a blonde Bond, as many other reviewers are keen to point out.

The portrayal of Bond in this film is of the utmost importance and Daniel Craig is superb throughout, mainly because the script is not a collection of action sequences with a basic story of world domination centred around it. What we have here is a three dimensional Bond, a man who hurts, feels pain, falls in love and has his heart destroyed by betrayal and death and must learn that in order to survive in this world that he has been 'promoted' to, he must trust no one. Throughout the arc that Bond goes through in Casino Royale Craig is superb. A decent actor in his own right (see Road to Perdition and Layer Cake for more), it seems that by betting an actor of this calibre, writers Purvis and Wade, along with Paul Haggis, have decided to put some meat to the bone and it works superbly. Yes he looks good in a tux, hell he looks good in an Hawaian shirt in the opening chase scene, but there is just as much substance to his portrayal of Bond and in a day and age where Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne (what is it with spies with the initials JB?) rule the roost in the genre, it's nice to see the character who started it all get something juicy to chew on.

Of course a Bond film is nothing without the best action sequences to fall back on too, and Casino Royale will not disappoint anyone craving a little adrenalin whilst watching Bond. The aforementioned chase sequence at the start featuring some of the craziest running stunts in recent years will leave you breathless, an attempted terror attack at Miami airport is superbly staged whilst the the sinking house in Vienna is one of the most stunning, not to mention vicious, action sequences the series has ever done. Speaking of vicious, one should be warned that this is a more harsher film than has been done before, with the violence being more along the lines of Licence to Kill rather than Die Another Day or Goldeneye. The fights are bloody and messy and the torture sequence involving a stripped and naked Bond being beaten by Le Chiffre ranks as one of the most shocking to have been passed with a 12 certificate that I can remember.

This is a great film is every aspect. As usual it is well made, with love and care from everyone, has heart as well as muscle and with the highest box office to date for a Bond film, should see the series continue for several years yet. Glad to have you back Mr Bond.

Let me start by saying that this is simply a superb film. I'm getting the obvious out of the way, even though the review you are about to read is probably going to point this out several times along the way. House of Flying Daggers, Zhang Yimou's follow up to the equally superb Hero, follows similar lines along that film. There are fight sequences, some of which are the most thrilling and most exciting ever put to celluloid, there is a lot of melodrama, although his being from the Far East, is done much more cleverly and with more emotion than anything from Hollywood and Ziyi Zhang stars, but most of the similarities end there as House is more of a melodramatic film about a love triangle, rather than a Roshomon style political diatribe. There are no flashbacks, re-told versions of said flashbacks and a political message here, instead Yimou is simply telling a story that is essentially a love story, one involving three people and one that corners many twists and turns as it goes on and which ends on a note that William Shakespeare would have been proud of. The film is sumptuous and gorgeous to look at with the fight sequences not merely being scenes of violence put in for good measure, but works of abstract beauty, featuring wire work and stunts that really take the breath away. Every shot in the movie is like a beautiful painting, Yimou proving he has a great eye. He reminds me very much of Kubrick in a way. When it comes to scenes of dialogue between two characters, the film is very much shot simply, one-two shots mostly, but when it comes to the action sequences and establishing shots of the Chinese setting, he is a master of the camera, his compositions, camera angles and lighting really taking the breath away from the viewer. Like Hero, one comes away from the film thinking that they have never seen anything so beautiful in your life on the screen.

While I admit to loving Hero too, my heart lies more with House. Hero is very much a story driven film, although in that movie we have the love story between Broken Sword and Sky to carry the emotions forward, here it is all emotions nearly all of the time, the love story being the central, dominant force of the film rather than the political message. The action sequences are stunning as I have said, but, and this is the clever part of Yimou's handling of such material, they never dominate the film like they would in a Hollywood blockbuster. The second half of the movie features little in the way of action, save for the climactic fight between the two male characters. Even the structure of this movie is unique. It starts of as a martial arts thriller of sorts, before becoming a love story/triangle/tragedy in the second half. I cannot say enough about how much I love this movie. This is one of those once in a lifetime movies that should change the face of cinema, one that makes you thankful that the medium was invented. The last time I saw a film that left me this way was back in 1999 when as a fifteen year I staggered back into the afternoon daylight after leaving the cinema watching The Matrix. House is an astonishing piece of modern cinema and deserves to be regarded as such.

Hero may have been the one that got all the attention, thanks to Mr Tarantino, but in my heart, I truly believe that House of Flying Daggers is the better movie.

I only ever discovered this movie through an episode of Dawson's Creek I have to admit. It was an episode where the main characters of that show find themselves on Saturday detention and actually make reference to the film. It was only a few years later when I had taped a documentary off BBC One about Star Wars that I actually got around to seeing the movie itself as it was on straight after, prompting me to remember as the film was about to start, "oh yeah, that Dawson's Creek film". Suffice to say I enjoyed the movie immensely and it was only after a recent screening on Irish television that I got around to buying it on DVD, the day after said screening. I was surprised to find the film somewhat deeper, a little more intense and surprisingly philosophical when I watched it recently, seeing that there is a lot more going on here than unresolved sexual tension issues and pot smoking going on. This is a film about the fears of young adulthood and the even bigger fears of actually growing old and how disappointing life can be. This may be a film for teenagers, but it surprising how adult it can be, and how much a twenty one year old, or even someone older, can actually get something out of this film. Forget the fun and games of Ferris Bueller, as good as it it is, this is probably John Hughes' best film, offering up something more darker, but something ultimately a little uplifting, about a bunch of characters looking into themselves at a young age and not necessarily liking what they are seeing.

The performances from all the cast are first rate, with special mention to Judd Nelson and Ally Sheedy. Estevez, Ringwald and Hall are fine also, but these two get the best characters to play with, as do Paul Gleason and John Kapelos as two bitter school employees also realizing how disappointing life can be (a little note, keep a look out for the middle photo during the opening shots at the start of the movie to see how clever this film actually is, not to mention subtle). Add to this one of the best theme songs written for a film, in this case Don't You Forget About Me by Simple Minds, and what we have here is a bona fide 80's teen classic and an example of how teen movies today are nowhere near as good as they were when they had the Brat Pack starring in them. Today's teen movies are full of too much bad taste humour and stars who can't act, they aren't full of the pathos and genuine humour that this, and many other films, at the time had. I don't know about anybody else, but that makes me feel quite sad.

One of my all time favourites this movie, Rain Man is moving, funny, sad, uplifting and ultimately a little dowh beat, but contains two terrific central performances from two Hollywood legends and terrific direction from one of mainstream Hollywood's finest filmmakers, who makes all the right choices, which of course means not making the obvious ones. What surprises one straight away about Rain Man is how funny the film can be, without any of the bad taste theatrics of, say, a Farrelly brothers movie, who have frequently used various forms of mental illness or autism as the butt of many of their jokes in their movies. Here we have a film about autism that is very funny, but knows that it is dealing with a serious condition, thus making the jokes not so much about the condition, but about one man having to deal with it, in this case Charlie Babbit, played superbly by Tom Cruise in what is arguably one of his best performances, up there with Jerry Maguire and Magnolia. This isn't a film that pokes fun at Raymond's condition and thus makes him into a superb character, one that we care about, even though in many ways he is incapable of showing emotion back to the person who comes to care for him the most, even though we desperately want him to.

Enough cannot be said of Dustin Hoffman. One of Hollywood's finest, here he is at his utmost best, sparring off Cruise superbly in some of the finest scenes in a mainstream film from 80's Hollywood (the K-Mart sequence is a particular highlight), he is engaging, even though he is always reserved and never makes eye contact with anyone, he is also funny, yet sad, but never over-eggs one or the other aspect in his performance.

What surprises one about Rain Man is how restrained it is for a Hollywood film. The biggest aspect of the film to symbolize this is its music score from Hans Zimmer, composing his first American film. Instead of relying on strings and pianos like many other composers would do, Zimmer relies more on percussion and an almost African-Carribbean style main theme that sums up the film perfectly. The music never overshadows the film, it is more restrained and cleverer than that and almost sums up what you can say about the film. Nothing ever goes over the top or into theatrics, everything is kept as realistic as possible, from the performances, to the way it is filmed by Levinson, right through to the writing and the film's ending which doesn't go for the conventional manner of trying to have the audience reaching for the tissues, but neither does it go for some emotional catharsis that you would expect either. Of course there is one little moment ("You're my main man"), but it works anyway and strangely keeps in line with what the film is doing.

Clever, brave and superbly done, Rain Man is one film that I demand that everyone should see.

Big fan of JJ Abrams, me, and when, during the course of the third season of Alias, I heard the guy was working on a new series, I was, unsurprisingly, interested, but when I heard exactly what it was he was working on, and its concept, well, like everyone else, I was concerned. How could a show like this work on American network television, above all things. As a movie, or a mini-series, or maybe as a thirteen part per year saga on HBO, maybe, but as a series lasting at least twenty two-twenty five episodes a season, no way I thought to myself. Well, I can now eat my words. This is an excellent show, with a lot to recommend and love about it. The show transcends its possible limitations by becoming something more than just a survival/disaster drama, and has instead becoming something more sinister, philosophically deep, and rich with excellent writing and characterization. Like all disaster dramas, there are a number of characters here that you would expect to see in this particular genre, such as a doctor, escaped convict, drug addict, an estranged father and son, an unhappy married couple and so on. That the show makes these characters into three dimensional characters with superb backstories (many of which make up the many flashbacks you see throughout many of the episodes) is a miracle and makes the audience care more deeply that you would think. The show's level of characterization is on a par with shows such as The West Wing, Six Feet Under, The Sopranos and 24.

The show frequently hits the right buttons and many of the story lines and arcs the show has developed over the course of its first season on the air is a joy to behold (at the time of writing this reviewer has only seen the first two episodes of season two on UK television). There is always a threat that the flashbacks could get in the way of the drama on the island, but so far that hasn't happened...yet. Throughout the first season it seems to be a given that with so many regular characters (fourteen in all), backstory is a given, and at times the flashbacks are used to great effect such as in the three part season finale when all the characters get flashbacks, all of them revolving around them preparing to board the fateful flight that will bring them together. Likewise the performances are all superb, even if they are from a somewhat unrealistically photogenic cast (hey, this is American television after all). Matthew Fox, Evangeline Lilly and the rest all do great jobs, but the real star has to be Terry O'Quinn. A favourite of this reviewer from his gigs with Chris Carter and in previous JJ Abrams hit Alias, he brings a sense of sensitivity, depth and danger all at the same time that makes his performance truly stand out, especially in the second episode past the pilot (Walkabout).

As of the time of writing, the show seems to be going well, even if there is a suspicion amongst many fans and viewers that the writers are making it all up as they go along (their insistence that they are not makes thinks even more suspicious). The many plot strands, character story arcs and paranormal goings on in the show seem to be revolving around each other very well. Whether or not the writers can keep this up for a multiple number of seasons remains to be seen.

Just when you thought that British television had forgotten how to make good dramas, along comes Spooks and shows that there is more to television than trash like Footballers' Wives and Big Brother. Spooks was, and constantly remains to be, a surprise of the highest order. I'll admit to not having high expectations of what I thought was going to nothing more but a poor British man's attempt at doing the type of thriller series that the Americans had been doing for so long, like 24 and CSI, but what makes this show so good is that creator David Wolstencroft and fellow writers like Howard Brenton, have taken what they have learned from shows like that, but twist it into a series that is quintessentially British. They don't forget that they aren't American, the show is basically set in a recognizable British country with British characters, only with the pace and production values one would expect to see from a series like 24.

Initially, from the opening moments of the very first episode, one cannot help but think that what they are about to watch is essentially 24:London style. There's a moody synth music score, there's split screen, there are photogenic but believable actors and flowing and constantly moving camera work, but the show goes beyond that and instead of fashioning a single plotted terrorist thriller like its American equivalent does, admittedly very well, Spooks, as far as it's storytelling goes, is more along the lines of CSI, with more often than not, the episodes are made up of stand alone tales, with the personal lives of the characters taking up any on going plot lines within the show's universe. The show over the course of its four (soon to be five) years on the air, has developed into a superb piece of British television, recalling a time when show's like this would have littered the airwaves thanks to the likes of Sir Lew Grade and his company ITC. Unlike those shows with their quasi fantasy plots, Spooks isn't afraid to be dark and at times gritty and realistic. The show has dealt with political extremists, a very near the knuckle plot line of London being bombed (filmed months in advance of the July 7th attacks), hostage taking, IRA splinter groups and the internal politics of British intelligence. Not only that, but many characters have come and gone, with some having been killed off (it's most famous example being in the show's second episode of its freshman season, which I won't spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it).

A lot has changed with Spooks over the course of four years. It's original leading trio have gone and have been replaced, although this hasn't done anything to affect the show in my opinion. As much as I loved Matthew McFadyen, Keeley Hawes and David Oyelowo in the show, Rupert Penry Jones has more than made the show his own, and as a by product of such a cast loss from the show's third season, many of the show's fantastic supporting cast have made the grade to much more active parts in the show's stories, especially Peter Firth as the team's boss Harry Pearce, who truly deserves an BAFTA for his work on the show.

A show like this should be embraced by the British public. With the advent of video games, DVD and now digital television, the days of a television show (outside of soap operas anyway) garnering ratings above ten million viewers are now gone, and Spooks is only ever seen by around six to seven million. This is the type of show that should be a phenomenon instead of a well respected hit for the BBC. With the likes of CSI and 24 becoming more recognised internationally, at least the BBC have a homegrown show that they can hold up and be proud of.

Wow, what have we done to deserve this, another fantastic series from what has shaped up to be one of the best franchise's on television, CSI:NY has everything that a good cop show needs; strong leading characters, well thought out stories and above all else, cinematic production values, like the previous two series do. That it isn't to say that the show had the best start. I'll admit to being balled over by the pilot/crossover episode during CSI:Miami's second season and I couldn't wait to see how it would transpire as a fully fledged series. Initially however, the series did have a rough start. The show just seemed too dark and gloomy and any humour seemed to sit at odds with the show's dark milieu, but things happily changed as the first season progressed and by the end of it's freshman year I would have to say that CSI:NY was truly one of the best shows on the box, more than giving its sister series a run for their money.

Like CSI's Miami and Las Vegas, the show has a terrific leading man with a penchant for feature films and character acting, in this case Gary Sinise. For anyone who has seen Apollo 13, The Green Mile, Ransom or Mission to Mars, it is great to see this actor headlining his own show and doing it so well. Initially his character is so dark in the earlier episodes, much like the series, it is hard to like him, but like the show he comes out of his shell and we get to see a likable and at times nicely humorous character simply trying to move on with his life after the death of his wife. Like the other two series we have a superb leading lady, in this case Melina Kankaredes, simply one of the most beautiful leading ladies on television, and a damn fine actress to boot, with the two leads centered around a terrific supporting cast. Eddie Cahill and Hill Harper stand out almost straight away, whilst Carmine Giovinazzo really comes into his own as the first season develops culminating with a terrific storyline involving a shootout and a dead undercover police officer towards the end of the season. If there is a weak link it is possibly Vannesa Ferlito's character Aiden. While likable, she is essentially a third wheel and does nothing more than react to the other characters.

Like the other two shows, hell like every thriller/crime series on American television today, the production values are incredible, the aerial shots of New York are some of the best ever done on a television series budget and the show, especially on DVD, looks fantastic. If there is a nit-pick to be had it has to be that at times it is very obvious that the show is filmed on studio lots in Los Angeles, something not as obvious on CSI's Las Vegas and Miami. For anyone who has ever seen Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off Angel, one cannot help but get a kick nearly every episode of seeing the vampire with a soul's old office from season one in the background of many scenes throughout CSI:NY's first season. Aside from this, the show does very well with what it's given, which is fine acting and some of the finest writing currently on the crime genre in television. If you have yet to see this show, buy the first season on DVD, there are many fine episodes to watch, and many to choose from. I wouldn't expect anything else from a series created by Anthony E Zuiker.

NOTE: This is a review of the 115 minute UK version released on R2 DVD.

Quite possibly one of the best horror films ever made, this is quite possibly one of Stanley Kubrick's most accessible films in the latter part of the directorial career, a dark slice of isolationist horror that uses every trick it can muster to scare the living hell out of the audience, from Jack Nicholson running around with an axe, gory death scenes, ghosts, a perverse scene of semi-sexual activity, you name it and unsurprisingly the film is good, brilliant in fact. It is so easy to single handedly praise Nicholson's performance on it's own, but is merely one aspect of what makes this film so great to watch. First of all there is the direction from Kubrick himself. I'll be honest, I have a love hate relationship with Kubrick's films. I love Full Metal Jacket, Spartacus, Dr Strangelove and of course this film here, but others like A Clockwork Orange and Lolita have tended to leave this viewer cold, I tend to like my films on a more visceral level and I suppose that is the main reason I love The Shining as this is possibly one of his most aesthetically more enjoyable films. It has more of a roller-coaster thrill ride aspect to it rather than the cold aesthetics of 2001 and Barry Lyndon.

Of course the film does takes its time to get going, but this adds to the fun as you can feel the tension growing as the film goes on, you can almost feel the possibly supernatural psychosis growing in Jack Torrence with each passing of every minute, Nicholson becoming more and more frightening as the film goes on. The same goes for the performances from Shelly Duvall and Danny Lloyd. You can almost feel the tension building in everyone before the terrifying last half hour begins and it's a testament to Kubrick's handling of the material that you almost feel their emotions as the film goes on. When Duvall as Wendy starts shouting with terror as Jack goes all Johnny Carson on the audience with an axe, you almost feel like shouting with her, likewise when Danny is running through the maze with an axe wielding Jack after him you almost feel like running with him.

The Shining is a superb piece of horror film-making, a tiring and emotionally burning movie and wears its horror genre credentials on its sleeve. Recently Channel 4 in the UK voted it the scariest film ever made. I don't know if I would go that far, I believe that The Exorcist deserves that title, but The Shining is not far behind. As thrilling and entertaining the film is, it is deeply unsettling, this, like The Exorcist, is a pure horror film and does what the horror genre can do so well when treated right, which is to take a mundane and realistic situation and to turn it into a story that makes the palms wet and the nails shorter. Like the best horror movies, The Shining is no mere popcorn entertainment, it is a trip into the darkness of the human condition. The fact that it is entertaining and thrilling to watch, doesn't detract from the fact that it is also a disturbing film.

It comes as a surprise to me that not a lot people like this film and that it isn't mentioned as a classic in much the same way that Sam Mendes' first movie, American Beauty, is, because in my opinion (and I loved American Beauty it has to be said), Road to Perdition is a much more satisfying and more moving experience. In an era when gangster or crime movies are much more modern and full to the brim with four lettered words and obscene acts of violence, Road to Perdition is almost an old fashioned film. Superficially it recalls the gangster movies of the thirties (it does take place in the 1930's after all), the type of film you would see Bogart and or Cagney in, but the script is more in line with what you would have got from Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola as well as Sergio Leone, as it recalls very much films like The Godfather and Once Upon A Time In America with its complex character motivations and almost Shakespearian-esquire sense of tragedy and drama. Even the visuals are similar. One sequence has Michael Sr and Michael Jr (played by the wonderful double act of Tom Hanks and Tyler Hoechlin) seeking refuge in a home owned by a couple who are only too happy to take them in and the lighting is almost an orange color in the interior shots, almost in such a way that one cannot help but think of The Godfather trilogy.

This being Sam Mendes there is a lot more going on here than just a film about gangsters. It is a wonderful story of fathers and sons, regret and a message that one should always love their family when they have one because you never know when it could all change. Even better is that Mendes and screenwriter David Self manage to tell this story without ever going into the realms of sentimentality. The emotional impact of the movie is kept raw and real, so much so in the final moments, which I won't reveal here. The casting likewise is on the money. Tom Hanks has never, I repeat, never been better than he is here, his performance controlled and at a distance. Forget Forrest Gump and Philadelphia, this is the film which contains his best performance. Likewise Paul Newman. Watching him here makes you regret that this legend doesn't do more movies in this day and age and then there is Tyler Hoechlin. This is a child actor with real grit and edge and never once, like many child actors nowadays (stand up Haley Joel Osmond), does his performance feel like a performance, it feels real.

I love this film so much, I think it's a shame that it isn't as regarded as highly as it should be as everyone puts it work that is so good. Special mention must also go to Thomas Newman (one of my favorite composer) and Conrad Hall, photographing his last film, whose works is also up to an impossibly high standard. If you have still to watch this film, please do, you won't regret it. Just make sure you have a box of hankies ready, as you'll need them.

Sitting down to watch War of the Worlds recently on DVD, I was expecting a return to the type of movie Spielberg would happily make throughout the eighties and nineties, before becoming the more experimental and more thoughtful filmmaker he is nowadays. To be honest what I was expecting was basically Jurassic Park with aliens, but what we get is something very, very different. Instead of it being a fun packed thriller with comic relief spread throughout, what one gets is something very dark, very serious and at times downright distressing. This is basically a big budget blockbuster from the man who has brought the world Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, not the man who brought us the Jurassic Park movies and Jaws. This is not to say that the film is bad, because it's not, in fact it is very, very good. Terrific in fact. It has all the usual aspects one should expect from a film like this such as budget busting special effects sequences, thrilling action set pieces and a genuine sense of terror, but what makes the film more than that is the way that instead of focusing on characters that are mere fantasy figures like a fictional president or smarter than thou scientists, what we get is the invasion of earth by extra terrestrials from one family, in this case the Ferrier family as played by Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin. The whole movie is played from their point of view and it makes it a treat. As Spielberg said in a lot of the publicity before the film was released, it is the biggest small film ever made. Like Batman Begins (the best film of summer 2005), more thought is put into the script and characters, so much so that we truly care about them. One truly distressing sequence has Cruise and his family being car jacked, but Fanning's character being left in the car and Cruise struggling to get to her. It is a moment of pure suspense, but one that is very distressing and almost full of despair.

Technically the film is also superb, as it should be. The invasion sequences are some of the best put to film and best of all they don't look like special effects, something so rare in the movies of today. The tripods are terrifying, equally so the aliens themselves. Janusz Kaminski's photography is eye catching, as always. Much like his work in Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan, he goes more for a washed out look, with a tendency to shoot at a higher number of frames. It gives the movie a beautiful and ugly look, mostly at the same time.

In a summer blockbuster season that has given us some of the best blockbusters in some years (Batman Begins, Sin City and Revenge of the Sith), War of the Worlds is more than equal to stand alongside some of the output of this year. It is in effect an old master doing what he does best. It amounts to one thrill packed ride.

After the bitter disappointment (understatement, I know) of Batman and Robin, something special was needed to prove that Batman could still be a viable movie series. This is the film that not only proves it, but puts would be pretenders such as Spiderman and X-Men in the shade with a superb piece of film-making that puts script and characters above action sequences (although there are plenty of those too). What is so satisfying about the movie is that while Christopher Nolan is undoubtedly putting his own statement on the character, he has also reverted more to the style of the first Batman movie of 1989, by making the universe are characters inhabit a plausible and real one, even in the presence of bat-caves, gadgets and over the top villains. The city of Gotham doesn't look like the neon lit cartoon world of the Joel Schumacher years, instead looking like a real world, one that could exist. It is these types of choices that make the film a joy.

The casting is pure perfection. While Michael Keaton was a great Bruce Wayne/Batman, his casting was quirky and strange, even though he got over those problems masterfully. Christian Bale on the other hand is quite possibly the perfect embodiment of Bruce Wayne/Batman, he has comic book good looks (black hair, square jaw line) and like Michael Keaton, has a psychotic look in his eye while at the same time having a sense of humor that is a joy to watch and laugh with. Likewise Michael Caine as Alfred. Initially I would have preferred Anthony Hopkins, but Caine ends up as the better choice putting in a performance as touching as it is boisterous and hilarious. Add to this Gary Oldman as Sergeant Gordon (the future Commisoner of Gotham City), Cillian Murphy as The Scarecrow and Katie Holmes as the love interest, and not forgetting about Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Batman Begins is a glorious piece of summer film entertainment. I left the cinema in a buzz I haven't felt since the first Matrix film, everything works so well here, the dialog, the script, acting, direction, even the music from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard is fantastic, with Zimmer taking the action cues and Howard the more intimate moments.

As all good comic book movies should, the end only leaves us with more (espcially a mention of one of Batman's most famous villains, which I won't give away here) and its good to know a sequel will be with us in the next few years. All that I ask of Nolan and Warner Brothers is not to screw it up this time because this could be the beginning of something special indeed.

Bravo Christopher Nolan, bravo Christian Bale.

It would probably be smart to get the obvious out of the way first, so here I go. Vincent D'Onofrio is superb. Okay, now that that's done, on to the rest of the show.

This is without a doubt, possibly along with CSI:Crime Scene Investigation, the best cop show on the box. It is classy, the stories are more often than not compelling, the scripting sharp and the performances are all of a very high standard. Everything about this show works so well, it has to be the best of the Law and Order franchise. While Special Victims Unit does have more bite and the original series will always be the one that started the whole franchise off, this one pips them all. The series does not put a foot wrong, and while D'Onofrio obviously is the main focus that grabs the attention, the series as a whole is so well made that it comes as a relief to find that he is only one brilliant part of a brilliant whole. Kathryn Erbe more often than not gets the best lines, Jamey Sheridan has a wonderful presence while Courtney B Vance, while more or less putting a cameo appearance in each episode has wonderful chemistry with the two leads, especially when his character is acting more as an antagonist to the two lead characters. While the show certainly doesn't have the visual prowess of the CSI's, it doesn't need it, that's not what Dick Wolf and Rene Balcer are trying to do here. Instead they are telling wonderful police procedural stories, ones that get into the heads of the criminals and the investigators. The cases are always interesting, and the criminals themselves always have their own little stories that hold the attention.

It helps when you have D'Onofrio though. His performance is one that really should have garnered an Emmy nomination at least by now. His mannerisms and delivery of his lines are so well done, you can't help but devote your attention to him when he is on screen. The character of Bobby Goren will surely go down as one of the best detectives on television. I hope he retains his promise to stay with the show as long as its on the air.

Undeniably one of Roger Moore's best outings as 007, For Your Eyes Only was an attempt by Cubby Broccoli to bring Bond down to earth after the over the top, but brilliant, Moonraker. Surprisingly this works very well, with the action sequences being more realistic (what with a car chase, ski chase and a small scale assault on the villain's residence instead), but brilliant too. For Roger Moore the film offers his best performance as James Bond. The puns are played down more here and while he does still have a little twinkle in his eye at times, his performance reflects more an older 007, a man who has lost his wife and is still fighting to save the world and right wrongs. This is demonstrated in the superb pre-title sequence in which after visiting his wife's grave, he is kidnapped by Blofeld (unofficially Blofeld however) and taken on a wild helicopter ride. The moment were he visits Tracy's grave sees Roger convey so much in one scene, he shows that he is not just the comedic 007, but he can be a serious one too. We see how the character has come to view revenge on Blofeld as he tells the dream like Melina (a beautiful and enchanting performance from Carole Bouquet) that before setting out on revenge as she hopes to do, she must first dig two graves. Some would see this as hypocrisy, whereas it is the words of a Bond who has come to analyse the hardship of a licence to kill.

With Julian Glover portraying a more down to earth villain and the plot centering around the Cold War, For Your Eyes Only is a great 80's Bond film, with scatterings of what would be developed into the Timothy Dalton years, such as the serious Bond and the more down to earth story telling. Following on the heels of two of the biggest Bond films in terms of scope and financial success, For Your Eyes Only was a risk, but it worked. While it did not outgross Moonraker, it's financial intake was close and while it does possess the entertainment factor that both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me did, it is an artistic success, with great performances, an engrossing storyline, wonderful characterization and superb direction from John Glen in his directorial debut for a Bond film. He stages the abundance of chase scenes well and is helped by the fact that he has a good script to go with. On top of that Sheena Easton delivers a great theme tune.

A great film and one deserving of classic status.