Reviews

France, 1800s. Convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) breaks parole after been given a second chance by a kindly bishop (Colm Wilkinson). Pursued by the police inspector Javert (Russel Crowe),Valjean tries to become a better man, adopting the daughter of a factory worker (Anne Hathaway) in the process. But revolution is in the air...

Within the first few minutes of Tom Hooper's film you realise this is no ordinary adaptation of a musical; the ships being pulled into harbour by the convicts under stormy skies, Crowe's obsessive inspector overseeing the action; the music dark and foreboding. This is a film that is not afraid to shy away from the poverty, from the violence. You feel every bullet, you can almost smell the sewage that Jackman must crawl through during the third act.

Jackman is extraordinary, and with the amount of vocals he must perform, not to mention the range he sometimes must sing ("Bring Him Home" an obvious example), you feel as if he has to be. His emotional journey of confliction and guilt is well judged and balanced, though for a film that supposedly covers at least twenty five years he ages remarkably well. He is matched by a fantastic talented cast; Crowe, to be blunt, is not a natural singer but his performance in fact helps the film even more, for Hooper chooses to shoot his solos in intense close up and as a result he is brooding and menacing.

Hooper uses this trick quite a few times, most notably during "I Dreamed A Dream", which is one long unbroken shot. Anne Hathaway is extraordinary; she neither showboats nor shies away from the power of the song or the emotion of the character, who has been brought to her lowest by the cruelty of those around her. It is a great, awards worthy performance, and is actually missed when she is no longer around after the first act.

The film isn't all doom and gloom and depression, despite its title; there is welcome comic relief from Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the thieving innkeepers, and a charming, sweet love section with Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne; this also involves a bewitching turn from Samantha Barks, the only member of the cast to have played their character on stage; as a result she knows her role inside out and adds a raw emotion to it.

The film isn't perfect, sadly; it is perhaps a little too long, though fans of the stage show will notice when songs have been trimmed slightly and reworked. But all in all, it is a fantastic achievement. The last great movie musical, arguably, was Chicago, in that it found a way to convey the song and dance numbers in a believable, celluloid sense. Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd is of course a worthy contender, with it's love of blood and gore helping it to stand out from the crowd; but Hooper has done the seemingly impossible and made a gorgeous film out of a show that has often been criticised for its overuse of schmaltz; this is grounded, and more to the point, realistic. It is first class filmmaking.

8/10

Los Angeles, late 1940s. Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) reigns as the gangster king, a rule of terror and corruption that the police force have put up with for too long. Sgt John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) is assigned a mission that Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) hopes will end Cohen once and for all: they will create the Gangster Squad...

What director Ruben Fleischer did for horror in Zombieland and the heist movie in 30 Seconds Or Less he tries to do with gangster films in Gangster Squad. When the title "Inspired By True Events" flashes up on the screen at the start one couldn't help but remember another classic gangster film based on true events, The Untouchables. That had Robert DeNero playing Al Capone, another real life gangster, just as this film does; sadly, it made me really want to watch The Untouchables, and towards the end, LA Confidential.

That is not to say the film is bad at all, but it is very much a case of style over substance. It's the kind of gangster film you'd show to someone watching their very first one. It has all the bare essentials: crooked cops, honest joes, stereotypical bad guys and a sexy dame to boot (Emma Stone, doing her best to play a Gilda type smoker but just not given enough screen time to create a decent chemistry). These bare essentials are just not given enough time to breathe and develop. You want to learn more about the characters because they are interesting - particularly Robert Patrick's ageing gunslinger-type cop and his relationship with Michael Pena's fan.

Brolin growls nicely but is overshadowed by the underplaying of Mireille Enos as his long suffering wife. Ryan Gosling also underacts superbly, giving a cool drifter vibe to the film that never takes over the picture. For full scene chewing, Sean Penn nails it as Cohen - his is a berserk character, dangerous and quiet, perhaps every so slightly insane. It's a wonderful interpretation, though again perhaps a little two dimensional.

The film looks fabulous, and this is where the true triumphs of the film lie. The scenery, the costumes (from Stone's gorgeous dresses to the men's suits), they all add together to create that period of the turning point in the 1940s. However, it's clear that quite a lot was done via computer, again one trick that you cannot accuse LA Confidential of.

The theme of war filters through the story; these gentlemen are all fighters, survivors of the Second World War, adrift in a city that has changed from ideal paradise to frightening hell. This is a world where Land is still on the Hollywood sign - things have to change. Cohen cannot be killed simply because his empire would still exist. These guys aren't fighting Nazis anymore; these are their own flesh and blood, and previously safe families and friends are now threatened. It's a nice touch but again you want it to go deeper into this war like theme.

Not a great film, but a decent starting point nonetheless.

7/10

Bond is back. From the very first notes of the score to the last thrilling shot, the Bond franchise has made it through the murk of financial problems and, more importantly, the underwhelming and complicated "Quantum Of Solace" to deliver a superb mission.

That's not to say this is business as usual. Though old faces (human and vehicle) appear again after a notable absence, this is a film firmly set in two camps: Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes. The Craig Bond films have been and always will be gritty, dark, edgy affairs, the type to rival the competition of Bourne and other more realistic action films. With Mendes, the first Oscar winning director to helm a Bond film, we get perhaps the most beautiful looking Bond film there's ever been. A gorgeous looking neon set fight scene in China, for example, or the one long shot that heralds the arrival of the film's antagonist, Silva (a dazzling performance from another Oscar winner, Javier Bardem).This is a different kind of Bond film, one that may stand alongside "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" as a world apart from the usual Bond formula.

Though the film starts with a thrilling pre-credits sequence involving cars, bikes, trains and cranes, the story is very character driven. An important piece of technology has been stolen containing names of undercover agents throughout the world; M's job and soon her very life is on the line. M is the Bond Woman in this film - driven, determined and at times ballsy, Judi Dench proves in her biggest role to date of the franchise just why she is the head of Mi6. Being a Mendes film, there are other suitably brilliant performances too from other British names - Ralph Fienes, Ben Whishaw and Naomi Harris, plus an excellent cameo from Albert Finney.

The action, when it comes, is fast and furious, with as much work done for real as possible, something the Bond films should be commended for (and something that shows up when it isn't, case in point: "Die Another Day"). The final third becomes a kind of mixture of Bond stripped of everything but the essentials, "Home Alone" and "Straw Dogs", a weird mix that actually works. When it's all over, you breathe a sigh of relief and, more importantly, you're already impatient for the next instalment.

Though excellent, it's not perfect; despite having the best Bond theme for ages from Adele, the score by Thomas Newman is probably something that will grow with time. You miss the Barry-esque qualities that David Arnold brought to the series. As for the Bond theme itself, it feels slightly underused, though fills you with a guilty pleasure when it does kick in. The film could also arguably have been cut a little shorter, but the time really flew by when watching.

Such a fantastic work and proof of Bond's hobby: "Ressurection".

9/10

Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) lives in Medieval Scotland with her royal parents (Emma Thompson and Billy Connolly). From an early age she has preferred a bow and arrow to polite manners and proper princess conduct. Her mother, however, has other ideas, and arranges a competition for the other clans first borns to win her hand. Mother and daughter are now set against each other, but when Merida tries to use magic to change her fate, the two of them end up having to work together before everything changes...

The Pixar canon has more times then not produced stunning films; not only are the visuals impressive, the story and the script is on the same level. Unlike their rivals at Dreamworks and Fox, they are also very careful to not sell a film just on the stars that are playing the characters. A classic example: how many more people went to see "Kung Fu Panda" because Jack Black was in it? However, there have been occasions where the films just haven't met the high standards set by their greatest works,examples off which include "Wall-E", "Up", "Finding Nemo", "The Incredibles" and, of course, the "Toy Story Trilogy". The lesser films, though occasional blips, stick out like sore thumbs in the otherwise impressive history.

Sadly, "Brave" is in this category. That's not to say it isn't any good; it's a lot better than a lot of films out at the moment and a lot of animation that has been out over the last year. The concept of having a film set entirely in Medieval Scotland is a risky one for certain, particularly when you consider the international market and the US cinemas.

The visuals are stunning, though - Scotland's wild Highland countryside is perfectly captured by the Pixar geniuses; cloth, water and fur are all wonderfully created to the quality we have come to expect. The almost entirely Scottish cast, ably led by Kelly Macdonald as Princess Merida, are very good, if a little uninspiring, particularly when you have Billy Connolly in the credits.

But the story lets the film down. After an impressive opening, the film becomes a kind of lacklustre cousin to the dire Disney film "Brother Bear", one of the films in the early 2000s that put a death knell on the classic Disney giant status. There is also a significant lack of any proper villain in the film. Julie Walters, as a witch, is potentially wasted as an antagonist, which is left to a demon bear who, while scary enough for little people, just doesn't have the same effect as Lotso Bear or Syndrome.

This however is from a grown man's point of view; having watched it in a cinema full of little people who throughly enjoyed it from the gasps and cheers and laughs, one can definitely say that this is the best Pixar kids film the studio has made for some time. But the joy of Pixar's greatest hits is that you can watch them whatever age and find something in them for you. Although the film's visuals are certainly captivating, there is very little else for grown ups here.

7/10

To relaunch a well loved story and do it right is an immense task. To carry the story on and make an even better film in the progress is monumental. To finish that story and do it right is akin to climbing Mount Everest by hopping on one leg.

With "The Dark Knight Trilogy", Christopher Nolan has done all this and more. He has cemented his place in the history books by creating a franchise of intelligent comic book films, adding them to his rostra of intellectual blockbusters. Most importantly, with "The Dark Knight Rises", Nolan has once again made an excellent film to add to an extraordinary canon: "Memento", "Insomnia", "Batman Begins", "The Prestige", "The Dark Knight", "Inception". He is the rightful owner to the title of Greatest Film Maker of the moment; a modern day Scorcese with a traditionally epic view of films such as DeMille would have been proud of.

This is not to say that there aren't problems with the film; the script, though keeping you guessing throughout most of the plot, is let down but not in a traditional sense. More, it is the mythology of the Batman story that hinders it. Such was the problem with the introduction of Harvey Dent in "The Dark Knight"; knowing the story of this tragic character automatically overshadowed him with the spectre of Two Face. Yet Nolan used this to his advantage, making sure the audience weren't treated like idiots because of it, and making the excellent choice to give the Joker no back story whatsoever to counter-balance this. In "The Dark Knight Rises", if you know the mythology, then a few characters appearance will be more obvious than others.

Despite this, once again the story is treated as realistically as if it was a modern-day thriller. Batman as a character is perhaps (at a stretch) one of the most believable comic book heroes; he has no super powers, he is spurred on by his own tragedy, his own darkness. The characters around him, particularly the villains, are influenced and inspired by this darkness; some for good - an aspiring, perhaps slightly naive police officer played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt is excellent support, and Gary Oldman is once again great as Comissioner Gordon.

The ones whose motives are less than desirable are also treated with great care and attention. Tom Hardy's Bane has come under a lot of scrutiny due to the mask the actor wears, but more of his dialogue can be heard clearly than previously reported. Besides, one COULD be cynical and suggest that this is another ploy by Nolan to get you to come and watch the film again just to try and catch every sentence, but that's probably going too far. Hardy gives an unusually restrained performance as this psychopath, his accent unclear as to where he exactly comes from, but a brutal, brooding force who is determined to reach his goal, whatever the cost.

For myself, however, there are three stand out performances; Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, who we KNOW is Catwoman yet is never defined as such, gives a sensual, streetwise kick to the character and should play this kind of character more often, not least because she looks stunning in the costume. Michael Caine as Alfred could be forgiven for simply turning up yet manages to bring quite a few tears to the eye as someone watching the closest person he has to a son potentially head to their grave.

But the film belongs to Batman, and that's thanks to Christian Bale. If he was overshadowed by Heath Ledger's excellent performance in "The Dark Knight", here he takes the film back for the vigilante and rises victoriously. In fact, sadly one of the things the film really lacks is a performance like Ledger, such was the power there. Still, Bale growls and grimaces, contemplates and sacrifices. It takes a good forty minutes for Batman to actually appear - a brave decision by Nolan - and the film really examines what it means to fight for good in a corrupt world by mirroring Batman's fight with Bane's more villainous revolution.

The set pieces are stunning, in particular a memorable scene in a football stadium, and its refreshing that Nolan refuses to go down the 3D road. Hans Zimmer's score pounds away with rough, tribal chants and violence. When it comes to the ending, some would argue that Nolan perhaps goes too far. But the important thing to realise is that he has ended this franchise, he has ended this trilogy. The question now is, for Nolan, where the hell does he go from here? 9/10

Mr. Fox (George Clooney) used to be a highly-skilled food thief, until the day his wife (Meryl Streep) announced she was pregnant. Now he's a newspaper columnist, yet still gets that itch. When he scratches it, the farmers he steals from decide to get their revenge...

As adaptations go, Wes Anderson's take on Roald Dahl's children's classic could be defined as "loose". That doesn't make the film unendurable, but it does mean that this film loses just a hint of the magic that other adaps of Dahl's work have.

The stop-motion puppetry, though at times a little crude, is still deserving of applause; it's different, you don't see this kind of animation any more. The crudeness actually helps to define it as a Wes Anderson film: slightly off-beat, odd ball with a quietly delicious sense of surreal humour. Why hasn't Anderson done animation sooner? In fact, one could argue that with his style of storytelling Anderson is quietly becoming one of the few auteurs that there are in the world today.

An impressive voice cast - recorded out in the real world for most scenes instead of studios - help to bring the story to life, though Anderson's attempts to flesh the characters out sometimes create more of a problem. In particular, Bean the cider farmer (Michael Gambon) is promoted to head villain, whereas in the original novel all three farmers are equal in importance and hate for the fox.

The script finishes the main story of the novel two-thirds into the film, before branching out into a rescue mission for an abandoned fox cub. This actually works quite well, and is helped by good jokes, great animation and a nifty score. The music is lovely in this film throughout, including a great cameo by Jarvis Cocker.

Purists wont like it, and the very young will probably feel alienated by it, something a closer adaptation might have avoided, but on the whole this is a lovely film, a great addition to Anderson's work.

7/10

It's time to play the music, it's time to light the lights...but where are the Muppets? They've gone their separate ways, forgotten and abandoned by the world of showbusiness. And now three fans (Jason Segal, Amy Adams and...Walter...)must work to bring them together again, before the famous Muppet Theatre is torn down by an evil oil baron (Chris Cooper)...

One could almost be tempted to argue that anyone who didn't like at least one second of this film is actually a cold blooded reptile with no heart. Because "The Muppets" will drag you into its world of colour and laughter and, above all, optimism and you will willingly be dragged. Reminiscent of many of the Let's Put On A Show Movie Musicals of the early days of Cinema, but, more importantly, of the wonderful television show that first brought the Muppets to fame and fortune, this new addition to their movie cannon is a wonderful tribute to the philosophies and teachings of Jim Henson.

Certainly Segal, one of the writers of the script, is responsible for this achievement. In lesser hands the script could fall into two dangerous territories: pastiche or corniness. Thankfully, Segal has brilliantly walked the tightrope between the two. More importantly, he and fellow human co-star Amy Adams are reduced to Supporting Artists. They recognise that the real stars of this film are Kermit, Miss Piggy et al, and, a few hilarious winning cameos aside, the humans always stay in the background.

The Muppets do shine so brightly in this film, that, like Krmit's grand entrance, it can be difficult to shield your eyes from them. Sadly not all of them get the screen time they deserve - Gonzo in particular feels slightly underused, although arguably he was the main character in their last big screen outing, the underrated "Muppets From Space" - but then this gives the opportunity to some of the lesser Muppets to enjoy the limelight, in particular the Swedish Chef who gains one of the film's biggest laughs by essentially committing mass Muppet murder.

The music in the film is sublime - in particular the songs by Bret McKenzie, one half of Flight Of The Conchords. "Man Or Muppet" works brilliantly in particular, both touching and hilarious. But they also find time to fit in some classics - "Rainbow Connection" still sounds as good as it did back in the seventies, and the immortal sounds of "Mah Na Mah Na" pulse through the end credits.

There are times, though rare, where the film becomes a little too gooey in terms of sentimentality, and the ending feels rushed - but then, his is a Muppets movie. Everything has to become right in the end, and thank Fozzie, it does.

8/10

Washington: Up and coming politician Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) is beginning talks with a major private security company when he is informed of the death of one of his staff. His emotional response threatens to damage not just the talks but also potentially his career and marriage. Meanwhile, his old friend Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), a reporter for the Washignton Globe, is following the story of a young murdered black boy. It isn't long until the two events are mysteriously linked...

"State Of Play" started life as a brilliant six-part British television drama created by Paul Abbott who, among other projects, was responsible for "Shameless" and "Clocking Off". It was high-edge, fast-paced and well executed, with an amazing cast including John Simm, David Morrissey and an award-winning Bill Nighy.

What's perhaps most interesting about THIS version is how well it transposes to the big screen without you really missing a lot of that. The storyline, though slightly modified, stays as sharp and tight as it did in the series. Washington looks spectacular as a setting for this, arguably the first big-budget political thriller to be set there since "All The President's Men", which this clearly apes in several key moments, most notably the use of the infamous Watergate hotel by the private security company in a sly nod. What the film captures too is the feel of a newspaper at work as well as a newspaper under threat - even when the television series was made the impact of Internet Blogs and such were yet to be fully felt by newspapers. Now there is a real danger for all concerned that soon they will become very much obsolete, fears well portrayed in Helen Mirren's portrayal of the editor.

Sadly, though Mirren is very good, she is not on screen long enough to make the same kind of impact that Nighy was able to make in the original role. Robin Wright, as Collins' wife, is underused too, though this is because the secondary storyline in the series of a relationship between her and Cal is demoted here to a one night stand in the past. Also slightly wasted is Rachel McAdams, playing the role of Della that was played by Kelly MacDonald. Wheras there Della was more of a pro, here she is a newbie, a blogger being introduced to the world of real journalism. Her naivety sometimes grates with the rest of the film.

Much more convincing are Crowe and Affleck; the latter in particular makes up for the dodgy choices he has made film wise in the past and begins his long walk to triumph with a very fine performance. Crowe too shows us the same kind of dogged determination that he did in his brilliant performance in "LA Confidential", though more world-weary. The supporting cast do well, although Jeff Daniels is relegated to a rather 2D politician; in particular Jason Bateman is very impressive as a slimy rich good-for-nothing who ends up involved in the case.

What is great about the film is that, for the most part, it can stand up on its own next to it's television cousin. Sadly, it just comes a little short to the expectations you might have for it based on its relative. Perhaps better to watch if you have never seen the show before.

7/10

Nina (Natalie Portman) has been given her big chance at long last: she has been cast to play the Swan Queen in a new production of "Swan Lake". But already pressure is building: her mother (Barbara Hershey) is trying to control her, a new dancer (Mila Kunis) could be trying to steal her role, and her director (Vincent Cassel) doesn't believe the darker side of her role, the Black Swan to her White...

"Black Swan" is ridiculous, insane and brilliant. It is a return to the brilliant form of director Darren Aronofsky's epic "The Fountain" - a stunning blend of art, psychology and classic film genres, all of which add up to a uniquely stunning film.

That being said, it starts off slowly - very slowly. The titles echoing the most obvious reference, "The Red Shoes", before we start to explore the story of Nina. But this gradual build up works eventually; the tension rises and rises, picking up pace as the film progresses, until the last 45 minutes when, literally, all hell breaks loose, and you are at a loss as to what you are watching is really happening or not.

Natalie Portman is amazing - never away from the camera, her character and the breakdown she suffers captivates the storyline and holds you tight in its grasp. Her performance will surely go down as one of the greatest of her career, defining her as an actress of her own rights, removing her from your memory of her in the sad, wooden Star Wars prequels. It is often incredibly difficult to tell whether or not it is her dancing or a body double.

The ballet scenes are shot wonderfully; though this is certainly a film that is not just about ballet, it still plays a pivotal role, aided by the brilliant, memorable soundtrack of Tchaikovsky's work, and adding real depth to the story and to the characters, as they echo the core themes of the ballet itself: desire, deception, death.

The film is not perfect, sadly; the script is most certainly full of clichés, resembling a high-budget erotic thriller at times more linked with something like "Basic Instinct". Cassell's character in particular is a tried and tested formula of the teacher who lusts after his own students. There is a nice cameo appearance from Winona Ryder as a faded star, and one feels that more could have been made out of her character. Kunis is almost in danger of becoming a very 2D bad girl, but the script saves her as it sweeps the rug from under the audience's feet in a bizarre set of twists.

There are jumps a plenty, a few quite bloody scenes and, of course, the much talked about lesbian scene, which really isn't at all what it says it is on the tin. Be warned - this is not just a film about ballet. Ultimately, this is a film about obsession and madness, a companion piece to Aronofsky's last work, "The Wrestler" - where that was about a tried old man, this is about a scared young girl.

Utterly compelling once it gets properly started, this film will, like all of Aronofsky's work, divide everyone who goes to see it. Brilliant.

8/10

1930s England: Albert, Duke Of York (Colin Firth) has lived with a stutter all his life which makes the sudden intrusion of radio technology into the Royal life a nightmare. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), after trying every conventional therapist she can, seeks the assistance of a recommended Australian, Lyle Logan (Geoffrey Rush), whilst bitter conflicts loom both in Europe and in the Royal Family itself...

Tom Hooper's excellent film takes a subject matter which many can relate to - simply the annoyance of a speech impediment - and gives us what is essentially a high-brow bromance. In it he is aided spectacularly by a brilliant cast, a witty script and lovely cinematography.

Though Firth is gaining all the awards buzz - and rightly so, for his performance as Bertie is a wonderful example of a hard working actor - one should not step away from the importance of Geoffrey Rush in this film. His failed actor is constantly upbeat and funny, so that when he is made the victim of abuse or class snobbery we genuinely feel for him. The partnership that this creates is both charming and rewarding, and you feel that this is a proper friendship developing.

The secondary characters involved with this partnership are also very well played; in particular, Carter brings a quiet wit to her role of the future Queen Mother. Perhaps the least convincing role is that of Guy Pearce's pretentious Edward, though this is more down to the script forming him as the most 2D role in the film.

When the script works well, though, it crackles. The excellent scenes of speech therapy are both interesting and joyful to watch. Viewers should be advised that in one scene there is an awful lot of bad language which is one of the few laugh-out-loud moments of the film, feeling just right in the mixture; it arrives at the correct time.

The whole point of the film - the actual speech of the film's title - is perhaps the most depressing part of it, yet it seems a triumph, for the new King must tell his people that their country is at war again. We don't need to see what happens during the war, or hear the speeches he mad afterwards - for him this was the greatest point of his life, of his reign. He had fought the demons of his life and was now able to stand up and be counted as someone his people could fight the demons overseas for.

The film is always engaging, interesting and, most importantly, has a good heart with many chuckles. Thoroughly recommended.

8/10

1962, America: English professor George (Colin Firth) wakes one morning to the decision that he is going to kill himself at the end of the day; his life seemingly means nothing since the death of his long-term partner Jim (Matthew Goode). He spends the rest of the day taking everything around him in, whilst reliving painful memories of the past...

It is without question that this is the film which Colin Firth SHOULD have won an Oscar for in 2010. His performance virtually carries the movie out of a slightly arty, perhaps pretentious mawkishness and fills it with humanity.

That's not to be so incredibly harsh at the film; it is certainly beautiful to look at, first-time director Tom Ford very aware (perhaps a little too much) of colour and light in his world. In particular, emphasis is placed heavily on clothes. In one scene where George is sitting at a bank when a neighbour's daughter steps forward to speak to him, the camera pans up her body, showing off her blue dress in spectacular fashion.

The script, adapted from a novel by Christopher Isherwood, is perfectly fine up to a point. George is in every single scene, which certainly helps. Lesser characters are not as important as this single man, though there is perhaps a little predictability within some of the scenes, not least the ones featuring Nicholas Hoult as one of George's students. Both endings feel a little predictable too, though you do need to be paying attention to the early stages of the film in order to get it.

The day pans out fairly quickly, which is by no means a bad thing. It would perhaps have been a little more interesting to have seen more of George's teaching of his students. What is refreshing is that, for a film that is about a gay man, there is no struggle for George to be accepted; it is only hinted at about unseen characters - firstly one of his neighbours, secondly the parents of his late partner JIm, who decide to hold the funeral for "family only".

But this is truly Firth's film. Though there is a nice little mini-scene with Julianne Moore as a friend of George's going through her own personal mid-life crisis, her accent superb and flawless, without Firth's quiet desperation the scene would just seem out of place. There is as much humour in his performance as there is sadness. The scene where George finds out about Jim's death in particular stands out as a feat of epic acting skills, a brilliant school for all aspiring actors to watch with unwavering eyes.

Perhaps, ironically, "A Single Man" is just about that - a single man who can carry an entire story, an entire film on his shoulders with seamless ease.

7/10

When actress Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) dumps her long-term boyfriend Peter (Jason Segal), his world falls apart. Stuck in a horrible depression, he decides to go on vacation to Hawaii; unfortunately for him, Sarah also happens to be there with her new boyfriend, world famous rocker Aldous Snow (Russell Brand)...

After the surprisingly charming "Knocked Up" and the surprisingly gross-out "Superbad", "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is a nice mixture of the two for the Judd Apatow crowd. It has a good, solid script, though the tendency for improvisation does become a little too regular at times. It also looks beautiful, a perfect picture postcard for Hawaii.

If you have ever been dumped you can probably sympathise with Peter, played convincingly for the most part by Segal. However, at times the reliance on him being a bit of a cry baby does damage the character a little bit. What's nice, however, despite the initial finger of blame being pointed solely at Kristen Bell's Sarah, is that Peter too was at fault for the problems in the relationship. This makes the situation a lot more 3d and realistic.

The two stars of the show are undoubtedly Mila Kunis as Peter's new love interest, Rachel, and Brand as Snow. While Kunis underplays and conveys the character that she is needed to be, Brand is a force unleashed, though thankfully he isn't let too far off the lead. His Snow is a wonderfully stereotypical and, in the end, monstrously pig-headed rocker; in a sense, Brand is really playing himself. It was always going to be a success.

There is good supporting work from Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd as two dysfunctional hotel employees, though they do become a little annoying after a time. Bill Hader is much more successful as Peter's friend.

Towards the end of the film the story attempts to go into clichés, and though it ends on a really big one, the blow is softened by the previous five minutes; the puppet musical of Dracula is laugh-out-loud funny, entirely reminiscent of the wonderful "Avenue Q" in its brilliance and its audacity.

At times one could argue that the film doesn't really know which audience it's aiming for: frat boy or genuine Rom-com lover? It is however a very decent effort, and should certainly not be forgotten in a hurry. We are waiting to hear about the movie rights to the Dracula Puppet Musical.

7/10

It's 1966, and pirate radio is at its height, broadcasting the most amazing and up-to-date rock 'n' roll there is. On Radio Rock, 18-year old Carl (Tom Sturridge) is arriving to spend time with his godfather, Quentin (Bill Nighy) who runs the ship and the station. Carl's mother (Emma Thompson) thought it would set him on the straight and narrow. Silly Mum...

There is a fundamental problem with "The Boat That Rocked" and that is Richard Curtis. Despite the winning performances from some of his excellent cast and a soundtrack of legends to boot, it just doesn't seem to gel together. The story, perfectly sound at the start of it, seems to drift away and remains unresolved for the most part at the end.

The stereotypes are all here: the loud American (a brilliant Phillip Seymoure Hoffman) and his British counterpart (a wasted Rhys Ifans); the breakfast DJ (an impressive Chris O'Dowd) who, in one of the film's many sub-plots, has his heart broken; the obnoxious prank-puller (Nick Frost, who is pretty unlikable for a lot of this movie); and the stuffy Government Minister intent on destroying Pirate Radio for good (Kenneth Brannagh, another actor not used to his full potential).

The problem really lies in the writing and direction of Curtis. So many times during the film interesting story ideas are set up, some even played through a little bit, but never do we get a satisfying pay-off for any of them. Towards the end of the film it almost becomes clichéd and unbelievable - a love interest of Carl's (Talulah Riley) who plays with his heart quite early on before jumping into bed with Nick Frost's character, returns in the last Act and, hooray, all is forgiven. A rather interesting sub-plot regarding the identity of Carl's father is given all but five minutes before a seemingly loving relationship has been set up.

The final set-piece of the film, though spectacular, sadly betrays the problem with Curtis today. He used to be braver as a writer. In "Four Weddings And A Funeral" (1994), arguably still his best work to date, he had the courage to kill off a crucial character suddenly halfway through the film. When Radio Rock starts to sink due to a massive engine failure, there are perfect chances to kill off several characters and tug at our heartstrings, thereby setting up what could have been a very satisfying end of revenge towards Branagh's character. And yet none of this is evident. The film ends all happy and feel-good, with a David Bowie song that, though excellent, is at least twenty years too late for the film's context.

It's a shame that the film wasn't a little more realistic, or a little braver. Sadly, this seems to be the case with Curtis now. His success with "Notting Hill" (1998) and, to a lesser extent, "Love Actually" (2002) seems to have turned his scriptwriting into golden sugar-coated mulch. The less said about his directing, the better.

A film that is too long and leaves too many loose ends unresolved, that also fails to mention the historical significance in the launch of stations such as Radio 1 in the downfall of pirate radio ships at that time, this boat sadly seems more like a dad dancing than actual rock, saved only by a few winning performances and a great soundtrack.

6/10

Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are thieves of a very special kind. They can journey into a person's dream and steal secrets from their mind whilst their target sleeps. The reversal of this technique, the Inception - whereby you plant an idea so far into a person's psyche they believe it was their own creation - is thought to be near impossible. But when Cobb is offered a chance to finally go home, the task becomes more tempting...

"Inception" proves beyond a doubt that one of the greatest living film directors of our age is Christopher Nolan. Very rarely in his movies does he seem to put a foot wrong, from "Memento" (2000) through one of my personal favourites, "Insomnia" (2002) and the first two films of his Batman trilogy. With "Inception" we also have the proof that, if you give an outstanding filmmaker a seemingly unlimited budget, wonderful things can happen.

You really, really have to pay attention in this film - when you do you are rewarded tenfold; for length, talky psychological conversations about dreams and our own minds are counter-balanced deliciously by brilliantly shot action set-pieces, be they city car chases in the rain or a Bond-esquire snow covered mountain espionage shoot-'em-up. Towards the end of the film these do seem slightly stretched, but it is to Nolan's credit that they are quickly redeemed by intelligent scriptwriting and brilliant performances.

Though he may be the headline act, DiCaprio is nowhere without his crew. He plays the emotionally compromised Cobb wonderfully, his own sanity and the safety of his team endangered by his obsession with his dead wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who is arguably the villain of the piece. But at times his performance seems workmanlike - these are the kinds of roles we know he can play and play them well. It's time perhaps to see something more dangerous, the DiCaprio we witness in "Blood Diamond" (2006) for example.

Thankfully, this truly seems a team effort, for the different members of his team are given plenty to do. As well as Gordon-Levitt's no-nonsense right hand man, there's a brilliant scene-stealing performance from Tom Hardy, gaining a lot of laughs as Eames the "forger". Ellen Page is given another satisfying role for her talents, though perhaps stands out a little more than the others due to her mainly indie credentials. Time will tell to see if these are the type of films she should be performing in.

The special effects and stunt work are extraordinary. One scene in particular, where Gordon-Levitt has to navigate around a hotel corridor floating in mid-air, is believably achieved as well as the weightless scenes in "Apollo 13" (1995) for example. The music, a thundering score by Hans Zimmer, works well with the images, as does a surprising inclusion of a Edith Piaf classic.

You aren't really aware of how much time you've spent watching this film until right near the end, during the aforementioned moments where you half-wonder if the film is ever going to reach a conclusion at all. This is something of a trend of Nolan's films - brilliant as they are, they never quite seem to know when to end exactly. When "Inception" does finish, however, it comes with a delicious moment of teasing, leaving the audience gasping, laughing or expelling with frustration, and more than making up for this slight blip.

"Inception" is probably one of the best films you will see this summer. What makes it even more amazing is that, once more, Nolan has delivered an intelligent blockbuster to cinema screens, just as he did with "The Dark Knight" (2008). His next film is reported to be the final part of his Batman trilogy; though to be perfectly honest, it could just as well be a small low-budget indie rom-com - this reviewer would still look forward to it with immense anticipation. Great stuff.

8/10

The problem with three-quals, in particular the more recent three-quals, is that they usually run out of steam halfway through Part 2. One can also understand how an audience could grow to be ever so slightly cynical, that studios make these films for the sake of big bucks alone.

That has never been a criticism one can throw at Pixar. Throughout their history they have kept on redefining what it is to be a truly fantastic movie for every single person, save for one or two slight hiccoughs along the way ("Cars" in particular). The fact that they were able to not only pull off a worthy sequel to "Toy Story" back in 2000 but to also make it an infinitely more superior film to its predecessor, in a way already fills you with confidence that they know what they're doing. This isn't going to be one of the Shrek films. This is going to have a message and, more importantly, a heart.

Though the beginning is perhaps slightly hampered by a rather lacklustre pre-film short, you're very quickly thrown back into the world of Woody, Buzz and co as if it were only yesterday. A fantastic voyage into the imagination of young Andy develops into a sweet little montage, the familiar strains of Randy Newman's "You've Got A Friend In Me" backing it. But then the music fades away, and so does the warmth. We're thrown into the present day - for the toys, it's a time of uncertainty and loneliness, stuffed away in a toy chest in the teenage Andy's room, anxious about their future with his impending journey to college.

This is truly where the film sweeps the rug from under your feet. It proves to be a somewhat different film than anyone really expects. There are some immensely dark moments peppered throughout, be they provided by the sense of loss and fear of being forgotten or the rather scary baby doll who patrols the floors of the Day Care Centre that the toys mistakenly end up in. A word of warning here; this is NOT a film for the very young. If the baby doesn't freak you out, the security cymbal-playing monkey almost certainly will.

The script is excellent, and the darkness is broken up by moments of great light and laugh-out-loud humour, most of which is provided by the hilarious John Ratzenberger as Hamm. Two other stand out parts include a jailbreak where Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles) becomes an altogether different vegetable, and a reset button on Buzz that gives director Lee Unkrich the chance to make this film probably the first animated film to ever have subtitles.

New characters that are introduced don't feel crowded, the handy plot device of Andy's growing up meaning several familiar faces don't appear in this movie. Barbie finally gets her Ken (a very funny Michael Keaton), and the main antagonist, a purple bear who is wonderfully played by Ned Beatty, helps to add to the film's sense of melancholy. Despite these new characters, and the fact that technology has moved on a lot in ten years, our old toys still look and sound the same, and kudos to Tom Hanks and Tim Allen for taking the film as seriously as any other dramatic part, the only way it could possibly work.

The final third of the film is full of twists and turns, and several moments that had me choking up and blubbering like a baby. You don't feel cheated at all - you really get a sense that this is the last part of a fantastic three-qual. One certainly hopes so, though one cannot help but be a little nervous as to what the Disney executives could do in Direct-To-DVD mode when all they see is big dollar signs. This is the best ending anyone could ever give the toys. They are redeemed and, in a way, reborn.

Strange short aside, and even though it's perhaps not a patch on Number 2 (nor on "Wall-E" or "Up"), this is certainly a brilliant film, and is guaranteed to win at least one Oscar next year.

8/10

In the growing popularity of post-Armageddon films to come from Hollywood, there has to be a gimmick, a twist to the tale to make another version seem more original. In the case of "The Book Of Eli", this gimmick is certainly a clever, if slightly predictable one. Sadly the rest of the film, save for one or two moments of potential brilliance, does not live up to the expectations that you may have after watching the trailer or seeing the cast list.

Eli (Denzel Washington) walks the land of ruined America, armed only with a very large machete and a backpack containing, among other things, the only surviving copy of the King James Bible. He is heading west; a voice has told him he will find the place for the book there. Along the dangerous path, he walks through a town ruled by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a cruel dictator type who, like Eli, knows of the power of the words in his book and wants then for himself...

There's no denying the anticipation one feels about a film starring Washington and Oldman, two heavyweight actors - sadly, it feels for a lot of the time that they're sleepwalking the parts, that this is just another day job for them. Substantially better is Mila Kunis in the role of Solara, the young girl who joins Eli on his journey. Having only heard Kunis in "Family Guy" as the put-upon Meg, and seen her in "That 70s Show", it is probably going a little too far to describe her performance as a revelation (no pun intended), but it is still more impressive than the two leading men. The film is also enlightened by brief but hilariously strange cameos from Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour as two deranged survivors living on a farmhouse packed to the brim with automatic weapons.

When the action happens it is fast but far between. The scenes are played out well, with plenty of gunfire and explosions and even in a couple of cases decapitations to keep an action buff happy. But the scenes are sandwiched in to a script that relies heavily on deep, meaningful, and often somewhat preachy dialogue about the nature of the Bible and words. Though there are a couple of rather excellent twists towards the end, it is marred by a rather strange final ending which seems to want to evoke the final scenes of the excellent Aronofsky film "The Fountain" (2006), but fail sadly.

There will probably be many people who go to see this film and are surprised at just how religious it actually is. Perhaps that was not the true intention of the film's directors, the Hughes brothers, whose last film was (ironically) the adaptation of the graphic novel "From Hell" (2001); perhaps what they are trying to do is to look at what we look to for hope when there seems to be absolutely none left, and how powerful inspirational words can be. Unfortuatley, their reliance on the Bible squashes these intentions, and I think a lot of people will leave the film very disappointed.

6/10

There are perhaps few films in which the basic synopsis of the script can be summed up in the title. One thinks of lesser fare than this, certainly ("Zack And Miri Make A Porno", for example) or rather interesting Spanish translations of titles (classic "Family Guy" joke here, top prize for whoever gets the reference first). With this film, the title does just that - it is about the assassination of the notorious Western criminal by one of his associates, Robert Ford, who ends up being defamed in the history books as a coward, and the time line leading up to the aforementioned event. Simple.

But not quite, for, as with most great films, there is always something more, another message that the film is trying to say. And this is a great film. A really great film.

Visually, it's stunning. The bleak Western landscape perfectly captures the mood of the story, with slight out of focus shots beautifully helping to add to the unhinged portrayal of the anti-hero James by Brad Pitt. This is one of those films where you suddenly remember that Pitt, the second half of 'Brangelina', can act occasionally. It's a fantastic performance, showing James as an out of control beast, but also with some very quiet melancholic foreboding, as if he knows he's living on borrowed time. It's matched, and perhaps even bettered, by a superb performance by Casey Affleck as Ford; Affleck is a dreamer, a man refusing to grow up, whose fantasies of riding with the James gang and being the criminal's best buddy seem to have corrupted his naive innocence. When the cold-blooded reality sinks in of the true nature of Jesse's work and Jesse's character, it becomes unbearable.

There are other terrific performances in the film, not least from Sam Rockwell as Ford's older brother, whose own gullibility is soon swallowed up by fear, and a short but mesmerising turn from Garret Dillahunt as Ed Miller, whose paranoia costs him his life and lights the fuse for James' own fragile sense of trust to be shattered.

The script is well paced, exploring the story like a history documentary with Hugh Ross' calm narration. There's no point in hiding the ending - the title's given it away already. Instead, the script is full of explanations, showing why Ford did what he did, and leaving it up to us to determine whether or not it was a good thing and whether or not he really was a 'coward', as suggested in the ballad sung by one of the film's co-composers, Nick Cave. He and Warren Ellis do a fine job with the score, leaving it subtle and calm, and adding to the quiet life out in the wilderness.

Overall, the film is about fame and the hunger for fame. James is famous for his notoriety, a man who, like the characters played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in "Natural Born Killers", becomes famous for all the wrong reasons. Ford wants the same kind of fame, but when he gets it in the aftermath of his role in James' death, he finds it stifling and unsatisfying, and over far too quickly; the fame of a coward does not last as long as the fame of a 'hero'. And so the film speaks volumes for us today, in this age where we've lived through the last decade as the Decade of 15 Minutes, the decade where anyone and everyone can be famous for as long as Ford was, and can still find it as he does.

A fantastic film.

8/10

If you're looking for an intelligent, sharp, edgy thriller about big corporations, law firms and the little people, then this is the film for you. If that's not your cup of tea...well, then, obviously...yeah.

Geroge Clooney is the title character, a "fixer" or "janitor", hired to clean up the mess when one of the most infamous lawyers around (Tom Wilkinson) goes off his medication and puts an important law suit into jeopardy. At first Clayton thinks the same as anyone else: that his friend and mentor is just feeling the after-effects of his condition. But when the man later turns up dead in slightly suspicious circumstances, Clayton realises there's a lot more to the case then meets the eye...

At first the plot moved a little too quick for me. You've got to give the film your entire concentration, otherwise you'll be lost very easily in all the fast-talking dialogue. However, I soon got back on track and throughly enjoyed the remainder of the film. Clooney is in his usual fine form, a perfect straight man to the wonderful wild acting of Wilkinson and the nervous twitching of Tilda Swinton's character, who is more involved in everything then she would like to be. However, one cannot help feeling that we do not see enough of her character. And there is a very good hangdog performance by the late great Sydney Pollock, who was also one of the producers on the film.

The script is tight as the plot thickens throughout, throwing a mini-twist that, though perhaps slightly predictable, does not make it any less satisfying. Overall, a perfectly fine intelligent picture, though you do need to give it your full attention to give it credit.

7/10

Jess Aarons (Josh Hutcherson), an aspiring artist who is bullied at school and feels left out at home, meets and befriends new girl Leslie Burke (AnnaSophia Robb), who has a vivid imagination and is also bullied. The two of them escape into a world they create in the forest by their home, the mythical land of Terabithia; and through their journey they discover the strength they have together to fight life's daily battles, before life throws up the ultimate challenge...

If anything, this film is proof to us all that you should never judge a film by its cover, or indeed its trailer; the trailer for this film suggested a wild, Narnia-esquire adventure with great CGI visuals, mythical creatures and an ancient quest and so forth and so forth.

The truth is that the film is very different. There are CGI moments of breathtaking beauty, as the two children create Terabithia in their imagination from the simple elements of the forest around them, which cleverly mirror the challenges they are facing in their everyday lives; the giant troll for example turns out to have a face similar to the eighth-grade girl who bullies them both. This first two-thirds of the film is a wonderful celebration of how imagination can still form an escapism for children, and no doubt many children will have sympathised with both this and the idea of feeling like an outsider, not just at school but at home, as Josh finds with his family of four sisters, busy mother and gruff dad (a rather similar performance from Robert Patrick to his role in "Walk The Line").

But in the last third of the film the whole tone changes with a tragic and dramatic twist that, if you haven't read the book before, will stun you. It shows how reality and the sometime unfairness of real life can shatter even the happiest moments of imagination. If you're quick to tear up at sentimentality then be prepared with tissues, and it's possible that some children will have to pause the DVD because it's too upsetting for them, so that they don't quite understand. It can't explain why life can be so cruel sometimes, but it can certainly be a useful aid for a parent or a teacher who is trying to help a child start to find answers.

Some brilliant performances from Hutcherson and Robb, as well as Bailee Madison as Jess' little sister. Zooey Deschenal seems slightly wasted in her small role as the music teacher who Jess obviously has his first crush on, but apart from that the cast perform well together. All in all this was a much more enjoyable film than one would first expect it to be.

8/10

Wall-E is a helpful trash bot, one out of many who are assigned to clean up Planet Earth in the future when the human population has made too much mess and had to evacuate. Now he is the only robot left on the planet, and his loneliness has forced him to create a personality of his own. Then a mysterious spaceship arrives and with it a sleek vision named Eve...

Thank god Pixar have got back on track. After the surprise dullness of "Cars" and the almost-good-but-not-quite-there of "Ratatouille", everything was riding on "Wall-E" if you were a Pixar fan, and there was no disappointment at all. This is probably one of the most beautiful looking, touching films that was released throughout 2008, and definitely the best looking Pixar film of the bunch.

The answer to this is Andrew Stanton, the genius behind that other beautiful looking film, "Finding Nemo". Stanton understands the importance of colour, of spectacle, whilst never giving up the fundamental idea of story. Unlike "Nemo" and its multi-cast of hundreds, for the first forty minutes you only ever see three characters - Wall-E, Eve and a cockroach. With every minute of this opener the film is in danger of becoming tedious due to this, and yet wonderfully, absurdly, it never gets boring for a minute.

Now this is obviously my opinion, a man who sat through "The Age Of Innocence" and thought it wasn't too bad. Unlike most of Pixar's films this is not one for the very young - not because its scary or not suitable, far from it, but because they WILL get bored easily throughout the beginning. When we journey off of Earth, out into space and finally meet some humans (and finally hear some dialogue), then interest may be sparked again - for everyone else its a joyous experience.

This film also forever portrays the difference between Pixar films and other computer animated works. The latter always, always, ALWAYS rely on top name celebrity voices to sell their films, no matter how good the films are, you will always hear in the trailer who is in it. Pixar never do this - even with "Cars" where Owen Wilson was in it there was still no mention of his name. The reason? Pixar don't need to pull this trick, especially when they're making films of THIS calibre. There are no famous voices in "Wall-E", save for an almost unrecognisable Sigourney Weaver who has a few lines as a computer and Pixar's good luck charm John Ratzenberger.

This is a very brave film to pull off and only Pixar (with maybe the exception of Aardman Animations) could do it and do it as brilliantly. There is so much sentiment in the story, with the romance that develops between the two robots so sweet and believable, more so than any human romance story I've seen since "When Harry Met Sally". Pixar are right back on top, where they deserve to be. Thank goodness - for a moment I was getting worried.

8/10

Almost immediately after the final scenes of "Casino Royale" James Bond 007 (Daniel Craig) brings the shadowy Mr White (Jesper Christensen) to a secret location to be interrogated by M (Judi Dench). This triggers a global hunt for the members of a secret organisation, QUANTUM, and a key player, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). But Bond's mission is compromised by his own impulse for revenge, feelings which are mirrored by a young woman he encounters with Greene, Camile (Olga Kurylenko)...

Credit where credit's due: "Quantum Of Solace" starts fast and furiously and for the most part never lets up. With a typical Bondian car chase through the mountain roads of Italy leading into one of perhaps the most controversial Bond themes with its quick brass section, and into a short dialogue scene which leads into a chase across rooftops into another dialogue scene which leads into another fistfight which leads into another dialogue scene...you get the picture.

The first direct sequel to a Bond film, "Quantum Of Solace" does suffer slightly as I don't believe you can just watch it as a stand alone film - you definitely need to have seen "Casino Royale" to understand what the heck's going on sometimes. The dialogue is, for the majority of the film, as fast and furious as the action scenes. You have to really pay attention to what everyone's saying or else you're left five minutes previously and still wondering why that guy was killed and who these people are, etc. This is why I watched it twice - and as a result I enjoyed it more the second time of watching as I understood more about what was going on.

Usually enjoying a film more the second time you watch it means that it's a very good film. But "Quantum Of Solace" seems to have become a real Marmite film - you're either gonna love it or you're gonna hate it. No point in laying the blame on Daniel Craig's shoulders. The best Bond since Connery and before Brosnan shattered his own legacy with the appalling "Die Another Day", Craig's Bond takes the character to dark new places only hinted at by Dalton's brave but doomed two attempts. Showing little remorse at killing possible, helpful leads but softening when a friend is lying dying in his arms or a young woman mirrors his own sense of loss and anger at the death of loved one - truly, this is as close to Fleming's Bond that the screen incarnation will ever dare to get.

The rest of the cast perform very well, in particular (and perhaps brilliantly) there is a tour de force performance by Judi Dench, whose M has evolved over the six films she has appeared in to be so much more than Bond's commander; infuriatingly she gets most of the film's best lines. Kudos to to Olga Kurylenko, whose Camille is possibly the most interesting Bond girl we've had in a while; however there is perhaps a danger that her character will be seen in later years as possibly more one-dimensional, especially when placing her next to Eva Green's superior Vesper from "Casino Royale". Mathieu Almaric does as well as he can in the villain role - though the diabolical, take-over-the-world plot that often accompanies the villains takes a large side-step for Bond's own personal mission of vengeance. Now that this storyline appears to be over, perhaps these will come back into the forefront.

The film takes an interesting direction towards the final few scenes, however; it quietens, it slows. This is a Bond who has (aparently) come full circle, come to wake up to the reality of what he's doing, how he's living. This is no doubt thanks largely to the interesting choice of director, Marc Foster, whose work I have enjoyed very much but never really pictured him as a Bond director. Still he shows great skill in the action scenes and is very art-house-lite on the dialogue scenes.

You can't call this film a return to form - thats what "Casino Royale" was. Sadly, though, you can't really call this film a worthy continuation of the form. It is let down by its pace. Characters are wasted as a result, in particular Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields, who is probably the most stereotypical Bond character in the whole film, and thats saying a lot. It is also let down by its relationship with "Casino Royale" - the ghost of Vesper haunts it mercilessly. But it's not as bad as some people suggest. It's a worthy addition to Craig's legacy, and hopefully will only be a slight dud when looked back in years to come, and not a great clunker as most of the Moore films seem to be. Good effort - just not great.

7/10

Mo (Brendan Fraser) and his twelve year old daughter Meggie (Eliza Bennett) spend their days travelling around Europe for Mo's job as a "book doctor". But a dark secret of Mo's is revealed when they run into a strange fire juggler named Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) and are captured by the villainous Capricorn (Andy Serkis), both of whom are after Mo's secret for completely different reasons. For Mo is a silvertongue, a man who can bring books to life, simple by reading out loud from them...

In a winter season devoid of Mr Potter, especially when we were PROMISED Mr Potter, a film such as "Inkheart" is much needed. It ticks all the right boxes: magic - check, special effects - check, based on a famous series of books - check, almost entirely British cast - check. It also doesn't have a lot of competition, its only real opponent in the holiday season being probably the much hooted "Twilight", which to my knowledge has one significant drawback: its a teen romance, and the only people who will want to go and see it in the cinema will be teenage (or tweenage) girls and their friends/unwilling boyfriends/mums. "Inkheart", like the films of H Potter, is a film for all the family.

So why doesn't it work as well as it should? Firstly the plot has an unfortunate couple of gaping holes within it, though the fact that this is based on the first book of a trilogy does suggest that many questions are meant to be left unanswered. This has become an increasing trend within these types of films; all desperate to start a franchise of their own, all falling miserably at the first hurdle. One example currently is "The Golden Compass", the first in the proposed Nothern Lights trilogy, which unfortunately seems to have stalled. This therefore leaves certain questions hanging in the open, unanswerable for the people who choose not to read the books as perhaps they find them too challenging or just can't be bothered. If anything, "Inkheart" has forced me to buy the original book by Cornelia Funke, though as a Christmas present for my sister, as I think she'll enjoy it more than I did.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy this film: far from it. There are some great ideas and moments in the film, along with some brilliant performances - Bettany's interesting "selfish" character, Eliza Bennett doing very well in her first feature that I've seen her in, and it's always good to see Andy Serkis. There's just not enough of him, and therefore not enough threat in the film. Even when the dreaded "Shawdow" arrives it feels almost like a special effect bonanza without any substance: a wasted opportunity. More could also be made with the special power that Mo has, as evidenced in the first escape attempt that is made from Capricorn's castle by the protagonists. For a film thats supposed to be about how brilliant books are, there's not a lot of them in there.

Thee is also sadly a tremendous waste of other actors in this film. Helen Mirren suffers from bad dialogue, though you feel like her great aunt Elinor could be a wonderful battle axe given better lines to say. Jim Boradbent's author is a rather ambiguous character too, all to ready and willing to believe the magnificent events that take place within the second half of the film. As for Brendan Fraser, though he does a commendable job in some of the father/daughter scenes, there is still something about some of his performance that cries "George Of The Jungle".

Still, that being said, this is our replacement for the Boy Wizzard this holiday season and, though not a film that would ever stand a chance in a duelling match with that franchise, it stands its ground remarkably well.

6/10

Four men living in Australia go for a fishing trip in the mountains near their home town of Jindabyne. When they discover a young girl's mutilated body floating in the river they are faced with a moral dilemma that continues to haunt and affect them long after they return home to their respective partners...

The first thing to say about this film is that it is slow. It's not that long, but it is slow. Nothing seems rushed at all in the telling and unfolding of the story. It feels rather like the river that the four men start fishing in, in that it trickles rather than races like the threatening rapids one of them (Gabriel Byrne) mentions lie beyond their camping spot.

The film starts with the murderer waiting for his victim, though we never actually see the disgusting act take place - just the dumping of her body by him. He continues to float around the film in brief interludes, sometimes threatening, others just observing, reflecting the way in which we first meet him. What surprised me most was that he escapes justice; the film ends back where we started.

Instead the real crime, apparently, is what happens when the body is discovered. For a brief moment I was caught up with the four guys, enjoying their success at catching the big fish they've always wanted to catch in this mountain river, pushing the dead body away from the scene. Yet she quickly returns, and with her brings a new feeling of uneasy guilt to the proceedings. The town must face up to what the boys were doing - enjoying themselves instead of calling the police instantly.

There are clumsy moments in the film from here on in. In my opinion the race card (the girl has Aboriginal roots) is dealt, in comparison to the rest of the film, too quickly and swept aside too easily from the question of why the men do what they do. Instead it focuses more on the after effects of these actions, in particular on the character of Claire played by Laura Linney, rather than a study of these four men. It is a shame that her character and Byrne's, her husband, are used so much; it reduces one of the four men into a rather two-dimensional surfer dude, and more or less silences the other two. Any other problems faced by the other respective partners, though introduced, rarely get any more screen time.

It is perhaps also a shame that, though two arguably very brilliant actors, Linney and Byrne were needed at all. Though Byrne's presence in Australia is explained by his Irish mother who also lives there, Linney's origins remain a mystery She is obviously American, but how did she end up in Austrailia? Would the film have benefited more from casting two Australian actors in these parts, or was this casting just to try and get international audiences? Perhaps.

On the whole this was a thoughtful film, though it could perhaps have been a little clearer in what it was actually trying to say. Maybe that was the point; you have to make up your own mind as to who is truly guilty and who is not.

7/10

Sometimes you just need a fun, relaxing, uncomplicated romantic comedy to unwind in front of and forget your troubles. This film is a good example of one of those. Sadly, that's all it is. A promising start with some hilarious over the top trailers for past films that Gwen (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and Eddie (John Cusack) made together before their very public breakup is let down by the rather unfortunate failure of Crystal in his script to capitalise on the potential for a great satire on Hollywood. Instead we just get the same thing we've seen over and over again in these types of movies: the bloodthirsty studio executive (Stanley Tucci), the tiring foreign stereotype (Hank Azaria) and then the script's occasional resorts to crude, toilet humour.

However, the film is saved by the brilliant performances of virtually everybody, including Julia Roberts as Kiki, Gwen's put-upon sister; a blink and you'll miss him Alan Arkin as a healing guru; and Christopher Walken who, though on screen for only five minutes, steals the film with his crazed film director genius, an obvious rip-off of someone like Altman or Bergman. The romance is cute, and the story, though slightly predictable, does still have a couple of intelligent twists that promise something much more meaty could have been achieved. Sady, all we're left with is a more than satisfactory romantic comedy. Nice try, though.

7/10

Tim Burton has, despite his frequent insistence on his dislike for the genre, always been a director of musicals. You only need to look at the animated films of "Corpse Bride" or "The Nightmare Before Christmas" to see his unique take on show stopping numbers, and in his other films there are often moments of musical tomfoolery, such as in "Charlie And The Chocolate Factory" or "Mars Attacks!" The difference between these films and something like, say "The Sound Of Music" is pretty obvious. Burton is a dark, Gothic auteur whose own brand of black comedy and love of ghoulish storytelling is now legendary in its own right.

So "Sweeney Todd" was perfect for him. In fact there is no other living film director who comes to mind who would have been as perfect a director of the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's perhaps most celebrated musical (though its more of a light opera than anything else - not in its subject matter, but in the amount of dialogue and songs). The actual show just oozes Burton in its horror story qualities, and you have the chance to bring more gore to the proceedings being much more up close and personal than in the theatre. Yet Buron never goes OTT with this gore, unlike some very unfortunate film franchises that are circulating today. It is INTENTIONAL gore, and though it may shock you when you first experience it (it comes in rather late into the movie) you quickly get over the surprise and begin to enjoy it in a rather unnerving way.

There are other reasons for this other than Burton's handling. Depp and Bonham Carter are brilliant in their roles. Neither are strong singers, yet they perform their songs with such intensity it would be hard to believe they have not performed this on the stage themselves. Depp has added another memorable character to his vastly growing CV of kooks, and Bonham Carter's credibility has once again shot up above the Merchant Ivory costume dramas she was first discovered in. The supporting cast work very well too, though the love story between Todd's daughter and his sailor friend does suffer from the necessity of cutting for time.

It helps that the music is extraordinary too. Though Sondheim has not been as successful in the UK as he has been in the States, its incredibly difficult to grasp just why this show was not more popular over here. The songs segue beautifully into each other , always with a dark undertone lurking somewhere, even in the lighter pieces (and there are one or two). A new production will no doubt be planned in the near future - and if not, why not?

Burton has returned back to his roots after a few films that, though brilliant, were very family orientated. This is a film for grown ups, a fable for grown ups, and Burton does very well indeed with these fables.

8/10