Reviews

First off, many reviews assume that this film is a 'remake' or 'reboot' of the 1996 film by Danny DeVito. It isn't. Matilda is a children's book book written by the beloved British author Roald Dahl, and although the DeVito adaptation had its merits it Americanised and sanitised the original source material.

Like much of Dahl's work, Matilda the novel has dark themes, child abuse through a childhood lens, and messages on how to navigate a world full of injustice and abhorrence.

In 2010 the book was brought to the stage through the writing of British playwright Dennis Kelly, British / Australian multi-talent Tim Minchin, and the British director Matthew Warchus, winning 7 Oliviers including Best New Musical and Best Director (Warchus). It's still going strong 12 years later.

This film is the screen adaptation of the stage musical by the same trio (Kelly, Minchin, and Warchus).

So if you've seen the stage musical you know pretty much what to expect. The music is the same (although a couple of numbers have been dropped) as is the interpretation of the Roald Dahl story. You'll never recreate the experience of seeing these performances live and in person, but the energy has been retained and there are some notable moments (like 'Quite' for example) where the emotional impact is elevated by on-screen visuals. This is the best and most faithful stage to screen adaptation I have ever seen.

If you haven't seen the stage musical or ever read any of Dahl's work then know that this adaptation does not sugar-coat or sanitise the child cruelty depicted in his work. At school Dahl was subjected to child abuse and ritual punishment (from 'Boy: Tales of Childhood': "All through my school life I was appalled by the fact that masters and senior boys were allowed literally to wound other boys, and sometimes quite severely... I couldn't get over it. I never have got over it.") and much of his work contains such themes. The reason Dahl's work endures is because children know there is injustice and darkness in the world, they see it around them all the time, they experience it all the time, but the worlds they see portrayed on screens and in other children's books rarely reflect that. How age appropriate is this film? Well that will largely depend on the social and emotional maturity of your child but I'd say the sweet spot is around 8-11, however anyone of any age could watch.

As both a screen adaptation of the musical and as a work of art in its own right this film scores top marks. The music, choreography, cinematography, and direction are all excellently executed. The talent on show is something any fan of performing arts will applaud but the stand out performances of Alisha Weir (as a sweet yet disagreeable Matilda) and Emma Thompson (as a terrifying Agatha Trunchbull) steal the show. Lashana Lynch (Miss Honey) for the most part is incredible (her rendition of 'My House' managed to shed a tear from my ageing face), and Stephen Graham (Mr. Wormwood) once again proves that he is one of the most versatile and talented actors alive today.

For me, a father of a 10 year old girl who has endured some adversity at primary school this year, this film is an emotional tour de force. From the opening number to the closing credits I was mesmerised. I laughed. I cried. I came out of the cinema with emotional knots and haven't stopped thinking about it since. As a family we have already been to see it a second time and are due for a third viewing on New Years Eve. My wife loved it, my 13 year old son enjoyed it and has even expressed an interest in joining us on our next trip. And as for my daughter, well we do our best to furnish her with the tools needed to navigate an unjust world but this film, more than any other, has helped her to embrace some true life lessons: "Sometimes you have to be a little bit naughty...".

When Juno (Ellen Page) discovers she is pregnant at 16 she embarks on a life-affirming journey in which she discovers much about the reality of relationships and, of course, parenthood. After discovering perspective adoptive parents willing to raise her baby as their own, Juno tries to maintain a semblance of normalcy during the nine months of her pregnancy in the hope that once the baby is born life can continue as if nothing had happened.

This film is all about Ellen Page and her wonderful portrayal of the slightly twisted social misfit, Juno. Her performance is sublime and despite her older looks she plays the sixteen year old brilliantly. She delivers the intelligent script naturally and with razor sharp wit. Without her this film would have had half the impact it did.

This doesn't take anything away from Diablo Cody who has written a superb social commentary which is genuinely funny. This is an intelligent comedy and definitely for the more mature audiences out there, it never resorts to low-brow humour and is never crass, there are no cheep laughs, no gratuitous nudity and no high school clichés. The humour is observational and many laughs stem from the dialogue, more importantly the humour feels natural, never does it feel forced or contrived. This is genius writing.

All of the support performances are equally superb. Michael Cera (Paulie) is excellent as the awkward teenage father who is not only dealing with the pregnancy but is suffering all the more because of his unrequited love for Juno. Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman are perfect as the adoptive parents struggling with a marriage on the brink of falling apart and Leah, the vastly more popular friend of Juno's, is played effortlessly by Olivia Thirlby.

There is very little to dislike about this film, you can't help but get swept away by Juno herself and the vast array of colourful and rich characters that encircle her. It's nice to have an intelligent and thought-provoking teenage comedy once in a while, especially in the sea of American Pie and American Pie wannabes. Highly recommended.

Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson) is a lazy U.S Army soldier who due to his lack of family and friends and his distinct averageness is selected to participate in an experiment to cryogenically freeze a human subject for one year. The military have also selected a prostitute – Rita, played by Maya Rudolph – for the experiment and together with Joe they are left locked away within their tubes for one year. Unfortunately for them they are forgotten and awaken 500 years later in a world populated and run by idiots.

On their adventures to hopefully locate a time machine that can return them home Joe and Rita encounter a vast array of characters including a doctor, lawyer and the President of the United States – all are obsessed with money, sex and fame and all blindly follow the call of large corporate advertising to the detriment of their own free will (the irony is apparent and in many ways this film cuts frighteningly close to the bone), consequently the world is in chaos and after discovering that Joe is in fact the smartest human on the planet he is ordered by the President to fix everything in one week.

This film could have been so very bad but thanks to some brilliant dead-pan delivery from Luke Wilson and some equally dry wit from Maya Rudolph the film manages to stay together throughout.

Idiocracy is at times genuinely funny and more often then not, amusing. However these gems are often mired by moments of base humour that are both unfunny and unwelcome. Thankfully they never seem to drag the film low enough to spoil what is otherwise a very fun movie with great characters, set pieces and modern cultural references (the slander of giants like Starbucks and Costco not only provide avid amusement but also contain a sense of (albeit far fetched) realism).

This isn't a masterpiece and don't expect any real thought-provoking satire but I don't think Mike Judge wanted it to be either. At its heart it is just a fun idea executed and performed in a fun way. In fact that one word is perfect for Idiocracy: fun. Brilliant fun.

The Prestige is a tale of bitter revenge between two rival magicians during the end of the 19th century. The film is set largely in a bleak London which helps to portray the true grubby nature of the obsessions that begin to envelop the two young magicians played magnificently by Hugh Jackman (Angier) and Christian Bale (Borden).

The story is truly engrossing; the nature of the magician and the compulsion of Angier and Borden to constantly outdo the other provide the perfect ammunition to twist and weave the plot without slipping into the realms of the implausible. Illusion is the order of the day and the constant frustration of both Angier and Borden as they try to discover the truths behind (and sabotage) each other's tricks is palpable.

Michael Caine as Cutter – Angier's friend and career aide – puts in a stellar performance as do Rebecca Hall (Julia) and Scarlett Johansson (Olivia) as the two love interests (although their screen-time is minimal). David Bowie (Tesla) is fantastic as the scientist visited by Angier in the hope of discovering and besting Borden's greatest trick: the transporting man. It is this particular trick that is the focal point of a cinematic climax that will be remembered (and applauded) for a long time.

The last time a film left my head spinning as much as this was after watching The Shawshank Redemption for the first time, and I cannot give any higher praise then that.

Christopher Nolan does an excellent job of enlightening us to the ins and outs of the magician's industry at the turn of the century (where stage entertainment was a massive money-spinner) whilst still leaving an element of wonder and mysticism. The portrayal of these two men as solely committed to their magic (at the expense of all else) is brilliantly conceived. The film is shot beautifully and the direction is spot-on considering the difficult era being portrayed.

There is only one slight word of caution: the film is cut very tightly and jumps from the perspective of both Angier and Borden through two time threads, often too swiftly. This isn't a criticism as such, merely a warning to those that don't like non-linear story telling as it could become confusing.

Overall a brilliant piece of work that will please and delight almost any audience.

I enjoy vampire films and the first thing that struck me about this particular telling was how beautifully shot it is. This is in part thanks to the wonderful location: a small town in Alaska heralded as the northern most town in America. The film begins on the eve of the last day of sunshine before a month of natural darkness descends on the small town. Following an annual mass-exodus the town population is only a fraction of its pre- and post-darkness size and those that have chosen to stay behind (including a skeleton sheriff crew of two - Josh Hartnett and Manu Bennett) are effectively cut off from the rest of civilisation until the airport and roads reopen when the sun returns.

The suspense at this point is poised beautifully and David Slade does a wonderful job of setting up the anticipation of what is to come, which is effectively a free meal for the pack of vampires that descend on the town as darkness falls.

The vampires themselves are brilliantly conceived; they look horrific and speak in a suitably guttural language that (thankfully) isn't subtitled leaving you as a spectator trying to guess their intentions through their use of body language. This works brilliantly thanks to some top-draw performances from Danny Huston (Marlow) and Andrew Stehlin (Arvin). Just meeting either of these two down a dark alley would leave you babbling like a school-girl.

The stranger who descends on the town prior to the darkness is Marlow's familiar charged with prepping the town for the vampire's arrival and helping to add another dimension to the suspenseful build-up. The stranger is played by Ben Foster who puts in a good enough performance although his inconsistent accent does let him down.

The gore is outrageous and sometimes unnecessarily graphic and the pace of the film is about right although once the killing starts there isn't as much suspense as you would expect considering the build-up. However, this is a minor flaw in comparison to the biggest let-down in this film: Josh Hartnett. Clearly chosen to help increase audience size, Hartnett stumbles through his lines without conviction and never quite seems to fit into his role as the sheriff charged with protecting a town in chaos whilst dealing with the emotional turmoil of a wife (Melissa George played far more convincingly by Stella Oleson) who left him and is now forced into helping him protect the remaining citizens of the town. This emotionally-charged role was too far beyond Hartnett's reach.

There is one other issue with the film worth mentioning: although it takes place over 30 days, it never feels like it. By the end of the film you feel like 48 or 72 hours have past, Slade just doesn't manage to portray the longevity of their struggle for survival and is forced to flash 'Day 17' and 'Day 30' on screen to represent the passage of time. Unfortunately this and Hartnett drag this film from good to mediocre, which is a shame because Slade definitely has talent and I'll definitely be checking out his other directorial work.

Let's get one thing answered first: yes, I am a huge fan of the Aliens and Predator movies and spin off books including the original Aliens vs Predator books. I have mixed fillings about all of the previous films in the series: the first Predator and Alien films are still masterpieces of the genre; Aliens is still one of my favourite films; Alien 3 is disappointing; as is Predator 2; Resurrection is laughable; and most importantly Alien vs Predator (the first outing for these two monster-ka-ching-fanchises) was dire and a wasted opportunity considering the material Paul W.S. Anderson had at his disposal with the books and comics. It's important that I relay my feelings – albeit briefly – about these films because I need it understood that my eye was far more critical and biased than the casual viewer whilst watching this latest outing.

The film starts just as the first AVP film left off: an impregnated Predator back aboard his ship with the rest of his pack just as a new hybrid chest-burster rips its way free of his body. Thus begins an introduction that culminates in the Alien returning to earth and the beginnings of an infestation in a small town in Colorado. From then on what ensues is a no-holds-barred survival horror that never quite leaves you breathless but nevertheless keeps the heart racing. The only hope in stopping this infestation is a lone Predator who seems hell bent on tracking down the new hybrid and claiming its skull (imagine the kudos back home!).

This isn't top-draw film-making and it isn't Oscar-worthy acting but it is damn good fun. Each character is established nicely and even in the wake of an impending disaster you do begin to bond with some of the main characters, not deeply, but enough to care when they finally come face to face with some brilliantly timed deaths, and the death comes thick and fast. There is also some unprecedented screen killing, even bordering on controversial, but each death just exemplifies the determination and remorselessness of the Alien and indeed their relentless invasion that proves that Ripley was right: if just one of these things reaches a populous, you can kiss everything goodbye.

Having said all of that, this film is far from perfect. Kelly O'Brien played by Reiko Aylesworth and who is obviously introduced as the next Ripley just isn't convincing as an action-gal or indeed a potential saviour of Earth. Some of the technology used by the Predator is too far fetched (yes, even for a sci-fi film of this ilk) and parts of the dialogue is a little sketchy.

However, I think I can safely say that the Strause Brothers are – like me – huge fans of Cameron's 1986 Aliens. The intertextual references to Aliens (and Predator) are vast and for me were there to be lapped up (note how the title is now 'Aliens vs' and not 'Alien vs'). This film is a homage to the original films and if the powers that be decide to finance another project I'd be more than happy to hear that the Strause Brothers were again at the helm.

I have to admit that my expectations of The Golden Compass were pretty low. I'm a fan of the books and was surprised to hear a couple of years ago that this film was going to be made; mainly due to some of the difficult themes tackled in the text and that these stories are principally aimed at kids. My reservations towards the film were centred around what I felt to be the likely dilution of these themes, but now I've seen the film and after consideration I've concluded that Chris Weitz has done a good job in the face of controversy.

This is not to say I'm entirely happy, the story's main themes are present and the key plot elements are woven in to a well paced film but I still felt Weitz could have followed the text more closely. Although much of the avoided references involve the abduction and abuse of children, I still think this could have been explored further whilst staying within the realms of good taste.

Book comparisons aside The Golden Compass is a good film for kids even if they don't fully appreciate the messages and themes. Dakota Blue Richards does a sterling job portraying Lyra as a determined and head-strong girl on what is an epic journey across continents. If you haven't read the book then you need to have your wits about you as the story whips along at a fair old pace and it may become difficult to follow.

Nicole Kidman does a fair job at portraying the mysterious Marisa Coulter, Daniel Craig as Lord Asriel has little screen time but he is convincing enough. Sam Elliott makes for a brilliant Lee Scoresby although he looks nothing like I had imagined.

The CGI is average, some of the vehicles in Lyra's world are unconvincing but the animal daemons (physical projections of people's souls in Lyra's world) are all pretty good. The highlight however is the armoured bears and in particular Lyra's companion and protector Lorek Byrnison voiced wonderfully by Ian McKellen. There is plenty of action to keep you awake and there are some spectacular set pieces.

Unfortunately all of this doesn't help distract from the feeling that this film was cut viciously to get it well within the 2 hour mark and that the story does suffer as a result. Perhaps a more forgiving director's cut is on the horizon, I hope so. I also hope that Weitz is given the chance to complete his interpretation because all flaws aside I did enjoy watching this film.

I really wanted to like this film but instead I'm bemused as to how David Leland managed to make such a mess. The plot is scrappy at best, there are far too many characters you are supposed to care about you end up caring about none, it's never clear who or what the film is really about, the acting is below par and the nudity is gratuitous.

The love affair between Lorenzo (Hayden Christensen) and Pampinea (Mischa Barton) is implausible and you can't help but feel that something is missing from the beginning of this film to help ground their relationship in something other than the odd coy glance. The acting isn't terrible but it is unforgivable in key places, in particular whenever Barton and Christensen kiss, which feel so forced and unnatural that it makes me wonder if Barton's real life boyfriend was on set watching.

I wouldn't call this film a comedy however there are some very odd moments where it seems comedy is the intention but it just doesn't work. For example a cameo from David Walliams would be welcome in any comedy but in Virgin Territory it just doesn't seem to fit - his zany exploits are mistimed and misjudged.

Also, there are many moments that defy all logic (what is Elissa suddenly doing in a lake on her own?) and a part me thinks that Leland was maybe trying to create a film that felt something akin to The Princess Bride. He failed, and he failed because I think he was also trying to create a film that felt like Zoro, or Sense and Sensibility, or Carry on Camping, or American Pie, or...in fact I don't think even Leland knew what he was trying to do.

The sexual elements are also misplaced with one or two moments where it seems Leland was gunning for the gross-out-teenage-sexual-angst genre. He fails again, falling well short of what we're used to and only confusing the audience further.

There are some facets of this film I did like: the film is pretty well shot and the scenery in many scenes is a joy. I found Count Dzerzhinsky (Matthew Rhys) a welcome light relief and his character by far the most interesting and Christopher Egan did a fantastic job of portraying Dioneo as the unhinged antagonist. However, these things could never make up for a film that really doesn't know what it's doing, which is a shame because it did have potential.

Despite the obvious parallels, Invasion doesn't feel like a remake of the 1956, 1978 or 1993 versions of this famous yarn, it genuinely holds it own as a film not to be compared to the others but to be appreciated in its own right.

Oliver Hirschbiegel has managed to capture a sense of helplessness and foreboding despite its large city setting and the scale and immediacy of the invasion taking place help instil a genuine sense that the world as we know it is going to end very quickly. The acting was OK throughout although I couldn't help but ponder on the reasoning behind casting Nicole Kidman as Carol, is it because she manages to produce a blank expressionless face without effort? Daniel Craig is OK and Jackson Bond as Carol's son is pretty decent – I'm sure we'll be seeing more of him soon.

There were a couple of issues I did have with the film though: the editing does leave a little to be desired, there were some very strange transitions and odd cuts. Also, the humanistic morals expressed in this film feel a little too contrived for my liking but it isn't forced down your throat. In fact it is quite subtle until the very end of the film. Where others may find food for thought, for me it just brought a groan.

Overall there is nothing major to criticise. The effects are pretty good (the slithering Roger Reese sent a shiver down my spine) and the score suitably eerie, the story moves along at a fast pace and the characters are pretty interesting. OK, it isn't a masterpiece and it certainly isn't the definitive Body Snatchers film but it is worth a look if there isn't much else on.

Visually this film is stunning. More than once I had to remind myself that what I was looking at was not real actors caught on film but a CGI interpretation. It's difficult to purvey this feeling as either a negative or a positive one: on the one hand I cannot see the point in producing CGI if what the filmmaker's goal is realism of reality. CGI in film is of course appropriate when trying to achieve fantastical creatures and set pieces (which are of course inherently unrealistic) but in Beowulf each actor's face, verbal, and non-verbal performance are recreated in CGI verbatim. This I cannot fathom – why recreate what is already there, in the flesh and far more believable? On the other hand there is a sense of true wonder when in a handful of scenes you are genuinely fooled into thinking that what you are looking at is not CGI, but live action film. You are left with no choice but to marvel at the technical and artistic achievements. However, the illusion is inevitably shattered when you begin to pick up on some of the unrealistic lighting, dodgy physics and for some reason: gesticulation (wooden puppets spring to mind). It's really hard to understand what was being attempted with this film: genuine realism (then why recreate the actors in CGI?), complete fantasy immersion (then why are some scenes so tangible?), or (as I suspect) purely an exercise in what is possible with modern CGI.

The pace of the story itself is about right with a good balance of character development and plot enhancement. Anthony Hopkins puts in a decent performance as Hrothgar and John Malkovich as Unferth is suitably sinister. Ray Winstone is, well, Ray (WYSIWYG) Winstone. Angelina Jolie makes a brief and scantily-clad appearance as Grendel's Mother although at times I found it very difficult understanding the dialogue between Grendel (Crispin Glover) and Grendel's Mother due to some very obscure accents. It's difficult to discredit the physical acting because although it is clear that the original actors did perform physically I suspect that much was lost in the CGI transformation.

Unfortunately this movie's biggest flaw is the story itself. I appreciate that when interpreting the written media to film some degree of poetic licence is required, but why do so many filmmakers blatantly disregard original source material unnecessarily? Beowulf does present the key protagonists, and the first half of the film is fairly accurate but the second half is wildly aloof in its interpretation of the original text.

That said, overall the film is beautiful and should be applauded for what has been achieved but for the time being you are left feeling that this technique of story telling should be confined to games. Incidentally, I felt the same about The Polar Express, although that film was aimed at a far less mature audience…or was it?