Reviews

Way back in early 1978 I joined hundreds of other film fans queuing around the block to get into the Bristol Odeon (pre multi-screen) to experience a totally new cinematic event. Star Wars IV A New Hope had arrived to blow us all away - and it did, boy it did!

Almost exactly 41 years later my elder self walked into a near empty (bar 5 other people) at the Bristol Showcase to see the end of a saga which had taken us to new worlds, that had killed off old characters and introduced us to new ones, and had us ride a rollercoaster of emotions. So, did this final instalment live up to my hopes after all these years? I have to say, on balance, that yes, with a few reservations, it did.

The way the old guard said goodbye - that is to say Hans Solo, Leia, and, of course, Luke Skywalker (the original triumvirate of Harrison Ford, Mark Hammill and, most poignantly of them all, the late (and great) Carrie Fisher was most moving - appearing as ghostly figures throughout (after Leia had departed for the universe of the Force) and guided the new crew of Rey, Finn and Poe (Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac) through the final battle of good vs evil - was nicely handled, and the various revelations around Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and Rey were, for the most part, quite surprising.

My reservations were mainly that some of the chase and battle sequences - especially at the start - went on too long and did not really add much to the narrative, and the subplot involving Chewbacca seemed a little lacklustre. But in the end the loose ends appeared to be all tied up, and the rebels finally found their cause!

So, farewell to 41 years of entertainment on an epic scale (allowances made for parts I-III!), farewell to C3PO and R2D2, to the Ewoks, the good guys in white and the bad guys in black, and, most of all, to the original three who brought so much to my teenage and early 20s!

Whilst doing my usual hunt around my local Charity shops I came across the DVD of this title, and, whilst knowing absolutely nothing about it, I purchased it for the grand total of £1 - my purchase based almost entirely on the fact that the score was by Scott Walker, a musician and performer who I credit as being a true giant of modern music. I had no remembrance of it when it was first released back in 1999, nor did I have any knowledge of its source material, the novel by Herman Melville (like 90% of people Melville equals "Moby Dick" and that is about it!), so my expectations were zero as far as the film was concerned.

I left it on my shelf for some time, until I finally decided to give it a view last night. What I found was a film that held a strange hold over me during its running time of just over two hours. On the surface the film tells of a young, rich, bourgeois Frenchman named Pierre (played with increasing desperation by Guillaume Depardieu), whose life begins to unravel when he discovers that he has a secret, illegitimate sister called Isabelle (Yekaterina Golubeva - although on the DVD packing she is credited as Katerina Golubeva), a child that his mother - the wonderful Catherine Denueuve - had apparently abandoned many years before. This causes him to leave his beautiful fiancé, Lucie (Delphine Chuillot) behind to seek out the truth of his sister, and his own meaning in a world that seems to want to ignore the truth of - well, just about anything really.

This journey, undertaken with his new sister, a young girl and another female companion, takes the unlikely trio into the heart of Paris - firstly in a happy, carefree existence, then, as their situation worsens - not helped by Pierre's instance that truth is the only thing that matters - beyond money, beyond fame (he had, in his previous life, written a cult best seller, and was on the verge of writing a new novel) beyond anything that stops "truth" being known. Eventually, following a tragedy involving the young girl, they end up in a commune full of artists, revolutionaries, musicians (a band that seems to be endlessly practising a full-on industrial assault on the ears of the listeners!).

Eventually, after rejection and/or death of everyone around him, Pierre ends up killing his cousin, and Isabelle kills herself in front of a police van - whilst poor Lucie appears to be left to contemplate life alone.

So, what is the film actually about? To me, the biggest clue comes when the trio are walking along the Left Bank in Paris and discover a book about his father - who, we had been told, had been an important diplomat who had fallen from grace for some unnamed reason. Next to the book is are works on Bosnia and the war in that country (the very first images in the film are of bombs destroying graves in some unnamed war). Is the film a parable about how the West for years ignored the truth of what was happening in that godforsaken country? Early on, when we first hear Isabelle's story, she tells of being left alone, not allowed to speak, to grown up alone in a strange place with strange people, and it was only after escaping a country full of corpses that she finds her voice. The film is also, I would say, about the thin line we all walk between leading a happy, if maybe somewhat dull life, to descending into our own morass and pity.

After viewing the film I read some of the other reviews from viewers and critics, especially from those who hated it. I can appreciate just why this should be - it is not an easy watch (the scene of incest is really hard to watch - one of the hardest sex scenes I have watched in a mainstream film), and there are plenty of unexplained loopholes in the narrative (what happened to the body of the little girl?, what relationship was the girl and the other woman to Isabelle?, did any of the commune members have anything to do with the underground disaster that we hear about on the radio?) But for myself it is these unanswered questions that caused the film to hold me in its grip from start to finish.

Whilst by no means Leos Carax's masterpiece this is still a film worthy of attention from anyone who is looking for something that questions their own view of the world, of truth and beauty etc.

Oh yes - the reason why I brought the DVD in the first place, the score from Scott Walker! Without a doubt this is amongst his most challenging of music, but it suits the mood of the film just wonderfully!

In 2011 two films arrived on the scene in which a second earth/earth like planet appears in the sky. One of these was Mike Cahill's 'Another Earth', with the second one being lars von trier's 'Melanchola'. Unfortunately the Cahill film was almost totally overlooked as he is a little known director, and his film had few 'named' stars in it (Brit Marling being the lead - a case of "who she"?!), whilst the lars von trier's film was packed to the rafters with big names and faces - Keifer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, and of course Kirsten Dunst. It was trier's film that got all the praise and awards, but my question is why? This is a rambling, self indulgent shambles of a film in which actors mumble their lines making it almost impossible to follow what they are saying, the camera jerks all over the place in style that became outdated after the final episode of 'NYPD Blue', and what narrative there is appears to centre around some of the most annoying, horrid white middle class moaning minnies you could ever wish to met! I wish I could find something positive to say about this film - I really do (and I assure you I am no stranger to obscure, frustrating films as a loyal member of my local film club where such films are bread and butter to us!) but, beyond the fact that Dunst, as always, looks beautiful, there really is nothing I can find. This obscurity for the sake of obscurity - a form of film making beloved by certain critics who live in the bubble of film festivals and press screening but who rarely have to rub shoulders, and experience the views of, the great unwashed - just the characters in this film.

No, if you want to see a film in which a second earth has affects upon the people on this earth then avoid this like the plague, and do yourself a favour and go watch 'Another Earth' instead, a vastly superior film in every way!

So, this sound engineer goes to Italy to act as an effect expert on an Italian horror film. Whilst doing his job the constant repetition of hacking melons, recording screaming women, crunching leaves underfoot - added to the problems of trying to get reimbursed for his travelling expenses - drive him... well, does it drive him mad, or is what we are watching real (within the content of the film) or is itself a film being made about this sound engineer who goes to Italy to act as an effect expert on an Italian horror film.

Now, there are some good things to be said about this film - Toby Jones as said sound engineer, about whom the film may be about or not as the case may be, is very good, and the use of sound is well done - but, having laid out a most promising situation, and apparently leading to a shock ending, the film suddenly disappears up its own backside. At one point - SPOILER ALERT! - an actress comes in and, when asked to speak her lines, starts to quote from a letter from home that the Toby Jones character has received. Then Mr Jones starts speaking in Italian as the film begins to repeat itself... and... well, by this time I had totally lost the plot and was looking at my watch wondering how much longer I had to endure this nonsense.

There are some films which get caught on the festival/critical merry-go-round, and garner awards by the truck load, coupled with glowing reviews which other critics, not wishing to swim against the tide, endorse. Yet when these films are watching by genuine, fee paying members of the public the reaction is totally different, and a completely - more real - idea of the film emerges. This is one such film, one beloved by the critics, yet disliked (or at best met with indifference) bu the viewing public. Certainly when my local film club screened it the general reaction was "what on earth was all that about"! No, I'm afraid this is pretentious, self indulgent load of nonsense, loved by critics and wannabe intellectuals who think they can read much into such rubbish, but hated by the real cinema goer!

In the future all wars have ended, but famine and poverty still remain in a new North Amercia, which has been split into 12 Districts. To appease the people, and pay tribute to the fallen, Capitol City have devised The Hunger Games, in which 2 children from each District are chosen to fight to the death live on TV.

The film follows the fortunes of the two chosen from District 12, and we see them whisked off to Capitol City - a pastel coloured "Willy Wonka" style place in which the people wear outlandish costumes, have bizarre haircuts and live seemingly empty and decedent lives. Here they are treated like royalty, and trained in readiness for the games.

Eventually the children are pitted against each other and the game begin. It is here that the film begins to remind one of the Japanese classic of a few years back 'Battle Royale' - but without as much blood or violence. As the game progresses the rules begin to change to attain an ending which is pleasing to the masses, rather than those "playing" the game, and new elements are thrown in to ensure excitement and "fun" for the viewers.

The film takes a long time to really hit its stride - the opening sequences seemingly go on forever - and there is no doubt that this film owes a big debt to 'Battle Royale', as well as nods to the original 'Rollerball' (in as much as war has been outlawed and violence has become controlled and organised for the entertainment of the masses) and even 'Logans Run', but it has enough in it to make it a stand-up, worthwhile film in its own right. Not the least of these is the way in which TV is shown to become cynical and exploitative, where - in much the same way as the Ancient Romans had their "Blood and Circuses" - love and death are merely elements in mass entertainment.

The production is very good - the future Capitol City looks amazing - whilst the acting ranges from excellent (the young actress playing the lead role is very good), to screen chewing (Woody Harrleson eats his heart out!!). The other thing about the film is its length - at almost 2hours 30minutes there is no doubt that it is just too long! A good half hour could have been lost without losing any of the tension or drama. Worth seeing definitely, but make sure you watch it in a comfortable cinema (or else take a cushion!)

As a kid growing up in the UK the Independent TV sector was split into regions, with HTV being the regional channel where I lived. Each region had a good deal of control over their own programming, and Monday nights were always film nights in the HTV region. As these were relatively late night showings (around 10:30pm) these films were almost always horror films, which meant either classic Universal, American International Pictures or, of course, Hammer Horrors. It was the Hammer films that I enjoyed most - Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Ingrid Pitt etc etc, so it was sad to see the studio go into such decline. But now with this wonderfully atmospheric haunted house story (plus the remake of Let The Right One In, and one other whose title has escaped me for the moment) the studio - or at least the company that has taken over the legendary name - is back to doing what it does best, scaring the life out of film goers the world over!! This film has all the hallmarks of a classic Hammer film, the old village full of unwelcoming locals, the local pub with an even more unwelcoming feel ("We're packed to the rafters all week" - even if Kipps is the only guest to be seen!), the bleak landscape, and, of course, the wonderful old house (usually on top a hill, but in this case on an island that gets cut-off from the mainland by the incoming tide twice a day).

Into this arrives the aforementioned Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe in his first big post Harry Potter role), looking into the estate of the late owner of the old house. As he looks into the papers etc he finds more than he bargained for, and then the "fun" really begins as the ghost of the title character starts to weave her evil presence over the proceedings.

As the mystery over the Lady In Black begins to unravel the atmosphere builds and the shocks come fast - although not so fast that you don't have time to catch your breath between screams! Daniel Radcliffe handles his role very well (and shows a lot of promise for a good post Harry career), and the supporting cast - full of good old British character actors like Ciaran Hinds, all play their parts to the full.

The ending has been described as "Hollywood", but personally I felt it fitted in well and showed a certain amount of redemption (impossible to fully explain without giving the ending away, which I do not want to do here).

This is not your blood and guts type horror, rather one based on character, story line and atmosphere, and is well worth a visit if you like being scared out of your seat! Whilst this may not be the Hammer of Bray Studios etc, it is good to see the name back emblazoned on the big screen again, and doing what Hammer do best... BOO!

If your idea of a thriller is all wham-bam-thank-you-mam, cut, cut, cut with music blaring all over the action then this is most definitely not the film for you! If, on the other hand you appreciate superbly filmed sequences shown with few cuts and largely sans music, and a plot which is allowed to develop across the whole of the film, rather than being explained within the first 5 minutes, then again 10 minutes later, then again 20 minutes in etc etc then maybe this is more your cup of char! Gina Carano - apparently a kick-boxing champion who has never acted before - plays the beautiful Mallory - a freelance former marine employed by an agency who carry out missions that Goverments want doing but don't want to be seen to want doing - who,following a seemingly successful mission in Barcelona, finds her world tumbling apart around her ears and believes her employer Kenneth (the ever excellent Ewan McGregor) has doubled crossed her in someway.

All this takes place against backdrops as diverse as the aforementioned Barcelona, Dublin, and New York - all used to great effect, mainly by using not the all-too familiar tourist areas but rather back streets and sides roads etc. The action can be seen as being on the stately side, but this allows for the plot to unravel in an intelligent way - this is a thriller that engages your brain as well as your gut! - and there are more twists and turns than a Beatles song about long and winding roads! Once again Soderbergh has delivered a film that takes a clichéd and formulaic situation and subverted it into something more than a mere thriller. For those with ears to listen and eyes to see there is a lot here to engage with, and will leave you, like me, feeling satisfied and happy with a film that dares to be different, but, as I said at the start, if you simply want a film for which you leave your brain at box office try elsewhere!

First up I have to admit that as a kid I was never a big fan of Tintin - he was always that strange kid in a comic book from some other place! - so, with no great expectations regarding this film, I approached it with an open mind.

What I discovered was a film that, although visually very interesting, seemed confused and muddled. First off Tintin is, as I understand it, a Belgian boy reporter, so why were all the characters in the early market scene talking in mock cockney al-la Dick Van Dyke and doing deals in pound stirling and why were all the big houses seemingly a mix of North European Chateaux and English Country Houses? Next the story line starts off with an interesting premise - a mystery hidden within a model ship - but soon descends into a flimsy excuse for dashing from one big set piece to another - including a totally bewildering sequence in Morroco with tanks and bazookas etc (were these left over from the war, or is the story line set during WWII? If the later then where were the Nazis? etc), and by the time any real conclusion is reached I felt so exhausted by all the chases, explosions, pirates, opera singers who can shatter glass (like I didn't see that one coming from a mile away!) etc I no longer really cared! And of course there was the now obligatory open end allowing for the inevitable follow up! What so disappointed me about the film was the fact that this came from Spielberg, a past master at such fast paced adventure films. It seemed that he was not certain himself as to which film he was making - an animated version of a world-wide classic series of books or an animated version of Indianna Jones? There were odd little clues littering the film (a tail of a crashed plane in the dessert with a swastika on it, the aforementioned tanks etc) that seemed to suggest the later but the whole enterprise became so muddled that I guess in the end it didn't really matter.

Finally, for all the marvels of the animation this was, for me, a film without soul. The character of Tintin was just a cipher (as I believe he is in the books), Haddock was just a buffoon, the Thompson Twins plan silly and the other characters utterly forgettable! The only character I came away really like was Snowy the dog! For all the hype this is basically, like this years version of The Three Musketeers, a film that may keep the youngster quiet for a couple of hours, but one that made me feel like "ok, watchable but so what"!

This is not a review of this excellent horror film, just a note to say the IMDb has the films the wrong way round! It has the poor remake (2005) with the cast list etc for the original, and vice versa! This is the first time I have come across this with IMDb and am most surprised to find this!

As for the original film, it still packs a very strong punch after all these years, and the scenes inside the cellar are particularly effective - and as for the ending, well it out Carries Carrie for a shock that I had totally forgotten about!

Well, I guess it did turn out to be a mini review after all - but please, good people of IMDb, get the dates on the films the right way round!

Being of a certain age, and without children, this is one of the classic Disney films I have never seen, but the opportunity arose to finally getting around to watching it when my mother, who is into her 80's and disabled, said she would love to see it. With the help of a very good friend, a veteran of the industry, we went to one of Bristol's (England) out-of-town multi-plexes and, for the grand total of £0.00 (or, if you like, $0.00!!!), sat back and waited for the fun to begin! The film is big, brash, colourful, and total predicable of course. Rightful pretender to the throne is framed by nasty old Scar, leaves, meets good friends, is persuaded to return, fights nasty old Scar, and Simba takes up his rightful place as King of the Pride. All very Disney, very good triumphing over evil, good guys getting their rightful dues, baddies getting their due comeuppance etc. What raises this above the level of most other animated films of this kind is the quality of the animation - quite superb - some great characters (the farting Warthog is fantastic, Scar suitably nasty, Simba proud and upright, etc), and some excellent songs - Circle of Life has, of course, become a children's classic song! The version I took my mother to see was the newly released 3D one, and I have to say that I was very impressed with how Disney had turned a 2D film into a film with great depth and scope. It did not always work as well as it could have, some scenes still looked a little flat, but certainly when the birds were flying overhead, or the camera was swooping down onto different characters, then the effects were excellent, and really added to the enjoyment of the film.

If you have yet to catch up with this film then I would highly recommend you go and watch the 3D version - it is very well done, and worth the admission price - unless you are like myself and know the right people to gain free admission!!!

Having seen endless adverts for this film on TV my mother was very keen to go and see it, so, with the help of a very good friend, I arranged a trip to a local multiplex so she could watch the film on a nice big screen, with good sound etc.

As she is disabled I had to go with her and my friend, and I have to admit that I was a little fearful that I would sit in the cinema and be bored to tears. What surprised me was that far from this happening I was drawn into the dark, Gothic world of Miss Eyre, Mr Rochester and, of course... Well, that would be giving the game away! What impressed me the most with this film was the way in which it was photographed. Unlike previous version, all bright and breezy and well lit houses etc, this has a washed out, misty feel for the exterior scenes, whilst a lot of the interiors are filmed in candle light, so there are plenty of dark corners and shadows in which secrets lurk and things remain hidden.

In terms of the storyline I was impressed by the way the director manages to condense Jane's past into a few telling scenes from her rejection by her Aunt, and her unhappy school days - all of which helped shaped her into the feisty woman that Mr Rochester discovers has been employed as governess to his French speaking ward. Mr Rochester is all smouldering looks and hidden pasts - and it is, naturally, the growing relationship between these two that make up the main body of the narrative. All the performances are excellent, but mention must be given to Jamie Bell as the pastor who, like Mr Rochester, has eyes only for Jane, and Dame Judy Dench who brings great statue to her role as the housekeeper.

The film does have moments were things drag a little - some of the early exchanges between Jane and Mr Rochester go on a little longer than they should - but these are few and far between, and overall the film moves at a pace perfect for the unfolding drama.

If you like your romances Gothic and with a hint (and more!) of danger, then I would highly recommend this film. And, if like me, you have bad memories of dull 1970s BBC style Sunday afternoon serialisations of great classic novels, go along and see how such a great book can be treated on the big screen!

The Final Destination films are never going to win any major awards, nor will they stretch your intellect much beyond that of working out who is next to be killed in a nasty manner, but what they are is well crafted bits of nonsense, and FD5 is no exception to this.

The rules remain as before - a group of mainly good looking youngsters survive a big disaster after one of them has a premonition of its occurrence. Here the big start is massive bridge collapse, which is filmed in a wonderfully realistic fashion, and the chosen few escape, only for death to... well, if you have seen any of the previous FD films than you know the rest! What tends to lift this particular edition of the franchise above the rest is that the characters are much more believable (well, within the context of the film anyway!), and the tension is handled with style (I was really gripping the seat during the kitchen scene!) The one thing that was bothering a little throughout the film was the question, why was it set in 1979? This did not appear to add anything special until the final twist at the end, which for any fan of the series is well worth waiting for (and I am not going to give it away here!) If you want cultured intelligent horror then stick with the likes of Del Torro, but if you want a thrill ride which will drench your mega bin of popcorn with dollops of the red stuff (and I'm not talking Burgandy here!) then this is a Saturday night special for you. Personally I can not wait until all 5 are released in a Blu-ray box set in time to make my Christmas viewing a tad more exciting!

Sometimes when looking through a pile of DVDs in a charity shop a title of which you know little or nothing will intrigue you and you find yourself taking a punt on it. For me this film was one such occasion - only £1 and still sealed. The cover on the Region 2 (Europe) release reminded me very much of the old Hammer Horror films which I used to enjoy as a kid - very much 'Vampire Lovers' etc - so I was quite looking forward to watching it (and hoping that the running time of 1010 minutes as printed on the back was a printing error!!!) That evening I put on my DVD player and put the disc in, poured myself a beer, sat back and waited to be entertained. And waited, and waited etc! This is not a bad film - it as a truly dreadful waste one!!! First up the production values, such as they are, are awful. The film looks like it was shot on a cheap hand-held camera, operated by someone who had forgotten to read the instruction manual! Secondly the dancing. Now for a film entitled 'Blood Dancers' you would expect the girls involved to be able to dance to a good, professional level, but not here - I've seen better dancing on YouTube with coverage of very poor 'dad dancing'! After the dancing comes the acting. Now, in even the worst film there is usually someone who can act, but not here - no sirree! The girls all act as if they are in a cheap porno flick, and at times they appear to be reading their lines off of boards just slightly off camera. There is one guy who plays the boss of the dance hall, and his performance would not look out of place on a Monty Python Sketch sending up bad film acting!!! Ludicrous is hardly a good enough word to describe what this guy is up to! Finally a film like this should at least have some half decent special effects, but again we are in the land of untrained amateurs here - and I am sure at a couple of points I could see wires suspending the floating girls! You will note that I have not mentioned the story line yet. This is simply because for the life of me I could not work out what on earth was going on. A waitress in a dance club wants to become a pole dancer/stripper. Three "talented" girls contently take part in amateur night at the club, so first girl goes to the "best" of these for help in her dancing. She goes to their house, where lots of fake blood is being spilled for no apparent reason, and... well, to be honest, by this time I had given up trying to work out what was happening as each scene took an age to unravel and by the time it did you were left wondering what it was about anyway! I suppose that some intellectuals may see this film as empowering to women - any film with a predominately female cast is usually seen in such terms - but a lot of quite attractive women flashing their tits at the camera, snogging the face off of each other, biting into flesh whilst talking utter drivel ("come and live with us and life will be forever yours" etc) does not a feminist tract make! Nope, this is one bad, and I mean BAD, waste of my £1. To anyone seeing this title in their local Charity shop or bargain bin thinking of taking a chance I say this - to paraphrase Monty Python - "This is not a film for lying down, it is a film for lying down and avoiding"!

If 'King Kong' is seen as the Daddy of all monster films, then the earlier - 1925 - Willis H O'Brian creation 'The Lost World' must surely be seen as the Grandaddy of them all. Although not the first time that stop-motion photography had been used in cinema history (I think that award goes to a long forgotten, and rarely seen, series of animations about Gertie the Dinosaur), this was certainly the first time that such a technique featured in a major feature film. This film is now doing the rounds of the West of England with a new score composed by JJ Garden of The Scissor Sisters, and I caught a showing of it at my local cinema, The Curzon in Clevedon, tonight.

The film has undoubtedly dated, and has a plot line through which a full sized T-Rex could be driven (although this has more to do with the fact that the film has been so chopped and messed about with over the years that it, I would imagine, bares little resemblance to the original released version all those years back). There are character that seem to appear from nowhere - including what appears to be a blacked-up native in the Brazilian section (not the apeman, although he/it seems an odd addition to the film!), and some of the acting - most notably Bessie Love - definitely belongs to another era. Having said all that the effects still impress at times, and the influence this film had on all subsequent monster films, from the aforementioned King Kong through the monster films of the 1950s right up and beyond Jurassic Park etc can be seen in every jagged movement the dinosaurs make! At one point a dinosaur sticks his tongue out and my thoughts immediately went to the Alien series of films - I would doubt that any film before or since has such a lasting influence on the history of cinema.

One point on the music. JJ Garden has composed a score consisting of electronic keyboard effects etc, which sounds amazing inside the auditorium, and occasionally illuminates the film to a degree, but personally I found it rather grating after a while and I wished for a little more variety and humour. Still, a small price to pay to be able to see such an important piece of cinema history in the way it was meant to be seen, on a big screen with a large crowd etc!

There are an increasing number of films that appear to be made to do the rounds of the ever increasing amount of festivals around the world, and are reviewed by the type of film critics whose lives are spent doing the round of festivals, seeing the same type of films over and over, meeting with like-minded colleagues etc. Archipelago is the perfect example of such a film! The film starts long, lingering shots of an unnamed island, lots of pretty flowers, birds singing etc - onto which lands a helicopter, offloading a small family unit hoping to enjoy their annual holiday. This family consists of two grown children, Edward (Tom Hiddleston) and Cynthia (Lydia Leonard) along with their mother (Kate Fahy). Already on the island - I think, I got a little confused here!, are the hired cook (Amy Lloyd) and a most pretentious painting teacher called Christopher (Christopher Baker). Missing from the group is the father figure, who presence is noted only via his frequent telephone conversations.

So the scene is set and you sit waiting for the drama to begin - and you wait, and wait, and wait, until they all leave again on the helicopter and the film, after nigh-on two very long hours, ends! Inbetween all you learn about the "characters~" is that son may, or may not, go to Africa to help with the suffers from Aids, the sister doesn't like shoot in her pheasant and the way guinea fowl is cooked, the mother is increasingly upset that the father is not with them, the cook is, apparently, fed up with the patronising way the family is treating her, and the painter is a pretentious nerd! There is no central drama to bring all the character together, no dark hidden past, not even a moment of shock - ie a suicide, elicit love affair etc. No, all you get is some horrid white, middle class whining, some hand-wringing about whether or not the son is taking the right path in life, and endless rubbish being spouted by the painter! If you like watching paint dry and characters going nowhere fast, then this is the film for you, but if like drama and real emotion then look else where. There are some films that you suddenly "get" on a second viewing, and this might be one such, but I will never know because I have no intention of ever wasting another two hours of my life watching this middle class pile of rubbish!

Firstly, I came across this film in a most unusual way for a film of this type (ie, slasher/horror). Every Thursday and Friday my local Salvation Army have a 'drop-in' where they sell cakes, coffee and brick-a-brack. On this occasion they had the usual pile of give-away DVDs (normally the kind given away by papers and magazines). I was looking through the usual dross (cheap Catherine Cookson based TV movies, etc) when I spotted a cheap looking plastic cover with a folded over cover which showed only this eye looking at me through a swathe of bandages and the legend "Freak, where Blair Witch meets Psycho". Well, with such a come-on how could I resist, and for nothing! It was not until I got the DVD home that I realised this was a 'proper' release and not a paper freebie! That evening I put the disc on and sat back to enjoy the film. It does start really quite nicely with a mysterious hooded youngster walking over a creepy old bridge towards a beat up old house, letting him/herself in via the cellar door only to be meet by a mother who then slaps him/her hard across the face. Mother then gives birth to a baby, which she then - well, that would be giving a possible plot line away! Basically the youngster kills the mother, at which point we cut to 9 years later and a women and her sister moving out of one house to go to a new life some four States away - a journey which will take them right though the area where the 'freak' comes from. At the same time the 'freak' is being transfered from one mental institution to another (for no apparent reason) and a young on parole mental health nurse is consigned to take him (we have learnt by now the 'freak' is a he!). Surprise surprise the route taken is identical to that taken by the couple moving! En-route the 'freak' takes an opportunity to escape - pretty obvious how! - hides in a truck and, when the chance arises, steals said truck and makes good his escape. Now at this point what had been an interesting film quickly develops into farce, and some very weird plot points soon crop up. One of the main of these being the following: We are told that the 'freak' was only 9 or 10 when he was found alone in the old abandoned house (no sign of the mother), and had spent the following 9 years in a near catatonic state in the mental institution, yet when he gets behind the wheel of the truck he can drive perfectly!! Where on earth did he learn to drive? Why was there only one nurse taking him to a new mental institution?, what on earth was the ferret doing in an unsealed box, etc etc. Surfice to say that the film quickly goes from an interesting look at the family unit - is the young sister his sister? - to a basic, and not very well done, slasher/he's behind you/is he dead or not? type film.

This is by no means the worst film I have ever seen - the good opening just about saves it from being that - but it is poorly done, too many plot holes, some dreadful acting and an ending which leads you to expect a big shock coda ala Halloween/Carrie etc but which... well, again, that would be giving the game away! For a cheap find in a Sally Army hall this made for a certain amount of entertainment, but I am sure pleased I didn't have to pay for it!!!

For many years this film has been seen not only as the best Hitchcock film, but amongst the best American films of all. I have seen the film on many occasions, but have never really quite understood the fuss. tonight I watched a DVD of the restored version of the film and without doubt my opinion of it has changed. Maybe it is because I am older, seen more films, lived more life or whatever, but I now appreciate the psychological aspects of the film - obsession, manipulation, fear, love etc, and how Hitchcock's use of colour, deep focus, high angles etc etc are all used to superb effect to enhance the difference moods throughout the film.

Having said all that the film still, for me, falls short of true greatness for a number of reasons. 1/ Just how does Scotty get down from the roof right at the very start of the film? 2/ What happens to the Barbara Bel-Geddis character - she just disappears once Scotty has been released from the hospital. 3/ Why (although the reason may be obvious) does Scotty not take Madeline to the hospital after she has been in the 'Fresco Bay instead of taking her to his apartment. 4/ When we see Madeline fall from the bell tower she is going feet first, yet when we learn the truth of what happened she is thrown off head first. Now, all these may be seen as myself being too 'picky', but such things do, for me, stop the film from crossing over from a superb piece of film making into a 100% solid gold masterpiece.

One final thought. I watched the film via the restored version on DVD, and I have to say that the restoration is fantastic! Plus, on the region 2 version at least, there is an excellent 30 minute documentary on how the film was restore which is well worth watching.

Right, Unknown aliens invade Earth, pick on Los Angeles where a bunch of US Marines do battle and... Well, you can pretty much guess the rest! This is a film that is big, loud, and utterly dreadful with no redeeming features at all! Cliché is placed on cliché throughout and the only fun I had was trying to spot them before they cropped up (I give myself a score of around 99/100!) Young black Marine about to be married tick, Staff Sargent about to leave the corp called back in for one last job tick, young gun with pregnant wife tick, said Staff Sargent hated by all then love by all tick, lost patrol found tick, kids hiding found tick, etc etc etc etc!!!! Save your money and go and see something worthwhile instead - I suggest paint drying! Apart from anything else this film seems to last a life time, and the ending is so predictable to be unbelievable! What am I saying, the whole sorry affair is unbelievable!

In 1973 - the date in which this slice of small town life is set - I was 12 years of age, and just beginning to discover what life was all about. Although the three main characters in this are about 10 years old than I was back then I can still relate to their situations (well, maybe not the shagging and boozing, that was to come later!) and a lot of the film rang very true.

Life in small town UK back then - the film is set in a suburb of Reading (still not the greatest place on earth I can assure you!) - was at times hard and basic, which is nicely reflected in the factory scenes where hard graft and sweat got you a pay pack less than that of some smarmy git selling insurance door-to-door. It was also black and white in a way which today may still exist but is hidden behind close doors. This was an era when 'The Black and White Minstral Show' attracted audiences of millions every Saturday night on BBC1, 'Love Thy Neighbour' with its racial divide was amongst the most watched comedy shows, and black footballers were still being pelted with bananas and monkey chants at football grounds around the country. These attitudes are shown in the film via the Ricky Gervais figure (father of Freddie), and the Northern Soul dance scene in the Majestic Club (for those not in the know Northern Soul is traditional down-and-groovy soul music, usually recorded by very obscure US black artiste, which found a spiritual home in the clubs of Northern Britain - Wigan (the immortal Wigan Casino), Manchester etc, but also travelled down South to places like Reading and Bristol (ah, the Bamboo Club - now that was a club and a half!) I digress, back to the film! Within this frame work of casual booze, fights etc there is the friendship of three young men - the would-be upwardly mobile Freddy, cock-of-the-walk Bruce and simple Snork. The film charts the changes within all three of them through 1973, and how a chance meeting with Freddy's old girlfriend Julie cause changes which will see all three having to make choices that are to affect the rest of their lives. The other added factor, at least for a UK audience, is the fact that we know that ahead of them lies Punk, Thatcher, The Falklands (I could easily see Bruce enlisting and heading for Goose Green) and the 'me' generation of the 1980's.

This is not a particularly complicated film, and there is not much in it which has not been seen in 100's of film before, but what makes this one just that little bit better than many others is its sense of time and place, plus the drama that is allowed to develop out of believable situations - this is no 'American Pie'! First time directors and writers Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchent have done a splendid job in bring universal themes to the screen, and have shown that there is more to their talents than just 'The Office' or 'Extras' (wondeful programmes both!) One final point, the music is superb. The tracks from the likes of Elton John and Bowie sum up the era in just a few bars, whilst Snork's rendition of Slades 'Cum on Feel the Noize' just has to been seen to be believed!

Once in a while a film comes along that should be avoided at all costs - a film that you know as soon as you pay your money at the box office is going to be a 'leave your brain at the door' type affair, yet you venture into the auditorium and watch it anyway. Such a film is this, full of portentous - and pretentious - lines about the hubris of mankind when they reject their Gods, lots of oh-so predictable daring do, lashing of CGI monsters etc, and yet I loved every single minute of it! Why? Maybe it was the mood I was in, just right for a bit of pure escapism with no great, deep hidden meaning (I had watched the wonderful 'A Prophet' on the Sunday, a film with so many layers my head is still trying to get itself around it!), or maybe it was simply that I got carried away with the daring-do of it all.

To say that this is a film that lacks any originality is like saying Manchester United is a well known football team! Everything you would expect from such a film is here - mainly stuff that will be familiar to any fan of the 1981 version. Persius saved from his watery grave, Zeus and Hades angry with mankind for rejecting them, the prophet begging the citizens of Argos to sacrifice their Princess, Andromina, lots of fighting with big - and I mean BIG! - scorpions, the death of Medusa, and the ultimate battle with the Karken all nicely ticked off. The effects are, as one has come to expect from a big Hollywood movie, are all very good (I saw the 2D version, so in 3D I would imagine them to be even better) - and shows just how far this kind of movie has come from the days of the great Harry Harryhausen etc.

If you should desire to watch this film do not expect much in the way of depth, or even great acting (all pretty wooden if truth be told), but do switch off your brain and just let it happen!

Firstly a little tale as related to me by a friend about an experience she had when she went to see this film at our local cinema (The Curzon, Clevedon, UK) In front of her was a row of about 20 women, all of whom looked like they were part of a line-dancing group. As the BBFC (British Board of Film Classifaction) went up the women in front of her suddenly went "oh dear, this is not 'A Single Man', what is 'Precious'". This quickly went down the row, and a whispered chorus of "Precious, what is all this about then?" could be heard for the first few minutes. As the film started - and as anyone who has seen it is has quite a start! - the first woman could be heard to be whispering "I am so sorry..." With each subsequent shocking revelation, bit of bad language, and horrific detail her cries of "I am so sorry" become more and more mournful - by the end she was almost apoplectic with guilt, and so red-faced she could barely look the others in the eye! The moral of this story - make sure you are going to see the right film before you hand over your money! Right, to the film itself. Yes the film is very powerful, it has moments that will make you almost cry, and some people may find it too shocking and depressing to cope with, but I personally found it a film of hope. Precious - an amazing performance from Gabourey Sidibe - takes all the crap that life throws at her, yet, when presented with a chance to escape into a new life grabs it with both hands and begins to turn her world around. This leaves her mother - another performance that has to be seen to be truly appreciated by Mo'Nique, and one finally worthy of the Oscar - to begin to face the truth of her own life. As the film progresses we see her blame Precious for everything and anything bad that has happened to her - which is just about all of her adult life - but this facade slowly crumbles, and the final scene in the benefits office brings about revelations that are so shocking that, even now, I feel quite sick about when I think about them. Here Mo'Nique truly shines - if that is the right word - and those few minutes must rank amongst the most powerful every committed to film.

This makes it sounds like the film is a "two hander", but this would be unfair to the rest of the cast, including a wonderful performance from Mariah Carey as the teacher that shows Precious a glimpse of a better life. In the background as well is the Grandmother who, as a character, is ineffectual and hopeless - she has lost her own daughter to anger and despair - and the other pupils in the "special" school that Precious goes to, all of whom have their own troubles and problems.

The film ends with the aforementioned mother scene, then Precious stepping into the big, wide world with her two children, to face a brighter future, whilst the mother is left to face her own demons and a life on her own. You feel that if you were to revisit these character again in 10 years time the mother would be on the streets drinking from a brown paper bag, whilst Precious and her children would be surviving quite nicely - a beam of light for all who have suffered crap in their lives to cling to.

So, what do we do whilst we are waiting for the next James Bond film to come along? Well, here's one suggestion, go watch the new version of Sherlock Holmes! This Sherlock certainly has all the elements you would expect of Holmes - the pipe, poor violin playing, untidy quarters, a methodical mind, and, of course, his reliable side kick Watson. But what makes this Sherlock stand out is the way in which he goes about his job - here chasing after a mysterious figure (a wonderful Mark Strong creation) who may, or may not, be using the dark arts to bring down the world order - is the fact that he throws himself (and Watson, LeStrade and just about everyone else who happens to be at hand) into his work ala Mr Bond - all fast action, shot-em ups and near misses - all neatly wrapped up at the end with all the good guys living happy ever after! Does this approach work - well, yes! And it does so mainly because of the way both Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law look like they are really having fun - as do all the females (especially Rachel McAdams). The film rattles along at a cracking pace, and any holes in the plot are nice smoothed out with some clever 'wrapping up' at the end. Also the atmosphere of Olde London Town is nicely done - all fog and mist, muck and horses etc.

If you like your Holmes fast paced and full of action then this is the Holmes for you - if not, go along and you still might enjoy the difference.

Finally, as one of the seemingly few remaining human beings not to have seen Avatar yet, I had an invite to join 3 fellow film fans (two of whom had already seen the film) to visit our nearest multiplex showing the film in 3D, an invite not to be turned down.

So finally having experienced the most financially successful film of all time what was my opinion. Well, there is no denying that the special effects are quite amazing - this is a film that has to been seen in 3D, I just could not imagine it 'flat - yet as for the story line I could not help but think I had seen it all before.

During the journey home I mulled the story over in my mind and pieced it together thus - you take a little '2001 A Space Odyssey', throw in a dash of 'First Blood - Rambo', add a dollop of 'Last of the Mohecians', mix just about 'boy meets girl, boy loses girls, boy and girl get together in the end', and finally stir with a splash of almost all the recent eco-porn movies and thus you have 'Avatar'. Don't get me wrong, this does not mean the film doesn't have merit - it moves at a nice pace, the action sequences are superb, the characters display some real depth and as a whole it is very watchable, but just do not expect anything really original or totally mindblowing.

If you have not experienced this film yet do so, you will enjoy it even if only on a basic level, but I do urge you to check out the 3D version where the effects come to life, and avoid the standard version.

As around 17 million British TV watcher settled down to watch the dross that was The X Factor (I could spend hours explaining why Simon Cowell and Company are ruining British Pop Music!) some of us more enlightened souls escaped to the cover of our local film club to enjoy some truly talented musicians getting on in Zaire (as the country was known in 1974).

This wonderful film tells the story of the three day festival given by Afro American/African musicians that accompanied the famous 'Rumble In The Jungle' World Heavyweight Title fight between Ali and Foreman (for the fight itself you must see 'When We Were Kings', outstanding documentary covering the events surrounding the fight). The film has been pieced together from footage taken at the time and gives a insight as to what happened in the run-up to the 3 day festival, as well as presenting the best of the music performed on stage.

Thankfully the pre-festival events are kept to a minimum - just enough to give you a clear idea as to the politics involved - and the bulk of the film is occupied by the music - and what great music it is! BB King, The Spinners (the black soul group, not the British folk one!), many African musicians (whoses names I am ashamed to say have escaped me for the time) etc all on the top of their form, then... The Godfather of Soul, Soul Brother Number One, The Hardest Working Man In Showbiz... MR JAMES BROWN! If you are not blown away by what is shown of his performance then you have no soul! Blistering is hardly the word! Watching him perform reminds you of just what a towering talent the world lost a few Christmases ago when he sadly departed this world - God rest you James, and thanks for the music.

One other point that makes this film so worthwhile is the incidental scenes on the streets of Kinshasa where local musicians play for the sheer joy of giving the world music. There is one unnamed band on a street corner with amps, mikes the whole shebang just jamming away - amazing! Normally as the end titles role the audience get up and start to leave - but not this time! Only two people left half way during the end titles, the rest stayed until the screen went blank and the curtains came across, applauding all the time! Never have I witnessed that before, a fitting tribute to a film that deserves to be seen again, and again, and again etc! Forget all the dross that programmes like the X Factor inflict on the world, this is music as it should be, with heart and more soul in one note than in every single record that Simon Cowell has, or ever will, produce!