Reviews

Like most people, I chose to watch The Hurt Locker off the back of its pretty sizeable hype and because of the awards the film was showered with in early 2010. To be honest, I was expecting it to be pretty hard-going, gritty, shaky-camera-and-battle-scene-heavy stuff, not to mention dripping in political posturing. However, the film is not really any of these things and, for several reasons, is actually very average.

The first thing you notice about The Hurt Locker is that it doesn't actually have a recognisable story. I'm sure this is deliberate to a degree, but it is clear that failed attempts have been made to involve the viewer in the characters. Some fairly tepid dialogue and run-of-the-mill-TV-drama performances contribute greatly to this, and give the film a feel of something less than an award-winner. In fact, some of the tense and dramatic scenes in the film are very well engineered and look great – but the fact I didn't care much about the characters involved made the outcome of these sequences less important.

Other reviewers have noted that the film jumps around from dead-end storyline to dead-end storyline with no explanation. This is true. There is absolutely no reason for most of the diversions the film takes, and to be honest they're not even that interesting, both due to the lack of character development and their hackneyed tone. For example, a selection of scenes towards the end of the film when one of the main characters returns home to find he cannot connect with everyday life as he once did is both utterly pointless and completely unoriginal as a plot device and social message.

Overall, it is pretty obvious why this film has been rated highest on IMDb by the younger demographic. There is a good amount of action and plenty of visual drama for those less likely to be concerned with plot holes and phoned-in performances. For those of us who are more discerning however, this film lacks an awful lot and it is hard to see how it can have won the Oscar for Best Picture. Sound and editing? Fine. Screenplay? That's pushing it. Direction? Questionable at best. Best Picture? Definitely not.

That said, all of the above were better than in Avatar, which is possibly why The Hurt Locker did win. Still, Kathryn Bigelow must have some friends in high places to have achieved what she did with this, a fairly routine yet oddly disjointed effort.

Q & A is one of the most enigmatic films I've seen. It veers drastically between exceptionally good and oddly clunky and sometimes threatens to be pretty poor – and not necessarily in that order. It follows an investigation into a shooting by Michael Brennan, an experienced and ferociously tough police officer played magnificently by Nick Nolte in his pomp. The investigation is conducted by Timothy Hutton, who is a true revelation (to me, at least) as an almost equally tough, but mostly non-violent, lawyer. The situation is muddied by a shady drug-runner (Armand Assante) and a manipulative senior officer (Patrick O'Neal).

The introduction to Nolte's character is fabulous scene-setting, as he holds court with fellow officers regarding some previous rough-housing of a suspect. The Brennan profile is deep and somewhat mysterious – we like him, we hate him, we are disgusted by him….and we want to see more of him. Speaking of which, the film could have benefited from more interplay between Nolte and Hutton. Hutton's brilliantly understated resilience to the aggression of Nolte and Assante, is a surprise and adds a true edginess to the film. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of the very clunky love interest Hutton has with Assante's mistress – we discover they are former lovers who split up over some fairly tenuous business about her father being black. The continued revisiting of this strained relationship is weak and uses time that one feels could be better served building the Brennan character or at least promoting the Nolte/Hutton feud.

Other questionable points in the film concern the various plot turns that are almost casually thrown in and, whilst we don't lose track of proceedings, one feels we could have been given a better idea of how the characters arrive in certain situations. In short, by occasionally rushing things, Q & A often has you wondering if it's a bad film.

But there are some moments that are truly great – various scenes with Nolte, and a short office tantrum by Hutton towards the end. You certainly feel that if this film featured more high profile actors it would be considered much more significant than it is currently. I would recommend Q & A to anyone simply for the performances of Nolte and Hutton – and obviously to fans of gritty cop dramas, who will love it anyway.

It's no secret that Robert De Niro and Al Pacino are starring opposite each other for only the third time in Righteous Kill - and appearing in scenes together for only the second time. It's no secret because it's probably the only thing about Righteous Kill that raises it above the extremely average.

In fairness, the plot isn't a bad concept - a veteran cop is reaping revenge on known criminals that he feels have not had sufficient justice served to them, and De Niro's character 'Turk' is the prime suspect. His longtime partner, Pacino's 'Rooster', is trying to help find the killer. However, it's carried off fairly lazily with supporting characters that range from the annoyingly smug (Carla Gugino as De Niro's unlikely girlfriend springs to mind) to the plain two-dimensional (Donnie Wahlberg's dull Ted Riley character). Even an actor such as Brian Dennehy fails to raise the interest levels in his brief appearances.

The problem lies mainly with a rushed narrative that never allows situations or the people in them to really 'breathe' and draw you in. I must say this is not helped by the performances of the two leads. De Niro isn't bad, but he's almost too understated and looks as if he was pretty fed up with making this movie throughout. Pacino doesn't even look as interested as that. The way he drifts through the film and phones-in pretty much all his lines is distracting to say the least. Another reviewer suggested that Pacino has worn the same leather jacket in his last three films - it certainly looks as if he simply turned up in his street clothes every day, which doesn't correlate at all with his partner De Niro's penchant for smart suits in the film. Added to that, both men are too old for the roles they are playing, as is Dennehy. De Niro is ridiculously out of shape and the scenes where he is asked to run are kept mercifully short.

In its defence though, Righteous Kill isn't boring. It's lively, action-packed and, let's face it, we all enjoy seeing actors of the calibre of De Niro and Pacino on screen no matter what. There are brief flickers of their old fire, no doubt. But I am surprised that both men agreed to this, as they must have seen that the script was not killer, and it shows in their performances. Perhaps they simply thought it was now or never if they were to make a film together. They don't really work as a pair (there is no straight man or fall guy), but I can understand the temptation for all those involved to try it.

If you haven't seen Righteous Kill, you'll be curious to just to see how the two great men look together. So my advice is rent it, watch it, then put it down as a minor blip in two great careers. Who knows, you may even enjoy some of it.

Reign Over Me is a film with a terrific idea behind it, and one that, barring a couple of slight mis-steps, delivers in an extremely powerful and affecting way. Adam Sandler plays Charlie Fineman, a former dentist whose wife and three children were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Don Cheadle plays his old college room-mate Alan Johnson, who tries to rekindle his friendship with Fineman and wants to help him recover from his loss. However, Charlie has completely blocked out the majority of his past, doesn't initially remember Johnson and doesn't acknowledge his lost family.

Additional characters add some interesting dimensions to the story – Jada Pinkett-Smith is suitably frosty as Johnson's disapproving wife, while Liv Tyler is refreshingly serious as Fineman's adoptive shrink. Also, Robert Klein and Melinda Dillon play Charlie's in-laws, struggling to cope with their own loss but completely dumb-founded as to how Charlie can refuse to talk about his family and seemingly live his life in insular denial.

Adam Sandler's performance in a quirky yet also gravely serious role is truly remarkable. To most people prior to this film, Sandler was at best a lovable, second-rate comedy actor or at worst an annoyingly one-themed waster. But Reign Over Me shows that he was misused for too long. He is absolutely heart-breaking at times. It is a worrying thought that the role was written for Tom Cruise, as personally I feel he would have been totally unsuited for it and could have made this a much less powerful film. As for Don Cheadle, he is arguably miscast in his role, as one never fully believes that two people such as he and Fineman could really have been great friends at any point. But nevertheless, he is a fine actor and plays the torn family man well.

At times Reign Over Me tries a little too hard, and some of the scene-setting is a little contrived and obvious in the Hollywood tradition. Indeed, the ending of the film is almost too 'satisfactory' considering what has gone before it. But there is no denying the absolute power of the film's undercurrent, and the execution when it bubbles to the surface. We at times feel frustrated with Fineman's character, and annoyed at his self-imposed ignorance, but when we finally hear the full truth behind his pain it is fantastically moving. The sense of that impending sadness is felt throughout the film – as Donald Sutherland says in his great cameo as a hardened judge, what Fineman is experiencing is "something deeply profound".

Reign Over Me is both emotionally-overpowering and yet somehow not totally effective. One feels that there was potential for more here, and although well-intended, a few aspects slightly miss the mark. But even so, it's more than worth the watch and Mike Binder should be applauded for creating something that is original and thought-provoking.

Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland is essentially a sequel to the original story, featuring an older Alice revisiting the familiar characters in Wonderland and charged with saving the Mad Hatter et al from the rule of the evil Red Queen.

It is probably to be admired that Burton did not try to regurgitate a story that has been told so many times and instead created a new chapter. However, the execution falls somewhat short and whilst the CGI world and its inhabitants are impressive, the film seems to lack solid foundations, meaning the outcome of Alice's adventure is not particularly gripping or suitably interesting.

Much had been made of Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter, but in truth it is a fairly routine performance from a talented actor who spends far too much time in quirky, off-beat roles like this. Some of the voice contributions are enjoyable - Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat springs to mind - and Mia Wasikowska is not out of place in the lead role. What lets down a lot of the incidental roles is the lack of a sharp script - several of the allocated 'comedy' parts are either underused or simply not funny enough, Paul Whitehouse's March Hare being the most clear example of the former, Barbara Windsor's Dormouse a case of the latter.

It must be said though, that the opening three quarters of an hour are pretty enjoyable as we meet the characters and see the outline of the plot unfold. However, somewhere around the hour mark we lose a fair bit of the obscure fun typically associated with Alice in Wonderland, and are drawn into a fairly formulaic post-Lord Of The Rings 'good vs. evil' yarn. It also becomes increasingly obvious that this is a film for children, and that Burton has sacrificed the typically darker hue of his films for this reason, as well as, sadly, much of the substance. Towards the end, the Mad Hatter character performs a CGI-enhanced dance to a cringingly modern dance beat, at which point those who wanted to give Burton the benefit of the doubt will have surrendered.

There's nothing particularly wrong with making a new Alice In Wonderland with a recognisable story line for children. But is this really what Tim Burton was trying to achieve? Perhaps - but it seems unlikely that something any experienced Disney film-maker could have produced is what the director was aiming for. There is also the fact that Burton stubbornly continues to use his wife, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Johnny Depp in pretty much all his films, and that - coupled with his perennial dark fantasy motif - is going to get old whichever way you slice it. The task for him now should be to find a new approach and, preferably, some new stars.

Alice In Wonderland is great to look at and enjoyable for the most part. But it's not a classic and should indeed mark a crossroads for Burton and Depp, from where they need to decide whether they want a new challenge or not.

I'll admit I was slightly hesitant about seeing Avatar, saturated as it was with an enormous build-up and crazed reviews heralding it as the next great step in film-making. However, I think it's important to have one's own opinions of movies like this, as it would be easy to become prejudiced against them owing to the deluge of commercial hype. And I was pleased that I did choose to see it, especially as James Cameron's terrific special effects are surely best viewed on the big screen with the aid of 3D.

And surely the special effects are the key feature of the film. The sheer time, skill and - of course - expense that has gone into the creation of the visuals in Avatar must be unprecedented, and the way in which live action and CGI are brought together is completely new. Rightly, these effects are made the focal point of the film and as much time as possible is given over to showcasing the amazing animation. Some of the action scenes are truly awe-inspiring.

However, it would be wrong to say that Avatar totally lived up to its hype. In many ways it's a very basic action film and whilst it will undoubtedly be festooned with awards on the technical side, the actors are unlikely to get anything more then reflected praise. In some ways, I think it was a deliberate choice to make the actors almost a secondary part of the movie so as not to take away from the visual experience. Sam Worthington is a reasonable tough-guy leading man, but is pretty much personality-free, while Sigourney Weaver is probably miscast as his experienced scientist mentor. That said, they are not helped by a grimly banal script which falls down in all its attempts at humour or wisecracks. Honourable mentions should go, though, to Giovanni Ribisi and Stephen Lang who are both highly watchable in the two lead bad guy roles.

But I think what really stops this film from truly excelling is the plot. Some might argue that the story is not vital in this type of film, but I can't help but feel that a more original and gripping plot could have pushed this film into a higher echelon. Without giving too much away, Avatar has an extremely strong resemblance to Dances With Wolves in many ways, yet in a kind of watered-down and more superficial way. Understandable, I suppose, as the target audience for Avatar is younger. But for an older audience hoping to see a wholly original piece, this may prove a stumbling block.

I suppose the final point to make about Avatar, and films like it, is to wonder just how far films really can be improved by CGI and effects in general. In this case, hundreds of CGI technicians and animators have spent an inordinate amount of time creating an amazing visual world with characters to inhabit it and for that they should be applauded. But have they actually created a new film? Something we hadn't seen or considered before? Personally, I don't think so. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it does suggest that there are limits to what great effects can add to a film beyond what human beings and their emotions can.

Avatar is a ground-breaking venture in many ways and delivers solidly as a mega-budget, formulaic action adventure with literally stunning special effects. Will it prove as influential as Star Wars? Probably not. Will it change cinema forever? Unlikely. But the hyperbole that surrounded its release shouldn't stop anyone from appreciating what it does have to offer.

It is a classic problem with football films that the on-field action often lacks realism and therefore takes away from the drama it is supposed to represent. A great example of this is When Saturday Comes, a fine drama spoilt somewhat by its fairly fanciful – and at times, laughable – depiction of football as seen through the eyes of a film studio. However, the Scottish film A Shot At Glory achieves quite the opposite. The football on show is largely very realistic, whilst the plot and scripting leaves something to be desired.

The simple but effective tactic that the ASAG film-makers have used is employing real footballers to represent the fictional Second Division side, Kilnockie, and their opponents. This is an immediate advantage over using actors who have occasionally played football or body doubles in the action sequences. Notables on show include Owen Coyle, now manager of English Premiership side Burnley, and of course the star man, Ally McCoist. It always helps when the man depicting your star player - in this case, the brash Jackie McQuillan – is actually a top level performer in reality.

Of course, whilst McCoist was a very good footballer, he is not an actor. This is fairly obvious at different times throughout the film, but generally he does a solid job. His lines are kept understandably sparse but he is certainly not uncomfortable in the role. The film, though, is actually about an ageing manager, Gordon McLeod, denied the big time by a cruel twist of fate and desperate to prove himself to his family and his sworn enemy. This role is taken by Robert Duvall, a fine actor who, in my opinion, takes to it extremely well and is believable as the hard-bitten manager having his last hurrah. His Scottish accent is nowhere near as bad as I had been led to believe, and is in fact much better than say, Sean Connery's past attempts at an American accent.

The main problem with the film is that it is simply not very interesting. The premise is that McQuillan was once married to McLeod's daughter, and the striker's reappearance causes friction with the family and his teammates. This is set against the backdrop of a rousing run in the Scottish Cup for Kilnockie, tempered by the boardroom dealings of a sadly limp Michael Keaton as the club's chairman. There are also some nice turns from Kirsty Mitchell as McQuillan's love interest and Brian Cox as the smug manager of Glasgow Rangers.

It would be easy to dismiss this film as low-budget schmaltz craftily marketed to attract football fans and curious followers of Duvall. However, there is an honesty and earnestness about the film which is to be appreciated, along with the high-level footballing action scenes. That said, those who are not interested in the sporting aspect will probably find little to hold their attention here.

Rio Bravo was apparently made as a personal riposte from Howard Hawks and John Wayne to the controversial, but excellent, High Noon. And while it certainly has its merits as an alternative to that film, the true success of Rio Bravo is its tremendous characters and the way in which Hawks presents and develops each of them.

As the town sheriff, John Wayne is typically steadfast and imposing, and Dean Martin's quite brilliant turn as Wayne's drunken deputy, Dude, is a terrific foil for Wayne. In fact, these two characters could quite easily carry the film alone, but Hawks saw fit to spoil us further with a classic comedy role for Walter Brennan as a crippled deputy, a surprisingly enjoyable cameo from Ricky Nelson and a positively sizzling Angie Dickinson as Wayne's love interest.

The whole cast work together excellently - even the near thirty year age difference between Dickinson and Wayne is forgivable in amongst the lovably coy exchanges of their courtship. Brennan is wonderfully cast and provides both comic relief and a reliable assuredness for all the other characters. Nelson is used sparingly, but performs admirably in his role as a young upstart - it is absolutely no hardship to hear he and Martin take turns to plug their day jobs in the film's musical interlude. Martin's performance is the real winner though - his acting here is first rate and gives the film a level of earnestness that could not be readily expected from something so apparently commercial.

Rio Bravo has all the facets of a great Western - sharp gunfights, intrigue, superb dialogue and high quality performances that never get too hammy. In terms of film-making, I would place it above Red River in the list of Hawks-Wayne collaborations. It has its slight mis-steps - the film's resolution is possibly too quick and simple considering the build up it is given - but generally speaking this is a very fine Western that is easy to enjoy on many levels.

It's said that John Wayne was dissatisfied with Kim Darby as his co-star in 'True Grit', and, having seen this film a couple of times, I can't say I'm surprised. Darby is a competent actress if nothing more, though she cannot be blamed for the irritating and bothersome teenager she was asked to portray here. The real problem is the script - Darby's character Mattie Ross is actually the central role in the film, and as such is likely to put off anyone ostensibly watching 'True Grit' to see John Wayne in action.

Whilst I don't know what Wayne made of Glen Campbell's contribution, it's probably fair to say he wasn't rushing to work with him again. Campbell, simply in the film to plug his accompanying theme song, is painfully unconvincing as a meddling Texas Ranger sidekick to Wayne's cantankerous Rooster Cogburn character. One wonders what this film might have been like had Robert Duvall been cast in Campbell's role rather than the rather two-dimensional and under-used villain that he actually plays.

Of course, Wayne himself won an Oscar for his performance in 'True Grit', which was probably awarded for his body of work rather than for this film particularly. He hams it up a little here (encouraged by the script it must be said) and lacks a lot of the menace of his earlier movies, although the film is not meant to be taken entirely seriously. That said, the film's best moments all involve Wayne: the all-too-infrequent gunfighting scenes, his amusing relationship with a Chinese shop owner and cat, plus some of his gentler exchanges with Darby. There is no doubting the man's unmatched presence in a lead role, but it is not fair to compare his performance here to any of his true greats.

I can imagine that many who saw this film in 1969 would have been thinking that John Wayne had pretty much had it. He simply didn't look like he could out-shoot younger men anymore. Whilst Wayne did recapture his grace and high-level performance a few years later with a final hurrah in 'The Shootist', there's no doubt that 'True Grit' shows both an actor and a man in decline.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 'True Grit'. John Wayne fires guns, Glen Campbell spouts some clichés and Kim Darby utters every jolly old-fashioned saying under the sun. Plus there is high-grade villainous support from Duvall and Dennis Hopper, with some good photography and incredibly brave horses thrown in. It's fun as Westerns go and it's not meant to be a rival in earnest to classics like 'The Searchers' or 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance'. It achieves it's aim as a fun Western appealing to the masses. But it is let down by a poor script and hammed-up performances, and as such is not vital to the John Wayne collection in my book.

As someone who is a big fan of the first two films and certainly not disparaging of the third, naturally I was looking forward to the fourth instalment in the Terminator series. Of course, I had my reservations when I saw it was to be directed by someone with a made-up name whose greatest achievement to date was the Charlie's Angels films, and that the key catalyst of the previous three (Arnold Schwarzenegger) would not feature. And, it seems, those reservations were well founded.

Firstly, let's get some things clear: I like Christian Bale a lot and think he is a superb actor. I also think some of the special effects/CGI in this film are as good as I've seen. And I think the film-makers have been very creative with some of the variances of Terminators and Hunter Killers on show. However, for some reason, Terminator Salvation is scripted as some kind of brain-dead action flick rather than the intriguing science fiction which is prevalent in the first three. Character development is pretty much ditched in favour of cheap story links and lame references to the existing franchise, while the action sequences, whilst entertaining, are rarely fully explained and often interrupt any semblance of plot which might be developing.

Bale himself is intense and tough as the iconic John Connor, but we are told very little about how he went from hiding in a Presidential bunker with Kate Brewster in Terminator 3 to being the god-like leader of the resistance. Speaking of which, the character of Brewster is developed even less, and is purely used as a very superficial love interest for Bale. Similarly confusing is the portrayal of Kyle Reese, here depicted as a scrawny street dweller with a small, mute black child as a sidekick (presumably for tokenism, he has no relevancy to the film whatsoever). Again, we have no real idea how this character became the Kyle Reese we see in the first film, which is surely one of the main objectives of Terminator Salvation - or it should be.

And then there is the character of Marcus Wright, who is essentially the lead role. We see at the beginning of the film that he donated his body to Cyberdyne Systems for research and was eventually re-invented as a prototype for a new type of Terminator. Wright believes himself to be human however - a twist that is never fully explained - and this creates much conflict between himself, the resistance and the enemy Skynet. Whilst it's a reasonable idea, it simply isn't interesting enough to carry the film, and the ludicrous relationship that develops between Wright and a female member of the resistance is alarmingly cheesy.

With regards to the effects, some of these are truly awe-inspiring - particularly a helicopter crash that Bale suffers near the start of the film, and some of the battle scenes involving enormous Hunter Killers. There is a flaw though in the way that the Terminators themselves are depicted. The androids that roam the streets picking off members of the resistance are certainly frightening enough, but do not resemble the T-600 models described by Kyle Reese in the first film, an error which I expect is deliberate to make the newly developed T-800 models (Schwarzenegger's character from the previous films) appear far more advanced and threatening.

But the main problem with this film is that it is not, in any real sense, a Terminator film. All the previous three were synonymous with a chase element, and the near misses that went with it. There is none of that in this film, and it appears as almost a snapshot of the war with Skynet, rather than the beginning or end. Pretty much all the previous threads and possibilities that were created in the franchise have been done away with and a banal plot, a poor script and a frankly nauseating finish have been thrown together together to make an action film for the masses, rather than a satisfactory new chapter for the fans.

When actors are asked to play real people in films, the results can be mixed. In this case however, Michael Sheen and Frank Langella produce two of the best performances as real historical characters that I have ever seen on film.

Langella's Nixon is brilliant - I had been concerned that he didn't look enough like him, or that he was too tall etc. but all that becomes secondary as he breathes such compelling life into this controversial character. And I found Sheen's Frost to be absolutely pitch perfect, so much so that I was never distracted by thoughts of a misplaced vocal quirk or gesture. His performance as Tony Blair in 'The Queen' was similarly accurate and I await his portrayal of Brian Clough in 'The Damned United' with baited breath.

But aside from the performances, the massive strength of the film is its ability to find balance and harmony with the characters, and the marvellous way in which a film simply about a political interview is made gripping for two hours (and could easily have been longer). Both men are presented at times as troubled, careless and flawed but also funny, generous and steeped in integrity in equal measure. There are times when we see Nixon as a money-obsessed bigot, and other times when he is a contrite and courageous soul. Similarly, we see Frost both as a happy-go-lucky playboy and as a feckless, unreliable showbiz type. Our minds are not made up for us as to which of these is the more accurate portrayal of each character.

The supporting cast is largely excellent with the glamorous Rebecca Hall well-cast as Caroline Cushing, and Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell as Frost's colleagues. I found the only slight mis-step to be Matthew Macfadyen's John Birt, whose stuffy English producer role was rather unlikeable and tended to add little to the scenes he featured in. However, Kevin Bacon's loyal-as-a-dog aide to Nixon is always interesting.

Even if you are familiar with the story and the interview, the film is always tense. The interview scenes are unbelievably so, even at the times when you are only seeing the expressions on the faces of the protagonists. As it reaches its climax, it is impossible not to feel a heady mix of emotions toward both men, not to mention feel somewhat drained at its climax.

Whilst I would say an interest in politics would help in watching this film, I would also say that anyone who simply appreciates brilliant acting and wonderfully scripted exchanges should make an effort to see Frost/Nixon. You are not likely to be disappointed.

I really had no idea what to expect from this film. Like many people, I had been attracted to it by the clips shown during Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, and was intrigued enough to buy the DVD. I read several reviews before watching it, which were inconclusive, but I must confess I was dubious about the fact that the majority of the film had been re-shot after the dawn of motion picture sound, suggesting a rushed or insensitive job.

Having now seen the film, I must say I was more than pleasantly surprised. Considering it was made in 1930, Hell's Angels is unfailingly watchable. The relationship study between the brothers Roy and Monty, along with Jean Harlow's Helen, is unexpectedly interesting, and some of the avenues the film explores are, at times, gripping. The sexuality of the film must have been rather shocking for its time, not unlike director Howard Hughes' compelling use of colour in certain scenes.

But of course, the great talking points of Hell's Angels are the aerial battles that were filmed so daringly by Hughes in mid-air. The closeness of the aircraft and the clear danger that many of the planes were in is alarming stuff and - whatever one says about the wisdom of the techniques involved - makes positively stunning film. Three pilots died during the filming, and Hughes himself was badly injured; but he was always fascinated by how far boundaries could be pushed, and that is clear right throughout the movie.

The film's plot has been somewhat maligned, which is rather cruel considering when it was made and the fact that it is not predictable in the way that many of today's movies are. The performances are competent, the characters believable and the ending is what would be deemed 'satisfying'. The scale of this film is frankly monumental, and it is hard to think of a film being made on a scale which would equate to it today without the use of CGI. I am surprised this is not considered a classic, as it offers as much, if not more, than many movies placed in that bracket from a similar era.

Considering the calibre of the songs he wrote, and the standard of his guitar playing by the age of 17, it is amazing that Ritchie Valens is not talked about more. When you think that Buddy Holly was five years older than Valens at the time of their deaths, it is intriguing to think what Valens might have accomplished given a similar amount of time - just as it is to think what Holly could have accomplished had he lived. But the fact is that Holly was much more the established star in 1959, and because of that he is the more remembered.

The same is true of La Bamba as is true of Valens - the film is not as well remembered as The Buddy Holly Story, which is a shame because it is almost as good. Some of the performances are truly excellent, and, more importantly, the spirit of the music is captured perfectly.

The film deals predominantly with Valens' family relationships - he was close to his mother as he was at odds with his brother Bob - and his sharp rise to fame. There are a few flaws: Lou Diamond Phillips, in the lead role, looks almost nothing like the real Valens although his performance is suitably intense and lively; and much of Valens' early attempts at performing are ignored (he was turned down by several record companies who felt the 16-year-old Valens looked too old for the teenage market). But the balance the film finds between each sub-plot (his family, Bob's relationship with Valens's sweetheart Rosie, his difficulties with girlfriend Donna's family etc.) is a real winning formula, and the music tops things off well.

The music is pretty much spot-on throughout the whole film. Supplied by Los Lobos (whose front man does an excellent Valens impersonation), it shows what can be achieved if the lip-syncing rock biopic is done properly. Similar attempts have failed (notably in 'Great Balls of Fire', the Jerry Lee Lewis biopic), whereas the ground-breaking live performances in The Buddy Holly Story set a new standard for music in this type of film. Also, some of the incidental acts are truly superb - Eddie Cochran, Jackie Wilson and a sensational Marshall Crenshaw as Buddy Holly are real winners and help the film no end.

The fact that we still care so much about a 17-year-old Mexican pop act fifty years on is a real indicator of the immense talent Valens had and just what a defining event the plane crash itself was. Two of the most talented musicians ever in any genre (Holly was compared to the great composers more than once) were taken at a young age, and it is hard to imagine a similar event happening today that would have such a far-reaching impact.

It is important that films on the two are made as well as this as we need to remember the men for what they were, because unlike rock biopics, no more of them will be made.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a terrific film. The best of the initial trilogy, it had a great story, heart-pounding action and wonderful interplay between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery. So naturally, any film attempting to follow it would need to have the same ingredients. And hey, when a cast list was dangled in front of my eyes including Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, the terrific Shia Le Beouf and the old Doctor himself I felt that the mix was there for an equally impressive new adventure.

Sadly, I was wrong. From the moment I heard the title, alarm bells began ringing. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the, erm, thing. It was immediately forgettable stuff, and confusing to boot, which was an ominous precursor to the film itself. Sitting in the cinema, it quickly became apparent that the film's greatest flaw is its story, or lack of. Which is a great shame as the plots of the previous three films, although far-fetched, were easy to follow, well-constructed and thus exciting to watch. The plot in this movie can be easily explained with a quote from Edmund Blackadder: "Well it started badly, it tailed off a bit in the middle and the less said about the end the better...but apart from that, brilliant." The film is given no foundations from the outset. You don't really know why Indy and his colleagues are where they are, why the people that are after them are after them, or why indeed they first discover the 'Crystal Skull'. Worse, the new characters are never really introduced to us, meaning we don't really care what they do or why they do it.

The only two characters we do know are used lazily. Indy spouts a few of the old lines and gets in a few boisterous scrapes (and it should be said, Harrison Ford does an excellent physical job for his age). And we are re-introduced to Marion Ravenwood, from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Karen Allen's re-appearance as this character was greeted in the cinema by a deafening indifference, not helped by the fact that she looks terrible in the film, her acting is atrocious and the film-makers seem to have forgotten that she spoke with an accent in ROTLA. Frankly, the relationship study between Jones and Ravenwood in the film is one of the most appalling I have ever seen, even by the sappy, simple standards of Hollywood blockbusters.

Shia Le Beouf is his usual bright self in his role, but, like everyone else, his character has no real depth and is therefore two dimensional. It is not unfair to say that River Phoenix's portrayal of a young Indiana in The Last Crusade had far more depth and intrigue to it than the similar character Le Beouf is given here. And I believe both are a similar standard of young actor. As for Blanchett and Winstone, I would be amazed if anyone could tell me who they are supposed to be playing and for what reason after watching this film. Both do solid jobs, but what those jobs are is a bit of a mystery.

In truth, there are some exciting and fun moments in the film, mainly in the first hour when Ford and Le Beouf are getting to know each other. But, without giving too much away, the film takes a turn for the ridiculous in several places, one of which is so irretrievable that it puts the film on a sharp downward gradient from where it only gets worse. The ending may leave you stunned for the wrong reasons.

All this considered, there is something I would very much like to do. That is, sit in a room with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and ask them whether they honestly believe this film is in any way appropriate to be a part of the Indiana Jones series, falling way short as it does even of the Temple of Doom, the weakest of the first three. Because this film - like the third instalment of the Godfather - is a disgrace to the legacy of its predecessors. It has none of the detail, the humour or the drama of the previous films, and those were three of the most obviously vital ingredients.

The film hints in places that Le Beouf will eventually take over the franchise from Ford. But what sort of franchise will be left? Before I saw the film, that would have excited me. Now, I'm hoping that this film is quietly ignored in future, and that we remember the Indiana Jones saga as it was - when all those involved were still hungry enough to care.

I resisted watching this film for a long time. The media hype it received over what I perceived to be hackneyed subject matter was off-putting and the raving over two young actors acting out a forbidden love story was something I felt I could do without.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say the death of Heath Ledger is what forced me to take the plunge. I had to see what all the fuss was about. Still, I approached it with trepidation, haunted by phrases such as "the most important film for years" which seem to be applied to anything that can be construed as left wing these days.

Thie first 30 minutes or so left me uncomfortable. I guess, like many people, I was afraid of the graphic portrayal of the two men's relationship and didn't know how I would react to the first signs of it. And yes, I did find it tough to start with. But I soon realised that the reason for that was due to the characters I was watching, and the fact that neither knew how or why it was happening, and would never have considered this kind of union in their normal lives. Ledger's character, particularly, is a massively introverted and silent soul who cannot process the feelings that the relationship generates.

The rest of the film is simply a study of isolation and deeply-stored feelings that are universally understandable. I had been concerned, prior to seeing the film, that its premise would be absurd and there would be an impossible depiction of two queens living it up in secret amongst dour cattlemen. But what the film portrays is far more real, a confused mesh of feelings and hopes, and the fierce and brutal opposition to it that lurks continuously.

So having seen it, I can agree that this film is important. It's important because it doesn't particularly say one thing or another. It's not a wail against homophobia, it's not staunchly against the social politics of the American South, it's not a protest for freedom and understanding. It's just a story. And a brilliantly delivered one at that.

RIP Heath Ledger.

I was really looking forward to seeing a movie about Wild Bill Hickock with a top cast and proper budget. I wasn't necessarily disappointed by this film, but felt it could have been done differently.

I think one of the difficulties with a film of this nature is that you are building up to an ending which everyone is aware of and there are only a few ways you can build up the background to the climax. In a film such as 'Wyatt Earp' for example, everyone knows the gunfight at the OK Corrall is coming, so the film builds up the background for you as best it can pretty much chronologically.

The angle with this film is that the background is set with a series of flashbacks, which don't entirely work and become slightly tedious. It would have been easier to watch them as a chronological story, but you feel sympathy with Walter Hill for wanting to mix it up a little.

Ultimately, it comes out as a slightly rushed mish-mash. The flashbacks are not long enough to really set the scene for you, whereas the early part of the film which goes from 1867 through to 1875 is a bit garbled and doesn't make complete sense until later. There are also very brief references to Hickock's time in the army, which could and probably should have been expanded on. I didn't really understand this as the film is only an hour and a half long and could have done with another half hour.

With regard to the actual content, Bridges is superb and imposing as Hickcok, and I personally liked the choice of Arquette as Jack McCall (considering I'm not a fan of his generally). Much of it is fiction or exaggerated fact, but that is par for the course with Westerns and if we're honest with ourselves that type of romanticism is what draws us to the genre.

All this notwithstanding, it is an easy watch and by no means as demanding as 'Wyatt Earp' or even 'Young Guns'. The scenes where Bridges is in full flow are quite excellent and recall all the great Western leads. I would very much recommend this film to all fans of Hickock or Westerns generally, as it certainly has its entertaining moments, even if the presentation is not all it could be.

I have to say that I was really quite alarmed, not to mention disappointed, at how poor this film generally was. It would have worked better as an epic, historical action film which examines the true character of the film's main figure. However, Oliver Stone attempted to incorporate several confusing, drawn out personal incidents and strained relationships into the film, with the incidental backdrop of war and the conquering of enormous countries. As a result, Stone essentially neglects to tell the story of how Alexander came to be such an all-conquering warrior, and gives the illusion that his conquests were made simply by turning up.

One of the main issues with the film is that the central characters - despite their lengthy screen time and the numerous incidents each is embroiled in - are never stripped bare for the viewer for long enough for them to be more than two dimensional. For example, Alexander's volatile relationship with his father is baffling throughout the movie, swinging as it does between mutual affection and abject hatred. Similarly, it is never explained fully as to why his mother is quite so scheming and harbours so much anger towards his father.

All these things aside, the true problem with the film is the standard of the acting. Being a high-strung drama, it requires performances that are sincere whilst also not patronising or over-cooking it for the viewer. Unfortunately, the film does not possess a single strong performance. Colin Farrell is uncomfortable, if willing, in the lead role, a fact not helped by the Director's decision to make Alexander's male friends and generals speak with Northern Irish accents so as not to draw attention to Farrell's own accent. Val Kilmer is hackneyed and perhaps mis-cast as Alexander's father, and Angelina Jolie's performance as Farrell's mother is bordering on the catastrophic. Despite her wicked beauty, she demonstrates that she has neither the versatility nor earnestness to act at this level.

Finally, the simple presentation of the movie is flawed. The opening scenes, which show Anthony Hopkins in one of his more pointless roles, are set against a computer-generated backdrop which could not have looked less real had it been a charcoal drawing. Later scenes, whilst expensively produced, give the impression, perhaps deliberately, of theatrical stage scenery. If this is intended, then it is negated by the lengthy scenes outdoors, which again feature unwelcome CGI.

On the whole, the film is actually rather dull. It does not present its subject matter with sufficient power to hold the viewer's interest and the 2 hours, 30 mins running time leaves you longing for an end. The one scene that is worth seeing is one in which Alexander and his horse square up to an Indian soldier on an elephant. Unusually for the film, it is beautifully shot and wonderfully engaging. But it lasts only a few seconds.

I actually ended up liking this film more than I thought I would. However, it still misses the spot in a few areas, which will be picked up more by British audiences than the US market.

Firstly, Charlie Hunnam's London accent is appalling and extremely distracting. Also, some of the references made to football and hooliganism are not accurate. At the West Ham game, the team they are supposedly playing is Birmingham, who Bovver calls "dirty Northern b*stards". For the record, Birmingham is not in the North of England.

Also, the organisation of the GSE is not realistic. For a start, all the members are very young which simply would not be true of a firm for a club the size of West Ham. Second, hooliganism is much better organised than is depicted here. Everyone would know exactly who, where and what was likely to happen days before a game and would be prepared. A scenario of anybody "rushing" an opposing pub is very uncommon and almost impossible in the current era of stringent policing.

What is actually shown in this film is a group of lads who like a scrap and love football. Real hooligans are not particularly interested in football, simply the buzz of so many people and the thought of taking on rival firms. I would also say that Elijah Wood, although suitably timid and fresh-faced in his role, takes away from the credibility of the film. If a firm were ever to accept an outsider (particularly from the US) into a firm he would have to prove himself by more than simply landing a couple of lucky punches in a brawl. Wood simply does not show enough of the requisite toughness which would grant him respect.

On the whole, the film is well-paced and thoughtfully shot. But it doesn't really capture anything real about hooliganism - or anything we didn't know. I would recommend it as an alternative to the lighter-hearted 'Football Factory', but would not endorse its content to the British viewer.