Reviews

Ever gone to your shop expecting one film and get the other? Instead of DON'T LOOK NOW,a supernatural master piece, I was generously given DON'T LOOK BACK.

About Bob Dylan.

A different kind of supernatural talent, BUT NOT THE ONE I WAS EXPECTING. Bugger. And then I started watching it. And iabout a tour in 1965 to the UK. And it wasn't half bad.

Made by DA Pennebaker it was only released in 1967. After Dylan had gone electric. There are hints of his interest in going electric throughout the film, staring into a shop window longingly at a electric guitar; talking to people who did his covers electrically.

Also some great concert footage throughout. There's also shots of notables including Joan Baez and Donovan. So a great doccie all in all of an exciting musical time. And then I chanced on the commentary track. And it is brilliant. And must be listened too. it explains who was who within the film. what happened to them and so on. It brings a different dimension that was unavailable until DVD and well worth the viewing.

When going to their movies, I used to actively search out the Aussie films. These were often low budget wonders with iconoclastic/individualistic qualities. They often had a single uitlander(non Australian) somewhere in the cast ( e.g. MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER with Kirk Douglas, PRISCILLA etc with Terence Stamp) with the up and coming burgeoning talents like Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe and Toni Collette amongst others.) And you were pretty much guaranteed an interesting time.

And then they discovered that they weren't actually making bad little movies. And got vain. And instead of careful nurturing we get more randomly thrown together product. Product as opposed to craft. And it ends up looking like this.

This started with a cute little idea; It's set in a small town, West Village( a play on Go west and Greenwich Village) somewhere in Oz where the most exciting thing that usually happens is a dog runs away). And then people start being murdered in a style reminiscent of the Village People. Could've been great.

And is unremittingly awful. Written by three alleged comedians from somewhere in the comedic basements of Australia, it doesn't know what the hell it is. There's a bit of a Miami Vice pastiche, some line dancing and omni present confusion. Great direction makes you want to know about the characters and where they are going within the story arc. Poor direction makes you wonder why you're there. Thank god popcorn doesn't fly otherwise screens around the country would be saturated.

The problem occurs when you get stand-up comedians trying to up their exposure outside of their usual 15 minute routine. It is populated with friends of friends and relatives instead of talent. According to the director, Anthony Mir (not short for Mirth) the original story started as a two minute sketch for TV. Why in god's name did they let it get longer? Should've been stopped at birth.

breasts that launched a thousand skits. If you've ever seen the movie, you'll know what I mean. If you haven't, wait for it. It also sparked AIRPLANE (8/10) quotes including "Ever been inside a Turkish prison?"

Based on his biography, this is the story of Billy Hayes who was sent away for 30 years for smuggling Hash. Not heroin, but hashish. Bloody idiot. He should've tried it out of Amsterdam; at least the prisons would've been more comfortable.

The depiction of the prisons as an unrelenting horror zone and a random justice system, irritated the Turks no end at the time with them threatening to stop the export of Turkish coffee and the misnamed Turkish delights to the US.

And who else to do the irritating but the most maverick of the mainstream; Alan Parker. While you have lots of individualist directors, they tend to be limited to a very art house crowd. And spread their messages in the most doom ridden, clichéd ways. (Sorry, Mike Leigh). Alan parker, on the other hand, has done what the hell he likes; taking unfilmable works and making them his own in an original, accessible way. Think of BIRDY (8/10), BUGSY MALONE(7/10), PINK FLOYD'S THE WALL (7/10) and even EVITA (8/10).

It's not surprising knowing his background; he was an advertising copywriter before joining the pantheons of the film gods. So he knows how to make a difficult concept saleable. In this he was joined in the script writing by none other than Oliver Stone, another maverick and conspiracy king, who later helped him with writing EVITA. (Yes, sort of like finding out that your macho gym teacher wears Victoria's Secret.)

Scattered throughout are some great performances by Randy Quaid and John Hurt (already looking sixty at the ripe old age of 38) but the star performance is by Brad Davis as Billy Hayes; a tortured, realistic performance. He went on to be one of the first and best known stars to die of AIDS. Truth be told, Midnight Express was his greatest role and the one he will be remembered for.

Even though it was made in the late 70's it is a pretty timeless piece, give or take a polyester suit, which is the way those prisons are.The brutality exhibited would make a dominatrix squeal.

If you've ever been to Venice you'll see that it has two moods; the everyday touristy, grand canal, glassy goods and glassy eyed, singing gondolier one which is visible on the surface and in every square. And then there is the more malevolent broody one; with the passages off to nowhere, the sullen and unknown. This is of course the home of Carnivale, where masked intentions are hidden from obvious view.

Movies in Venice tend to go with the latter, more sinister feel; from DEATH IN VENICE to DON'T LOOK NOW and this film is no exception, which is no surprise knowing the provenence of the original book, written by Ian McEwan. It tells the story of a couple who've come to Venice to sort out their marriage; to give it one last try. And on their explorations they fortuitously run into Robert who shows them around for their own and his own interest.

The couple is played by the impossibly statuesque Rupert Everett and Joely Richardson (another one of Vanessa Redgrave's daughters.) And just the casting of Christopher Walken should give an inkling of further adventures. Apart from one or two changes, it closely follows the book and ultimately shows that there is an underlying hidden love between the couple that finds difficulty in expressing itself.

The real star is the setting. It's moody, dark, scary, exciting. The sets themselves are rich and opulent; very Arabian night plush. The general feel is languid and louche. Add to that Harold Pinter's script, who can make buying a bus ticket sound ominous and you know you're in for an interesting ride.

Director's cuts tend to be more personal visions of films; sometimes they really work, other times they totally bugger up a film. That's why film editors were invented; to give an alternative view.

Look at Thelma Schoonmaker who's worked with Marty Scorsese for the last 30 years or so. For better (THE DEPARTED) and worse )GANGS OF NEW YORK (6/10) ) she's been a support. The director has trusted her through some exquisitely crafted numbers.

And then we have CHILDREN OF MEN. This is a film of a novel by PD JAMES. Set 20 years in the future, its about a world where everyone has become sterile. The government is an overpowering force, with obvious heavy handed analogies of past and present governments. Various groups are fighting for various freedoms and immigrants are being expelled by the boatful. We are introduced to Theo(Clive Owen), who used to be a revolutionary sort until he lost his son causing him to despond.

But then Theo is asked for a favor to help a young immigrant leave the country. (Bit of a pointless premise really; if she wanted to leave she should just run into the street and sing Le Marseillase, while goose stepping down Oxford Street.) Other notables include Michael Caine who can read a menu with genuine class and Julianne Moore who plays a character called Julian. ( Lazy credits?)

The cinematography is actually excellent, with a real, visceral quality to it; you can feel the bombs explode, the bullets whiz by. A real cinema verite. And the reverse car chase has an exquisite immediacy to it.

But what lets the film down is the editing. Yes, it was nominated for best editing but god knows why. Maybe they wanted to create a jarring, discombobulated effect. Maybe they ran out of time. Or maybe it was just a director getting in over his head. He apparently didn't bother to read the book that the film was based on. That's sort of like rating a meal by speaking to people as they leave a restaurant.Maybe that's why the film has a whole missing in its soul.

We know he can direct; Cuaron directed the best of the Harry Potter films so far (HP ...AZKABAN (8/10) but didn't edit it. But here the emperor had no clothes.

His films often start in a fairly conventional manner and progress slowly, gently coaxing you into a weird urban world where you look in voyeuristically, realizing that the people around you have their own weird and often horrible lives. He's gone into paedophilia, S & M, male prostitution, transvestitism, drug addiction and more. It sounds horribly desperate and dingy; very Irvine Welsh, but is actually very accessible and, dare we say it, entertaining.

The film starts in a graveyard, in then middle of the equivalent of a Cape SouthEaster, with, mainly widows, cleaning the graves of dead loved ones. It stars Penelope Cruz as one of two sisters whose parents died in a fire four years earlier. And while relatively close there is a little distance between them. It takes the death of a beloved senile aunt, who claims to communicate with their dead mother, to bring them back together and expose a vile history.

The title literally means "to return", which takes a number of different meanings in this film, whether it's the past or whether it's the dead or even old feelings and relationships. The cast is a strong female ensemble; so strong that the main female cast COLLECTIVELY won the best actress award at Cannes! It works as a whole and even includes Cruz vamping it up as a Sophia Loren look alike. We even get to hear her sing.

How does one think of Clint Eastwood?

If you're over 60, you probably think of him as the TV star of RAWHIDE. If you're in your 40's you think of him as the ultra cool movie actor from the Dirty Harry series. In your 20's, he's known as the multi Oscar wining director of around 30, that's right THIRTY Films!

He's usually cast himself in them (often a studio proviso for the money to come forth) but as he's gotten more proficient and garnered Oscar nominations, so he's been let looser. And he doesn't fly much freer than in this film.

Letters is based on letters sent home by the man assigned with defending the island; General Kuribayashi. He held the Americans off, with no aerial or ship support for over 30 days. Naturally, the story focuses on other soldiers and what got them to this point as well; emphasizing their basic humanity. See, the Japanese also love horses (but not quite the same way as the Belgians..)

It's filmed in the same basic washed out technique that was used for so much of Band Of Brothers and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (8/10). Which is no, great surprise, knowing that Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks studios were involved with the other two as well as this one.

Eastwood filmed this one directly after FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, using similar locations but with only one cast member in both. And entirely in Japanese!(Well, except for a couple of flash backs et al). You sort of hope that they weren't just giving out Geisha's phone numbers when supposed to be high emoting.... He's had a close, respectful connection with Japan; with three of his previous films winning best foreign movie awards in Japan. And I have no idea whether this one will be nominated under best foreign movie or not?

Ken Watanabe as Kuribayashi is the best known actor in the film; having previously been seen in THE LAST SAMURAI (6/10) and MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (9/10). But the entire cast work well and show individual competent flair.

The script, like FLAGS, has been helped along by script god Paul Haggis(who worked with Eastwood on Million Dollar Baby) and is credited in the Oscar nominations with original writer Iris Yamashita.

This film can be many things to many people; An anti-war film about the futility of a fight when it's known to be lost with disagreements within the chain of command or even a pro-war film about duty, heroism and the men who bravely fight in it despite virtually insurmountable odds. It was released after FLAGS; probably as the studios didn't want to be seen as un-patriotic, releasing this one first, though I believe that this one is chronologically better first.

I'm sure as we speak, travel agents are taking desperate calls from people wanting to go battle site hunting, but to no avail. It's off limits, except on special commemorative occasions and is an active army base.

It works well as a film in creating the sense of isolation and at times almost hopeless desperation of the Japanese, not least by the incredibly evocative soundtrack. I actually stayed specifically to see who wrote the music and was very pleasantly surprised.

Antici..................................pation!

( With apologies to the Rocky Horror etc,etc.)

The Prestige is the third act in a magic show where the magic is presented. (The first two are called the pledge and the turn)

The basic premise is of two magicians at the end of the 19th Century who become mortal enemies over a woman. And, as important, their rivalry in search of the greatest magic trick. And naturally the dilemma of what you can lose when you want to win, damn the consequences.

The protagonists are superbly played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, ably supported by Michael Caine and assisted by Scarlet (why her, again?) Johannssen.

Bale who was the boy in the exquisite EMPIRE OF THE SUN (9/10) and, of course, the not so personable anti-hero in American PSYCHO (8/10) as well as the latest Batman incarnation, is growing into his roles. He is on the cusp of A list status and thoroughly deserves it.

This film is like an exotic buffet; exquisitely crafted, beautifully presented with oddities and interests available throughout. Moody and electric, it captures the time and era beautifully. It is another feather in the amazing Christopher (MEMENTO (9/10) Nolan's cap. He's become a name director that you can trust with your hard-earned moolah.

Especially interesting in reality was the whole story of the Edison/Tesla feud which was only touched on here. Tesla was basically the person who invented AC current and then was shafted by Edison. Watch for an interesting cameo appearance here. And Andy (gollum) Serkis in a non-digitized role.

THE PRESTIGE was really magic.

Greenland was apparently so named so it would inspire people to come there, in the same way that half of South Africa's fortress complexes have soothing names like whispering pines, while they're overlooking a motorway truck stop. Or Shay glades in the middle of the Karoo. And after seeing this film I know that it's not a place I'm going on holiday.

This the story of a Yossarian-like character,played by Jason "AMERICAN PIE(4/10) " Biggs, dropped of in this desolate hell while thinking he's on his way to Hawaii; part of a snafu in the military transfer machine. It's a base which exists for apparently no other reason than as a re-fueling stop on the way to and from Europe; though judging by the infrequency of the planes not a very strategic one. To add to all this he's misidentified as another person completely who at the moment is sunning himself in Hawaii. The more he complains about this situation, the more he is rebuffed. And then he discovers the base's secret.

Based on the book,NO ONE THINKS OF GREENLAND, it has elements of both Catch-22 and M*A*S*H (9/10) in it, without quite capturing the original spirit of both. Interesting point is that the film is based in 1979, just after the Vietnam war, instead of the original book which was based the same time period after the Korean War. To make it more relevant, I guess.

Jeremy Northam plays a wonderful ego-centric base commander, with the uniquely attractive Natasha McElhone as his secretary Northam is an actor who's been around a while and is just itching to break into the higher acting echelons as occupied by the Fiennes. Give him a little time.

It's a moody little film with some fun characterizations of the mostly semi-psychotic kind. Biggs shows that he can act outside the Pie trilogy, but I can't quite see why he was cast here. It is a British production and, like NOTTING HILL (8/10) with la Roberts or 4 WEDDINGS (8/10) with Angie McD, they've though it necessary to bring in an American actor for distribution in the states. But who the hell wants to see Jason Biggs in something other than teen slapstick. Let me re-phrase that; who wants to see Jason Biggs at all? And when he starts to charm the delicious Natasha, I suppose it gives hope to all the pimplicious in the audience that there is hope, Luke. Mind you with all the other creatures that infested the base, he was the normalest. Maybe, like the frog-eyed Steve Buscemi, he will win me over, but somehow I doubt it.

Ewan Mcgregor's come a long way since his breakthrough role in TRAINSPOTTING (8/10). And boy has he had fun doing it. He's played dancers, and sung (successfully), played soldiers and star warriors, cartoons and crooks. In fact the only commonality is that they are all so different. But the one thread that runs through is that he's just so goddamn likable! In this film he plays a human clone,Lincoln Six Echo, who comes to have a sense of awareness; an awakening sensibility. He starts having bad dreams that have no sense of continuity with his own memories. And the story is of his relationship with Jordan (played surprisingly well by Scarlett Johannsenn) and his own growing awareness.

It's pretty easy to tell the good guys from the bad ones; going back to Tom Mix cowboy films, the good guys are in white and the bad guys in black. Actually some of the good guys eventually do dress in black so lets rephrase that; the guys in white are the non sentient and the ones in black have self awareness.

Unlike a lot of big action films of now, the acting is of an exceptional calibre and talent list. Whereas the talent in most action films tends to be of porn star calibre, here we have Sean Bean in a major role as well as the cheese monkey Steve Buscemi in a minor but essential one.

Djimon Hounsou plays the seeker who has to go out and hunt down. While this role is a relatively ordinary one, he brings gravitas and style to it. He's an extraordinary actor who has been nominated ( and is my pick) for a best supporting actor Oscar after being cruelly ignored in the astounding AMISTAD (9/10).

Michael Bay is the bomb. Literally. He lives for the big explosion/ chase scenes. This is the guy who put the arms in Armageddon. (6/10) and the Bad in BAD BOYS. With romantic interplay, you can feel it's very much the second directors job to do that while he does the more exciting stuff.

The film has echos of GATTACA (10/10) of a controlled future, where society is controlled and the freedom of choice is taken away for the greater good. It works as an action film and asks a couple of interesting ethical questions along the way. Happily you won't be baying for the directors head after this one.

Should any husband be allowed to direct his wife in love scenes? (Apart from home video/DVDs with their questionable production values. ) If he's not explicit enough people shout "cheat!" If he's too explicit then one questions his own limit setting. That I guess was one of the dilemmas (but not the least) facing Daniel Aronowsky with his filming of his wife Rachel Weisz in his new film THE FOUNTAIN.

Daniel Aronowsky directs this multi leveled/ layered story of a tale of love and the quest for immortality through the ages; on a physical, scientific and spiritual level. It's set at the time of the conquistadors, the present day and in a timeless state. And if that sounds a little confusing, well that's because it is; until at least a good half hour into the film.

One gets the feeling that the editing process must have been a "sturm und drang" performance, with time changes, scene changes, reversals in time sequences all taking part. And the script is not as tight as it could be despite multiple revisions greater than a south African history textbook. This film has been a labour of love for him, it having first being proposed and worked on since the late '90's. Initially the Hugh Jackman role was to be played by Brad Pitt who pulled out at the last minute, causing the whole project to collapse. Cate Blanchett also pulled out, causing him to re-cast his wife in her role. I guess he just wanted someone he'd be sure wouldn't abandon him in the end. It's like his own FITZCARRALDO (8/10) So, after all that, did I like the film? Some of the set pieces were really quite beautiful, given the relatively small budget. And Hugh Jackman gives a pleasantly overwrought performance. Rachel Weisz, A Rhodes? graduate isn't really all that interesting in this- back to the old problem of directing family. And I would have loved to have seen more of Stephen McHattie who played the Chief Inquisitor. But I guess that will come with the deleted scenes, extra length special edition. Back to the over editing/ strange cuts that occurred throughout.

But overall, no. This isn't a film that is going to get me waiting fervently for the special edition DVD. . The film reminded me of SOLARIS(8/10) especially in the way it ambled through the space sequences in an almost zen-like trance. SOLARIS was also a film that initially didn't grab me by the short and curlies initially, but grew on me from a second viewing.

While I can't say I was too excited about it in toto, this is a film which will have its proponents and fierce opponents. Enjoy the debate.

Some films you want to see desperately and just never get round to them. They start winning awards, accolades and get great WOM. And finally you get to see them with a wave of expectation, anticipation and excitement. Such was HIDDEN.

It won a whole gamut of awards including Film Critics circle of Australia award and some European worthish ones especially best director for Haneke at Cannes.

It created a buzz amongst people as a satisfying thriller and intriguing.

So I finally got to see it last week. Starring The incroyable Daniel Auteil who looks like a less caricatured Depardieu and the always beautiful Juliette Binoche star of CHOCOLAT(8/10)

The story basically revolves around a series of mysterious video tapes mailed to Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteil); the self- involved host of one of those round table talk fests that the French are famous for showing on TV. (Go to TF1 on the satellite to see examples). These tapes are initially obtuse but, along with disturbing childishly drawn pictures, hint of a secret hidden in the past. Georges faces a choice as to whether to ignore these or whether to go forward to discover if there is any meaning to these.

The film explores the hidden corners of our lives and our pasts; whether deliberately or unconsciously. All the characters have secrets that they don't want exposed for the world to see or even themselves.

It's not an easy film to watch, as are most of Haneke's films (THE PIANO TEACHER (7/10) being his prime example), but does get you thinking which is a much as you can ask from a film. And it may not be likable with a structure that jars initially, due to techniques and methods that aren't the norm including the virtual lack of any music in the film.(Soundtrack by Philip Glass)

Also the long, single shot scenes. And I mean long...

When one thinks of European films, one tends to think of them as being arty, despite a line of comedies and plots with conventional, almost Hollywood endings (CAGE AUX FOLLES (7/10) or CHOCOLAT (8/10)). This film goes back to that usual view of foreign film with its basic obstinacy. I liked it as an intriguing film and after viewing it and reading the newsgroups I want to see it again.

NB I include a link to a discussion board WITH SPOILERS that should only be viewed AFTER the movie has been seen. To do it before will ruin a couple of elements that would are intriguing. (I was one of the1/3 mentioned in the first paragraph.) http://leftbehinds.blogspot.com/2005/12/update-cachs-meaning.html

Serendipity is one of the great pleasures of life. Or as Forrest would put it, "Life is like a box of chocolates.." I went to see the new Bond film and found the 8pm show sold out! (In Cape Town? In season? Never!) As others had gone to see the new BORAT extravaganza(9/10), and I'd already paid for parking and had already had my Vodka ration for the day, we went to the Nouveau to scout out something starting in the next 5 minutes. All that was left were two films; the Clint/ Japanese take on Iwo Jima which ended at @ 2h00am and MERRY Christmas(Joyeux Noel).

It basically tells the story of the Christmas truce during the first World war. This was when along the frontline, the Germans, French and British/Scots struck up a truce that in some areas lasted as long as 10 days. They exchanged food, stories, even liquor.

The cast. apart from one or two familiar faces is, to an anglo watcher, utterly unfamiliar. No Depardieus here. It is in three languages (four, if you include the way the Scottish speak English) and was the French Oscar contender for the best foreign film. ( The year Gavin Hood did us proud with Tsotsi.) The most amazing thing about this film is that it ever got made at all. Normally a film has 1,2 or maybe 3 producers/production companies. This one had 27! Can you imagine the teleconferencing bills at the end of it. And the pecking order. It probably took 3 weeks just to decide on the language they would all correspond in. And lets not even get to the catering.

And yet it works. It has joined the Christmas classic collection with others such as IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (8/10) and ELF (9/10). It really talks of mans common humanity, despite adversity and trying circumstances. The bravery of those who took the first steps can't be overemphasised. There are a number of scenes which stand out, but for me the carol singing scene was the most moving.

Next time you find yourself at the movies and you don't know what to see, take a flyer; you may be surprised.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." — W. Durant No one can accuse Mel G of taking the easy way out; in his personal or directorial life. In his personal life he's known as an alcoholic who likes to jump off the wagon and into his SUV once too often, with various choice epithets and slurs along the way. He's graduated from acting pretty boy charmer roles into more meaty, personal choices in his acting, producing and finally directing ones.

His directorial debut was with THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE (8/10); an uneasy film about a relationship between a disfigured man and a boy with uncomfortable undertones.

His next was the anti-British diatribe BRAVEHEART(6/10) with non-optional torture scenes . Which was just the prelude to THE PASSION OF THE Christ; A cinematographically gorgeous film which I just couldn't watch.

Well, if you're at all squeamish, give APOCALYPTO a miss. While not as constantly graphic as POTC, it still hits pretty hard. These stunt boys deserved their pay.

It's basically the story of various tribes with their various cultures and sub-cultures; the initial hunter-gatherer tribe which lives within the confines of it's family unit and the larger more industrialized city based "civilized" one, with the lack of personal interactions and cohesiveness leading to a new Sodom and Gomorrah.

It's filmed in a mixture of high definition digital video and film, giving an uneasy mix of the two at times. The Video is used in a lot of the fight/action scenes for a greater sense of immediacy. (Apart from some of Soderbergh's follies, the highest profile film to use High definition video recently was COLLATERAL (9/10).

It works on many levels; as a tale of differences and changes in societies, an adventure story, a story of love and determination. Sure, there are some nit-picking historical inaccuracies but take it as artistic license.

Filmed in a Mayan dialect with English subtitles, it brings a lot of humanity to peoples that we wouldn't ordinarily watch. It makes us care. And the magic is he brings humanity and an understanding to both main protagonists. After an initial, necessary , slower introduction, it picks up pace and never lets up. The acting is superb; with none of the actors being even close to a household name in the English speaking film world.

it is a travesty that it wasn't nominated in the best foreign language Oscar category, but I guess the main backing was from within the US, thus disqualifying it.

But I'm sure it Mayan win a couple of other awards

The "original" Casino Royale nearly destroyed the genre with its spoof take on the whole aspect. (by the time NEVER SAY NEVER (6/10) came around the franchise was pretty much impermeable). It was called charles feldman's CASINO ROYALE- more appropriate would've been Marty Feldman's...

THis ROYALE came from the Broccollis wanting to re-jig the franchise. Even though the last couple of Bonds have been monetarily pretty successful, they wanted to try something new. (I guess when someone gets too popular they want to start demanding gross points on profits a la Tom Cruise and you can't have that in the caring/sharing world of movie production. ) And they came up with their new Bond. Whereas they had rugged Bond in Sean connery, Teflon Bond in Roger Moore, anxious Bond in Timothy Dalton, bemused Bond in George Lazenby, smooth Bond in Pierce B now we welcome the world to barrowboy Bond. And he's not really eye candy for the fairer sex, lets be honest. And for gods sake, does anyone really wear those swimming trunks? In his acting style he is an intense, superb classical actor with an intense credibility but with the romantic skills of Gollum.

The story has gone micro here. Whereas before we've had Blofeld and company wanting nothing less than to rule the world, here we have accounting villain. Like Enron but on a much, much smaller scale. But the screenplay by Paul Haggis (CRASH 9/10) is good, crisp, witty and a pleasure to view.

The main villain played by uber Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen has lost a couple of bucks because of Bond's interference and is trying to win it back. And he doesn't even cheat!! What kind of villainy is that? I want my money back! (or rather he does). In the Bond villain stakes he's a little too human, but I guess that's what the director wanted to convey.

And the Bond girls are either beautiful and can't act (Caterina Murino) or can act and just don't cut it in the gorgeous stakes (Eva Green). She is more goth than gorgeous.

Where this film really takes off is in the action sequences. There are some spectacular set pieces including the most breath taking chase I've ever seen. If you've seen better, please let me know. This film is as exhausting as a trip to the gym with the side benefit of popcorn. And comfy chairs.

Judi Dench plays Dame Judi Dench as always. (Shouldn't she have played THE QUEEN?). And thankfully no John Cleese as Q. I love the Python's to a fault but him as Q was utterly gratuitously pointless.

Some of the product placement was a little ungracious. (A rolex? No Omega.) And I guess we'll all want Sony Ericsson's after this. And Bond driving a Ford (Maybe if he's been tied up and put in the boot..) But the star product of course was the Aston. After the BMW's tacky range its a welcome return.

Overall an interesting addition to the genre.

The world is divided into two; those who believe Scorcese has been victimised and deliberately ignored in the Oscar stakes and those who think he's trying a little tooooo hard to worm his way into the Oscar Academy's graces. Okay, so TAXI DRIVER (9/10) could've won but it was also against NETWORK (9/10) and the eventual winner ROCKY (9/10). And who could forget the incredible KING OF COMEDY(10/10) with Bob De Niro playing the wanna be standup Rupert Pupkin with Jerry Lewis playing the straight man.

Yes, with his last two films, you watched them and go "so what?" GANGS(6/10) was almost camp in some of its violence with the cartoonish Daniel Day Lewis , while THE AVIATOR (6/10) made one look on in horror at Leo De caprio's miscasting. And made you wonder what the hell he saw in Leo apart from his pretty blue eyes? He's back. This is gangster opera. Ebbing and flowing through a sometimes complex film with more crosses( and double ones) than a Lourdes shrine. And put any TITANIC (6/10) misconceptions to rest; this film shows Leo can act. He plays an undercover cop, Billy Costigan, who goes so deep that he finds it hard to come back. An emotional tour de force, and force majeur. Makes me look forward to seeing BLOOD DIAMOND in the coming year.

The basic premise is of undercover infiltrations into the violent ganglands of Boston; not the first natural milieu for the genre you'd think of, in this most mayflower of cities. Jack Nicholson plays a crime boss who does it as much for the love of the game as for the profit it brings. Matt Damon is an ambitious cop with plans for the future which take him outside of the force. But his past won't free him and he knows it. An at times unbearably tense film, it gripped me throughout.

Great support by Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, alec Balwin, Ray Winstone and the not so insignifcant love interest Vera Farmiga.

And expect to see Marty up on the stage come February 25th, with his cheeks shining with tears and Jack in the front row, slow clapping him up with his trademarked grin.

Well, the book was apparently written and optioned off by a 17 year old boy. Kudos and well done to him.

The film itself... Yes, well.........

There's more humour in a Christmas cracker joke than in this film. And in a film inostensibly for kids. Yes, there are good performances ; Jeremy( I'm available) Irons as an old sozzled dragon warrior who comes to find his cause once more, John Malkovich doing whatever it is that he does and well. But what the hell was Robert Carlyle doing in this? And the main actor is Edwar Speleers. Yes, a name to roll off the tongue like Brad Pitt or Daniel Craig. I'm afraid he's got the instant rcognition of the Vanity Fair up and coming actor page. Well as long as he enjoys his trilogy of fame. Ah la Elijah(owl eyes ) Wood

Its a cross between LOTR (9/7/6/) and STAR WARS (7/8/7/6/5/5) with dragons thrown in. Or rather Dragon. I guess the CGI got a little expensive in the end that to go more than one would have been a bridge too far. OK, maybe a bit facetious but there's nothing we haven't seen before. Thank goddness it didn't run to LOTR lengths or I woul've had to abandon my kids a t the cinema.

There are two saving graces; first is the gorgeous Sienna Guillory who reminds me of a more attractive Claire Danes. She's been in a whole range of films; from the eclectic 3 KINGS (8/10) and KISS KISS BANG BANG (9/10) to quality rom-com in LOVE ACTUALLY (8/10). Hopefully she'll take the money and move on.

And the second is the incredible scenery which may do for Hungary what LOTR (9/7/6) did for New Zealand. And its a lot closer and more culturally stimulating.

Many moons ago (around 11 years ago) we were in Durban at the same time as HRH's re-visit to South Africa. Amongst other functions, she was going to the horse races . So as a public service, to myself and to see if she looked anything like her pictures, I went to see her. It ended up being one of those muggy, rainy days where the days races ended up being cancelled. (Which with my luck on the nags ended up probably being a good thing.)

But she came anyway an did a walkabout for those of us who stayed around. And, without being a royalist in any form, she impressed; A true presence.

Helen Mirren, who has been around for donkey's years does the same here. She plays the Queen as someone whos life is their duty and vice versa. And sometimes it's difficuilt to know where one begins and ends. This is not someone that one cosies up to in any shape or form, as Charles makes clear in one of his comments to her.

Michael Sheen plays Tony Blair in a picture perfect portrayal in his mannerisms of the time and of a Prime Minister getting used to the reins of power.

Helen Mirren was an excellent choice to play her and her resemblance after make-up is incredible. She has always played an aloof/knowledgeably superior character; from films like THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER (8/10), Peter Greenway's meisterwerk and in the incredible TV series PRIME SUSPECT in her role as inspector Tennison.

The film takes place during the week of Diana's death with all the dramas surrounding it. It goes someway in explaining the Royal families reaction and the characters present. Was it really a tipping point for the monarchy or was it a case of journalistic excess? I don't think so but it makes for an entertaining film with some interesting insights into the royal and ministerial households with their totally different styles; one stuck in a unyielding past and the other a more labile, relaxed future.

As with my prediction for Scorcese to win for THE DEPARTED (9/10) in the Oscars, I would suggest a flutter on Mirren as a sure thing for best actress. Unlike my horse racing tips, you just can't lose.

Saw MI -III today. Well that's 2 hours of my life gone forever. The first and second had a modicum of charm but this, oh god this.. Much has been made of the emotional quotient TC to his friends, Tom Cruise to me, shows in this film. Whoopee do!! It gives him a reason to get teary eyed every couple of minutes. Reminds me of William Hurt in that film about newscasters who could cry on demand.... And so it goes with Tom. He plays cocky too well but give him emotional? His wife in this looks identical to his real one, sans the pregnancy pillow/bump that was used. I had to wait till the credits to find out it wasn't her.

PSH or as I like to call him Phil Seymour Hoffman is a different matter. My god this guy gives gravitas and power. Even though it's popcorn he's a magical brooding presence. A Donald Sutherland or Christopher Plummer (two overused and underrated magicians) of the future.

Story is basically baddie wants to get some Asterix like potion to sell to some other bad guys and tom/ethan's got to save the world.Does he? I won't spoil that for you.

JJ Abrams directed this and it shows. TMA.(Or as Ken Levine would say TOO MANY AIRDUCTS!) As a big screen blockbuster at times it has a claustrophobic, televisual feel to it. And the editing. Around the World in eighty days did it more elegantly. We don't need to see the passport check in but come on...

The publicity extravaganza @ this has been intense and I can see why; if you make enough noise, they will come. But only once. Second week isn't going to be that hot.

Can wait for MI 4

What can one say?And when? As soon as you've walked out of this film you'll be forgetting it, step by step. A sweet little romcom, a by the book, done by the numbers. I expected to find the director to be a relative rookie- instead it's Nicolas Hytner, well known theater director in the Uk with writer Wendy Wasserstein, American playwright. It has all the feel of a contractual obligation more than someones obsession.

A sweet boy meets girl film with the twist of the boy being gay. Jennifer Aniston is her own cute self being paired initially with the unlikely pairing of John Pankow. Now come on! Is this the non-porn equivalent of Ron Jeremy? Is this a plot or what? The potential /possible coupling of everyman with this ex-friends goddess? I'd dismiss this if she hadn't been paired with the equally visually unblessed John C Reilly in THE GOOD GIRL.

A cast of been there's, also rans and who the hell was that until suddenly out of left field comes the remarkable Nigel Hawthorne. Out of place until you realize that he was in THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE directed by Hytner. He gets to deliver one of the more poignant speeches in the film and makes the film all the better for his appearance. Like candyfloss- sweet, fun at the time and forgettable as soon as you've finished.

Between strangers tells the very loosely connected story of three women, all having lost an important aspect of their lives and the chance to confront their old ghosts.

The three women are acted by three ages of women; Mira Sorvino, Debra Unger and finally the perennial Sophia Loren looking deliberately dowdy. They are supported by an able cast of some of Europe's actors, representing where the films finances were presumably gathered- Gerard depardieu (France) in an almost cameo appearance, Klaus Marie Brandauer (Germany)as an ambitious photojournalist father, Pete Postlethwaite(UK) as an embittered ex-runner.Add to that Sophia(Italy), Mira(USA) and Debra Unger(Canada) amongst others and this film must have cost more in airfares than any other cost.

It is the second film by Edoardo Ponti, son of Carlo Ponti and more famously Sophia Loren. He never lets that get in the way of the story and directs her without kid gloves.

He also wrote the script and, as a second film, it succeeds well with a story that moves along, letting us get to know and empathize with the characters and care what happens.

Yuri Orlov(Nicolas Cage) is a Ukrainian boy from the wrong side of the tracks 0r, as he puts it more succinctly, "the end of the line." He comes from a family where to survive they've had to lie just to leave the old country, just to find its not too peachy on the other side. He finds a niche in arms dealing, initially small stuff and works his way into the big leagues.

Cage plays him in his usual laconic style, making him a likable anti-hero, even when you know you can't possibly agree with him. It's not that he doesn't necessarily know what's wrong or right, but that he has come to the realisation that if he doesn't do it, it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference. His brother, played by Jared Leto, is along for the ride till he can't stomach it any longer and opts out, a broken wasted man. Ethan Hawke (seen in the Niccol directed GATTACA) is an interpol agent who is determined to bring down Yuri

Along the way we are given a couple of truths about the industry and reminders. Among them the most startling is that the number of gun shops in the US outstrips the number of McDonalds. Scary stats. Even these hustlers with their multimillion dollar deals skating on the edge of the law, wouldn't be missed if they disappeared, in relation to the countries with their multi billion dollar industries.

The writer and director, Andrew Niccol, was responsible for both THE TRUMAN SHOW and GATTACA; both original in concept and beautifully realised. In common, their central character ends up having to fight for his choice, damn the consequences. Yuri is apparently based on an amalgamation of the stories of five different arms dealers. The film found difficulty getting produced, with its off-beat and controversial theme.

With the nomination season coming up, I'd like to see it getting at least a best original screemnplay nod. A real original in a year of some poor copies( HERBIE) and some downright turkeys (DUKES OF HAZZARD).

This film should be called DAS BUNKER. A film both physically and metaphorically claustrophobic. Like DAS BOOT, one also gets glimpses of the outside world and the possibilities that could occur, but won't. It chronicles the last days of Hitler and selected cronies as they watch the world they created vanish around them.

Hitler is extraordinarily played by the actor Bruno Ganz, most famously seen in an antonym of this role as an angel in WINGS OF DESIRE. In the same way that Germany needed an outsider to motivate their militarism and eventual destruction, so has Oliver Hirschbiegel employed a foreigner(Ganz is Swiss) to depict this most deplored of dictators. He is humanised here- no Bokassesque cannibalism here. There were times he could be kind and, horror of horrors, even loved his dog! And not even in the biblical sense. But evil has always had a deceptive face and the depiction of the orderly, ordinary world is chilling in view of all that we know.

The film is taken from the diaries and observations of, amongst others, Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge here ably played by Alexandra Maria Lara- an innocent? amongst wolves. At times there is almost a fly on the wall feel to the film. At two and a half hours it's no slouch but I didn't feel it. Take a big pack of popcorn a strong bladder and prepare for one of the finest films of the year.

There are some pretty awfully spawned adaptations of comic superheroes. Happily,this isn't one of them. A well crafted screenplay by Mark Frost and Michael France (who wrote the unfortunate Hulk) takes us through the characters transformation from ordinary hard working astrophysicists into superheroes. Ioan Gruffudd after coming to prominence in the Hornblower series, takes his first blockbuster leading role and does a sterling job (with obligatory mid Atlantic accent). But Julian McMahon ( another import- Aussie this time) steals the show as a sympathetic Victor Von Doom. Unlike the latest Harry Potter wizbangfest, you can watch this from alpha to omega without feeling something is missing. My only question is why oh why Jessica Alba as an uber scientist? I have the feeling it's her to blame for the initial radiation problem but can't prove it....