Reviews

As any follower of David Lynch's films may already know, his films are sometimes a little hard to follow. One of his more recent efforts, Lost Highway, was perhaps his most unrepentantly perplexing film to date. Following from the much more straightforward (no pun intended) The Straight Story, came this, an aborted TV series pilot - a companion piece to his earlier Twin Peaks if you will - finished off and rounded out to become his surreal masterpiece.

It hardly seems worthwhile trying to summarise the narrative or plot, but suffice to say it concerns a matter of missing identity, an actress new to Hollywood, a director under pressure and a string of dreams and secrets. By no means a film for all tastes, it is nevertheless intangibly brilliant - even though on first viewing you may be completely confused as to what you saw, it is impossible to deny the skill with which it was made and the power that several sequences hold.It is Lynch's sure hand that guides you, reassuring you that even if it makes no sense or it goes over your head, it still all works, thanks to canny, pitch-perfect performances and a series of icons and symbols which recur at key moments.

In many ways, the film is a puzzle box, doubling back on itself and shuffling between realms, leaving traces of the truth, but no clear answers. And where the film succeeds beyond description is in atmosphere. There are moments that will have you close to tears, even though you won't know why exactly. Others will have you terrified, though lost. It is worth mentioning that there are moments of pure erotica here as well, both beautiful and raw.

When all is said and done, the film exists in a field separate from most others, leaving not just a distinct experience, but a sound and a style, nearly a taste all of its own. Lynch has created a vision that only makes sense in the realm of a dream - a realm where things do not necessarily follow on from one another, nor do they at first fit together, but taken as a whole leave you with a sense of the emotions and feelings of those involved.

Upon repeat viewings, there are noticeable details that help fill in some of the blanks and having seen it several times now, I view the film - by the time it has ended - as a harsh satire of human selfishness and cruelty and greed. But a brilliantly acted and gorgeously shot one, quite unlike anything else I've seen. For anyone looking for something provocative, daring, different or just wanting to sink their teeth into a mystery, I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

Having not seen any of Shane Meadows' earlier efforts before seeing this, I cannot compare it to them, but I certainly understand all the hype about this young filmmaker from this film alone.

What on paper is basically Get Carter in the North is in actuality almost impossible to define. It has the basic plot of a revenge film, maybe even of a slasher film, yet is not a thriller, nor a horror film. Moreso, it is a drama about real people, played incredibly naturalistically by all involved, that happens to involve a series of murders driven by vengeance (for what, we are unsure until the final act).

At the centre is an electrifying, funny, touching and terrifying performance from Paddy Considine as protagonist Richard, proving once more that he truly is one of the most interesting and gifted actors to come out of Britain in a long time. He can go from calm and pleasant to truly menacing and back again in a second and it never seems hammy or over-egged.

Surrounding him are a group of extremely solid supporting actors, most notably first-timer Toby Kebbell playing his slightly mentally-handicapped brother Anthony. Given only a few lines of dialogue and some disturbing scenes of physicality, he crafts a rounded, sympathetic and slightly pathetic character. His scene with Considine where they reminisce about an old football match is a masterclass of performance and writing, minimalistically crafting layers of character through nuance and very little dialogue.

Also notable is Gary Stretch (who stood out in his small part as Cleitus in Alexander) who here plays the truly despicable antagonist, Sonny. He's a scumbag drug-dealing club owner who is at the very heart of the events Ricahrd is avenging, and who never shows any remorse, instead going on the war path to little avail. He too has a breathtaking scene with Considine when Sonny first confronts Richard and Richard shows no fear whatsoever. Genuinely electric.

Indeed, the film is filled with unique takes on staple ideas of the revenge/slasher film, all the while finding the human truth to the actions of those involved and delivered with a combination of hand-held realism and wistful detachment. Some have mentioned that the film carries a twist towards the end, but because of the execution it does not feel like a twist. Rather it is the culmination of a sub-plot running through the film, as the pieces of the flashbacks from years before come together.

Nothing in the film feels forced and that is perhaps the highest praise the film and its makers can be given. If the story had been a true one, it would certainly not come as a surprise, given the motivations and actions of the thoroughly believable characters. Yet, it is at times extremely harrowing, uncomfortable and unsettling - not because of excessive amounts of gore (while the film contains violence, it is the weight of the violence and not flashy blood and guts that carry impact), but because of the way the events unfold. One prolonged sequence involves a drug trip and the scene seems to last longer than it probably actually does, mirroring the state of the drug-takers, and ending with the most unsettling acts of violence in the film.

When everything is concluded, there are no real happy endings and the climax is certainly not one that can be guessed or easily foreseen. But there is a profound and sad poetry to it somehow, despite the pathos it leaves the viewer with. And after the credits roll, I found it to be a film that stayed with me for some time after - indeed, I am still trying to shake it from my mind. While certainly nowhere near as graphic or violently upsetting as a film like Irreversible, it is easy to draw comparisons as this is a film which tackles notions of human nature and the horrible things people do to one another, all shot through with considerable style and skill (think Hal Ashby meets Michael Winterbottom) and performed by actors who never seem to be giving performances, but rather becoming those characters for 90 minutes. And, of course, it was made by actors and a filmmaker among the most exciting to emerge in recent years, just as was Irreversible.

A haunting, brilliant and sometimes profound experience in film-making and one of the best British films in a decade.

I saw this blind, having only seen the trailer a couple of times almost a year ago. I was hard-pushed for a film to buy, so I got this.

The most gorgeous film I have witnessed in some months. While there are many, many things to admire and enjoy in this film, the most striking aspect is the sumptuous production design and virtually seamless effects work. Every shot is crafted delicately and acutely to perfection and, without having read any of the Lemony Snicket books, you get a tangible sense of the Gothic grandeur which they undoubtedly contain. The design lends the film a very Burton-esquire air, though I fear that is selling the film short, as director Brad Silberling is becoming more confident with each film, defining his own niche in cinema. With his previous films Casper, City of Angels, Moonlight Mile and now this, his work holds together as musings on the impact of death on the living and, having dealt with a loved one's death himself, he is carving an auteur's body of work, balancing adult material and family films expertly.

While there is indeed plenty for children to enjoy, not least Carrey's manic and hilarious performance(s) and the overall sense of awe, in many ways it is a children's film for adults, much in the same vein as Roald Dahl's books were bedtime stories adults would enjoy reading and indeed revisiting. This is aided by the uniformly wonderful and offbeat performances of all involved. Carrey, of course, is perfect as Olaf, hamming it up delightfully yet believing he is the world's finest actor. If I had one complaint, it would be that we simply don't see enough of his creations - I was enjoying his one-legged sea captain immensely, but he wasn't on screen long enough. The Baudelaire children are excellent, without a trace of mawkishness or Jake Lloyd-like discomfort. Emily Browning is surely set to become one of Hollywood's most beautiful young actresses and, unlike most of her peers, has talent to back up her looks. Liam Aiken also has a bright future ahead of him, holding his own against a stellar cast.

And what a cast, full of famous and familiar faces, from mega-stars - the always reliable Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman - through well-known character actors such as Timothy Spall, Billy Connolly and Luis Guzman, to the cultish faves of Catherine O'Hara, Jennifer Coolidge and Jane Adams. The cast is every bit as finely picked as those of the Harry Potter films, though frankly I would rather sit through one of these each year.

While the story is by its nature episodic - the Lemony Snicket novels are very short and this film comprises three of them, each contributing about a half hour of screen time - events move at a fair pace and there is never any boredom thanks to the inventive, witty, often hilarious script. Add to this an interesting and very enjoyable score and some grand set pieces, as well as a mystery running through the film, and this is ideal family fare of the highest order. A sequel would be most welcome, though it seems doubtful at this stage whether we will receive one.

Extra mention must be made of the credits and DVD. The end credits surpass even the recent Catch Me If You Can for inventiveness and sheer enjoyment, rounding off the tone of the film and the fantastic world it sets out for itself. You will find yourself watching right til the end of the main credits, just for the gorgeous animation. And for the 2-disc DVD, Dreamworks obviously set out to put Warners' Potter discs to shame, cramming them with pretty much anything you could want to know about the film - including a pair of very good commentaries and hours worth of making of material, highlights being the Jim Carrey featurette and the pieces on making an artificial version of Sunny, the baby. A must for die-hard DVD aficionados and first-rate viewing for the family.

Fans of 2000's Pitch Black probably need to adjust their expectations for this one. Whereas that was a nifty, low-budget suspense film, set in a sci-fi/horror/race against time milieu, this is a much broader, more straightforward sci-fi fantasy film. Its bigger in scope, with more money to play with and used well on some nice effects and grand set designs. The only carry over from the first film (not essential for newcomers) is in the characters of Riddick, Jack and the holy man Imam.

The film catches up with Riddick on the run, chased across planets as a payday for bounty hunters. His attempted capture leads him back to Imam, the man he trusted with his whereabouts, now apparently his betrayer. Finding him to exact rough justice embroils him in an inter-galactic conflict between peaceful residents of planet Helion Prime and a war-mongering race known as Necromongers whose leader has found a gateway to another dimension - Hell? Heaven? - and is enslaving races to make his journey complete.

Its all a bit light on plot and heavy on exposition, but never less than interesting or entertaining. There are some nice action set-pieces - a prison break out and subsequent race against a 700-degree sunrise takes up much of the film's middle act - and some fairly brutal fight sequences, though nothing too bloody. And underneath it all, if you look hard enough, is a subtext about the master race and the thwarting of apparently "evil" regimes, even slavery. And the performances are fine. Vin Diesel clearly owes a lot to the machismo of mid-eighties action heroes, and he seems to be trying to out do them with his gruffer than gruff, bassy tones and unmovable physicality. Judi Dench, if a little out of place in something this fantastical, works wonders with some tough, Obi-Wan-esque dialogue and Karl Urban, having offed orcs in the Lord of the Rings and fought against Jason Bourne in his second film, is becoming a recognizable and very watchable addition to action across all genres. Even Thandie Newton, who is often hit and miss, makes a bid for Lady Macbeth-style, string pulling menace and pretty much pulls it off. Finally, there is some lovely eye candy for the lads in the shape of Alexa Davalos, playing the renamed Jack character, Kyra. Yummy.

In the end, its perhaps not the action spectacle it seems from the trailers, but it looks great and manages to establish a new sci-fi universe fairly adequately. As such, it slips comfortably into the sci-fi middle ground previously held sway over by Star Trek and the like and a sequel would not be an unpleasant prospect. In truth, when all is said and done, it feels very much as though this film's main purpose is to broaden our understanding of the Riddick character and his past and set up his and the universe's future for a further installment. Diesel has said that that will happen, despite the film not really setting the box office on fire this summer. So, the best part of the film for me was the denouement, which lifted what had gone before to something slightly grander and asked a question which only a sequel could really answer.

Lower your expectations and go expecting some nice visuals and you may well be pleasantly surprised. Its not as well-established as the similar (in scope) Star Wars franchise, but is far grander in scale than the shooting fish in a barrel stylings of Troy. And there are some decent punch-ups to boot.

Let me first pre-empt this review with a little background. I love zombie movies. Admittedly, its a sub-genre that is over-populated and stories are recycled time and time over, but the Romero Living Dead trilogy is brilliant (particularly Dawn of the Dead), the recent DotD remake was pretty good and 28 Days Later is one of my favourite recent movies, probably my favourite British movie ever made. Which leads me to my second point. I am not a fan of British "comedy" films. Four Weddings, i'll allow, is actually very good mostly. Withnail and I is classic. But the rest are fairly samey and safe, without much of the fire and wit that British TV comedy seems to do very well at the moment.

As a former student, I must confess a guilty love of Spaced. I'm a film nut, so anything with references to cult movies is preaching to the converted. Added to that, Simon Pegg, Jessica Stevenson et al are not only gifted comedic performers, they are credible actors. Spaced was slightly different - the anti-Friends - and has a very specific appeal. It is with joy and hope for the future, that I can honestly say that Shaun of the Dead is worthy of sitting next to all the above on a DVD shelf.

The first 45 minutes zip past, littered with cinematic references and techniques (the smash cuts from Requiem for a Dream, for example), ticking all the boxes of not only the horror/Zombie rampage genre but also the level of humour expected of these performers. Essentially, if you've seen any of Pegg, Davis, Moran etc in their other well known roles, they are riffing on those personas under different names. Once the situation has been established and the plan formulated, the gags slow down a bit to (ahem) flesh out the plot and fulfill the cliches inherent to the setup.

Its here that the film may lose some of its fans as it really becomes less of a comedy and more of a sidewise-glancing genre entry. There are genuine shocks, a sense of impending doom and strangely touching farewells, not to mention a handsome helping of gore. I actually found this to be quite refreshing. It would have been easy to continue ripping away at the staples of the genre, but not as memorable. For one thing, Pegg firmly establishes himself as a leading man worthy of notice. Sure, he has a schtick in terms of comedy, but like, say, Owen Wilson, it is appealing and funny. Also like Owen Wilson, he can handle the dramatic chops when required. He displays a nice versatility and a good range of emotion and you really pull for his character by the end. The same goes for Lucy Davis, who steps out slightly from the shadow of Dawn to create someone quite believable and quietly humourous. The camera really loves her here and she glows.

A wonderfully, almost unnoticeable aspect to the film that I never expected was, half an hour from the end, I had little idea of where the film would go and the more time ran out, the more I was convinced no-one would make it out in one piece. How right was I? Well, you should find out for yourself.

Suffice to say that the film works wonderfully structurally, technically, comedically and dramatically, all the time very aware of and respectful toward the genre it is lampooning. It may slow down a bit in the last third, but stay with it and you may find the idea of a follow-up not so dreadful. Personally, i'd like to see a non-sequel with the same kind of characters placed in a different genre and story, unrelated in any way to this one (current rumours include Children of the Shaun and From Dusk Til Shaun, haw-haw).

It is good news for the British film industry that this film is being so well received here and internationally as we might finally shrug off the Full Monty/Hugh Grant romcom limitations inherent to UK successes in cinema, to see films of the quality of The Office reach big screens rather than small. If you dig cult films, alternative British comedy and something more worthy of rememberance than Two Weeks Notice, go see this film while its still around. It will be everything you expect and nothing you expect. How often do you say that about a British film?

For fans of Jackie Chan's and Sammo Hung's other work together (Project A, Mr Nice Guy etc.) this is a step down in terms of sheer martial artistry. Aside from a good opening sequence in a fairground and the last twenty or so minutes, the rest of the film is Chan-less and situation-based comedy springing from the main band of failed crooks. Sammo is the leader of a ragtag bunch heading to Japan for reasons that really only become clear towards the end.

Along the way though, there is some rich comedy mined from both the collection of characters (including a womaniser, a wannabe telekesisist - is this a word? - and a chubby dimwit whose loyalty literally knows no bounds.) A couple of the routines are a bit trying - a scene with a female assistant investigator and a faked robbery is too long and obvious - but generally it is quite charming and sweet. One routine in a Japanese restaurant is priceless, the gag built up well between the different characters and paying off beautifully.

All in all, it moves along at a fair pace and is so gently and confidently performed that it's an enjoyable way to spend ninety minutes. A bit more Chan, a bit more action and a tighter story would have made it more memorable, but if you like the genre, this is better than a lot of the similar films. And, perhaps because of when it was made and presumably to boost Hung's profile, JC plays the same character as in the Police Story films. (Just a tidbit for the hardcore geeks out there...) Worth a rent if not a purchase.

Peter Weir is one of those directors whose films are well-known, yet the man behind them doesn't seem to garner the recognition he deserves. Over the last thirty years, he has made some of the very best films of their respective years, traversing different categoric genres, but always focussing on the human story behind each story - no matter how big or small. Picnic at Hanging Rock. Witness. Fearless. The Truman Show. And now, his largest film by far, yet also a deeply personal one, arguably his greatest achievement in a career filled with triumphs of popular cinema.

As the scope of his films gets bigger, the characters become more defined and human, a rare accomplishment indeed. For me, although I love The Truman Show deeply, and feel it is at least in part responsible for a growth in more intelligent, popular movies in recent years, Master and Commander is his best film, a close-to-perfect film for its kind. The story is very simple. "Lucky" Jack Aubrey's ship and crew are hit by a surprise attack from Napoleon's battle ship, the Acheron - the nemesis of the tale. Having weighed up the damage and taken care of the casualties, they retaliate with a seemingly impossible counter-attack by pursuing the stronger, faster ship that outmans and outguns them. They tail them across the vast ocean, through freezing cold, sweltering heat and life-threatening storm.

It is the technique that is astonishing. The detail of the life, the crew and the protocol of war at sea two hundred years ago is all accounted for, without ever becoming tedious. This is a long film that feels long, but never less than gripping, crammed with events, but not necessarily overly complex story. The characters drive it. It is they who are the most interesting aspect of the film and by resting the dramatic weight of the film on the actors shoulders rather than the effects - which are seamless, by the way - the payoff to each individual dynamic is all the more satisfying when it comes. Tempers fray, loyalties are questioned, motives and pride and duty are put under the microscope, making for a tense atmosphere, far more dramatic in classical terms than anything the Wachowskis' fx wizkids can cook up. It is the attention to detail that makes this film.

Every screw and splint of wood of the HMS Surprise is on display, making the ship as much of a character - the omnipresent sidekick to each individual - as any of the crew. With judicious, unshowy yet acute use of both cinematography and sound design, the viewer is put aboard the Surprise. When it leaks, you feel it. When it is damaged, you are scared. And when the crew hurt, you are saddened. This is the best sounding film you will see (or hear) in a cinema all year. Other films bombard you more, sure, but this one immerses you into its world. There is a real feel for what life on board must have been like, but Weir never takes the easy way out by shoving something front and centre, as if to say, "Look how hard life was back then". Rather, it becomes an integral part of the story and the lives of the characters. Crew members get sick and their treatment must be swift and sometimes crude if they are to survive for months away from dry land. The opponents' ship and crew, the French Achelon, is rarely seen any closer than through a telescope, never offering the God's eye view of an alternative experience to that of the Surprise. We know as much or as little about the enemy as Lucky Jack does.

To top all of Weir's technical acheivements, there are two or three outstanding and spectacular battle scenes. The opening twenty minutes are as good as anything in Laurence of Arabia or Pirates of the Caribbean, combining classic set-piece orientation with state of the art model and effects work. You are never taken out of the scene by a "money shot", rather the drama and danger are heightened by a genuinely invisible use of action technique. And when the final skirmish takes place, all of the character building both of the filmmaker and of the crew's Captain, comes into play, making for a terrifying, tense and exciting climax. Along the way, there are exceptional performances from the sometimes overly showy Crowe, here as good as he has ever been, displaying a real control of his craft (no pun intended), a leader trying to balance what is best for his men with his sense of duty, whilst living up to his impeccable military record. Paul Bettany is the yang to Crowe's yin. You feel the history and the brewing difference in priority between a Captain and his Physician, two old friends trying to keep their career and their relationship in check, brought together by their love of and skill in music. The scenes these two share are the most touching, as their loyalty to each other, the ship and the crew are well intentioned, but coming from different standpoints, simultaneously trying to remain honest to one another and do what is right. Billy Boyd makes an impression (even if his accent wavers slightly from time to time) as the helmsman who has the respect of the officers and the friendship of the crew. And the two young officers (I do not know their names, but they are both very young) are superb in roles that are usually carried off appallingly in films like these. As little more than boys, their sense of awe and respect for the older officers and their need to prove their bravery and worth to them comes across beautifully, and their scenes with Bettany and Crowe and incredibly touching, without being sentimental.

That is the skill of the film. It fulfills all the requirements of entertainment - drama, performance, action, spectacle, beauty and humour - without ever overdoing it and spoiling any given moment by going too far. It is also wittily and intelligently written, one of the strongest scripts of its size to be seen this year. The "Weevil" scene is a truly wonderful scene, because it enhances the relationships of all the characters involved, makes a point about life and duty, is very natural and human and is surprisingly funny. The film is filled with such moments and while the ending may not be as long an action scene as some may have come to expect, it carries true weight by rounding off nicely. A completely satisfying film, almost impossible to fault as long as you dont expect a huge action extravaganza. If you have ever watched Mutiny on the Bounty or The Sea Hawk or any such sea-faring, swashbuckling adventure and wanted a glimpse of life in those circumstances, given an historical background and exciting story, then this is mana from Heaven. And when it is over, you wouldn't mind a sequel continuing the story where it left off, not an implausibility given the wealth of source material in Patrick O' Brien's many Jack Aubrey novels. That is a rare feeling, but make sure Peter Weir is at the helm...

"Pull for Lucky Jack"

This is a film that all people from age 12 upwards should be forced to watch, especially conservatives and those in favour of the oppressive regimes of the world, uninformed and unaware of the effects of the media and spin.

For me, this is Micheal Moore's best work yet. Many say it lacks the personal insight of his earlier Roger and Me and, here in Britain, many are more used to seeing Moore in comedic mode on shows such as TV Nation. But this is a far more far-reaching and globally important film than anything he has done, bar his book Stupid White Men.

Firstly, let me address the nay-saying surrounding the film. In the press, on the internet and even on American Network TV, people have accused the film of being a lie about the state of gun culture and culture in general in America. For those people, I would direct them to his website (its easy enough to find), in particular the section titled "Wacko Attacko". That should clear up some things. Know going into this that it deals with some things that are hard to take, but which could not make it into a theatrically released (not to mention Academy award winning) film if they were not gathered from fact.

The film: starting with the now famous scene of Moore procuring a gun from a bank - given to him for opening an account with them - it is a no-holds-barred attack on the state of American gun law and the state of mind that comes with the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. The picture he paints is that that right, paired with the culture of fear onmipresent in commercially-led TV, leads to the notion that we NEED guns to protect ourselves from a savage culture which exists only because we are led to believe it does.

Taking a look at the history of fear and xenophobia front and centre in America's past, right up to the shootings at Columbine school and in Michigan in recent news, Moore's case is extremely effective in convincing us that there is a deep-rooted cancer in society which needs to be addressed if we are to break out of the shackles that we are born into through decades of self-serving propaganda. Moore's brief history of the USA is both hilarious and terrifying. But the real meat is the controversial footage which has some up in arms, decrying him as a liar and cruel opportunist and manipulator.

The footage taken from Columbine school on the day of the killings is absolutely petrifying - a pair of teens armed to the teeth, killing their colleagues and peers with ruthless efficiency - and simultaneously heartbreaking. I am not ashamed in saying that i shed a good few tears, watching the sequence. It is the essence of good documentary, letting the images speak for themselves, devoid of deliberate commentary, to serve the purpose of the film and make a point far better than any voiceover could.

When KMart executives refuse to see the victims of the bullets their store sold, you feel anger and know that the tables have been turned, that the people looking to make a quick buck by selling ammunition in a convenience chain are afraid of the repercussions of their decision. The resultant sequence and the honesty of the boys involved is both powerful and just.

And that is the reason that Moore's film was afforded such praise and awarded one of the highest honours for a documentary filmmaker - it exposes an issue we knew existed, but which had not been fully addressed. It does so in an informative, poignant and humorous manner, enlightening us to the sheer scope of the epidemic, pointing the finger and offering an alternative way of life. It opens our eyes to the system that controls and consumes, that relies on our obedience and our money. It is both surprising and encouraging that the Academy gave Moore the Best Documentary Feature award. It shows that while they award dirge like A Beautiful Mind and the dull Chicago over more inspiring and long-lasting art (who will be talking about those films in ten, twenty, heck even five years?), they recognise a genuinely important film when it arrives.

Finally, it is important to address the backlash surrounding the Charlton Heston interview. It has been called inappropriate, cruel and fruitless. Watch it. Just watch them both in that interview. Moore is a gentleman and, as one previous reviewer pointed out, actually stops Heston from truly hanging himself. Then think about what we have seen. Heston walks out on the interview - IN HIS OWN HOME!! - because he cannot justify his actions in any way that will not come across as ridiculous. he is the Chairman and spokesperson in chief of the National Rifle Association. He believes that people not only have the right but the cause to own guns. "From his cold dead hands". Manipulation or not, those are his words. And he did say them shortly after the Columbine shootings. WATCH THE INTERVIEW. He does not defend or dispute that fact. So he's old. He's infirm. He's a respected actor. Tough luck. He deserves, as much as anyone responsible does, to have those questions put to him. I will never pay for a Charlton Heston film, I will never watch a Charlton Heston film and I will not miss him when he is gone. His position as a free-thinking adult is indefensible. Shame on him.

I may sound angry, and that is the effect the film has. Not in a "I'm gonna get a gun" way, but in a "We as a people are better than this, and I will fight that system all the way for my freedom as a person" kind of way. Once you have seen it, if you are open-minded and fed up with being held responsible for the actions of your nation's leaders, you will look at almost everything in the street in a different light. We don't have to do things this way. That is the film's ultimate message. It is a prescient point, made extremely convincingly. If you are tired of political drivel and commercial or militant spin, I urge you to see this film and support its director. He just might be one of the real good guys.

10/10

Before i write anymore, I must make a confession. I have never seen Child's Play 1 through 3. However, I am well aware of the history of the series, thanks in large part to the British ban of Child's Play 3 as a knee-jerk reaction to the Jamie Bulger killing. I came to Bride of Chucky expecting very little. A friend of mine said i should watch it and lent me the tape, so watch it i did. And i had a derned good time.

This film wastes no time in letting you know where its coming from. In the opening shots, we see a police evidence lockup containing Jason's mask (of Friday the 13th fame) and Freddy's finger knives (of Nightmare on Elm Street infamy). From a locker, a cop pulls a bag containing the shredded remains of Chucky, the once goodguy doll who was possessed by the soul of serial killer Charles Lee Ray. It is obvious that Chucky will be resurrected, as were Jason and Freddy many times (most recently by Bride's director Ronny Yu, in the crossover Freddy vs Jason), and the setting is one of post-modern horror, as was fashionable at the time of the film's release, thanks to Scream and its disciples.

The basic plot is this: Chucky's former girlfriend, Tiffany, resurrects Chucky via some needlework and voodoo, who then kills her (whilst she is watching Bride of Frankenstein, geddit?) and pours her soul into a female doll of Chucky's stature. Tiffany manages to convince her hunky neighbour - who is running away with the girlfriend whose Chief of Police uncle has banned him from seeing - to transport the two dolls to Hackensack, New Jersey, where the body of Charles Lee Ray is buried. Once there, the two dolls will exhume the body, claim back the voodoo amulet which will allow them to repossess human bodies, kill the two teens and take over their forms. Its pretty weak at best, but lets face it, you're only here for three things - the dolls, some laughs and some grisly murders. And that's what you get. The Tiffany doll is brilliant and Jennifer Tilly - though i did miss her voluptuous form filling the screen - brings her to life wonderfully. Brad Dourif gives Chucky - now horribly disfigured, thanks to Tiffany's stitch-up job - appropriate levels of menace and sick humour. And the deaths are pleasingly grisly and imaginative.

What is good about this is that it never really pretends to be anything other than ridiculous. There are constant references to horror movie staples, such as Pinhead etc., and the script consistently pokes fun at the state of affairs. And the whole thing rattles along at a brisk old pace. At just over 80 minutes, there isn't much screentime when some absurd situation or some blood-letting isn't in the works. It just sets up the plot and the set-pieces and gets on with letting them play out much as you would expect.

All the people you dont really warm to get offed pretty quickly. Alexis Arquette, doing his best Marilyn Manson is the first to go, and while Chucky certainly puts him through some pain, the deaths get more elaborate as the film progresses. One of the best scenes sees Chucky blow up a cop car after getting stoned in the back of the teens' truck, and the reaction of a stoned spectator teen to Chucky crawling away and giving him the finger is priceless, and for me the biggest laugh of the film. It also has one of the films two impressive explosions, a minor note, but its always nice to see some good pyrotechnics in a b-movie.

Some of the structuring is actually quite neat as well, with the two unaware teens gradually suspecting each other of the string of murders that seem to dog their roadtrip. And anytime someone new enters the fray, you can guarantee they'll get theirs. Perhaps the best death is a tie between the 'honeymoon sweets' murder and the resultant Final Destination-style splattering of one of the film's main characters. There's also a suitably perverse sex scene which was crying out to happen, topped off with a nice punchline, which sets up the film's final twist.

And what a twist. Hardly unpredictable, but neat none the less, it tops off a sick and entertaining hour and a half effectively enough to warrant a further sequel. A date movie for horror fans, unless your woman is a) scared of murderous dolls, b) far too lofty for this sort of thing, or c)not into a bit of dark silliness. Otherwise, its a good little film, stylish and pacy enough to rise above Direct to Video horror and spineless dirge like I Know What You Did Last Summer. Give it a go - just don't expect The Silence of the Lambs. There's no Oscars here, and all the better for it.

7/10

... Chicago. Oh dear. What a travesty. 2003 continued the trend for the politics to rule the Academy Awards, giving the most prestigious gong to the boring Chicago over this, possibly Polanski's last great masterpiece. Not that he won't make more films, but that this is his finest since Chinatown, a genuine return to form. And with the current stigma against him in the US, he had to seek out funding from four (count them) countries to ensure this worthy, important film got made.

It is the kind of story which has it all - heartbreak, loss, love, death, prejudice, malice, violence, hope, despair, humour and triumph. And that is because it is the story of a man, a real man. An acclaimed, well-known Polish pianist, Wladyslaw Szpilman is our guide to the ghettoisation and subsequent extermination of the Warsaw Jews in World War II, evading capture because of his connections, but watching his family go to die. He survives by joining the Jewish uprising, then hiding in apartments and then ruins in war-torn Warsaw, fleeing from conflict, an outsider watching the dehumanisation of his kin from the inside.

Comparisons between this and the earlier Schindler's List are obvious, particularly in the early evacuation scenes, but rather than one being better than the other, they are merely companion pieces, each approaching different aspects of similar material, shot through with restraint, respect and brilliance. However, while the facts of Schindler's life are open to question, this feels much more real. Szpilman's position is purposefully ambiguous - while he is a man stuck in a desperate situation, seemingly doomed if he does not act, he does not have the bravery others have to stand up and fight. Indeed, at times it seems he dismisses the brutality of others to pursue his own ends - such as when his brother is arrested - but this is merely because there is the sense that everyone is doomed, and if you stop to help someone less fortunate, you may forfeit your own life. His bravery comes instead from his sheer refusal to give up and become a number, another Jewish corpse. By the closing act of the film, you come to realise that he was a man who had respect and a career, even prominence, stripped of everything - his dignity, his clothes, his home, his family, even food - but finding a way to survive, until it blows over and he can once again play the piano. By the end, it seems that this is the only place where he succeeds as a person - he did not relate well to members of his family, he has no lover, he passes from person to person, in passing friendships. But when he plays the piano, people listen and he can express all those things that he otherwise could not in life.

This is by far the most handsome film Polanski has made, every shot filled with detail and beauty in one form or another. Sticking to his ideal of only putting the camera where best to view any given scene from, there is no visual baggage or fancy editing at work, simply old-fashioned, straightforward, immersive storytelling. By shooting from a detached point of view - many scenes looking down on action in the streets below, or through cracks in blasted windows and roofs - you not only get a sense of being a spectator to the events, but feel Szpilman's interaction or lack of in those events. This, along with the editing, gives the film a good sense of pace. The first hour goes by quite quickly, filled with anecdotal and historical information, as events in Warsaw go from bad to worse in a matter of days. Then as Szpilman becomes more alone, time begins to drag on, filling the emptiness of loneliness with readiness to move and hide if trouble comes calling. And then finally, the end is insight - the Russians are coming to free Warsaw from the Nazis - and you know it is just a matter of time until that release comes and normality returns. This is truly the work of an auteur, and it is testament to all involved that a film running at two and a half hours feels as though it could have been longer and you would not have minded.

All the actors acquit themselves well, but this is Adrien Brody's film. Delivering on the promise he showed in smaller roles in The Thin Red Line and then Summer of Sam, Brody does a wonderful job with Szpilman, conveying a range of emotions simply with his eyes. Special mention should also go to Emilia Fox stepping up from British TV and making a good job of it and Thomas Kretschmann, who, after all the horror of the film, makes a genuinely touching and human Nazi. His scenes with Brody are among the most affecting, though they share very sparse dialogue, conveying everything through silent actions. Top prize has to go to Kretschmann's face as Szpilman plays the Piano for the first time in nearly four years, followed by Brody's weeping relief, not only at having his life spared but at being able to play, for what he must have thought was for the last time in his life.

That Brody and Polanski won major awards for their work on this is highly deserved. That the rest of the crew were overlooked is shameful, particularly looking at the films that took their place. However, that is a minor note (no pun intended) and this is a major film (I'll stop now), well deserving of attention. It is thoroughly satisfying and thoroughly cinematic.

Very different in feel to Tarkovsky's original, this is, by Soderbergh's admission, one third the original, one third the novel (by Stanislaw Lem) and one third Soderbergh's own imagination. Its also somewhat of a departure for all involved, particularly Clooney and Soderbergh, though bearing the fingerprints of his style.

It must be said that this is not the film that the terrible marketing campaign offered - it is not a funky space-set romance, though it does take place in space and is a romantic story. It is however, a very slow, deliberate film. Only essential information is given and, going from a 61-page script to a 90-minute film, there is little dialogue but a lot of detail. Many will find it too slow and possibly boring. But there is so much here to appreciate. It is a film of mood and feelings, creating a beautiful and emotional atmosphere, in which events unwind gradually, rather than an intense plot-driven mish-mash of ideas.

Soderbergh's intention is to question the very nature of existence and of love - if you knew something wasn't real, would you avoid getting attached to it, even if it was the one thing you always wanted, more than anything? If it meant never seeing home again, but spending forever in a tiny space with just that person, would rationality cease to exist? Do we only need that one thing that we crave to survive? Beyond this, there are semi-religious overtones added as well - is Solaris heaven? A place where all wishes are granted at the cost of "human" life?

The aspect that stands out first and foremost the acting. Viola Davis is wonderful, Jeremy Davies is never less than interesting, but Clooney and Natasha McElhone have never been this good. Expanding his range even more after Out of Sight and O Brother Where Art Thou?, Clooney reaches depth you wouldn't have expected of such a matinee-style star. His Chris Kelvin is sad, intense, smart and realistic - the scene where Clooney wakes up to see his dead wife is a wonderful moment of acting, watching him try to bring himself round and shake off the image, only to realise its real. And McElhone is perfectly cast and surprising as the other half of the emotional core. Having been efficient in Ronin and The Truman Show, she seems to have acquired untapped gravitas and beauty in this film, looking absolutely beautiful in a very virginal, pure sense, belying the complexities and internal grief of her character. She too has many moments that just seem incredibly real, as if she forgot to act and just believed in what was happening.

The cinematography and effects are very proficient without being showy, creating a believable environment within which the bizarre events are grounded in a reality not so unbelievable. Solaris itself is simply gorgeous to look at, conjuring up images of planets and cells at the same time, hinting at a universality which is not one thing nor the other, but all things which cannot be explained in one term, again suggesting a godliness to it. And the music is brilliantly subtle, flavouring the images to give it that atmosphere of longing and loss and also beauty, never suggesting what we should feel but rather what the on-screen characters are feeling.

Soderbergh has made his most mature film here, eschewing the "cool" editing and camera tricks of films such as Traffic, Erin Brockovich, The Limey and Out of Sight for a more stately, sophisticated tone. It never feels forced or unbelievable and, while some of its twists are somewhat predictable, you dont feel cheated at all by the end, rather that everything played out as it should: dramatic and sad in places, beautiful in others, unsettling at times and ultimately quite profound. There really isn't anything wrong with this film, if you are in the mood to have a film wash over you and cause you to ruminate on the ideas of mortality, loss and redemption. Kudos to all involved for making something slightly different.

Why didn't more people see this film? Tim Robbins made an assured if unconventional film director debut with Bob Roberts, and his follow-up could barely be more different.

Taking his stylistic cue from Robert Altman, with whom he worked on The Player, the story is about a play, the eponymous The Cradle Will Rock, to be directed by the up and coming Orson Welles. Set against the political and artistic upheaval of the late 30's, at a time when "Commies" and "Red" were perhaps the two most feared words in middle America, Welles stumbles upon the writing of playwright Marc Blitzstein. He has written a play about the impoverished workers rising up against corruption, screaming and singing about their right to earn an honest buck. We are witness to every step of the artistic process, from Blitzstein (the incomparable Hank Azaria) writing the words and music alone, haunted by his former lover and his nemesis, through the political difficulties of putting on such a play at the time for all involved, along with the actors - both accomplished and untested - making their mark for different reasons, as well as observing the struggle of those working for the government, the theatre and the art world in general. Thrown into the mix are a ventriloquist fighting the end of vaudeville, artist Diego Rivera holding onto his artistic scruples in light of a commission from businessman Nelson Rockefeller and a homeless, penniless singer who can't sing, but has a pure heart.

With so many elements - the artistic, the narrative, the political and the historical - thrown together, it could have been a hard film to "get into", yet Robbins wastes no time in showing that if you immerse yourself in the world he is illustrating, there is much entertainment and education to be taken from the finished product. His masterstroke is in making the film both heavily theatrical, as most films about theatre are, yet purely cinematic. While many of the performances are so theatrical as to be almost over-the-top - notably Angus McFadyen as Welles and Cary Elwes as his producer - those outside the theatre world are more measured - Emily Watson has never been more beautiful or effective than here as the poor outsider; Susan Sarandon is both funny and touching as a frustrated art dealer stuck in a crowd of high-society money men - and the technical elements of the film are handled perfectly. The camera glides through corridors, streets and windows from one scenario to another, tying all the strands together; the period detail is spot on without being in your face; the editing and music are by turns calm and frenetic, tightening as the film progresses and events get more desperate.

And then there is the cast. Perhaps the biggest influence of Altman is evident in the casting, perhaps one of the finest ensemble casts ever assembled. While everyone acquits themselves wonderfully, special mention must go to Azaria and Watson, the film's heart, from different ends of the spectrum, each dealing with their own demons and shortcomings with tenderness and pathos, easily holding their own against a cast of screen luminaries. Sarandon is as good as she has ever been, nailing a difficult accent and drawing a truly interesting if politically ambiguous character. Vanessa Redgrave is having more fun than she ever seems to have had on film as someone with a lot of swing, who is just going along for the ride. Ruben Blades - nice to see him in such a notable role after an unfair number of years in the wilderness - is a joy as Rivera, displaying the conviction and lack of morals which marked out Rivera's personal life and the greatness of his professional life. Likewise John Cusack, having a ball as Rockefeller, and coming across as likeable at first, unforgiveable by the close. And finally, Bill Murray, showing once again that no-one can mix sharp one-line humour and tragedy as well as he. He is hilarious and pathetic at the same time, a man out of time with his finger no longer on the pulse of the common man's tastes or politics. In recent years he has gained notoriety for his tragi-comic performances in films such Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and the forthcoming Lost in Translation, and he is as good here as in any of these.

Perhaps an understanding of the period depicted would make the film more enjoyable, but it is by no means essential. I knew next to nothing of the events of the film and i found it to be hilarious, touching and educational, an intellectual gem in a sea of retarded kiss-kiss, bang-bang. Treat yourself on a rainy day and dig this one out. You won't regret it.

There is simply too much in this dense film to recommend, but I'll try.

First off, the much-talked about on-screen pairing of De Niro and Pacino for the first time. Kim Newman referred to the scenes that they share as "padded" and he may have a point, but whenever these two are on screen together, the screen crackles with pure talent and energy. The coffee shop is one of many highlights. Pacino is doing the best rendition of his shouty loud mouth, but at other times shows vulnerability and frustration. His Vincent Hanna is a man trying to make a go of his third marriage and keep his stepdaughter on the rails, failing to do so because his every waking minute is spent trying to think ahead of and snare those he pursues - murderers. Truly one of Pacino's best roles - up there with Dog Day Afternoon and Insomnia - a man trying to do something right and good, whose energy occasionally goes in the wrong directions. His scenes with Diane Venora - his wife, Justine - elevate the part from your average obsessed cop to something more tragic and weary.

De Niro owns this film. Neil MacAuley is "the flipside" to Pacino's character, an equally dedicated, forward thinking individual, more at home on the street doing his "job" than interacting on a human level. His mantra is simple: "Do not allow anything to be in your life that you can't walk away from in thirty seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner". Pacino is that heat and we see him try to allow things into his life, knowing that the time to run will be soon. He is trying to put things right, advising his colleagues to think twice before committing to jobs with him, knowing they have more to risk than him - namely, relationships and families - and trying to forge a relationship with a young bookstore clerk. MacAuley's hang up is time, dividing all his professional and personal deeds into priority depending on how much time he has left to get done what he needs to do. De Niro makes a return to the gravitas and presence he showed in films like Godfather II and Raging Bull, bringing out a lonely character who works by precision and can handle any given situation by switching from thinker to man of action at the drop of a hat. Again, one of his most accomplished performances, perhaps his last great role to date amid occasional misfires and mediocrity that has followed.

Also worthy of mention is Val Kilmer whose Chris is another finely etched tragic character. As accomplished a thief as MacAuley, married to the beautiful Charlene - Ashley Judd - he squanders his money on gambling, ruining his marriage. Kilmer plays Chris as a cold, efficient member of the crew, saving the display of emotion welling up inside him for his exit from the film which is genuinely heart-breaking. The rest of the cast is filled with recognisable faces all doing sterling work in smaller roles, notably Tom Sizemore, Natalie Portman, Mykelti Williamson, Wes Studi, Kevin Gage, William Fichtner, Danny Trejo and Dennis Haysbert in a small but touching part.

Micheal Mann directs with a combination of the glossy architectural style which marks out his earlier films (Thief, Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans) and a more rugged, hand-held style for the excellent action sequences. The centrepiece action sequence which breaks the film into two halves is one of the most exciting, deftly handled action scenes ever filmed. Every bullet is accounted for and it is not merely an excuse for a shootout - it is the culmination of all the efforts of the characters involved up to that point, making the casualties and the impact of the events that much more dramatically involving. There is a feeling that the whole film is Mann's baby, a project which he has nurtured and designed to perfection. Every second is perfect within context. The look of the film is not overly stylised, but perfectly framed. The camera glides when helicopters or cars are speeding past and jolts when shots are being fired and characters are frantically running around. Yet everything has a sense of precision. Watching the cops and robbers firing at each other in formations, its hard to say who is the better trained. When Pacino's task force catch up with the crew on an early break-in, we see only what we need to see, from the points of view of Pacino and De Niro respectively. Likewise we are given enough information about every character, no matter how small, to understand their motivations and their lifestyles.

The other element which helps elevate this film even more is the score and soundtrack. Switching between the beautiful send-off theme, Moby and the machine-like beat of the bank robbery theme, every note works to highlight the emotion or impact of its given scene. Whether it be Pacino chasing across LA in first a helicopter then a car to pull De Niro over, the robbery itself or the much debated but - for me - pitch perfect ending, the score is a delight, often very subtle. Elliot Goldenthal deserves to be ranked with Hans Zimmer and Howard Shore among the finest composers working in studio scores for his work on this film alone.

An example of intelligent, exciting, dramatic and moving cinema and one of the greatest crime thrillers ever made. Do yourself a favour and see it now.

Tears of the Black Tiger is one of those films that works so hard to entertain you, it is hard not to enjoy immensely, if only for its sheer exuberance.

The story is simple. Dum, the Black Tiger, is the best shot there is. He works for a ragtag group of mercenaries lead by Fai, whose motto is, "If you're against Fai, you die". When they capture the captain of the military group trying to shut them down, Dum has to choose between his allegiance to his men or honouring the wish of his old flame, Rumpooey, who is engaged to the captain. That's about it really, but the story is not the reason to watch this film. Its main appeal lies in its style.

Shot with the tone of a Western but in the style and colours of Thai theatre, it is beautiful to watch and often hilarious in its tongue-in-cheek over-the-topness. Shootouts are frequent and bloody, yet wholly unrealistic. Yet they are never intended to be. The opening sequence sets the tone perfectly. As Dum and his colleague raid the hideout of traitors to Fai, the film plays a particularly extravagant stunt twice, offering the title card "Did you get that? If not, we'll show it again!" in the middle, playing the same sequence in more detail.

The set design and colouring of the film is exaggerated and lush, all deep reds and greens. There are frequent musical interludes, but not in the Bollywood style, rather songs which explain the emotional state of certain characters, the high point being the main love song - ridiculously over-sentimental - and the cowboy-esque Bonanza-style riding song, a country and western inspired, cheery melody about loneliness.

The five main characters - Dum, Rumpooey, Kumjorn, Fai and Mahesuan - are wonderful. Dum is all emotionless precision and repressed feelings, a man of action who hides his deep-down longing for his former love. Rumpooey, the love interest, is quietly hilarious in that she just never seems to do anything, a knowing side-swipe to cheap melodrama of the 50's. Kumjorn is the dashing, slightly pompous good guy that you don't want to win, but don't want to die either. The two best though, are Fai, a classic machine gun and vest bad guy who has the films funniest shot in his first shootout - look out for it, its quite subtle - and Mahesuan, Dum's right-hand man, who has the best evil laugh EVER, using it whenever he gets the chance, also one half of an inspired shootout or two. His duel in the first half hour is also one of the funniest shots for any film fan.

It is a very violent film, but the kind of violence that is truly comic-book, overly-red blood (think cheap hammer horror), taken to a level of exaggeration which rather than making you gag, just makes you wince and laugh. And that is the point. Some people have said that is just terrible, but it is knowingly terrible. It is never attempting to be anything like high art. And in its badness, it is often beautiful and brilliant.

The only niggle is that it has a tendency to slow down a little in its lingering, slow shots, but never for more than a couple of minutes in what is only an hour and a half of mickey-taking, action packed hilarity.

Good looks, good sets, good idea, great fun. 10/10

Sackley

Being a big fan of the old Lou Ferrigno TV series and having seen the trailers, as well as being a long-time fan of Ang Lee, my hopes were sky high for this one to be my film of the summer, maybe the year. Well, it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it was a wash-out. It just wasn't the film that we had been promised by the trailers. That's probably because this is a hard-sell from the film that Lee delivered.

If you want mad, rampaging Hulk action, its there - in spades - for the best part of an hour. Its beautifully shot, well-designed and exciting, not to mention highly amusing. Watching "Hulk Smash" those tanks is pure geek nirvana, displaying a helluva lot of character at the same time. However, either side is a lot of exposition, with a good 45 mins or so of setup before the Hulk is unleashed. Suffice to say, when he is, it's glorious.

But there is alot more going on here. Ang Lee's films are about repression. Here it is about a child so scared of letting his rage get the better of him that he has grown into a man unable to express almost any emotions because he's hidden from them for so long. As such, he doesn't know his dad and is unable to tell Betty (the never-more-luminescent or effective Jennifer Connelly) how he feels for her.

When his father (the always great Nick Nolte) turns up after years in the wilderness, his rage begins to re-emerge. That's when the action kicks in. There are surreal asides throughout - the Hulk dog fight is a joy, but weird. Nolte's developing strengths are touched upon before being explored more towards the end and, because it comes as such a surprise, can seem like an afterthought and a bizarre one at that.

The final twenty minutes or so, while in many ways the perfect wrapping up of all the issues Lee raises, are both surprising and confusing. Perhaps an extra five or ten minutes in the climactic scenes might have given a bit more weight to a slightly soggy ending to what is largely a thrilling film.

On the plus side, the editing - while slightly over the top - is at times very subtle in its handling of several subjects at once and this is the closest to comic book framing that there has been. It really does feel and move like a comic book. The cinematography, though a little dark in some scenes at night, is gorgeous, particularly when we are in the military base or out on the mesas. The scoring is fine, the acting excellent from the four leads - Bana is well-cast as Banner, Connelly continues to extend her range and grow in beauty, Nolte is gruff (of course) and believable as a bit of a nutjob and Sam Elliot does what he does best, while sharing a few more personal scenes with Connelly. The only false step is Josh Lucas who doesn't have much to work with, but he gets his in due course...

Finally, the much-debated effects. In the early Hulk scenes, he is difficult to see and it feels as though they may be hiding what they couldn't muster. But once he lets rip in the daylight, i stopped looking for the joins and just went with it. He looks a bit goofy at points, but then he's a several ton green giant in purple shorts, so what did you expect? I loved him and he looked like the Hulk to me. His roll down the dunes is flawless fx work in my book, as is his transformation into Banner in San Francisco.

Its not the best film Lee has made (a toss-up between Crouching Tiger and The Ice Storm), nor the best comic book movie (X2?), but it is something different in a summer of sequels and knock-offs. Well worth a watch, but go in with an open mind and you will find it all the more rewarding.

Sackley

In the wake of the glut of comic book movies, Daredevil is up there with the best of them. The problem is, for most he is either a complete unknown or a poor-man's Spiderman. Never fear, the movie gives you a crash course in Daredevil, setting up the character perfectly and playing out an actual story form the comics, involving the four characters that made Daredevil what it is - DD himself, arch-rival Kingpin, super-efficient assassin Bullseye and tragic sexpot Elektra.

There has been a lot made of the casting being off in this film, which i feel is unfair. In recent years, Ben affleck has done sterling work in this, Sum of All Fears and especially Changing Lanes. He IS DD, he looks exactly like Frank Miller's version in the comics and has a lot of great moments as both Matt Murdock and the man without fear. Jennifer Garner as Elektra is sexy, tough and a perfect foil to Ben's DD, the greatest departure being her outfit. Many have said that Micheal Clarke Duncan as Kingpin is ludicrous, as Kingpin was white - rubbish! I can think of noone better to fill out the Kingpin's considerable frame, white or black. When an actor's physicality, presence and voice so suit the character, who cares what colour he is?! The only false step really is Bullseye as played by Colin Farrell, who resembles the comic character only in style, but he's so damn charming and deadly at the same time that you forgive the decision straight off.

The writing, acting and style of the film are exactly as Daredevil should be done - DD's radar sense in manifest beautifully, particularly in the early scenes when he is a scared child and in his scenes with Elektra (the sound of rain is a particular highlight). Of the action scenes there is really only one duff sequence, the confusing and slightly sluggish redneck bar fight. The others are not only exciting and efficiently shot, but are almost straight out of the comic. DD's battles with Bullseye can be disorientating but they ARE the comic.

This is a film made by a rabid DD fan and starring a DD fan (Affleck) which should delight DD fans and attract newcomers to a little-known alladin's cave of delights. Watch out for DD popping pills and sleeping in an isolation tank to cope with the pain of being an ordinary guy with a gift he uses for good - yet is labelled a bad guy. There's even a genuinely touching romance, a touch of tragedy and a nice sentiment which isn't hammered home wihtout subtlety.

An underappreciated, if not epic, joy for comic fans and those who don't follow the pack. And the (region 2, at least) DVD has a brilliant, in-depth look at the comics, with a great section by comics legend Frank Miller. Check it out, you won't regret it. Its not as all-round brilliant as X2, but its more faithful and satisfying than the slightly bloated Hulk (which i still have a lot of love for).

Sackley

I stumbled upon this film on late night British TV during Xmas 2002, having never heard of it. After watching the main titles, it was obvious i would watch it all, and i'm glad i did.

The story, for what its worth, centres around a small Jewish community in the 19th century, vying for control of a new train station so that enough people will visit their village so as to allow them to continue praying together. However, the more illustrious local Christians want the station for themselves and begin to put into motion a course of events which will sway the squire (Rutger Hauer) to give them the rights to the land.

This is merely a part of the film. Its real focus is on the many characters it establishes and develops in a very short amount of time. Central is poor beggar and sometime magician Simon who is losing his faith due to the hatred shown him by his fellow Jews. Then there is Dovid, played with gentle grace by Stuart Townsend - ostensibly the star - who heads up the plans for the station and agrees to read and comment on the squire's poetry to curry favour with him. His relationship with the squire, his bride to be (Embeth Davitz, magnificent as always) and a beautiful, learned girl are the heart of the film.

What makes the film so memorable, however, is in Simon's journey away from his people into the arms of the Christians, only to be used as a weapon against the faith he has run from. Highlights include his conversations with the Satan-like Ian Holm - who convinces Simon of Jews' inherent evil - and his journeys along the railroad, of which he has no understanding and which he believes to be the means by which souls travel to the afterlife. These sequences are so visually poetic that any pretension therein is forgiveable.

Yet while writer/director Ben Hopkins is obviously concerned with issues of education, tolerance, spirituality and all forms of love and forgiveness, there is room for quiet moments of humour. Simon's early introductory scenes are witty and warm, making his subsequent actions all the more cruel on the part of the other characters. The local barman, whose idea of God is a beer glass which never empties, has few scenes but creates a sympathetic rounded character, as do many of the minor performers.

Inexplicably critically reviled by some British journalists, this film would appeal to anyone with a taste for off-beat European cinema or anyone looking for a character piece or something a little different. It seemed at first to be many separate things - at first i thought it to be a literary costume drama, then a period version of Finding Forrester, but of course, with all films of quality it is not one thing nor the other, but a combination of many elements woven together masterfully. Ben Hopkins is, on the basis of this, an interesting talent and all involved should be applauded for their excellent work.

You can bet if this film were in French or Polish, critics would lavish praise upon it.

First thing's first: not everyone is going to like this film. Its loud, violent, its shot on low-end DV and its a zombie movie.

However, it is one of the best. With more than a little tip of the hat to George A. Romero, this film wastes no time getting into its story. A prologue - horribly botched by the appearance of the least appropriate actor of all time for this scene - tells us that a bunch of chimps have been injected with a serum which consists of pure, murderous rage. Unfortunately, a bunch of activists let them out and the virus gets released into society. And then, 28 days later... ...there's no-one left, apart from a few militarist survivors of an epidemic which has claimed everyone else. Into this changed world, we follow Cillian Murphy's Jim as he wakes up in hospital, unaware, adjusts and tries to survive with a handful of people that have found a way to fight back.

This film pulls no punches and makes no excuses - if you dont buy into the concept, its not going to make it easy for you. If you do, it will rock your world. The early vision of a deserted london is epic and eerie thanks to the rough footage which gives the feel of waking from a drunken sleep mixed with cctv footage. Straight away, we know this is going to be a bloody ride, from the screeching and butchering of the chimps, into Jim's self-defense in a zombie-filled church by beating a former priest round the head, then into the attacking zombies getting napalmed with molotovs by his rescuers. And it barely lets up, getting more messed up and more violent...

But there is time to look at what it would be like to live in a world where everyone you've ever known or loved is dead, not knowing how far it spread and whether there is any point in going on. There are occasional touching moments, particularly in the main duo's relationship with a man and his daughter who are holed up in a high-rise building. The focus of the film is their journey together to find other survivors, and is humorous and wonderfully acted, particularly by Murphy and the ever-reliable Brendan Gleeson.

But whenever the film threatens to slow-down, brighten up or ponder, it bursts into violent, shocking action. There are twists and uncomfortable concepts every few minutes and the final act builds to a loud, bloody crescendo which is very unsettling. The only real gripe is with the film's bookends - the aforementioned prologue and a coda which, while necessary, borders on phoney.

All in all, its a real ride and while it does kick up some interesting ideas, its main goal is to entertain, shock and unsettle and it does all three in equal measure. On this evidence, Danny Boyle is finally living up to the promise he showed in Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. For my money, this is his best yet.

From the films hilarious opening scenes through to its quiet conclusion, this film will take you on a ride that is emotional, heartwarming, deep and bizarre.

Perhaps the film's greatest selling point is in Jake Gyllenhaal, the arrival of a true talent and an actor who is a joy to watch. He carries the film and barely puts a foot wrong in the varied demands the film makes of him. Praise must also go to writer/director Richard Kelly for crafting a unique experience which i defy anyone to not take something from.

The plot, for what its worth, revolves around Gyllenhaal/Donnie's encounter with an "imaginary" rabbit called Frank who has come from the future to tell donnie that the world will end in 28 days - on hallowe'en, 1988. That's about as much as i want you to know, because the film rarely takes the path most expected - in fact, its almost impossible to figure out where the film might go.

Along the way, there are musings on good and evil, fear and love, teeenage angst, space-time, fate, coincidence and sacrifice. And if it all sounds heavy - dont worry - its not. Which is what is so clever. First and foremost it is an entertaining film with interesting characters and good actors (Gyllenhaal and his real-life sister, Maggie, Patrick Swayze in the best form he's been for years, Drew Barrymore and an overlooked Noah Wyle in what could be one of the most important roles), but for those looking for a bit more, there's plenty to dig into.

Certain scenes where Donnie is trying to act normal or fit in, or just express himself honestly are undercut with a dry wit seldom seen in american cinema - his scene in the park with Jena Malone is perhaps the comic high point - and the more bizarre aspects - his dealings with the eerie Frank - are strangely intense. A scene which starts and ends in a cinema screening of The Evil Dead is brilliantly handled, notching up tension and atmosphere, without getting in your face with it.

The film for many will ultimately fail or succeed based on its final act, where all the strands are woven together and we slowly realise, as does donnie, what the meaning of everything is, both in the narrative and in life. While certain visual aspects may not blow you away, the style and simplicity of the storytelling means that its hard not to be engrossed and some might feel let down by an emotional pay-off rather than an effects bonanza. This isn't that sort of film. And its all the better for it. I loved every minute of it.

And the eighties setting is wonderful, as is the soundtrack. Look out for references in the story style and design to Donnie Darko being a teenager's perspective version of ET. There is too much here to take in in one viewing. Do yourself a favour - go see it and see it again.

*****/*****

I first saw this film on late night BBC in England and was half watching it while packing for college. By the half way mark, i was sucked in and couldn't not watch.

The first thing that will knock you out is Sam Rockwell. Over the last few years he has risen in fame due to high-profile parts in Charlie's Angels, The Green Mile and Mamet's Heist, but here is the arrival of a veritable acting talent. His is a simple, truthful unshowy performance that resonates throughout the film without crushing it. He is the film's heart, rather than a scene-stealer. As we learn more about his poor, white-trash lawn cutter, we sympathise and begin to realise how easily the reactions of others higher up on the food chain conspire to create chaos for him.

I won't give too much about the story away, because it frequently heads off in new, interesting directions, but essentially this is the story of Devon (newcomer child actor Mischa Barton) and the above mentioned Trent (Rockwell) and their relationship. He is poor, she comes from wealthy stock, but feels out of place in her materialistic world and they are both children of nature. What makes it compelling is that she knows this and revels in it and Trent has to be shown, by her.

John Duigan does a wonderful job of introducing strands and themes which at first seem offbeat and peculiar but which all add to the sense prejudice, division and isolation felt by these two brillaintly-wrought characters. Each find the other intriguing but are hesitant to become close because of others' values. Eventually they become friends and just as they accept this, the world around them turns on them and what started out as an irreverent comedy-drama, turns into something much darker and even terrifying.

Where the film goes from there, I will leave to you to discover. Please do, because this is a very unique film in American independent cinema. Much like the more high-profile American Beauty, what at first seems like character cliche and predictability rapidly leads you down the path least expected. Its beautifully shot, making full use of a handful of gorgeous locations, wonderfully acted, particularly by Barton and Rockwell, but also by the ever-reliably sleazy Christopher Mcdonald (Shooter McGavin in Happy Gilmore and Louise's husband in Thelma & Louise), the quietly strong Kathleen Quinlan and the lesser spotted Bruce McGill in one of his best roles as security guard Nash. The music is also peerless, at first playful and calm, building to a dramatic climax.

That climax is what makes this film stand head and shoulders above the rest. An emotional pay-off such as you have never seen in a film of this ilk. 9/10