Reviews

Few films have filled me with equal amounts of anticipation and dread as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The anticipation came from the marriage of an intriguing premise and a director that had shown immense promise through having a hand in some of the best comedy of the past 10 years. On the other hand, the over-the-top style and hipper-than-thou vibes looked to be a double-edged sword that could bring the whole thing crashing down in bright computer-generated flames.

Let's get the plot out of the way - for those who haven't heard anything at all about this, the titular character is an unemployed musician living in Toronto who ends up meeting the girl of his dreams one night. As he gets involved with her, he discovers that she has a hell of a past - she's left behind "seven evil exes". For no adequately explained (or particularly necessary) reason, they each come after Scott and engage him in ludicrously over-the-top battles. In between fights, Scott still has to deal with the various ups and downs of his relationship and how it affects the rest of his life.

Right, let's move on the film proper - well, those feelings I mentioned in the first paragraph? By and large justified in both respects. On the good side, stylistically the film is sublime. Despite having never read the source comics, I still enjoyed the film's heavy-handed usage of comic-book conventions such as visible sound effects, split-screen panels...the works. That's going without mentioning the copious references to videogames, whether it's the subtle use of sounds from other games or the blatant references to such things as getting lives or winning points. The visual effects are also top-notch, going above and beyond expectations with colourful clashes and blistering battles. If nothing else, Scott Pilgrim looks a million dollars.

Now comes the bit where I follow up a paragraph full of earnest praise with a little bit of honest criticism...while the film is great visually, I'm not really a fan of everything else about the film. Michael Cera does his usual "awkward goofiness" schtick, while most of the other cast deliver undemanding deadpan performances. On the other hand, the hamminess of the exes comes close to making up for it it.While I don't deny that these different styles genuinely fit in the right sequences, sometimes it gels and sometimes it doesn't. The same goes for some of the references that the film tries to jam in, especially one scene that parodies a certain popular sitcom that really isn't quite as funny as it should be. I could probably rattle off a list of the stuff that falls flat, but I'd probably have to list the stuff that didn't as well, so the non-action sequences are something of a mixed bag for myself.

If you're familiar with any of Wright's other work, this will definitely amuse you to one degree or another. If you're not, well, I daresay all the promotional materials give you the right idea - it's a fairly lightweight romantic comedy plot wrapped in a few layers of unbelievable fantasy and cooked to a crisp. Ultimately it suffers from one very extreme case of style over substance, but what a style it is. Definitely worth seeing in theatres, if nowhere else.

Well, here it is.

James Cameron's project has been hyped to within an inch of its proverbial life over the years, what with the epic budget, alleged re-inventing of special effects and some admittedly underwhelming trailers full of conspicuously computer-generated blue elves. The question that's burning in everybody's mind leading up to its release this week is: Is it really that great? The answer: pretty much, yeah. But more on that in a bit.

For those of you who haven't heard the story, the plot revolves around paraplegic marine Sully (Sam Worthington), who's offered a second chance at life on the lush alien planet of Pandora. The humans on the planet are engaged in a war with the native population, blue humanoid warriors known as the Na'vi, over extremely valuable natural resources. To this end, a handful of scientists (led by a delightfully taciturn Sigourney Weaver) have created an "avatar" project where people control cloned Na'vi in order to get close to the tribes and work something out. Through a cruel twist of fate, Sully ends up controlling one such avatar and from there the story well and truly begins.

Now, where do I start with Avatar? The film's a lot of things, but it's obviously not perfect, and I'm not sure whether to address its flaws or good points first. Something tells me I'll go with the flaws first. It's hard to judge them too objectively - it all depends on just how tolerant you can be. I'd probably say the film's worst flaw also plays a huge part in defining just how good (or bad) the film is. I refer of course to the film's copious use of CGI characters. This is a problem that I think will depend on the viewer. Either you're going to find it horribly distracting the whole way through or get used to it after about five minutes. I reckon this is something that is up to every viewer to decide. Myself - I fall into the latter camp. Just as well, because that could very well be the major deciding point in how to judge the film, if only because Avatar is saturated with CGI. Not like that's a bad thing, as a lot of the CGI looks very flash. Avatar's look is pretty damned impressive, all things considered. Between the lush locations, slick gadgetry and veritable cornucopia of action available, I can hardly see how the film's abundance of CGI is a problem. It definitely aims high and hits its mark a lot.

With that main issue out of the way, the rest of the film manages to be considerably strong a lot of the time. Once the story gets going, it stays riveting for much of its lengthy runtime. It's well-written, even if one of the central metaphors seems a little too obvious (powerful corporation attacking harmless natives over valuable resources - not exactly subtle) and it managed to keep reasonably surprising all the way to the end. The acting was by and large good; Worthington doesn't exactly shine as the hero, but he performs reasonably well. The highlight is probably Weaver, although there's something to be said for Stephen Lang's battle-scarred colonel, who makes up for a general lack of character dimension with relative ease.

The real question remains as to just how great Avatar is. It's definitely an amazing epic in spite of its few flaws and relative lack of originality, so it's admittedly far from perfect. It remains by and large a visual extravaganza if nothing else, and should deserve consideration for one of the better blockbusters of the year (if not necessarily one of the best films). Depending on your expectations, it either wasn't quite as great as it could have been or it was far superior. If you had mixed expectations like I did, it's probably a mix of both. Avatar remains a technically great piece, a bit lightweight in parts, but overall pretty damned good. I'll definitely be checking this out in 3-D, anyway.

I seriously doubt that most people on this site need an introduction to this film, but I'll throw one in anyway. The notorious comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, whose 2006 mockumentary Borat caused a wave of controversy due to the bulk of its humour consisting of the titular character, a weird hybrid of every politically incorrect stereotype about foreigners, being set loose on unsuspecting Americans and enacting one big practical joke on everyone he meets.

Brüno follows virtually the same formula, except this time Cohen plays one entirely different character - a gay Austrian fashion reporter who's obsessed with the superficial culture of fashion, celebrities and sex. The plot (at least what there is) revolves around Brüno, once a famous Austrian fashion reporter, getting a bad reputation in the industry after ruining one particular fashion show. He sets off for America, hoping to achieve nothing more than to become famous. However, as you can expect, all his attempts to do so are multiple and disastrous.

Okay, so onto the film itself - er, okay. Brüno very nearly got an NC-17 in America (and up until a few days before its Australian release, had an R18+ which was later worked down to MA15+, thus making it a little more "family-friendly") and even in what I suspect is an edited version, it still pushes the boundaries of good taste quite far. There were countless groans emanating from the audience as a result of sequences I probably can't describe in this review, but needless to say that if gross-out humour isn't your thing, you'd do best to steer away. Of course, that's pretty obvious, but what about the laugh factor for the people who can take it? Of course, this is just opinion, but Brüno is just not that funny. It's got a handful of good laughs spread across its brief running time, but they are spread rather thin and there are quite a few sequences that are both prolonged and largely (if not totally) unfunny. Whether he's doing some ridiculous pratfalls or maybe just some random off-the-cuff remark, there's plenty here that just seems like he's trying too hard to out-do Borat. That or he's not trying hard enough. I have no idea. Even the parts that I genuinely laughed at were parts that I knew were more or less on the same level as the ones I didn't laugh at, and I'm sure that other people will probably laugh at the parts I didn't like and vice versa. It makes the whole comedy aspect seem very uneven - given that most comedies aim to be consistently amusing all the way through, the sporadic nature of Brüno's humour is a strike against it.

While I admit that it's actually not a bad film, it's not exactly great either. While Borat, for all its faults, was at least a reasonably fresh character-based take on the whole "candid camera" brand of comedy, Brüno falls fairly short by more or less repeating the exact same formula that Borat had, with the only real changes aimed at trying to push the envelope of good taste, and while it's still a fairly in-your-face experience, it's still not that great. Enjoy it for what it is, but don't try and expect a comedy blockbuster.

I like to think of movies like In Bruges as genuine gems. When I say "movies like In Bruges", I necessarily think of films with similar subject matter. I tend to think of those kind of films which just…appear. Out of nowhere, you hear about a movie. The promotional material looks rather impressive. The film looks like it belongs to a genre you're interested in. You allow yourself a glimpse of the basic plot (no more, lest the experience is spoilt) and it sounds like something that, in the right hands, could be inflated into a compelling piece of cinema. In Bruges is a tick in each of those boxes. As of writing, I'd definitely consider it one of the best films I've seen all year, if not the best outright.

"What makes you say that?" you may ask. I guess the simple answer is this – everything. Yes, I know, very simple – but everything in this movie just falls right into place and the result is a finely polished caper flick. If I had to pinpoint the film's strongest individual part, I'd say it was the script. Writer-director McDonagh is also a renowned playwright, and the same quality translates to the film's story. In Bruges has a very play-like feel to it, largely due to its heavy reliance on character development. As the two leads, Gleeson and Farrell are nothing short of brilliant. They are capable of taking several different "duo" clichés and twisting them into something that feels surprisingly fresh, and even when they're not paired together, they maintain strong presences on-screen. Gleeson is perfect as the amiable Ken, but Farrell truly shines as Ray, who balances cockiness with insecurity deftly. Even though I haven't seen much of Farrell's other work, I honestly think he turned in a potential career-best act here.

The supporting cast is also treated very well. Even the smallest supporting characters are a source of great comedy or great drama, whatever may be needed. Whenever they reappear in the story, it never feels forced but fits in perfectly. Out of all of them, Jordan Prentice steals the show as an embittered American dwarf who's in Bruges to make an art-house film. The only real weakness I could find with the cast was Clémence Poésy as drug-dealer/love interest Chlöe, who isn't necessarily bad, but isn't really given anything spectacular to work with.

The film rolls along at a great pace. There is the very occasional scene that doesn't feel like it goes anywhere, but the rest of it manages to be great. The balance between comedy (largely as a result of Ray's none-too-pleasant altercations with locals and non-locals alike) and drama is excellent. The film has countless laugh-out-loud moments, yet it also has some genuinely shocking twists in it. It manages to remain compelling all throughout its running time. Another aspect I feel really gives the film a distinct feel is the location of Bruges itself. You've got to love those films where the location virtually becomes a character in the story, and Bruges (memorably described by Ralph Fiennes's Harry as a "beautiful f***ing fairy tale town") certainly comes into its own as such a "character". The locales are brilliant, none so much as the Bell Tower, which is easily the most memorable building featured in the film.

To conclude, I loved In Bruges. Plain and simple. It's a hundred-odd minutes worth of entertainment, both comedic and tragic. What few flaws this film has are made up for by its many strengths. It may be a little strong in the violence/language department, but if that doesn't bother you, you should enjoy this, easily one of the best films I've watched in a while.

As of writing, Choke has not yet been given official distribution, and will not get it for about another month and a half at least (depending on your location). However, I managed to see it at the annual local film festival. I'll bring this review up when the film gets a wider release, but for now here is my initial opinion.

Choke is the story of sex-addicted loser Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell). Victor's main concern in life is to keep his demented mother (Anjelica Huston) alive and in hospital. He does this in the hope of finding out the truth about his strangely absent father. To pay the bills, he pretends to choke on his dinner in fancy restaurants and plays off his saviour's heroism for financial gain.

I think the majority of readers here are at the very least aware of the existence of Fight Club, the only other major movie aside from Choke to be based off a Chuck Palahniuk novel. Most of the people who will seek out Choke will do it mainly because of the connection to either Fight Club or the Choke novel (or both, as the case may be). Of course, I'll have to play the comparison game here, but it has to be said - Choke is a very different beast to both its source novel and its spiritual predecessor, Fight Club.

Anyone who's read Palahniuk's writing will know that his books are frequently dark, very twisted and somewhat humorous. Words like "diseased" and "cancerous" come to mind. It's this same feeling that infected both the Fight Club and Choke novels and made them perverse joys to read. Palahniuk's touch even translated perfectly in David Fincher's adaptation. With Clark Gregg's adaptation of Choke, the stylish darkness is traded for a far more conventional "quasi-independent comic" approach. Strangely enough, this seems to suit Choke even better.

After all, Choke is first and foremost a comedy. At a guess, I'd say it's roughly 80 per cent faithful to the original novel (more on that later) with a large number of jokes lifted from the novel. The laugh factor was a strange thing. On one hand, the laughs managed to stay more or less consistent, with none of the jokes falling flat. On the other hand, I personally didn't feel like anything was too funny. Everything raised a genuine chuckle but as for anything approaching "struggling-to-breathe" humour, there wasn't much there. It makes me wonder what's better, a comedy with consistent chuckling or sporadic bursts of hilarious moments. Not too sure.

Regardless, the film manages to be an enjoyable experience. First-timer Gregg manages to handle his duties (which include writing, directing and even one very amusing bit part) with confidence, balancing comedy with drama effectively. The acting is impressive to say the least. Rockwell manages to nail Victor perfectly, yet it's Brad William Henke that manages to steal several scenes as Victor's friend Denny. Another treat is the score, which is an interesting blend of different styles.

Choke not only manages to be an entertaining comedy, it also becomes a very good example of how to streamline a 300-page novel into a movie that's just shy of the 90-minute mark. The only problem with it depends on whether or not your sense of humour agrees with the film's, but if this film was already on your "to-see" list, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

I'll be damned if I wasn't going to review this one. After a lifetime of growing up on the original trilogy, watching them to the point where I have every little sound effect committed to memory, I can now at last revel in the latest installment, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I think anyone who's been waiting for this movie anywhere near as much as I have should already know the gist of the plot. For those who don't, it's 1957. The Nazis of the original trilogy have been replaced by communist Russians, who are constantly trying to coerce Indy into searching for the eponymous "crystal skull". The mystery behind it is unbelievable even by the series's standard (and these are movies where prior artifacts include God melting faces and people living with hearts ripped out), and as such won't get spoiled here because the beauty of it was getting it revealed. Anyway, the adventure takes Indy from the middle of the Nevada desert to the heart of South America in search of the real story behind the weird-looking skulls.

I know that it's not particularly original to rely on comparisons to other movies, but all the while I couldn't help but think of Die Hard 4.0. For those of you who aren't familiar with Die Hard 4.0 or more importantly its stylistic departure from its predecessors, it's pretty much an incredible exaggeration of the action that made the original trilogy first. Granted, since the Indy movies were meant to be more over-the-top than the Die Hard movies, this makes Crystal Skull a lot easier to watch, but there a still a number of sequences that are bound to make you go, "Pfft, like that'd ever happen." Even so, the action is damned cool in most parts, with one highlight being a rather amusing rip-off of the legendary truck chase from Raiders.

Needless to say, I enjoyed it a lot. Even though it was prone to several of the same flaws as any of the others, it was still great. The references to all the earlier films were a nice touch, none of them being as cringeworthy as you'd expect. The acting was a plus, with Ford managing to do yet another great job wearing the hat. Sorry for sounding bad, but everyone was good. Hell, even Shia LeBeouf didn't ruin every frame he was in, he was that good. And the music - right on par with every other Indy score.

The only serious fault with Crystal Skull is the relative overuse of CGI. Even though some bits would've been nigh-impossible to do without it, it was still of a quality inferior enough to be distracting, which is a bit of a shame. That's a minor complaint against Skull. It's just a matter of finding out where exactly it sits in comparison to the others. I'll let you know what that is once I've seen it about as many times as the other three (i.e. about fifty times). For now, it was certainly not a waste of time, and it gets my recommendation.

I find it rather ironic that in the past six months I've been writing reviews on this site, I haven't reviewed an Australian film. Lantana is the first one I've seen since I started and it was also quite an interesting film, so it gets a review.

Lantana (so named after a plant that features prominently in the film's Sydney setting) is half mystery, half ensemble drama. It opens with the slow revealing of a dead woman caught up in a bunch of bushes, before progressing on to the main stories.

The first half of the film sets up each of the dozen or so main characters: the apparent protagonist is detective Leon (Anthony LaPaglia). Although he's married to Sonja (Kerry Armstrong), he has an affair with Jane (Rachael Blake), who's currently separated from her own husband Peter (Glenn Robbins). Sonja suspects Leon's affair and confides in renowned therapist Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey). Valerie is herself having a personal crisis or two, dealing with her emotionally distant husband John (Geoffrey Rush) and the unnerving revelations of one client, a gay man named Patrick (Peter Phelps). There are more sub-plots and characters that interweave in the lives of these characters on the edge, but those are the ones that truly drive the film.

The second half of the film begins when it's revealed that Valerie has disappeared. Since several characters have some connection to her, it ramps up the tension between each character to breaking point.

Handling a movie with multiple sub-plots is always difficult. You only ever hear about it if the makers get it absolutely right. Lantana managed to get it right, juggling each sub-plot smoothly. The film lasts for about two hours (roughly an hour less than films of a similar breed like Magnolia or Short Cuts) and it does not drag at all. It even feature a couple of mysteries outside of the main "disappearance" arc (the most obvious ones including "Who has Patrick been sleeping with?" and "What does Sonja say at the end of the therapy session?") Visually speaking, the film is brilliant. The quality see-saws from grainy to polished in such a manner that it works. The acting (comprised of several well-known Australian actors, including a surprisingly serious turn by Robbins) is top-notch. Some moments may be over-the-top, but overall it's done well and with considerable restraint. I don't remember being too impressed with the score, but I'd figure that if it was good I'd remember it.

Lantana may not be the most original of films. As I outlined earlier, it's very similar to Short Cuts and Magnolia in terms of narrative, and the strength of the disappearance mystery may seem about as strong to a modern audience as the plot of the average CSI episode. However, as a whole the film works out fine. It proves to be a complex, thought-provoking meditation on the lives of overly human people that aren't necessarily bad, but just struggle to try and stay good even in the face of such extreme adversity.

A few months ago, I finally got to see El Topo, Jodorowsky's legendary western-on-acid. Quite simply, it blew me away. It was just so strange, so weird, so utterly crazy...I don't know, seeing El Topo on one viewing doesn't mean you'll be able to comprehend it well enough to describe it properly. I'll give it a second view some other time.

Anyway....why I mentioned El Topo was because it raised the bar for what I could expect from The Holy Mountain, which promised to be even more of a mind-bending surrealist work than El Topo. For this is how, on the basis of a single viewing, I was prepared to judge The Holy Mountain - on just how bizarre it would get.

This may sound a little shallow, but The Holy Mountain is one of those films that requires several viewings to properly comprehend pretty much everything that goes on. On one viewing, all you can do is try and keep your eyes on screen and try to take in as much of the film as possible. Even if you don't fully understand what's going on, take in the experience. That's what I did when I watched The Holy Mountain.

The Holy Mountain begins by following a man who's best described as Christlike as he engages in his own journey from dying in the desert to a tall tower, where he meets a mysterious figure known as the Alchemist. The Alchemist recruits the man for his own plan, which involves bringing together several "thieves" from around the world so that they can embark on a quest for immortality atop the eponymous mountain.

All this is a loose framework for Jodorowsky's trademark elaborate set-pieces - they're big and they're utterly loony. I don't think I'll bother spoiling any of them, but take any scene from the movie and it'll likely have a large, weird-looking set and at least one or two freaky-looking people drawing your attention. One thing that kept preying on my mind the whole time was just how unbelievable the whole idea of The Holy Mountain was. Like El Topo, it was an epic without a wider appeal, and that jarred me for some reason. It just keeps getting stranger and stranger until the end, which I will have to say was utterly unpredictable.

The Holy Mountain is truly one-of-a-kind. It'd be pretty easy to say this film isn't for everyone, but it isn't. If you're into movies that don't make sense on the first time (or even the 10th time), I'd recommend this. Or if you're just looking for one intense filmic experience, it doesn't get much more intense than the imagery of The Holy Mountain.

I'll end this review now - I've run out of synonyms for crazy.

8/10 - this is after one viewing, it'll probably go up after about 7.

I'd like to begin my review with a little explanation of the circumstances in which I happened to see Grindhouse. For most of you fine people on MoFo, Grindhouse has come and gone in theatres and is currently available on DVD, with Planet Terror and Death Proof probably released separately. No such luck for Australia, one of the countries where Grindhouse was divided up and released separately (as I recall, Planet Terror didn't even get a theatrical release, only just coming out on DVD). From what I gathered, Grindhouse proper was played briefly in a few theatres across the country but pretty much everyone missed it, your humble narrator included. Recently, a local theatre held a special offer – Grindhouse would be playing in its entirety (both movies back-to-back with mock trailers included) for one week only. Naturally, I jumped at the chance to watch it and got my ticket. I was not disappointed.

The "one-week" circumstances were a brilliant addition to the atmosphere that made Grindhouse immensely enjoyable. Just like the days when films would ship from town to town a week at a time, these films could be properly appreciated by people who would like it. Nobody was going to walk off the street and treat it as an idle way to blow a couple of hours like any ordinary mindless movie. The entire audience at the showing I went to had, like me, bought their tickets a week in advance and had planned on quite simply enjoying a spot of gloriously over-the-top "trash" cinema. Countless laughs and the odd groan were had over the course of the three-hour running time. This is the kind of experience watching the DVD at home quite simply can't produce.

What does this say about Grindhouse itself? Lots. Even though the film's quality (in every sense of the word) is debatable, there's no denying just how freaking enjoyable the whole thing is. The mood was set within the first few minutes with Rodriguez's trailer for Machete; three minutes' worth of Danny Trejo taking names and kicking ass. Everyone watching knew how ludicrous the trailer was, but they lapped it up anyway. Trashy, yes, but at least it's good trash. That leads onto the first "feature presentation", Planet Terror.

I'm fond of citing Planet Terror as my favourite of Grindhouse's two halves. Maybe it's because I have a soft spot for zombie movies and John Carpenter movies, both of which receive ample homage in PT. Having seen the bulk of Rodriguez's filmography, I knew what I could expect – questionable plot and dialogue coupled with plenty of stunning special effects. That was certainly the case – granted, it's a zombie movie, I can accept substandard plot and dialogue. In Planet Terror's case both were actually fairly decent (or at least they weren't what I'd refer to as "Transformers bad"). As for "stunning special effects", I can't argue. Rodriguez sides with effects group KNB for his own grotesque take on zombies – as bulbous, goo-spurting mutants that would make Peter Jackson proud. Other than that, Rodriguez's penchant for explosions and action shines through. Even the simple "machine-gun leg" in the film's third act managed to impress me a lot more than I expected.

Even though the film ends on a somewhat happier note than I'd have liked, all in all Planet Terror was great, although its "horror" quality is debatable – like 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake, it's more like an action movie with zombies in it. Doesn't make it any less fun.

Then come a few more fake trailers. I have to admit I think the fake trailer gimmick was pretty impressive, offering a brief glimpse into some shamelessly amusing pieces of trash. Seriously, I wonder if anyone would ever consider producing full-length versions of these movies. Anyway, my favourite of the bunch would have to be Eli Roth's trailer for slasher film Thanksgiving. What can I say? It manages to be both dark and funny, often at the same time.

That leads to the second half, Tarantino's Death Proof. I might state that prior to seeing Grindhouse proper, I saw both halves in their extended DVD versions. Having said that, I do believe that the shorter versions used in Grindhouse are superior, especially in the case of Death Proof. Mainly because, quite honestly, Death Proof is fairly hard to sit through. After being charged on Planet Terror and a series of intense trailers, having to change gears and watch a movie that is one-third car chase and two-thirds girl talk is a bit too much of a jolt, so to speak. As such, when watched as part of Grindhouse, Death Proof feels slooooooow.

At least, the first half does anyway. When you first watch Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell, giving a decent performance but nothing spectacular) change from amiable stuntman to psychotic stuntman, the movie gets ramped up a few notches. Then it gets pulled back down again as you get subjected to more girl talk, albeit actually interesting (maybe because of stuntwoman Zöe Bell, who steals the show with a thick Kiwi accent and a love of dangerous driving). Just when it begins to drag, along comes Death Proof's (and ostensibly Grindhouse's) climatic point, a twenty-minute car chase through the Tennessee countryside. It all comes to a conclusion that is quite honestly blunt and pretty predictable, but that doesn't deter the audience, who cheered and clapped the end of three hours' worth of so-bad-it's-excellent cinema.

I have an acquaintance on the Internet who is a die-hard fan of Val Kilmer. As a result of his praise for Kilmer, I have seen something like half a dozen Kilmer movies in the past few months. They have ranged from middling (Spartan) to good (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) and have actually proved that Kilmer is a fairly underrated actor. One particular Kilmer movie that has stayed with me since I've seen it is The Salton Sea, enough that I've bothered to watch it a second time and even buy the DVD.

The Salton Sea stars Kilmer as Danny, a heavily tattooed punk and "tweaker" (the movie's nickname for a meth addict). He divides his time between hanging out with fellow addicts and ratting out crazed drug dealers to a pair of cops (Anthony laPaglia and Doug Hutchison). When he comes home at night, he changes into an old suit, plays sad music on a trumpet and calls himself Tom. Exactly why he does this is revealed in a series of flashbacks that I won't spoil here, but they paint a clearer picture of just what kind of person Danny/Tom really is.

At first, it's easy to assume from the first 15 or 20 minutes that The Salton Sea is going to be a movie about drug culture, in the vein (pun unintended) of movies like Trainspotting or Requiem for a Dream. The Salton Sea does share many stylistic similarities with such drug movies – the story is told in a very episodic manner, uses a starkly colourful visual style and utilises many flourishes with both camera-work and editing. The style is toned down slightly from the much more in-your-face manner shown in Requiem for a Dream. I find this actually a plus in the case of The Salton Sea, because the muted "drug-chic" look of the film doesn't distract you from the film's real plot.

What The Salton Sea does differently to other drug movies is subtly weave a thriller plot into the midst of its portrayal of meth addicts. The plot – revolving around revenge, murder and double-crosses – doesn't take centre-stage until the final third of the film, when Tom's true motives for becoming Danny finally come to light. The twist that signals the beginning of the end is a fairly unpredictable one. When you actually come to the realisation that there is a twist, it seems all the stranger because it belongs to a plot that is not immediately obvious on a first viewing. Even on repeat viewings, you find it hard to see coming due to the subtlety of the plot that the twist relates to.

Which is all fine and dandy – but how does the film as a whole stand up? Pretty well. As Danny, Kilmer is an eloquent and softly spoken voice of reason amidst a veritable circus of bizarre supporting characters; the most memorable being Vincent D'Onofrio as "Pooh Bear", a hillbilly drug dealer with no nose and a penchant for blackly comic acts of violence. The plot, although not particularly obvious or even too original, is a solid one and isn't overshadowed by the film's look. The Salton Sea manages to be a decent enough movie, borrowing from the Column A of drug movies and the Column B of neo-noir without ever leaving the feeling that it tries too hard.

Stock footage. There's a wide and varied array of sights. Soldiers. Punks. Royalty. War. Explosions. Dying. Death. Thatcher. All of this set to the tune of some catchy reggae.

So begins This Is England, Shane Meadows' film about growing up in 1980s England. It presents the life of 12 year old Shaun, a lonely misfit who meets up with a group of skinheads on his way home from school one day. Gradually, Shaun becomes initiated into the gang.

At first, the skinheads aren't the stereotypical violent racists that most people imagine skinheads to be. They live and act like any of the other cliques, with a penchant for destructive behaviour. This all changes when former gang leader Combo (Stephen Graham) returns home after three years in prison.

This is where the film truly begins. Combo's turn in the joint has changed him. He encourages the gang to follow his new ideal - English pride by way of hate crimes against the recent influx of Pakistani immigrants. His plans cause the gang to splinter into two sections, and it's at this point that Shaun really has to make the choices that matter.

I'm not sure how many other people do this (probably a lot), but when I watch a film about a very particular subject matter (in this case, skinheads) I tend to compare it in my mind with other films I've seen with the same subject. It's very easy to watch This Is England and be reminded of, say, American History X or even Romper Stomper. Of course, even though all three films are about skinheads, This Is England is far different in its approach than the latter two.

This Is England does ends up demonising the skinhead way of life, it doesn't do it in such a heavy-handed way. Combo first appears by crashing the skinheads' relatively benign party, spouting racist taunts and stories of jail, but later scenes show that he is not just a one-dimensional thug. He has a heart and is genuinely nice at times, which makes his occasional outburst even more shocking (especially the story's climax). It's much more ambiguous, and much more interesting that way.

It's a well-made film, no doubt. Meadows pulls good performances out of every player. Stylistically, the film doesn't do anything dramatically over-the-top, which fits the story fine. And of course, I've got to give props to the reggae on the soundtrack. That was a surprising touch for a skinhead movie, but a smart one at that, because that's one of the things that makes This Is England a notch above other skinhead movies – the many ways that it turns the popular myth on its head, and thus manages to turn movies on their head in one bleakly realistic portrayal of life on the fringe.

My reasoning for watching There Will Be Blood is the same as the reasoning for watching No Country for Old Men a month or so ago. A stark and brutal-looking film comes along, wins almost universal praise wherever I look and draws awards and nominations like ducks to water. Seeing as how much I enjoyed No Country, I wondered how exactly There Will Be Blood would stack up against it. Better? Worse? Equal? Only one way to find out.

There Will Be Blood is a much more straightforward character study than No Country for Old Men. Daniel Day-Lewis as Plainview, the humble miner turned ruthless entrepreneur, is just as engaging and mesmerising as everyone has made him out to be. There's nothing I can say about his combination of method acting and research that hasn't been mentioned in any other review. It's sublime. He's a rougher, tougher Charles Kane whose every redeeming feature is actually part of what makes him so menacing.

Now that I've got the obligatory Day-Lewis reference out of the way, now onto the rest of the film. The only other PTA film I've seen is Boogie Nights, which sounds like a far cry from There Will Be Blood, and in many ways it is (although I did notice similar use of long takes of dialogue). The rest of the film is an experience I'd best describe as "visceral". Despite the title, there is very little actual bloodshed, but what there is hits you hard and unexpectedly. The film even manages to generate a few moments of tension that get under your skin in a good way. Hell, there's even a couple of laugh-out-loud moments (this may sound odd, but I laughed more during There Will Be Blood than I did during Juno).

The film rumbles along at a peculiar pace, from the 2001-style opening to an unforgettable conclusion. In between, your attention is captivated by Plainview and his world, a world of greed, lies, hard work, inconveniences and, of course, blood.

Any assessment I make of There Will Be Blood always comes back to asking myself whether it's better than No Country for Old Men. Although the two have very little in common, they're both excellent, and it's tough to decide which one to give the edge to. It will be interesting to see how they fare at the Oscars, especially against each other. There Will Be Blood was an excellent film, and not just solely on the back of Day-Lewis's performance. It's a gripping experience, and will constantly surprise up until the bitter end.

I want to get this out of the way first - American Gangster is a lot like Goodfellas. Of course, that's an easy comparison to make - every gangster film of the past 20 years owes a debt to Scorsese's film, which set the bar with its dynamic performances and compelling yet realistic storyline. Comparing the two films is something of a back-handed compliment because Scott's film is also an engaging affair, but not quite to the same extent as Goodfellas. Maybe because realising just how much it's like Goodfellas distracted a little from Gangster's own merit.

There is quite a bit of merit, though. Both Crowe and Washington deliver good performances. In regards to which was better, I'm going to nominate Washington as giving the better performance. He plays the benevolent gangster well, albeit with his fair share of actions that will polarise the audience (the most memorable being a very public execution of a rival). Crowe pulls the same trick in his own way - a too-honest cop with his own surprises - but Washington is just that extra bit more interesting. The movie is essentially about his character - he made it work well.

Apart from the lead performances that anchor the film, what else does American Gangster have to offer? A decent enough true-crime drama, with few thrills or action but what there is keeps you interested enough over the course of about two and a half hours (if any film can do that, it must be doing something right). Although on its own, American Gangster is a well-made piece of crime drama, it suffers from being derivative of earlier crime movies and even the odd cliché thrown in for good measure (including Josh Brolin as an über-corrupt detective who is an enemy to both Roberts and Lucas). Regardless, if you're into this kind of thing, you should enjoy it a fair bit. Just don't expect anything mind-blowingly original.

I hadn't seen any of Leigh's prior work before deciding to settle on Naked as a good starter. From what I'd gathered beforehand, I knew I could expect something that could best be described as "a gritty-feeling movie". In hindsight, I don't think you can describe Naked as being "a gritty-feeling movie". You end up describing gritty-feeling movies as being "like Naked".

That statement is pretty true – Naked is as bleak and unforgiving as they come. There are no good guys or any possible chances for redemption. Whenever a glimmer of hope appears during the film, it's obliterated within mere moments. The characters don't undergo any significant changes throughout the film. The film ends in pretty much the same way it begins, probably doomed to repetition until the end of the world. If you sit down to watch this, all I can say is "be prepared". Know what you're getting into.

Although the unforgettable feel of the film could be attributed to its verité style (filmed on the dodgy side of London with very rough-looking film), it could be better attributed to the protagonist himself. David Thewlis gives what's probably his best performance as Johnny, a man with few strengths and countless flaws. His eloquent monologues are roughly balanced by his harsh treatment of others. Johnny has very little respect for anyone or anything and it shows as he inflicts pain (physical or emotional, it doesn't matter to him) on everybody that crosses his path.

As bad as he is, however, he's oddly sympathetic in a way (especially when compared to a landlord who's as callous and sociopathic as he is, possibly more so). In a way, I could actually relate to Johnny (and not just because I have the same coat). He knows how bad he can be and acts accordingly, only because he doesn't believe in anything else or changing his ways. He just exists from day to day, just like any other human being. That's what makes Johnny so compelling – he really is only human. When karma finally catches up to him late in the film, we aren't glad to see him suffer. Johnny is the best kind of character, full of nuance that will make different people love him and hate him for the same reasons.

Even though Naked depends heavily on Johnny's presence, he is not the be-all and end-all of the film. The supporting characters are exceptional – the stand-out roles being Johnny's ex and her flatmate. Watching them try and deal with the sudden arrival of both Johnny and (later on) the landlord is in itself one very compelling subplot. A runner-up would be the security guard on his graveyard shift who engages in a series of debates with Johnny about time, life, evolution and the inevitable Apocalypse.

Needless to say, Naked was one hell of a film to watch. It makes me wonder exactly how I should rate it, if I should rate it. It's not really one of those movies where you just say "Oh yeah, very good, very moving, 4 stars." You're more likely to watch it and afterwards not say anything, just think about it. Those are the exceptional films, and Naked is definitely that – a dark, pessimistic insight into the mind of a human being who treads the fine line between self-destruction and utter dissatisfaction.

I hadn't really heard too much about The Fountain - it directed by Aronofsky, the man who did Requiem for a Dream, it was set in the past, present and future somehow, had to do with eternal life, etc. So I guessed I didn't really have much of an idea about the movie. I was right about that.

The main plot revolves around Tom (Hugh Jackman), a genetic scientist who is trying to perfect a cure for brain tumours, all while dealing with his terminally ill wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). The movie often follows two different plots that tie in with the main one - a story-within-a-story about a medieval conquistador (also Jackman) searching for the mythical "tree of life" in South America, and Tom's future, where he lives inside a ball with a tree as it hurtles through outer space. Something like that.

It's even harder to wrap your head around the plot when it happens on screen. I'll be honest here, I spent a fairly good portion of the movie wondering what exactly was real and what wasn't. Since I review movies after one viewing, I probably missed a fair bit. This film could use several viewings.

That's a small error to worry about when you're watching everything that's going on. On the whole, any moment in The Fountain is a powerful one. Everything comes together perfectly - sight, sound, emotions. If anything really stood out about this film, it was the general look of the film. Visually, The Fountain is quite simply eye-boggling. The final 20 minutes alone are jaw-dropping in their intensity.

The Fountain was one hell of a movie to watch. Between the convoluted, thought-provoking plot line(s) and the film's aesthetics, you're in for more than just a movie - you're in for an experience.

Richard Linklater's Slacker is a movie I've been waiting to see for a while, after hearing all manner of buildup over its unusual structure and massive influence on indie film. So while in America I picked up the Criterion DVD blind for $40, took it home and watched.

I was not disappointed.

Slacker takes place over the course of a single day in Linklater's home town of Austin, Texas. Lacking any conventional plot, the film instead drifts from character to character as they go about their lives. The majority of the characters are certified wackos, who spend the movie speaking at length about their personal philosophies and monomanias (ranging from pop culture and conspiracy theory to individual hopes and dreams).

Because Slacker does not feature any easily identifiable structure (indeed, one character remarks "the underlying order is chaos"), the film's strength has to come from the characters and the dialogue. On a personal level, all of the actors manage a decent job at least, coming from Linklater's own casting philosophy that the characters should come from within the actors themselves. As a result, the actors aren't really actors in the strictest sense - rather, they are being their characters. It makes the acting seem much stronger than your average zero-budget feature.

Slacker's "storytelling" style has one drawback, though. With an ordinary movie, you will feel a sort of connection with the characters - like them or hate them, you become interested in their actions within the story. With Slacker, the quickly-changing cast doesn't leave any room for you to get attached to a character before they quickly disappear around a corner. Some of the people's stories may interest you, some may not. On a single run-through, you can expect to find yourself bored with what's going on and waiting for the next interesting person to pop up. To catch everything, you'll have to watch the movie more than once.

One thing I noticed from the very first frame is how well-made Slacker actually is. The budget is often cited as being $23,000, but it looks surprisingly polished. The camera never quite stops moving - even when it focuses on people sitting at a table it still sways gently without drawing much attention. That's when it stops - most of the time, the camera is tracking characters as they walk and talk to each other before it starts tracking a new person. Even the "home-video" segments, taken by characters once or twice throughout the film, don't grate with amateur technique but even call to mind old experimental movies with their perfection of the imperfect.

I had high expectations when I saw Slacker, and it reached them reasonably well. Linklater, an art and literature buff, managed to take influence from the unlikeliest of places and craft them into a compelling tale of "nothing going on". Never before has nothing at all looked like so much.

The Highlander mythology was always one of the coolest concepts for a movie - immortal swordsmen battling each other across the ages until one remained. Combine the potential within with the skills of Yoshiaki Kawajiri, the man responsible for Ninja Scroll, and you sound like you have quite a winner on your hands.

The Search for Vengeance is about the plight of Colin Macleod, the eponymous Highlander, and his centuries-long feud with Marcus, a Roman general who murdered Colin's true love. Time and time again throughout history, Colin and Marcus clash with each other until they come to their final showdown amidst a futuristic New York riddled with plague and war.

Like any continuation of Highlander, The Search for Vengeance crafts its own fiction by combining the original's mythology (holy ground, Quickenings, death-by-beheading etc) with several of its own ideas (in this case, demons, robots and spirits). Although some of the more fantastical elements (e.g. Colin's communication with a druid-like ghost) grated a little, they're tolerable enough changes to the Highlander world. In the end, it feels like it leans more towards the animé side of things.

As for the film itself - visually, it's pretty good. The animation is fluid and the action looks great. The constant changing of era (a staple of the Highlander series) works a treat, as you see battles of all kinds across the centuries. The showdowns look a treat as well (I expect nothing less from the maker of Ninja Scroll), as do the battles during the futuristic scenes. I will say that fair chunks of the plot are fairly clichéd and if you've ever really watched prior Highlander material, you can probably predict a fair bit of it.

The last word on The Search for Vengeance - who do I really recommend it to? It's a decent enough watch for anyone with even a passing interest in animé, and it's a more watchable experience for Highlander fans than the film sequels, but outside of those two groups, it'd be a little hard to recommend. In any case, it was a decent watch and if you need a good fix of sword-fighting or animé, this isn't a bad choice.

Show Me Love takes place in a small Swedish village called Åmål and centres on two teenaged girls - the popular Elin and the lonely Agnes. Both have their own problems - Elin is bored by life in Åmål and aspires to loftier goals such as fame and love, whereas Agnes has to deal with having no friends and being infatuated with Elin.

This was definitely a change of pace from the last few films I watched. No gun-fights, no sword-fights, no random pop-culture dialogues...what you have is a very down-to-earth film about these two girls and the situations they find themselves in. That made it all the more unpredictable - not like anything ordinary where you can easily tell whether anything ends in a good way or a bad way. I honestly did not know what to expect next, and that was definitely one of the better things about the film.

In that sense, Show Me Love managed to be a brilliant portrayal of real life. One of the things that really impressed me was how well it was paced. The pacing of the film, with gaps of varying length between important events, had me feeling anxious a lot of the time, wondering what'd happen next. I wonder if there's any other films that handle this just as well, if not better. It makes you feel connected. Who hasn't waited on something like the people in this? It only made each new event feel much more of a relief, before using that as a springboard onto an even more tense waiting game.

Onto other things - everything about this film was good. The grainy yellowish film gave the film its own unique look. The acting wasn't really spectacular, but it didn't have to be. Real people don't act spectacular, they're just them, and all the characters felt that way. The soundtrack was a real highlight. Even thought it's the kind of grungy rock you'd expect for any 90s teen movie (let alone one like Show Me Love), it really shines through.

I found Show Me Love to be a pretty good film. Yes, the words I'd use would be "pretty good". Perfect? No. Excellent? Perhaps. Worthy of wider recognition? Definitely.

I haven't really seen that many of the Coen brothers' movies - No Country marks the fourth one I've seen, and it may be the best of their movies I've seen at the very least.

No Country is best described as a modern-day Western - taking place in the Tex-Mex area, it focuses on three characters and their actions in relation to a huge drug deal gone horribly wrong. Josh Brolin's Llewellyn is ostensibly the lead character, a regular Joe whose discovery of the deal (and subsequent theft of $2 million worth of drug money) drives the story. Also after the money is psychotic murderer Chigurh (a brilliant turn by Javier Bardem), who leaves a thick and bloody trail of bodies as he pursues Llewellyn. Rounding out the trio is Tommy Lee Jones as Bell, the world-weary sheriff whose presence in the film is best likened to a Greek chorus as he is very loosely involved in the movie's action.

From now on it gets tough to write about No Country - my expectations were high for this (after all the five-star reviews I'd heard about). Not only were my expectations met, they were defied. I honestly was not ready for the movie - not because it was more than I'd hoped for, but because it was less. No Country is deceptively simple - the best aspect of it is that it does not try to be overly dramatic. Unlike a large number of thrillers, mood-building music is practically non-existent; what little there is goes largely unnoticed. The suspense is built extraordinarily well - even in some of the more clichéd scenarios on offer. You'll probably spend at least two-thirds of the movie on the edge of your seat. I know I did.

If I had to find any fault with the film, I'd consider it a trifling one but I will say this - the other third of the movie. If Brolin and Bardem's cat-and-mouse arc is responsible for the more intense parts of the film, then Jones' part is responsible for the more quiet (and I may even say, slightly boring) moments. I don't see the breaks in the suspense as much of a problem - rather, Jones' philosophical musings provide much-needed breathers and, if anything, the true heart of the film - how his life as a modern-day sheriff is very different to the ways of his lawmaking ancestors, and how things now are not necessarily for the better.

There's a reason No Country for Old Men has been getting fantastic reviews everywhere you look. It's a tense affair that really does suck you in right from the very beginning and doesn't let go, hitting you with surprise after surprise after surprise. This is the breath of fresh air I've been looking for.

I watched this movie at school a few days ago (because our teacher let us) because one of my mates had a pirated DVD copy. I rue his taste in movies.

I never saw the original xXx, but I can imagine it can't be as bad as this. It has nothing remarkable about it - every shot is punctuated with either an explosion or a painfully unfunny one-liner. Or, in most cases, both.

This is an attempt to try and cash in on the "gangsta" subculture while trying to make a Bond clone. The idea of gangbangers helping to save the nation is incomprehensible, above all other ideas.

I don't mind the occasional "switch-off-your-mind-and-watch" flick, but this one was too stupid. Avoid like the plague.

If I had to list my favourite SF movies of all time, "The Terminator" would probably top the list. "Terminator" manages to be both violent and cerebral, to have enough action and enough intelligence, to have a good premise and a great message.

This is THE best of the Terminator movies - despite looking painfully out-of-date in this CGI-dependent age (such as the stop-motion endoskeletons and the damaged Terminator heads), it's still of inconsequence. This movie has a relatively simple story - running from the ultimate killing machine - yet an intricate back story makes it more than just your average chase movie.

"Terminator" is so totally convincing with Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) as the lead, in a non-exploitative role so clearly lacking in modern action movies (re: Charlie's Angels). She manages to be a person truly scared by what's going on - namely the Terminator and Reese. For the first part of the movie, it's hard to know who is the scarier.

If you haven't already seen it, seek it out. It might seem ugly in comparison to CGI-soaked epics such as Star Wars and LOTR, but the effects do not matter so much.

9/10

2004. Me and a friend. This movie had intrigued me, since it promised to be scary and funny. The only actor I had heard of was Bill Nighy. Nonetheless, we turned up and saw one hell of a great movie.

To start on a somewhat negative note, the film is very clichéd. The film's plot seems uninspired. It interweaves the average romcom plot (loser tries to sort out his life with the help of his funny friend) with the typical horror plot (a small group of people try to survive the undead onslaught). But it's done in such a way that it manages to be entertaining. The generic rom-com characters are pulled off in such a way by the players that it doesn't feel like you've seen it a thousand times before, though you have

Simon Pegg shines as the eponymous hero, although the best performance comes from newcomer Nick Frost, in his role as Ed, the ultimate "useless sidekick to hero" romcom stereotype. He farts, admits that he loves Shaun's mum, deals drugs, plays TimeSplitters and does bugger-all. As a result he gets the best lines.

Despite the fact that the whole movie, in a certain light, seems boring, it has some great zombie action - the most memorable being "the backyard" scene. It also has the best references to horror movies, making light of everybody from Dario Argento to Lucio Fulci, from George Romero to Sam Raimi. This has all the makings of a cult classic and I suggest you seek it out if you want something funny.

Pulp Fiction has essentially defined the indie movie. I first saw it on TV some time last year and have since put it on both my favourite movies list and least favourite movies list.

Odd, that. Even though everybody seems to like the movie, to me there isn't that much to like about it.

The dialogue is supposedly just ordinary chit-chat that people may have on a daily basis, but it's like that in that for the most part the dialogue is actually a sort of boring idle chat while you wait for the interesting bits. The parts of dialogue I think of in particular involve the whole chat between Vincent and Jules between the end of the opening credits and reaching the dudes' apartment (you know, about foot massages and the boss's wife etc). The same goes for much of the conversation during the Vincent-Mia "date", the conversation between Butch and his girlfriend, etc. Royale with cheese is interesting the first time but after about the 5th time I lost interest.

Also there's the characters - Jules is supposedly one of the coolest characters in modern cinema but what's to like? He's just a black guy in a black suit who quotes the Bible and uses "the m/f-word" a lot. Even his redemption doesn't quite interest me so much. Likewise, the vast majority of the characters are unlikeable on some level - Vincent is a drug user who makes several bad mistakes over the course of the film (you know what I mean), Mia is a lower-class coke addict with a sugar daddy and a failed TV pilot to her name and there's nothing likable at all about Butch. The only character I really liked was the Wolf, because he just had that smooth confidence and sharp mind that seems to come alive when Harvey Keitel plays a character.

As for the story – out of all three stories (the "date", the "gold watch" and the "Bonnie situation"), my favourite had to be "the Bonnie situation" because it just worked. From the unexpected "trigger" of events, this is quite interesting because it focuses on Jules for the most part as he undergoes his "moment of clarity", plus watching the two cleaning up is a laugh and a half. The other stories have their interesting moments ("bring out the Gimp") but are nowhere near as interesting because the idea is that the characters speak more often than any action happens. Oh well, such is life.

The action itself is actually clichés, but done in such a way that they seem original. The examples include the assassination sequence, the car crash, etc. The one piece of action that seemed incredibly original was the entire hillbilly sex dungeon scene – probably one of the best scenes in the movie, if somewhat disturbing.

In short, this is a good movie though. It's good for those of you who like "talkies" punctuated with action i.e. most people, but I seriously can't understand why this ends up on both my favourite movies list and least favourite movies list. Maybe it's because this movie is, among other things, bi-polar.

I give it 7/10