Star Trek Into Darkness

This film offers a perfect blend of Roddenberry's utopian liberal society and a tongue-in-cheek homage to the characters quirks and failings with cutting edge CGI and a well written story acted with conviction and passion. It's rather good. I'm not going to give any plot detail away but I will address a few issues the film raises - hopefully without giving anything away.

The film has spawned 'Pine Nuts' who are fans of Chris Pine who plays Kirk and 'Cumberbitches' who are fans of Benedict Cumberbatch who plays the baddie. There are fine performances from the other characters and jarringly English rose amongst gung-ho Americans and Vulcans etc in the form of Alice Eve who plays Science Officer Carol Marcus.

This film is essentially about two things:

• Following orders
• Following feelings

and how you do one or the other to do the right thing. Doing the right thing and doing the thing right are not the same thing! The story raises a pile of issues that pose moral dilemmas and time and time again the characters are tested - often to the limit. This is not a simple story of baddie versus goodie - it is both more complex and more subtle than that.

It is great to see a Tribble again - and central to the story! The CGI contribution is truly amazing with seamless blending of the real with the virtual. The soundtrack offers some good songs at appropriate moments. The film is shot with lots of close-ups where a head fills the screen leaving me with the feeling that much of the acting effort is expended in re-emphasising the core characters' personalities which are played much more strongly and directly than in the original TV series. Okay, there are one or two passages that are little over-long but on the whole the pace is well maintained throughout. Well done J J Abrams.

This is an excellent film - believe the hype and go and see it! It is great to see Cumberbatch in such a strong role and playing a baddie and a cast that offer three dimensional characters. The action is pretty well non-stop and some interesting relationship twists provide a richer plot than the usual. I'm giving this an 8.5/10.

Headhunters

Being a fan of the Stieg Larsson novels and films, I was looking forward to my first encounter with Jo Nesbo - dubbed "the new Stieg Larsson". Scandinavian noir thrillers are all the rage these days and so I nestled down with a high degree of expectation. For me, it was hard to put my finger on it, but I found the film failed to deliver the level of satisfaction I was anticipating. Perhaps it was because we watched the dubbed version rather than the Norwegian originals with subtitles. Also, none of the characters endeared themselves to me and in terms of the outcome, I felt they all got what they deserved. This is a nice little story about relationships, emotions and morality.

The narrative arc is provided by the lead character Roger Brown (Askel Hennie), a diminutive executive headhunter who compensates for his lack of height and the attendant fear of losing his beautiful and leggy wife Diana (Synnøve Macody Lund), by over-stretching himself financially to lavish gifts on her. To make up the difference between income and lifestyle Brown engages in a series of thefts of paintings which he sells on the black market. Does Brown reconcile himself to his 5'6" by the end of the film? You'll have to watch it to find out!

To begin with Brown has a nice little arrangement but when he gets in over his head he unsurprisingly finds himself out of his depth. Greed and fear of loss are very strong motivators. One untruth requires several more to cover it up and the whole thing escalates out of control. Factor in a maverick ex-Danish special forces operative and Norway's leading Detective and the elements combine to produce a pacy thriller.

Sadly this is no Girl with .. any kind of tattoo. The characters are not convincing enough and the plot development relies too heavily on the sparsely populated Norwegian countryside to cover over a multitude of convenient 'how did he get away with that' happenings. Some of the action is akin to James Bond but most of it is closer to Johnny English. The ambiguity of the title is clever as the executive headhunter becomes a head that is itself hunted.

I may be paying Jo Nesbo a disservice but I will not be rushing to add his works to my Kindle to sit alongside Larsson's - neither will I be rushing to see future film adaptations of his work. I'm glad I only paid £2 for this from Blockbuster Marketplace (well worth checking out - some great deals)! I'll give 6/10.

Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4)

This franchise is the Ronseal of movies - it does what it says on the tin  You know exactly what you're going to get - the only grounds for complaint would be not enough of it. This one doesn't disappoint. Bruce Willis reprises the role of New York Detective John McClane who always happens to be in the right place at the right time to save the city and the world from impending doom. This fourth iteration of the series contains the usual sado-masochistic beating of the indestructible cop who simply gets up and carries on when even your average super-hero would call it a day.

The plot is updated and centres on cyber-terrorism meted out in revenge by a former government security programmer Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) who has been shunned by his former employer. The plot is quite simple - a 'fire sale'. A three stage plan to shut down transport, communication and utilities that leave the country in chaos and black out - and all on the 4th of July. The narrative arc is provided by McClane's estranged daughter Lucy (May Elizabeth Winstead) who is reconciled to her hero-dad at the climax of the film. McClane also saves the nation and kills Gabriel - in the most bizarre of ways.

There are plenty of chases, shoot-outs, explosions, computer geek conversations and people simply refusing to die. Most of the film is set in Washington DC but it starts in New York and ends up in West Virginia. McClane's inventiveness reaches new heights as he takes out helicopters, trucks and the Air Force's lastest fighter jet.

I didn't find much cinematically to comment on and as regards the plot it's a bit thin but allows some engagement with moral questions over government power and it abuse, our reliance on a virtual world to run the real one and cyber terrorism. As I said, it does what it says on the tin. I wonder how many more the ageing Mr Willis can make? If you want an action movie that demands little form it's viewers then this is good - fire up the popcorn. I won't hurry to see number 5, although seeing Moscow get CGI trashed might be interesting. I'll give this 6/10. I was stuck in a hotel and this was the late night offering on TV - just about the right context to watch it in.

Harry Brown

Michael Caine was in his mid seventies when he made this and as possibly one of his last starring roles chooses to return to his roots. Caine's own humble origins find a resonance in the high-rise housing estate where the dignified and upright character Harry Brown lives in south London.

Harry's only child, a daughter, already lies buried in the cemetery. His wife lies in a catatonic state in hospital. Each day he washes his breakfast dishes, puts on his tie and jacket and walks to the hospital to visit. He then meets his friend Len for a game of chess in the local pub over a pint. That pattern seems to be the extent of Harry's life - a stark change from the days of active service he saw in the troubles of Northern Ireland as a Royal Marine Commando.

When Harry's wife dies, he stands on the precipice of emptiness. The local estate is controlled by drug-dealing yobs who traumatise the residents and who turn some parts of the estate into no-go areas. Len has been the target of the yobs for some time and he lives in fear of his life. He takes matters into his own hands and ends up dead. Harry has nothing but his dignity and justice left to live for as he tumbles over the precipice.

In a film that is strongly reminiscent of Gran Torino Harry Brown puts his quick mind and military training into practise. Rather than the leafy suburbs of Detroit, we get the concrete wasteland of Elephant and Castle - but the rest of the story is remarkable similar.

The trajectory of the narrative doesn't take much guesswork. The only twists are provided by the degree of inventiveness that Brown employs to deal with the thugs. As social commentary, it is a powerful indictment of inner-city community policing which can sometimes leave communities isolated and vulnerable. The predictability of the 'good cop' set against an ineffectual police force obsessed with its own vanity is provided by Emily Mortimer who plays DI Alice Frampton.

This is a bleak, violent and bloody film that will not be on the list of the London Tourist Office. Its warmth comes from the characters of Brown and Frampton and its morality sees a higher justice engaging with the law of the street in a society that has been abandoned by the judiciary. Is vigilante law enforcement ever a good thing or does it signal the breakdown of law and order, civilisation and democracy?

The acting all-round is strong. The way the film is lit and shot maximises the dark grittiness of the bleak urban landscape. Brown's loving kindness shows itself as he tends the graves of his wife and daughter and in being the only mourner at Len's funeral. This contrasts tangentially with his cold professional and detached ability to despatch thugs with seemingly no remorse. His efforts frustrated only by the frailties of his ageing body and emphysema. The twist at the end of the film takes him back to his tours of duty in Ulster.

The ever-changing way in which statistics on crime are gathered and presented make it difficult to gauge whether or not the kind of lawlessness depicted in this film is still with us. I suspect that in pockets it sadly is. The film presents a significant challenge to explore how communities drift into this kind of situation and how the police and the courts are seemingly powerless to do anything about it. When this kind of scenario unfolds, it is not surprising that vigilantes emerge - but is their form of 'justice' any more welcome than the inactivity of the police? My sense of justice screams out for it - but two wrongs can never make a right and it seems to me that this is another in a growing list of films that appeal to utility for the means to justify the end. For me, that is a dangerous direction in which to be heading. We need to be careful about our understanding of how art can reflect and at the same time shape society. Would you like Harry Brown living next door to you?

If you want to see an English film about thugs 'getting what they deserve' with some very good acting and action, then this is a film for you - enjoy if you can. If you want to see a film that invites debate about how we police our communities and how law and order could work more effectively, then this will offer fertile ground. Or, if you simply want to enjoy a performance from one of cinema's true greats, this will not disappoint. I'll give it 8/10.

Silver Linings Playbook (Take #2)

I saw and reviewed this film a couple of weeks ago here. It made such an impact on me that when my local art-house cinema (Harbour Lights - Southampton) screened it last night, I dragged my significant other along to watch. A good move. As the film has long finished in the cinema and has been out on disc for a while, please forgive me if I discuss some aspects of the plot. If you don't want to know - stop reading here!

It's rare for me to re-watch a film so soon after a first viewing, but this was still very fresh in my mind and I wanted to know if I could see anything more in it second time around. In terms of plot and story development there wasn't much that was new. However, the characters made a stronger impact on me -particularly Pat (Bradley Cooper), Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) and Pat Senior (Robert De Niro). The energy and power with which Cooper delivers bi-polar Pat is captivating. The blend of in-your-face independent minx and vulnerable grieving widow that Lawrence moves between is entrancing. First time around the influence of De Niro's character had not made the same impact on me but this time it is clear that each successive male generation in the Solatano family ensured the family weaknesses were passed on and possibly even amplified. Hence Pat Junior's predisposition to the illness he suffered from.

What struck me even more this time around was how much this is a film about loss. Pat Junior has lost his job, house, mental health and wife. Pat Senior has lost his job and his pension - and his youngest son to mental illness. Tiffany has lost the love of her life and her self-respect. Ronnie has lost the fire in his marriage and a healthy perspective on his business. Danny has lost his freedom to mental illness. Nikki has lost her husband to mental illness and her marriage is unlikely to recover.

Some things received a positive exploration, such as the role of home as a sanctuary and place of acceptance - both Pat Junior's and Tiffany's parents (particularly Pat's mother) doing their utmost to hold their child lovingly and provide some degree of stability within a loving context. Another area to receive positive treatment was the importance of truth. Pat Junior confessed that he couldn't filter his thoughts before he spoke them and Tiffany was so direct and straight, she was at times frightening - but at the same time equally refreshing. You always knew where you were with Tiffany as she had developed the ability to reflect deeply on her feelings and relate them to her experience and thereby to grow in her ability to understand both herself and others. It is the character of Tiffany that drives the narrative towards its conclusion and provides the energy to empower change in the lives of those she touches.

Although the ending is a little Hollywood-sugary, I liked the fact that it wasn't predictable and had a couple of twists. I also liked the fact that a character who is central to the story throughout the film doesn't actually appear until the end. I would like to ask everyone who has seen the film to write down exactly what it is they think Pat whispered to Nikki at the end. What was it that he said so appropriately that allowed closure of one chapter the beginning of another?

For me this was even better second time around and it is clear to see why the 22 year-old Jennifer Lawrence was awarded an Oscar. It is refreshing to see a film with no car chases, explosions or shoot outs and minimal violence. The violence that does occur is located realistically within its context in the narrative. This is a plot and character driven film - and an excellent one at that. One to add to the list of films to use with groups to explore feelings, emotions, relationships and what it means to be family. I'm going to upgrade my original score and award it 8.5/10. Do get the disc and watch if you've not seen it - or see it again if you have. It will repay a second viewing.

Blade Runner (The Final Cut)

A landmark film in the neo-noir genre, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner has developed an expanding cult following that has made it one of the highest grossing rental/tape/disc/download titles of all time. It is inspired by Philip K Dick's short story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? In 1993, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". This is an important and significant piece of cinema - and an engaging and enjoyable one too!

The film is set in a dystopian Los Angeles which when released was 37 years in the future - now only six years away! The visual design and feel of the film have been echoed in so many films since - the rain in The Matrix, the dim grey industrial backlit look in the recent Batman trilogy, the look of Battlestar Gallactica perhaps serve as examples. Its futuristic retro-fitted costumes add to the film's distinctive visualisation. The film has always been shrouded in debate and a degree of controversy.

From it's inception there were disagreements between studio executives and producers, the script went through the hands of numerous writers with endless revisions and a host of top Hollywood actors were considered for the lead role until Harrison Ford ended up as Deckard. In all a total of seven different versions of the film have been released to date with various scenes being added or subtracted and voice-overs removed, all of which continued to fuel the debate over what this film is really all about.

The story centres on a group of the latest elite model of androids - or replicants as the film calls them. Deckard is a specialist who 'decomissions' replicants by the only possible way - killing them. Deckard is a Blade Runner. The central question of the film is 'what constitutes life'. Are the replicants 'alive' in the same way that humans are alive? A central point of debate that has been engineered by script and production ambiguities is whether or not Deckard is a replicant himself. The replicant Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) aware of a pre-programmed limited lifespan of only four years tells Deckard that he "wants more life". The femme fatale Rachel is desperate to be human and accept her memories as her own and not simply implants.

The film maintains a constant state of paranoia - everyone is always looking over their shoulder. From multi-national corporations to omniscient law enforcement officers, to replicants to Blade Runners - everyone is seemingly threatening whilst being threatened. All is concrete, steel and artificial light - there is no daylight, greenery - nothing natural, the only organic stuff on show is what is dispensed by the fast-food outlets and bars.

This film is clearly a cut above the average sci-fi film exploring interesting questions. It's leap from Dick's story to the screen, its acting, design, music and invitation to metaphysical enquiry all combine to produce something which is much bigger than the sum of its parts. Ridley Scott is currently working on a sequel which will surely be released amid huge media speculation and advertising hype somewhat akin to that which accompanied the release of Prometheus in 2012. I've seen this film several times (in various versions) and it still delights, entrances and engages. I am sure it will only grow in stature as new generations are introduced to all that it has to offer. I am going to give this the coveted mark of 9/10.

Dark Star

I imagine this 1974 film from John Carpenter will polarise reaction - viewers will either love it or hate it. Carpenter is better known for horror movies than Sci-Fi, but this film started off as a college project and was expanded by inserting extra scenes to stretch it to 83 minutes. It's seemingly minimal budget certainly makes it feel more like Red Dwarf than Avatar but therein lies its charm. Although released as a serious film, it has developed a significant cult following and is probably more widely seen as a dark comedy.

On a mission in deep space, four astronauts together with their frozen dead but communicative commander, are tasked with blowing up unstable planets in distant solar systems. Their space craft's interior resembles an anonymous industrial facility and the control panels look and sound like junk cobbled together from an electronics store stock disposal sale. The computer voice is both futuristic and attractive but dumbs herself down to match the crew's demeanour.

Entertainment is provided by a captured alien (the added scenes) that is a giant beach ball with gloves for feet. The crew chill out by head-banging to 70's surfing music and by playing childish games. The climax of the film involves a malfunctioning Thermostellar bomb having an argument about phenomenology with one of the astronauts who is desperate to stop the bomb from detonating whilst still attached to the ship. It all gets tricky when the bomb tries to be God.

Considering this came out six years after 2001: A Space Odyssey and five years before Alien, it is leagues apart in terms of special effects and expansive sets. As I said, that is what makes it endearing - if you allow yourself to be taken in by its naive charm. This is a quirky but nevertheless important film in both the career of Carpenter and the visual development of Sci-Fi cinema. It probably deserves more than the 6/10 I'm giving it but I shan't to rushing to see it again.

Au Revoir Les Enfants

This autobiographical film from Louis Malle is set in occupied France in 1944. The premise is quite simple: A boarding school run by Carmelite Brothers hosts not only the children of France's wealthy and privileged elite, the brothers also take in some Jewish boys, change their identity and hide them within the school community.

Malle's character is the bright Julien Quentin (Gaspard Manesse) who is drawn to new boy Jean Bonnet/Jean Kippelstein (Raphael Fejtö) who seems to be different. Their friendship goes through the usual evolution for boys of that age: indifference/admiration/conflict/friendship.

On one level this is a gentle tale. The community of brothers and the Catholic hierarchy are portrayed with sympathy and even the German military are depicted as being more kindly than is usually the case in cinema. Only the Gestapo officer is shown to be ruthless, but even here it is tempered ruthlessness. The community of the boys in the school and those who look after them is shown as being an harmonious one which is capable of displaying acts of deep humanity from time-to-time.

The Brothers ensure that the boys are kept up to date with developments of Allied progress on the Italian and Eastern fronts. A thriving black market is run by the kitchen helper which ensures that the usual extra-curricular activities are supported. The school pigs are fattened for slaughter to be ready for the annual visit of the sponsoring parents. The headmaster, Père Jean preaches a sermon that reminds those who have much, that much will be required of them - this is uncomfortable for some to hear.

The film manages to sustain a tension as it explores the trauma of living with military occupation. It gently shows the emotions of both war time and school days, it is a film about friendship, risk-taking, betrayal, sacrifice and loss. It is an engaging and delightful film - although I felt that it could have engaged with themes a little more directly and depicted them more brutally (realistically).

Made in 1987 this film was nominated for two oscars and won a Bafta the following year. It is a film that opens a window onto a carefully selected and I feel santised, depiction of the world of war-time France. It raises plenty of moral questions and invites viewers to ask themselves "what would I do in that situation?". I like films that do that. If you've not seen this, please do. I'll give it 7/10.

Winter's Bone

This is a raw, visceral, guttural, uncompromising film which the screen spits at the viewer through gritted teeth. Set in the bleak backwoods of the Ozark Mountains in Missouri the film is shot with a bleached palette of greys which reinforces the depressing feel this sad tale evokes. I imagine this will not feature on the list of films promoted by the Missouri State Tourism Office! At times I was left wondering where the narrative arc was going - but it does find resolution (albeit a little too sweetly for me).

PLOT SPOILERS

The central character is Ree played an even younger Jennifer Lawrence than appeared in Silver Linings Playbook reviewed earlier this week. Again, it is her performance that carries the story as she shows an ability to embody, evoke and enact emotions far beyond that of most 18 year-olds. 

This film is about loyalty and family. Loyalty to criminal gangs who having moved on from moonshine and who now produce Crystal Methamphetamine in an environment where the boundary lines are clear and the policing of them brutal. Family loyalties are harder to police as it seems that almost everyone is related in some way to each other. If men hurt someone - even a woman, the men folk of the  family of the wounded seek revenge. If women carry out a beating, the men cannot respond. There is a peculiar honour code that is woven into the culture of the community that establishes and preserves familial hierarchies. The one thing that no-one can tolerate is 'snitching' - telling the authorities about illicit activities and it is an act of snitching that is the pivot around which this story turns. 

In the midst of a moral morass it is Ree who shows that her moral compass is true and she steers a course that is as right as it likely to take her into troubled waters. It is Ree who provides this fractured community with a vision of what family should and could be like.

Ree ekes out an existence for her younger brother and sister who live with their catatonic mother in a cabin in the woods. The mother is catatonic as she can no longer cope with the Meth or the lifestyle of her Meth producing husband Jessup who is now missing. Having been arrested and facing a long jail term, he snitches in the hope of bargaining a reduced sentence. The police bail him to await his court appearance and he disappears. Jessup offers his home and woodland as surety against his bail bond. If he fails to show up in court the family will be evicted. Jessup fails to show. 

Ree embarks on a search for her father within a community which refuses to discuss him or his possible fate. The harder Ree pushes the stronger the warnings for her to stop until she crosses a line which places her in a dangerous place which exposes her vulnerability. It also reveals her courage and determination as she is driven on by the realisation  "But I can't forever carry them kids and my mom, not without that house."  

The brutality of the people in this story - even to their own kith and kin, is frightening. The fact that an encounter can turn from conversation to violence in the blink of an eye is a world I wish to stay clear of. It seems that women are 'owned' by their men as Ree's best friends tells her "you can't say no when you're married".

In the midst of all this gloom and oppression there are odd glimmers of humanity. The neighbours delivering some of their butchered deer carcass and offering use of the log splitter. The eventual way the central problem is resolved and the arrival of new life signified by the gift of two golden chicks for Ree's younger siblings add a splash of both brightness and hope to this otherwise dull and hopeless landscape. I wonder what happens to Ree in the aftermath of all of this.

I have told some elements of the story but hopefully not too many to spoil it for you if you decide to watch it. If you do watch it, it will reward you but at some cost as your emotions are put through the wringer. The acting so good and the camera work at times so close and integral to the action, that you may, like me, feel battered and abused at the end of your viewing! I was glad I watched in the afternoon and not last thing at night. There are no car chases, shoot outs or romantic liaisons. The story is driven by the script and the characters - just what a good film should be. As demanding as this film was to watch, I cannot but give it a coveted 9/10!

Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys

This Michael Haneke film from 2000 bears the hallmarks of its maker and as usual requires the viewer to invest a significant amount of energy and thought when watching. The first clue to beginning to unravel the story comes in the second part of the title: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys. The film is brutally edited into segments which interweave a number of stories which on the face of it have no connection. However, as the film is largely set in Paris, it gives Haneke the opportunity to subtly allow characters from one story to appear as passers-by in another or in the case of the opening scene to directly collide. For me one of the unnerving things about the film was that it stars Juliette Binoche in a role that does not endear her to the audience!

The stories explore themes of the codes required for societies, families, ethnic and also social groups to function. It explores the values and drivers for these groups and documents what may happen when they unwittingly collide in opposition to each other. Each of the stories picks up some of these themes and invites the viewer to reflect on the kind of society that is emerging - particularly in the light of patterns of immigration, economic aspiration, generational divergence and disability.

Binoche's Anne lives with  Georges (Thierry Neuvic) who is a photographer. He returns from the Balkan war zone and is interrogated over dinner by a friend who questions the moral and philosophical worth of what she sees as voyeurism. Playing alongside this are two stories about aspirational economic migration - one illegal from Romania and one legal featuring a family from Mali. Haneke captures the institutional racial/ethnic prejudice of the Gendarmerie which detains and deports the victims whilst allowing the one who abuses their position to get off free. The film strongly features the 'haves' and the 'have nots' and explores how the 'have nots' cannot become the 'haves' unless they discover the code that will allow them to make the transition. There is no exploration of whether or not the transition is right and proper - it is seen simply as a stepping stone to greater prosperity and material wealth. Even when the Romanian family appear to be making the upward path back home, the lure of begging on the streets of Paris proves too strong for Maria (Luminita Gheorghiu).

Anne is an actress appearing in and auditioning for a number of roles which parallel her own confused journey. Binoche displays her trademark ability to wrap steely determination within a cloak of vulnerability but at times it is hard to tell what is fiction and what is reality - another major theme of Haneke's work in general and this story in particular. Georges' (Josef Bierbichler) father still runs the family farm but times are hard as he tries to hand it on to his youngest son Jean (Alexandre Hamidi) who is not interested. Add in a group of deaf children who encode ideas through sign language and who also form a drumming band which provides a pounding rhythmic accompaniment to the final few scenes and you have a complex web of narratives bouncing off and intertwining with one another.

Perhaps this film, as a minimum encourages viewers to think about their own situation and web of relationships and the codes that are used to make them function. It should also encourage us to think beyond these and perhaps identify how our codes exclude certain individuals and groups - maybe by accident or not. Many of he codes we use and develop are unconscious, but they have a tremendous power to exclude or include. Sometimes they have to be rewritten in the face of new understanding. Sometimes rewriting is resisted in the face of seemingly irresistible pressure to maintain the status quo and all of its vested interests - most of which protect those already on the inside.

As I said this film requires input for the viewer if they are to get anything out of it - but that's no bad thing. I am warming to Haneke and some of his other films - most notably Caché and Amour, I rate very highly indeed. If you want to exercise the grey cells do watch this. I'll give it 7/10.

True Grit

I grew up on a diet of Westerns as America tried to both absolve and anaesthetise itself from effects of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. It was in 1969 that my father took me to the cinema to see John Wayne's latest movie True Grit. From it, Wayne created one of Hollywood's most iconic and referenced screen characters Rooster Cogburn. I didn't manage to catch the Coen brothers remake when it hit the silver screen but I knew that no matter how good the rest of the cast were, the film would rise or fall on the performance of Jeff Bridges in the lead role. I needn't have worried - it went through the roof!

I will come clean and admit I am fan of the Coen brothers (except Burn Before Reading) so I was hopeful when I finally had the chance to watch this. To see 'the Dude' (The Big Lebowski) reunited with the directorial siblings promised to deliver something good. Instead it delivered something extra-ordinary. This film carries all the subtleties of the Coen brothers' considerable talent and for me evoked a feeling that it was paying homage to No Country for Old Men on more than one occasion - or perhaps that's just how they approach Westerns. The lighting, camera angles and locations all combined to produce a feast for the eyes which is reinforced by Carter Burwell's score. As with all Coen brothers films, the use of language plays an important part as the story is enhanced by different character's accents, linguistic style and vocabularies. This all combines to deliver a cinematic tour-de-force. When last was a film nominated for 10 Oscars and ended up without one?

Alongside Bridges we have Matt Damon playing a very un-Matt Damon like role and doing so very well as Texas Ranger Labeouf. Josh Brolin plays the baddie but has relatively little time on screen. Apart from Bridges' barnstorming performance, the film is noteworthy for the breakout performance from Hailee Steinfeld playing the 14 year-old Mattie Ross. At the time of writing this, according to iMDb she has eight films in post or pre production and I'm sure she will have a very full acting career ahead of her.

The film itself explores themes of justice, revenge, honour, trust  and coming-of-age. Mattie Ross experiences more than a 14 year-old girl should: the murder of her father and theft of the family's livelihood, hangings, people being shot and mutilated, physical and emotional abuse, and even a snake bite! Throughout it all she remains resolute and I would suggest that it is her who displays 'True Grit' far more demonstrably than Rooster Cogburn whom she hires to track down her father's killer. The brutality of frontier USA in 1880 is graphically portrayed. Lawlessness is a huge problem but towns are becoming organised and social structures are beginning to appear. The way these things are presented in the film offer insightful social commentary.

It would be wrong to say that you must choose between the two films. They were made 40 years apart and the world has moved on a lot in the intervening decades - as has how we tell stories and how America presents it's pioneering past. Trying to set this offering against the backdrop of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't work. Both The Duke and The Dude turn in stunning performances of their time and both are worthy of their place in the Hollywood Hall of Fame! If you've not seen this yet - do. I'm giving it 8/10.

Silver Linings Playbook

Most films manage to pace the peaks and troughs of emotional engagement throughout the story. This film maintains an almost constantly high level of emotional engagement throughout. It is a film about truth, fidelity, love, loss, denial, regret, forgiveness, self-discovery and above all grace. It cannot fail to evoke an affective response. It is a numinous film as above all it is about our God-given humanity and recognising that, at least for the time being things are screwed up and we have to do our best to get by. This we do by recognising that despite all our "screwed-upness" we still need to live with one another and most importantly, with ourselves.

On the face of it this is a Rom-com about two psychologically damaged people who help heal each other through the medium of dance. But it is so much more than that. If you know anyone who has been afflicted by bi-polar mental illness and the stigma that it brings, your heart will go out to the two main characters Pat (Bradley Cooper) and Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). Both deliver excellent performances and are ably supported by Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver and Chris Tucker - although it is Lawrence who turns in the most gripping performance. A fact acknowledged by her Oscar for the role of Tiffany.

Pat's family is dysfunctional and it is little wonder that he developed the behavioural patterns that led him into being detained in a secure psychiatric institution. His friends and acquaintances are seemingly similar - perhaps the film is trying to show us that everyone is dysfunctional and the line between 'normal' and 'abnormal' is an extremely fine and porous one. The dialogue gives us some interesting therapy scenes and discussions on the effects of the various drugs given to psychiatric patients. But it is the  crystal clarity with which Tiffany sees what she has done and what she needs to do that offers hope to Pat who in turn begins to see her as a 'bird with a broken wing'. This is not so much a film about human beings as human becomings.

The dialogue is sharp and unrestrained - guttural and visceral. The characters connect with the viewer as they trade in a currency of emotional honesty that promotes a believable relationship between the two of them that is fragile, yet with every stumbling step builds itself to become stronger. The soundtrack of the film is cleverly chosen and comprises an eclectic range of songs which help the viewer to make sense of the transactions taking place just in case they were struggling to work it out.

I missed this in the cinema and was happy yo catch on disc. I shall be adding it to my collection and encouraging you to watch it if you've not already done so. It was good seeing Robert De Niro being the freedom to play a real character rather than the characters he is usually given. Cooper will give us more in the future I am sure, but the applause goes to the 22 year-old Lawrence who certainly will go on to collect many more Oscars and accolades - and probably very deservedly so. I'll give this 8/10.

In the House (Dans la Maison)

This film from French Director Francois Ozon is true to form as it explores themes of sexual expression and identity - but it's about a lot more than that. The story revolves around Claude - a 16 year-old making the painful transition from boy to young man. What complicates the story is Claude's domestic circumstances. Furthermore, Claude befriends classmate Rapha whom he sees as a member of a 'perfect family', a family he does not know - he helps him with his maths. Add to this the rather pathetic and struggling French Literature teacher Germain who seeks to live out his creative fantasy through Claude and this emotional roller coaster takes everyone for a wild ride.

The film employs layers of meaning and metaphor and whilst the film can be 'read' at face value, there is always more going on under the surface. The viewer is never quite sure what is reality and what is fantasy. Add to this double - or even reverse voyeurism and throw in an Freudian Oedipal triangle and the web becomes very entangled indeed. Rapha's parents Rapha Senior and Esther, and Germaine's wife Jeanne complete the cast and every single character is abused emotionally and some sexually and also professionally by one another.

Strength of character is what finally wins the day - but not before we see Germain trying to live out his dream of being a writer of note through the promising talent of Claude. How much of what gets written is Germain's and how much of it is Claude's we will never know. All of the main adult characters in the film portray the regret of unfulfilled potential. Claude knows how to use his beguiling smile and also how to manipulate people and engineer situations that fit with and develop the unfolding story as he seems to want to tell it. Sexual and familial fantasies drive his curiosity on as he writes, envying everyone and never accepting his gifts and situation as something to be celebrated.

Jeanne's art gallery is a commercial failure as she pursues a purist vision of modern art. The gallery is rumoured to be a porn shop! Germain published a novel some 20 years early but it wasn't a critical or commercial success. Rapha Senior's job turns sour when his boss fails to show respect - the same thing he accuses Germain of in a heated parent-teacher exchange. Jeanne finally understands Claude's fantastical obsession with Esther and this epiphany provides the key to unlock her own prison of boredom and give the impetus to allow her to escape. The film ends with the privileged elite and the middle-class bourgeois receiving respective outcomes that may not have been predicted from the early part of the story.

Story is the key word here. Ozon is always in control of a clever and multi-layered script which drives the narrative and continually unpacks insights and revelations that help to develop the story and characters. The actors all deliver strong performances. The final scene emphasises the voyeuristic nature of the film's story and underlines how we all have a tendency to watch other people and try to guess what they are up to - guess their story and how it might interact with ours. This is an engrossing and very clever film - if you can handle the subtitles, do go and see it. I'm giving it 8/10.

Top 10 Religious Films

An interesting list from those very nice people at Moviemail. Check it out here. How many have you seen? What would you add to your top 10?

21

Set within the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the gambling halls of Las Vegas, this crime drama moves with a gentle pathos that draws you as the characters evoke feelings of sympathy and revulsion. It is a film about many things, among them giftedness, vulnerability, abuse, greed, vengeance, betrayal and coming of age.

The central character is the hard-working and gifted MIT student Ben (Jim Sturgess) who achieve almost perfect grades as he works his way towards Harvard Medical School. He lives with his widowed mother who is equally hard-working - a picture of familial harmony. Ben pursues a full scholarship for Med School but is up against stiff competition - otherwise it costs $300,000 - money he doesn't have.

In a maths class Ben reveals his exceptional ability and impresses his Professor Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey). Rosa draws him in to be part of an elite and illicit group that he trains to play Blackjack to win - by counting the cards and using maths to calculate probabilities of the cards left in the undealt deck. The mathematical principle of 'variable change' features as a repeating refrain throughout the film and even delivers the twist at the end!

Rosa takes his team to Las Vegas and gives them the means to play the tables. They make tens of thousands - Rosa takes 50% of the profit and the rest is split 5 ways. Ben gets well on his way to accumulating the £300K he needs for Med School. Unknown to the team, the Casinos employ security analysts to look out for dodgy practise and the net tightens around Rosa and his gang.

There are several sub-plots that run and provide a richer encounter with the story. Spacey is compelling as the controlling and abusive Master of Greed and the ensemble cast playing the other members of the team all turn in compelling performances. The narrative arc finds pleasing fulfilment and delivers a just outcome after so many injustices.

This is a good story to observe temptation, greed and restraint playing out. It's a pleasing and engaging film - one to cuddle up with on the sofa and enjoy a bowl of popcorn. I'll give it 7/10.

Boogie Nights

This film has been on my 'to watch' list for a long time simply because it is a reference point for so many reviews of other films. The film oozes a warm nostalgia for the 1970's - it's look, sound and colour palette evoking the heady days of sunny optimism that seemed to characterise the period.

The vehicle for the story is the porn industry of California's San Fernando valley. Burt Reynolds plays porn Director Jack Horner and although porn is an ever-present back-drop in the film, this is not a film about the porn industry - it is much deeper than that. It is a film that presents a number of characters whose insecurities and fantasies find easy expression in the uninhibited world of porno industry parties with a seemingly limitless supply of drugs.

The central character is Mark Wahlberg's Eddie whom he renames Dirk Diggler - the film could easily have been entitled 'The Rise and Fall of Dirk Diggler'. Dirk is a High School drop out who is spotted washing dishes in a club. Horner sees his potential and lures him into the world of porno films where he quickly becomes a star. In this world he finds the family, love and warmth that are painfully absent at home which is ruled by his cold and domineering mother who bullies his cowering father. In Horner he finds a new father figure and in Horner's partner Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), he finds someone who wants to be the mother of everyone.

The ensemble cast also boasts Don Cheadle whose has-been character is always concerned about his image and is driven to open a Hi-Fi store, Heather Graham who plays the leggy Rollergirl, William H Macy as the impotent and wimpish Little Bill and John C Reilly who plays Reed Rothchild. For me the star turn is given by Philip Seymour Hoffman as the the camp and dreamy Scotty J. With Philip Baker Hall also making an appearance it felt like a casting session for Director Paul Thomas Anderson's Tour-de-force Magnolia which was to follow two years later.

As I said, this film's narrative arc enables the characters to try to address their insecurities and dreams. It is about power and exploitation, it is about hedonism, narcissism, choice and the consequences of choices made - or not made. Technological innovation also allows Horner to ponder the impact on his 'creativity' as video tapes threaten to push out film as a production medium. Horner is the anchor at the centre - not only for his actors and their entourage but also for his producer The Colonel, and others in the industry. We never see him drunk or doing drugs - or engaging in sexual activity and he only loses his self-composure once.

The film is wonderfully made and of course the viewer is invited to be the very thing the porno films are sustained by - a voyeur, as we watch these poor people trying to find love, acceptance and meaning in their otherwise loveless and meaningless lives. The film is always vibrant and full or energy and life with a sound track that drives the narrative along. I can see why it is a benchmark against which other films are measured and the way in which it is made and the tells its story are developed and refined in the even better Magnolia. If you can get past the porn and drugs this will be a rewarding watch - but without them it would be a story without a context. I'll give it 8/10.

Song for Marion

On one level, the trailer sets up what to expect with this film - and it delivers exactly what it it promises. This is tear-jerker of an emotional roller coaster in the ''this is gritty England' style of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Billy Elliot and Calendar Girls. In many ways it is formulaic and you know what's coming - but then so is a Manchester United counter attack as a ball headed out from a corner is picked up Carrick who puts it through to Van Persie who plays in Rooney to score with a total of only five touches. It is no less wonderful, beautiful, uplifting or poetic, simply because it follows a formula!

What adds to the strength of this simple story of complex truths is the strong acting of the four leads - Gemma Arterton who plays Elizabeth, Terrence Stamp who plays Arthur and his wife in the title role of Marion, Vanessa Redgrave, and also their son James played by Christopher Eccleston.

The story is quite simple - but how it is portrayed is anything but. This is a powerful drama about families and relationships, about self-imposed expectations, about love, realism, pretence, regret and forgiveness. It is also a film that opens a door on what it is to have life and to live it to its fullest potential.

Arthur is the pivot around which the others revolve. He is retired and devoted in a very dutiful but undemonstrative way to his wife Marion who has cancer. He doesn't disclose how he feels and is as hard on everyone else as he is on himself. He has never felt it necessary, or been able to build a relationship with James his son, who struggles to run his business whilst bringing up his daughter as a lone parent. Marion loves Arthur - despite his gloominess and almost constant state of seeming depression. Arthur's only respite from caring for Marion is a Thursday evening visit to the club for dominoes and a beer with former colleagues.

Marion draws encouragement from her membership of a choir which is led by the charming and talented Elizabeth - a music teacher at a private school. Marion is in turn an inspiration for the other members of the choir - something which Arthur cannot understand as singing is close to doing something enjoyable! Following Marion's death, Arthur allows Elizabeth a little closer and they develop a platonic relationship. Everyone struggles with their grief - particularly James and Arthur in their different ways. James is trapped by his need to work to provide for his daughter. Gemma is so wonderfully attractive you can understand her frustration in not being able to sustain a meaningful relationship with a man. Arthur and Marion had each other - until Marion's death and then Arthur is left with a void that is unfillable.

Perhaps many of the things that characterise Arthur and his relationships are products of the generation born during WWII and the in the years just after - times of deprivation, of biting the bottom lip, of simply getting on with life no matter what you felt. The social observation in this film would make Ken Loach proud! James and Elizabeth are of a different generation who have different values and goals. The way in which everyone's respective journeys are all mapped out is a masterpiece of storytelling which weaves a rich and fulfilling fabric depicting the highs and lows of life, the things that matter and the things that make life worth living.

I think this film is a gift - another one exploring themes of people in the older years of life. It also explores themes of loss and bereavement that would encourage a discussion on these areas. If you can, do go and see it. I'll give it 8/10.

The Scar

I am a fan of the Polish Director Krysztof Kieslowski and so watched this - his feature debut - with interest. Made in 1976 it chronicles, in a docudrama kind of way, the decision to build a massive synthetic fertiliser factory in the forgotten and underdeveloped old town of Olecko close to the Russian border. The film offers an insight into Polish socialism of the Soviet era which is grittily realistic and which should serve as a stark warning to anyone who thinks this style of social ordering will be Utopian. I found the images and themes resonant with distant memories of my teens - part of the soundtrack I grew up with.

The film's story is sandwiched between two important political events 20 years apart. In 1976 Bednarz' wife was a local party official who, in firing a teacher unleashed an undefined scandal in a period when social unrest was challenging the status quo. Now 20 year's later, Bednarz has been chosen by the Party to be the Director of a massive new factory and the the new town that will be built to house its workforce and their families. Bednarz' wife refuses to return to the town with him and remains in Silesia. Their daughter still lives in Olecko but has little direct contact with her parents preferring to live a life of freedom and seeming promiscuity.

This is social engineering on a massive scale. It is clear that the local party officials want the plant at any cost and decide that it will occupy the site of an ancient forest. The locals protest and are overruled. The local leader angles for the Directorship of the project and is spurned by the national heavy-weights who want to install their own man and loyal party member - Bednarz. Not only is the project ill-conceived - it's location is poor, the tainting of ancient Olecko sets the locals against the project, the pollution the factory emits is widespread and highly toxic, the factory is poorly built and soon begins to crumble - it mirrors the development of Bednarz' own life and his deteriorating relationships with his wife and daughter. In this respect, the film is well titled.

In Poland, 1976 was an important year as it saw the first protests by workers which went on to become the fore-runner of the Solidarity movement born in the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980, which in turn pushed the country slowly and inexorably towards its break with Soviet Russia. It seems Bednarz' conscience is pricked by the way the Party planning process imposed the factory on the local community and the way it treats the locals. He bravely goes out to address the striking throng at the end of the film and offers them his support. Perhaps this is genuine or perhaps he is glad of the chance to make amends for his failure to more fully back the 1976 uprising 20 years earlier and so vindicate his wife.

Overall this is a bleak film. Most of the time the colours a bleached and there is very little warmth in any of the characters - the Party machine trundles on deploying a multiplicity of hierarchies who convene in endless cycles of meetings to discuss workers' ideologies and production targets. The new housing and other social provision is not seen as advancement by the residents of this previously primitive and underdeveloped town as economic refugees flock to the town looking for work and accommodation. The story is punctuated by slowly panned shots of the bleak landscape accompanied by the soundtrack of industrial machinery which is both visually and aurally jarring in a 1970's avant-garde kind-of-way.

The real casualties are the people. The local residents, the workers, the party activists seeking status and advancement, Bednarz, his wife and daughter. There are no human winners here. The film presents a human-less machine called the Party which imposes its will unthinkingly and arbitrarily on the citizens and comrades of Poland. This is a brave film - particularly when we note that it was made in 1976 whilst Poland was still in the grip of its Soviet neighbour. Kieslowski's first feature laid a solid foundation for the films that were to follow - films that explore what it is be, find meaning in life and enjoy fruitful relationships. It is good to be reminded periodically of a world that existed not so long ago - just in case we might ever be tempted by the kind of Utopia it pretended to offer. I'll give it 7/10.

Hitchcock

This film opens as if it were an episode of Hitchcock’s short-lived television series, 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents'. Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) talks directly to camera as he delivers a prologue to set the scene. Hopkins delivers a wonderful performance - his physique, bulk and over-deliberative intonation present a wonderful derivative Hitchcock - more the legend than seeking an accurate representation.

The film is about the making of Hitchcock's greatest film - Psycho released in 1960. It almost didn't get made - Hitchcock had to self-finance, fight the studios and the Censor. As much as the film is about the making of Psycho it is more about the relationship between Hitch and his wife - Alma Reville strongly played by Helen Mirren. 

This film seeks to entertain rather than inform and is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Rather than a straight portrayal of the making of the film, every now and again the narrative departs into a dialogue between Hitch and Ed Gein - the Wisconsin farmer who was the serial killer that served as the inspiration for Robert Bloch's character Norman Bates in his novel on which the film Psycho, was based. Through this dialogue, Hitchcock deals with his own demons and delusions, his obsessions with his blonde leading ladies and tensions with his wife Alma. It's a little odd - but definitely Hitchcockian.

There are more strong performances from Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, James D'Arcy as a very camp and conflicted Anthony Perkins and Toni Collette as Hitchcock's long-suffering secretary Peggy Robertson. The film exposes the control of 'The Studios" and demonstrates how far 'censorship' has come in 50 years. Where will it be in 50 years time?

Hitchcock die-hards will probably feel a little cheated by this film as some of the details won't be 100% accurate - but this is not a history lesson, it's entertainment - this is Hollywood. If you want some gentle entertainment with good acting then this will do very nicely. If you want the Hitchcock experience then get hold of a copy of Psycho, a nice strong drink and allow yourself to be challenged, surprised and scared all at the same time. I'll give it 7/10.

Loss, dying and death in film

Today this blog went through the 100,000 page view barrier - thanks for your interest and comments.

Today was also a day I led a day's training exploring themes of loss, death and dying and we enjoyed some laughs amongst the tears! To begin with I gave a presentation surveying the territory - a copy of my paper is here - see the pages section on the right. Yes, I know it's subjective, but I wanted to stay with films I knew that would illustrate the points I was trying to get across. Then we watched A Short Stay in Switzerland (reviewed here) followed by Monsieur Lazhar (reviewed here) with plenty of discussion and reflection. We shared in some deep experiences together and learned much from one another.

A good day - thanks to those who shared in it.

Zero Dark Thirty

Another day, another movie based on 'true' events - and with this one you know the outcome! This film opens with a dark screen and voices from emergency centres receiving calls from people caught up in the horror of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It therefore starts by placing a large amount of emotional capital in the bank and the film uses this leverage throughout to justify the unfolding story.

The narrative runs in strict chronological sequence from September 11th 2001 through to May 2nd 2011. The story is told through the experiences of Maya (Jessica Chastain) a CIA operative recruited directly from High School. Initially she clearly feels uncomfortable about the methods employed by colleagues as they interrogate terrorist suspects. The action jumps around from Afghanistan to Poland, to Saudi, to America, to Pakistan and London. CIA and MI6 agents move through international borders like shadows as they seek their prize - Bin Laden, or UBL as they call him.

The intelligence gathering is slow and suffers many set backs. Dead ends frustrate and sometimes double and triple crosses lead to suicide bombings and deaths on both 'sides'. The hustle and bustle of Pakistan is portrayed with a vibrant dynamism (although for political reasons it was filmed in India). The interwoven network of families and Al Qaida members stretches from Arabia to the Punjab. The might of America's intelligence community is deployed against them, but with so many leads and so little to really go on, it is like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.

Maya's driven-ness becomes an increasingly stronger force as the story gathers pace. Her 12 year quest to find UBL consumes her. She has no social life, no friends, no life beyond her work. She is as fanatical as the man she is hunting. When she finally manages to get resources to gather intelligence it produces a lead which she is certain has disclosed UBL's location. Her frustration grows as the politicians, wary of another spectacular failure, procrastinate as they demand greater proof.

Finally the order is given and the operation begins. The operation is shown in great detail as a team of US Navy S.E.A.L.S. stealthily and systematically work their way through the compound using a shoot first, ask questions later, methodology. Mercifully most of the children are spared (though traumatised). As an action sequence it is masterfully shot and the tension and suspense are maintained at a high level. Maya is finally vindicated and she gets her man. Movie over.

Well, the action/spy movie might be over - but there is another movie that plays alongside it. Director Kathryn Bigelow chose to open the film with the eerie and haunting emergency messages from people trapped in burning buildings and hijacked planes. The frustrations of the CIA, and Maya in particular, are explored as they walk the tightrope between the Geneva Convention and doing what is necessary 'because we are at war'. The film openly shows suspects being tortured. Water-boarding is common practice and suspects are flown around the world to different rendition facilities in an attempt to break them and extract vital information. The story depicts the quest as a reaction to 9/11. Bin Laden always maintained that 9/11 was itself a response to Western imperialism's attack on Muslim values, practices and lands. And so the tit-for-tat goes on. As the stakes get bigger the justification for bending the rules becomes stronger. This story is told in a very one-sided way and there is no attempt to analyse what is going on - it is simply portrayed.

Let me make it clear that I am in no way seeking to justify 9/11 or 7/7 or any of the other acts of terror. I am simply commenting on the way this film tells its story. It feels like it takes upon itself the mantle of trying to offer the American people a cathartic attempt through the watching of this movie, to sigh a collective sigh of relief and say 'that chapter is now over'. But of course it is not over as too many families are still living with the consequences of the fateful attacks in New York, Washington DC, a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Madrid, London and Abbattabad.

It made me feel uneasy - that men and women are doing such things on my behalf. Living in a democracy, the Secret Intelligence Service in the UK and the CIA in America would claim to be acting on behalf of the people. This isn't some small-scale benevolent James Bond-like set up. This is war on a truly global scale. I am one of the people and I am naive enough to want to believe in a different way of doing business. Clearly Bigelow and Co pay respect to Muslim sensibilities. But the way in which we never quite see the face of the executed UBL and the respect with which his body is treated, contrast sharply with the jingoistic celebrations of the S.E.A.L.S. and the sense of  a job well done.

We live in a screwed up world and screwed up people will continue to do screwed up things. As an action film this had me gripped. As an account of the moral state of the world, it leaves me longing for the promise of the time when all tears will be wiped away, death will be no more and mourning, crying and pain will cease. I'll give it 5/10.

The Impossible

The challenge for this kind of film, which is almost a docudrama - with the heavy emphasis on the drama - is to re-present an event that became so familiar through extensive media coverage that we see it in a fresh and engaging way. This film succeeds. The camera action and acting deliver an engaging and compelling story of human struggle against the brutal forces of nature. It is well paced and maintains a high degree of suspense throughout as each successive part of the journey of struggle unfolds.

The story centres on a family arriving at a Thailand beach resort on Christmas Eve to enjoy a luxury Christmas in an exotic paradise. On Boxing Day the paradise becomes a living and watery hell as the tsunami inundates the low-lying coastline. For too many it became their watery grave.

In the opening moments, viewers are told that this is a true story. How much this purely documents their story, perhaps only the family can say. There are passages of the story telling which are 'arty' and very creative. The actors must have spent a significant amount of time in the water tanks and the camera work of swirling debris and bodies under the water are innovative and strangely captivating. With any film like this there will always be questions about how 'true' it is and how much artistic licence has been taken.

Mum, dad and their three young sons get separated in the devastation and the question that is  exquisitely maintained through tension and suspense is, whether or not they will all be reunited and will they survive? Dad, portrayed by Ewan McGregor manages to capture the sense of helpless desperation and despair felt by someone who is usually at the top of their game in the professional and family spheres and who suddenly finds themselves not in control. A tsunami has the effect of levelling everyone and the basic need for survival kicks in - that and the need to find the missing members of your family.

Naomi Watts turns in a stunning performance, worthy of an awards nomination. The eldest son Lucas (Tom Holland) also turns in a strong performance but his younger siblings don't quite match up - which is perfectly understandable given the heavy-duty nature of the story.

In the midst of the desperation and seeming hopelessness there are chinks of light that restore faith in human nature. Whether it be the self-sacrifice and hard work of local villagers helping injured tourists get medical attention or the over-worked and under-resourced medical staff performing miracle after miracle, the heart is well and truly tugged. The biggest tugs come when children are reunited with a parent after days of separation. The sense of lost-ness and sheer shock are caught wonderfully by the other actors and hundreds of extras. Often young children encounter and are forced to glimpse things that not even adults should have to face. The aftermath of such a disaster is truly harrowing.

I found this to be a gripping and compelling film. It is not easy viewing but ultimately I found it to be uplifting. It is almost a film of two halves. The first belongs to mum and is totally gripping and graphic. The second half belongs to dad and is less dramatic, although no less well acted or shot. I wonder if the film might have been stronger had the two stories been more intertwined and edited together? With strong acting and great Direction and camera work, this film deserves to be seen. It stands as a triumph to those who survived and as a memorial to those who didn't. I'll give it 8/10.

Into The Abyss

This documentary from legendary film-maker Werner Herzog, explores the crime that led Michael Perry to be sentenced to death in the US State of Texas. Herzog interviews Perry who is, as you can see, remarkably upbeat for a man who is only eight days away from execution by lethal injection. As well as interviewing the prime felon, Herzog also interviews his accomplices, members of the victims family, prison and police officials and a wider circle of people.

The film starts most promisingly with an interview with the Death Row Chaplain, Revd Richard Lopez. His angst-ridden expression perfectly captures the irreconcilable tension between the pain of the loss of a loved one through murder, the seeming contrition and rehabilitation of the offender, and the requirement of a 'civilised society' to execute the perpetrator.

As the interviews progress, the editing of them is masterful as Herzog weaves his tale. The story exposes how being part of a dysfunctional family begets dysfunctional behaviour. It weaves a web of people who had too little hope as they entered their teens and so dropped out of school, some of them illiterate, most of them drug users and petty criminals. One of Perry's accomplices - Jason Burkett a man of the same age - will not see release from prison until he is nearly 60. This accomplice's father was in gaol when the crime was committed and is since back in gaol serving his own life sentence for a different crime. And so the story goes on.

For me the two most shocking elements were firstly an interview with the former Captain of Execution Wing who was responsible for overseeing on average two executions a week for a number of years. For him, the turning point came when the first woman was executed in the faciltity. He suffered a moral and emotional breakdown and had to resign his post and is so doing lost all pension benefits for a lifetime or service to the prison - a public servant, morally, emotionally and financially violated. This act of violence went unpunished. The second shocking disclosure was from Melyssa Burkett who corresponded with Jason when he was an inmate and at the time was unknown to her. They fell in love  and married!

In the ceremony conducted in gaol with guards present, they were only allowed to hold hands yet miraculously a few days later she fell pregnant with his child (so we are told) having been artificially inseminated. In the picture above Melyssa displays on her phone an ultrasound picture of the child she is carrying.

It seems totally baffling to me that a society can allow deprivation and poor social provision to conspire and allow people such as Burkett and Perry to emerge as criminals and then collude in the 'smuggling' of inmate sperm to impregnate a woman. It seems to me that this is a system designed to perpetuate dysfunctionality! Perhaps I am being politically incorrect but no-one seems to be taking any responsibility for what has gone on here - except to put Perry and Burkett before a jury and then to execute one - 10 years after the trial, and lock the other up for most of his life. I am not advocating being soft on criminals and I am certainly not trying to ignore or play down the loss suffered by those who had loved ones murdered. What I am crying out for is some common sense and the chance for societies to be given the resources and encouragement to offer the possibility of transformation taking place, to give people a chance in life and find ways of offering restitution that does not mean the loss of yet another life.

As a piece of cinema, this film had wonderful editing, some very good cinematography and the always entertaining intonation of Bavaria's finest film-maker. Perhaps because it has moved me to rant, it is very good documentary film-making - although I'm not sure that was what Herzog intended necessarily. This film would be an excellent way of setting up a discussion and exploration of the themes it presents - I know that other opinions are available. However, as a viewing spectacle it left me frustrated and given the hyperbole surrounding it's release I am going to award it only 6/10.

Bucket List

This is a gentle and heart-warming film that forces viewers to consider their own mortality. If you knew the date you would die, would you live your remaining days any differently? Sadly, each day for many people and families, the news they receive is bad news about a loved ones' prognosis. This film explores two unlikely characters thrown together in the shared experience of being diagnosed with cancer and given only months to live.

Edward (Jack Nicholson) and Carter (Morgan Freeman), both in their 60's share the same hospital room as they face surgery and chemotherapy. Both are trapped men. Edward is trapped by the need to go on making money. He is a self-made billionaire, married and divorced four times, used to getting his own way and not afraid to trample on people to get it. Carter married young and was forced to pull out of University to find work to support his wife with a baby on the way - as he says, black young and poor - not much of a start in life. He worked at the same job for 45 years to ensure his children didn't suffer the same challenges and he is still married to the same wife - and in fact discloses that he has never been with another woman. Edward is lonely and he mocks Carter as he receives a constant stream of 'interruptions' as members of his extended family visit. Edward has one daughter from whom he has been estranged for many years. The stark contrast between the two men is plainly set out - perhaps a little too artificially.

Carter remembers back to a philosophy class he took where the Professor set the students the task of writing a 'Bucket List' - a list of things to do before you 'kick the bucket' - die. Carter's list of 45 years earlier was filled with ideological and idealised things. Now, as he lies in his bed with IV chemo, he writes a new list which is more realistic and pragmatic - but no less meaningful. Edward gets hold of it and decides to use his wealth to make it happen for the both of them before they die. Buoyed by the medication they set off and enjoy a range of activities and locations.

However, as their relationship deepens, so do the things that separate them. Carter wants to have some time for himself when his family want him at home so that they can enjoy his last months with him. Edward puts on a brave face and enjoys the finest things in life - including Kopi Luwak coffee - "the finest beverage in the world". (If you want to find out more about it, click here.) He also refuses to discuss his daughter with Carter.

In a way this is very much a road movie. The journey is towards an earlier than hoped for death and it visits the cruel, painful and at times hilarious twists and turns such a journey takes you on. At times the storyline is a little wallowy but is carried by the immense acting ability of Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. But at the hour and half mark, it is a story well worth engaging with - however uncomfortable it may make you feel and even if it does generate unwelcome memories.

So, what would be on your bucket list? Would you want to know the probable time of your death? Who would matter more, and who less, to you then? Would you think of God any differently? I think this is a delightful and appropriately funny way to deal with a heavy and all-too-real subject. Get the disc and watch the film. I'll give it 7.5/10.