Sound of my Voice

As it was raining at the beach, I made another visit to the Landmark Cinema in west LA and watched this. If group hugs over pools of vomit and then live earthworms are your thing, then this is for you! No, that gives a very unfair picture of the film. Usually I try not to give too much away, but be warned, this time I have to.

I reviewed Another Earth here, which was Brit Marling's first feature and said then that I felt sure we'd be seeing a lot more of her - here is the next instalment, which she again co-wrote. I like the way this girl thinks - and acts.

Set in Los Angeles (of course) Pete (Christopher Denham) and Laura (Nicole Vicius) are twenty-something would-be investigative film-makers. They are seeking to expose what they deem to be a cult lead by the mysterious Maggie (Brit Marling). The way into the cult is by a selection process and many fail to make the grade. When sufficient 'preparation on the outside' has been achieved, couples are given instructions to drive to a house and use the supplied remote to open the garage, drive in, close the door and wait in the car for further instructions. They are then forced to give over all their belongings, strip and shower with the instruction "be thorough with the soap". They then put on white surgical gowns have their wrists cable-tied, are blindfolded and driven to a different location. On arrival, in another garage, the cable ties are cut and they are led downstairs into a basement where they encounter Klaus (Richard Wharton) who subjects them to the most bizarre handshake routine to feature in cinema. They then join with eight other people - all wearing the same and are invited to bow in worship as Maggie enters the room pulling an oxygen cylinder on wheels behind her. She then goes into a spiel about how disorienting this will be and that the first night is always the hardest but those who have been through it will testify that what lies ahead is well worth the discomfort.

It is obvious that this film is extremely well researched. The rituals, visualisation of the basement, rites of passage and psychobabble that Maggie delivers all feel highly authentic. Maggie claims to be from the year 2054 - from their future. Things have turned a bit apocalyptic and she has come back to select a special band of chosen people to prepare for what lies ahead. It all sounds feasible - even Maggie's apparent weakness is explained by saying that someone from the future is allergic to almost everything of our time - even though it's only 40 years in the future.

The film cuts away to lady checking into a hotel room. Initially she acts most strangely, but it becomes apparent that she is a pro sweeping her room for bugs. Soon afterwards and without explanation, she ends up in the very same sauna that Laura uses after a swim and initiates a conversation. It is clear the lady knows a lot about Laura - and Pete and Maggie. It turns out that she is from the Justice Department and that Maggie is a wanted felon. The woman persuades Laura to set Maggie up - and this she agrees to, without Pete's knowledge.

Away from group sessions worshipping Maggie, Pete remains highly sceptical - although much of the time he makes it appear like a mind-job. Laura appears more open. Maggie is enchanting - on whichever level you want to operate at. There is more than a hint of some chemistry between Maggie and Pete - or is it just to soften him up? To earn a buck, Pete is a supply teacher at an elementary school. Things get turned upside down when he is invited to a one-to-one with Maggie who ditches the ethereal angelic look, lights up and swigs whisky from a bottle - offering it to Pete. She says she may be from the future but she isn't a saint. Pete smiles and begins to see his scepticism find sound foundation. As the conversation develops, Maggie produces some photographs that feature an eight year-old girl in Pete's class. Pete is astounded as Maggie asks him to bring the girl to him. He refuses as he contemplates the professional consequences. Maggie piles on the pressure eventually revealing that this girl is in fact her mother.

Buoyed by the need to set up Maggie, Laura encourages Pete to use an upcoming school trip to set up the meeting between the girl and Maggie. Reluctantly he agrees and sets it up through Klaus with strict controls. Things appear to go awry as another 'cult' member appears at the rendezvous and changes things, but the girl and Maggie do meet. Maggie kneels and offers the girl her hand. Eventually she takes it and they begin the elaborate handshake that Klaus has previously used. As they finish, the girl asks "how did you know my secret handsake?" and Maggie tells her "You taught it to me when I was a little girl" at which point the law bust in and Maggie is taken away with Klaus. Pete looks on with incredulity at Laura whom he assumes set him up. The film ends.

Apparently this is the first instalment of a trilogy and the story is set to continue - which is good. As the film tells its story, it raises many questions of faith, belief and doubt which it quietly parks with the viewer (at least with this viewer). The major one is of course 'is Maggie really a time-traveller?'. Whereas Another World was a film that explored emotions, this film is a psycho-thriller with an emotional twist. As I said, I found it compelling viewing. If you want to see the first 12 minutes in a trailer including diagrams on how to do the handshake, click here. If Maggie is a fellon wanted for armed robbery and arson, how was she able to do the little girl's secret handshake? Perhaps she is from the future......

The film debuted at this year's Sundance Film Festival and in interview Marling said

“Playing a cult leader is so far outside of my life,” Marling says. “From an acting perspective, I believed I was from the future, and my doubts were like anyone’s doubts: can I really be an actor or writer? It’s grounded in the mundane and in emotions, but being locked in a time period that’s not your own. As a writer, it’s interesting the way sci-fi can create original juxtapositions in normal human dramas.”

Sci-fi also lets Marling investigate the nature of belief. She notes that both of the films she’s involved with at this year’s Festival are “obsessed with faith.” “In Another Earth, how do you rebuild your life when everything has been burned to ashes?” she asks. “How do you have faith in moving forward as a human being? And in Sound of my Voice, it’s a meditation on belief and the possibility of being more than what the eye can see.”

You can read the whole interview here. I hope we will see a lot more of Brit Malling - she's good. I'll give this 8.5/10.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

..... The answer is, it's on at the Landmark Art House cinema complex in West Los Angeles - a mere 16 miles from south-central (where I am staying) to west LA. A swanky new and up-market complex offering 11 screens showing a really good range of films - including Monsieur Lazhar. I saw this at a 9:30 screening on a Sunday night in the 24 seat Screening Lounge Auditorium kitted out with leather sofas and armchairs - nice:

The film stars Ewan McGregor as Dr Fred Jones - a government expert on Salmon, Emily Blunt as the investment consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot and Kristin Scott-Thomas as the PMs Press Officer Patricia Maxwell - Alastair Campbell in a skirt if you will. The premise of the story is straightforward. A wealthy Yemeni sheik (Amr Waked) who owns estates in Scotland and has a passion for Salmon fishing, wishes to introduce the sport to Yemen as part of a scheme to irrigate the desert and bring prosperity to his people. Dr Jones feels it is laughably unfeasible and the government are desperate for a good news story from the Arab world to deflect the pain of the losses in Afghanistan. Dr Jones is coerced into taking the project on and in the end it becomes his all consuming passion.

Along the way, the plot is deftly played out by the cast with great sensitivity and at times humour. This is a different kind of romcom - one that knows what it's about and isn't afraid to laugh at itself with the characters from time-to-time actually saying "yes - that was an attempt at a joke". There are a number of romantic and power relationships that play out in the film. The only sex scene in the film is portrayed with more comedy than intimacy and underlines just how much of a rut the staid academic Dr Jones has allowed himself to fall into. The project saves him from the insular world of the academy and awakens his spirit, senses and love in ways that they have never before experienced. It is more than the Yemeni desert that sees transformation!

The flies in the ointment are the local tribes-people who see the sheik's project as a sell-out to Western ideals and values and something which is anti-Islamic. They plot to sabotage the scheme. Added to this, Harriet's love interest gives a small insight into the tensions that are playing out in too many military families these days.

The story takes many twists and turns but is expertly navigated by the cast and Director Lasse Hallström. It deftly moves between comedy and weightier moments with characters that are believable and beguiling with McGregor, Blunt and Waked all giving performances that display a tenderness in their characterisation. It builds towards a climax that is a painful choice for Harriet - but you never quite know which way it will go - although I for one had my hopes and they were met. There is a high degree of decency portrayed by this film's characters - a kind of chivalry of a by-gone age. There is also a lot indecency portrayed by the politicians - nothing that In The Loop hasn't already given us. I imagine this will appeal more to British audiences - although the Americans I watched it with last night seemed to laugh along and enjoy it.

If this is still playing anywhere near you and you haven't seen it - please try and make the effort. If you have seen it - go and see it again! I await the opportunity to buy it on disc and commend it to you unreservedly giving it a 8.5/10.

Safe

If Jason Statham is starring in a film you know there will be guns - lots of guns. In that respect Safe doesn't disappoint. Where it does disappoint is in the lack of emotional development of the two main characters - Statham playing Luke Wright and Mei (Catherine Chan making her full-feature debut).

The story begins in the world of New Jersey cage fighting - but this is soon forgotten never to return. Throughout the film the character Wright is shown to be the only one with any moral fortitude. Having said that, his personal body count must enter three figures - so even that is relative!

The first half-an-hour or so of the film seems to offer three stories in parallel which suddenly click into interwoven synchronicity - all linked by Wright and Mei who are thrown together intermittently, in an unlikely pairing. There is a scene near the beginning which should evoke an affective response from viewers but Statham's coldness for me missed an opportunity. At the end of the film there is an endearing scene - the 80 minutes in between are devoid of emotional currency. It's a simple bloodfest.

The story is complex and is well handled by Director Boaz Yakin. It doesn't matter if the story focuses on the Chinese, the Russians or the Cops - they're all crooks. This film does little to bolster any sense of confidence in those elected to office and those who serve the public through that office. I won't say more for fear of spoiling the plot.

If you like gangster thrillers with lots of guns and blood, then this is a fine example of the genre. If organised crime, racketeering and fighting are not your thing, my advice is to avoid it. It is the only film on locally that I wanted to see (where is Salmon Fishing in the Yemen when you have the time?) and given that there are some theatres here with 20 screens, that's all a little disappointing. A solid film of its type - but it could have been a lot more. I'll give it 6.5/10.

The Way Back

A road movie with a difference - they cover 4000 miles - on foot!

Set in 1941 this film tells the story of a group of prisoners in one of Stalin's Gulags in Siberia. The motley crew - a Pole who is there because his wife was tortured into making a false confession about him, an American Engineer there because he tried to escape the depression back home, a baker, and a Russian gangster-type thug. An unlikely group supplemented by a man blinded by the vitamin deficient diet of the Gulag and as they journey by a runaway girl. Indeed, a motley crew if ever there was one.  The premise is simple - walk to freedom in Mongolia.

Everyone is in the Gulag for different reasons - most of them concocted by the State. When three of the inmates decide to escape, their numbers rapidly swell and seven end up making the break under the cover of blizzard which covers their tracks. Led by the Pole Janusz (Jim Sturgess) who is at home in the forests and mountains, the group make their way continually south. Russian soldiers, wolves and mosquitoes all prove worthy foes but the group continues to make progress. they eventually cross into Mongolia only to find that the Mongolians are in cahoots with Russians and so they continue to press on south.

The group adopt a runaway teenage girl Irena (Saoirse Ronan) whose amiability lubricates the social cohesion of the group. Colin Farrell does a very passable Ruski accent as the gangster thug but it is Ed Harris' Mr Smith who adds the gravitas to the band of unlikely travelling companions. With food ranging from snake, to bugs, to deer and fish and at one point even the idea of cannibalism is discussed, so they travel ever southward.

Many adventures befall them on the epic journey. It is a long film but Peter Wier's Direction keeps it moving and the characterisations are always engrossing. I won't spoil the content or the outcome any further for you. This is a fine film and worthy of your attention. It's a pity that all the main characters are played by British/American/Irish actors when there are many fine eastern European actors around (see In Darkness to evidence that point!) Please do get hold of the disc and watch it. National Geographic is one of the sponsoring bodies and much of the cinematography would be at home in that illustrious magazine. I'll give it 7.5/10.

I've seen a total of 8 films in Winnipeg in a week - not bad. Many thanks Vic.

In Darkness

The title of this film works on different levels. It graphically and painfully portrays the human capacity to act in ways which are inhuman. It depicts the darkness that hope sometimes requires us to stumble through if we are to come out the other end. For the most part the film is set within the darkness of the sewers under the Polish city of Lvov.

Set in World War II as the Nazi's purge the ghetto in Lvov, the film follows a group of Jews who in desperation break into the cities sewers in the hope of escape and survival. They are unaware of the harshness of the environment they are about to enter - raw sewage, darkness, lack of food and water, loss of privacy, plagues of rats and the constant threat of being discovered.

The Nazi's offer 500 Zloty for each Jew betrayed - for some this was to become a lucrative business. For the city's sewer Inspector, Leopold Socha (Robert Wieckiewicz) the prospect of earning multiples of that sum for the Jews that have invaded 'his sewers' is an appealing prospect - once he has taken all the money the Jews have in the first place. What begins with the coldness of a business transaction prior to betrayal, gently transforms into an heroic act of defiance that affirms the good that resides in human nature. Socha is no easy pushover. The film graphically depicts the open racism and hatred of the Poles towards the Jews - and others. A hatred and distrust that is all too often reciprocated.

With his unique intimate knowledge of the sewers, he moves a small group of them to a more secure location leaving the others to fend for themselves. Not knowing how long the ordeal will last they live from day to day. Socha places himself and his family in extreme jeopardy and time-and-time-again they come close to being discovered. News of the war on the Eastern Front is the only comfort they receive.

This is a kind of 'Schindler in the Sewer' type film. There is despair and the need for the most basic human drives to find expression, but there remains hope. An older member of the group continues to pray, chanting in rocking motion to the sewer walls - they are even able to celebrate Passover with some Matzos Socha rescues from the ghetto. What reinforces the utter bleakness of the group's condition is that they have with them two young children who in different ways become traumatised by their experience. One of them - the last remaining survivor of the group has published her memoires in  The Girl in the Green Sweater.

I won't spoil the story by disclosing any more detail. Whilst this is not easy viewing, it repays the investment of time and emotional energy. There is no romanticised Hollywood cinema here. The Polish Director Agnieszka Holland was born a decade to the day before me. The daughter of a Catholic mother and Jewish father. Her mother was active in the Polish resistance and the film carries an authentic shadow of personal family experience. I was born in West Germany in the continuing aftermath of the war - its shadow still looms large over several generations. I hope we can all remember the pain and choose not to reinvent it again - anywhere. We need to hear stories like this one - we need to be shocked into our right senses. The heroism of Socha and others like him needs to be celebrated as collectively and vicariously they offer a way from darkness to light. Let us remain in light.

A brave, intelligent and compelling film. I'll give it 8.5/10. If you have the stomach for it - watch it.

The Trilogy of Marcus Belvaux: On the Run, An Amazing Couple and After Life

I have now managed to watch all three films over the course of three days. Perhaps it's just me, but have you ever wondered while you are watching a film, what is happening in the lives of the characters not currently on screen? This trilogy answers that question for you.

The concept and execution are very clever - and it works. Film One: On the Run is a thriller, Film Two: An Amazing Couple is a comedy and Film Three: After Life is an intense drama. Each film contains the same set of characters but each focuses on a different couple. Each film contains scenes that feature in one or both the other films. The thing that makes it work are the camera angles and the editing which allow the one scene to have a very different feel in the different movies. The idea has been masterfully conceived and executed. I would like to watch all three again simultaneously on three different screens and plot the points of convergence. One thing that anchors the three films are three teachers - all female and each one the focus of the one the three films - Jeanne, Cécile and Agnès who are friends and who all work together in the same school.

On the Run focuses on Bruno LeRoux (Lucas Balvaux) and his one-time lover Jeanne (Catherine Frot). It begins with LeRoux escaping from gaol where he has been incarcerated for 20 years for a series of terrorist acts - he is a left-wing revolutionary. He makes for Grenoble and seeks to reactivate the old network and cause more mayhem. His band of revolutionaries have all moved on, settled down and live respectable lives. The thriller aspect comes from LeRoux continually trying to evade the Police whilst also trying to take retribution against those he feels grassed on him 20 years earlier. He is a ruthless character who is unafraid to kill - but he also has a tender caring side. The ending is unexpected.

An Amazing Couple focuses on Alain (François Morel) and Cécile (Ornella Muti). It is a comedy and unsurprisingly as such struggles to translate from it's French culture. Alain needs some minor surgery and wishing not to worry his wife he doesn't tell her but sets up a trip to Paris as cover. As is usually the case, one deceit leads to another and a whole web of intrigue and suspicion builds and sucks in most of the characters from the first film.

The third and strongest of the three films is After Life which has an ambiguous title - and ending. This film features a married couple - school teacher and heroin addict Agnès Manise (Dominique Blanc) and her cop husband Pascal. This is an intense film and weaves seamlessly in and out of the first two with many shared scenes. In the first two films Pascal is shown a weak and seedy character, unsympathetic and collusive. This film uses many of the character defining scenes from the first two films but because of the editing and the context in which they are set within the narrative, they portray Pascal as a warm, loving and long-suffering husband.

As each film unfolds so more of the pieces of the jigsaw fall into place to reveal the finished scene. Each film can be enjoyed separately and the viewer would not necessarily feel cheated by only seeing one of them. However, the three together exceed the sum of their parts and offer a piece of art that is far superior to your run-of-the mill thriller, comedy or melodrama doing the rounds today. This trilogy offers gripping cinema. Kieslowski's Three Colours does something similar but nothing like on the same scale or with the same impact as Belvaux's work here.

If I were rating the films separately they would get middling scores. As they are presented as a Trilogy and I have had the privilege of watching them as such and got so much from them as a Trilogy, I will award the Trilogy 8/10 for its conceptualisation and clever inter-weaving of narrative. The Trilogy is available quite cheaply on Amazon - go on, indulge.

Monsieur Lazhar

Another Canadian film, one which was nominated for best foreign language film Oscar. Monsieur Lazhar is set in Montreal in an Elementary School with a class of 13/4 year-olds. It begins in the depths of snowy winter and throughout the story the cycle of the seasons mirrors the emotional and psychological health of the class.

One morning, Simon the milk monitor, discovers that their class teacher Martine, has hanged herself in the classroom. Trauma. An Algerian immigrant pitches up at the school claiming to be a teacher and offers to take on the class. The under-pressure Principal accepts the offer and so Bashir Lazhar sets to work. His methods seem clumsy and out of kilter with the ultra politically correct Québécois education system - yet his style and gentle empathy endear him to the children and colleagues alike.

The School brings in a Psychologist who excludes Lahzar from her sessions with the class much to his incredulity. As the story goes on, the effects of the event on the children emerge in different ways. The adults - teachers and parents alike - all 'hush up' what has happened and cut off the children's opportunities to achieve healing for their emotional wounds. Lahzar takes a much more holistic approach - informed by his differing cultural reference points and his own bitter personal experience - to use creativity and metaphor as tools of healing self-expression for his charges.

Lazhar's methods begin to work but the path is bumpy as the children's behaviour often puts them on a collision course with their parents who are less able and willing to process and deal with the consequences of Martine's suicide.

Needless to say there are many sub-plots going on within the story and I will not spoil it for you by discussing them or the outcome. This film is a strong as it is sensitive, as insightful as it condemning of system that has been hijacked by empty principles that serve nothing more than a detached an inhuman philosophy. The warmth of Lazhar (played by the Paris-based comedian Fellag) is captivating and the acting of the children has a natural energy and spontaneity that is both compelling and completely believable.

This film is so new it not yet available outside Region 1, but when it is, I for one will certainly be getting a copy. It is a gem - a story about loss, exile and how adults control what children may be allowed to feel and think. As soon as you get the chance - go and see it. I'll give 8.5/10.

Trilogy One: On the Run

Last night we watched the first in a trilogy from French Director Lucas Belvaux. This is an unusual trilogy in that all of the three films are happening contemporaneously and each feature stories and characters that cross over. The first film is a thriller, the second a comedy and third a drama.

I am going to wait until I have seen all three before commenting, even though each can be viewed as a stand alone film.

Watch out for more....

Barney's Version

My Canadian host decided to show me a good Canadian film! The story is told as Barney (Paul Giamatti) recalls his life - his version of his life. Others would see it differently perhaps. The fact that the film is set in his memory is important as the story ends with the onset of alzheimer's and Barney losing his memory.

Barney is as endearing as he is impossible. I loved him and loathed him in equal measure. He is a politically incorrect hedonist who is unable to take responsibility for the way he treats people and who is unable to exercise any self-control before acting. He does not know what self-restraint means and he is his own worst enemy.

Living a bohemian and indulgent lifestyle with a group of close friends in Rome he does the honourable thing when his girlfriend becomes pregnant and marries her - only to discover at the child's (still) birth that it is not his. He immediately separates from her and in a fit of lover's pique she kills herself.

His uncle gets him into TV production back in his native Montreal and he eventually becomes the producer of a very successful TV show that is truly awful made by his 'Totally Unnecessary Productions' company. This makes him wealthy and he is able to fund his high-class apartment, a mercedes and an endless supply of cigars and whisky.

His father Izzy (Dustin Hoffman), is a retired cop and very Jewish. He fixes Barney up with a Jewry socialite with a wealthy father and they marry. At the reception, Barney encounters Miriam (Rosamund Pike) and confesses to his closest friend Boogie (Scott Speedman) that for the first time in his life he is in love - with Miriam.

Trapped in a stifling marriage with his second wife (Minnie Driver) Barney bombards Miriam with presents, cards and flowers. He plots his escape to allow him to pursue Miriam. Barney's lucky break comes when he catches Boogie and his wife at it in the bedroom of their lake house. The adultery gives Barney the let-out clause he has been looking for and as the ink dries on the divorce papers he is on the phone to Miriam.

To cut a long story short, they marry and have two children and happily enjoy family life for 20+ years. Miriam is portrayed as a wise saint who is good for Barney and who challenges him just enough about the excesses of his lifestyle. Miriam dispenses the kind of wisdom that only a loving wife can. When Miriam want's to return to work as the children flee the nest, Barney objects. Miriam relaunches a successful career as a radio presenter and Barney becomes jealous of this and the Producer Blair.

Increasingly trapped by Barney's drinking, his rudeness to all her friends and his general selfishness, Miriam decides to visit their son in New York for a week. Barney is beside himself being separated from her and seeks solace in a bottle - lot's of bottles. He runs into an actress who once featured in his TV show and a drunken one-night stand ensues. When Miriam returns from New York Barney's guilt causes him to act strangely and he is forced to confess. On his third marriage when he had it all, he still wanted more and couldn't rein in his appetite. Miriam leaves and divorce follows - she marries Blair. Barney keeps on smoking and drinking and gradually begins to forget things as alzheimer's sets in. Barney dies before his time and the clear implication is that it's because of the booze and smoking.

I have not dwelt on the many sub-plots that spin within the story so as not to spoil it for you. There are many strong acting performances in this film - Giamatti won a Golden Globe for his performance, Hoffman is great but for me Pike steals the show as the classy, wise and glamourous Miriam. The make-up was nominated for an Oscar, but I was enchanted by Giamatti's evolving characterisation of the ageing Barney - with hair lines, a paunch and perambulatory style to match.

The film is painful to watch as Barney constantly excels in self-destruction. He clearly does have a soft and tender side but I was left wondering if his blind pursuit of pleasure meant that he could not see or appreciate intimacy and self-giving love in anyway. This is a big part of what makes him such an infuriating character. There are plenty of moral scenarios to ponder as well as the dynamics of the various relationships within the overall story. I really liked this film and commend it to you. I'll give 7.5/10.

Another Earth

This film was the winner at Sundance 2011 and as usual, Sundance winners don't disappoint. It offers itself as a sci-fi film but it actually delivers an intense and thought-provoking exploration of emotions - in particular guilt, redemption and love. It also posits the philosophical question 'what would it be like to meet myself?'.

For me, the film pivots on two acts of violation perpetrated by Rhoda (Brit Marling) - both predicated on selfishness, but each for different reasons. It's impossible to discuss the film in a realistic way without giving something of the storyline away, so if you'd rather not know, stop reading now.

Rhoda is a beautiful bright blonde with a passion for astronomy and astrophysics. She also likes to party. She has just been offered at place at MIT and we are told that for her, anything is possible. Driving home from the party she listens to the radio where news is breaking of a new earth-like planet appearing in the night sky as blue dot. As Rhoda leans out of the window to locate the phenomenon, she drives at speed into another car. This kills the pregnant woman passenger, her son and leaves the husband, John (William Mapother) in a coma. Rhoda is comparatively unscathed - physically. This is the first violation - one predicated on a selfishness of naivety and an invincibility born of hegemony.

As a minor, her details are with-held and she serves four years in gaol. Meanwhile the earth-like planet gets ever-closer and is discovered to be an exact copy of the original earth. Apparently it has no effect on gravitational fields or the tides - a weakness in the story. Questions begin to be asked about whether 'Earth 2' is an exact copy of the original - or whether they view us as 'Earth 2'.

Rhoda is still riven with guilt for the damage and pain she caused and rather than take up her academic career, she becomes a school janitor. Returning to the scene of the accident on the fourth anniversary, she sees the surviving father drive up and place a toy against the lamp post in a shrine-like way. This ramps up her feelings of guilt even more.

Rhoda lives in a baggy boiler suit and keeps her golden tresses under a wooly hat. She strips her room of all artefacts and instals a mattress on the floor. It is as though her job and lifestyle are a self-imposed penance - an attempt to ameliorate the guilt she is burdened by. Rhoda even strips off to lie naked on the frozen snow but is rescued and treated for hypothermia and frostbite. John has similarly let himself go as he deals with the demons and depression in the aftermath of the accident. He slums around in a dressing gown consuming booze like it's going out of fashion.

Finally Rhoda plucks up courage to visit John to apologise in person. As he opens the door her courage evaporates and she invents a story about her being from a cleaning company which is looking for new customers and offering a free trial clean. John accepts and is so impressed he asks her back and this becomes a regular thing. Each week Rhoda tears up the cheque on the way home. As time goes by, her persistent cleaning inspires John to begin living more 'normally'. As her efforts bring about a cathartic transformation in John, she experiences the same. As time goes by the two of them get closer together and eventually make passionate love at John's home - the second violation. Rhoda's selfish need for redemption has propelled her into the giving of her very self as a form of ultimate redemptive self-sacrifice.

A space travel company is planning a trip 'Earth 2' for those who can afford it and one place is up for grabs to the winner of a 500 word essay competition. After prolonged hesitation, Rhoda enters and forgets about it, feeling she doesn't have a chance. She wins - the fulfilment of her childhood dreams. Not long afterwards, as John hosts a celebratory meal, she finally confesses to John. The impact on him is understandably immense. He demands that she leaves.

She later tries to see him again but he will not open the door. She forces her way in and after an ugly and violent encounter, she leaves her ticket for him. Based on the theory that when an individual first sees 'Earth 2' the parallels stop, and so for Rhoda it was just prior to the accident, it may just be possible for John to meet up with his wife and children again. John makes the trip to 'Earth 2'. Then one day as Rhoda returns home, she encounters herself - presumably because the Rhoda on 'Earth 2' also won the essay competition to visit 'Earth 1'.

So how would it be, if you were to meet a different version of yourself, perhaps from a parallel universe? What would you say? What would you talk about? Would you anticipate being 100% identical in every way - including memories and experiences? Presumably it would be impossible to conduct a conversation with yourself as you would both ask the same question of each other at the same time? What would be the point? Surely it would only be of value if there were some differences?

This is an immensely engaging and worthwhile film that will provoke an affective response from viewers. The story is co-written by Brit Marling and the Director Mike Cahill - impressive. I am sure we will be seeing a lot of more Brit Marling who delivers a strong performance in this. I would recommend this to everyone - but don't expect a sci-fi film! I''l give it 7.5/10.

The Descendants

I had been avoiding this film. Sadly it was the shortest on offer and the only one that would conclude before the plane landed. It left me feeling decidedly depressed. George Clooney stars as Matt and in common with his most recent offerings, this is another film that is more of a vehicle for Mr Clooney than any story he may be caught up in. This film is high on melodrama and serially tweaks at the heart as Matt's emotions get dragged through the mud.

This is more of a road movie where Matt is cruelly given the opportunity to shift focus from his law practice and relearn what it is to be a husband and father. As Matt makes each emotional discovery, so his body jerks into a new pose to demonstrate he has registered the emotion. The journey holds out hope that Matt will arrive somewhere new, perhaps more balanced, but he never quite makes it.

The script could be smoother. There are extended voiceovers where Matt gives the back story and telegraphs the importance of what the viewer has just seen or is just about to see. "My family is like an archipelago and they are spread all over Hawaii" Matt tells us as a map of the islands unfolds on screen.  I know we live in a messed up world, but how likely is the confluence of all these events in one person's life? Even the weather in each scene mirrors the state of Matt's emotions!

What adds to the disappointment for me are the attempts at humour that pepper the film. Rather than adding spice to alleviate the tension each attempt fizzles out like damp firework. It may be that my cultural reference points are skewed, but for me the humour didn't work at all ... and what was that running style all about?

Not only do we have a comatose mother, issues of withdrawing life-support, two unruly daughters and an adulterer with a seemingly wonderful wife and family, we also have the additional emotional pull of Matt being the centre-pin of a decision that threatens to betray the Polynesian dynasty he is a part of and whose heritage promises to make him and his cousins extremely wealthy. The film is punctuated by a series of people coming before Matt's comatose wife and telling her what they think of her/the situation. I kept expecting her to make a recovery and then hold all these people accountable - it is that kind of film. Mercifully I got it wrong.

Where the film does deliver - and by the bucket full - is through the performances of the two daughters, Scottie (Amara Miller) and Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) who turn in a tour-de-force. They should have been Oscar nominated, not George Clooney! The family falling apart suddenly coheres and bad behaviour disappears without any real plot development taking place.

The conclusion of the film is ambiguous. Does Matt really act out of respect to his forebears or revenge to hurt the adulterer? A further bright flicker in an other wise dull film is Beau Bridges' contribution as one of Matt's cousins. He brings a warmth and pathos to the story that is otherwise lacking.

I was right to have tried to avoid seeing this film. Only incarceration at 38,000' made me watch it! I wish I'd being flying to Vancouver rather than Winnipeg and then I could have chosen a longer film. The performances of the girls and Bridges drag this one up to 5/10.

Space Cowboys

It took four hours to watch this movie on US TV because of the ad breaks! A lesser film would have caused me to give up, but this one is endearing - even if the outcome is predictable. Clint Eastwood stars and Directs this film and as a consequence it is solid and moves with a good and even pace. Add to that a supporting cast of Tommy Lee Jones, James Garner and Donald Sutherland and you know this has the potential to deliver something good - and it doesn't disappoint.

The plot is simple. These four were top military guys in their prime in the late 1950s as they were training to be the first US astronauts. They screwed up and their project was pulled in favour of sending a chimp into space. The one who did the pulling is now in need of their services to save his own ass and agrees for them to go on a final mission as a team to fix a rogue satellite whose orbit is failing.

The presenting issues are deceit and ageism. The deceit is down to the Programme Director and his self-serving scheming. The ageism is down to almost everyone. These guys did their stuff when computers were in their infancy and more was done by 'feel' and instinct. It is these qualities that shine through in how the team operate and it is how the team functions - old men coming to terms with 40 year-old hurts and disappointments that gives gravitas to the story. The dynamics of the relationships are handled with sensitivity and come across with believability which endears the foursome to viewers. There is love, forgiveness, pride, sacrifice and disappointment on show by the bucket load. For a potentially soppy and wet film, it holds up very well.

I know it's more than a decade old, but I for one was glad to catch up with this film. If it comes around on TV (with more sensible ad breaks) or on disc, it's well worth a punt. I'll give it 7.5/10.

War Horse

I don't know if you've ever kept some honey for too long so that when you come to use it, it almost defies gravity as it gloopily drips from the jar? Such is the sentimentality with which this film drips from the screen as it sets up one potentially heart-wrenching climax after another as it spoon-feeds the viewer clue after clue about where the story is going next. I didn't enjoy it.

Added to which I felt there were real problems with the lighting and some of the shot angles. The Disneyfication of Dartmoor happens amid random acts of lighting with seemingly infinitely variable shadow effects between adjoining shots. The stereotyping of gentry and serf is done with no sensitivity and you instinctively know that both the horse and his owner will survive and be reunited at the end of the war. Of course the work of the story is to get to that point but as I said I feel it is heavily flawed and the fact that it won none of the six Oscars it was nominated for may suggest others saw through it.

Spielberg consistently portrays the best and worst traits of human nature in his movies and this one is no exception. He also consistently champions the underdog and again this film delivers in spades. I have not read the original (children's) book or seen, what is by all accounts, the exceptional stage play but I wonder if they are as sickly sweet as the film? A reviewer on IMDb described it as Lassie meets Saving Private Ryan - I think that's a good call.

Yes this film shows triumph over adversity - again and again - it shows the horrors of war and the hope that exists for humanity in the midst of no-man's land. It contains very clever filming techniques as I presume that no animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture. It also shows that when you are really up against it you need German engineered wire cutters to get out of trouble and it's always good to know a Pete from Dusseldorf!

Well - there you have it. As I'm sure you are by now aware, I'm not going to commend this to you. I know it's a 'marmite' film (you either love it or hate it) but I can't really give it any more than 5/10.

Contagion

Perhaps watching this on a plane flying from London to New York is not the best thing? Steven Soderbergh's direction gives the film his usual strong visual signature which is enhanced by a heavy-weight cast who all contribute well to this ensemble piece.

This film could have been over spectacular or simply have had the feel of a docu-drama. However, it delivers a compelling dramatic representation of what an out of control virus rampaging across the globe might look like. Although it's a global problem it is of course the Americans who come to the rescue.

A deadly virus which kills in days emerges onto the world stage of global communications where people spread it faster than the media and health authorities can track it. A team of specialists from around the world are convened to tackle the problem as the death toll continues to rise dramatically. At one point the USA even runs out of body bags having to borrow some from Canada.

I won't spoil the plot for you except to say that the gravitas given to the film by the ensemble cast keeps the story moving at an even pace. Laurence Fishburne turns in a particularly fine performance as Dr Cheever - and it's always nice to see Kate Winslet.

What the story does raise is how easily something like this can happen in today's global village. We have already faced it with Bird Flu and H1N1 but by comparison with the virus in the film they were less potent although those sadly affected will still feel their full force. The film raises some interesting topics such as:

• how do 'the authorities' prioritise those to be vaccinated first;
• how much of the endeavour ro find a vaccine and manufacture enough to vaccinate the world is driven by philanthropy or profit;
• the place of sacrifice for a higher cause;
• the importance of a free press unconstrained by government;
• the importance of hope;
• how a crisis like this brings out the best and the worst in humanity.

I felt that this was a thoughtful, measured and reflective piece of cinema and would commend it whole-heartedly. My only proviso is to suggest avoid watching it when you're on a plane! I'll give it 7.5/10.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

Finally caught up with this 7 miles above the Atlantic heading West.

I think the first thing to note is the visual impact of the film which through motion capture presents us with an 'animation' that is very close to Hergé's comic book animation style (ligne claire). It is visually very rich and cleverly done.

The plot is very TinTin - a bit like an animated Indiana Jones. However, the film feels as though it's 20 minutes or so too long and at times drifts from one set-piece to another without really advancing the story - rather it just provides another opportunity for some slap-stick capers and another chance for TinTin or Haddock to get captured.

The casting is interesting. Jamie Bell in the lead role turns in a first class performance as do Pegg and Frost as the Thomson twins. Andy Serkis as Haddock sounds more like Ken Bruce from BBC Radio 2 which gave me a really odd transference of personas - although the beard fitted well. Sakharine was played by Daniel Craig but looked like an animated Timothy Dalton which was most odd and a distraction that didn't leave me throughout the film.

The plot is straight-forward and offers little food for analysis as it simply serves as a vehicle for TinTin and his chums to place yet another brigand behind bars. One question we might consider is 'is animated violence more 'acceptable' and what does that mean when the animation originates through motion capture?'. Just a thought.

This is nevertheless a faithful re-presentation of the phenomenon and an enjoyable watch. I'll give it 7/10.

Yasmin

Set in West Yorkshire amongst the Pakistani community in the early noughties, this film gives the viewer a privileged view of what it is to be on the other side. The script is handled with deftness and sensitivity as it portrays a picture of the clash of two cultures struggling to coexist.

Yasmin is the eldest daughter of widower Khalid who is a leading member of the community and a prominent member of the local mosque. To fulfil a family obligation, Yasmin has been forced to marry Faysal and to remain married for as long it takes him to gain right to reside in the UK. The marriage is never consummated and Yasmin loathes the goat herder who prefers to cook on a bonfire in the back yard rather use the stove in the kitchen.

Khalid runs a TV and Video repair shop and with his colleague laments the behaviour of the younger generation and their unwillingness to hold to traditional muslim and Koranic values. Nasser is Yasmin's 18 year old brother who sees little future for himself beyond performing the call to prayer for the mosque and then spending the day dealing drugs and engaging in casual sex for deals.

Yasmin lives two lives. Each day she drives to the city in her new red Golf convertible to work in Community Transport. En route each day she stops in a remote spot on one of the lanes and changes from her Hijab into jeans and T-Shirt. The reverse transformation takes place on the way home each day. At work John clearly has an interest in her and whilst many in the indigenous community openly demonstrate their hostility, John always takes her for who she is - until he learns she is legally married which he sees as a betrayal of his trust.

All is well until 9/11 transforms their community as the Police and Intelligence Agencies harras the local population looking for anyone with links to radical Islam. Faysal's second cousin runs a Madrassa in Pakistan and that's enough for Faysal to be arrested and placed in indefinite detention. The way in which the community are dealt with and the increasing harassment in the wake of 9/11 coalesce with the arrival of militant Islamic preachers seeking to recruit activists.

I won't explain what happens as that would spoil what is a completely believable story that has a real and authentic feel about it. The film begs questions about neighbourliness, about problems of assimilation and distinctiveness of immigrant communities, about racism, prejudice, marginalisation and a society that disempowers the marginalised and forces them into confrontation. It raises profound questions about the flip side of the coin of globalisation - it's alright to export 'us' to 'them', but don't expect 'them' to be able to import their distinctiveness to 'us'.

A gripping drama which I fear has more truth than fiction underpinning it. We need to be sensitive in the emerging mosaic that is contemporary culture. This film might just provide a way for those who watch it, to consider their contribution to the mix. What is interesting is that Yasmin is played by Archie Panjabi who is an Indian Hindu and Khalid is played by Renu Setna who is a Pakistani Zoroastrian!

Well worth the engagement - I'll give it 7.5/10.

Trishna

In this contemporary reworking of Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles Director Michael Winterbottom translates the story's context to modern day India setting the film in Rajasthan and Mumbai. This offering simplifies Hardy's original plot whilst taking the viewer on a journey that undulates between hope and despair. The title role is played by the beautiful Freida Pinto (Slumdog) and her suitor Jay by Riz Ahmed (Four Lions) who both turn in strong performances that draw you into the story.

Trishna's odyssey from the privations of large-family rural subsistance to the excesses of Bollywood film sets in Mumbai is an ultimately cruel and tragic journey. From humble beginnings with familial pressure for her to turn main provider and where she has very little, to a context in which everything seemed possible and within her grasp, Trishna's naiveté allows her to follow her heart rather than her head which leads to ultimately tragic consequences. How much of a past a secret life should we share with those closest to us? As Trishna journey's through the three different contexts - rural Rajasthan, luxury hotels and Mumbai, so each one is accompanied by a markedly different score which helps to differentiate the way in which they contribute to the unfolding narrative.

Jay is depicted as being neither fully at home in either his native British culture or adopted Indian culture. What is clear is that he enjoys the trappings of wealth provided by his millionaire businessman father as he lives out a modern day parable of the prodigal with its hedonism and excesses. The way in which Hardy's original plot devices are translated into this new setting is cleverly done and delivers a believable and compelling set of circumstances.

As with the original, the main male character undergoes a radical transformation that sees his infatuation and gentle caring love for Trishna become an abusive and violent lust-filled relationship of sexual domination. The meandering and unevenly paced story throws up a host of moral questions that are simply presented leaving the viewer to process them and arrive at their own conclusion. The film beautifully pits traditional Indian values up against the creeping Westernisation of an emerging Indian sub-culture. It explores love and tracks it into lust and Karma Sutra inspired abuse. It also presents a portrayal of wealth and privilege passing from one generation to another with the younger generation seemingly unable, or simply unwilling, to embrace the older generation's values and ideals.

The vibrant cinematography presents a portrait of in-your-face India that is as alluring as it is alien. The soundtrack paints a mindscape to help disentangle the different contexts in which the story plays out - as Trishna returns home for the final time, the soundtrack delivers a haunting lament for what might have been. The actors deliver strong and compelling performances. The plot is filled with drama with many twists and turns as it holds out a vision of hope for the life Trishna and Jay have within their grasp. Sadly, as in Hardy's original, the ultimate transformation sees it all come to nothing.

This is a film to watch to appreciate the journey rather than marvel at the destination. The acting performances are strong and we are sure to see more of Pinto and Ahmed. The locations are seductive in and of themselves. The multiplicity of moral and ethical questions the film throws up make it ripe for ongoing reflection and discussion. All-in-all a very good film that will repay the investment of your time to watch it. I'll give 7.5/10.

Ghostbusters

In just 10 days time I shall be amongst the gothic skyscrapers that form such a natural backdrop for this ghost-fest that pits science-fantasy against Ancient Near East heavyweight supernatural demigods. Nearly 30 years-old this classic comedy still holds its own. The conceptualisation, the script and a tour-de-force performance from Bill Murray all ensure that this film not only deservedly gained cult status but is able to hold its own in the top league of cinema - even today.

The special effects are of their time - but then the whole film is so they don't look out of place! There are one or two scenes that are still scary - especially the fridge from hell! The sets and props all fit together so well - the archetypal library, the anonymous university with it's anonymous academics, the boiler suits and cheesy nuclear backpacks, a green blobby ghoul, the refurbished fire station and of course the recycled ambulance - an inspired cocktail of ingredients.

The story manages to draw on the cultic worship of ancient Sumerian deities which is set against quotations from the Book of Revelation that give an appropriately apocalyptic feel as the film builds towards its climax. The bringer of doom is a giant Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (obviously meaningfully significant in the USA) who in wreaking havoc stamps on a church. It is this act rather than any of the other random acts of destruction that seems to motivate our heroes to finally see off their adversaries and "cross the streams" to destroy Gozer once and for all.

Why is this film so enduring? There are still fancy dress and sing-a-long screenings taking place around the country. It was the biggest grossing comedy of the 1980's and that was against tough opposition. On IMDb it achieves a rating of 7.8/10 from more than 120,000 users. The theme tune remains evergreen and has even been resurrected for use in a UK TV commercial. The dialogue has given us enduring quotes - "We came, we saw, we kicked its ass" and "I've been slimed". The fire station has even been resurrected by Volkswagen's See Film Differently campaign.

This is still a plain good fun film. It has stood the test of time and delivers plenty of laughs. If you've not seen it, please do. If you've not seen it recently, it's time to see it again. I'll give it 8/10 - a great film!

Eyes Wide Open

Caught up with this on DVD. Is it really just a film about gay orthodox Jews or is there more to it? There's more to it - a lot more.

Aaron Fleischman (Zohar Strauss) has just buried his father and takes over the family Kosher Butchers shop n the Mea Shearim district. He advertises for an assistant and Ezri (Ran Danker) turns up and bags the job. Why Ezri has turned up in Jerusalem is unclear but it seems he is hiding something. Ezri has been expelled from a Yeshiva where he was studying the teachings of the Jewish faith. He has returned to Jerusalem in search of his former male lover.

The film's pace is often very slow - but this adds to the sense of drama and the development of the emotional aspect of the storyline which is handled very creatively by the cast and Director (Haim Tabakman). The film also handles the dynamics of the Haredi Community and Synagogue life which depicts Aaron as a prominent student in the local Yeshiva . 

As the Rabbi teaches a form of restrained liberalism - if it feels good do it - so Aaron's bisexuality is awakened by Ezri and they begin a physical relationship. Aaron yields to temptation, but not without having doubt. “How did I get there?” he whispers to himself. The community begin to suspect and initially gentle questions are raised which in time become direct public action as Aaron is unwilling and unable to end the relationship. The relationship with Ezri brings grace and fullness in a way in which he has never experienced before which makes him more alive than he has ever been. Meanwhile he conducts a normal relationship with his wife Rivka (Tinkerbell) and presides as head of the household over his four children. Rivka becomes increasingly suspicious.

This is not so much a film about orthodox Judaism and homosexuality as it is a film about individual fulfilment, hospitality, love and community. When the teachings of the community directly coincide with your life experience are you wrong for following them in that particular way - especially when both are committed to the ways of the community in every way? The film also explores questions of how communities should act to preserve their identity and challenge individuals who upset the equilibrium or seemingly choose to misinterpret the teaching they receive. It's also a film that invites exploration of forgiveness and reconciliation - although these are only hinted at by the way the film ends.

This is not a  swash-buckling thriller but if you want a thoughtful privileged peek into the lives of a community that is largely closed to outsiders this is for you. It's major gift is in sensitively exploring the behaviour of an individual when their actions are at odds with their community and although love is never spoken of between Aaron and Ezri, the exploration of the intimacy they share is compelling.

Well worth watching - if you can cope with sub-titles. I'll give it 7.5/10.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

With a cast that includes Judi Dench, Celia Imrie, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, John Hurt, Penelope Wilton, Tom Wilkinson and Dev Patel you know this film should be something special. It doesn't disappoint. This is a brilliant film that explores a number of themes with a deft touch that will have you laughing, crying and leave you with a undeniable feel-good feeling. Go and see it now!

The premise is straightforward. A group of retired Brits sign up to spend their final years at the "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel for the Elderly and Beautiful". Each one of the seven has their own personal demons to exorcise and relationships are at the core of this wonderful tale. The interactions between the characters are first class as Sonny (Dev Patel) the hotel's manager attempts to turn his dream into reality. The advertising material presented the dream rather than the reality and with even his own mother against him, Sonny has his work cut out to stave off closure and the end of his dream.

The narrative develops with a series of epiphanies as different characters discover things that were seemingly beyond their grasp back in their former lives'. A whole range of subjects are engaged with - empty marriages, obsession with status, clashes of culture, racism, caste system, wasted lives', sexual conquest, left things too late and gay regret. That's a list of pretty heavy subjects - it's just as well the dialogue delivers laugh after laugh in quick succession. The film also gives a wonderfully immersive experience of Indian life - you can almost smell it! I've had the privilege of visiting India on many occasions and it left me wanting to return.

I won't say any more about the content of the film to spoil your watching enjoyment. With a cast of this gravitas it's no surprise that his film delivers something special. Dev Patel takes another step on the road to stardom that undoubtedly beckons him. Tena Desae plays his girlfriend in only her third film - I'm sure we'll see more of her in years to come too.

This is a film about life, about love and about making the most of both. The screenplay contains a series of exquisitely funny one-liners which are delivered with great precision. As you can imagine I think this is wonderful film and I encourage you to go and see it - as soon as you can. I saw it on it's fifth showing at Harbour Lights Picturehouse in Southampton - all screenings for the entire weekend were sell-outs on advance tickets. I'll give it 8.5/10.

A Dangerous Method

The world of psychoanalysis is a strange and foreign land. In that respect, this film which deals with the academic debate between Sigmund Freud (Michael Fassbender) and Carl Gustav Jung (Viggo Mortensen) in the early developmental stages of the discipline (early 1900's) is true to form. Sadly it fails to rise above anything other than a docu-drama of how Jung was initially drawn to Freud and his ideas and how they eventually parted company because of a major disagreement on how best to proceed. I have it on good authority from two folk I know who are trained in the dark arts of psychoanalysis, that this film offers little by way of enlightenment in terms of the discipline or for that matter as a piece of drama. Added to which a film supposedly set in Zurich and Vienna seems to have been largely shot in Luzern and Konstanz!

The characterisations of the two main protagonists is convincing - particularly Fassbender's Freud whom he plays as an inscrutable Professor who is seemingly fixated on sexual activity and has sired a family of seven children! Mortensen's Jung is more reserved and controlled as he develops his own take on the theory through his practice in Zurich. This includes engaging in therapy with many hysterical women (a not uncommon state among many at the time) including the Russian Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightly). It may well be the gurning, but Knightly's Russian accent is far from convincing. Knightly's facial contortions graphically depict the affliction and we are given a glimpse of an insight into the workings of psychoanalysis through the therapeutic sessions she undergoes.

Jung manages, almost too quickly, to establish that her hysteria is a reaction to her being humiliated. The slightest humiliation brings on an attack. Further therapy uncovers the truth that as a child she was beaten on her bottom by her father and that at the age of four this produced a sexual stimulation in her that became addictive turning the whole behaviour into a self-reinforcing cycle. The therapy naturally turns into sessions where Spielrein gets strapped to a bed and flayed by Jung and naturally enough one thing leads to another - all in the name of therapy of course! Jung's therapy is so effective and Spielrein's natural ability so strong, that she herself studies and becomes qualified to practice in this new discipline.

Freud's fixation on ego, id and libido is presented as being too restrictive for Jung who is always drawn to interpret dreams and include other disciplines and areas of life and psychology to inform his psychoanalysis. The script is at times dense and academic with little sense of drama or character development. There is little to draw you to any of the characters.

This film had the potential to deliver more - much more. It is sadly safe and only supports the stereotypes which history has given us, without providing any real insight. Knightly's performance is strong and stands above the others. Wait for it to come around on TV. I'll give it 5/10.

Tyrannosaur with Q&A with Director and lead

This film is not the faint-hearted. It's gritty realism, sensitive Direction and powerful acting performances enable it to transcend the self-indulgent social-psycho-drama it might otherwise have been. It is bleak and unrelenting as it charts the lives of two people dealing with their own demons and looking for escape.

Joseph (Peter Mullan) has been widowed for five years and lives a solitary life on a bleak housing estate. He is unemployed, drinks too much and has a violent temper on a very short fuse. He has a highly developed sense of right and wrong and is able to read people like a seasoned psychologist. Joseph's world is available for all to see - what you see is what you get and there is the feeling that little if anything is hidden. His rage and violence eat away at him and constantly undermine his attempts to conquer them. He has hardened himself into a world of black and white - lacking in grey, and lacking the ability to demonstrate empathy in any real way.

Hannah (Olivia Colman) - whose performance is a tour-de-force - hides her interior world and presents the persona of a well-meaning, empathetic and sincere committed Christian who runs a charity shop on the estate where Joseph lives. In reality, her husband James (Eddie Marsan) has such deep-rooted insecurities that he systematically abuses Hannah sexually and in other violent ways. This is the part of Hannah's life that she hides from everyone - that is until one day she appears with a black eye and shortly afterwards with two black eyes.

In trying to escape his own demons, Joseph runs by chance into Hannah's shop where their unarticulated neediness establishes a common-bond. As the story develops, there are an number of interesting side plots that add depth and colour to Joseph's back and white world. He is driven by a sense of duty, the need to exact retribution and guilt-inducing remorse because things might have been different. The one time he does manage self-restraint sees events turn horribly wrong for a neighbours son which only adds to Joseph's feelings of guilt.

This film is deftly Directed by Paddy Considine making his feature-length debut - he also wrote the screenplay. It is based on and developed from his earlier BAFTA winning short film Dog Altogether (2007). Considine is an established actor (Hot Fuzz, Bourne Ultimatum, Submarine) but there are sure to be more films coming from him as Director. This film is never predictable and has many twists and turns that unfold naturally. The characters are so real with both Mullan and Colman turning in stunning performances - particularly Colman. This film flopped at the box office - probably because of it's gritty subject-matter and 18 Certification. It comes out on Disc on Monday 6 February - I shall be adding it to my collection.

I saw this in a sell-out at The Prince Charles Cinema off London's Leicester Square last night and there was a short Q&A with Considine and Colman afterwards. After one or two good opening questions it turned into a love-in for the film industry darlings and ended with a scathing attack on the government's proposals for funding film production in the UK. This was the only disappointing aspect of the evening.

Well done Prince Charles for staging the event, well done Paddy Considine for conceiving and bringing to fruition such a rich, engaging and stimulatingly well told story and thanks to Olivia Colman (Mrs Vicarage in Rev on UK TV) for her sensitive portrayal of a victim of domestic and sexual abuse.

As I said, this is not for the faint-hearted but if you have a strong constitution and like engaging social drama with first class acting and direction - this is a must-see film. I'll give it 8/10.

The Artist

The conceptualisation of this film is first class - as is the acting, lighting and the film's ability to transport the viewer back to the heyday of Hollywood when stars were stars and paparazzi hadn't been invented. The story is a simple one played out in dozens of other films: star has chance encounter with aspiring dancer and as the star's fortunes decline, the dancer enjoys a meteoric rise to become Hollywood's leading lady.

The film begins in the mid 1920's and the star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the king of Silent Movies. A chance encounter with an aspiring dancer, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) leads to them performing together and the chemistry between them sparks into something magical. The story follows their respective decline and rise and delivers a predictable outcome.

As I said, if you want a black and white silent film made with the latest digital production techniques with a good cast and some excellent dancing - then this is the film you. To be honest - I didn't enjoy it. For me the only things of note were:

• The concept of the film itself
• The acting/dancing performances of the two leads
• The performance of Uggie as 'The Dog'

I have never been a fan of black and white silent films. As a child I used to dread the endless Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel & Hardy et al films that showed on TV. The Artist excels in its genre - but as the story itself depicts, silent films died a death with the advent of the talkies in the 1930's. It is a film that is as self-indulgent as it is melodramatic. The fact that it garners such acclaim is, I feel, only attributable to a collective longing for nostalgia at a time when the world mood is gloomy and Hollywood is struggling to keep up with changes in technology and production.

Don't hurry to see it - if it appeals, wait until Christmas when the disc will discounted to 2.99! I'll give it 5/10.

Top 10 films I saw in 2011

It's nice to receive a request from a follower for my top 10 of 2011 - so here goes:

1. Another Year
2. Sarah's Key
3. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
4. We Need to Talk About Kevin
5. The Help
6. Tree of Life
7. Midnight in Paris
8. The King's Speech
9. The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo (2011)

Disagreeing is fine! These are my top 10 best watches of the year.

Carnage

Saw this today at a members' free preview at Harbour Lights in Southampton - thanks guys. It was a real treat. As the opening credits role a group of boys are hanging out in a park. Two of the boys fall out and one of them, who happens to be holding a stick, uses it to swing out at the other boy knocking out two of his teeth and bruising his lip.

The parent's of the 'victim' invite the parents of the perpetrator to their apartment to discuss the incident and plan a way of dealing with it. The entire film takes place within the apartment with the two couples locked in a series of debates. It could have been claustrophobic but Roman Polanski's Direction and the ensemble casts' acting mean it is tight, lively and so believable, that this is not an issue.

Initially both sets of parents are civil and acting as you'd expect them to. As the story unfolds, the guards come down and, aided by some single malt, one by one the individuals reveal their true feelings about their boys fracas and one another. This is done with immense passion and an equal amount of humour. As the arguments are made, the film holds up a mirror to the viewer which invites you to reflect on your own presuppositions, prejudices and views. Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, Jodie Foster and John C Reilly give tremendous performances.

The genius of this film is the way in which allies and enemies keep rotating amongst and between the couples. This is done with tremendous deftness and the exchanges are choreographed with great precision and timing. Kate Winslet's character delivers a spectacular bout of projectile vomiting, whilst  Christoph Waltz's character's attachment to his cell phone engenders nothing but frustration in the rest of the cast and the audience!

This is an excellent film. At 75 minutes it's just about right. Do go and see it when it arrives - well worth the effort. I'll give it 8/10.

Source Code

Science-Fiction has always had a steady stream of stories that explore time lines and parallel dimensions - it's one of the genre's staples. Every now and again there is crossover into mainstream and films such as this emerge - Duncan Jones' (Moon)  second feature film. I'm looking forward to his third!

I wonder if the fact that stories like this being so successful in mainstream cinema (other recent titles include  Inception, In Time, Adjustment Bureau) reveals that many people are dissatisfied with their own time line or dimension and so indulge in a little fantasising about possibly alternatives? Does it tap into the 'pie in the sky when you die' vibe?

In this film we have someone in Colter Stephens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is willing to relive the same 8 minute segment of time in order to 'save the world'. The film is evenly paced and not repetitive in an annoying way. It also has some twists and turns along the way and delivers an ending that is hard to predict - even if you understand the premise behind 'source code' first time around! The science behind the story is hard to believe but this film is science-fiction and not trying to communicate historical fact.

The story raises questions about the rights of governments to 'use' incapacitated battlefield casualties for clandestine and subversive projects - even if a greater good comes from them. How alive was Stephens? He was clearly participating against his will - the appeal to nationalism and duty made me feel extremely uncomfortable. How many similar 'projects' are being researched in government and military labs for our security and well-being?

The film also shows something of the power of love. Stephens is clearly attracted to his commuting companion Christina (Michelle Monaghan) - and who wouldn't be - and as the story unfolds, the way in which he is better able to express his feelings emerge in a kind of apocalyptic Groundhog Day scenario. Then there is the character of Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) who is clearly torn between a sense of duty and the desire to respect what is left of Colter Stephens. What would you have done at the end of the film if you'd been in her situation?

Is this simply a film about a burnt-out combat helicopter pilot who gets one last chance at redemption or does it offer more? Does it offer us an opportunity to reflect on the trajectory our life is on and evaluate it in some way? Does it show us what love and self-sacrifice can achieve? Does it show us the depths of depravity to which a 'fallen' creation is capable of sinking? Or does the film simply hold out the hope of salvation in a different reality? It all sounds a bit gospel-like to me?

I'm going to give it 7.5/10 - a good film. Enjoy and reflect!

The Colour of Pomegranates

If you thought I'd been watching a bit too much main-stream lately, here's something to redress the balance!

For a few years I once had the privilege of working with some Azeri folk whose people group inhabit North-West Iran and Azerbaijan. One thing that constantly struck me was the importance they placed on and the cultural identity they derived from their national poets such as Nizami, Imadeddin Nassimi and Mohammed Suleymanoglu Fizuli. The Colour of Pomegranates is imbued with similar sentiment but is a film about the life and writings of the Eighteenth-centuryArmenian poet Aruthin Sayadian who was known as Sayat-Nova. The film was made in 1968 by the celebrated Soviet Director Sergei Parajanov and has only recently come to DVD.

I'm not sure how to proceed from here! On the surface, this film is simply a collection of abstract images and tableaux, narrated by rudimentary sub-titles that seek to tell Sayat-Nova's life story and encapsulate the essence of his poetry. Perhaps the film is visual poetry and as such it makes unusual viewing. It's not easy to follow, interpret or understand as so much of the visual imagery and clues the film delivers are lost on non-Armenians. This film is almost universally lauded by the critics - indeed the IMDb 'storyline' description begins "One of the greatest masterpieces of the 20th century"! I watched it because I felt I should watch a film given such accolades. It took two bites to get through the 70 minutes, but I'm glad I did - if only to be reminded that in other parts of the world there are things that are more important than the stuff that fills our headlines.

I don't pretend to understand much of the film - or invest the energy in trying to do so. If you want to read a helpful unpicking of the visual keys and plot have a look at Senses of Cinema an Australian website that has a useful article.

Every now and again it is good to watch something that takes us to unfamiliar places and see what questions it provokes. This film has a strong Armenian-Orthodox strand running through it and it is interesting to see how the Church and a Monastery are linked in to the unfolding story.

This is definitely Art-House rather than multiplex - perhaps a good single malt would help?

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

If you've lived with and liked the franchise since the 1970's TV offering then this will push your buttons big-time! It's very much more of the same - with extra bells and whistles. Cruise is at last beginning to look his age but that doesn't stop him from winning every fight, running for miles at top speed, getting blown up, scaling the world's tallest building and driving several BMW's to destruction. This fourth in the film series is by far the best MI to date. Set in Moscow, Dubai and Mumbai it breathlessly jerks around the globe as too many naughty people slip over international frontiers without triggering any alarm. The technology and the CGI are great - except perhaps for the exploding Kremlin which looks a little too unreal.

The plot is simple enough but what makes the difference this time is that through a set-up the whole organisation is dis-avowed and disbanded. Their only hope is this one last off-the-record mission which must succeed - even if it isn't resourced in the usual way. Time after time series of coincidences happen with split second precision which enable the story to move forward. Simon Pegg has a much larger role this time and I occasionally felt his jocular and very British way of delivering humour clashed stridently with the all-American cast. Come on, Simon Pegg co-starring with Tom Cruise in an action movie! I was initially encouraged to see Michael Nyqvist (Millennium Trilogy - Swedish edition) in the cast but his character is disappointingly very two-dimensional.

There are three action sequences that are up there with the best of them:

• The escape from the Russian gaol;
• The scaling of the Burj Khalifa;
• The final sequence in the automated car park in Mumbai.

If for nothing else the film will be enjoyed for these - but the story does keep moving along at an even pace - how ever far fetched the story is! There isn't a lot to engage with here - this is a sit back and enjoy film - particularly if you enjoy Tom Cruise or allow Paula Patton to grow on you as the film moves towards its climax! The morality and ethical dimensions find one spot of light relief when a Russian arms dealer puts saving the world from nuclear annihilation above profit and gives the plot its one and only twist - except perhaps for the very ending which I won't spoil.

As I said, if you like action movies, you'll love this one. It is destined to be the most profitable I'm sure - so far. I'll give it 8/10.