The Ipcress File

Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) presents the antithesis of James Bond in this 1965 Brit-Spy drama - the first of a trilogy. Set at the height of the cold war and based on Len Deighton's 1962 novel, this film offers a brilliant snapshot of British class structure where rank and regiment and club are everything. Palmer is cockney working class but has a taste for good food and beautiful women. He grinds his own coffee freshly every morning and brews it in a cafetiere. He shops for imported ingredients in a supermarket - a recent innovation in sixties Britain. His chirpy ironic and insolent insubordination sets him against his officer-class masters who, whilst viewing him as possessing valuable talents, ultimately see him as expendable.

The story revolves around the 'brain drain' and brain washing which were live concepts in the unstable world of the sixties - an ever-present part of the nightly news and spy films during my childhood! Apparently the type of brain washing depicted in this film was modelled on a project the CIA were running in Canada, so it was based in reality. I've seen this film many times - but this was probably the first time in a cinema. I know it is a spy film and spies live in the shadows and dark alley ways, but for me the print had lost any hint of brightness and the colours were too subdued and muted - apart from the wonderful Routemaster buses and telephone boxes which appeared a lurid scarlet. With the Americans depicted more as interfering adversaries and the KGB nowhere in sight, it has a different slant to most sixties spy fare.

The fact that the film remains so popular - 7.3 on IMDb and 7.7 on Rotten Tomatoes is a testimony to its simple conception, strong story and great acting - no CGI or massive special effects here. In 1999 it was voted number 59 of the top UK films of the 20th century in a BFI poll.

Apart from its lack of colour, this is still a vibrant and extremely watchable film. The performances and story are engaging, the locations chosen to promote the Britishness of this Pinewood Studios film. Fifty years on, watching this again gave me a warm nostalgic glow for the London of my childhood. It was an all round good experience. I'll give it 8.5/10. When was the last time you saw it?

What Maisie Knew

I caught this today at Harbour Lights on a members' free preview screening. Well done 'Picture house'.

This film is equally as sad as it is heartwarming. It is a contemporary retelling of the Henry James novel from 1897 of the same name. It tells the story of Maisie (Onata Aprile) who is a seven year old girl growing up in a privileged way in Manhattan New York. Her mother Susanna (Julianne Moore) is an ageing hippy rock-chic, still recording and touring but never having been able to move beyond petulant selfish teenager herself. Her father Beale (Steve Coogan) is an art dealer who is so distracted by his business that he is unable to maintain a meaningful relationship with either his wife or his daughter.

It comes as no surprise that the strained marriage flounders to breaking point and ends up in court. Beale gains the upper hand in terms of custody and access. Susanne is embittered that the Judge didn't look too kindly on her and repeatedly bemoans the fact throughout the film.

The story is told from Maisie's perspective and it is clear that that she is the most balanced and even-keeled character in the film. Both her parents are preoccupied by their respective careers. Susanne hosting extravagantly noisy rock parties in the apartment with hints of drug-taking. Beale talks about endless maybes and promises Maisie and au-pair Margot (Johanna Vanderham) boat trips in the Aegean after a business trip to Italy - which never materialises.

The film sets up a painful pattern of repetition. As soon as Maisie is delivered into the company of either parent they fawn over her - until some external intervention becomes more attractive. Their commitment to Maisie is shallow - painfully and woefully inadequate.

It is clear from the way the story is told that Maisie knows full well what is going on and that she knows who feels what for whom. Both her parents quickly remarry. Susanne marries the handsome younger bar-tender Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgård) who is decent, morally alert and, unlike Susanne, not driven by the kudos of wealth, acclaim or celebrity. She marries him to demonstrate to the courts her stability and ability to be a model parent. Beale marries the au-pair Margot - not seemingly for love, but because she is young, beautiful and a ready-made baby-sitter for Maisie.

The narrative arc is obvious from early on. The interesting thing is how will it come to be. The acting is first rate from all, delivered with tenderness and sensitivity. This film delivers a brilliant expose of the pains of divorce and its effect on the children. The film tries to portray Susanne and Blaise as the victims but of course the real victim is Maisie. In the end, the choice of which family unit she chooses to be a part of is left to her. Very postmodern, but in the film, Maisie is the only one with enough common sense to make the right decision.

This is a heart-warming and affective story with great acting that brings a Victorian novel bang up-to-date. When it hits screens please do go and see it - this would make a great film to discuss in a group over pizza afterwards. I'll give it 8/10.

The Station Agent

A colleague of mine was surprised that I hadn't seen this and implored me to get hold of it. I'm glad she did - thank you Catherine. I think there are two ways to look at this film - you could either see it as a film about nothing, or a film about everything. I think it is a film about everything.

The central character is Finbar McBride (Peter Dinklage). He is passionate about everything to do with railways and at the start of the film we see him working in the backroom of a model railway shop in Hobeken New Jersey, where he fixes locomotives and carriages as part of the shop's repair service. The shop's owner dies suddenly and leaves Fin a small railway depot and some rolling stock in rural New Jersey. With no other option, Fin moves into the Station House and despite his best efforts acquires two acquaintances - Joe (Bobby Cannavale) who is running his father's hot dog van next to the Station and Olivia (Patricia Clarkson) a local resident. The three of them form an unlikely circle of acquaintances - it would be difficult to call it friendship. As far as it goes this is the plot. But this is not a film so much about the narrative arc as about the journey the characters undertake.

Each of the three have their 'issues' to deal with. Fin is a Little Person, Joe is a second generation Cuban emigre and Olivia is working through the tragic death of her son and subsequent separation from her husband. That each of the main characters has a readily identifiable 'issue' with which they are coming to terms is perhaps a little convenient, but I wonder what about most people who spend all their time and energy concealing theirs? Joe is painfully aware that his physicality immediately draws unwelcome and often hostile attention. Afraid of silence and aloneness, Joe cannot let a second pass by without filling it with some usually inane prattle, whilst the whole area knows about Olivia, her volatility and attempts at self-expression through her disjointed impressionistic art.

Each of the three are in some way marginalised and find it difficult to accept thier position. Fin simply wants to be left alone to read his books on railways and spot trains. He walks everywhere, usually along a railway line, as it a solitary and less confrontational mode of transport. Joe is covering for his sick father and sells less than enough to make a living but never seems to worry. Why would someone living in Manhattan drive out to rural New Jersey to sell Hot Dogs in the middle of nowhere? Olivia pops pills and tries to keep herself to herself as she wallows in the grief she cannot escape from.

Each one of them is on their own - yet their alone-ness gradually allows them to build into a community of acceptance. Not acceptance of one another's 'issues' but acceptance of one another - something which transcends their issues. The film portrays a powerful picture of community and the human need for it - even (or perhaps especially) in adversity. This is where the power of the film lies. Sometimes the music and the camera angles are little contrived simply to make the point, but for the most part this is a gentle and heart-warming film - a gift.

Perhaps because of his size, Fin is seen by people (especially women) to be non-threatening and so they disclose their deepest secrets to him quite voluntarily. The openness of a friendship offered by a local school girl empowers Fin to place himself in a position of vulnerability in front of her peers. Joe seems to crave company and relationship but is locked in to caring for his father. Olivia's charms are obvious for all to see but she cannot decide to whom she is committed - or even if she can bear the pain of loving with the attendant risk of the pain of loss.

As I said, I think this is a film about everything - relationships, community, humanity, acceptance and love. Things that are really important and are inbuilt components of our existence. Please do get hold of this film and watch it - you will be rewarded. I'll give it 8/10.

Lovely, still

When the lead actors in a film are Oscar winners Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn, you know this is going to be a film worth engaging with. The question is, what return will you get on your investment?

I guess there are two ways to watch this film. A way that gets it and a way that doesn't. If you watch this film and don't get it then you will be left feeling robbed and cheated and that you have just wasted 88 minutes watching a schmaltzy tale of two older folk going on a first date. If you do get it, you will applaud Director Nicholas Fackler (only 23 when he made this!) for his creativity, genius and gentle and affecting way in which he handles the subject. You'll want to watch it a second time to be able to read the story with the benefit of the hindsight that the ending brings.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE STORY SPOILED STOP HERE. THIS FILM WILL HAVE MORE IMPACT IF YOU ALLOW ITS STORY TO WORK ON YOU BEFORE YOU KNOW HOW IT ENDS. YOU WILL WANT TO SEE IT A SECOND TIME ONCE YOU KNOW.

For most of the story (first 75 minutes) it appears to be a soppy and sentimental tale of two folk in older life finding love for the first time. The fact that the story is set just before Christmas and each shot is filled with twinkling lights and seasonal songs, adds to the schmaltziness and ramps up the investment of emotional capital that watching this film requires of the viewer.

Landau plays Robert Malone, an older man with a set daily routine who lives on his own and 'works' in the local supermarket. He is plagued, or even haunted by dreams depicted as ghostly dendrons and synapses attempting to link and create memories of an earlier, happier time. In the store all we see him doing is drawing on a notepad at a table and then offering the store manager Mike (Adam Scott) advice on various aspects of the retail trade. Robert seems as bemused as the Manager by the process. Sometimes Robert appears more lucid than others.

Having gone off to work and left his front door wide open, he returns to find Mary (Burstyn) in the house. She has just moved in opposite to live with her daughter Alex (Elizabeth Banks) and seeing his car impaling the garage door, claims she was just checking that he was okay. He reacts angrily and asks her to leave but he clams down and she asks him to take her out on a date. After hesitating Robert agrees and over the intervening 24 hours suffers the highs and lows of angst that any inexperienced teen anticipating a date experiences. This time it is Robert who seeks advice from Mike.

The date happens and is a success and over the course the next few days the couple spend more time together and grow closer together. As Robert crosses off the days on his calendar we often cut to Mary anxiously clutching a bottle of pills and counting them out - presumably to see if she has enough to get through the holiday season. Then one evening she accidentally drops them into a sink with a running tap and they disappear down the drain. She tries to get a replacement prescription but can't without a Doctor's authorisation - and the holidays have started. So begins a deterioration in Robert's behaviour, confidence and level of lucidity.

The pills were Robert's - he is battling Alzheimer's. Mary is his wife, Mike and Alex his children and Robert was the founder and original manager of the store which his son now runs and where he goes to spend each day as it is a familiar and safe place. Mary had moved in with Alex because it was getting too difficult to manage and the family didn't want to place Robert in a 'home'. With the medication and a renewed relationship, all had hoped that Robert might be winning the battle. Sadly Alzheimer's is a pernicious and obdurate adversary.

I've left some of the ending untold so there are still one or two twists for you to experience. This is a very clever film that deals with a difficult subject very creatively and with great warmth. Landau and Burstyn turn in incredible performances that will tug at your heart-strings. I guess that with an increasingly ageing population, this is yet another film amongst a growing number that portray what is the reality of older life for many.

Creative and brave cinema. Do please watch this film - probably twice. I'll give it 8.5/10. For me the return on my investment gave an expected and large bonus!

Normal

This film is a brave attempt to explore the depths of dysfunction that grief, denial and a preoccupation with the trappings of success forced upon the unsuspecting bring. It is a cross between Ordinary People and American Beauty (yes I know it's set in Vancouver).

The central character in the film is never seen - except in out-of-focus flashback. He was killed in a car crash and the as the story unfolds the people and the families caught up in the accident - victims and perpetrators, collide. Within the narrative arc are a number of sub-plots which bring interest and explore some of the themes the film presents in greater depth. Tygh Runyan's performance as the autistic Dennis steals the show by a long way.

The film is not uplifting. For much of it the bereaved mother, Catherine (Carrie-Anne Moss), pouts her way through the depression and denial she appears to embody. Others seek to rebuild their shattered lives and find love in inappropriate ways through desperate encounters that flatter to deceive.

Much of the camera work is hand-held and the editing is at times brutal which left me feeling a little sea-sick! The locations portray the affluent water-side of Vancouver in a way that reinforces the illusion of success that those who live there must surely enjoy. In a nutshell that's what the film is all about - trying to work out what is real and what is illusory. The ending was not what I was expecting and for that I commend Director Carl Bessai, but it came far too quickly and at a pace that was out of kilter with the rest of the film.

To be honest, you are much better off watching the two films mentioned above. They do this kind of thing much much better. It is good to see Carrie-Anne Moss playing a role that allows her to demonstrate her considerable skills, but there is little else to commend this film. I'll give it 5/10.

New resources

I've added the text of a couple of papers I delivered recently. They are accessible from the 'pages' tab below and to the right.

The first was part of a spirituality day I was asked to lead using film as a medium for exploring our relationship with God. It seemed to me that metaphor is a powerful thing and that this is a tool that is frequently used by film makers to visualise things that are hard to explain, difficult to portray or are by their nature invitational - i.e. "if there is a God, how might we encounter Him/Her?".

The second paper explores how themes of 'apocalypse' are portrayed in film. It only scratches the surface, but I only had just over an hour to deliver this! I began with the opening sequence from the film Apocalypse Now which seemed to set the tone.

How To Train your Dragon

Here we have a DreamWorks animation which is a wonderful advertisement for the high state that CGI has achieved. The rendering and colours, shading, shadows, highlights and movement are all excellent. The story is a very familiar one which you will have read and seen a thousand times before. All the best stories are like that. What makes this one rather good is the original setting and visualisation that DreamWorks bring to the screen, On IMDb it scores 8.2/10 and on RottenTomatoes it score 7.9/10 - they are two impressive scores.

The story is set in a Viking village on a remote northern island. So remote that the lead character Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) describes it like this:

"This is Berk. It's twelve days north of Hopeless and a few degrees south of Freezing to Death. It's located solidly on the Meridian of Misery. My village. In a word? Sturdy. It's been here for seven generations, but every single building is new. We have fishing, hunting, and a charming view of the sunsets. The only problems are the pests. You see, most places have mice or mosquitoes... We have..."

All the vikings have weird names - except the beautiful Astrid (America Ferrera) who provides the love interest for Hiccup. However, most have Scots accents and some have a American accents - truly weird as Vikings were neither, although they did reach and colonise both countries - but the accents do reflect the cast. Apparently the author of the story on which it is loosely based, Cressida Cowell, set the story in the Inner Hebrides, so perhaps it is artistic licence.

The story is the archetypal misfit who cannot live up to his father's expectations finding a different way to win popularity, a different way to enable his people to live with the dragons and a different way to get his girl. It's a story about integrity in the midst of those coming-of-age years. You know Hiccup is going to triumph, bring peace and prosperity to the village and get Astrid, but the 94 minute journey to deliver is thoughtful, well-paced and a visual treat.

This a wonderful Father's day present from my youngest and I enjoyed watching it with her. I'll give 7.5/10 as I found the accents annoying! Well worth the watch. Enjoy.

Man of Steel

Using British actors to reboot a super-hero franchise sees Henry Cavill, joining Christian Bale (Batman) and Andrew Garfield (Spiderman) as Superman is the latest comic book character to get re-invented. In this latest offering, Director Zack Snyder unleashes his trade mark passion for lots of CGI and action to deliver a movie that is both over-long and over-busy.

Christopher Nolan has been involved in scripting this film and it shows in the added depth and interest the characters possess. We know the story back to front and that's the challenge for the screenplay, Director and cast. Of all the Superman incarnations this one spends much longer setting the context and establishing the back story of planet Krypton and General Zod's enmity with Jor-El (Superman's biological father).

Another significant difference is that Cavill's Superman is shown to be someone who is unsure, conflicted and vulnerable - almost too human. His adoptive earthly parents do a brilliant job in raising their son and do their best to instill the qualities that build self-confidence and the ability to balance differing views. Throughout his childhood, we are shown in flash-back, how the young Clark Kent was bullied at school and struggled not to unleash his super-power on those provoking him. But inevitably he did use his powers from time to time which reinforced his differences and helped to further distance him from his peers. In search of his true identity, he leaves the family farm on the Kansas prairie and heads out as an itinerant worker hitch hiking his was through a succession of jobs.

Eventually his past catches up with him and General Zod tracks him down to earth and so the battle commences. For half the film the puny weaponry of earth is deployed against the superior alien technology of the Kryptonites. The evolutionary process on Krypton had led the race to a point where for centuries they had genetically engineered every baby for the specific role that society required them to carry out for the greater good of the people - all very utilitarian. Superman, or Kal-El as he was named at birth, was the first naturally born baby in hundreds of years and as Krypton self-destructs due to over -harvesting of the planet's power, Jor-El encodes the entire Kryptonite DNA record into Kal-El's cells. General Zod, who was genetically engineered to live a life that sought to protect the Kryptonite race and help it to survive is hell-bent on extracting the DNA record from Superman - with or without his co-operation. Jor-El's spirit keeps reappearing holographically to encourage his son not to give in and so for the second half of the film there is an epic battle as Superman fights off Zod and his lieutenants.

The film invites the viewer to reflect on the perils of genetic engineering and where going down that road may lead us. It also serves as a stark warning about harvesting the resources of the planet in an unrestrained way that does not allow them to be naturally replenished. At the heart of the story is a moral struggle. Zod's utilitarian drive to preserve the Kryptonites at all costs against Superman's Judeo-Christian humanist ethic which pushed him to do 'the right thing'.

It is all very spectacular as the familiar story is retold with creativity and a visual flourish. The characters are believable and the acting good. Russel Crowe is well cast to play Jor-El and Amy Adams offers her usual attractive self to play Lois Lane who comes through the whole ordeal without so much as a hair out of place. One to look out for is the German actress Antje Traue who plays Zod's deputy Faora-Ul - those icy blue eyes are natural - not lenses! For me, as with so many films these days, the action and fighting sequences were just too long. Every now and again the film appeared to pay visual homage to other sci-fi giants (The Matrix and Spiderman 3?) and borrow design concepts that came through with little or no modification. It produced a bit of a visual pastiche.

However, all of that aside, this was a refreshing and re-energised retelling of a familiar story with strong acting, great CGI, special effects and visual design. I am sure that Henry Cavill's next decade or so is now sorted out as we brace ourselves for the unfolding adventures of this incarnation of everybody's favourite super-hero. Go and see it for good escapist fun and cutting edge cinema. I'll give it 7.5/10.

Apocalypse Now

Harbour Lights were screening this on a one-off showing today and I decided to bite the bullet and see it for the first time on the big screen. Amazing in so many ways. I grew up with reports of the Vietnam war on daily evening news and have charted the films about the war over the past 40 plus years. There is an interesting list of someone's top 30 here on iMDB. This ranks alongside Platoon and The Deer Hunter.

This film ably shows the absurdity of war - and in particular the absurd way America fought this war. On one hand I'd like to say that the leader of every nation should watch it before they commit their people to war - but I guess those who have fought to get to the top of the political ladder won't be swayed by the affective response this film must inevitably invoke in any person who is wired in a normal sort of way.

I'm not sure the US psyche has yet resolved its demons in relation to the guilt and regret that surrounds the collective memory of Vietnam. Right at the beginning the central character, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) tells us in narration "There is no way to tell his story without telling my own. And if his story really is a confession, then so is mine.". The Confessional still sees plenty of business as a result of this war - and rightly so. Hollywood still tries to provide a cathartic and penitential experience by administering salve on the wounds of the after-effects of Vietnam and increasingly Iraq and Afghanistan. Absolution can be an elusive thing to nail down.

This film has left a massive and enduring legacy. It won two Oscars, the Palme D'Or at Cannes, three Golden Globes and two Baftas along with a host of other awards. The film was also considered to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and was chosen for preservation by the US National Film Registry in 2000. It regularly appears at or near the top of many movie polls - check out the wikipedia article for the references.

This film was made pre-CGI and the special effects are consistently amazing. The film starts at an okay pace and then quickens - and never lets up for the entire 2.5 hour ride. The cast is an amazing group of top names led by Michael Sheen in the lead role. He plays a Special Forces Captain who is sent deep into enemy territory and then into Cambodia to terminate (with "extreme prejudice") a US Colonel whom the hierarchy deem to have gone insane and who is operating outside the normal command and control channels of the military. Three quarters of the film is about the journey to get there, the last part explores deep and dark themes about the insanity of war and what it does to people. The story doesn't end neatly - it leaves the viewer having to analyse what they have just witnessed and what they are going to do with it.

There would be many ways of exploring this film and many fine words have been written about it over the past nearly 35 years. The film is littered with literary references but for me, one of the most insightful ways would be thorough the poetry of T.S. Eliot that plays such an important part. Willard's target is Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who spouts philosophical and literary riddles as he talks almost exclusively in metaphors:

     Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?

     Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.

     Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?

     Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

     Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?

     Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

     Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?

     Willard: I'm a soldier.

     Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill


Clearly Director Francis Ford Coppola has a message for the viewer and it is one that will make him/her very uncomfortable. After some digging around I found out that the film is based on the novello Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. In poetry books Eliot's poem The Waste Land is preceded by a quotation from Heart of Darkness: "Mistah Kurtz – he dead".  So here we have Colonel Kurtz quoting Eliot and saying as his final words 'Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge? He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision, – he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath – "The horror! The horror!"'  This can be seen as a commentary on what waging war had done to Kurtz - the agony and emotion etched on the face of Willard as he fulfils his orders. On Kurtz's desk we see a copy of From Ritual to Romance by Jessie Weston and The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer - the two texts which Eliot says inspired his poem The Waste Land.

There are many memorable passages in this film that have gone down in cinematic history - and rightly so. This is an intelligent, creative and courageous piece of cinema which seeks not to offer an analysis but to recreate through it's dialogue and characters an opportunity for the modern-day voyeur to catch the faintest of glimpses of what the horror of war can lead people to - good people - when ideologies clash. The action is so intense and immediate, and the soundtrack so rich and detailed, that you can you almost smell the napalm - even if it's not the morning!

I have no choice other than to give this film 9/10. Great cinema.

Stats

I don't if you are interested in what films people search for most often on this site - it's something which fascinates me. I am grateful for (most) comments that folk leave and I'm always up for a conversation - and very happy for people to see things differently.

If you are interested in what people are looking at, here are the viewing stats as of today. Thanks for your interest.

As you can see Spirited Away is out in the lead but given that Sound of My Voice was only posted a year ago, it is catching up quickly. One film that ranks quite highly but is not in the top 10 is Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs! Why?

Populaire

I wasn't quite sure what to expect from this film - but I found it to be thoroughly enchanting. An out-and-out rom-com, Populaire brings a refreshing burst of colour and vivacity which combine to deliver a film that has a predictable trajectory, but nevertheless is thoroughly enjoyable.

The way the film was designed (set in 1958), the use of costumes and music and centring the story on speed typing competitions all combine to deliver a good old dose of nostalgia. Add to that strong performances from the leading actors and we have another helping of French cinema at its best. It would be fair to say that some parts of the story get a bit lumpy and maybe too syrupy and so make for an uneven pace but all of that for me was easily forgotten in the wake of Déborah François' performace as Rose Pamphyl - she simply steals the show with a performance that evokes the Elvin charm of Audrey Hepburn and the witty comedy of Doris Day - both at their peak when the film was set.

PLOT SPOILERS

The story is the familiar little girl from the sticks gets propelled onto a world stage whilst the one doing the propelling is unable to allow himself to fall in love while everyone around can see it's what's meant to be. Rose escapes the drudgery of life in her domineering widower father's village store and her impending marriage to the son of the local mechanic to take up a post as secretary to an Insurance Agent in the local town of Lisieux. Rose is far from ideal for the job - she is clumsy, inexperienced and has no formal qualifications for the post - but she can type very quickly - with just two fingers.

The Insurance Agent Louis Échard  is played by Romain Duris who delivers a surly yet vulnerable dapper man-about-town performance. As with all of us, Louis has a past which is some ways is similar to Rose's - a domineering father and founder of the family Insurance business now run by Louis.. Whereas Rose's father never lifted his eyes above the horizon and expected the same from his daughter, Louis' father demanded success and victory - being number one is the only thing that matters. In his earlier years Louis had been a champion athlete excelling at many sports - he knew what it was to be driven by the need to win. So both characters are trying to escape the baggage of their upbringing - but Loius has more baggage than most. During the war, he was leader of a local resistance group and because of one incident with the group his psyche is wounded and he is unable to commit.

So Loius hires Rose with the express intention of training her to become a champion typist. She begins in regional Normandie contest, works her way up to win the national contest and then goes for a world type-off in new York. As the story unfolds, Loius is constantly drawn to his first love Marie (Bérénice Bejo [The Artist]) the wife of his best friend and the woman he cannot have. Meanwhile Rose is always right in front of him and she is the very woman he will not allow himself to have. The tension of this love-triangle maintains the 'will he, won't he' tension very well for nearly all of the story.

In the end this is a simple tale with fine acting and a strong evocation of 1950's Hollywood movies and French chic (one scene is lifted directly from Vertigo). The warmth that Rose radiates touches all that she encounters, but her journey is not straightforward as she battles to establish her own identity on a pathway that she will choose - nouvelle femme! Louis generates from viewers a feeling of sympathy which made me want to shake him by the shoulders to bring him to his senses on more than one occasion.

As you may have gathered I rather liked this film and simply loved François' Rose. This is a heart-warming film that does far more good than ill. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, it offers an opportunity to reflect on our own sense of self and how our baggage contributes to the making of the relationships that we are in. It's also a simple love story and we all need to reconnect with those! Do go and see it. I'll give it 8/10.

Mud

As with all great stories the simpler the story the better it is. This is simple in the extreme but at 2 hours 10 minutes it's amazing how it weaves the threads together and keeps the tension and momentum moving towards an unpredictable conclusion. This is a coming of age story that pays homage to Mark Twain and echoes the landscape and feel of both Winter's Bone and Deliverance.

The narrative is carried by two 14 year boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone ( Jacob Lofland) growing up in the bayou's of Arkansas on the mighty Mississippi. Trying to make sense and meaning of the world around them, they explore the necessity of livelihood, the fickleness of love and imperfection of relationships whilst daring to believe Mud (Matthew McConaughey) and the story he painted. In Mud the boys saw someone they could believe in, someone who could offer them a glimpse of a transcendent way of life and reasoning.

This film maintains a high view of morality throughout. Honour, respect and honesty are the hallmarks of a good man. Neckbone who has been raised by his uncle Galen (Michael Shannon) receives this advice from him "This river brings a lot of trash down, you gotta know what’s worth keeping and what’s worth letting go" .As the boys stretch and fumble for a moral anchor points, so they sift what they hear and see for a truth they can comprehend. Men who mistreat women are not tolerated. The hormones that accompany the onset of puberty fuel both bravado and a growing interest in girls. Ellis is the more mature of the two and Neckbone constantly lives out his inquisitive fantasies through his friend's exploratory and tentative relationship with May Pearl (Bonnie Sturdivant).

There are many relationships in a variety of states of health in this film. Ellis' parents, Galen and his girlfriend, Ellis and May Pearl, Mud and Juniper (Reese Witherspoon) who turns in a performance that combines a surreal beauty with a fragile and alluring vulnerability.

This film is beautifully shot and the choice of locations depict both the isolation and the remoteness of the main location and also the small-town sense of community that the local town enjoys. The underlying culture and way of life depicted in the film will be unfamiliar to outsiders - at least it was to me - and at times it wasn't something I'd be queueing up to experience, but I would like to meet all of the characters. They were presented as believable, multi-dimensional people who were wrestling with the hardships of subsistence living and the complexity of family bonds and love in their relationships.

This really is a great film - outstanding. It is going to get the coveted 9/10. Go and see it while you can.

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.