Prometheus

I've been reflecting on this for several days as I'm still not sure how to write it up. I know that ambiguity is a vital component if viewers are to be invited to use their imagination in making meaning of a narrative they engage with. However, for me, this film has too much ambiguity, leaves too much unexplained and contains too many lucky coincidences. Half the time I was thinking 'this is a really intelligent and realistic "prequel" to Alien' and the other half of the time I felt 'I was being suckered in to something that simply wants to keep the franchise running'.

From all the pre-release hype through to the way the title of the film appears on the screen in direct homage to Alien this is a a film that stands within the Alien family of movies. The extensive (and excellent) use of Giger's artwork for the Space Jockey's spacecraft and world tie the film visually into Alien. The fact that the film does not end with John Hurt walking into a field of Alien eggs means that its conclusion takes the narrative into another direction. If by prequel you expect a storyline that tells you how we got to the start of Alien, then this will probably leave you a little disappointed. If you are open to an exploration of the world of the Alien and its possible creator, then you will find this a hit!

WARNING: THE FROM HERE ON THERE ARE A FEW SPOILERS - WHICH MIGHT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE FILM AS YOU WATCH IT.

In its own right, as much as any story contains flaws and ambiguity, Prometheus is a worthwhile film. The cast is strong and the performances are good - although Michael Fassbender's David is more like a synthesis of every android you've ever seen, wrapped up with the intonation and all the charm of HAL from 2001! Yes, there is a chest-bursting Alien emergence. Yes, it does have molecular acid for blood. However, the film also introduces us to Calamari on steroids and a life-cycle for the Alien that defies rational explanation.

Where the film does score big is in the way it sets out a series of metaphysical questions and then leaves them gently unresolved. I understand that Scott was toying with the idea of calling this film Paradise but that the name has been held-over for the sequel to Prometheus (if there is one). The film explores the origins of humanity and the journey the USS Prometheus makes is understood to be in response to an invitation to a distant planet. When they arrive, they happen to enter the atmosphere right on top of a massive domed structure which they enter and inside which they discover holographic ghost-like images, Space Jockeys in stasis and, unbeknown to them, thousands of Alien eggs which they somehow manage to activate into the next stage of their black gunk-oozing life-cycle.

The biology is certainly beyond my understanding - but that is where Sci-Fi comes into its own - it wouldn't be fiction otherwise! But quite how Dr Shaw (Noomi Rapace) manages to self-perform a Caesarian and then run off down the corridor, only doubling up in agony every 100 yards, eludes me - even with large self-administered doses of anaesthetic. A scene towards the end where she and Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) are trying to out-run catastrophe is more Keystone Cops slapstick that 21st Century Sci-Fi at its best! Yet, Dr Shaw's character has more than an echo of a certain Ellen Ripley about her.

The questions still remain:

• How did David learn the Space Jockey language? 
• How did he know they were planning to destroy earth? 
• Why was the Space Jockey so violent and aggressive - wasn't he meant to be a higher life-form (even though his DNA matches human DNA 100%), or is aggression and violence where evolution is taking us?
• What's with the Calamari on steroids?
• Why did Vicker's allow Janek to push her buttons so thoroughly?

It's good to come away with questions - and I'm sure the ones I've raised simply demonstrate my own slow mind. However, this is a film worth seeing - I'll give it 7.5/10.

Adjustment Bureau

I watched this again last night and enjoyed it just as much as the first time. You can catch my initial review here.

It struck me more than ever that this clever adaptation of Philip K Dick's Adjustment Team first published in 1954 plays out the classic Christian theological dispute between freewill and predestination - a kind of up-to-date Arminius versus Calvin debate. (Or to be more accurate the followers of Arminianism versus the followers of Calvinism.) Wikipedia has some useful articles if you feel the need to check out the details - the best way in is perhaps here.

Originally I said that Agent Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie), whose interventions (or lack of,) bring about the situation that confronts David Norris (Matt Damon) was motivated by guilt. While that is still, I believe true in part, I have been persuaded that the feelings compel him to act out of compassion.  For me this is a much more satisfying way of reading the narrative.

It also sets up a dichotomy between believing that prayer might change the Chairman's plan - or that in pursuing freewill we can shape the future the Chairman invites us into. But that would be setting Calvinists against Arminianists again - and I don't want to do that (but it's good fun).

If you've not seen it - please do. It's a feel-good film with very little violence or swearing and only one brief and discreet sex scene - you don't get many films like this these days! Something for the men and the ladies too.

Four Lions

I caught up with this on disc last night. It is a film that for me provokes two clashing reactions which are never entirely able to reconcile themselves. It is a brave and inventive piece of cinema which is well conceived and well executed. I am left with questions about the wisdom of the subject matter.

First and foremost it is a comedy. Set in the Pakistani community of South Yorkshire, the story follows a group of British-born men who live by and use the vocabulary of radicalised jihadis. Apart from their rhetoric, they do not appear to engage with Islam or moslem culture in any serious way. They see their fight as one against oppression in general - it is unfocussed and lacks any specific target.

On a comedic level this film satirises the would-be terrorists more than it satirises their cause. On a social-commentary level it highlights the alienation felt by so many in Britain's immigrant communities. This is done in what feels like a very even-handed way, similar in lots of ways to aspects of the film Yasmin which I reviewed here. The dialogue in the film is razor-sharp and is at times very funny. It works as satire and makes part of British-Pakistani culture accessible to general viewers. (Viewers from outside Britain may struggle with some of the references.)

One of the most alarming aspects for me of the way the story is told, is the openness with which the central character Omar discusses his intentions with his wife and presents them in parable form to his son. The family offer a picture of a home filled with love, harmony and happiness and there is never any consideration of the consequences for his family if Omar 'succeeds'. They are living the dream that so many in their community (and others) seemingly aspire to. Perhaps this is an intended part of the parody of satire and my reading of it is simply too unsophisticated. If that's the case, forgive me.

I am left wondering how appropriate the subject of suicide bombing is for a comedy, in a world that experiences the painful consequences of such activities on a daily basis and in a country which is still raw from its own recent tragic experience. Tragic for the families of perpetrators and victims alike and for the links between our respective communities. As with any extremist, they are by definition never representative of the main-stream and we must remind ourselves of that continually.

Riz Ahmed stars as Omar and leads the disparate group turning in s strong performance. I'm sure we will see more of him. Kayvan Novak also turns in a very good performance as the confused Waj. As the film moves towards its climax the thought of suicide bombers detonating themselves in the midst of the London Marathon produces images that are too awful to dwell on.

For me the actual ending turned the whole film into something other than a comedy - perhaps that was the intention and perhaps that's why I feel deeply uncomfortable about the film as whole. Maybe something has pricked my conscience and if I work with it, a clearer understanding will come. Or maybe it simply remains unsuitable subject-matter for a comedy.

I'll give it 6/10.

Magnolia

This is a film that viewers either warm to or are happy not to see a second time. This was about the sixth time I've seen it - so you know which camp I'm in! Whether or not you like this film, it is a bold project that paints a picture that contains a huge amount of detail - but on a huge canvas. At just over three hours long it might invite criticism of being too long. I think that is not the case. The story moves at a constant and quick pace and the editing is superb. There is simply no chance for boredom to set in.

The premise of the film is straightforward. Set in the anonymous suburbia of Los Angeles over a single day, the film weaves together the lives and experiences of 10 people. All of the people either have something to hide or something to fear. Some are good people, some mixed up and some not so good, some just starting out in life, others nearing life's end. It presents a series of character studies and whilst this particular set of somewhat extreme circumstances probably wouldn't all coincide in one neighbourhood on one day, the film retains sufficient realsim and the characters have sufficient depth and strength to carry it off.

This film explores a wide range of emotions and the top-drawer ensemble cast deliver a host of strong performances. Julianne Moore's character Linda leaves you breathless as she hurtles towards guilt-ridden breakdown. Tom Cruise's Frank T J Mackey delivers a character to loathe whilst John C Reilly's Jim Kurring and Melora Walters' Claudia deliver characters to love. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's nurse Phil Parma is filled with wise empathy and anchors the chaos that unfolds around him. The four dogs are a master-stroke.

Rather than trying to present a day-in-the-life of an LA suburb, this film presents a series of events that are possible and that includes the regularly updated weather reports. Towards the end the film presents precipitation of Biblical plague proportions when the sky rains massive toads - an amphibian deluge that wreaks havoc. As child prodigy Stanley observes - unlikely but possible.

If you've not seen this please invest 3:08 hours and see it. If you've seen it and liked it, it's time to see it again. This is a masterful film that shows more and more depth with each viewing. The soundtrack by Aimee Mann is also something to cherish (Oscar nominated) as well as the other songs dropped into the film - they all add extra depth to already deep film.

As you might have gathered - I like this film. I'm giving it 8.5/10

J. Edgar

As an ageing Director of the FBI nears the end of his tenure, he dictates his memoires to a young agent. This is a straightforward biopic depicting the life of the creator an long-time Director of the FBI - J Edgar Hoover. In the title role is Leonardo DiCaprio who delivers a convincing and consistent performance of a man who was enslaved to his drivenness. He is ably supported by Naomi Watts who plays his life-long PA Helen Gandy and less ably supported by Arnie Hammer who appears as one of the Winklevi from Social Network - rather than Clyde Tolson, Hoover's assistant (it doesn't help that as Tolson ages his make-up becomes less convincing!).

In the retelling of history - particularly recent history, there will always be a divergence of opinion. That Hoover remained in post and worked under so many Presidents is testimony to his own political skills and also the confidential files he kept on all who held public office. From the threat of Communist revolutionaries in the 1920s through to the Nixon era, the film shows a bewildering passage of history as the infant nation seeks to establish a sense of identity.

Another strong performance comes from Dame Judy Dench who plays Hoover's mother, Annie. Fearing for her son's well-being and wary of his latent homosexuality, she even teaches him to dance so that he can appropriately court young ladies. When Helen Gandy turns up in the secretarial pool of the agency something is kindled in Hoover's heart but she rebuffs him citing dedication to the agency and the need to remain focussed. It is Clyde Tolson who becomes his permanent companion and Deputy and the film gently allows for the possibility of a life-long gay encounter to simmer throughout. There have been many disputes about Hoover's sexual orientation and activities that cover almost the entire possible spectrum. (For a precis look him up in wikipedia.)

Much of the story has to do with the battle between federal and provincial jurisdiction as The USA works out what it is to be nation. The film also highlights the origins of modern forensic science and its development as a tool to fight crime. It is, for me, these aspects rather than the characters we are presented with which are the more interesting!

This is a plodding retelling of someone's life with the emphasis on putting the 'right' interpretation and gloss on events that history will record in a variety of (conflicting) ways. The methods and achievements highlight the best and worst aspects of America's story. At 137 minutes it is too long. Clint Eastwood's direction is as strong as ever, but there is simply too much stuff in the story line which at the end of the day makes it feel like and apology for a national hero the nation loves but has never really understood.

The performances from DiCaprio, Watts and Dench are top drawer - but they cannot redeem what is an over-long, plodding and at times uninteresting film. I'll give 6/10.

Shame

Shame offers an unpretentious invitation to be a voyeur. It offers a view of a brother and sister hopelessly locked into their separate and occasionally colliding cycles of addiction, neither able to understand, analyse, seek help or break free. We know nothing of the context that brings them to this point. We are shown very little of the detail of their daily routines or work except those that feed their addictions. At the end of the film we are none-the-wiser but I for one know my emotions have been given a severe work-out. What a ride.

Set in Manhattan, New York, the film follows Brandon (Michael Fassbender) who seemingly has a fairly senior position in an anonymous company in skyscraper. Brandon's boss is David (James Badge Dale) and together they indulge in flirtatious drunken encounters after work and at weekends. The difference between the two is that David otherwise presents as being happily married with a family, Brandon lives in almost reclusive isolation in a high-rise apartment and he is addicted to sex.

Sissy (Carey Mulligan), is Brandon's sister who is in desperate need of love and acceptance and bums her way through LA and New York seeking gigs as a nightclub singer. Sissy has no place to call home and no permanent friends - simply a list of transient contacts. She turns to Brandon for support and affection - the very things he is unable to offer. We are not told what kind of childhood they experienced but the fact that they appear naked before one another once or twice with little sense of regret might suggest some kind of sexual abuse. This might account for their screwed up emotions, or their screwed up emotions may simply be a symptom of the malaise of the pointlessness of their daily existence. The film doesn't invite an exploration of these questions.

We are relentless observers of Brandon's need to experience orgasm. After waking in the shower, inciting a girl on the Subway to experience one herself, in the toilet cubicle at work, in a hotel with hooker, in his apartment with a hooker, through online porno sites, through an extensive library of magazines. Sex, sex and sex is the only thing that matters to Brandon. Adding to the feel of voyeurism, the viewer is serially invited to watch him though windows - either in his office, his apartment or on the 30th floor of a hotel where he screws a hooker as she is spreadeagled against the floor to ceiling window. The sexual acts are relentless but Director Steve MacQueen gives them a detached but choreographed grace so they become a recurring refrain like the repeating theme of an overture - a macabre dance of addiction as it were.

Sissy simple needs someone to hold her - anyone, even Brandon will do, but he is incapable of doing so for more than two seconds. On a night out Brandon and David go to hear Sissy sing and inevitably Sissy and Dave have an encounter which, blinded by his addiction, disgusts Brandon. Brandon's inability to hear his sister's cry for help pushes her to extremes.

His addiction pushes him deeper and deeper - until he teams up for dinner with colleague Marianne (Nicole Beharie). Recently separated, she begins talking about relationships, love and commitment and is astonished by Brandon's view that relationships are a waste of time. She challenges Brandon's nihilistic view of attachment - again perhaps giving a clue to his past. The evening goes well. Later at work, Brandon approaches Marianne, grabs her and kisses her passionately. They leave the office and check into a hotel. Brandon is on course for another score when his mind becomes troubled, he pulls away and in a state of disarray he apologises and asks Marianne to leave. He descends into a fog of inner despair. Although he later appears to engage in some acts of penitence, it is not altogether clear how he moves on from this crisis in the longer term.

Fassbender's performance is first-class - even though his character is thoroughly unlikeable. He displays the power of addiction with graphic ease and portrays a closed person - closed to emotion, intimacy, the need to be loved and the need to love. Closed even to the pleading needs of his sister. There are long periods with little or no dialogue where the anguish on Brandon's face provides sufficient affective energy to drive the film forward.

Shot with a grey and grainy colour palette, this is a bleak film. If continual and prolonged sex scenes are not your thing, then this film is not for you. The way in which MacQueen explores and depicts sex addiction through the character of Brandon is to be applauded. This is however a story with no real beginning and an unresolved ending and therefore for me is an incomplete story. It, like Brandon, is completely self-contained and self-referencing. I am glad that someone has had the courage to make a film about sex addiction but the narrative needs some back story and it also needs to hold out the hope of change and the possibility of redemption - no matter how distant or potentially unrealistic an option that might seem at present. For the first point I'd give it a 7, for the second a 5, therefore an average would 6/10!

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 Lorna (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 Lorna uses after a swim and initiates a conversation. It is clear the lady knows a lot about Lorna - and Pete and Maggie. It turns out that she is from the Justice Department and that Maggie is a wanted felon. The woman persuades Lorna 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. Lorna 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, Lorna 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 Lorna 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.