Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys

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

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

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

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

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

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

True Grit

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

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

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

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

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

Silver Linings Playbook

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

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

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

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

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

In the House (Dans la Maison)

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

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

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

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

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

Top 10 Religious Films

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

21

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boogie Nights

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

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

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

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

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

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

Song for Marion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Scar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitchcock

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

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

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

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

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

Loss, dying and death in film

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

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

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

Zero Dark Thirty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Impossible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Into The Abyss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bucket List

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

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

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

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

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

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

Les Miserables

If nothing else the arrival of this film has given us a masterclass in marketing and promotion. The level of expectation that surrounds this film's release is massive - but does it deliver?

I need to say that I am not a fan of musicals - they always seem so contrived and unnatural to me. However, that aside, this film is a visual, musical and acting tour-de-force. It is not without its flaws though. As compelling as the two male leads (Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe) are, there are times when their vocal performances lack the usual sparkle. Some of the CGI looks wonderful whilst some of it looks a little odd. In this film all of the dialogue is sung which makes telling the story a slow and sometimes tortuous affair. I imagine that the film is very close to the stage play but at 2:37 with periods where the pace slows to a crawl, I felt it could have lost half and hour and been better for it.

The story is a well known one and does not need to be rehearsed here. This is a morality tale (of a different kind to that of Jack Reacher!). It is a story that trades in a currency of strong emotions and feelings - hope, love, betrayal, sacrifice, disappointment and faith. It is a story of oppression and betrayal, of abject poverty and opulent excess - a story of the haves and have nots. These emotions and privations are portrayed with such tangible veracity by the cast that at times watching the film becomes emotionally draining - and of course these feelings are perfectly orchestrated by the score and powerful lyrics. I managed to hold it together until the appearance of Fantine's ghost!

The scale of the sets and visualisation of the set pieces are stunning as are the vivid colours. The opening scene in the dry dock at Portsmouth and the ways in which Greenwich Naval College are transformed into Bourbon Paris are breath-taking. Much of the camera work is hand-held and has a fluid intimacy about it. Some of the songs, particularly the solos, are quite long and while that may work fine on stage there were quite a few times when it looked as though the Director didn't quite know what to do visually to allow the story to be told. Consequently there was a lot of vertical panning to pass the time!

All of the performers give strong performances. Anne Hathaway's Fantine and Samantha Barks'  Éponine are particularly convincing. Eddie Redmayne acts and sings convincingly and the child performances from Isabelle Allen as the young Cossette and Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche are also noteworthy - but why Gavroche should sound as cockney as someone from the cast of Oliver is a mystery! Comic relief is provided by the double-act of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the inn keepers M. et Mme. Thénardier who were both wonderful.

So, does it deliver? I am sure that this film will draw huge crowds (60+ million have seen the stage play) and the DVD sales will be immense. Its revenues have already repaid the production costs of $61m and it's only just opened. I wish it well, as good as it was I'm not in a hurry to see it again but I'll give it 8/10.

Jack Reacher

I've not read any of Lee Child's 17 Reacher novels so I came to this with an open mind. The title character (Tom Cruise) is as enigmatic as he is consistently dispassionate. I can't remember if I've ever seen Cruise in a film where no-one so much as kissed! This is a film about weapons, fists and fast cars - and little else. In some ways it's as though Sherlock Holmes has been dragged into the 21st Century.

There are echoes of films like Bullitt, French Connection and Dirty Harry as Reacher thinks and fights his way through the story. Essentially this is an organised crime thriller with the chief villain played by Werner Herzog - almost playing himself, except he's bitten his fingers off in this film! The way the plot unfolds and the way in which Reacher thinks his way through the problems are both incredible. He becomes the lead investigator for attorney Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike) as she defends what seems like a hopeless case where the defendant is being prosecuted by her father the DA - who never takes on a case he can't win. Reacher likes a challenge and this time it's not a challenge of the heart.

If I were being cynical, I might suggest that this film and the lead character are propaganda intended to keep alive the myth of the American dream. Reacher is prepared to allow two wrongs to make a right - on more than one occasion. He is quick to employ a self-referencing moral code that is outside the laws others live by and to do so by calling it justice. In a film where use of weapons is commonplace,  violence prolific and odd balls are addicted to the shooting range, should Hollywood be perpetuating the myth of this kind of hero? Oh I forgot, Reacher's not a hero and he tells us so in the film "You think I'm a hero? I am not a hero. And if you're smart, that scares you. Because I have nothing to lose." I can imagine that being said by the kind of loner with a love of weapons who goes on the rampage in a school. Is this film simply an observation of how dark our world can be or is it something that may for some encourage them further along their own dark journey?

And the whole thing is packaged as entertainment - that I colluded with and bought into. On one level the intellectual crime fighting was entertaining as was the constant question of whether or not the lead couple would get it together. It was also refreshing to see an urban landscape that wasn't New York, LA or Toronto. Overall the lone vigilante operating outside the law left me very uneasy. As an essay in ethics I wouldn't score this very highly. As a film I'll give it 7/10.

Synecdoche New York

The title of the film is a play on Schenectady, New York, where much of the film is set. Synecdoche means where a part of something represents the whole or vice-a-versa which comes to the fore as the film progresses and reality and fantasy blur as the lead character's work becomes a self-fulfilling nihilistic autobiography.

This is at the same time both a simple and yet complex film. It has been called the archetypal post-modern story (oxymoron?) that nods in the direction of Baudrillard's seminal Simulacra and Simulation. It is a play within a play and borrows motifs and artistic references from Jungian Psychology, Shakespeare, Tennessee Williams and psychiatry. There is a very useful analysis of the film on Wikipedia.

If in viewing this film you want to fully engage with all that it has to offer, you will need to make a significant investment and stick with a film that is hard work. At the same time you will be rewarded with a very cleverly conceived and executed story which is a vehicle for some excellent acting from a heavyweight cast headed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman supported by Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton, Hope Davies, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Emily Watson.

As the ailing director Cotard slides deeper into physical and relational malfunction so his marriage with his wife disintegrates as she goes to Berlin with their daughter to exhibit her artwork. So successful is the exhibition that she decides to stay there and bask in the glory of the adulation that her work has attracted. At the same time Cotard wins an award that allows him to stage his magnum opus in a huge warehouse in Manhattan's Theatre District. As Cotard's art gets bigger so his wife's art get smaller - she paints in miniature.

As his relationship with his wife becomes increasingly separated by distance and coolness, so Cotard pursues a number of women. One them Hazel, who works the theatre box office, buys a house that is perpetually on fire without being consumed by it. The dialogue with the Realtor is bizarre but indicative of how the story moves along in its synecdoche mode: "I like it, I do. But I'm really concerned about dying in the fire," and the Realtor responds "It's a big decision, how one prefers to die.".

This film received polarised but generally positive reviews. It is a Marmite film - you'll either love it or hate it. I'm prepared to work at films but for me this was too much hard work! Overall I felt it was too introspective, too clever and tried too hard to say too much. Viewing it felt like wallowing in a miry clay - which is of course the description of nihilistic dysfunctionality the story attempts to deliver. The conceptualisation and delivery in this film would score somewhere around an 8/10, however the enjoyment factor, even for a difficult film, would only register a 3/10 for me. I'll be charitable and round up the average to 6/10.

Life of Pi

I am told by those who know about such things that this film is a faithful retelling of Yann Martel's 2001 novel. I had seen the trailer and read some of the blurb, but was still unsure of what to expect from a film that centres on the 14 year-old Pi marooned in a lifeboat on the Pacific for 227 days with a Bengal Tiger called Richard Parker!

In one sense this is a straightforward biography - albeit a work of fiction. Indeed it would be possible to view the film as a factual and bizarre account as so much of it is firmly rooted in a recognisable reality. However, so much of it is rooted elsewhere that this seems a very unsatisfying option. Much is made of the origins of Pi - Pondicherry, a former French colony in Southern India. Religions play an important part as Pi embraces Hinduism and then adds Christianity and finally Islam to his repertoire of faith. On top of this is a blending of cultures - French, Indian, Japanese, and Canadian and their respective languages. There are also many strands of science - zoology in particular, which beg questions of an evolutionary nature. the ethics of survival are explored when cannibalism is mentioned! All of this is wrapped in a covering of philosophising which prompts a steady stream of questions - at least it did for me. This multi-layering of story-telling vehicles, demands that Life of Pi should be read more as a allegory than as a straightforward biography. It invites reflection, interpretation and conversation. What did you see?

First and foremost the film is about the journey of life and our search for a sense of meaning in both the journey and our intended destination. The Eastern openness to a multiplicity of deities which frustrates so much Western evangelism is beautifully portrayed. Pi's father's commitment to rationalism and scientific method is a bold vote in favour for the Enlightenment Project. The physical arc of Pi's journey from India via a Japanese freighter, the Pacific Ocean and Mexico could emphasise the global village in which we all live -  particularly as Pi ends up in ethnically and culturally diverse Canada.

The central question for me was one of self-identity in the face of metaphysical enquiry - if God is God, who am I? If we are to understand Pi's original travelling companions of the Hyena, Orangutan, Zebra and Tiger metaphorically, then great significance must be placed on the process by which Pi first confronts and then tames the Tiger so that he and it, can peacefully co-exist.

The Eastern world has a much thinner divide between the physical reality and non-physical 'unreality' - to such an extent that they intermingle and can easily look one like the other. This blurring of reality with unreality - or fantasy - is the central mode of story-telling that Martel employs. Or was it all a device invented by Pi to maintain his sanity for 227 days which for him became a reality?

Ang Lee's Direction is masterful as is his deployment of animatronics and CGI. Yes, you can see a mechanical Tiger lurching unconvincingly at times and yes the CGI waves sometimes don't rise and fall naturally - but in a way I didn't mind as that simply added to the fantasy dimension. The acting is very good and Suraj Sharma turns in a great performance as the teenage Pi.

As you may have gathered, I rather liked this film - pure escapism - but in an engaging way. Very clever story-telling and very artistic film-making. After Pi has told his different versions of what happens he asks his listener which version he prefers. When the listener offers his view, Pi responds "and so it goes with God" which for me confirmed that this is first and foremost a theological film! I'll give it 8/10.

Quartet

This is the fourth film within a year to tackle the subject of ageing (Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Hope Springs, Amour) and as a Directorial debut from Dustin Hoffman it is a tour-de-force. This is a film with a simple story and four main characters ably supported by a large ensemble cast. The way in which the characters and story sensitively handle the nuanced and multi-faceted complexities of growing old is both stunning and breath-taking. The vehicle for this story is a home for retired musicians and singers - most of whom are classically trained and were at the peak of their game earlier in life. What adds the icing to this cake is the gentle and self-deprecating humour that flows throughout the film.

The four main actors are Maggie Smith, Tom Courtenay, Billy Connolly and Pauline Collins. They are supported by a host of familiar faces (Michael Gambon, Trevor Peacock and Andrew Sachs to name but three) many of whom appear to be playing themselves - which of course is the epitome of good acting - or is it just good casting? Each one of them not only turns in a performance worthy of a nomination but they do so in a way that ages their familair-to-us personas so effectively - Maggie Smith has a gaze into eternity that so perfectly depicts how for some, ageing is seen as an empty and futile decline into oblivion. "I used to be someone" she repeatedly tells everyone whilst Billy Connolly's character embraces who he is now, recognising the limitations that age has brought but getting away with continual and direct flirtation on account of his charm.

The premise of the story is quite simple and the interest is maintained by seeing if the characters will allow the central problem to be resolved satisfactorily or not. The way in which the characters' professional and private pasts intertwine and so impact their need of one another (or not) within the community always provides interest and intrigue. Some hang on to old and bitter rivalries whilst others are content to let bygones be bygones.The richness of the musical landscape of this film is astounding and demonstrates what retirement with purpose and passion can bring to (gifted) older folk.

This film had me crying at several stages - but afterwards it was a full two hours before I felt I might not burst into tears at the slightest provocation, such was its power to evoke an affective response within me. Maybe I was caught on a bad day (I don't think so) or maybe we have here a film that has captured a slice of life that is so often ignored and treated it with full-on respect, dignity and humour, to deliver not only a lesson of great encouragement but a piece of entertainment that is first class in every respect.

I would urge you to go and see this film. I'm awarding it the rare score of 9.5/10!

Man Dancin'

I had no idea what to expect from this film which was loaned to me by a colleague. The story has a very strong narrative arc. It is possible to view it as simply a drama. It could easily be seen as a gangster movie - which seems to be how most people interpret it. In essence it is a 'Christ movie".

It is about transformation of communities and individuals, self sacrifice and holding out for a better deal in the world to come. This comes as no surprise when you consider some of the street theatre scenes were Directed by Murray Watts.

There are echoes of Jesus of Montreal in this film - but it lacks the finesse and subtlety of Arcand's masterpiece. The visceral setting of Govan and the bleaker side of Glasgow give this film an edginess that is built on by the acting performances which are all strong. The whole cast of the Passion are present and we even have the throwing down of the thirty pieces of silver! Annas and Caiaphas are beautifully portrayed as the local gangster and the bent senior policeman. Judas, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Peter are all present in an interesting way.

This film unravels a multiplicity of layers. As I said, many read it as a straight drama whilst some see it purely as a gangster movie. Add in the overtones of Catholic/Protestant sectarianism and the mix gets a whole lot more intriguing. The enforced ecumenism is a master-stroke! If ever there was a social setting in need of the transforming words and actions of the Gospel, this is it - but then the people portrayed on screen are in reality types of us, people we would see, meet and be every day.

Whether the Gospel is articulated in Palestine, Beverly Hills, Govan or wherever you happen to be reading this, only serves to demonstrate our universal need of a Saviour and the universality of the effectiveness of salvation on offer. If you enjoy a good drama - watch this film. If you want a Glaswegian gangster movie - watch this film. If you want to see how Jesus Christ can be made real in your community - watch this film. But be warned - transformation sometimes exacts a high price.

Although this film is in many ways original, it is also derivative. I'm glad I watched it but I will reach for Jesus of Montreal in preference every time - unless I'm in Glasgow. I'll give it 6.5/10.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

With the prequel to the Lord of the Rings being a leaner tome it would be reasonable to expect the story to be told in one sitting but Director Peter Jackson makes it large as he delivers the first of a new trilogy which weighs in at 2:49! It may therefore be reasonable to think that the film must drag - but I was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. One or two scenes were perhaps a little long - particularly some of the chases - and twenty or thirty more Orcs were butchered than really needed to be to get the point across, but overall it was a well paced film with a steady unfolding of the plot.

The acting is excellent. Martin Freeman plays the title role and Ian McKellen returns as the grey wizard Gandalf. The Dwarves provide a range of celtic and English accents with James Nesbitt appearing to play himself! Ian Holm reprises the role of an older Bilbo Baggins and Elijah Wood makes a brief appearance. Hugo Weaving is back at his Elven best only to be eclipsed by the transcendent beauty of Cate Blanchett as Lady Galadriel. Andy Sirkis is back for another dose of Gollum who is even slimier whilst at the same time being intriguingly repulsive. Christopher Lee is as menacing as ever as Sauron who is clearly beginning to 'turn' and is linked with the Necromancer played by Benedict Cumberbatch. As you can see it is indeed a star-studded cast who deliver a strong ensemble piece.

The plot is straightforward. The Dwarves wish to reclaim their homeland Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug but they need the help of a number of people along the way. So 12 dwarves, a wizard and a Hobbit set out on an adventure to face Wargs, Goblins, Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters, Sorcerers  and Orcs as a growing malevolence begins to exert its influence on Middle Earth.

The New Zealand landscape both adds to and is enhanced by the CGI effects. Most of the time the effects are 'invisible' but every now and again a body movement or rendition of a facial expression lets slip the fact that manipulation is at play and it's not just simple make up the actors are wearing. This is inevitable when the boundaries of what is possible are being pushed further than they would normally wish to go. It doesn't detract from the overall experience.

As with The Lord of the Rings, this story is redolent with themes of comradeship, courage, morality, greed, violence, vengeance and love. You know that good will prevail - but at what cost? What obstacles will the travellers have to overcome? One of the things I really like about Tolkien's style of writing is how he uses ordinary things and people in extra-ordinary ways to bring about 'miraculous' escapes from seemingly impossible situations.

I'm looking forward to the second instalment and would encourage you to go and see this. It carries a 12A certificate in the UK and many of the battle scenes are quite gruesome and the violence gratuitous. I was surprised to see some fairly young children with their parents watching this. Perhaps I'm simply getting soft in my old age and it's standard fayre in the video games youngsters are playing these days. I'm going to give this 8.5/10.

The Road

If all was stripped away what would be important to you? What legacy would you want to pass on to your children? What would drive you? This is a very literal road movie set in a dystopian post-apocalyptic future. Where this film differs from the plethora of similar films is that no reference is ever made to the apocalypse itself - we simply journey with 'the man' and 'the boy' as they journey southwards to the coast across the USA.

This film poses the archetypal existential question - why are we here? When the hierarchy of Maslow's Triangle is stripped away and every day is a fight for basic survival what values would drive you? How would you cope? Would you want to? What would the vision of paradise that drives your hope be like in your mind?

In flash-back we see the boy being born into a post-apocalyptic world. Shortly afterwards his mother simply walks out, unable to cope. She isn't seen again - the man and the boy simply have each other and very little else.

There are groups of marauding bandits seeking to capture people and engage in cannibalism. There are other people who fear contact with anyone lest they end up being eaten. The dialogue between the boy and his father centres a lot on values, morals and what keeps them going. The father sums up the drive to keep going as 'carrying the fire within'. This is never expanded upon and the viewer is invited to make his/her own interpretation.

For me the main thrust of the story is about the moral values by which the characters in the film live. The boy is born into and grows up in a world that is lacking any kind of organised society. All he has to go on are his instincts, his father's advice and other peoples' behaviour to guide him. The father is more sceptical about others' motives and the son is more open, more generous and more willing to help other people than his father. How did he develop his moral framework? Civilisation has broken down - what does civility look like when that happens?

The way this film is set and shot is magnificent. It is lit with extremely low contrast and a muted palette that really helps to deliver the dystopian vibe. Large parts of the landscape are scorched, the skies are thundery a lot of the time and earthquakes strike without warning. Food is in very short supply and the only mode of transport is by foot. Everything reinforces the feel of hopelessness that pervades the film.

The film is not easy viewing and any good news you find is only hinted at in what lies beyond in the story at the end of the film. I like it that the film leaves lots unresolved. There is no narrative arc - more a linear narrative. We join the story after the beginning and it clearly continues once the film ends. If you want a gritty film with great acting and Direction and don't always need a happy ending a la Disney, then this could be for you. I'll give it 7.5/10.