AVATAR - The 3D IMAX Experience - 2009

The bar has been raised, the goalposts moved, the rulebook rewritten, and all other manner of euphemisms for the next step in the evolution of cinema. Avatar is without question, one of the most sumptuous, breaktaking and visually satisfying films you are ever likely to see. In 3D it is a completely immersive experience which is the biggest and best endorsement for 3D being the future of cinema ever made. No longer do object need to be moving toward you in order to fully feel the effect of 3D, and it is most certainly no longer a gimmick. Earlier films in 2009, Up, Coraline etc proved that when it comes to animation 3D is most definately the future, but Avatar proves that rule applies to all cinema, and not just big budget event cinema. It's amazing that with all the astonishing, outstanding action set pieces on Avatar, the scenes which really stood out for me were the quiet, set based, talky scenes. Or for example the moment Jake Sully rolls down onto the landing base on Pandora, people mulling about, mecha striding past, giant machines wheeling along and you feel right within the action. You are no longer watching the film, but are actually within it. Avatar was dubbed as the future of cinema, and based on these early scenes it didn't take long to be converted.

Which is why, for all of the genius of display Avatar is ultimately an unfulfilling experience. I was so wowed by the visual feast for the eyes, and the world, so perfectly visualised and so wonderfully realised, that it merely stood to emphasis the giant flaws in the story and character. Cameron rightly, spends little time setting up the story, and creates a number of contrived plot beats in order to get the story rolling as quickly as possible, but far too much information is given as exposition in the first act, essentially positioning and audience and feeding them what is needed in order to keep their attention later on. But the problem which this creates is that we barely understand who these people are who what truly motivates them. Too many characters have underdeveloped arcs, and so certain actions leaving you scratching you head. But most dissapointingly the story is just too familiar as cliched. A classic archetypal narrative is not to be unexpected, but Cameron seems to have invested so much time in the world and technology he has forgotten the heart of all stories are unique, individual and original characters. Instead clunky dialogue and 2D characters (how ironic) hinder what is clearly one of the most ambitious pieces of cinema ever undertaken.

It's unusual that a films quality will swing, pendulum like, so much between mouth watering brilliance to predictable tedium, and at one point, just before the final big battle, Cameron has created probably the worst seqeunce in his entire ouerve. Thankfully, when the big battle commences any lingering doubts about Avatar drift away in the mist around the floating mountains of Pandora. Cameron is possibly cinemas greatest exponent of emotionally charged action and for 45 minutes you barely take breath as 3D action finally fulfils its potential, with one of the most exhilarating sequences ever concieved.

Special mention should also be given to WETA for creating such strunningly realistic visual effects. A film like Avatar depends on the brilliance of the visual effects department and they are possibly the films greatest achievement. Its the little subtleties which make the world and Na'vi seem completely real, and each characters Avatar resembles them so successfully that you wouldn't be surprised to learn that is was prothetics or make-up.

By the films conclusion you'll be buzzing with excitement, your heart pounding in your chest, but at the same time, there'll be that sick feeling deep down in your gut as you begun to ponder what could have been, If Avatar was consistently as good as it is when it reaches its heights then it could have been the greatest science fiction actioner of all time.

So, 3D is the future, Cameron is a genius, but his ability to tell an engaging, fully believeable story is in doubt, and but for some contrived plot developments and massively underdeveloped characters Avatar is a success (in box office terms a major one). And to think, in this entire review, and for the whole film, the fact that its a bunch of blue people running around doesn't really cross your mind. And that's an achievement all its own.

Paranormal Activity - 2009

The latest in a string of handheld shaky cam films which try to justify the use of such a technique by implying firstly that the material is real (Blair Witch) and secondly having the characters actually holding the camera (Cloverfield) is another horror film which scares more when you see nothing, than it does when the film tries to use actual physical events to terrify.

The trailer and the marketing campaign almost guaranteed Paranormal Activity would be a success. A clever trailer which showed audiences screaming and trying to hide behind loved ones, and an endorsement and aparently a reshot ending suggested by non other than Steven Spielberg, who was quoted as saying he had to wait until morning to watch the films climax helped to raise word of mouth before there actually was any.

But is the film any good? And more importantly perhaps, is it actually scary? The short answer is no. It never captures to originality of The Blair Witch Project or the sheer terror of the Unknown that Cloverfield managed. Instead Paranormal Activity has distracting out of focus, shaky camerawork, which rather than unsettles just brings on nausea. There is far too many scenes when the is no sense of danger or peril, and despite their best efforts, its not until the final few minutes that the film actually creates a genuine increase in tension.

The acting is however, very good, the relationship feels real and their interactions and the increase in tension within the couple is palpable. But none of this makes up for the complete absence of genuine scares. There are moments; a shadow here, footprints in talcum powder, and a door slightly opening and shuting. The whole premise of a demon haunting a single person also works well as it removes any chance for the characters to escape. Their fate seeled and at the mercy of a creature which neither of them can comprehend.

Ultimately though, despite the fanfare, or because of it, Paranormal Activity is a major dissapointment and even worse actually gave me a feeling of nausea which made me want to leave the cinema after about the first 20 minutes.

A Serious Man - 2009

After the Oscar success of No Country For Old Men, the Coen brothers made Burn After Reading, a typically Coen-esque comedy but a little light on meaning and substance. For their latest film they have created not only their most personal film, but also one of their wittiest and most enjoyable.

A Serious Man is a period film set in the 1967 in the Twin Cities, and tells the story of Physics professor Larry Gopnik. His is a troubled life, both at home and work. Up for tenure, Larry comes under pressure both from a blackmailing student and anonymous letters trying to undermine his potential tenure. At home things aren't any better - his wife wants a divorce, leaving him for Sy Abelman, a family friend and widower. His brother, Arthur, has been living on his couch for months, hogging the bathroom and writing an inpenetrable numerological treatise. Add to this a daughter stealing from him to fund a nose job and a son (Danny) who is constantly smoking weed, and you have what can only be described as a dysfunctional life.

Out of this Larry tries to remain a serious man. In the face of such adversity and antagonism, Larry tries to find some sense of spiritual solace and seeks the advice of three leading Rabbis. At the same time, his son, who is getting in trouble at school and is constantly being pursued by a bigger local kid, whom he owes money (used to feed his drug habit) - one of the funniest recurring moments in the film. Larry's attempt to seek spiritual understanding of his plight is enhanced by the upcoming Bar Mitzvah of Danny.

The film also contains a number of bizarre, slightly unreal moments, the opening for example is a 19th-century set prologue in which a Dybbuk (an undead of jewish folklore), is welcomed into the home of a Jewish man, before being stabbed by his wife, for being a Dybbuk. The so called Dybbuk then rises and leaves, leaving the mystery of his existence unresolved. This scene is also shot entirely in Yiddish. The final shot of the film offers an equally unresolved and confusing finale to the film.

This is one of the Coen's most uniquely satisfying films. Drawing from their own childhood, the film provides a level of insight and a personal touch often lacking in some of their other films. For all their talent, they are extremely mysterious directors; their films revealing their unique surreal outlook on life, but rarely the identity of themselves as filmmakers. A Serious Man offers a glimpse into who they were, and possibly what shaped their vision of the world. Add to this their brilliant style, a subtle, engaging performance from Michael Stuhlbarg and A Serious Man is a fine, exemplary and hilarious comedy.

The Road - 2009 @ London Film Festival

As far as adaptations go The Road, directed by John Hillcoat (The Proposition), is about as faithful as you can get. But then Cormac McCarthy's book is not only very visual, it also affords any screenwriter very little need to reinterpret or even introduce new elements. In Viggo Mortensen you also have perhaps the only actor working today who can portray such a range of emotion, vulnerability and heart with just his eyes, or the wrinkling of his skin.

The Road is one of the finest films of the year. Everything from the cinematography to the score, to the costume and make up design to the performances and cameos from Charlize Theron, Robert Duvall and Guy Pierce are all note perfect. Hillcoat amazingly captures the bleak, apocalyptic future, and although the film offers a slightly more hopeful comclusion this is in no way an enjoyable film; instead it is one of the most profound and deeply moving explorations of one fathers love for his son, and the extreme lengths he will go to to ensure the future and safety of his ward.

The film can, however, become a bit one note at times with just Mortenson and Smit-McPhee on screen for such a long time. Scenes begin to feel a tad repeititive and so it is when the characters encounter other survivors that the film really scales the heights of brilliance. Duvall is superb, Theron is supportive, and her scenes help add to the mystery of of just what happened to cause this apocalypse, and even the scenes where our heroes encounter less than friendly foes on the road, from a stunningly brief cameo from Michael Kenneth Williams to the cannibals who trap victims in the basement.

Hillcoat, after the success of The Proposition, is perhaps best suited to this type of fatalistic, harsh reality and he along with cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe use real locations such as New Orleans to capture the desolution of America, and the tones and hues of the imagery help to carry you through the bleak future these characters inhabit.

Another minor criticism is Hillcoat's avoidance of some of the books darker moments. The previously mentioned scene in which we discover a cellar occupied by malnourished prisoners, the meal tickets for those that live upstairs, is neither as horrifying or as explicit as it could have been and as such some of the emotional wallop of the film is lost.

Ultimately though this is a resounding success and for those who love the book, will tick almost every box. For those that haven't though, this film is dark, bleak and for the most part unflinching in its fatalistic portrait of a post apocalyptic America. The only heart coming from the drive and determination Mortensen's father has to protect and save his son.

Up 3D - 2009

The Pixar bandwagon continues apace with the latest effort Up, directed by Pete Doctor & Bob Peterson, sshowcasing yet more improvements in animation, and an adventurous, bold decision to include a OAP as the unlikely hero, Carl. The films opening is a belter. A montage which begins with a newsreel of explorer Charles Muntz, our hero's hero, before Carl, as a child, meets the love of his life Ellie. Through a heartwrenchingly simple yet beautiful 15 minute sequence we see their entire life and love; this rivals the opening act of Wall-E for more simblime piece of filmmaking Pixar has ever managed. Then comes the adventure for Carl, partnering him with young wilderneress adventurer Russell, as the two embark on a magical, fantastic journey to South America.

When Up begins it feels like the most ambitious and potentially dangerous example of Pixar's desire to be more than just children's animated fare, and Up also serves to highlight why all Pixar's competitors fall so short. This is mature, adult filmmaking of the highest order. Visual storytelling at its best, and every frame looks as good as any film ever made. There was another film which shares similar thematic and tonal points as Up, and as I was watching the film, transfixed by the endearing characters, I couldn't quite shake Clint Eastwood's recent Gran Torino out of my head. There too an aging, grumpy man takes a young Korean under his belt and together they form an unlikely friendship. Eastwood's film, trading on his reputation, ends with a more violent moment, but Up gives you more tension, suspense and downright fun. It is, quite clearly the better picture.

And yet, for everything that is brilliant about the film, there are still some elements which niggle. Despite its attempts at adult themes, and mature storytelling the film is never completely confident about abandoning its child audience and so we have talking dogs, a bright colourful sqawking bird and some scenes of utter childishness that you are left wonder if the projectionist hasn't accidently put on a reel of Ice Age 3 by mistake, so different in tone the second act feels from the first . Yet despite this the film is always funny, sometimes uncontrollably so. The film has more heart than 1oo shreks, and the visuals are so sumptuous it's impossible not to won over by the charm and style of Up.

The 3D also feels unintrusive yet integral to the narrative. Only Coraline thus far can claim to equal Up in that the 3D never distracts or throws you out of the story. Up is the only 3D film I have seen in which by the end I had completely forgotten the film was 3D, so immersed in the story and style.

Overall, Up feels like a slight step back from Wall-E and Ratatouille but the Pixar brand of near perfect animation doesn't look like slowing down, and with the more adult themes and tones Up is both ambitious and rewarding, if it can never fully commit being purely adult. By the films exhilarating climax you'll have forgotten all the little niggles which hinder the second act and realise Up is one of the freshest, most enjoyable and brilliant films of the year.

Oh What a Lovely War - 1969

As far as war satire goes, beyond MASH and Catch 22, there is very little to choose from. So when I watched Oh What a Lovely War, Richard Attenborough's directorial debut, I was more than pleasantly surprised by not only the catchy, hilarious musical tunes, but also the poignancy and emotional wallop of a film effectively taking pot shots at the Great War. Based on the stage musical, Attenborough effectively translates Oh What a Lovely War into a film whilst managing to maintain some of the unique elements which no doubt remained from the play. The opening scene for example sees kings, queens, archdukes etc coming together from across Europe to discuss the mounting possibility of Austria invading Persia. Ending with a group photograph which serves as the assassination of the Archduke which infamously started World War One. From there we experience the fours years of war, from a tear inducing Christmas day when both sides laid down their arms to come together on no-man's land right through to the bloody, massacres of the Somme, to the hilarious introduction of the Americans.

The film brilliantly uses songs, which were sung by soldiers during the conflict, fantastically taking existing well known melodies and replacing the old lyrics with bitingly satrical new lyrics.

Attenborough's direction is ambitious, extravagant and mercurial for a debut film and this may be one of the strongest first films in cinema history. It's not easy to juggle both humour and heart, but Attenborough never once falters in his handling of scenes which from instant to instant shift from comical to depressing. The futulity as well as the farce is never lost and the film never once shies away from showing not only the horror but the absudity of war.

A classic of British cinema, and one of the most unique, engaging and original war films ever made. On par with MASH for satrical commentary on the pointlessly of war. The film is also helped by one of the greatest British casts ever assembled with John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Maggie Smith, Michael Redgrave, Vanessa Redgrave, Ian Holm, Susannah York, John Mills and Dirk Bogarde.

I Know Where I'm Going - 1945

Emeric Pressburger & Michael Powell are renowned for classics such as The Red Shoes, A Matter of Life and Death and Black Narcissus, yet from my experience every film they make offers not only a richly engaging film with enduring characters, but also a cinematic tour de force. And I Know Where I'm Going is no different. Starring Wendy Hiller as Joan Webster, the film hits the ground running in traditional Powell & Pressburger fashion with an inventive credit sequence which introduces us to Wendy as a child up to when we meet her as an adult. It perfectly sets up her character as driven, purposeful and willing to do whatever it takes to get what she wants. Which is the marriage of her and Sir Robert Bellinger, a wealthy industrialist. Her desire to wed him takes her all the way to the Hebrides, before she can reach the island her beau is renting she becomes stranded on Port Erraig by gales and poor weather. There she meets Torquil MacNeil (Roger Livesay) who threatens to scupper her plans. What the film also does so well is tell this as a fish out of water tale. For Joan, he life has always been about striving to achieve, never stopping and living for the future. What she experiences in Tobermory is a slower pace of life, legend and history, but also a group of characters she can not easily dominate, like her family and friends back in the city.

I Know Where I'm Going is a witty, lovable romantic comedy with some excellent performances, notably Wedny Hiller, who I have never seen before, but found her captivating, engaging and utterly likeable.

The film manages to capture the environment of the coastal town, and you feel the wind and chill through Erwin Hillier's superb cinematography.

I Know Where I'm Going might not have the classic status of some of Powell and Pressburger's more famous films but it is visually as stunning and performed with equally brilliance.

A must for any fan of Powell & Pressburger who have yet to see this little gem.

Angels and Demons - 2009

Tom Hanks returns to our screens as Robert Langdon, the symbologist tasked with prevents another catastrophe for the Catholic Church. Where The Da Vinci Code was preposterous, silly and downright bad, Angels & Demons is much of the same. The big difference being a sense of momentum and deadline to try and save the day which gives the story and audience very little time to come up for air, let alone think through the twists and turns of the plot. And thank god for that, because when the credits role you left feeling mildly exhilirated by the proceedings. This feeling soon fades aay and you are left with the impression that you have just had a trick played on you, and one which wasn't actually all that good, because the more you think about Angels & Demons the less your inclined to like it. Just The Da Vinci Code it involves a ridiculously abstract and complicated plot - this time to cease power of the Church by killing the candidates for the next Pope. The problem isn't the ends, but the means with which such a plot is attempted. So elaborate and over the top is the scheme that the gaping flaws are plastered over only by the pace and rush to visit the next landmark and watch another pope candidate suffer a horrible and violent death.

Thankfully the film is littered with great actors, from Hanks, he finds this all too easy now, Ewan McGregor, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Stellan Skarsgaard make the film enjoyable, and Ayelet Zurer is easily as good as Audrey Tautou in the female assistant to Langdon.

Overall then, if you can put logic, your higher brain function and embrace a sense of preposterousness then Angels & Demons is the right film for you. It has enough heart racing action scenes and although the ending is very long, the twist in the tale, though predictable is never less than fitting for the film.

Crank: High Voltage - 2009

I never saw Crank, and I'm actually quite pleased, because only seeing one of the Crank franchise is enough to make you realise you don't need to see a sequel. A bizarre, insane, silly, violent and downright ridiculous film starring one of the least charismatic and appealing leading men of recent years in Jason Statham. Crank tells the "story", and I use the term loosely, of Chev Chelios. The film begins with him falling out of a plane and surviving, only for some Asians to come along and remove his heart. Before they have the chance to harvest the rest of his body Chelios, powered by an electrically charged false heart, is awake and killing those responsible. He has little over an hour to find his heart and through a series of bizarre sequences must contiunally electrically charge his fake heart. The film would make a superb comedy, except that is seems to take itself rather seriously and tries to develop a convoluted plot involving Triads, Mexicans and prostitutes. It may have been that I haven't seen the original so a lot of these characters didn't see to have any characterisation, but where the film let me down was that it didn't have any good action sequences to help carry it along.

Jason Statham spends most of the film angry or electrocuted and occasionally both. He attracts skinny "sexy" hangers on - one of whom I believe was his girlfriend - who he has a close to pornographic, though not arousing sex scene in the middle of a race track; the climax arrving as a horse jumps over them, massive cock on display and all.

As you can tell the film is full of inventive, imaginative and creative ways of telling its story - its just that there really isn't a story, just an excuse to have an extremely, violent, explicit "action" film which never succeeds on any front.

Frightfest 2009 - World Premiere - The Descent: Part 2

I've been visiting Frightfest for about 3 years now. I've previously seen Pan's Labyrinth, with a Q&A with Del Toro (this was the first post Cannes screening), and Timur Bakmambetov's Daywatch. Equally as stunning as Nightwatch, even if it had a few more pointless action and effects. So this year, looking down the list of films showing I felt there wasn't anything which captured my excitement in quite the same way. So when I saw the sequel to The Descent, one of the best horror films of recent time, was the closing film, and a world premiere I felt compelled to support one of the best film festivals in Britain and also embrace the idea of a sequel to a film I didn't think needed or justified a sequel.

So the event itself was fantastic. Frightfest's relocation to Empire Leicester Square gave the affair a glamour which was helped by walking through the doors and seeing Shauna MacDonald looking ravishing whilst being interviewed. The director Jon Harris was alongside her, himself fielding questions, probably about how this film makes any sense after the ending of the original. The location was jam packed full of budding horror fans waiting with baited breath for the inevitable gore, shocks and terror which Frightfest offers. It's at events like these that my love of cinema shines brightest. You know you are in the company of likeminded fans of cinema, especially horror, and they are willing the film to be enjoyable, fun and above all scary. This atmosphere pervades the entire screening, and it raises your enjoyment; the sense of collectivity becoming infectious.

So what about the film. After the mammoth success of The Descent, I have to confess, the first I heard about a sequel seemed utterly redundant. Not only would the uniqueness of the original be lost; the all female cast, the crawlers identity, the sense of claustraphobia. I was intrigued to see if the writers could come up with a progression for the story.

Unfortunately for the most part they fail. In the brief discussion at the end of the film, Shauna and Natalie Mendoza (the original's Juno) both expressed concern about returning, and rightfully so. What I found surprising was that the film seemed to expose their concerns, and so I was confused as to why they returned.

The problem with the sequel, is directly related to thr strengths of the original. The first, had a all female cast, created believeable if not entirely likable characters (a significant difference in any script) and a great deeper narrative structure involving the history between the girls and the issues they take down with them. So as the film unfolded and the horror in the caves emerged, it was the emotional resonance which made the horror all the more terrifying. With The Descent 2, none of this is aparent, and when they try to resurrect the back story it threatens the disrail the pace and is therefore swiftly dispatched.

The premise is simple, Sarah, somehow has managed to escape (the film picks up on the America ending which is slightly different; read more optimistic) and is in hospital, whilst a rescue mission is underway at Boreham Caves - a neat little use of narrative logic. Sarah has conveniently forgotten the events which took place in the cave and after it is discovered the group dissapeared in a different cave, an impromtu resuce mission is put in place, with Sarah leading the way. This is not Aliens. Instead it becomes a retread which never really explores anything new - never expanding on the crawlers, only once creating an effective claustraphobic scenes. The film also fails to give Sarah an arch. Once her memory is restored, through a few flashbacks, and some old footage from the camcorder which is conveniently recovered.

There are also problems with the characters. Firstly, there are three men who go down, completely changing the dynamic. In fact there is very little dynamic between the new group. There are attempts at characterisation, but we are dealing with poorly concieved stereotypes here. Add to that, the story's need to get to the killing as soon as possible, we are unlike in the original, not given any time to get to know these people, and how they react to their predicaments.

Also there is a complete lack of caving. For a rescue party they seems to be extemely unprepared for the potential crevices or kazaams they may have to cross. Especially considering the supplies the original troupe bought. Oh, but they do for some reason bring a drill, which is predictably used a gorey death scene.

What The Descent 2 has in adundance though is great death scenes. Some really gorey moments punctuate the story, and the return of some of the previous films cast make things interesting momentarily.

Then we get to the ending, and things become undermined again. Sarah is given a rushed arch and new motivation, tying in the death of her daughter again, although in no way as effectively, There are some excellent human on crawler fight scenes which rival the air-punching scenes of the original. But what the ending does badly is try to set up a further installment, whilst remaining true to the downbeat ending of The Descent. It hints that there could be more history to this cave than meets the eye, and that they may be humans who have known about this place for some time. It moves the franchise closer to films such as Hills have Eyes and those sinister backwards people out in the woods, without ever actually commiting to it.

So in many ways The Descent Part 2 is merely a homage to the original, but in its attempts to be original in its own right it moves away from the tone and style of the original concept and undermines the simplicity of the Neil Marshall's classic. Despite a few great scenes and some excellent deaths The Descent Part 2 never emerges from the shadow of the original and fails to give any of the characters the emotional depth or character archs. Jon Harris handles the direction with confidence and style; he will certainly be one to watch in the future, but the blunt script and familiar setting removes any of the tension and claustraphobia from the original.

Scarface - 1983

Universal Pictures digitally restored reissues continues apace with its release of Scarface on the big screen. And like Spartacus before it, the picture quality is phenomenal, so is the sound design. The chainsaw sequence is particularly special. As with my new found desire to see as many classics as possible in their original format (on the big screen), to be able to tick Scarface off is a particular treat.

The film is famous now, a cult classic, which despite aging slightly is still, if not more enjoyable now than it has ever been. There are perhaps too many scenes which now raise a chuckle, but the film remains a classic of the 1980's with its blistering rise and fall tale of Tony Montana (Al Pacino).

Watching the reissue I was struck not only by Pacino's performance which is less shouty than I had remembered (except the ending), but also by how good Steven Bauer is as Montana's most loyal and closest friend Manny. Scarface demonstrates that his career should have been more successful than it was. The film has great performances throughout, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is brilliant as Montana younger sister, her life suffering a fate similar to Montana's after he returns after five years, some of it spent in prison. Robert Loggia is also brilliant as the drug dealer who brings Tony under his wing, but later conflicts with him as Tony's ambition blinds him to the lessons Loggia tries to teach him. By Loggia end he brilliantly depicts a small time criminal who never seems to have the backbone or finance to make his organisation bigger than it is.

De Palma's direction stands out magnificently on the big screen, his camera is almost always meandering, tracking around the large sets or dollying to capture the events of different characters in different places at the same time - he commands large sets with his camera, shifting the focus of the plotlines with a simple zoom, dolly or pan. In this way the film is a joy to behold. De Palma is a filmmaker who has built his career by using techniques and shots from old greats such as Eisenstein and Hitchcock. With Scarface, he may employ the long tracking in and out shots which became a staple of Hitchcock's cinema, most famously used in Notorious, but in Scarface however it brings the film to life. Scarface is a story of excess and for that reason it is perhaps the defining film of the 1980's and De Palma's camera exposes and embraces the excessive lifestyle of the characters in the film with its camera work, for which cinematographer John A. Alonzo deserves a mention.

The script is written by Oliver Stone and he orchestras a number of key scenes, including an assassination attempt, an attempted car bombing and of course the famour chainsaw sequence. His script also includes a number of quotable lines and he gives all the principal actors some great opportunities to show their talent. Although not as subtle as Taxi Driver, Stone's script captures the themes of excess to perfection.

Scarface is also notable for the performance of Michelle Pfeiffer, who is glamourous and beautiful almost beyond comparison in modern cinema. She channels the stars of the Golden Age, and in her first scene, in which she hypnotises Montana with just her dress and bare back, she completely captures her allure and there is not a single moment of doubt over Montana's desire for her, even if we can see how destructive it will be.

After watching Scarface I began to wonder if this was De Palma masterpiece. The Untouchables, 4 years later is perhaps its equal, and even Carlito's Way is a brilliant work of cinema. I even considered Blow Out, De Palma's lose remaking of Blow Up which has probably De Palma's best ending. Yet Scarface is without doubt a classic gangster film which moves the genre about as far away from The Godfather and even the original Scarface as is possible. It's influence can be seem in the recent Mesrine with it brash, charismatic Vincent Cassel, and it stands as one of Pacino's great performances.

On a final note, the film is dedicated to Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht, who directed and wrote the original respectively. This made me wonder whether Hawks would have enjoyed a film like Scarface. Obviously its impossible to tell, but with the remake being so far aware from the original I wonder what purpose dedicating it served beyond reminding the audience the film is remake and De Palma acknowledging a great filmmaker and no doubt hero.

Fata Morgana - 1971

I first came to Werner Herzog through Aguirre The Wrath of God and his remake of Nosferatu. Both are exceptionally brilliant pieces of cinema. Then a few years ago I saw Grizzly Man - one of the best documentaries of recent years, followed by Rescue Down, the Christian Bale starring story of s fighter pilots struggle to escape a prisoner of war camp in in Laos during Vietnam. So when I sat down to watch Fata Morgana I had expected something intense, visually brilliant and with an unrelenting style. Well, all of these things are present and correct in Fata Morgana, but it was still nowhere near what I had expected.

The film begins with a shot of a plane coming into land. The sounds reaches a high pitched screech before we see the event again, and again, and again and on and on it goes for a good few minutes. The film then consists of a series of mirage shots of deserts, accompanied by a voiceover quoting the Mayan creation myth. The film is broken down into three chapters; Creation, Paradise, The Golden Age. It takes on the form of an epic filmic poem, the images juxtaposed against the voiceover. As we reach the Paradise and Golden Age sections Herzog introduces man into the film, and we begin to see how, in this place, they interact with nature and the world around them. In this way Herzog's film sits comfortably alongside his other films which explore his big theme; man's interaction with nature, a theme explored in most of his documentaries.


The film's images stand as an ironic counterpoint to the descriptions from the Mayan creation myth around the idea of paradise, and especially the golden age. In the early mirage scenes we see the remnants of mankind; fragments of a plane etc. Later we begin to see civilistion in this desolute place, and finally we are shown a number of direct to camera interactions from people who discuss the nature of this desert.

What emerges as the film progresses is Herzog's unrelenting pursuit of the truth of man's place in the world. As with other documentaries, Herzog's obsession with experiencing these environments and exploring their effect the man forces its way to the fore. Fata Morgana is as much a film about the images and words as it about the man who wanted to make the film. This gives us a fascinating insight into the mind of the director.

Although not at all what I was expecting, I found the film strangely hypnotic, lulling me into a state where I was drawn to the images. The film resounds with a haunting quality and once again Herzog exposes our place in a desolute world ill suited the man.

AVATAR - Teaser Trailer

Ok, so it's not the best thing since sliced bread. It's not even the best teaser trailer of all time. So why then am I so excited about Avatar. Well the simple answer is James Cameron. The return of one of the most impressive, brilliant, ambitious and pure cinematic genius filmmakers of the past 50 years. James has been gone from our screens since Titanic. That's 12 years. He's not Kubrick. Although he's not far off. The trailer is visually sumptuous, a stunning mixture of alien world, alien characters, military might and fantastic visuals. Cameron has been gone too long, and right now I'd settle for his big screen adaptation of Tetris the movie. So with the look of Avatar and whats being said about how it will look, Cameron could once again changed cinema forever. It will not however make as much money as Titanic. Also, as pointed out to me, Cameron sans beard. Not sure about that. Hopefully not a Samson situation. Check out the trailer though. It's special.

Inglourious Basterds - 2009

So it's come to this.... another Tarantino homage. Writing a review of Inglourious Basterds is not an easy thing to accomplish; kind of like destroying the Third Reich including Hitler, Goebbels and all of his cohorts. But like Tarantino's Basterds I'll certainly give it go.

First and foremost I had already read Tarantino's leaked Basterds script before seeing the film. After reading it I felt a mixture of both dissapointment at a missed opportunity but impressed with his guts at attempting something so audacious. I was however reminded of Howard Hawks' quote about making a good film, "all you need is three great scenes and no bad ones" which at that time I felt was a perfectly apt way to describe my opinion of the Basterds script.

I'm torn here between the utter dissapointment at Tarantino's latest epic, and respect for a director who has maintained his auteur nature and indulged his personality and style perhaps more so than any other American filmmaker today. Plus I can't think of another filmmaker who could make a film so ambitious and deliriously unhistorical as Inglourious Basterds. Also, there are moments when Tarantino pushes his love of cinema to the fore and well, it so damn seductive that I completely fell for the movie. Unfortunately all that served to achieve was to remind me of how dull, overlong and (I never thought I would say this) wordy Tarantino's latest is. Aparently the film is all about language, and there are at least four different languages spoken, but there is also a complete lack of narrative drive.

The three great scenes to which I referred earlier include an excellent, awkward basement bar scene, an incredibly tense and uncomfortable restaurant scene where our heroine comes face to face with the executioner of her entire family who may even recognise her (ordering a glass of milk for someone has never seemed so sinister). Unfortunately with the exception of the ending these scenes fall, for the most part flat. The most redeeming qualities of Basterds are a fantastically sinister performance from Christian Waltz as Hans Landa and some good camera moves - although these are used to better effect in earlier QT films. The film is also raucously funny in places, especially Mike Myers cameo as a British Officer.

For many Tarantino has been on a downward curve since Jackie Brown. For me, he is not only a great writer, but has a truly cinematic eye. I enjoyed Death Proof predominantly because it was shot so fantastically, as well as having a strong script. Kill Bill is better watched as one film, the pacing of the first film offset by the relative calm of volume 2. But with Inglourious Basterds Tarantino's keen eye and wicked ear for dialogue both seem to have deserted him. Brad Pitt is watchable if not exhilarating, Melanie Laurent as Shosanna resembles a young Uma Thurman and is as desirable as she is captivating. Diane Kruger is fun, and competent. The real casting problems exist in Eli Roth's Bear Jew and Hitler, Goebbels and Churchill. Roth, better known for directing Cabin Fever and the Hostel films, also acted in Death Proof, and the problem with him isn't so much his performance but more that, havng read the script, the Bear Jew is described as a, well Bear of a man. And Eli Roth just isn't. I let out a deflated sigh when his character is introduced (another example of Tarantino procastination). As he emerges from a tunnel, you expect so much more than Eli Roth can ever offer. After which his performance just lacks the weight the role demanded.

The main problem though is that, as stated in other reviews, notably The Guardian and Sight & Sound, every scene feels too long. The opening scene seems to last an age, every scene with the Basterds, although on most occasions mixed with humour, are protracted and your attention wavers as neither the story, characters or dialogue are captivating in say a Pulp Fiction way, where scenes are equally long.

Having said all of this I am still torn. This is no masterpiece, and is by definition then the only film of Tarantino's I don't consider 5 stars. But at the same time Tarantino is a pure auteur, and all his trademarks are here. Almost every character dies (and this is no spoiler - its a Tarantino trait), there is at least one close up on feet, the cinema and its history are present and correct; the references are so obscure you'd have to be Tarantino to get them all. The violence is brilliant, unexpected, brutal and explosive.

The soundtrack, which consists of great music from other films does nothing to bring the film to life in the his older films did. This could be the root of the problem. Ultimately I feel the problem most people have with Tarantino, myself included, is that they expect a certain level of genius from him. When I heard he was making a WW2 film I had hoped for a serious film along the lines of Come and See or Apocalypse Now, but really that would have been more dissapointing. Those that have lost faith want Tarantino to be something he is not, and that is something which most other filmmakers are. Tarantino makes films with his own unique brand of brilliance and if I don't consider Inglourious Basterds to be a masterpiece then really that's my loss, because the more I think about it, the more I want Tarantino to keep making the type of films he makes, because no one else does, and his is a voice that cinema needs.

Never matching the brilliance of his early classics, Tarantino mishandles a number of key scenes and the film feels overlong and over wordy. Despite this, there is enough to enjoy, mainly in the performances and violence and QT must be commended for having such confidence to write such a film. Not a catastrophe but certainly not a classic either.

TwentyFourSeven - 1997

From TwentyFourSeven to Somers Town, Shane Meadows is an amazing British talent who has defined his own style and voice such authority he is one of the few working auteurs of British cinema to gain mainstream success. This Is England is widely regarded as his finest work, Somers Town started as a film funded by St Pancreas to promote the Euro tunnel, and Dead Man's Curve is perhaps his most daring and controversial film. Yet for me it's still his debut, TwentyFourSeven which is his most enjoyable and engaging film. Bob Hoskins plays Alan Darcy, a man motivated by seeing the youth of his community become embroiled in gangs. To help reduce crime and give them some focus in life, he sets up the 101 Boxing club, a place which helped him when he was young.

Meadows spends time depicting the teenagers of the community, and shot in black and white, the film contrasts their growing hopes and desires against their difficult home lives. The cast are admirable in the conviction and there isn't a single bad performance amongst them. As their friendship grows so to does your love of each of them and their enthusiasm and support of Darcy and the boxing ring becomes infectious.

Meadows cultivates believable characters is real situations facing, sometimes serious and dangerous life situations, but together, with each other for support they are able to pull themselves through. As the film draws to its conclusion; a boxing fight against another boxing club, the film delivers a knockout punch completely unexpected, but in hindsight somehow inevtiable.

With stark, but beautiful black and white photography shot by Ashley Rowe, and co written by Paul Fraser, a word should also be made about the sublime, evocative music by Boo Hewerdine and Neil MacColl, Twenty Four Seven for me is the most intimate, personal and heartwarming (as well as wrenching) film Shane Meadows has yet directed.

Mesrine - Killer Instinct - 2009

2 Part film releases are becoming extremely common. First there was Kill Bill in two volumes, the Che is two parts and now the French are getting in on the action. Mesrine Killer Instinct is the first part of Jean Francois Richet's film about the life on one of France's most infamous bank robbers.

My first thoughts on seeing Mesrine was does cinema need another gangster film, especially one which seems to follow so closely so many other gangster films. And for some of the film Richet treads a familiar path. But somehow despite all of this and perhaps because of Vincent Cassel's superb performance Mesrine feels fresh, original, audacious and brilliant. It is one of the best films of the year and one of the best gangster films of recent years.

Part 1 starts the story after Mesrine has left the army where he had been fighting in Algeria. He returns to France and looks to start a life under the control and order of no one but himself. Despite having parents he doesn't respect and feels trapped by the domesticity, he thankfully knows some old friends who are gangsters and so he is quicklt robbing rich homes and meeting up with bigger gangsters who provide the opportunity for such a opportunistic, and entrepenurial robber.

What I really enjoyed about Mesrine was that is didn't seem to conform to traditional narrative styles and structure subverting the history and fact to make an easier to follow film. Characters who seem important are suddenly assassinated, Mesrine goes through a number of lovers in the course of the 2 hours, all of whom seem like real relationships, and the film jumps from year to year, covering the key moments of Mesrine early life in France and exile in Spain and Canada.

Perhaps Mesrine most enjoyable feat is that is wets the appetite for part 2, and the hope that we will see the end of this story. Even if the inevitable is already made clear with films so enjoyable as this, it is the journey that matters and the character, brought magnificently to life by Vincent Cassel. He is mesmerising throughout and he is also not afraid to commit to the moments of weakness and insecurity, even if he seems to revel more in the glamorous violence and romance more often. Cassel is a natural performer and one who can hold his own against heavyweight French icon Gerard Depardieu.

A classic French gangster film, with a seond part in the story come. Che seems to have lost its hold on the monopoly of two part, unrelenting depictions of revolutionaries. Mesrine feels fresh, entertaining and unconventional in a genre which so often lacks all of these elements.

La Grande Illusion - 1937

Jean Renoir is considered one of the masters of French Cinema, if not the world. And La Grande Illusion is one of the reasons for this. The story of a group of French prisoners of war during the World War 1, a group who are constantly attempting to escape. The film is broken into two parts really. The first in a prison, which sees a large group of French POW's begin to tunnel their way out of the compound. It is fraught with danger, and Renoir's direction intensifies this. One scene has a dead french soldier being carried back into the compound after being gunned down attempting to escape in the same place the tunnel is digging toward. Before the escapees can reach their goal, they are transferred to a tigher security prison, overseen by Erich von Stroheim. This makes La Grande Illusion a valuable document of cinema. Renoir directing Stroheim saw two of the greats of early cinema involved in the same film. Stroheim later appeared in Sunset Boulevard which again was with a classic director.

The film is magnificent for its use of space, both in terms of movement and depth of field. Scenes are shot to give the entire set space, and the cast, especially the inmates pacing back and forth about the film space.

The film has an abundance of strong performances, not least from the aforementioned Strohiem as Captain von Rauffenstein who, the picture of decorum and ettiquette always wears white gloves and struggles with a neck brace, disabled in flight, but also the aviator who shot down aristocratic Captain de Boeldieu (played by Pierre Fresnay) and working-class Lieutenant Maréchal (Jean Gabin). Gabin plays the hero of the piece, and along with de Boldieu and Rosenthal (Marcel Dalio), a wealthy French Jew are the three prisoners who seek to undermine von Rauffenstein by escaping the prison at Wintersborn.

The film also addresses the class sytem in Europe during the First World War. Both de Boeldieu and von Rauffenstein are upper class and during de Boeldieu incarceration under the command of von Rauffenstein they spend time together, de Boeldieu treated to a certain level of dignity and respect as a result of his position in pre war society.

A classic of pre war France, it was described at the time as the most important anti war film ever made, and with two years of it release war was once again declared in Europe. A must see for any film fan, and one of Renoir best work.