Antichrist - 2009

Pretensious, boring, gratuitous, graphic, intense, unbearable, pointless, indulgent, self obsessed. These are just some of the words that can be used to describe Lars von Trier's latest cinematic "masterpiece". Possibly the most controversial film of the year, I went to see it half expecting to like it; I've always responded to challenging, provoking cinema, but also wanting to see it so I could join the debate. Unfortunately there isn't really much more than can be added. The film was poorly received in Cannes, has received hostile reviews in the UK, even politician Ann Widdecombe has voiced her opinion slaming the film as pornography, which is completely off the mark.

The opening seqeunce is a lush black and white shot prologue, scored to Handel, which is appreciable purely for the cinematogpraphy. What undermines it is that its shot entirely in slow motion, and contains an unnecessary penetration shot. As He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) engage in one of the most banal sex scenes commited to screen, there child manages to navigate his way out of his cot, out of the child gate on the door before pushing a chair up to an open window and jumping out. The film effectively uses some montage, but this about the best thing you can say about it. So as you can imagine, the film doesn't do much to endear its audience to the film, and from hear things generally get worse.

Thankfully though Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe are both excellent as the sole characters on screen. Without them this film would be unbearably dull, which to a degree it already is. Which is really the main problem. Up to now most of the reviews have focussed on the violence, which I will come to later, but a more pertinent point is that this film is so dull, and slow, and utterly pointless. What could and should have been an insightful and provocative exploration the loss and tragedy of a childs death, becomes indulgent to the point of banality. For a director who recently described himself as the greatest living filmmaker, its unclear from Antichrist if he wasn't actually saying it with tongue wedged firmly in his cheek.

The film continues its obsession with slow motion scenes, which just stand to make the film even more unbearable. The dialogue and themes explored are done so in that pretensious way only art film seem to able to accomplish. He is a therapist and as She seems to be failing to come to terms with their loss, decides he must coach her through the several stages of mourning. Taking her away to a cabin in the forest, ridiculously entitled Eden, the film includes it prerequisite shots of branches, leaves and grass blowing in the wind.

She descends further and further into insanity, and its important to mention that Gainbourg is phenomenal, plunging the depths, and putting herself through turmoil, eventually exhibiting a primal, feral nature as the film draws to its close. I might even be inclined to say the film is worth seeing for her performance, but that might be stretch too far.

The film follows thematically von Trier's earlier classics Dogville and Dancer in the Dark in subjecting its female protagonist to severe punishment. However, here the punishment is mainly psychological and emotional, She also exacts some form of revenge on her arogant, husband, and the physical punishment arrives courtesey of self multilation.

von Trier is one of those filmmakers who has spent his career courting controversy as if it is his objective and purpose as a filmmaker, and for this he should be commended, but Antichrist fails so monumentally as it feels as though he hasn't fully developed his idea. Supposedly written during a recent bout of depression, the film could be seen as catharsis, but against what. Ideas which seems intriguing, including a hint that Gainsbourg insanity may have existed long before the childs death, are never really explored, and by the end the film feels so preposterous, I began to believe von Trier didn't want his audience to enjoy, or even appreciate the film.

There is so much more that could be said about Antichrist, and I suppose, the very fact that it has provoked such heated debate is commendable. From the talking fox, which is less jarring than it seems, to nature invading the cabin, as fox, deer and crow settle down together to watch the denouement, to the violence. The film is a patchwork of controversial concepts and ideas, none of which survive close examination. Of the violence, its hard to talk around, so from the rampant sex, full frontal nudity, She crushing He's penis, then masterbating to the ejaculation of blood, sawing a hole through his leg and attaching a weight, to the final vaginal multilation, the violence attempts to seem relevant and thematic, gynocide is crowbarred into the narrative to give the violence the notion of relevance and significance. In fact I think the main reason the film has received such vitriolic comments is because the story is so poorly concieved that the violence becomes jarring and gratuitous. Having said I can think of no reason why a graphic shot of cutting your own clitoris off would be narratively necessary.

So von Trier is the worlds greatest filmmaker is he? No, he is not. He has gone too far in the art cinema and been consumed by pretensious delusions of grandeur, as if anything he conceived and shot would automatically be sublime, merely for its existence. For this reason von Trier has fallen into the category of a lot of modern art.

Once Upon A Time In The West (C'era Una Volta Il West) @ BFI

The BFI should always be commended, but the extended run of Once Upon A Time in the West may be a new high in my experience at the cinema. The film demands to be seen on the big screen. In fact I would argue if you haven't seen it on the big screen you haven't really seen it. Before the experience I counted it the greatest Western ever made. And now I'm in no doubt. Sergio Leone's masterpiece is a monumental achievement of mesmerising beauty and brilliance which literally takes the breath away, and doesn't return it until the closing credits.

The film stars Claudia Cardinale, as one of the most beautiful, powerful females roles I can remember, as Jill McBain, the widowed former whore, Henry Fonda playing against type as the villianous gunslinger turned businessman Frank, Charles Bronson as the quiet, harmonica wiedling, revenge driven hero and Jason Robards as the world weary, comical bandit Cheyenne. Each of them wants something, and all of their lives will cross.

The story centres around a piece of land which capitalist prospector Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti) wants in order to expand his railroad and reach the pacific coast. Morton is a tragic villain, dying from turberculosis and resigned to living in his beautifully furbished traincar; he can not walk without the aid of crutches and uses money to get his way. He fancies himself as a gunslinger, but has neither the mentality nor the skill. After the death of the McBain family, one of many brutally violent scenes in the film, Morton faces a set back when Jill arrives to start her new life as Mrs McBain.

The film works wonderfully in setting up its first act. Three extended, drawn out sequences, including an opening scene which may be the best use of sound design ever commited to screen, introduces the all the major characters and gives us an idea of the journey on which the characters will travel. Once Upon a Time is a film about death, and the characters experience and face it almost immediately in some form or other. As Frank, Harmonica and Cheyenne tussle for a place in the new world, as capitalism encroaches, it becomes clear not only to us, but to them that they are a dying breed. The final shot is of development, modernism approaching and the rise of Capitalism. This theme is evident in almost every shot of Leone's exquisitely directed film. The only character capable of surviving in this world is Jill, as she reveals to Frank, she is prepared to do anything to survive, and its this which seperates her from her male counterparts, who cling to the old, or try to shed their past, knowing deep down that neither path will lead to prosperity.

The film also delivers Ennio Morricone's most sumptuous and captivating score. Less showy than the dollars trilogy, here the film settles on a few simple thematic scores representing each character, from Harmonica's harp infused hypnotic tune the Jill's loving, softer theme which becomes the central motif. Morricone has the ability to elevate bad films to good and good films to great but here there may never have been a better collaboration than Sergio Leone's direction, Tonino Delli Colli cinematography and Morricone's score in the complete history of cinema.

The treatment was written by Bernardo Bertolucci and Dario Argento before a script by Leone and Sergio Donati which was aparently written in just under a month. The film was devised as a combination of all the elements of Western, as Leone said in a interview with Christopher Frayling "I wanted to present a homage to the Western at the same time as showing the mutations which American society was undergoing at that time. So the story was about a birth and a death".

Once Upon A Time in the West is a special piece of cinema. It may have been underrated upon its initial release and even now is perhaps regarded higher in Europe and by Cineastes but for me it is truly one of the most incredible works of cinema. It affects you on an emotional level like no other Western ever made, and is a story told almost entirely through visuals and sound. The film contains barely any dialogue and that which it does, is sharp and witty. Few films ever achieve this level of genius, and it is probably one of the best directed films ever commited to celluloid.

REC - 2007

REC passed me by at the cinema, but it may have been just as well. Its a film which is so small and intimate that watching in the confines of your own home may in fact make it much scarier than it would have been in the cinema. The story is simple, as they usually are in the zombie genre. A reporter and cameraman are at a local fire department making a TV show. After a light hearted opening where we meet the firemen, see how our heroine Angela, Manuela Velasco, feels about such an assignment and tries to find a story in the quiet station, then alarm sounds and the firemen set off to answer what seems like a simple problem.

And then it happens. And for a genre which, like the vampire sub genre, is very close to becoming cliche ridden and lacking in inspiration, REC delivers one of the most terrifying scenes in the film. An old lady, covered in blood and seemingly disorientated suddenly bursts into life, or death depending on how you look at it, attacking a policemen, and setting this horror tale in motion.

REC follows the current trend of handheld reality cam - think Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project - with Angela demanding her cameraman Pablo continue filming. We never see Pablo but as the horror escalates and Angela loses her calm, cheery style, his voice sounds from behind the camera, trying to reassure her.

When dealing with a concept set up in REC; a bunch of people are trapped in an apartment complex, with nothing to protect themselves and the zombie infection spreading fast, one of the key concerns is how the filmmakers deal with keeping the characters confined. At first the idea seems a little contrived, but gradually, as morsels of plot are revealed it actually becomes a rather ingenous idea, and reveals the terrible handling of the situation by the authorities.

It's not long before the film descends into a long stream of terror, cannibalism and classic zombie sequences, including a homage to Night of the Living Dead. The directors, Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza, make excellent use of the single camera viewpoint, as Pablo attempts to capture the events, we are given shocks which occur slightly out of focus or just off screen; a character talks to Pablo only for the zombie to appear behind him, and as the film progresses, the inevitable lack of light prompts the use of the camera light and finally night vision as the film becomes claustrophobic and scary as a hell.

And despite following the traditional path slowly but surely reducing the camera, and so audiences perspective, and with it the characters, the film still manages to be scary, mainly because all the performances, the hysterics, the fear, the denial, the in-fighting all seems completely genuine, and naturalistic.

A solid, in occasionally cliched zombie film which makes great use of the single camera, handheld, verite style. With REC 2 coming and Quarantine, the US remake having already been made, this could be the beginning of another zombie franchise which deserves it. REC is equally inventive, terrifying and brilliant, with strong acting, a good lead and some memorable scares.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - 2009

For the 6th and almost penultimate Harry Potter I had actually read the book. This was then the first film in the franchise in which I knew the outcome and, perhaps for this reason The Half Blood Prince was the most dissapointing film in the franchise thus far. The problems are numerous and only redeemed by a scene stealing note perfect performance from Horace Slughorn, the improving acting skills of Radcliffe, Watson and Grint - as well as the inclusion of my favourite character from the franchise - Luna Lovegood (the excellent Evanna Lynch).

The main problem is that in HBP Harry doesn't seem to have a goal, or anything to achieve until almost half way through the film. What is more baffling is that the book gives him a clear goal early on which is included in the film, but is never made explicit, and certainly never pushed to the fore in the way it should have been. Fans of Order of the Phoenix criticised the film for cutting so much, yet the film stood up because Harry is given a clear goal, and the story centres purely on the spine of the story. HBP has too many plots which become integral and as such none of them become prominent enough. The film has Harry flitting off with Dumbledore to see the past of Tom Riddle, but we do not find out why until right near the very end - and even then, the significance of the memories is never once elaborated upon. Draco, performed admirably by Tom Felton, especially considering most of his scenes involve sniffling, crying or just running off, is given a mission by the Dark Lord and blessed, or cursed, with the mark of Death Eater. It's here the film falls down. Barely featuring in Order, Draco becomes integral in Blood Prince, and in the book Harry becomes consumed with discovering what he is up to. This should have been Harry's goal in the film, but it gets neither enough screen time, or development. And we never sense how alone Harry feels in his suspicions.

You could argue the reason for this is the films leaning toward the emotional, and relatiosnhip developments between the young cast, and although this does detract from the main plot, and never feels like it is going anywhere, these scenes ultimately end up being the most satisfying. What makes Rowling's tomes so enjoyable, and so intriguing is that these characters must deal with great evil and constant peril, whilst also coming to terms with puberty and burgeoning hormones. Since Goblet of Fire, this has become one of the main elements of the films and is most successful here.

Unfortunately this only stands to highlight how bad the rest of the film is. A number of key, chilling scenes from the book are ruined, squandered or exorcised completely. Three scenes in particular were devestatingly bad considering their importance in the greater arc, especially the ending. Never before have I been so bitterly dissapointed with the handling of the death of a major character. Not only was this underwhelming, but they tried to give the character more dignity, therefore undermining some major revelations in the final book.

Credit must go to the look of the film, the sweeping shots of Hogwarts, and the vision of the film are nothing less than spectacular, but it says a lot about a film when the best thing is the way it looks.

I've tried not to go into too much detail here, as with a film of the nature of Harry Potter, you really don't want to get bogged down in specifics as we'd be here all day. However, I would say that the most enjoyable action sequence in the film doesn't actually appear in the book, but I would have happily sacrificed this scene for a more drawn out, suspenseful third act, rather than the rushed version we got. Like Goblet of Fire, a lot of scenes felt like they had been cut to keep the running time down.

For a film based on one of the most exciting and gripping books of the series, the film fails mainly because there is no spine to the story and Harry spends most of it as a passive character, never commiting to a purpose or goal until near the end. Too many great scenes from the book are changed or portrayed poorly, and for a film about magic, evil dark lords and the rising challenge which has to be faced, its a shame that the love stories were more engaging, engrossing and entertaining than anything else in the film, except Jim Broadbent who stole the show.

The film seems neither for fans of the books, who will be annoyed and dissapointed, or non fans who will spend most of the film confused at all the little nods to the fanbase. A rather poor entry in the franchise which may be the weakest thus far. Here's hoping Deathly Hallows ends on a resounding high.

The Hangover 2009

Todd Philips is probably the pre-eminent exponent of juvenile adult comedy. From Road Trip to Old School via Starsky and Hutch and now The Hangover he has mined man's indefatigable desire to remain adolescent. The premise is simple, as most of his films are. On a stag night in Vegas, four friends, including the groom accidently take some roofies waking up the following morning absent a groom. The Hangover departs from most stag do films in that we never actually see the stag. Instead, after the opening few scenes and a rooftop drink before the night begins, we cut straight into the morning after, and like the three remaining men, we must work out what has happened to the missing groom. Enter hilarious misunderstandings and situations which make you crave to discover exactly how debauched the previous night was. What makes the film such a success is that the three leads, Bradley Cooper, the smooth talking teacher Phil, Ed Helms, the bumbling dentist Stu and stand out performer Zach Galifianakis as disturbed Alan have so much on screen chemistry and are so unique and individual that they make the proceedings so enjoyable you barely have a second between laughing to catch the next joke.

The jokes come thick and fast as the three try to piece together the events of the previous night which include a stolen police car, a wedding, a visit to a hospital, a stolen tiger, Mike Tyson, a missing tooth and Chinese gangsters. By the films climax, after countless mishaps, you'll be lucky if your sides aren't in agony from all the laughs. The Hangover is the kind of film which should be seen with a crowd, the laughter infectious, and despite a few misplaced or slightly too juvenile jokes, The Hangover is one of the of strongest and most memorable comedies of recent years. The film will also almost definitely work as a springboard for its three males leads to go onto bigger and better things, and with such great comedy timing I can only hope comedy is something they each return to.

The Wages of Fear (Le Salaire de la peur) 1953

I came to Wages of Fear expecting something special. The film has been described by Total Film as one the greatest action thrillers of all time. Despite a fairly slow opening the film soon creates tension with a number of classic set pieces as 4 men are hired to drive two trucks carrying nitroglycerine through the jungle and over mountains in South America to put out a fire at an oil field. Directed by Henri Georges Clouzot the film is hailed as one of the classic French films of the 50's and it certainly has a more commercial style than a lot of French films made during the period. It stars Yves Montaud, as Mario. The film begins in a small town somewhere in South America and Clouzot along with cinematographer Armand Thirard, they manage to create the stifling heat which forces the men stranded in this god forsaken hole to do very little except loiter around the local drinking hole hoping to find work.

Despite it's slow start and some rather ill treatment of Linda (Vera Clouzot - Henri's wife) the film is an utter masterpiece of tense, suspense. Every set piece once the men set off on their ordeal is perfectly edited, structured and orchestrated leaving you teetering on the edge of your seat as you await what seems like the inevitable. Each of the men, Montaud, Charles Vanel, Folco Luili and Peter van Eyck are fantastic, each reacting to their perilous job in differing ways ranging from futile optimism to abject defeatism. The dynamic between the men and the shifting roles adds to the films alure as much as the inventive and some foolish ways they approach each of the challenges the journey throws up.

Very few films exist which will have you quite as tense and nervous as this film, and even less have so many great sequences each of which somehow manages to outdo that last. A utter masterpiece of genuine brilliance.

Late Spring (Banshun) 1949

Late Spring was my first experience of Yasujiro Ozu, and the film itself is so unique and creates it own sense of style and narrative that is completely captivating that I can not wait to experience more masterpieces from the Japanese director.

The story concerns Noriko, a late twenties woman living with her widowed father Shukichi Somiya, who would rather spend her life attending to her father than settle down and get married. Shikicki however would prefer to see her married, and so conspires with his sister Masa to have her married.

Ozu has a very distinctive style which feels entirely japanese. His camera is almost always static and for interiors Ozu positions his camera at a low angle as if the camera were sat down watching the action. Ozu is also a master of composition, his interiors reveal straight lines and right angles, framing within the frame his actors and the their story. There is also a sense that the home is a special place. As if we are glimpsing something secretive. Most of the action takes place in the living room, we rarely see bedrooms, and the action itself takes place along specific planes of action.

The acting is subdued, and subtle, but no less moving and Chishu Ryu in particular is absolutely mesmerising as the understated and loving father, who only wants whats best for Noriko.

Ozu, as a stylist is almost the antithesis of Kurosawa, who is all vibrancy and urgency with his kinetic editing. Ozu's films are slow, contemplative but equally hypnotic. The final scene of the film has a lonely Shikicki slowly and calmly peel an apple in one go. It's a simple metaphorical image that visually sums up Shikicki's situation and feelings.

Rarely are films this engaging and well paced, and rarely does a director create a film in which every single image demands close attention, Late Spring is considered by many to be Ozu's finest film and it is certainly a superb place to begin, as I did. Now all I want to do is watch the rest of his films.

Moon - 2009

There's a moment late in Moon, Duncan Jones' science fiction film, which so closely resembles 2001 A Space Odyssey that it goes beyond mere simple homage or reference, but actually copies a scene. Yet despite this blasphemy, Moon is an excellent science fiction drama which is one of the most enjoyable, satisfying and interesting films released this year. In fact tt may well be the best film of the summer. Duncan Jones' directorial debut owes a big debt to 2001 and other serious science fiction films but he has managed to create a compelling dramatic conflict at the heart of the film and the themes and issues explored are all addressed in intriguing ways. Moon also benefits from the casting of Sam Rockwell who may indeed be the most accomplished American actor working today. He's an actor not uncomfortable when not relying on his looks and in his entire career he has used this ability to act, to steal the show. In Moon he actually gets to play against himself, and does so with such authority that he carries the film all the way.

The story focuses on Sam Bell (Rockwell) a lunar employee coming to the end of a three year stint on a solitary moonbase, with only the HAL like computer Gerty, voiced by Kevin Spacey, for company. It is clear thar Bell has been mentally affected by his isolation and he is soon confronted with a bigger threat to his sanity and existence.

The film, in classic serious science fiction territory explores concepts of humanity, Bell is confronted with his own existence and forced to accept that his reality is not the one he thought it was. This revelation comes as a catastrophic blow and delivers the biggest emotional punch of the film. The film also delivers a rather intriguing exploration of artificial or machine intelligence specifically looking at the role of dominance in the man/machine dynamic. At times Gerty seems to be at the service of Bell, and his mantra seems to be to do anything to make Bell safe and happy, yet on occasions he embodies a more sinister tone and mentality, clearly under the orders of command control. One of the great throughlines in this film was the tension between Bell and Gerty and whether Gerty, who controls the station would turn sinister, in a HAL way.

When the finale does arrive it feels original and unique, and Rockwell handles the emotional scenes brilliantly, never trying to draw attention to himself, instead completely inhabiting Bell.
What makes Moon so satisfying is that it is an intelligent, thoughtful and poignant film which belongs to a small band of science fiction cinema. In a summer of bloated, pointless and turgid science fiction fare, Moon is the relief and it's also got more tension and suspense than most of the summer films combined. Duncan Jones has marked himself out as a voice to watch, his cool, thoughtful direction is brilliant for a first timer and he never feels the need to deliver a big, explosive finale, instead sticking with his more solemn, considered tone and delivering something all the more satsifying.

Moon is one of the smartest, most intelligent and brilliant pieces of cinema of 2009. Rockwell solidifies his reputation as a actor of truly great ability and Duncan Jones emerges as a new, unique British voice; something which is always welcome.

"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."

A look at the influence and genius of Battlestar Galactica:

Battlestar Galactica may be the most criminally underrated television show of recent time. Everybody I speak to about how great the show is, scoffs and looks down their noses at me. I distinctly get the impression that their opinion of me has lowered slightly. And yet, everybody I know who has seen the show, rightly recognises it as one of the most addictive, intelligent, challenging and provocative TV shows of all time. So why are so many people watching this band wagon pass them by. The short answer is twofold. On the one hand, they have seen the original; an ill concieved, reactionary tv show which tried to cash in on the cinematic success of Star Wars and the inevitable peek in interest in all things space opera. Secondly, its very nature as a science fiction show. It seems that Star Trek, and to a lesser extent, Babylon 5, Andromeda et al have so hindered the wide appeal of science fiction, and the space opera sub genre of science fiction that most people shy away from such shows, even when there is so much overwhelming evidence and support that Battlestar Galactica is nothing like these shows. In fact its kind of like The Wire in Space, but not quite.

So what makes BSG so unique and brilliant. Well its difficult to say. The simple answer is just watch it. The show deals with notions of identity, humanity, class, love, morality, the greater good, genocide, suicide bombings, terrorism, revolutions and religion to name but a few of the orverarching themes explored across its four seasons.

It contains an array of fantastic actors, with characters which you both hate and love, in fact, for me, one of the characters I loathed the most in the beginning somehow became one of the most endearing by the shows climax. BSG also expands and diverts away from the original. Starbuck, played by Dirk "Faceman" Benedict in the original is now a woman, played by Katee Sackhoff who became one of the most complex female characters on TV in recent years. Mary McDonnell played President Laura Roslin bringing empathy and vulnerability, but a strength of character and willingness to commit acts of treason to maintain power, a contrast of character unlike anything I've ever seen, and commenting in more ways than one on modern society. Edward James Olmos, from Blade Runner, played Adama, gives a career defining performance as the Commander of the Galactica.

The premise of the show is simple enough. After a ceasefire between man and the cylons of over 40 years, Mankind, across its twelve colonies, is attacked and all but obliterated by a Cylon strike. Galactica and a band of civilian vessels somehow escape and chart a course to the fabled 13th colony Earth. Over 4 seasons, a miniseries, and a special you grow to know and love the characters, feeling their ups and downs and seeing yourself reflected in the lives of the crew of the Battlestar Galactica.

So why wouldn't a show like this appeal to the masses, those people who swear by 24, Lost, The Wire, Dexter, The West Wing, Sopranos, Six Feet Under. I think its because these people have the perception that this Star Wars on TV, or simply for geeks and fanboys. Yet the show is decidedly unlike any other science fiction show. There are very few space battles, and those that there are feel brutal, tragic and dangerous, accompanied by Bear McCreary excellent unique score. Most of the episodes focus not on issues of science fiction, but on issues of humanity, what it means to be human, and at what cost survival and existence, and the consequences of those decisions.

Each character has their moral and ethical stand point and often, as a result, friendships are tested and often destroyed. By the end some of the most admirable and courageous characters are suddenly facing execution and your thoughts of right and wrong, good and bad are completely distorted. For the first time perhaps ever in TV you are on the side of the guilty, even though you know they are guilty. What BSG does better maybe than any TV show ever created is show you that there are no easy answers to the problems at hand. When the most moral character is condoning assassination you begin to realise that for survival, humans will compromise all beliefs and still maintain they are in the right.

By the end of the first series we have seen the true face of the enemy, and realise that "enemy" is no longer as easy to define as it once was, even for a relentless force who seemingly will not rest until mankind is wiped out. The second series quickly highlights the vulnerability and brittleness of the survivors, that often the needs of the few conflict with the needs of the many and decisions to save or sacrifice can be made on instinct . The show demonstrates with a simple number, how valuable human life is, and how badly each lose is felt. Each episode title sequence carries the number of survivors, each week the number seeming to drop perilously, it becoming something of a need to check how many have gone since the start of the previous episode.

What makes the show so addictive is also that the creators, Ronald D. Moore and David Eick. knew where the show was going. The final ten episodes which were released earlier this year tie up the lose ends and delivers a conclusion few could have anticipated and some even felt let down by. Ultimately in time, the ending and its hefty weight will reveal itself to all as the inevitable conclusion the show needed. Humanity's fate and destiny predetermined to reach this moment. The end of series 1 sets up a prophecy which isn't fully revealed or understood, both for the audiences, the characters and their role within the prophecy, by the very end of the show.

Season 3 refocuses the show and begins to reveal more about the enemy, it also repositions our heroes and explored notions of terrorism, freedom fighters and suicide bombers, but with the audience rooting for the so called terrorists. In fact BSG so effectively explored these ideas of modern warfare the creators were invited to a special conference at the UN. No other TV show can boast that fact.

Season 4 delivered in a way very few final season do, with bitter revelations and the sense that those you thought were heroes, were perhaps not. The concept of good vs evil is again flipped on its head as the enemy becomes the saviour. This in turn leads to greater strive amongst the survivors and the show somehow manages to find time to seemingly tie up every loose end the show has left dangling. Big revelations are gazumped by bigger revelations and the show climaxes in the most ambitious and unexpected way imaginable. It's an ending so audacious that shows like Lost, who are will attempt something similar may fail simply because their scope is not as universal as BSG.

Ronald D. Moore and David Eick set out to redefine science fiction TV and no science fiction show set in space will be the same again. After watching BSG shows such as Star Trek seem trite and simplistic, with a view of the future and humanity which just doesn't seem to stand up. BSG presents mankind as failing, arogant, unworthy of their existence in the universe, and yet willing to fight for it, prove their worth and sacrifice that which they held most dear in order to do so.

The simple truth of Battlestar Galactica is this. Watch the TV show and it will not only change you for the better, but will change your view of science fiction television, change your view of humanity and the world and with its final images it will throw into sharp relief the road mankind is on and its potential destination. Very few shows can ever make claim to one of these statements, so it says something about the reimagining of a bad 70's science fiction show that it can boast all three and this glorified loveblog of BSG offers just some of the reasons why so much has been written about Battlestar Galactica since it finished.

On a final note, it's not over, Battlestar Galactica The Plan will reposition some of major events of the show from the point of view of the Cylons and may force fans to once again reassess what it thought the entire enterprise was all about.

Zodiac - 2007

Directed By: David Fincher
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Robert Downey Jr, Brian Cox, John Carroll Lynch, Chloe Sevigny,Elias Koteas
Released: 18/05/2007

In the late sixties and seventies a serial killer terrorised San Francisco, his name was Zodiac, and he would taunt the police and local newspaper with letters which he claimed had encoded in them his identity. This is the basis of David Fincher’s new film. The director of Panic Room and Fight Club brings us a procedural drama which is further from his other serial killer film Seven than perhaps any of his previous work.

Fincher despatches the graphic violence rather early in this film, a few brutal, authentically portrayed murders which are as shocking as any modern horror film, quickly setting up the task in hand for the police officers plagued with solving the murders. Also enraptured by these events are the local newspaper, The San Francisco Chronicle. One of the paper’s employees, Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist with a penchant for decoding is the author of the books which this film uses as it basis for the narrative.

Shot on a Thomson Viper FilmStream digital camera, Zodiac also became the first film ever to be recorded directly onto a memory card, completely bypassing the film/tape format. For this reason alone the film stands up as a landmark in modern cinema. And it’s ironic also that the film focuses so much on the role of communication within the film. One of the thematic issues explored by the film is how the communication between departments and jurisdictions drastically decreased the chances of catching the Zodiac killer. Robert Graysmith, played with predictable quality by Jake Gyllenhaal, finds out more incriminating evidence years after the murders simply because he doesn’t have the obstacle of bureaucratic jurisdiction to get through.

Zodiac is a film of procedural drama which is as concerned with the journey and affects on the lives of those involved as it is with the possibility of solving the case. The Zodiac case is actually still open, with the prime suspect having died some years ago and no irrefutable evidence proving beyond doubt who the killer was. This makes the film hard to conclude and Fincher rightly chooses to focus primarily on his characters, detectives David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) and reporters Paul Avery, (Robert Downey Jr). Along with Gyllenhaal’s Graysmith, Fincher pays close attention to their lives and careers and how a case of this nature can destroy both. It’s a credit to all those involved that they play down the theatricality of the performances in favour of a far more naturalistic and authentic portrayal of their characters (Steve McQueen based his character in Bullitt partially on Toschi). Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt, also never attempt to glamorise or sensationalize events in the film. Characters get reassigned for their families, fall off the wagon, lose their careers, and disappear from the story all in an effort to maintain realism. All of this along with Fincher’s keen eye for detail, work to create one of the most engrossing and mature crime drama’s of recent years. The film’s closest comparison can be drawn in All the Presidents Men, with its real life authenticity and investigative approach to the story.

Inevitably the film lends itself toward the beliefs of Robert Graysmith, who had clear ideas and just reason for believing who he thought the killer to be. For this reason the film fails to explore the other possible suspects but in doing so would have had to abandon to personal crusades the characters, most obsessively Graysmith, go through in order to reach personal resolutions.

At a little over 2 ½ hours the film never feels over long and Fincher ensures the pace and intrigue remain as high as possible, especially in the few sequences where Graysmith edges ever closer to pinpointing who he believes may be the killer.

An all round cast shines through with stand outs including Ruffalo, as versatile as ever, and Downey Jr, whose current output puts him amongst the best working today. Gyllenhaal, who proves that acting doesn’t have to melodramatic to be compelling, is superb, guiding us through all the intricacies of the story. Ultimately the film is not quite as riveting as Fincher’s earlier serial killer film Seven, but certainly sets him apart as potentially the best young American filmmaker working today, with all the maturity and cinematic expertise of a master.

Zodiac may not quite scale the cinematic heights of Fight Club, but Fincher shows that he has a clear and definitive understanding of the cinematic process and as with his previous efforts is still looking for ways to push the envelope of cinema.

Transformers - 2007

Directed by: Michael Bay
Cast: Shia Lebeouf, Megan Fox, Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Rachel Taylor, Anthony Anderson,

First things first, The Transformers were a marketing ploy designed to make a lot of money of toy sales. The television series and subsequent tie-ins were all ways of marketing the toy, an unashamedly crass method to make money. And yet, somehow, despite all of that, even now, when much older and mature and we can see through all the gimmickry and realise that its nothing more than a jumped up toy ad, we can’t help but be nostalgic for those cars/planes/trucks which miraculously transformed into anthropomorphised robots. And so it’s with this mentality that one should approach Michael Bay’s big budget reimagining of the greatest marketing tool a film industry ever had. Putting aside serious thought provoking narrative, remember this is a Michael Bay film, sitting down the watch Transformers somehow manages to conjure up all the childish glee felt when you first fell in love with the Robots in disguise.

The first stroke of genius is to create rounded characters and have them played by actors who can, like, act. Shia LeBeouf, Hollywood’s new golden boy, is fantastically natural and engaging as the films teenage hero, whose first car turns out to have some surprises for him. The decision to ground the film with a brilliant streak of comedy, both from the humans, and the Robots; one particular scene where the robots try to avoid detection by Lebeouf’s parents whilst simultaneously trying not to destroy the garden is a stand out scene, which you never would have imagined would have been dreamt up. The weighty supporting cast including Jon Voight and John Turturro lend a note of acting greatness to the proceedings, but never play the film straight enough to not realise that the real stars are. Josh Duhamel is at his most watchable as the marine captain who is one of the first to encounter the dreaded Decepticons. This subplot fills the military quota for the film, but does so by firstly commenting slightly on the American military machine but also highlighting the unknown dangers facing soldiers in modern combat. Then there’s Megan Fox who plays Mikaela and brings a level of quality not usually found in this type of role. Overall in fact, one of the most commendable aspects of this film is the strength in acting which shepherds you through all the overblown robot showdowns.

And so onto the robots. CGI seems to have reached a pinnacle in recent years where the change from live action to CGI has become completely seamless and audiences can no longer spot the difference. The realism found in this film stands as prove of this argument. It might be hard to imagine realism in a film about giant robots who can transform into vehicles but like Jurassic Park 14 years ago, these images will forever be etched onto your mind and the sheer brilliance of them all will be overwhelming. In fact Transformers is probably the best film of the summer. Certainly in terms of expectation. Michael Bay is known for his love of blowing shit up, but with Transformers, not only has he turned in the best film of his career, but has also managed to eclipse such heavyweights as Spider-Man 3, Ocean’s Eleven, Harry Potter, and Ocean’s Eleven. Even John McClane could compete with these guys. When they finally show up on screen and we move toward the climatic battle sequence everything is pure cinematic genius. Tom Gunning wrote of the early days of cinema that it was a “cinema of attractions” and Transformers has brought that claim full circle. This is a film of attractions, with Optimus Prime. Bumblebee and Megatron being the attraction. Transformers is spectacle for the sake of spectacle. Fun for fun’s sake and it always has been. And it’s the exact reason why snobs of populist cinema with scoff at this films big explosions and nonsensical narrative. If there is one potential flaw is that in some of the one of one showdowns between the Autobots and the decepticon’s it becomes unclear who is who, so frantic, up close and personal the fights become. Also Optimus Prime lacks some of his iconic weight. But this is just nitpicking.

Ultimately, once you put aside your critical eye and enjoy this film for the attractions it offers there is very little one can complain about, action set pieces which far outweigh the wildest dreams of any fan boy, characterisation, an actual plot and hilariously staged comic scenes make Transformers this summers real sizzler.

This Is England - 2007

Directed By: Shane Meadows
Cast: Thomas Turgoose, Stephen Graham, Jo Hartley, Andrew Shim, Vicky McClure, Joseph Gilgun, Perry Benson, George Newton, Frank Harper

Shane Meadows has been quietly carving himself an oeuvre worthy of great recognition for the past ten years. His films include Dean Man’s Shoes and TwentyFourSeven. But with This Is England he has achieved new levels of brilliance.
Set against the backdrop of the early eighties, the Falkland War and a Thatcher’s government. Into this context Meadows introduces Shaun, a small young boy, bullied at school because of his hand me downs and trying to come to terms with the death of his father in the Falklands. This makes Shaun a highly impressionable character and it’s not long before he is taken in by a group skinheads. With the skinheads help Shaun finds an identity over a summer which offered no hope until he meets his new family.
Shane Meadows drew on personal experience for this film, and it shows. The era is perfectly captured with an opening sequence and the settings and environments perfectly express the era of Thatcher’s Britain. To this Meadows adds some incredibly natural performances from Joseph Gilgun (Woody) Andrew Shim (Milky) but the standout is Thomas Turgoose as the young Shaun. Showing the kind of range adult ages search an entire career for, Turgoose draws in the audience and from that point on your can’t help but be engrossed by everything that happens to him. It’s a credit that Turgoose is in almost every scene. Add to this an emotional range that will draw tears from the hardest of cinemagoers and you have one of the finest performances of the year.
Things are great for Shaun and his new friends as they show him the ropes, get him kitted out with Doc Martins and Ben Sherman shirts. Things change however when Combo arrives. Portrayed with a career best performance from Stephen Graham, he gives he characters, essentially a stereotypical racist skinhead, the emotional range bereft of so many of these sorts of characters. His vulnerability, inability to express his emotions and desire for a girl he can’t have given ample motive for his explosive outbursts. One cringing scene, see Combo talking to black skinhead Milky about family. The scene begins harmlessly enough but there is a definite tension under the surface. Finally erupting into the films most violent scene, Combo loses grip of his emotions and unleashes a torrent of violence on his unsuspecting guests. Shaun, forced to watch is horrified and as little knowledge to help him understand such an outburst.
With Meadows superb direction and writing, the film slowly builds to this moment of eruption, the two sides of the skinhead movement, the racists and the non-racists colliding. This is a story real about coming of age. About realising how difficult and dangerous the real world is. For Shaun, whose struggling to come to terms with his fathers death, along with his lonely and beautifully tragic and lonely mother, this the moment his wonderful summer comes crashing down. Up to this point everything had been as if a dream. No longer alone, with friends to ease the pain, and in Combo a surrogate father promising to look after him, Shaun is content and happy. By the end of the film he’s learnt more about life than he may have wanted to at his age.
Meadows has been mildly criticised for essentially telling similar stories, TwentyFourSeven, has the a similar structure and ending, the violence of society destroying everything positive that had been built up, but never has the vision and theme been so clearly explored and in Thomas Turgoose, never had the central character been so engrossing. Either way Meadows is without a question one of British cinema greatest exponents and belongs alongside Ken Loach as one of our greatest realists.
This is England is one of those rare films with gets the adrenalin pumping simply with the purity of cinema, constructed in such a way as to make this a modern day masterpiece. It’s one of the films which will stick in your mind long after you’ve left the cinema and stopped raving about it to everyone you know.

Meadows achieve greatness with his latest film, along with a career best performance from Stephen Graham and a grandstanding debut for Thomas Turgoose. May well be Britain's greatest film of the year.

The Simpsons Movie - 2007

Directed By: David Silverman

It’s hard to write an objective unbiased review of The Simpsons Movie, being such a fan and having waited so long for it to reach the screen. Yet even the most cynical audience member can not help but be won over by the sheer comedic genius at work in the Simpsons. With a handful of writers, and some left over, you could be slightly forgiven for thinking that it might not work. Rarely do films with multiple writers work, especially comedy. But with The Simpsons, were talking about writing royalty. For 18 consecutive years the writers have managed to turn out a comedy show which casts a long shadow over anything else ever written. Nothing comes close to touching the show in terms of sheer consistent brilliance. And it’s a pleasure to bask in this genius for 80 minutes on a big screen. Not only have to writers set themselves the task of bringing a much larger story the screen, they have managed to do so while maintaining and focusing on the smaller more intimate excellence of the show. They have also embraced the cinematic medium like no other cartoon crossover. Scenes sprawl across the widescreen with greater colour, depth and style. The animators, who deserve as much credit as the writers make as much use narratively of the space as they do for comedic effect. Notable standout scenes include a naked Bart riding a skateboard through town, and Homer straddling a Motorcycle. In fact if The Simpsons is commended for one thing it’s that 2D animation isn’t dead and buried. The creators may have flirted with the idea of a CG Simpsons movie, but as they have proven time and again on the small screen, what’s missing from 2D animation on the big screen, is a great story, well developed characters and a heartfelt attempt to bring the story to life. Something which only Studio Ghibli currently manages in 2D.

If there is one area of fault in this film it has to be with the story. Although it is well developed and has great narrative arc, it does feel somewhat repetitious of the series. This, unfortunately, is always going to be a problem for a TV show which has covered pretty much every idea ever invented. This film decides to go down the age old tried and tested route of the struggling marriage of Marge and Homer, and also developing a subplot involving Bart disillusionment with his father, and Lisa meeting a boy who represents and believes everything she does. Something which as been done before by the Simpsons. But then what hasn’t, and it also makes sense for the writers to focus their story on an area they feel well versed and experienced in. And the fact that despite having done this narrative arcs before, the writers still manage to find fresh new ways of exploiting humour. The film also has some great moments for the silent member of the family; proving that Maggie is as much a Simpson as anyone else. On a side note, one of the main differences between the small and big screen Simpsons in the complete lack of cinematic allusions. While the Simpsons have created the best film homage’s and in jokes in television history, the film had absolutely no glaring film references and it worked to the advantage of the film bar a Titanic reference early on.

The supporting characters are also all great, although notably, classic characters Krusty, Mr Burns and Moe are criminally underused for the sake of the story. That’s not to say they aren’t given some of The Simpsons greatest lines. In fact it’s incredible that the show’s writers are able to capture their characters so perfectly with such little screen time. Naysayers would argue that these characters are only stereotypes but that precisely the point. The Simpsons is your stereotypical town in America, and its characters are representations of that. The show has developed them into loveable fully formed characters, and the movie highlights what makes them such loveable creations.

As for the jokes, the writers have pulled no punches in making sure that the quality equals that of the TV show, and manages at the same time to generate enough “favourite jokes” for any Simpsons fan to come out reassessing their best Simpsons gags. What’s so admirable is that the Simpsons seem to handle all forms of comedy from slapstick, to satire, to irony to childish jokes with equal relish and creativity.

The cleverest, smartest and funniest TV show of all time becomes one of the smartest, cleverest and funniest films of all time, fully embracing its cinematic art form without ever losing sight of its TV origins. If the cynics are write and the show has past its best then one can only imagine how brilliant this film would have been had it been made in the shows “supposed” prime. If you’re in doubt then there are two words which will silence any critic: Spider-Pig.

The Science of Sleep - 2007

Directed By: Michel Gondry
Cast: Gael Garcia Bernal, Charlotte Gainbourg, Alain Chabat, Miou-Miou, Pierre Vaneck, Emma de Caunes, Aurelia Petit, Sacha Bourdo, Stephane Metzger,
Released: 16-02-2007

With the Charlie Kaufmann scripted Human Nature and then Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Michel Gondry, along with countless classic music video’s has crafted himself the reputation of a surreal, innovative and imaginative director, particularly by shooting all of the visual trickery and effects of Eternal Sunshine in-camera. So with The Science of Sleep, writer as well as director Gondry has plunged into a world uniquely his. To see this film is to realise how constrained and reeled in Gondry was working with Kaufmann. Which is saying a lot, when you consider the weird surrealism of Adaptation, Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine? Gondry however is a director who has clear influences of his vision of cinema and has moulded them into a fantasy romance story which could only have come from his mind. Gondry’s onscreen alter-ego, here played by Gael Garcia Bernal, undoubtedly one of modern cinema’s greatest actors, plays Stephane. who is duped into coming to live close to his mother in Paris after his father’s death, is clearly a disturbed man. Believing in dreams and the wondrous imagination it provides, he is soon thrust into the life of Stephanie. Played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, one of the most cinematically beautiful women to grace our screen in years she invokes her character with such a perfect continental charm. The kind of charm the British truly struggle to achieve, that it makes Stephane’s (Bernal) descent in love and all the madness and irrational behaviour that love always guarantees so convincing. Gael Garcia Bernal maybe the protagonist, but it is Charlotte Gainsbourg who allows us to believe in this dreamlike, surrealism Gondry is subjecting us to. Bernal’s quirky, slightly disturbed character is made all the more likeable and believable because of the surreal characters around him.

At his job, which is as mind numbing and depressing as most peoples jobs, are a collection of off the wall characters and Stephane fits in perfectly with their irreverent world. As the film progresses we come under Gondry’s spell. Dream sequences shift into reality, reality into dream and back again and before long anyone not paying attention is lost forever. It’s a credit to Gondry’s writing ability that this is essentially a romantic comedy about two unsuitable people who fall in love but are so emotionally crippled that they can never be happy together. What’s more, amongst and interweaved throughout his surrealist escapades are the kind of scenes everyone can relate to. Bernal, at a celebration party watches and drinks himself into a drunken stupor as Stephanie flirts and dances with another man. Stephane begins by be attracting to Stephanie’s friend, which makes Stephanie more defensive and stand offish with him. Gradually though their attraction breaks through and they embark, in Stephane’s mind at least, on a lovers journey only the cinema could capture.

Using animation techniques employed most famously perhaps by the Czech director Jan Svankmajer with his films such as Alice (1988) and Little Otik (2000). This use of stop motion animation highlights Stephane’s surreal life and support his dreamlike state. The animation itself will captivate those unfamiliar with other directors who have employed such devices, but Gondry has not achieved the success with his stop motion that Svankmajer has. This is no discredit to Gondry’s film which beautifully merges the reality and fantasy of Stephane’s life marrying the two perfectly as a metaphor for his relationship with Stephanie. One truly magical scene comes when Stephane talks to Stephanie from his dream. As with most great romantic tales this ends ambiguously. Just when Stephane and Stephanie are seemingly about to live happily ever after doubt creeps into their relationship and we are left wondering if either of them are willing to commit to each other.

Michel Gondry’s stunningly evocative, surreal fantasy works because of the simple, elegant and real love story at the heart of its narrative. Bernal and Gainsbourg are stunning as the lovers and Gondry’s use of stop motion to explore the dreams of Stephane are truly innovative and inspiring stuff.

The Lookout - 2007

Directed By: Scott Frank
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jeff Daniels, Matthew Goode, Isla Fisher, Carla Guigino, Alberta Watson, Bruce McGill

Scott Frank, is well known in Hollywood for his screenwriting credentials. He’s responsible for Out of Sight, Get Shorty and The Interpreter. Yet for his directorial debut he seems to have forgotten a cardinal rule of writing. Unless you know where your characters end how can they possibly get there. And this is the biggest problem with the enjoyable if never excellent The Lookout.
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a brain damaged ex high school hockey player after a tragic accident. He’s has problems sequencing and as such his life is pretty restricted. He works as a janitor in a local bank, and lives with a blind, pitch perfect Jeff Daniels, roommate.
As events unfold, Chris meets Gary (Matthew Goode) in a bar and the two hit it off, Gary went to the same school as Chris and was in his sister’s year a few above Chris. It not long before Frank reveals the crux of the narrative, the title of the film, referring to Chris’ role in an attempt bank robbery.
It’s this which really makes the film struggle to find a focus. As a character study of someone with brain damage attempting to come to terms with the tragedy they caused and the effects it has, this film reaches for great heights, and doesn’t fall too short. As a heist film, its one of the worst you’re likely to see, with the heist itself, struggling to raise even an ounce of suspense or intrigue.
Even the direction falls down in the heist scenes. Whilst Frank clearly seemed intrigued and compelled by the notion of someone who was once the coolest kid in high school now reduced to taking notes of everything he has to do he seems unable to draw on the brilliant wit of Out of Sight or Get Shorty and thus the film feels lost in between the two. Isla Fisher plays friend of Gary’s who is used to lure Chris into helping them and then subsequently disappears with seemingly no explanation. We are to assume her conscience got the better of her, but surely she could have been a character to help Chris get over his remorse and guilt and move on. Instead she’s an opportunity wasted. Jeff Daniels is superb as Chris’ blind housemate Lewis but has only a few scenes and although brilliant in all of them, one wonders if this wouldn’t have made for a more curious and interesting story.
The criminals are all nondescript and bar Bone, a long haired, leather jacket wearing character that is not seen without sunglasses and the look of a psycho. He stands out like a sore thumb alongside all the other criminals. In fact he’s the type of character you might expect to find in a Lynch film.
The performances are good, exceptional from Gordon-Levitt and Daniels in particular which makes the whole experience of the robbery grate even more. Once the anticlimactic finale comes and Chris uses his disadvantage to an advantage any attempt at a rousing finale feels long lost and lacking any real catharsis the film ends up feeling like a wasted opportunity to work with two great actors.
For a screenwriter so illustrious and so accomplished at crime fiction this feels like a major letdown. As a director Frank handles himself well, but never achieves anything more than mediocrity. In fact some of his shots are little intrusive and as a result you lose sight of the environment and context for a lot of the film. It feels like he has attempted to create an iconic indie break out hit but has missed to stop so widely simply because he was attempting to hit that niche. Instead, had he let the story dictate and focused on the relationship between Lewis and Chris and made the backstory more significant to the resolution then this would no doubt have scored a big hit with an intriguing, original story.
Lacking in the cohesion and focus needed, this film is saved only by some great scenes with Gordon-Levitt and Daniels. Otherwise a missed opportunity.

The Lives of Others - 2007

Directed By: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Starring: Martina Gedeck, Ulrich Muhe, Sebastian Koch, Ulrich Tukur, Thomas Thieme, Has-Uwe Bauer, Volkmar Kleinert, Matthias Brenner,
Released 20/04/2007

German cinema seems to be going through a resurgence of form of late. The new Millennium has given us Oliver Hirschbiegel’s Das Experiment (2001) and Downfall (2004), Marc Rothemund gave us Sophie Scholl in 2005 Wolfgang Becker’s Goodbye Lenin (2003) to just a few examples of the burgeoning talent emerging from Germany. Interestingly as well much of German cinema and its brilliance has derived from it’s desire the look to its dark past. First the Nazi’s came under German artistic examination and now with Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s sublime and superb debut, The Lives of Others, we finally have a film about the Stasi, the East German state security which operated from 1950 until the fall of the Berlin Wall, at which point it was renamed the Office of National Security.

The Live of Others was the recipient of this year’s Best Foreign Language Film piping Guillermo Del Toro’s masterpiece Pan’s Labyrinth to the award. On this evidence the film deserved it but only just. Donnersmarck has created such a subtle, involving and cinematically imperious film that it sticks in your mind both for the engaging and emotional poignant story as well as the cinematic exuberance with which it is directed. The language of cinema employed in the film is so refreshing complete, so unexpectedly focused on telling the story that not once does this thriller ever fall into parody or cliché as it unravels the lives of it characters.

Unlike another recent film about interrogation and surveillance, The Good Shepherd, starring Matt Damon, this film is exhilarating precisely because it tells the story in an incredibly human way. The plight of the characters is outlined not only concisely but often with humour and wit unexpected in a film about a socialist regime which used over 100,000 agents and 200,000 informants to spy on it citizens. The centres of the lives of Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch), a dramatist living and working in East Germany, his long time partner Christa (Martina Gedeck) and Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Muhe), the Stasi agent handed the responsibility of watching them. As their lives unveil on screen we see that despite suspicions and affiliations with anti-socialist artists, whom have been “blacklisted” but the GDR, Dreyman is loyal to the Socialist government and so is his wife. In studying them and observing there lives, the stoic and emotionless Wiesler, a stunning turn in one of the performances of the year by Muhe, who manages to convey every emotion with crystal clarity despite apparently never changing his appearance or expression, Wiesler soon begins to empathise with his subjects.

As the plot unfolds we begin to not only want these characters to start rebelling against the system but also feat what will happen as we have already been witness to such interrogations. The dilemma is a strong one. Dreyman fears for his freedom and the freedom of his partner, the beautiful and beguiling Christa, played with absolute conviction by Martina Gebeck, if he speaks out against the GDR, as some of his associates do and have. We see in blacklisted theatre director Jerska who hasn’t worked for years what faces Dreyman if he chooses to speak out. His friends are much more vocal and Dreyman finds himself stuck between his artistic and political integrity and protecting himself and Christa. The life he lives is privileged but not without its problems. Dreyman is a writer who is only given the freedom to right by the GDR. The same can be said for Christa, who attracts the unwelcome attention of Stasi leader, Minister Hempf. And in this way the film explores the notion of freedom as paralleled with that of West Germany.

As the film draws towards it climax, we begin to see how the Stasi pressure those in society to become informants, and realise that those who are apparently free from suspicion and interrogation are used to exploit others raising questions about the freedom of anybody. Even the Stasi employees themselves are under suspicion and Wiesler has learnt the only way to survive is to be stoic and reserve all opinions and thoughts to himself. When the film act draws in the corruption and exploitation of power are held up to scrutiny as jealousy and desire to advance and gain more power are used as authentic methods to dig out potential dissidents.

For all its harrowing affects on the characters though the film leaves the audience with such a beautifully poignant ending that few films are ever really equalled. It’s a credit to the director that this is a debut, as few are ever so cinematically breathtaking with subtly nuanced performances and an emotional maturity which is irresistibly engaging.

It’s been too long for there not to have been a film on this subject with such clarity of vision and cinematic brilliance that its not surprising that a film which is as much about cinema’s voyeuristic nature as the surveillance and loss of civil liberties which are as much an issue of our time as they were in East Germany following the war. A thought provoking, engaging and brilliant masterpiece of modern German cinema.