The detached and methodical loner is juxtaposed by the impulsive and emotional apprentice, who is looking to avenge his father’s murder. Jason Statham plays Jason Statham and that is perfectly fine for his role as the quiet hard-hitting assassin. Ben Foster shines as the emotionally fueled sidekick, in a role which could easily have been throwaway and clichéd has has depth and control in the hands of this talented actor.

There are some nice action set pieces throughout the movie, but this is balanced by plot developments. The action scenes aren’t without some fault, a couple of times they fall foul of the extreme close-up and fast editing trend popularised by Paul Greengrass in his Bourne trilogy, leaving you with action that is difficult to follow. Although the two ending scenes are obvious and somewhat clichéd they don’t detract from the enjoyment which is to be had.

The Mechanic is the perfect embodiment of the contemporary action genre movie. With a running time of ninety minutes, it is the perfect length for what it needs to say and do, the acting is above average for this type of movie and there is a good balance between plot and action.

7/10

Michel Gondry is a favourite director of mine. All of his films have a sense of fun, enthusiasm and experimentation but his recent films have been hit and miss. I found it an odd decision, wanting to direct this action movie, but it is good to see a director expand their horizons and push their talent in to different styles. There are a couple of scenes early on which have Gondry’s style all over them but unfortunately they are few and far between. This movie could have been directed by pretty much any half competent Hollywood director and in that respect I think Michel Gondry’s talents have been wasted on this project.

The story is a simple one, the story of revenge and redemption, a plucky underdog duo against organised crime. The movie doesn’t try to tackle these topics, but simply uses them for competently directed action set pieces and overly-long cringe-worthy banter between both the partners in crime and their opponents.

Although the movie isn’t a traditional superhero movie, the genre that has been popularised and overdone during the last five years, and is more akin to last years success “Kick Ass”, it still follows a very conventional story-arc. This is not a major complaint, as most genre movies follow the same rules, but the half-way through I was waiting for the conflict between the two protagonists, over a girl no less, which was then promptly delivered.

The masked vigilantes, Seth Rogen as The Green Hornet and Jay Chou as Kato – his kung-fu kicking sidekick with superpower abilities – work well together. Their presence together is good and there are some good moments, notably a clever fight scene involving the two bickering. The majority of Seth Rogen’s dialogue is terrible, but I don’t find his delivery helps. Chou on the other hand is understated and cool and contributes a lot to the movie.

The cameos are the best part of the movie. Firstly, the main villain Chudnofsky, a Russian crime boss, played by Christoph Waltz. This Austrian actor shot to fame (to English-speaking audiences) playing a insane villain in Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, and he pulls off another superb performance, this time a more nuanced and subtle insanity with flashes of a horrifying temper. Secondly, James Franco as the arrogant young new guy in town, trying to jump to the top of the crime tier without any hard work. He is only in one scene, but it is the best scene of the movie. Tom Wilkinson plays the work addicted newspaper owner with his usual high-class calibre.

The 3D. Well, after the first ten minutes of everything looking too sparkly and fake, I hardly noticed it, except for my eyes becoming sore. The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie – except for the increased ticket price, watering eyes and uncomfortable glasses.

Overall, I would skip this at the cinema and watch it at home. If you haven’t seen Kick Ass, I would watch that instead.

5/10

There are many similarities to his previous and most mainstream movie The Wrestler; the focus on a character obsessed with his/her sport/art, the some-what bleak cinematography and the physical and psychological toll the obsession brings. Although a better and more rewarding film than The Wrestler, Black Swan was less about heart and feeling and more a negative look in to what obsession can bring and the downward spiral which can ensue – much like in my favourite Aronofsky film Requiem for a Dream.

The film was praised by critics a lot before it’s UK release and I was already overly excited to experience another Aronosky film. Although the film was extremely well acted – especially by Natalie Portman, who is nominated for Best Actress in the 2011 Oscars for her role – beautifully crafted and the story was unique and edgy, especially for maintstream Hollywood, I was slightly disappointed. I just expected more – more creepiness, more psychological intrigue, more flare – but maybe I am being overly expectant.

Black Swan no doubt warrants and rewards the viewer who watches numerous times, as although the overall story and twists are well told, there are many layers which only reveal themselves through multiple viewings. A solid psychological thriller with brilliant performances, lacking something magical that other Aronofsky films possess, but will still be one of the best films of the year.

8/10

The movie opens as they’re being shown round the house, they move through large empty spaces with the windows closed, the light is strange darkness. The movie spans one single night and never strays from the intimidating perpetual bleak shadow-filled light. This atmosphere is compounded by the use of the “pathetic fallacy” - the cliché use of rain in scary or depressing situations - and the subtle colour tone, filled with greys.

The initial setup is so well done that the conflict arrives after only fifteen minutes. The introduction of the three perpetrators is done by an incredibly long tracking shot, which follows the men as they try and break in to the property. The single shot lasts two and a half minutes, moves from the bottom of the house to the top and back again, and makes very good use of CGI to piece it all together in to a seamless sequence.

The dynamics between the three robbers is beautiful introduction. The quiet gentle giant, who is the brains behind the operation, played by Forest Whitaker, the frantic and desperate leader played by Jared Leto and the mysterious masked outsider (Dwight Yoakam). Each trait is obvious from the a single taut scene and is left to simmer for the rest of the movie. The dialogue is minimal yet intelligently scripted and delivered.

There are some really great high tension scenes scattered throughout the film which are punctuated with action set pieces, all building the suspense to it’s final climatic scene. Add to the dark visual tone a simple yet haunting string-based soundtrack and you’ve got two more ingredients of a top-notch thriller.

Although Panic Room is Fincher’s shortest movie, coming in at under one hour fifty minutes, every scene is well considered, there is very little which could be cut and has a perfect balance of story setup, suspense, action and characterisation.

8/10

After a terrible last day of school term he meets and befriends an odd-ball group of misfits who invite him to be part of their gang. The characters are charming but socially looked down upon, but their intentions towards themselves and others are nothing but unharmful mischief.

The movie takes a sinister turn for the worse when Combo - a racist thug, just out of jail - turns up and infects the group causing tensions to rise and forcing allegiances to be made.

Some of the scenes are difficult to watch, and purposefully so. During Combo’s first story, the editing and subtle looks between Woody, his girlfriend & Milky show their sense of disgust, but you are left with an uncertainty about their group as a whole. Similarly, in Combo’s speech, rallying the troops, the strong language and harsh opinions make for an uneasy time for both the characters and the audience. The final confrontation between Milky and Combo makes for an explosive conclusion to the story and it is a scene that I always remember so vividly.

Woody is easily one of my favourite character, Milky is good too. Even Combo is a top notch villain. In fact, all the characters are down to earth and realistic, without being boring, yet each have their own eccentricities but don’t end up being caricatures.

This Is England is a superb movie. The screenplay is taut, crammed with conflict, tough decisions and scenes many in British society can relate to. There are both loveable and despise-able characters who all have punchy and well scripted dialogue. Even the locations have notable presence and something to convey. The cinematography, editing and soundtrack are all world class - some of the best I’ve seen in a movie. You can’t get better than this - highly recommended.

10/10

The movie opens with aerial fly-over shots starting close to the ocean then proceeding towards and over a city-scape. Such techniques are common in many movies and are used as establishing shots, except in Devil, these shots were upside down. These opening shots are disorientating, unnerving and intimidating - a perfect way to setup this type of movie.

The story open with a detective investigating a suicide, and five characters - some acting in peculiar manner - as they make their way inside a skyscraper elevator. The best action is found out side of the elevator, where the suspense is built up well, as the security guards, detective and engineer try to solve the murderous case which is happening before their eyes. There are some very tense moments as the engineer tries to fix the lift - although making him travel from the roof to the basement numerous times became tiring.

Within the elevator, the characters seem to cope surprising well with their situation, especially after they start dying one by one. To try and elevate the suspense, every time a death is about to occur, the elevator lights flicker and the security cameras – and our view – goes black. I think this trick actually cheapens the movie and detracts from the story, as you only glimpse the aftermath and not the terrifying act itself.

The story is by M. Night Shyamalan, but the screenplay and direction were by collaboration with aspiring filmmakers. This movie is the first in the The Night Chronicles, written by Shyamalan, a series of movies which involve the supernatural within modern urban society. The series sees Shyamalan produce one a movie a year for three years.

I have to say the overall story was the strongest element within the movie, the screenplay lacked focus, the direction was disappointing in numerous places and while the acting as OK nothing stood out. If these elements were improved it would have helped make this movie more successful, but in the end, it was a distinctly average thriller.

6/10

Many people were surprised after a good trailer, but others were calling on it’s demise for two reasons. Firstly, there has been some discontent towards Shyamalan himself, something which I find quite unnecessary. The second issue was because adaptation didn’t stay true to the ethnicity’s of the original comic book characters and because the heart of the story is about embracing different nations. These two problems shouldn’t affect the movie and there are many other issues which do.

A disclaimer: the fantasy genre isn’t my favourite type of movie, but this wasn’t the problem I had with this movie. Also, I didn’t bother watching this movie in 3D.

The acting is terrible for the majority of the cast, specifically the Sokka, played by Jackson Rathbone, although the characterisation, dialogue and direction may have been at fault for many of the performances. Dev Patel, who played the protagonist in Danny Boyle’s Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire, plays the villain – the exiled prince Zuko – in the movie. In most of his scenes he comes across as a caricature of villain, instead of a villain itself, even comedic in places. Only Shaun Toub, who played Zuko’s uncle – Iroh, added a sense of depth to his character and his acting throughout was solid. Aang, the titular airbender and Avatar, played by thirteen year-old Noah Ringer, had a tough job with the complex character and poor dialogue but he wasn’t the worst performer.

Along with the acting, the dialogue is consistently poor throughout. Like in Shyamalan’s previous movies, some of the dialogue is delivered with a definite dry sense of humour. However, the direction with this type of dialogue can be very difficult, especially with the genre it is set, and like his last movie – The Happening – it failed miserably.

Finally, the story, set against a mythical world is shallow and incomplete. Many of the scenes feel childish, others comical and some quite dark, such as those with the exiled prince. The main issue with the story is the lack of conclusion. The characters may have won the battle, but not the war, and there are no resolution for the prince nor the Avatar in learning his missing skills. The end is clearly set up for a sequel, something which Hollywood seems to enjoy doing and that I really dislike, but the critically panned maybe face an upward struggle to justify the investment in the continuation of the franchise.

Unlike successful adaptations, such as Sin City and (potentially) the upcoming Scott Pilgrim, these are movies which make me want to seek out the source material. On the contrary, M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Last Airbender” has had the opposite affect and I have no inclination to watch the much beloved television series.

3/10

Most episodes were 45 minutes long, but occasionally there were double episodes which, especially in the early series, were extremely good. They gave the writers chance to explore the mythology and characters in more depth. The later series started to focus more and more around a massive alien story arc - something which the show had kept coming back to but never lingered too long. The first movie, released in 1998 felt like one of the good double episode, albeit with a large budget. The movie also acted as a bridge between series, connecting and expanding the story-lines and character issues which were developed in the series.

It was six years after the end of the nine series run that the second movie was released. I can’t remember whether there was much hype around the movie, as many fans had no doubt moved on from seeing another adaptation of their favourite FBI characters. It has taken me over two years to finally watch the movie, which I think says something.

Both Fox Mulder and Dana Scully have moved on from their jobs at the FBI, Mulder seemingly wanted by the FBI and Scully working as a doctor at a religious-lead hospital. Two FBI agents, a woman who “wants to believe” and a cynical male partner - the same dynamic but opposite gender roles to the original characters - arrive looking for Mulder to help solve a case. Playing on the guilt of his missing daughter, Mulder delves back in to the role he has clearly missed, while Scully tries to keep out of the dark world she has left behind.

There are many issues with the movie. Firstly, I felt it was unnecessary and I am not sure there was an audience for another outing. The story didn’t delve in to the larger alien mythology that the writers had worked so long on building up throughout the long running show. The science-fiction angle which made the series so successful was hardly utilised and felt more like a MacGuffin that an integral part of the story.

However, the are some good points to the episode. For me, there quite a few surprising moments during the first act - mainly to do with the relationship between Mulder and Scully, who appear to be a couple, although, she still calls him Mulder! The chemistry and ambiguous but playful relationship between the lead characters, which is part of what made the original series successful, is very strong and it shines through in this episode, although we’re left wanting more depth and conclusion between them. There is a good cameo towards the end of the movie, a good nod to fans of the series.

As a stand-alone movie - without the entire history and expectations - is suspenseful and makes a decent, but not exceptional, thriller. The first act suffers from a relatively slow pace but the movie has an exceptionally strong final act, especially in comparison to movie as a whole.

Overall the movie felt more like an episode of the TV series, which could have benefited from and seemed more suited to the 45 minute run time. The characterisation was good, but again felt like it was part of a longer running relationship-based story arc. An average thriller which is tainted by the expectations.

6/10

The movie is set eleven years after Pixar’s first sequel, Toy Story 2, and Andy - the gangs owner - is all grown up, ready to leave for college. After some confusion, Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Bullseye, and the rest end up being donated to Sunnyside Daycare Center where they believe they will be endlessly loved by a new set of children. Unfortunately things don’t quite go to plan and Woody is left to rescue the gang and get them all back to Andy.

The third movie has a lot of similarities to it’s previous installments. Lotso, the main new character, is harbouring a sense of loss, much like Jessie in Toy Story 2. The storyline is also similar to Toy Story 2, but instead of Buzz and the gang rescuing Woody it is the other way around - although that isn’t the whole story, which has references to The Great Escape.

As with most sequels there is a need to introduce new characters to keep things refresh and exciting, however, some sequels add too many. There are many problems with adding too many new characters; the story can become stretched, new characters have no depth and the characters you have an existing connection with aren’t fully capitalised. But Pixar are pitch perfect giving plenty of time to the existing characters - and there are already quite a few - as well as giving you enough of the new characters to make a connection. Ken and Barbie are well-known toys and add some light-heart fun to the adventure and Lotso is a charismatic but jaded character.

Aside from Woody and Buzz, many of the toys from the previous movies make an appearance and have their own scene. These include the original gang of Slinky, Mr and Mrs Potato Head, Hamm, Rex and Toy Story 2’s Jessie and Bullseye. The Green Amry Men make a cameo appearance at the beginning and Bo-Beep is mentioned but we are left wondering about what exactly happened to her. I think like the Squeeze Toy Aliens, the Cymbal-banging monkey, although a very minor character will become a cult hit.

Like every Pixar movie, the heart of the story and characters are for children, but as adults there are hundreds of references and in-jokes to keep us entertained, not to mention the complex themes, such as relationships, fear and loss that are explored, these have more impact on an old viewer who has experienced them.

Towards the end of the movie, the characters are placed in a very frightening scenario, one in which the audience has no idea of how they will escape - inevitably they will, as this is a children’s movie at heart - and there is a definite sense of ominous inevitability in the situation. The last thirty minutes are the darkest of any Pixar movie to date - something I think reflects the maturity of the characters and the investment viewers have placed in the trilogy.

However, the darkness of the story goes deeper than what is placed directly in front of the audience. My initial thoughts after leaving the cinema were that of abandonment - something which was touched upon with Jessie’s character in Toy Story 2, but was explored more deeply in this final installment. The following quote summarises my thoughts very well;

“What’s powerful about Toy Story 3 are the themes that get thrown in, such as that about loss, and the search and fight for things that are worthwhile. It emphasizes the bonds of friendship and courage, while tackling how the lack thereof in abandonment and the feeling of tremendous loss, can someone turn one into a bitter soul, which allowed for the film to take on tragic, darker consequences unseen in the earlier installments, while balancing the light hearted moments. We get to grow with the familiar characters a little more, while having new ones which are just as fun.”

IMDB review by Dick Steel

The main reason why Toy Story - and all Pixar movies - have been so successful is because of the attention to the characters. The animation, which is light years ahead of the competition, is superbly beautiful, but it’s just the brush used to tell the story. Toy Story succeeds so rarely in two ways, the relationship it has built between the audience and the characters and more importantly, the relationships between the characters themselves. There are conflicts, allegiances, friendships and hints at more, such as between Woody and Bo-Beep. There is a hint of something more between two main characters, something which comes across as awkwardly childish and naïve, but fun and flirtatious - it is only subtly hinted upon, giving enough to be noticed, but too little to keep you guessing.

Toy Story 3 is definitely the maturest of the three and a fitting conclusion for the odd-ball group of friends and features the best ending of the trilogy. Pixar has arguably pulled off the best trilogy in cinema history and with all three movies receiving ten out of ten from me, I would have to agree.

10/10

The movie has some vibrant and colourful photography, especially in the “casino” segment, but it also suffers from being over stylised in places – especially with the extremely slow motion photography – a trademark of the directory – which appears in numerous shots.

Similarly, the acting of the lead character, Elizabeth – played by singer Norah Jones – is poor in place, but overall she is average and I’ve certainly seen a lot worse. Jude Law’s accent is little too strong my liking, and it isn’t helped that he had some very cheesy dialogue. Contrasting these two complaints, there was some great acting, notably by the three main characters in the second two segments; Natalie Portman as Leslie, the care-free gambling rich-girl – a character who is such a great contrast to Elizabeth, and David Strathairn and Rachel Weisz who appear in the depressing second segment – their performances are summed up perfectly below:

David Strathairn gives a memorable, finely crafted performance as Arnie, who is a cop by day and an alcoholic barfly by night. Rachel Weisz as Sue Lynne his beautiful, wild, estranged wife makes full use of her short time on screen to create a wayward, tumultuous character at once sensuous, and sensitive. Between them they steal the show.

IMDB review by mjsinclair

The final positive note, which stood out for me the first time I watched the movie, was the soundtrack. A beautiful blend of downbeat melodies by artists such as Otis Redding, Cat Power and the lead character Norah Jones.

The movie, as a whole, is above average. There are some disappointing pieces, but the movie is successfully held together by the experienced director, the characters, some of the acting and stunning cinematography.

7/10

The story revolves around a psychologist who is sent to investigate the crew of an isolated research station, which is orbiting a distant planet, who have been behaving strangely. Upon arrival he wanders aimlessly around the ship looking for the crew – but instead is confronted with blood and two people in the mortuary. After meeting with the two remaining crew members, one nervous and uncommunicative and the other reclusive and frightened, the protagonist learns the true frightening presence of the other-worldly planet they are orbiting.

All the crew members have been visited by apparitions of deceased friends or family members. These “vistors” take physical form, replicating a person from the crew’s life, but only have memories and feelings which are projected on to them.

The movie is slow-paced and is definitely not the typical science-fiction movie which has come out of America in the last decade or more. It has a psychological story with numerous interpretations and an ambiguous ending, both of which lead to great conversations with others who have watched it.

The movie’s themes are based heavily around the conflict in relationships and how are deal with the grief of loved ones. The planet Solaris gives the characters disturbing “what if?” scenarios and the story follows the characters ways of dealing with them. There is rationality, denial, acceptance and remorse, culminating in a morally and ethical conclusion.

The movie pays homage to the original movie as well as other classic science-fiction movies. The corridor set design on the space station is very similar to that of the 1972 version. The costume design of the space suits and the exterior shots of the space station – set against the beautifully rendered Solaris and classical music – is very reminiscent of the great Stanley Kubrick’s science-fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey. Finally, the fifties-esque apartment design and the bus scene set against a bustling rainy street are strangely familiar to anyone who has watched Blade Runner.

Overall, I felt that neither the original 1972 version nor the 2002 re-imagining are classic science-fiction movies (although, a lot of people would disagree with me about the first version). I would say – from an entertainment point of view – that the newer version is better. Tarkovsky’s version is over an hour longer, making it feel incredibly slow. I also thought it was more confusing, but this may have been due to cultural and language barrier of the original. However, it did explore more complex themes and had better character development for more of the crew.

6/10

Each of the four family members showed their ability to sell products as well as their more sensitive and vulnerable sides. But it was the parents who were given the most screen time. Demi Moore played her ruthless character very well, but it was David Duchcovny, in the role of the husband, who shone in his character. I was a fan of The X-Files, but it was more recently in the brilliant Californication that I have started to appreciate Duchcovny’s talents, and he definitely plays the cool, laid back guy who enthuses charisma very well.

Amber Heard was given the most to work with out of the two ‘children’ and I felt that her brother was under utilised.

Overall, the movie was well cast, well acted, looked good and had a decent story & message, albeit a little in your face - much like a lot of the advertising you’re subjected to daily.

7/10

They both continued to work together on numerous projects, however, Ricky Gervais tried his hand at Hollywood. He starred Ghost Town, which was quite well received overall, and most recently he wrote, directed and starred in The Invention of Lying a movie which I thought had great potential but unfortunately fell flat in the final act.

However, Cemetery Junction goes back to Ricky Gervais’ and Stephen Merchant’s roots, teaming up again in both the directorial and writing departments. Set in 1970s England the story follows three friends as they waste their lives away in a small rural town. The movie is very much a “coming of age” story as each of the main three characters deal with their families, their current situation of dead-end jobs and ultimately the decisions which’ll shape their future.

Cemetery Junction is not only based on my memories of my most formative years but it feeds on the most fundamental things in the making of a man: family, economics, the time and place you happened to be plonked in. Even though the movie is a fiction, the values, themes and characters are based on my memory of growing up in Reading in the early 70’s.

Ricky Gervais on the Cemetery Junction soundtrack by Ricky Gervais

The movie oozes cool, from two of the three main characters to the great soundtrack – even though the movie is set in a depressingly upper-class picture-postcode English town. All three of the main characters were extremely well written, each having their charm and flaws, each given enough space to develop their own paths as well as working well together – these were best friends and the movie showed this really well.

The acting was top notch, I didn’t have a problem with any of the characters. There were some smaller parts which injected comedy in to the story but were not overly used – this movie is a drama, not a comedy. The movie itself was well filmed and gave a great view of the 70s lifestyle and the troubles families faced during the time.

This is an extremely strong British movie, something which when Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant pair up together seems like a certainty. It was great to see such a strong movie set in English suburbia.

8/10

The movie opens with French director Michel Gondry — who directed one of my favourite movies; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind — in a segment named “Interior Design”. The story features a young couple who, having just arrived in Tokyo, are lodging with a friend in a tiny apartment while they find jobs and accommodation of their own. The segment is well shot, but the story is quite slow as it follows the couple as their relationship appears to break down. Then comes the Gondry touch and the final five minutes of the segment go a little strange.

And strange they stay throughout the rest of the movie.

The second segment is directed by Leos Carax, another French director, although one I didn’t know. He directed probably the strangest piece of cinema I’ve seen in a long while, called “Merde”. The opening features an disgusting looking subterranean human as he runs down a busy Tokyo street attacking unsuspecting locals, stealing their cash and cigarettes. This energetic and bizarre introduction is just the start. After a murderous rampage, killing innocent people by hurling hand grenades, he is locked up. He communicates in complete gibberish, ticks and hand gestures. A lawyer, a dead ringer for the creature, is able to communicate and represents him in a court where he on trial for the death penalty. This story has some interesting ideas and characters but had some trouble with pacing. I also felt the story wasn’t as well rounded as the other segments.

Korean director Joon-ho Bong directs the final segment. Bong is probably critically known for Memories of Murder, a crime thriller based on the true story of South Korea’s first known serial murders. But he rose to international spotlight with his fun monster movie The Host. His segment, titled “Shaking Tokyo”, features a man who is called a “Hikikomori”, a hermit. We are told he hasn’t left his house in ten years and follow his mundane existence in his house. He talks about his books and orders pizza until one day a woman delivers a pizza has he is broken from his spell, making eye contact and talking to the young woman. Woken from his dream state he dares to find the woman, who herself has decided to become a recluse.

“Shaking Tokyo” was probably my favourite segment of the three. It was wonderfully shot and the protagonists acting was very good, especially considering he had to carry the segment himself. The story was simple but quirky, touching and optimistic. I liked the main character in “Merde” and I would like to see more about him, especially his origins. He was crazy but very interesting and I applaud the script writing and direction which showed depth in the character, yet was able to maintain his mystery – especially in such a short movie. Gondry’s “Interior Design” was a little boring, except for the surprise last five minutes which I absolutely loved.

There is clearly a lot of symbolism in each segment and each no doubt touch on something very specific within the Japanese culture. However, I was unable to extract any specifics except there seems to be an overarching theme of loneliness or isolation throughout the entire movie.

All three segments are beautifully filmed. The cinematography is great and each segment has it’s own style without detracting from the overall feel. I think the movie worth a watch, especially if you’re a fan of strange, Japanese culture or any of the directors and I definitely feel impelled to re-watch the segments again, although probably individually.

7/10

Set pretty much entirely within the protagonist’s living room the story revolves around him confessing to his intellectual colleagues that he has explored the earth for over fourteen thousand years. What follows is a 12 Angry Men style discussion, with questions, answers and opinions.

Deeply philosophical, profound and intellectually moving. If you like movies that make you think, if you like movies with a message about our species, life and death, religion, the unknown possibilities of life, this film is for you. This is the type of film that’ll linger for a while.

IMDB comment by Sixu

This is exactly how I felt as I journeyed with those in the movie as they listened to the revelations which were suddenly thrown upon then. There were a few times where I wished I could be part of the movie, I wanted to ask questions, listen to the answers and be part of the conversation.

However, the movie is a let down in a few areas. Firstly there is the acting which is definitely sub-par, some of the dialogue was hollow and the delivery was embarrassing in places. I like a movie which is nice to look at, however, this movie features a very bland, Dogme style cinematography with some very awkward shots and composition.

I still recommend this to those who like conversational movies, those which you can discuss the ideas with friends for hours. The concepts will stay with you and haunt you when you’ve got a moment to contemplate on life.

7/10

The main reason why I was skeptical about this movie was the leading man – Nicolas Cage, whose recent movies have been barely watchable at best. Firstly, there was the terrible remake of the British classic The Wicker Man followed by the awful comic-book adaptation Ghost Rider. I thought Next was OK, but that was probably down to the Philip K. Dick sci-fi story and a relatively strong supporting case. Most recently Cage starred in Bangkok Dangerous, a Hollywood remake of Thai movie of the same name, which was directed by the same people – the Pang Brothers. After this movie I questioned why I would continue to watch movies in which the advertisement campaign focused around Cage as the draw.

The only reason which I think made me watch this movie was it’s director – Alex Proyas. Proyas made a name for himself with The Crow, a cult-classic gothic comic-book movie, then in 1998 with Dark City, a gritty noir-style science-fiction movie featuring a creepy city-controlling cult who can stop time and re-arrange the city streets. Unfortunately, Dark City has remained relatively unknown, as it was released around the time of the Matrix which was extremely successful and featured the same gritty existential sci-fi themes. Proyas last directed I, Robot which was relatively well-received with the public, featured high production values and a starring man in Will Smith – this is the same formula followed by Knowing but with no where the same effectiveness.

Some of the special effects were very good, such as the plane crash which can be seen in the trailer and the final disaster scenes. The premise of numbers successfully predicting information such as the disasters shown in the movie is an interesting concept, but I felt this was completely under explored. However, the acting by Cage was what I’d come to expect from recent performances – very poor, wooden and forced. The final third of the movie felt apart for me. I was especially irked by the religious overtones, which were totally overdone in the final scenes. There were a few other strange scenes which annoyed me – especially some unintentionally comical dialogue and actions, therefore I can not recommend the movie.

I hope Alex Proyas continues to make sci-fi movies, as there seems to be a definite drought in this genre. But I feel he may be better suited to darker and lower-budget style of movie making, so I hope we see him return to that.

5/10

The movie culminates in the final and most disturbing missing memories Ari’s mind is withholding, those of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I found the final scenes truly horrific, and like the main protagonist, I could forget what I had just witnessed - however, in forgetting or ignoring difficult memories such as these only lead to further wars and terrible acts of terrorism. Movies like these are a great way of making sure these memories are never forgotten and even though these events are distressful and sickening they should never be allowed to be simply forgotten.

I would highly recommend this movie as an interesting portrayal of the personal and mental toll war can have. However, beware, although this movie is animated it is very graphic and the overall tone and message is extremely dark.

9/10

The movie is a real non-glorified terror story — not something you can easily detach yourself and your thoughts from. Within the first thirty-minutes the movie has unsettled you, and from that point on, it chokes and gags you, refusing to let go until the credits roll. The movie is rated 18, this isn’t because of the gore — most of this happens off-screen — it is because of the themes, direction and actuality of the story which is scarily based on reality.

Funny Games is an unconventional movie. Michael Haneke is renowned for breaking the “fourth wall” and this technique is used multiple times throughout the movie. His direction is also distinctive, featuring long static shots, little or no score and understated lighting. This blatant disregard for orthodox movie making will distance a lot of people from liking this movie.

There has already been a lot written about this movie, mainly about the original. Overall, the movie has a definite negative commentary about modern society, something which the characters discuss during the conclusion of the story.

Having seen the original movie, I knew exactly what to expect in this unconventional thriller. Therefore, I found it didn’t quite have the shock impact compared to my first viewing, however, the movie was still very distressing and disturbing. I would recommend watching this new version if you prefer not to read subtitles.

9/10

Unfortunately, although the premise of the story was a good one — something I would describe as an “anti-‘War of the World’ theme” — it didn’t translate into a feature-length movie. This is similar to the disappointing ‘Be Kind Rewind’ which seemed an interesting story on paper and in trailers, but neither movie could carry feature-length treatment.

Aside from the initial idea, I thought the story and characters were weak, both of which were exaggerated by the poor pace and editing of the movie. Characters were arbitrarily introduced then abruptly forgotten about, something which is uncommon in Shyamalan’s previous movies, which usually feature well-written supporting characters.

I felt that Mark Wahlberg was either badly directed or confused about his character — something which I felt was evident even in the trailers — and was disappointing to watch. Thoughout most of the movie his performance seemed distant or simply didn’t fit the scenario and mood. Wahlberg’s performance, coupled with some wooden dialogue and a thin script makes this movie Shyamalan’s weakest yet.

Unfortunately, this movie isn’t even beautiful with no substance. The direction and photography were average at best and the entire movie, from script to promotion, seemed to be on auto-pilot. In summary, ‘The Happening’ is a disappointing movie by anyone’s standard, especially the now well established Shyamalan.

I still have faith — a theme the writer/director explores in a lot of his movies — in M. Night Shyamalan and hope he can get back on track with his next project. In the meantime, I recommend watching any of his previous movies – especially my favourite The Village, or the underrated Unbreakable with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson.

Shyamalan garnered many enemies after his last movie, Lady in the Water, which, although it wasn’t on par with his previous projects, I felt was harshly received. I also believe he might be under unwarranted pressure from the expectations and hype because of his previously acclaimed movies and is struggling to break from the cliché of twist endings. In my opinion, in his relatively short career Shyamalan has had four great movies, and two misses, but I think he will have another great movie if given freedom, time and the chance.

5/10

The movie could be described as qwirky black-comedy, but without the comedy — so more like a qwirky drama. There are some funny moments, but the majority of the movie has a sombre mood, a slow pace and poignant messages.

There are moments of belly shaking humor and quiet tears as Ryan Gosling brilliantly evolves from a reclusive soul with the help of a silicone woman and a kind hearted community.

User comment on IMDB

Ryan Gosling was absolutely brilliant as the shy, tormented protagonist and the support cast was superb also. The movie has a very evident overall message, but there were a lot of subtle moments throughout which add to the magic of this movie.

If you like British humour or quriky movies like those directed by Wes Anderson then you might be the type of person who would appreciate this movie. The trailer is misrepresentative, with out of context scenes which seem humourous. The movie is certainly not “laugh out loud”, and a little slow in places, but afterwards I felt touched and humbled.

Overall, I would recommend this movie.

9/10

The movie progressed at a reasonable pace, with the introduction of a range of well written and unique characters. This type of characterisation can really make a story more believable, and elevate movies from good to brilliant — something I felt this movie was.

There were a few twists and turns throughout, none of which I expected. Minor conversations and seemingly irrelevant pieces of information are referenced later, for climatic scenes. All the information is given to you, but like the private detective within the story, you have to make sense of them to solve the puzzle.

The amazing thing about this movie was the amount of complex but detailed themes and conflicts presented thoughout. There were many moral and legal issues put forth by both numerous characters and the overall story. And these are just the ideas I noticed during my first viewing — a testament to a good director and script.

Not since Requiem for a Dream (another masterpiece I highly recommend) have I watched the last fifteen minutes of a movie with my hand over my mouth, starring wide-eyed in awe of what has just happened and in anticipation of the decisions and resolution to come.

After leaving the cinema my mind started racing. I was trying to think how I would have handled the situations the lead character was faced with, and whether I would have made the same final decision. This movie is emotional, engaging and enthralling — I can’t recommend it enough.

10/10

Michel Gondry has unique and interesting ways of creating films and although the Be Kind Rewind attempts this, it misses the mark by a long shot. The consequence is this means a very poor film by any standard – let alone the mantle I have placed Gondry upon.

I really wanted to enjoy Be Kind Rewind. I couldn’t. Gondry also directed the brilliant Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind starring Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet and I cannot recommend this movie enough.

If you’re looking for a masterpiece by Gondry look no further than Eternal Sunshine, however if you’re looking for a ‘movie with heart’ (as Be Kind Rewind’s remake ethos is) and you don’t mind foreign films, check out the dreamworld of cardboard and cellophane in the French speaking Science of Sleep.

I am sad to say I can not recommend this movie.

5/10

Juno is a young girl who has found herself in the ultimate caper; being a pregnant teenager at high-school.

The movie deals with issues such as teenage pregnancy, high-school dymanics and adaoption all in an extremely quirky, witty yet intelligent way. The acting is pretty much flawless and every line is poetically crafted and delivered. I think this movie requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate everything on offer due to the subtly, cleverness, quirkiness and multiple-levels of the humour.

I have seen this movie twice and both times I loved it – I could even watch it again. This is a hallmalk of a remarkable movie which is exactly what Juno is.

I hope Juno will win the Oscar for “Best Original Screenplay” this year just like Little Miss Sunshine did in 2007.

You should go see this movie. Ten out of ten.

9/10

The individual storylines seem to paint six distinctive periods in Dylan’s life. The movie starts with Dylan as a young boy hitch-hiking on a railroad car. Christian Bale seemed to represent the singers rise. Heath Ledger followed Dylan’s success and touching of the start of difficulties with his celebrity status. Cate Blanchett tackled the media intrusion and questioning of the singers initial passion. For me, the most confusing and least rewarding segment was that played by Richard Gere – although this segment brought the movie full circle with Gere disappearing on a railroad car. The following quote explains the final piece fairly well - “a self-imposed exile from the modern world, reflecting some of Dylan’s retreats from the public eye and his lifelong love of traditional music and its outlaw past. The themes of Dylan’s country songs and basement recordings.” and seems to show the complexity of the entire movie. The movie was tied together with black & white segments featuring sporadic quotes by ‘Arthur Rimbaud’.

The movie is full of amazing quotes. Probably the most memorable and representative of the movie is “Never create anything, for it will be misinterpreted. It will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life, and it will never change.”

Overall, the movie is pretty difficult to watch, understand and follow but rewards the viewer in visual appeal, performance, direction, editing and individual narrative. I know very little about Bob Dylan and I’m sure fans will get a lot more out of the movie than I did. Browsing the imdb forum for I’m Not There. gives some insight in to the complexity of the movie and I highly recommend reading a few threads if you’ve seen this movie.

7/10

I felt some parts of the film put too much emphasis on the importance of the font in relation to globalisation, commercialism and politics – even relating the font to the Vietnam war and the current invasion of Iraq. However, the segments by Erik Spiekermann, Experimental Jetset and Michael C. Place were interesting and educational without being pretentious.

The film is well shot and the cinematography of the stills which artfully reveal the use of the font all around us are beautiful.

7/10

In the first movie they meet for the very first time on a train and take a whimsical walk around the streets of Vienna. It’s about discovering a place, memories, love and relationships, all of which are pieced together with beautiful dialogue and a fantastic story.

Before Sunset is the sequel, set and filmed nine years after original. This time it follows the couple around the streets of Paris, and amazingly the dialogue surpasses the beauty of the previous movie. The cinematography is passive, yet intensive, which only enhances the stunningly crafted monologues. The couple meander, discussing what happened on that night all those years ago and how their lives have been influenced by their encounter.

The dialogue is mesmerising - a real insight to both sides of emotion and love. I recommend watching ‘Before Sunrise’ before watching ‘Before Sunset’ to fully appreciate the magical journey of this romantic masterpiece.

9/10

The hostage-takers are strangely sedate in their brutal treatment of the family. The horror of the situation is heightened to epic proportions with Haneke’s brilliant direction. You do not see any of the violence; instead, you see the horrible reality. The extremely long shots, the lack of music and the harsh factuality of the scenes make this movie brilliant.

Haneke breaks the “fourth wall” at least twice during this movie. As one character looks and talks directly to the camera and the audience. Another breathtaking scene is a single take which lasts over ten minutes.

These types of directorial choices are far from those which are found in typical Hollywood movies. Haneke purposefully uses non-glamorous portrayals of violence in a direct opposition to Taraninto-style movies and because of this, I think the movie is brilliant - highly recommended.

Prepare for a highly suspenseful yet sickeningly violent, non-Hollywood, edge-of-the-seat piece of art.

Dan Kenyon

9/10

This isn’t the first time Simon Pegg and David Schwimmer have collaborated. They starred alongside one another in the overlooked heist-gone-wrong comedy of confusion and betrayal, Big Nothing. I highly recommend both Big Nothing and Run, Fatboy, Run if you’re a fan of British humour and sarcasm.

8/10