I turned this off, the most horrible rating I can give a movie. This movie proves Hilary Swank cannot act, at least not in a romance. This movie was so bad I doubt anyone could have saved it anyway.

Got around to this one this afternoon. It starts out with the main character(Hayden Christensen) waiting for a heart transplant, a bit difficult to beleive as he is jumping in and out of the sack with his girlfried(Jessica Alba) and looks a bit too healty. Nevertheless, his transplant comes around and we find him in the operating room under anthestesia, unable to move, but fully aware of everything that is said and done. I will leave it at this because here is where things start to happen. It is a decent movie though somewhat predictable once the OR scene gets underway.

It was a pleasant surprise to see that Christensen had more than two expressions, something I hadn't seen in his acting before. If you don't like operating rooms(oddly I don't)the first surgical stuff will make your skin crawl, only because he can feel it. After that you will want to watch it if only to find out what happens.

The following film I have just finished watching is possibly the worst creative exercise ever conceived, including everything you have ever watched on YouTube.

2012 Doomsday (2008)

Many of you will have never heard of this film, which came out in the US this year and hopefully will never be released over here. If you have an insatiable curiosity and a penchant for masochism, you may watch it for free here:
http://www.surfthechannel.com/info/Movies/65133/2012+Doomsday.html#
I am not normally one for copyright infringment (actually I am), but in this case it doesn't matter as this film does not deserve any money what so ever.
If you have read any of my other blog entries, you may think I am exaggerating, but I am not. The film is awful, truly, horrificly awful.

First of all the premise is ridiculous - that Christians were in Mexico (doing what I don't know) before Columbus and that they hooked up with the Mayans to make a generic, end of the world type scenario prophecy. And now the world is going to end thanks to God (who is mentioned every 3 seconds, just in case you found your belief in Him waining - which it will do if you watch this film) and "the Black Hole at the centre of our Galaxy" which thanks to less than shoddy script-writing and lazy research is all that needs to be said on THAT dubious 'fact'.
The script really is terrible. Worse than any soap opera, easily. For example:
"The world's about to end and I want to make sure you're safe."
and
[stranger with a mysterious tattoo dies (whose significance is never explained)]"Well I guess it was just his time to go."
The above might not seem that bad until I tell you that the person speaking is a Paramedic who just watched him die.
There is a lot of "I don't know why I just have a feeling" type shit going on, freeing the protagonists of any explaination of their frankly insane behaviour.
The direction is almost non-existent and the music is, well, crap. Are any of you familiar with South Park? You know how every episode becomes some sort of parody of melodrama, with sweeping vioins, thundering kettle drums and wooshing noises when a dramtic scene is revealed. That is EXACTLY how this film is done. The film is so cliche ridden there's no space for anything else.
It's also sad because it is so obviously some sort of reposte by the God-botherers in the States against the rising tide of incredulity towards Christianity and films like The Day After Tomorrow. It fails on all fronts, quite spectacularly. You're more likely to join Opus Dai after watching The Da Vinci Code than even be slightly more receptive to US Christians after watching this drivel.
I really can't put it in stronger terms. The film takes all the most annoying things from Armageddon, Deep Impact and The Core, mixes it with Apocalypto, The Ten Commandments and a primary school play. Fuck me it's terrible. I watched it while at work so I don't feel I've wasted any time, but not all of you will have to go through this.
It'd be nice to meet one other person who has seen this film so we can hate it together, but I really don't wish it on any of you. My girlfriend is forcing me to come and see Sex and The City tonight, and after this, I'm actually looking forward to it.

DomGee.

Tagline: “Between Heaven and Hell There's Always Hollywood! “

This Coen Brothers film is a fabulous black comedy with some very dark depths to be plumbed. In 1941, the serious, intellectual playwright Barton Fink, played goofily by John Turturro, has a very successful play in New York with his theatre for the common man, for everybody. He accepts an offer from Hollywood and arrives in Los Angeles to be told that he must write a wrestling movie for Wallace Beery. He sees this as beneath him and gets serious writers block.

An atmosphere of almost surreal strangeness persists from start to end: the opening shot is a slow zoom towards some fading wallpaper. I was reminded strongly of the film Delicatessen by several sequences and the overall ambience of dampness and decay. Barton’s LA hotel is dreadful. The wallpaper literally peels off the walls and when he attempts to put it back in place, he gets slime all over his hands (and this matches well the slimy Hollywood people we meet later). The bedspread is faded, the windows won‘t open and there is a mosquito buzzing round his room.

As with many of his films John Goodman steals it, playing a larger than life insurance salesman. He is in the room next to Barton’s and when they meet, Barton tells him of his writer’s block. Goodman attempts to tell him stories from real life, from a common man. 3 times he tries, but on each occasion Barton talks over him and doesn’t listen. This is one of the themes of the film: Barton thinks he can describe the life of everyday folk just by thinking about it, and he is of course wrong. “The life of the mind” as he puts it, and this phrase comes back terrifyingly from Goodman at the end of the film. But it goes deeper than that: Barton doesn’t really want to know about the common man and doesn’t want to know about the world. He’s not interested in Goodman and all that seethes beneath his surface and he never even opens the approximately head-sized box he is presented with: he is uncurious and that is no way for a writer to be. The tale takes a very dark turn towards the end, with Goodman’s character turning out to be something far worse than a simple insurance salesman.

The cinematography is excellent and the scenes inside the hotel in particular are beautifully done. Brown tones dominate and the whole has a feeling of seediness, rot and dereliction. The camera doesn’t move much, but zooms slowly giving a calm feeling to the proceedings. Every performance is note perfect.

Three types of writers come in for great criticism from this film: playwrights, film writers and authors. Authors are represented by John Mahoney brilliantly playing a constantly soused author and his lover/assistant Judy Davis who actually writes his books for him. As well as writers, Hollywood is ripped to pieces by this film. The bosses he meets are loud, brash, rude and only interested in money. They shout, badger and bully and appear to completely lack sensitivity, and they are played to perfection by those who clearly know the people they are portraying. Michael Lerner in particular is excellent.

The tagline at the top was carefully chosen, but the hellishness should be taken allegorically rather than literally. This film is really about different sorts of hell, including but not limited to these:

Fink’s personal hell inside his own mind where he wrestles with his own “inner demons“.
The hell that is Hollywood
The hell that is the lives of normal people
Nazism
The creative writing process
Socialism
Murder

It isn’t all laid out on a plate for the viewer. There are symbols galore and we can each choose what to make of them.

But this film is flawed. It drags a little in places, the characters are over-stereotyped, and if I’m being completely honest there are too many sub-themes that go nowhere, too many hints about what might be that aren’t explored and could have been left out and as a result it feels laboured. But it is funny, well-acted, surprising and always looks excellent. But if you want a straight, simple story, this is not the film for you.

Cheers, Tom.

This movie is based around cyber crime and the FBI agent(Diane Lane) who is involved in tracking and fighting it. I was warned at work about the grisly nature of the crimes but still found myself a bit unprepared and found it difficult to watch at times. It is suspenseful but very disturbing. I found it somewhat predictable but that didn't seem to interfere with it's ability to keep my interest.

I think what bothered me the most is the idea that this really goes on in our world and people tune in to these sites out of interest. It is a sad statement about mankind.

It's certainly not a movie I would watch twice as I could barely watch the first time. The performances were fine though most I've talked to felt the ending was disappointing. I wont say more but will let you decide for yourself. Do NOT watch this with kids around and this has a strong don't eat dinner while watching warning.

My daughter purchased this and so we sat down together and watched it last night. It is the story of a girl Allison, who while celebrating her promotion at work, gets drunk and bedded by the most unlikely of guys, Ben. Eight weeks later she finds herself pregnant. She calls the guy she has not seen since the night it all came to pass, and we follow their journey of getting to know one another while they wait for the birth of their child.

Allison lives with her sister whose marriage is at best unhappy, two people, as she puts it, who are not right for one another, and she struggles with what she sees and does not want for herself. Ben lives with housemates all ner do well pot smoking juveniles who are waiting to launch their business, a website called "Flesh of the Stars."

It's full of laughs but don't watch it with kids as it is very crude, filled with sexual references and sex during pregnancy.(hilarious)

This is a movie to be appreciated by any of us girls who have been in a wedding. It is lighthearted and enjoyable, a chick flick you guys may not care for. The ideals of love are explored in both the central character and her sister, one who waits for the one she thinks she loves and one who wants to marry for all the wrong reasons. You will enjoy the part of the movie where our character models her "27 dresses," a collection of for the most part, ugly bridesmaid dresses she stores in her closet.

It's a nice easy going movie not demanding anything of you but turning it on and having a good time.

Tim Burton is at his finest in this musical about a man who has been greatly wronged and his path to revenge. I'm not a huge Burton fan nor am I a fan of musicals but this was well done, though gory at times. I don't recommend eating dinner in front of the tv for this one.

It was surprising to see Depp singing through a movie but I have to admit he carried it off quite well as did Helena Bonham Carter and the rest of the cast. The ending left parts of the story a bit untied and you are left to imagine the fate of the remaining characters but it's a minor matter as the movie is not complicated in any way.

If you like Tim Burton you will love this movie and even if you don't Johnny Depp will make it all worthwhile.

Novel by Upton Sinclair

I've been catching up on movies once again as you can tell and finally got around to this one the other night. I will warn you it's very long so make sure you have a block of time available. Daniel Day Lewis once again gives an incredible performance and it was worthy of every award he took home this last season.

His character Daniel Plainview is an oilman in the turn of the century prospecting days. It follows Plainview's rise to power and his need to succeed and his need to have all others fail. His adopted son is apparently used to help him look like a good family man, though in the movie you are given the impression at least in the beginning, that he deeply loves the boy. As Plainview becomes increasingly wealthy and powerful we are given a look at who he really is.

As I have said it is long and is a character study type of movie so if this is not your cup of tea, don't bother. It is, however, worth every minute of your viewing time and the performances by Lewis and Paul Dano(who got little to no press) are astounding.

I had the opportunity to see the second Narnia movie "Prince Caspian" this week. As I do not wish to post spoilers for others I will keep my review brief. Caspian is the hier to the throne of his kingdom, currently ruled by his "evil uncle." When his Aunt gives birth to a son, the Uncle clearly does not want Caspian in the way. Caspian narrowly escapes to the woods with his life. Given a magic horn by his tutor at the time of his escape, he uses it to summon help, no knowing what it does, and our central characters are summoned back to Narnia.

The film is filled with adventure and battles and will hold your attention from beginning to end. It is not appropriate for the very young but then I don't know that the first one was either. Though it is filled with fantasy, dark themes run throughout the movie. Peter felt this movie was better than the first one and I think I would have to agree. When it comes your way I would highly recommend it.

A little jaunt to the cinema last night brought me to see Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes starring in In Bruges.

This is rather a testosterone-fuelled show - strong men standing up for their principles while simultaneously searching for redemption for their sins. Don't let that turn you off though, the aggression is tempered by a constant supply of hilarity - sometimes slapstick, sometimes dark, always funny.

I am huge Brendan Gleeson fan, the man is fantastically versatile and always a pleasure to watch - In Bruges, in that respect, is typical Gleeson. Colin Farrell usually just irritates me but he's impressive here, striking a nice balance between vulnerability, belligerence and idiocy.

Highly recommended.

And tonight I'm off to Indy 4...can't bloody wait!

Glorious words from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' (Miranda's speech, Act 4, Scene 1), spoken by The Savage in Aldous Huxley's quintessential dystopian novel, Brave New World, my absolute favourite. Set in AD2540 London, it anticipates the development of reproductive technology, biological engineering and sleep-learning that combine to change society.

Hollywood has brought us Spiderman, X-Men, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Hulk. And in production, Captain America, Wonder Woman and Ant-Man.

Ant-Man? Getting a big desperate, aren't we?

While good escapist fun, isn't it high time they tackled something more cerebral like a big screen remake of Brave New World?

I remember being captivated by the 1980 TV version starring Kristoffer Tabori as John Savage, Keir Dullea as Thomas Grambell and Julie Cobb as Linda Lysenko. Loved the twisted perceptions of behavioural norms and quirky language:

'Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted! Bottle of mine, why was I ever decanted? Skies are blue inside of you, The weather's always fine; For There ain't no Bottle in all the world Like that dear little Bottle of mine.'

'Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption. It’s madness. Nowadays the Controllers won’t approve of any new game unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games.'

'Christianity without tears — that’s what soma is. A gramme is better than a damn.'

'That is the secret of happiness and virtue - liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny.'

'I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.'

Winced when I read in Wikipedia that they'd done a 'modernised' made-for-TV version in 1990. Loved the Queen soundtrack in the late Heath Ledger's 'A Knight's Tale', but if I hear The Savage burst into song with a jolly rendition of 'I Want to Break Free', I think I'll cry.

And the 2007 anime version? Mind-boggling.

Please, please, PLEASE, don't change it!! It's perfect the way it is. The language and concepts are as fresh and quirky today as when written 75 years ago. Genius is timeless.

Hollywood, are you listening?

Reference and credit for first edition image of book to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Reinette58
www.warping2gallifrey.blog.co.uk

With great films such as Rebecca, Spellbound, I Confess and Notorious already under his belt Alfred Hitchcock turned to the truth in 1956 with The Wrong Man based on a true story of mistaken identity starring Henry Fonda (12 Angry Men, The Grapes of Wrath) and Vera Miles (The Searchers).

Fonda plays 'Manny' Balestrero who goes down to the insurance company one morning to see how much money he can borrow against his wife's policy. The trip results in him being identified as a serial burglar guilty of several robberies and assaults in the recent area. Manny, his wife, and the audience all know he's innocent and thus "has nothing to fear" but when they search for alibis two of the three people who can vouch for his whereabouts when the crimes took place are dead... matters are complicated further when with the onset of the trial and evidence mounting against him, Manny's wife has a nervous breakdown.

Fonda's superb in this film, understated from the outset his portrayal of tension and stress is simply sublime, rivalled only by Vera Miles' performance which reminded me of Vivien Leigh in A Streetcar Named Desire. The director too is on the top of his game here, with striking angles and locations matched perfectly to Bernard Hermann's score Hitch' can let the story itself provide the intrigue and tension without having to do too much in the editing suite; thus at 105 minutes the film passes very quickly and very enjoyably.

With style matching substance and performances that grip from the opening titles this is a movie for any film fan and a great introduction to film noir.

Some people love Woody Allen and his films, they find him intelligent, hilarious and incredibly witty. I'm not one of those people. Annie Hall sees woody at his most stereotypical, quoting european arthouse films and generally congratulating himself on being a filmmaker. The Jewish shtick fails every time, his neuroses is clearly an act that's worked time and again for him but personally i cant stand it. This film has no point other than to let us see woody Allen being neurotic and miserable at relationships, then he dresses the whole thing up as a pathetic truism that should chime for most people. Bookended by bad jokes the film never leaves first gear plodding through evermore self indulgent monologues from woody to such an extreme that i looked at my watch when i was only half an hour into the film. For Allen fans this must be like catnip for kittens, but i'm too cynical too unsympathetic and too un-american for his cheap gimmicks.

Zerkalo (The Mirror) - My Review

This film by Andrei Tarkovsky is my favourite film of all time. I could watch it over and over again and never get bored with it, just like I can listen to my favourite music over and over again, and with every viewing something new is found. It is almost endlessly deep and powerful, a true work of film art like few others. Tarkovsky said “This is a film about you”. He made a film about everyone by making a film about himself and his own memories. It is deeply personal and simultaneously about each and every one of us.

The simplest complete explanation for this complex and many-layered film that I have ever seen is this one:

"It is about a man who had caused too much pain to the ones whom he loved and who loved him. Now he is dying and he is trying to ask them for forgiveness but he does not know how."

Whilst this is a reasonable description, it only skims the surface. Some have put it even more simply: this is a man’s dying thoughts flashing through his mind, disordered and seemingly random.

We get image after image, some apparently unrelated to the others. We get different episodes that initially don’t appear to be related but upon deeper inspection, are. In Tarkovsky’s own words: “every symbol, image, dialog, and sound was there because they belonged there”. These images and sounds accumulate in the mind as the film is watched and affect the viewer: you are stirred to emotion, even if you do not wish to be. He picks examples from his own memories and puts them together and the combined effect tells a universal tale that can have meaning for each of us, if we search for it. The poems we hear, for example, are those of his own father.

One of Tarkovsky’s recurring themes is the struggle to find meaning in life, both on a personal level and on a much wider scale. That is certainly present here as is memory, both individual and collective, and nostalgia.

David Lynch has been compared with Tarkovsky because of the dream-like nature of his films, and this is a reasonable comparison. Mirror is a sequence of dream-like images. Like a dream the images start, proceed and then end, just like the film does, but at the end we have been changed. Even if you have no inclination to concentrate on what is being shown to you, you can just sit back and watch, and appreciate the beauty of the images you are shown. The images have a beautiful simplicity and such texture that you feel as if you could reach out and touch them. Shot after shot is utterly, perfectly beautiful. Every tiny detail is under Tarkovsky’s careful control: the movement of grass in the wind, shadows, the minutiae of expression of the human face.

But there is one thing Tarkovsky could not control: You. Each of us brings to this amazing film our own memories, our own experiences and we use these to make meaning of the images from Tarkovsky’s past that we are shown. We use our own past to interpret his past, and I think this is the meaning of the title Mirror: we the viewers are reflected in the film.

This is not a conventional film and someone expecting a straight story will be disappointed. But, if you want a different cinematic experience, one that has the power to change lives, then this just might, might be the one you have been looking for. My words are deeply unsatisfactory as a description of this film, but I hope they have managed to convey why it is worthy of watching.

Cheers, Tom.

Surprisingly good film from Spike Lee, mainly due to Denzel's lead performance. The story concerns a convict who is released in order to persuade his prodigious son to attend a certain college which the local governor loves, in return he is told he'll be released early from his life sentence. I'm not sure what the point of Milla Jovovich's character is, she's a prostitute living next door to Denzel, and apart from sex that's it. The kid himself is alright, and the colour is the same saturated palette you get in pretty much all of Lee's films. The film's too long - a common Lee trait - and some of the subplots are muddled, but what really lets it down is the stupefying ending which really leaves you thinking "I can't believe he [Lee] copped out with that!". Could have been better, but for what it's worth it's a lot better than Lee's really bad stuff.

Another Hitchcock film where the protagonist plans and attempts to enact the "perfect murder" - in this case, much like Strangers On A Train - by getting someone else to do it for him. The downfall here however, more akin to Rope, is the protagonist's arrogance and attention to detail ("genius amateur"). Why make the film at all? I'm not sure: Hitch' seems to have been obsessed with the intellectual idea of the perfect murder, the unsolvable crime where the bad guy gets away with it - but in every film that revolves around the perfect crime something always comes unstuck be it arrogance (Rope), a psycho (Strangers On A Train) or a pattern of behaviour (Dial M For Murder). To me this seems self-defeating, bordering on masochism.

Pointless or not Dial M remains a good film, largely [if not solely] because of the story. For a good 3/4 of the film it seems like Ray Milland's character has actually gotten away with it - which i thought would have been refreshing. Stilted dialogue and wooden acting aside (Milland reminded me of Stewart a lot) i loved the attention to detail his character took, even so far as planting evidence at the last minute to pin the murder on his wife. All very clever, in a self-congratulatory way of course, and suspenseful, although not a suspense in an emotional caring-for-the-character sort of way but in an intellectual will-he-beat-the-police manner.

I don't see the appeal of Grace Kelly either: she's blonde and slim, but not anything like what i'd call beautiful; she doesn't even have screen presence in this film. And i got a chuckle from the policeman with the handbag ("what are you doing? You'll get arrested like that!") which was unexpected.

A good film all round, enjoyable not least because i was genuinely surprised by the ending (and oh so slightly disappointed). 8/10 because i loved the music, and some of the more stylish shots.

A huge influence on The Virgin Spring and Hero amongst many other films, i dont really think there's much to criticise in Kurosawa's great film. It's a bit slow in places, but it's a hell of a lot quicker than Seven Samurai; the acting and direction are just fantastic with Kurosawa really going to town with his cinematic depiction of rain.

So, in absence of a decent review, i'll leave it to the images to sell the film: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=113993&l=4af63&id=891005301

After all the hype this movie received I finally was looking forward to watching it. I sat down with it last night and try as I might, I never could really get into it. I did watch it from beginning to end and while it has a fine cast and lovely special effects, it's boring as can be.

The story line never came together, at least in a way that captured me and drew me in. I even sat looking for the deeper meaning after I was done, because I'm sure there was one. Perhaps it was because the busy day left me in the wrong mood for it. Perhaps it was the marketing job that left me anticipating something spectacular. As my daughter said, "it was good on the big screen." I can see that it would be lovely to watch on the big screen but it has to have a story that weaves it together. This movie did not. It is filled as I said with a fine cast but they could not save this. I had a feeling it was laying a base for the movies to come but it felt like the first two boring chapters of a book that you need to get through before it takes off.

Your kids may enjoy it if they are young enough to enjoy the effects while not noticing the rest is really missing the beat.