filmstubs

Underrated: Kontroll

2011-08-24T23:10:00.000+01:00

FilmFour often surprises me. Just when you think it has become an endless cycle of Mission: Impossible III and second rate Michael Douglas thrillers, it suddenly manages to recapture your attention and fly in the face of a ratings-driven industry. The recent Ingmar Bergman season was a particular example of this; Swedish meditations on death and morality will not exactly pull in audiences, but it was a complete treat for cinema fans. For those of us not blessed with satellite television or bottomless pockets, it was our reward for toiling through the meagre cinematic offerings of ITV2, BBC3 and FiveUSA.

Not long after the Bergman season ended, FilmFour proudly announced a M. Night Shyamalan double bill. I sighed in despair. However, in amongst its once again predictable listings stood Kontroll, a film that has intrigued me for a while now.

Though I was vaguely aware of the film and its setting and plot, I was far more familiar with its director, namely Nimród Antal. Antal strikes me as a man who has become a victim of the Hollywood machine; a talented and creative foreign director who becomes just another helmer-for-hire when they cross the Atlantic.

Kontroll was Antal's first feature film. It was well received and was in competition at Cannes 2003, the first Hungarian film to do so for twenty years. Much like Timur Bekmambetov and Oliver Hirschbiegel, he was identified as a cheap and crowd-pleasing option for helming mid-budget American productions. The three films he has directed since crossing the pond have ranged from the just-about watch-able (Vacancy) to the just-plain awful (Predators).

Most reviewers have expressed their disappointment with Antal's efforts, having seen undoubted talent and flair in his work on Kontroll. The questions that were being asked of Antal are ones that have always bugged me; how are talented international directors so easily sucked into Hollywood's talent vaccuum of mediocrity? Why do so many of them fail?

In Antal's case, you need only go back to his breakthrough film to get your answer.

Kontroll really is an excellent, unique film. Considering I went into it with high expectations, I was surprised not to suffer from any feelings of disappointment. It has so many features that would make an American producer sit up and take notice: a stylised look and feel, the dreaded 'quirky' cast of characters, a wicked sense of humour. However, it simply would not work as an American film; the tone is too cynical and the setting too drab (the film takes place entirely in a filthy underground rail network). The great strength of Kontroll is that, stylistically, the influence of American films is very evident, but the film is very much from a Hungarian, not American, perspective.

Kontroll centres on a team of ticket inspectors in a Hungarian metro station. We follow them, led by central character Bulcsú, on their daily duties and activities as they encounter a strange cast of characters, including threatening (and ticketless) passengers, a mischievous youth named Bootsie, and an eccentric woman dressed as a bear (Bulcsú's love interest). Meanwhile, a mystery figure is pushing passengers in front of trains and characters are engaging in a dangerous sport known as "rail running."

Like Bulcsú, we never see sunshine, but we become part of an underground world that does not seem entirely human. An unnatural, greenish glow lights filthy, graffiti-ridden seats and inspectors struggle with their sanity as they gain no respect or dignity from the vagrants and oddballs they meet. At the beginning off the film, the director of the Budapest Metro appears to assure us that the film is in no way representative of its workers or service, but any subway veteran will be able to recognise that the film is not entirely a work of fiction. There are certain people who you will only ever meet at night in a Tube train carriage.

Antal offsets the dreary setting with a cast of entirely likeable characters; ranging from a fatherly train driver with a drink problem, to an excitable, yet narcoleptic, member of Bulcsú's crew. Whilst we are presented with familiar movie personas such as the rookie, the wise, old head and snarky member of a rival crew, they never once feel like stereotypes. Each character has a freshness about them that belies the staleness of their surroundings.

So, what does all this mean for Antal in Hollywood? Simply put, to make a film like this on a decent budget would be impossible in America. Many of the themes are too dark and the characters too morally ambiguous to risk a considerable amount of money on and Antal is yet to prove himself worth the risk. Predators clearly demonstrated this. What should have been a hot European director breathing new life into a tired franchise became a series of clichés and predictable characters. Antal must take some of the blame for this, but it is clear, like many international directors, that he has had to curb the eccentricities and quirks that originally made Hollywood sit up and take notice, in order to make it in an already crowded scene.

At the moment, Antal is at a crossroads in his career. Predators was not the successful reboot that was expected and there are doubts whether he will be handed a budget like that again. This, in my mind, is a good thing. Antal needs to return to the talents that originally made him stand out; favouring strong characters and setting over driving the plot forward through exposition and set-pieces. Perhaps, even, a return to Hungary may be worth considering. For now, I urge you to hunt down Kontroll and give it a chance; the film that made (and possibly broke) Nimród Antal.

In the meantime, I would urge the powers-that-be to look again at Kontroll. This great film demonstrates strengths that, given the right amount of creative control and a producer willing to take a risk, could yet make Antal a star. After all, Kontroll will always be the film that made (and possibly broke) Nimród Antal.

On Any Other Year: Gregory Peck vs. Peter O'Toole

2011-07-06T15:57:00.000+01:00

Ah, Atticus Finch; devoted parent, defender of the oppressed and the American Film Institute's greatest hero in movie history. To Kill a Mockingbird was a peerless adaptation of one of the most ground-breaking books of the 20th century, and at the centre of it all was Gregory Peck as the saintly and crusading Finch. In an era when heroes were heroes, Atticus Finch was arguably the greatest of them all, and Peck had the role of a lifetime. He would never forget how lucky he was to be given the part.

At around about the same time of Mockingbird's release, a very different type of hero rode his camel into the limelight and attempted to steal Finch's thunder. That man was T.E. Lawrence or, rather, Peter O'Toole, a complete unknown who had just starred in the epic to end all epics - Lawrence of Arabia.

O'Toole's performance is also on the American Film Institutes's list of heroes (number 10) but his actions are far more ambiguous in their virtue. Lawrence is portrayed as an egotist who, by the end of the film, actively engages in a massacre and is on the brink of losing all sense of perspective. However, O'Toole's endless charisma and gravitas leave the viewer remembering Lawrence for his bravery and bravado; the man who turned back to rescue Gasim in the desert, rather than the bloodthirsty avenger he becomes.

Charisma and gravitas are two great strengths that were also possessed by Gregory Peck, and he showed it in spades in his portrayal of Finch. Mockingbird's author, Harper Lee, once said of Peck that "Atticus Finch gave him an opportunity to play himself." Peck often compared his own childhood to that of Scout and Jem in the book and his love for the character and understanding of the film's themes and messages shine through in his performance. Firm and disciplined, yet tender and reassuring, Peck not only convinces as a caring father, but as a lawyer who does his utmost to defend an innocent black man from prejudice and injustice.

For Peck not to win the 1963 Oscar for Best Actor would have been a crime. In my view it is one of cinema's greatest ever performances and perhaps the most perfect piece of casting in a book-to-film adaptation. It is such a shame, then, that Peter O'Toole role as T.E. Lawrence happened to be in the same year.

Poor Peter O'Toole, a man with 8 Best Actor nominations to his name, but not a single win (honorary awards do not count). Lawrence of Arabia remains his best performance and the most deserving of those nominations. For an unknown actor to burst onto the scene in such an epic way is remarkable. The sheer amount of effort required for the role would make other actors balk at the task. The fatigue was genuine, the shoot was notoriously arduous and O'Toole was nearly killed when he fell of his camel. But what we got at the end of it was a film that will never be forgotten, despite its flaws, and a central performance that stands out among the miles of desert and thousands of extras on display. On any other year, O'Toole would have Oscar glory. Forty-Eight years later, he is still waiting.

On Any Other Year takes on the Best Actress category once more next time. Anne Bancroft, Katharine Hepburn (again!), and Faye Dunaway make a hell of a line-up, but how exactly did the Academy choose between them?

On Any Other Year: Marlon Brando vs. Humphrey Bogart

2011-06-29T16:13:00.002+01:00

Two very different actors. Two very different shows of masculinity.

As I have written about before, the 1952 Academy Awards saw The African Queen and A Streetcar Named Desire facing off against each other - great films with very different content and a great deal of parallels to be drawn, not least in the performances of the films' stars.

The Best Actress category had seen Vivien Leigh and Katharine Hepburn facing off for the top prize, but the remarkable thing about Streetcar and The African Queen is that their greatest strengths come from the interplay between leading lady and leading man. As strong as Leigh and Hepburn were in these films, their performances would have been diminished without a strong, male sparring partner to face off against, and vice versa. For both films to work, a very special chemistry was required between their stars. That is exactly what we got.

Just as Leigh had put in a landmark performance in Streetcar, Marlon Brando matched her as the repugnant yet compelling Stanley Kowalski. It is surprisingly rare to see a star born over the course of a single film, but for Brando, an unknown in one of his very first films, it was a performance that set him on the road to becoming one of the greatest actors ever to live. Brutal, manipulative and charismatic, Brando perfectly captured a deceptively complex character - a man that has an almost hypnotic hold over his mistreated wife Stella. His routine life is turned on its head by the arrival of the disapproving Blanche DuBois.

It is the chemistry between Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando that makes this film such a brilliant adaptation. The sexual charge behind their exchanges bubbles under the surface as they display their contempt towards each other - elegant femininity contrasted with raw animalism. In all their scenes, a sense of impending dread that something is going to go horribly wrong between the two of them builds. Those who know the play will, of course, know something will go wrong, but the tension developed by Brando and Leigh is a remarkable display of acting talent.

For Leigh, this meant Oscar glory, but Brando was to (unfairly, in my view) miss out. Standing in his way was the legendary Humphrey Bogart.

Bogart was a man in transition. He was, perhaps, two old to hold the role of traditional, dashing leading man. He always had a world weary air about him but, now in his 50's, Bogart was crying out for a role that took the idea of a mature, grizzled man who was been there and done that, and just roll with it. The African Queen was just such a roll.

It is impossible for Bogart not to be charming, but the character of Charlie Allnut was a world away from Phillip Marlowe or Rick Blaine. The gin swilling and the cynicism are familiar character traits, but Allnut is Blaine without the hope or kindness; a slob who has all but given up on himself. Grumpy to the point of being cruel, Bogart pushes his traditional image to its limits in his early exchanges with Hepburn in the film. But, as with so many films from this era, it takes the love of a good woman to turn him around.

The chemistry between Hepburn and Bogart is perfect. Nowhere near as intense and combustible as Leigh and Brando, Charlie and Rose's chemistry is reluctant, moving slowly from intense dislike to mutual respect and, finally, to pure attraction. It could more or less write the rulebook for the love-hate relationship - something that Hepburn and Bogart were used to, but perfected alongside each other.

Brando should have won this particular showdown, but on any other year, Bogart would have walked this award without a problem.

On Any Other Year will return to examine the Best Actor category once again, and the 1963 competition between Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird and Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

On Any Other Year: Vivien Leigh vs. Katharine Hepburn

2011-05-11T12:31:00.000+01:00

The 1951 film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire would live and die on the actors chosen to portray Blanche DuBois and Stanley Kowalski. Plenty of stage adaptations have faltered by casting a Stanley who wasn't raw and animalistic enough. Many more have suffered with a Blanche who lacked a unique enigmatic and alluring quality. The film adaptation nailed its casting.

On Any Other Year will focus on Marlon Brando's Stanley Kowalski in the next post, but today Filmstubs is looking at the 1952 Best Actress category. Just a year after the award was presented with an extraordinary array of competition, two of the era's greatest actresses went into direct competition in the category. Vivien Leigh had perfected Blanche DuBois in Streetcar. In a film filled with career defining performances, hers was the most extraordinary. Blanche is incredibly difficult to get right, but Leigh's charm and fragility, along with her portrayal of a woman beginning to lose her sanity, was utterly convincing.

As remarkable as the performance was, Leigh's Oscar was no foregone conclusion. She was up against an acting titan who the Academy loved like no other; Katharine Hepburn had just put in one of her most memorable performances in The African Queen. Like Leigh, Hepburn was playing a woman who finds herself placed in a situation with a man she believed was beneath her; a classy lady stuck with a slovenly and unkempt alcoholic. Whilst the chemistry between Leigh and Brando is raw and destructive, the equally engaging combination of Hepburn's Rose and Humphrey Bogart's Charlie is reluctant and classically love-hate.

Charlie is not the brute that Stanley Kowalski is, nor is the initially frigid Rose a Blanche DuBois, so their relationship in far more restrained and slow-burning. The chemistry is there for all to see, however. The African Queen is made great by the interplay between Hepburn and Bogart, who spend long stretches of the film alone together on the boat. Only great actors can carry a film in such a way, and Hepburn and Bogart's charisma shines through.

Ultimately, we were left with two greats of the golden age, both Oscar winners already, competing for the ultimate prize again in 1952. Vivien Leigh won, I would say deservedly so, but 1952 was a ceremony that pitted two extraordinary women at the peak of their powers against each other. It was a rare and great moment for the acting community.

Tomorrow, I will look at the same ceremony, this time focussing on the Best Actor category and the two men who played opposite Leigh and Hepburn that year - Marlon Brando and Humphrey Bogart.

On Any Other Year: The 1951 Battle for Best Actress

2011-05-10T16:37:00.001+01:00

The performances of Bette Davis in All About Eve and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd. have been drawing comparisons for all of the 60 years since the films were released. Two classic films, each focussing on ageing actresses desperately trying to cling to former glories, make the parallels impossible to avoid. In reality, however, the performances were very different. The jealous outbursts of Margo in All About Eve have little in common, character-wise, with the dangerously deluded Norma Desmond in Sunset Blvd. Their eventual fate demonstrates this; Margo eventually reclaims her dignity, Norma Desmond only reclaims the illusion of dignity.

Where the two performances should draw parallels is in their brilliance. Some found Swanson's performance to be over-the-top but in the case of Sunset Blvd. it was perfectly fitting. A once-glorious and adored silent movie actress, used to over-annunciated and exaggerated gestures, Swanson's portrayal of Norma Desmond is exactly how I'd expect such an actress to behave. The same goes for Bette Davis in All About Eve; witty and talented, she is used to being adored. The transformation of Margo as Anne Baxter's Eve has an ever-increasing influence on her life is remarkable. Davis is brilliant early on as the effortlessly cool diva, but her increasingly confrontational style as her jealousy towards Eve grows is even better.

But enough about these two performances. They didn't win the Oscar after all. Anna Baxter also lost out for the titular role in All About Eve. She had proved more than a match for Bette Davis in the film, evolving from the picture of sweetness and innocence to a conniving and ruthless manipulator with remarkable and wholly believable skill. In fact, one could argue, if they had not effectively split each other's votes by appearing in the same film, either one of them would have deservedly walked away with the top prize.

They didn't, however. The honour went to Judy Holliday for her performance in Born Yesterday. It is a fine performance, with Holliday playing a former showgirl being educated to fit in with high society. At most Academy Awards in the era she would have won the Oscar easily but, of the four actresses, her role is perhaps the least well remembered. That is not because there was anything wrong with it, on the contrary, but because this was a particularly fine year for female actresses and time would look more favourably on All About Eve and Sunset Blvd. (though Born Yesterday is still a very good film).

If I were to choose a winner now I would probably go for Bette Davis, though her cause wasn't helped by the fact she had already won two Oscars at this point and been nominated many times. Baxter also had an Oscar to her name, though Swanson would never win, with this being her final nomination. All the roles have gone down in history, however, and this remains one of the strongest years for the Best Actress category in history.

On Any Other Year will return next time to examine the Best Actress category once more. This time, the focus will be on 1952, and Vivien Leigh's performance in A Streetcar Named Desire going up against Katharine Hepburn in The African Queen.

On Any Other Year: The 1941 Best Picture Battle

2011-05-06T15:11:00.001+01:00

On Any Other Year is a new series of short articles for Filmstubs covering the Academy Award moments when voters were faced with a dilemma worthy of Sophie's Choice.

Often, from the moment the Oscar nominees are announced, we know the clear frontrunners. This is particularly true of the acting categories. This year, for instance, not many people were under the illusion that anyone other that Colin Firth or Natalie Portman would walk away with the top prizes. Very occasionally however, the Academy will be presented with two or more nominees so deserving of winning a certain category that it seems a sin to see one lose out.

Most (though by no means all) Oscar-nominees are good, but sometimes a year will throw together several works of greatness, be it in film-making or acting and force them to fight it out for top spot. Hence "On Any Other Year:" the nominees that would have cantered to the Oscar in a lesser year but lost out to greatness.

We start with 1941, and one of the strongest Best Picture fields the Academy has even witnessed. Then, like now, the Best Picture award was made up of ten nominees. In this particular year, the nominees were a mixed bag of neglected greats (Foreign Correspondent, The Letter) and so-so films that had gained popularity at the time (Kitty Foyle, Our Town). There were, however, four stand-out nominees: Rebecca, The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, and The Philadelphia Story. All of these films occupy places in the IMDb top 250, 70 years after their release.

Rebecca would go on to claim the Academy Award. Few would argue that it didn't deserve it. This was a film that showed a different side of Alfred Hitchcock and the extent of his talent. It was a masterful film, superbly shot and acted. It remains, to this day, one of the greatest literary adaptations made on film.

However, pretty high on the list of great literary adaptations would the The Grapes of Wrath. John Ford brilliantly captured John Steinbeck's classic Great Depression tale and was graced with great performances from his cast. The themes of the film are the sort of thing the Academy loves, and it did, giving the film seven nominations. It says a lot about the quality on display that year that The Grapes of Wrath only gained two awards.

The Great Dictator was altogether something different. An incredibly enduring comedy and biting piece of satire, its timing, as America debated whether to enter the Second World War, was impeccable. As a satire of Nazi Germany it was more effective than any propaganda film the industry could produce. That is not to say it has not remained relevant; anyone with a passing knowledge of history can easily pick up on the themes. If not Charlie Chaplin's greatest work, it is certainly his most accessible.

Finally, we have The Philadelphia Story, probably my least favourite of the four, but perhaps the film that best captures Hollywood's Golden Age. The unbeatable combination of Cary Grant, James Stewart, and Katharine Hepburn give this the class and wit that so many romantic comedies of the era seem to ooze. It remains much loved, and is the only film that James Stewart would ever win an acting Oscar for.

So there you have it: four films, all of which would have richly deserved a Best Picture Oscar. They've all aged incredibly well, but it is only Rebecca that is a Best Picture winner. In my view, of the four, Rebecca was the film that deserved the prize, but I would certainly not begrudge any of the others winning.

On Any Other Year will return to examine the 1951 battle for Best Actress.

So when does Ben Affleck stop being the butt of the joke?

2011-05-02T17:02:00.000+01:00

The Academy Awards, 1998. Two young best friends triumphantly hold their Oscars aloft, having come together to write the electric screenplay for one of 1997's most successful and critically lauded films. Before they were barely recognisable, now they stood with the world at their feet.

Fast-forward five years and one of those young men, Matt Damon, was well on the way to fulfilling that potential and becoming one of the biggest stars on the planet. He had just starred in The Bourne Identity, which would go on to be one of the defining franchises of the early twenty-first century. His acting career was taking off, but the creative promise he had shown as a writer for Good Will Hunting was yet to develop; his only other writing credit, 2002's Gerry, was far less impressive and successful than his Oscar-winning effort.

At the same stage of his career, Ben Affleck, co-writer of Good Will Hunting, was in trouble. In 2003 he starred in three films: Daredevil, Gigli and Paycheck. All of them were regarded as dismal failures, with Affleck getting a huge chunk of the blame. His high profile relationship with Jennifer Lopez and their abysmal performances alongside each other in Gigli had made him a laughing stock. That Affleck could be an Oscar-winning writer began to draw snorts of derision from his critics. A whispering campaign began that soon morphed into a common pop culture assumption: Matt Damon was the driving force behind Good Will Hunting and Ben Affleck was just along for the ride.

That assumption remains strong in 2011, and Affleck still retains an army of critics. However, the doubters and hecklers have started to be drowned out by the growing number of Affleck's defenders and supporters. For every film fan that feels Affleck has committed unforgivable crimes against cinema, there is one that feels he is a talented man that has made some bad decisions. Just as he had become a star off the back of work he had done off-screen, he has been rebuilding his reputation in the same way. Gone are the days of ill-conceived blockbusters and unfunny comedies, Affleck is now a writer-director whose first two films, Gone Baby Gone and The Town have been brilliantly crafted, critically acclaimed and purely entertaining. Suddenly that whispering campaign seems far less credible.

Affleck has shown his eye for a story and maturity in delivering grown-up tales with challenging themes. He can draw great performances from his stars (both Gone Baby Gone and The Town received Oscar-nominations in acting categories). This maturity has seen his own acting ability develop dramatically, whether it be directing himself and convincing as a leading man in The Town, or offering great support in political thriller State of Play. The simple fact of the matter is that Ben Affleck just isn't a joke any more. The people that still feel he is are clinging to an image of Affleck that is half a decade old.

Half a decade is a long time in movies.

So, what about Good Will Hunting? Well the simple truth is that two young friends got together and co-wrote a great screenplay and lived the dream. Their careers may have taken different paths but the talent they showed has never gone away. Most people in the know see Ben Affleck as having a great future behind the camera. Matt Damon's future in front of it is assured but it would come as no surprise if he chose to have a crack at directing at some point in the future. He'd be good at it, too.

Maybe it's time Matt Damon and Ben Affleck collaborated again...

I'm still fairly sure this is an elaborate April Fool's joke

2011-03-31T11:05:00.000+01:00

Credit: Karon Liu

I never trust a trending topic on Twitter, particularly when the first day of April is just a few days away. Indeed, on this very occasion when I was browsing the micro-blogging site, a topic was trending that claimed Jackie Chan was dead. He wasn't.

Just underneath this falsification rested Jennifer Garner's name. Apparently she had been cast as Agatha Christie's pensionable sleuth Miss Marple in a Disney reboot of the series. Pull the other one, I thought.

But here I am, two days later, blogging about this very topic because the story seems to have been picked up by every news agency going and we are facing the very real possibility of a 38-year old American playing Miss Marple. If this is actually an April Fool's joke, it's right up there with the BBC's spaghetti crops.

As someone who has never claimed to be a fan of Miss Marple or even Agatha Christie, I am not one of those people who is at the point of rioting over this news. Any Hollywood re-imagining of something so quintessentially quaint and British was never going to be a good idea. Even a sensible casting decision, Judi Dench for instance, would not convince me that this was going to be a great film. I'm more concerned with what this says about the way Hollywood is interpreting its audience.

The simple truth is that a film centred on an elderly spinster will not shift tickets, no matter how good it is. There have been plenty of successful films featuring older characters, yes, but they have relied on word of mouth and attracting a certain type of cinema goer to be successful. But the industry only really wants the attention of one demographic: the 18-30 year old.

When it comes to mining the classics for their rich reserves of characters and plot, we've seen producers stray from the original many times before. More often than not, this is to bring them "up to date" and make them palatable for a modern audience. Hence, Sherlock Holmes becomes a younger, all-action hero and Othello takes place at an American high school.

Some of these re-imaginings work better than others, but when they do work it is because they have stayed true to the heart and soul of the original piece of literature and framed it in a way that the 18-30 audience can relate to. Think 10 Things I Hate About You putting a modern twist on Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew. When it doesn't work, the point of the story is missed completely and a character is simply mined to make the film more marketable. I know a lot of people enjoyed Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes but the BBC's Sherlock proved you can bring the character up to date without completely changing him.

Sadly, Miss Marple is in the latter category. A completely original detective story starring Jennifer Garner just wouldn't sell, but by attaching the name of a famous literary character, regardless of how unrecognisable they are from the original, you might make some money.

Perhaps we could remake the Famous Five as a group of sexy college students who solve mysteries with their sassy talking dog, Timmy (not to be confused with Scooby Doo). Justin Bieber could star as Oliver Twist, an orphaned street urchin who becomes an international music sensation.

As someone who is in the 18-30 demographic, I like to think that Hollywood woefully underestimates us. That, if they treated us like adults and gave us some straight-up, faithful adaptations we'd flock to see it. That is what my heart says.

My head says we're getting what we deserve.

So, you want us to change the nationality of our film's bad guys entirely? No Problem.

2011-03-22T10:26:00.002Z

The people behind the Red Dawn remake really are geniuses. They spotted the potentially flawed logic of making China the evil, invading bad guys of their new film, realising that it doesn't necessarily pay to annoy around a billion potential customers in an increasingly lucrative commercial market. Wise reasoning indeed, the only problem being that they came to this decision after the film had actually been made.

So what to do? Scrap the entire project? $75m down the drain is a lot to lose. How about widespread reshoots? Costly, but the only real way to remove all references to China from the film. Or, you can just get it all in post-production like the Red Dawn producers chose to do.

According to the Los Angeles Times the film is having flags, symbols and dialogue digitally altered to turn the Chinese into North Koreans. As the article mentions nothing of any reshoots, we can only assume that the Chinese and Chinese-American actors in the film will miraculously become North Korean. This is hardly surprising - Hollywood seems to have no qualms about pushing the notion that all Asians look vaguely the same (just like people from the Middle-East).

As this Cracked article points out, Hollywood seems to be running out of reliable bad guys faster than you can say "regime change." It seems that the end of the Cold War was the worse thing to happen to action movie producers, which is ironic as so many of their films were about bringing down the Iron Curtain.

North Korea seems to be the frontrunner to become "the new Russia" so to speak, but I still feel uncomfortable about reducing an entire nation of people crushed under a tyrannical regime to a faceless enemy. The first action film to capitalise on the ongoing conflict in Libya will feel my wrath.

Personally, I have no problem with a fictionalised enemy. If I'm watching a film about people defending their American town from an invading foreign force, I'm not going to believe it any more if they're from North Korea, China or the evil Republic of Villainovia. The explosions and the the bullets are all the same. But for some people, the killing just isn't real if it involves those bad guys they've seen on the news. So North Korea it is.

By the way, I'm calling this now: Red Dawn will be the worst film of 2011.

On African actors in Hollywood

2011-03-18T16:31:00.006Z

Djimon Hounsou, from Benin (Photo by fashion photographer Anthony Citrano)

Do a Google search on issues surrounding African actors in Hollywood films, and you'll be met with a flurry of results, almost none of which are focused on actors who are actually from Africa. Unless you were wise enough to make use of quote marks, the issue you will be faced with is the plight of African-American actors. Whilst Hollywood is still not giving enough quality, non-generic roles to African-Americans, very little is being said about the native African actors, who are arguably getting a far poorer deal.

With the exception of Europe and the US itself, Africa is one of the most used landscapes by the movie industry. It's appearing more and more frequently too. Everything from Oscar-bait tales (Blood Diamond, The Constant Gardener) to schlocky blockbusters (Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life, Sahara) are making use of the vast continent. That's not to mention the biographical tales of heroic (Invictus) and villainous (The Last King of Scotland) leaders and the many, many films that have used Africa as an anonymous setting for alien or fantasy worlds (Star Wars included).

So surely that would present plenty of work for African actors? Not necessarily.

Though more and more films are being set in Africa, very few of the really juicy roles are going to actors from the continent. It is much easier for Hollywood studios to hire established African-American actors to put on an accent and top-line their movies. Hence we have Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela and Forest Whitaker playing Idi Amin. Perfectly capable though those performances were, it is highly unlikely that an African actor was ever considered for either role because there simply aren't enough of them established in Hollywood.

One notable exception is Djimon Hounsou. For years now, he has been the most established black African actor in Hollywood since his breakthrough with Steven Spielberg's Amistad. Twice nominated for an Oscar, his ethnicity has left him typecast to some extent but it has not stopped him gaining roles in some major films over the last decade.

Hounsou's success is rare, however. There are black African actors out there but very few who were brought up in the continent. The likes of Idris Elba and Chiwetel Ejiofor were born to African parents but brought up in Britain, for instance.

Then, of course, there is Omar Sharif, the exception that proves the rule. The Egyptian actor is a true Hollywood legend. His ethnicity never hindered him in what has been a long and varied career.

It must be noted that is not necessarily a colour issue - white African actors, from South Africa or Zimbabwe, are fairly rare in Hollywood but the likes of Sharlto Copley and Oscar-winner Charlize Theron fly the flag.

However, with so many African characters emerging it seems strange that more African actors are not making their name. To any Hollywood producer, I would suggest taking a leaf out of Ridley Scott's book.

For 2005's Kingdom of Heaven, Scott cast little known Syrian actor Ghassan Massoud as Saladin, the general of the Muslim army. Syria may be a part of Asia, but a lesson can be learned for films set in Africa. Massoud was a respected actor in his home country, and though the role was a particularly key one, he was cast for his suitability, rather than his fame. As things turned out he gave the best performance in the film, portraying a wise and charismatic leader with ease.

Massoud's example is clear evidence, if any was needed, that there is plenty of untapped talent in African and Arab countries if someone were just willing to take a risk and cast African and Arab actors to play African and Arab characters. Instead, the roles are going to Don Cheadle, Jennifer Hudson and, perversely, Jake Gyllenhaal. It's time to widen your scope, Hollywood.

Casting Julian Assange

2011-03-15T12:47:00.004Z

From an unknown activist and journalist, to one of the world's most sought after people, Julian Assange (wrongly) became the focal point for the Wikileaks diplomatic cables scandal. All of a sudden everyone wanted to know more about this awkward-looking man - be it his allegiances, his motivations or, importantly, his private life.

Inevitably, the source of media fascination became the source of Hollywood fascination. The story of Wikileaks was a story that could make money.

I am in little doubt that the planned Julian Assange/Wikileaks project, scheduled for 2013, will be awful. A sensitive story that has already had its main focus (the cables themselves) distorted and skewed to become a media circus around one man will only suffer further when placed in the hands of Hollywood producers. It is also a story that is far from its conclusion - there are still plenty more cables to be leaked and the fate of Assange is yet to be decided.

But enough about all that trivial stuff, there's a movie to be cast.

Step forward Macaulay Culkin. Or Matt Damon. Or maybe even Tilda Swinton.

The Swinton idea is actually beginning to gain legitimate traction. The resemblance between the Oscar-winning actress and the androgynous Australian journalist is uncanny and people seem to be using Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Bob Dylan in I'm Not There as precedent (because, apparently, film casting works like the legal system). As good an actress as she is, a piece of stunt casting like that would give the film no hope of being anything other than dramatic exploitation of a serious event, so, fun as it is, let's rule out this particular idea for now.

Now, Culkin. He's been due a comeback for a while now, he's all grown up (30 years old!) and he can sort of act (watch Saved!). But, seriously, Macaulay Culkin enters back into the movie business to play Julian Assange? Slight resemblances apart, this screams stunt casting once again and there's no guarantee that Culkin could pull it off. It's a no.

Damon's a good actor, one of the few leading men who can more-or-less guarantee a box office draw and has that eternal youthfulness that, combined with a good wig, may make him have a passing resemblance to Assange. But why do I get a terrible feeling he'd butcher an Australian accent?

My choice? Guy Pearce. Far too craggy to play Assange, yes. But he's a incredibly solid actor, is an actual Australian, and will give the film a legitimacy that none of the other actors mentioned would. Also, to anyone who think he looks nothing like Assange, go and watch Factory Girl (though not all the way through, it's awful). Guy Pearce, in a blonde wig and playing Andy Warhol, looks more than a little like Assange. Lose the sunglasses and it might work. Not that the film necessarily will, but if we at least cast a decent actor it would be a start.

Filmstubs is still alive (and excited about the Oscars)

2011-02-27T19:26:00.003Z

It's been almost a whole month, but Filmstubs has been on something of an enforced hiatus as I concentrate on my journalistic career (currently giving my time to the New Statesman, since you ask). Anyway, just to prove I still care deeply about this blog, I thought I'd point out that I am very excited about the Oscars tonight. This is partly because there is the strongest competition in at least five years, and partly because I cannot wait for the awards season to be over. Anyway, here's my personal favourites for this year.

Best Picture

The Social Network

Actor in a Leading Role

Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network)

Actress in a Leading Role

Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Actor in a Supporting Role

Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Actress in a Supporting Role

Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

Animated Feature Film

Toy Story 3

Art Direction

Inception

Cinematography

The Social Network

Costume Design

The King's Speech

Directing

David Fincher (The Social Network)

Documentary Feature

Exit Through the Gift Shop

Documentary Short

I'll admit to having seen none of them so I won't comment.

Film Editing

127 Hours

Foreign Language Film

Incendies

Make-Up

The Wolfman (Though I hate to see terrible films win Oscars)

Music (Original Score)

Hans Zimmer (Inception)

Music (Original Song)

"If I Rise" (127 Hours) - Really weak category this year

Short Film (Animated)

I've only seen The Gruffalo and I thought it was fairly poor.

Short Film (Live Action)

Seen none I'm afraid.

Sound Editing

Inception

Sound Mixing

Inception

Visual Effects

Inception

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

The Social Network

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Inception

There you go. I'd give only one award to the King's Speech despite the fact it will probably sweep the board. Six for Inception and five for The Social Network. It reflects the fact I thought they were far and away the best films of last year. If Fincher misses out on best director this year it'll be a crime.

Anyway, I'll be posting again in the not too distant future. See you soon.

Life After "The Wire:" What the Stars did Next

2011-01-31T10:34:00.004Z

What more can be said about The Wire? A slow burner and never a ratings powerhouse, it was a show that gradually grained more and more respect and a loyal group of fans. Now, nearly 3 years after the show concluded it is more popular than ever, with many critics hailing it as the greatest TV series ever made.

You can see their point. The Wire showed an attention to detail and scope that was not only rare, it was unique. It took a pretty standard TV premise, that of cops tracking drug dealers in Baltimore, and turned it on it's head. Cases were spread out in to an entire series, the intricacies of detective work was shown in meticulous detail, as well as the politics and corruption of the police hierarchy. But this wasn't a police show, it was a show about the city of Baltimore and it's inhabitants. That is why, instead of showing the drug dealers as shallow caricatures, as so many cop shows have done in the past, equal importance was given to the lives and operations of criminal groups in Baltimore. We saw a world with complex politics, ingenious methods of avoiding capture, and incredibly vivid, and often sympathetic, characters.

It was these characters that made The Wire. Almost every major character was well developed and highly believable and the show was never about any one person with others acting as peripherals. For much of the cast, which was largely made up of relative unknowns when the show started, it was the best characters they'd ever get a chance to play. But The Wire had to end at some point, so three years on, Filmstubs is taking a look at some of the principal actors involved in The Wire and where they went after the show that made their name ended.

Dominic West (Jimmy McNulty)

McNulty was probably the closest to being the main character in the show (though many would argue there was no main character), McNulty was something of an anti-hero. Devoted to good policing and developing the best case, no matter who he screwed in the process, he also happened to be something of a hard-drinking, self destructive bastard. It never stopped you liking him though. It seems strange that a tough Irish-American detective would be played by a privately educated Englishman who went to school with none other than David Cameron but Dominic West is just that. In England at least, his work on The Wire has only recently begun to receive widespread recognition, leading to appearances at award ceremonies and on panel shows. His post-Wire career has ranged from bad films (Punisher: War Zone) to above average TV shows (The Devil's Whore). Expect an appearance in the upcoming follow up to Johnny English, which I'm not sure anyone actually wanted.

Idris Elba (Stringer Bell)

Another British actor in an unlikely place. The character of Stringer Bell defied all stereotypes about the drugs trade. Intelligent, articulate and ruthless when he needed to be, Bell was the real brains behind Avon Barksdale's operation and, despite leaving the show at a relatively early stage, remains one of the most memorable characters. Since leaving, Elba has worked at an incredibly prolific rate. Supporting roles in films such as 28 Weeks Later and American Gangster have been common and he has excelled in larger roles such as RocknRolla. He's even got a starring role in his own BBC detective series, Luther, which aired to positive reviews last year. Expect him in this year's Thor.

Michael K. Williams (Omar Little)

Arguably The Wire's most popular character, Omar will go down as one of the most memorable in television history. Baltimore's answer to Robin Hood, Omar is a shotgun wielding vigilante who answers to no-one. Recognizable by a huge scar across his face, Omar always distinguished himself from the rest of the criminal underworld. His complex moral codes always fascinated. Williams probably knew he wouldn't ever get a role as good as Omar Little (how could he?) but his work since has been solid, and as a member of the cast of HBO's new epic Boardwalk Empire he may well become a household name. Apart from that, Williams has popped up in the odd film and guested in several popular American TV shows.

Sonja Sohn (Kima Greggs)

One of several strong female characters in the show, Greggs is a tough detective and one of the few that likes McNulty's way of thinking. Sub-plots revolving around her home life and starting a family with her parter, Cheryl, were always strong but Greggs' police work made her a key character, particular her friendship with her CI, Bubbles. Since The Wire finished, Sohn has stuck to TV work, taking a recurring role in Brothers and Sisters and crime series Body of Proof.

Lance Reddick (Lt. Cedric Daniels)

Daniels is hardly a laugh-a-minute character but his commitment to the cause and willingness to stick up for his team stand him apart from the array of corrupt and self-interested cops on show in The Wire. That said, Daniels does have a mysterious past, but throughout the show he's the glue that holds the show's characters (the police at least) together. Lance Reddick must have a friend in J.J. Abrams as, not only did he have a recurring role in Lost, he is now a major character in Fringe. Just don't mention Jonah Hex.

John Doman (William Rawls)

Arguably the show's biggest bastard, which is impressive considering some of the characters that have shown up, Rawls may not have racked up bodies but he took no prisoners as a Deputy Commissioner for Operations trying not to make Baltimore police, and himself, look bad. Angry, rude, and often hilarious, Rawls is just about the worse boss you can imagine. Naturally, he hates McNulty. Doman has his very own starring role in upcoming series Borgia, a French/German production focusing on the famed Borgia family during the renaissance, one of the more interesting projects a Wire alumni has got involved in. Apart from that there's been the standard recurring roles in TV series (Damages) and supporting in films (Blue Valentine).

Wood Harris (Avon Barksdale)

The focus of the detail that started it all, Barksdale is a key player in the Baltimore drugs trade and heads a vast drugs network that McNulty and co. are determined to take down. Barksdale is known as particularly ruthless and often cruel character, one that preferred to go in guns blazing rather than talking. It's an attitude that would drive much of the conflict in season 3. Things have been steady for Harris since leaving The Wire, with the usual mix of TV guest roles (House, Hawaii Five-O) and film appearances. This year he will star in Sweetwater, a film chronicling the life of the first black NBA basketball player Sweetwater Clifton, played by Harris.

Wendell Pierce (Bunk Moreland)

Bunk could well be the show's funniest character, but that doesn't make him a clown. Cigar chomping, hard drinking and with a bitter sense of humour about his life and job, Bunk is one of the good guys; a homicide detective less concerning with numbers and more concerned with the case itself. Naturally, he is one of McNulty's closest allies. Pierce has been busy since The Wire ended but perhaps his most notable role since has reunited him with Wire creator David Simon, starring in HBO's Treme. A lot of Wire fans have been disappointed with Treme simply because it is not The Wire but the shows are similar in that they require patience and a willingness to immerse yourself in the environment. Pierce is strong as always. Somewhat disappointingly he's going to be in the next Twilight movie, but the less said about that the better.

Clarke Peters (Lester Freamon)

The wise old head of the show. Freamon is a skilled, meticulous detective who has been dealt an unfair hand for much of his career but gets a shot at redemption as part of Daniels team. Whilst Greggs and McNulty prefer the direct approach, Freamon prefers to stay in the office, finding ingenious ways to keep tabs on the team's target, imparting invaluable wisdom as he goes. Peters is another Wire alumni who has found his way onto David Simon's Treme. It's not really a surprise to see them working together again when things went so well with The Wire. Peters also had a stint in vaguely trashy British hospital drama Holby City, and for the life of me I can't figure out why he did.

Andre Royo (Bubbles)

Everyone loves Bubbles. Greggs' reliable informer, Bubbles was a character you really hoped could make it away from the grip of drugs and destitute housing. A low-level user who was effectively disregarded and ignored by dealers and hoppers, this made him a perfect man to study their actions and provide valuable information. Since The Wire ended Royo has kept busy with guest appearances on shows such as Numb3rs and Heroes. He's also appeared with Lance Reddick in Fringe and is set to make a number of film appearances in 2011.

Filmstubs' 2011 Predictions - The Good

2011-01-04T16:42:00.006Z

Another year, another long list of films that we hope and pray will be great (and some we'd really like to fail). Nothing marks a new year like making ill-advised predictions on what's going to happen over the next 12 months that will inevitably come back to haunt us so Filmstubs has decided to take a stab on which films will be great over the coming years. I decided to not cheat and include the films that are being released this year that we already know are good (sorry The King's Speech!). Also, this is a list based on quality, not box-office performance. It's too easy to predict that the latest Twilight film will make a hat-full of money, but it still won't mean it's any good.

Here's 10 films that I expect to be great over the next year, and if they're not I will be severely disappointed.

1. Paul

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost head stateside and befriend an alien named Paul. Expect pop-culture references galore and great support from some of America's finest comedians. This may not have Edgar Wright at the helm but when Simon Pegg and Nick Frost get together they've yet to let us down. Could be a sleeper hit and launch Pegg and Frost into the stratosphere.

2. Thor

There's a raft of comic book movies heading our way over the summer and Thor's probably the one I have highest hopes for. Hiring Kenneth Branagh as director is a left-field decision but it's crazy enough to actually work. If it takes itself too seriously it could suffer but if we get a dose of epic mythology mixed with popcorn fun it should be a hit.

3. Pirate of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Believe it or not, this could actually be good. The sequels were atrocious and there's a lot of people out there who would rather not see this franchise dragged out. But, gone are Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly and their insipid romance, and arriving are Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane. Now that's a good deal. Factor in a (hopefully) more focused storyline and some new locations and this might just make people love the franchise again. Either way it will be among the highest grossing films of the year.

4. The Tree of Life

It's taking a big risk to say this film will be great because we know so little about it. However, Terence Malick is always interesting if not always coherent and it has massive star power in Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. The trailer doesn't reveal much but it looks fascinating and it's refreshing to know so little about a film and to be incredibly interested in it at the same time. After all, it was around about this time last year that we saw the first footage of Inception and were scratching our heads as to what it was all about.

5. Cowboys and Aliens

When we first heard the title, it seemed like a bit of gimmick. I expected a tongue-in-cheek schlocky film to kill a summer evening and forget about. But Jon Favreau seems to be crafting something a lot more interesting than that. A proper, moody Western with James Bond and Indiana Jones acting side by side colliding head on with an old school alien invasion movie. This sci-fi western means business and combining the two might not be a gimmick and may just be a bit of genius.

6. The Invention of Hugo Cabret

Martin Scorsese is never afraid to try something a little bit different and this seems like an unusual choice for him to direct but I think it will work. A 3D adventure based on the best-selling book of the same name, the cast is simply outstanding. Ben Kingsley, Jude Law, Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone and Emily Mortimer are all due to appear and this could well be a big hit.

7. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Scorsese may have a good cast, but Tomas Alfredson's is better. Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Stephen Graham and Benedict Cumberbatch all appear in this adaptation of the John le Carre spy novel. The 70's mini series with Alec Guinness is a classic and an intelligent, well crafted spy movie is something we could do with more often in cinema and this could well deliver.

8. War Horse

Steven Spielberg's been quiet for a while now. With the disappointment of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull it seems like a long time since he worked his unique magic on screen. War Horse is familiar territory; you can trust Spielberg to deliver an emotionally charged war film. Expect dramatic scenes and a lump in your throat. Spielberg could be back with a bang.

9. A Dangerous Method

The last two collaborations between Viggo Mortensen and David Cronenberg have been great and there's no reason to believe this film, focusing on the relationship between Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), won't be. We don't know too much about it but somehow Freud and Cronenberg seem a perfect fit.

10. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Swedish version of the pop culture phenomenon was a pretty good attempt and the casting of Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth was perfect. So, why do we need an American remake a little over a year later? David Fincher, that's why. Any other director and I would have had my doubts but this is well trodden ground for Fincher and he's sure to deliver and dark and atmospheric thriller that can surpass the original. It's difficult to tell if Rooney Mara will be well cast as Lisbeth but Daniel Craig as Mikael seems just right.

Special mentions: Hanna, X-Men: First Class, Super 8, Contagion, Your Highness, and Source Code. All of which I hope will be great.

15 Directors Who Went Outside Their Comfort Zone (and Succeeded)

2010-12-12T14:38:00.007Z

Ah, the inevitable sequel. I felt my list of 15 directors who went outside their comfort zone (and failed) gave off a far too negative message. After all, if directors never went outside their comfort zones, our film history would be far less rich. The 15 directors that failed are at least to be commended for trying something different, rather than sticking to what they know with every new film (a topic that will be covered in a future post). But for every spectacular failure there is a success story and plenty of directors have taken a voyage into the unknown and emerged clean at the other side. Here are 15 that pulled it off.

Danny Boyle

The Film: Slumdog Millionaire

Throughout Danny Boyle's career he has proven he can cut it attempting a variety of different genres. Having burst into the public consciousness with Shallow Grave and Trainspotting, Boyle widened his scope, enjoying critical, but not necessarily commercial success with films like 28 Days Later and Sunshine. With Slumdog however, Boyle took things to the next level, creating an epic feel-good tale whilst retaining the harsh reality and brutality he has displayed in his previous films. Working with a limited budget, a cast of relative unknowns and in unfamiliar territory, Boyle took a risk with Slumdog Millionaire but it paid off massively.

Alfonso Cuarón

The Film: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

This is a strange one. Compared with his other work, Harry Potter seems a step down for Cuarón; it will most likely not be remembered as one of his great works and it is indeed the most lightweight film on this list. Similarities could be drawn with his work on The Little Princess but it seemed a strange choice for Cuarón to do a Harry Potter movie after Y Tu Mamá También. However, he emerged from it with his head held high. The step up in quality for this film compared to previous Potters is obvious, and it is purely because, no disrespect to Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron is a much more talented director who was able to put his own mark on what should have been a uniform family movie. Cuarón wisely left the franchise after this one movie but his brief diversion into big budget family films still stands up well.

David Fincher

The Film: The Social Network

There was a time when The Social Network was being looked upon with very sceptical eyes. Despite the presence of Aaron Sorkin, there was still a perception that this would just be Facebook: The Movie with very little substance. That was until Fincher came on board. David Fincher has built a career on dark themes such as murder, anarchy and obsession and whilst he had made a slight change in direction with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, he seemed an odd fit for a tale about the bloke who invented Facebook. However, the themes that emerge from the film such as Zuckerberg's obsession, ruthlessness and betrayal were perfect for Fincher. He may not have been dealing with serial killers but the Social Network is still an intense study of human actions. Its core story may have been a world away from what we've seen from Fincher before, but he still found the perfect tone and atmosphere for this film.

Mel Gibson

The Film: Apocalypto

Mel Gibson's career may well be on life support at the moment, but somewhere between enraging a bunch of people with The Passion of the Christ and enraging even more people with revelations about his private life, Mel Gibson made a very good film. Apocalypto managed to enrage its fair share of people too but Gibson managed to combine his experience with historical epics and his experiments with making films in authentic languages to present us with a very different kind of action movie. A brutal and bloody Mayan epic using unknown actors, the history is a bit off in typical Gibson style but he presented us with a culture and era we've seen very little of on screen. We knew Gibson can do historical epics, sure, but with Apocalypto he took a risk and gave us something that's a long way from your typical historical action movies. Whilst other directors were playing it safe with sword and sandal movies, Gibson made something unique. He should have built on Apocalypto, but instead he went into self-destruct mode. It's a shame because on his day, Gibson is a very talented director.

Terry Gilliam

The Film: Brazil

Brazil changed everything for Gilliam. His talent was undoubted and as a director he was incredibly imaginative but his post-Python efforts still relied heavily on the troupes glorious comic style. Time Bandits, fun and unique as it was, seemed a lot like a more family friendly version of Python for example. Then came Brazil. Yes, Michael Palin showed up in it, but this was a clean break. Terry Gilliam was showing what he could do as a director with an enormous amount of vision. His sense of humour was still alive and well but Brazil is a great sci-fi film on its own merit. Without it, Gilliam would not have gone on to make the likes of Twelve Monkeys and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It was the moment where a director said a fond farewell to his past and went it alone.

Peter Jackson

The Films: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Now that he is one of the biggest names on the circuit, it is quite easy to forget what a big step into the unknown Peter Jackson made when he got the job making The Lord of the Rings. Up until that point, Jackson could best be described as a cult director, his most mainstream film being the 1996 effort The Frighteners. He was talented, there was no doubt about that, but there were more than a few eyebrows raised when he was tasked with making such a tricky and expensive trilogy. It was Jackson's passion and vision for the project that helped get it made however, and what resulted was a success that producers could not have dreamed of.

Stanley Kubrick

The Film: Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

In my introduction to the article on directors who had failed when going outside their comfort zone, I marked out Kubrick as an example of someone who did it constantly and succeeded. Dr. Strangelove is perhaps the finest example of this. Kubrick had made some great films before this (Paths of Glory, The Killing etc.) but with Strangelove he took a step into the unknown. He was hardly known for comedy and was often regarded as quite detached and Peter Sellers, genius though he was, was a difficult actor to work with. But Kubrick made one of the finest comedies ever made and certainly the finest satire we are yet to see. From this point on, Kubrick's career began to be remarkably varied and he excelled in almost everything he tried his hand at.

John Landis

The Film: An American Werewolf in London

John Landis was on a roll when he made this film. Coming off the back of the zany energy of Animal House and the Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London was something a bit different but still one of Landis' best films. The humour was still there, although much blacker, but the horror and romance elements of the film worked just as well as the comic side of the story. In truth, Landis had been planning the film long before Animal House or the Blues Brothers but the film was still a big risk and financiers initially baulked at a film that was not a good fit for the comedy or horror genre conventions. Landis managed to create a great atmosphere for the film, which he would go on to recreate for Michael Jackson's Thriller video.

Ang Lee

The Film: Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was the film that introduced many people to the modern Chinese martial arts movie and made Ang Lee a true household name. However, it was vastly different from Lee's previous work. The likes of Sense and Sensibility and the Ice Storm were much more intimate character studies and though Ride With The Devil had a bigger scope and budget, Crouching Tiger was a big step up. What we got was a thing of beauty. Made for a fairly small budget, Lee created a classic martial arts film. The action scenes were as graceful as they were kinetic but Lee never abandons story for the sake of action. A return to the genre would be very welcome.

Spike Lee

The Film: Inside Man

Spike Lee does mainstream, and Spike Lee does it well. Inside Man is a very solid film. It's not a classic but it's a smart bank heist film. Of course, Lee couldn't make the film without bringing some racial politics into it but the usually very vocal messages of his films are toned down considerably to make a well crafted popcorn thriller. It was a very interesting experiment for Lee, perhaps something he wouldn't want to make a career out of but he proved there was a lot more to him than meets the eye. The directing of Inside Man is exemplary and if Spike Lee ever wants to make another movie to appeal to the masses, he is more than welcome to.

Christopher Nolan

The Film: Inception

It's strange to think of this as a director going outside his comfort zone when he has constantly displayed an unrivalled level of creative vision in his previous works. However, you have to remember that it took his huge success with his Batman reboot for producers to take a punt on this work. Inception is Nolan's first work since Following that was not adapted from any other material and to create such a high concept, ambitious project from scratch for such a huge budget is the mark of an extremely confident director and studio striding out of their comfort zone. Batman already had a huge fan base, and there was much less to lose with The Prestige and Memento but for Inception, Nolan took a risk and followed his vision. What resulted was a box office success and the film of the year, proving more directors and studios need to take the plunge and go into the unknown.

Bryan Singer

The Films: X-Men and X-Men 2

Bryan Singer was no action director when he stepped in to make X-Men. The Usual Suspects had proved he could craft a great story and it was comforting that the project was being taken seriously with a talented director on board but Singer came with no guarantee he could give the popcorn crowd what they wanted. The first X-Men film was solid but cautious; after all, the comic book movie boom was yet to take off so it always felt like Singer was holding back a little. With X-Men 2 however, Singer made a classic in the genre. His lack of action movie experience never seemed to be an issue but the strength of the film lies in Singer's understanding of key central themes such as isolation and stigmatisation. Singer was regarded as such a sure hand with the comic book movie genre that he was tasked with rebooting Superman. It didn't exactly go to plan but it was evidence that Singer had carved out a new niche for himself as a big budget genre director.

Paul Verhoeven

The Film: Black Book

in the late 80's and 90's you knew what to expect with Paul Verhoeven. His films didn't hold back. They were highly sexual, relentlessly violent and very much in your face. When he got things right, they went very right (Total Recall, Robocop). When things went wrong, they went very wrong (Showgirls). Then, all of a sudden, everything went quiet. Verhoeven didn't make a film for 6 years after the relative disaster that was The Hollow Man, but when a new film did show up, it was a very different side of Verhoeven. Returning to his native Holland, it hardly showed Verhoven becoming a shrinking violent, but the tone was much more serious, dealing with war and Nazi occupation in admirable fashion. It was Verhoeven's best film for years.

Martin Scorsese

The Film: The Last Temptation of Christ

This was not the last time Scorsese would make a film you wouldn't expect (see The Age of Innocence), but having built a career on lowlifes, gangsters and psychopaths, Jesus Christ seemed an unlikely next target for Scorsese. Naturally his take on the matter was hugely controversial, and like the novel, it presented ideas that vary quite a bit from Biblical interpretations but Martin Scorsese has never shied away from controversy. Scorsese had always wanted to make a movie based on Jesus, and though it was a departure from his previous work he did exactly that. What we got was one of the better acted and more intriguing interpretations of the life of Jesus.

Alfred Hitchcock

The Film: Rebecca

We all know Alfred Hitchcock as the master of suspense, but he was a master of a few others things besides that. Adapting much loved novels proved to be one of them, and Rebecca, Hitchcock's first Hollywood film, is a classic quite unlike any he had made before or since. It feels so different from Hitchcock's other output partly because Hitchcock was kept on a much tighter leash for this adaptation. Producer David O. Selznick wanted a faithful adaptation so Hitchcock had less freedom to display his revolutionary tricks and plot devices. Nevertheless, despite working within tighter constraints and beginning a voyage into Hollywood film-making that would change cinema forever, Rebecca is a beautifully made and crafted adaptation. It proved that no matter what situation Hitchcock found himself in he could deliver the goods.

The Joys of the Small Town Cinema

2010-12-11T15:28:00.002Z

Ask most people to describe their cinema-going experiences and quite often you'll be met with a raft of negativity. Ticket prices are too high, you have to re-mortgage your house and book yourself in for a heart bypass to get snacks and there's always someone or something to distract you from your viewing experience. The cinema industry, somehow baffled as to why people are put off going to the movies have been attempting to get bigger and better to entice punters. 3D films, comfier seating, giant screens, ear-splitting surround sound, multiple screens and full scale meals have become the norm at the cinema. It all seems a long way from the smoky local cinemas we used to see.

They do however, still exist, only minus the smoke. Whilst multiplexes get bigger and bigger and seemingly more and more uniform, there are an ever declining army of independent cinemas catering for towns deemed not big enough for Odeons or CineWorlds. These cinemas are far smaller, have much less choice, and probably won't be able to screen 3D films for another 30 years but they provide a valuable service to those that cannot always travel to the next town to catch a recent blockbuster.

I live in Swanage, a small town in the south of England with a population of around 9000 people. The nearest multiplex is a 30 minute drive away, and, as you may have noticed on my post on in flight movies, I don't always get round to see the latest must-see movies in the cinema. Swanage does have a local cinema, but I have tended to avoid it as the viewing experience is little better than watching a film on TV and it does not always show the films I am desperate to see. However, having missed the chance to see The Social Network on its initial run, I decided to bite the bullet and see the film at my local cinema, and it is there that I rediscovered the charms it can offer.

The cinema in question is called the Mowlem, an independently run theatre housed in a desperately ugly building in bad need of renovation. Upon entering I am greeted by stares of bemusement and borderline hostility. The elderly usher sighs and mutters "I guess we'll have to open up after all." Despite arriving late, it turns out I am the first customer to arrive for the screening. Apparently the film has not had more than 5 people viewing it each night since it started showing at the cinema. It seems the people of Swanage are unimpressed by The Social Network's rave reviews.

I am joined by a couple and we are led up to the cinema. "I'm not bothering to open up the main doors so you'll have to come round the side," barks the usher. We oblige and sit down wherever the hell we want on the horribly uncomfortable and worn seats. The trailers are shown on a screen that seems little bigger than a 40" television with a far murkier picture and the projection doesn't quite fit where it's meant to be.

Then there's the intermission. Remember them? The film hasn't even started but the lights go up, cheesy music begins to play and the usher shouts "does anyone want any ice cream because you'll have to come downstairs for it." The couple want ice cream and I wait patiently while the usher leads them out the cinema and down the stairs.

Eventually the film starts. The picture is murky, the sound is awful but The Social Network is a great film and I am satisfied.

So what did I learn from my horrible viewing experience? Well, despite everything I was charmed. The people that run the cinema work with very little money and judging by the amount of people in attendance, they're hardly raking in profits. The cinema remains open, however, and it is done for the love of film.

You go there and you don't know what to expect; a few years ago my sister went to see Titanic and the projector broke down just as the ship began to sink. You don't know if you'll be the only person in the cinema or if the whole town will turn up. Despite all the faults and the inability to compete with the viewing experience at the big multiplexes, these small town cinemas have heart and soul. The people that work there aren't teenagers earning minimum wage for their Saturday jobs, they are people that genuinely love the place, even if they act offended when you turn up.

If the multiplexes pitched up in every small town and these cinemas began to die out, it would be a real shame. These theatres hark back to a simpler time, when going to the cinema was about the film you were going to see, not the cinema itself.

15 Directors Who Went Outside Their Comfort Zone (and Failed)

2010-11-30T11:06:00.004Z

What makes a great director? Ultimately it comes down to output; great directors make great films. But there is an extra quality that truly marks out the best; range. Take Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick transcended genres and excelled in every new style he attempted. He made classics in horror, comedy and sci-fi, while all the time keeping his own personal stamp on his work. Kubrick wasn't afraid to try something new and different, and that's what made him the best.

Most directors know what they're best at, but a lot also realise that if they stick to that for their whole career people will begin to question their talent. It takes stepping outside of your comfort zone to prove yourself. Often it means less talented directors biting off more than they can chew but sometimes even the best, and there are some fine directors on this list, can try something new and ultimately fail. This list charts 15 directors that went outside their comfort zone, but misfired.

Kevin Smith

The Film: Cop Out

Kevin Smith is cinema marmite. He has adoring fans and hate filled critics. One thing you can't argue with is that Smith's early films were extremely personal; based on his life and with a script written by Smith that he staunchly refused to change. Kevin Smith movies were all about Kevin Smith. For a while this was successful, but after Clerks and Chasing Amy, the noughties were less kind. For Cop Out, Smith tried something new; making a buddy action movie from a script that wasn't his own. What we got was incredibly generic and bland. It hasn't stopped Smith branching out; his next film, Red State, is a contemporary horror film, but only time will tell if he can cut it away from the chummy pop culture referencing tone of his early work.

M. Night Shyamalan

The Film: The Last Airbender

Shyamalan needed a change. His films were becoming a joke, and he was increasingly gaining a reputation as a one trick pony. Shyamalan needed to move away from the gimmicky plot twist movies that had defined his career and went all out with a big budget cartoon adaptation. It failed, miserably. Poor acting, bad decisions and murky cinematography made this the worst blockbuster of the summer and proved that M. Night's name could no longer act as a box office draw. One struggles to see how he can restore his reputation from here. Unbreakable 2 anyone?

Brett Ratner

The Film: X-Men: The Last Stand

This may not seen like too much of a departure for Ratner; he'd done action before, albeit a very different kind of action. However the jump in quality required for X-Men: The Last Stand was just too much for Ratner. The X-Men series may have been 'just' comic book movies but they were built on very solid foundations; previous director Bryan Singer had approached the movies very seriously and produced two great films but it was always going to end badly when handing the series finale to a less talented director. A lot of the blame has to lie with Singer himself, and the script, but Ratner's directing was messy and confused and he has not been trusted with a major franchise since.

Michael Bay

The Film: Pearl Harbor

As much as it will pain people to admit, Michael Bay is good at what he does. His movies are generally explosive and cheesy and completely lacking in substance but that's all you expect from him. That lacking in substance bit is important though, because you need substance when asked to make a film about the deadliest attack on American soil in the 20th century. Pearl Harbor needed to be handled sensitively and subtly; instead we got a fist-pumping action movie with insincere emotion.

Robert Altman

The Film: Popeye

Proving that it can happen to the best of us, Robert Altman, director of The Player, Short Cuts, and M.A.S.H was given the prestigious job of adapting a spinach eating cartoon sailor to the big screen. Whether anyone actually wanted a live-action Popeye starring Robin Williams is a pretty important question but Altman should have known to steer well clear of this. Even the best couldn't make a good film out of this material.

Marc Forster

The Film: Quantum of Solace

I've made this point before but I'll make it again. Marc Forster is a fine director who has made good films, but to give a director with no experience in the action genre the job of directing the new film in a reinvigorated James Bond franchise was wrong. Yes, new Bond has a stronger emphasis on character and plot, which are Forster's strengths, but at the end of the day James Bond is about the action sequences and Forster directed them poorly, taking too big a leaf out of Paul Greengrass' book and giving us dizzying and rather confusing car chases.

Peter Jackson

The Film: The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson hasn't always been a genre director. While his roots are in horror, and his stardom comes from fantasy, his work on Heavenly Creatures showed he had a gentler touch. He wasn't right for The Lovely Bones though. If anything, Jackson tried too hard, laying on spectacular imagery where it wasn't necessarily needed and valuing visuals over story. Jackson has evolved into a director of big films, and he does that very well, but for a film as emotional and personal as The Lovely Bones, more subtlety was needed.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet

The Film: Alien: Resurrection

Jeunet is my favourite director purely for his absolute unique style. His films inhabit their own little world of big characters and whimsy. This meant he was a strange choice to revive a big franchise with its own world and back story. In truth, he didn't do a particularly bad job of it, but his own unique directing quirks and style just looked out of place in an Alien movie. Each Alien movie has very much acted as a showcase for the director's own style but while it worked perfectly for Ridley Scott and James Cameron, the glove just didn't fit for Jeunet and David Fincher. Jeunet has not made a Hollywood film since.

Ang Lee

The Film: Hulk

Ang Lee makes thoughtful and intelligent movies and his Hulk adaptation was thoughtful, and to some extent it was intelligent, but for the most part it was just dull. It's easy to see why Lee was chosen, especially after Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but if you go back and watch it you'd see Dragon is actually something of a slow burner. Hulk is very much a slow burner and while Lee's efforts to delve deep into Bruce Banner are admirable, at the end of the day Hulk is a comic book movie about a big green dude smashing things. It didn't help that the action sequences, when they finally came, were laughably bad. Lee will not jump so easily into Hollywood blockbusters again.

David Lynch

The Film: Dune

David Lynch is absolutely bonkers. David Lynch makes absolutely bonkers films. But the genius about David Lynch is that when he is left to his own devises he makes bonkers films that are really very good. When given a lot of money to work on a big sci-fi adaptation, David Lynch isn't really left to his own devises and instead we get a film that shows Lynch's mad style but limited by the confines of the genre and budget. Audiences just didn't take to Lynch in the mainstream, and Dune became a famous flop.

Roman Polanski

The Film: Pirates!

Polanski did his fair share of hopping between genres but his attempt to make a swashbuckling pirate movie was an unmitigated disaster. Polanski has always thrown up surprises with his work, and he was convinced he could make a great pirate movie, but the material just wasn't right for a man who's directing style has never been a good fit for an action-adventure. Pirates! flopped badly, and effectively killed off the pirate movie until Johnny Depp and co. revived it.

Guy Ritchie

The Film: Swept Away

You can blame Madonna all you want, but Guy Ritchie still made a terrible film and has only himself to blame. Ritchie has always been accused of being a one trick pony and while it is clear that he is most at home with mockney gangster films, you have to wonder how his one time wife ever convinced him to make Swept Away. The jump from gangster caper to island romance is a pretty big one to take and needless to say Ritchie failed miserably. It didn't help that Madonna was atrocious in it, but it must be difficult to tell your lead actress that when she's your wife.

Jim Sheridan

The Film: Get Rich or Die Tryin'

Sheridan was a bizarre choice for 50 Cent's self congratulatory disaster. Sure, I can see the logic on getting a respected director in, especially as Eminem had Curtis Hanson for 8 Mile but this film was such a long way from anything Sheridan had done before it just seemed way out of left field. The transition from powerful Daniel Day Lewis dramas to the tales of a rapper's rise from the mean streets was not smooth and it didn't help that 50 Cent lacked Eminem's charisma. Needless to say, it was no 8 Mile.

Sylvester Stallone

The Film: Staying Alive

It's easy to forget that Stallone is an Oscar nominated screenwriter and when he directs himself in his strongest franchises (Rocky, Rambo) the results aren't too bad. Stallone is more than just an action hero but he should stick to what he knows. What he was doing writing, directing and producing a sequel to Saturday Night Fever is anyone's guess. Stallone has proved he can write, he has proved he can direct, but only with the right vehicle. Staying Alive was a long way from being the right vehicle and was extremely damaging to Stallone's reputation behind the camera.

Chris Weitz

The Film: The Golden Compass

The Golden Compass should have been a sure thing; a beloved children's book, in many ways better than the Potter franchise, with an epic quality that everyone wanted post-Lord of the Rings. Weitz, however, managed to kill the franchise before it even got going. Weitz had done very little to prove he had earned the right to direct a major franchise; American Pie was good but just a teen comedy and About a Boy was fairly diverting but little more than that. In more experienced hands, The Golden Compass could have started a major money-spinning franchise, instead it just reflected the mediocrity of the director.

Some Classic Leslie Nielsen Lines

2010-11-29T15:09:00.004Z

As you have no doubt already heard, legendary comic actor Leslie Nielsen died today at the age of 84. A master of the deadpan delivery, his roles in Airplane! and the Naked Gun series will go down in comedy history. I figured the best way to pay tribute to him was to repeat some of his best movie lines. They're even funnier if you read it to yourself in Nielsen's voice...

Airplane! (Dr. Rumack)

Rumack: You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.

Elaine Dickinson : A hospital? What is it?
Rumack: It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.

Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?

Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.

Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

Rumack: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine Dickinson: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Rumack: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (Frank Drebin)

Frank: It's the same old story. Boy finds girl, boy loses girl, girl finds boy, boy forgets girl, boy remembers girl, girls dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day.
Jane: Goodyear?
Frank: No, the worst.

Frank: It's true what they say: Cops and women don't mix. It's like eating a spoonful of Drano; sure, it'll clean you out, but it'll leave you hollow inside.

Frank: Jane, since I've met you, I've noticed things that I never knew were there before... birds singing, dew glistening on a newly formed leaf, stoplights.

Frank: I'd known her for years. We used to go to all the police functions together. Ah, how I loved her, but she had her music. I think she had her music. She'd hang out with the Chicago Male Chorus and Symphony. I don't recall her playing an instrument or being able to carry a tune. Yet she was on the road 300 days of the year. In fact, I bought her a harp for Christmas. She asked me what it was.

The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (Frank Drebin)

Lt. Frank Drebin: Now, Jane, what can you tell us about the man you saw last night?
Jane Spencer: He's Caucasian.
Ed Hocken: Caucasian?
Jane Spencer: Yeah, you know, a white guy. A moustache. About six-foot-three.
Lt. Frank Drebin: Awfully big moustache.

Lt. Frank Drebin: I'm single! I love being single! I haven't had this much sex since I was a Boy Scout leader!
Lt. Frank Drebin: I mean at the time I was dating a lot.

President George Bush: Frank, please consider filling a post I'm creating. It may mean long hours and dangerous nights, surrounded by some of the scummiest elements in our society.
Lt. Frank Drebin: You want me to be in your cabinet?

Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult (Frank Drebin)

Tanya Peters: What are you doing?
Frank Drebin: Oh! I was, uh, just conjugating my next move.
Tanya Peters: Your bishop's exposed.
Frank Drebin: It's these pants.

Frank Drebin: Cheer up, Ed. This is not goodbye. It's just I won't ever see you again.

10 Minor Characters Given Overly Dramatic Death Scenes

2010-11-24T16:24:00.011Z

So you're an actor and you're struggling to get your big break. Your agent calls and they've got you a part in a big new Hollywood film. The only problem is that you only have a handful of lines of dialogue and have barely any influence on the main plot. However, the director wants a tacked on, emotional scene to give a false sense of pathos. Your character gets to die and you get to make tragic faces despite the audience knowing barely anything about who you're playing. It's win-win.

Welcome to the world of the overly dramatic death scenes for minor characters. Here are some of the most notable:

Haldir in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

For the climatic battle of Helm's Deep, Peter Jackson and co. had a problem. Aragorn and friends were facing a battle against overwhelming odds but, as fans of reading will know, no-one particularly important was going to die. How are we meant to get our emotional kick when the only one's dying are a few grizzled peasants? Craig Parker, that's how.

Some genius remembered the character of Haldir, played by Parker for all of two minutes in the first film in the trilogy and decided it would be a great idea to bring him back and swiftly kill him, just so the audience has something to be sad about. Said genius probably didn't stop to think that the audience might not really care too deeply for that elf that was in Lothlorien for a bit. So, Haldir returns to honour an allegiance between men and elves and then dies in a way that is something of a running theme in this list; fighting heroically until his last breath and passing away in the hero's arms. Absolutely no-one was upset about this.

Mifune in The Matrix Revolutions

Having killed off most of the poorly fleshed out supporting characters in the first film, the producer's of the Matrix sequels decided to introduce thousands more supporting players to be poorly fleshed out, but this time with with stupider names like Ballard or Sparks. One of the characters to get a better deal was Mifune (Nathaniel Lees). Not only did he get to make a rousing speech, he got a pretty good death too. Not from the character's point of view of course; having your face cut up by Sentinal tentacles must sting, but Nathaniel Lees must have loved the opportunity to show off his range of facial expressions, which vary from 'stern' to 'angry.'

Needless to say, Mifune dies fighting heroically until his last breath, only this time he doesn't die in the hero's arms but in the arms of the tedious kid that no-one likes.

Hagen in Gladiator

Having failed to turn the phrase "Hagen dies" into some sort of joke involving ice cream, I'll cut straight to the point; Hagen (Ralf Moeller) was doomed from the start. Hagen is a classic bad-ass with a good heart. At first he gives Russell Crowe a good kicking and the audience thinks he's kind of a dick but then he turns out to be a good guy and a fierce warrior. He's willing to fight with Maximus to the death, and, as with a lot of characters willing to fight with the main character to the death, he dies. Hagen defends Proximo's Gladiator school as Maximus attempts to escape, showing how much of a bad-ass he is along the way before ultimately dying fighting heroically until his last breath. Again.

Ben Hayes in King Kong (2005)

This was never going to end well. Peter Jackson had shown in The Two Towers that he would never be happy with just letting faceless expendables die so one or two of the not-so-important supporting players were doomed the minute they set foot on Skull Island. Jack Black's film crew got a pretty unfair deal but it was Ben Hayes (Evan Parke) who was there to pack an emotional punch. A wise and weary mentor and father figure to Jamie Bell's Jimmy, the audience was instantly made aware of him being a good guy because he knew stuff about books.

Having established this bond between Hayes and Jimmy, Jackson proceeds to kill Hayes in a horrifying way; first being crushed by King Kong and then thrown to a bottom of a canyon. Needless to say, Hayes died heroica...well you know the rest.

Tommy Ryan in Titanic

Tommy Ryan (Jason Barry) DID NOT die heroically fighting until his last breath, thus making this list less monotonous.

Having established himself as a man of good character based purely on the fact that he was Irish, Ryan epitomised the fun and exciting ethic diversity of steerage class and how far it was removed from the evil and boring rich people. He was doomed, however, along with his partner in crime Fabrizio, who suffered death by funnel.

It was a tall order for Tommy Ryan to have a distinctively tragic death in a film full of tragic deaths but being shot by 1st Officer Murdoch in the scuffle for survival is pretty tragic. Murdoch shooting himself afterwards didn't help either.

The Not-So-Important Jedi in Revenge of the Sith

There's nothing like a good montage of mass murder to tug on the heartstrings. George Lucas even went one step further and decided to get younglings involved. But for the actors who had endured hours in make-up to play background Jedi with only the occasional cool looking lightsaber kill to show for it, this was their moment in the sun. Order 66 is executed and the Clone Troopers turn on the Jedi and kill them one by one in a series of cowardly ways. We don't know anything about these characters, but it's kind of sad in a way. Well, a bit. But not much.

Rest in peace pointy headed beard man and kind-of-hot blue woman. Rest in peace.

Dr. Satnam Tsurutani in 2012

Remember when Jimi Mistry was going to be the next big thing in Hollywood after he made East is East and set off to make the god-awful The Guru? Well this is where he ended up. Tsurutani is pretty much responsible for finding out the world is going to end. He has a nice family too. Chiwetel Ejiofor really wants to save him but he encounters the evils of bureaucracy and doesn't. Thus, Tsurutani, nice family and all, dies with everyone else, leaving the many dislikeable and undeserving characters to survive on the arks.

Frank Harris in The Day After Tomorrow

While we're on the issue of Roland Emmerich disaster movies, we best cover The Day After Tomorrow. What Emmerich really, really, likes to do is take a small character, give him the slightest hint of emotional depth and pathos, and have him die in a sad yet contrived situation and expect the audience to feel bad about this. We saw this with Satnam Tsurutani and we saw it with Frank Harris (Jay O. Sanders).

Harris is a grizzled old timer, loyal to the end to Dennis Quaid. We know very little about him, but he's a good guy. So when he falls through glass and is left dangling high above a shopping centre and threatens to pull his colleagues to their doom with him, he cuts the rope and falls to his death to save them. Note the variation from the common theme; Harris sacrifices himself heroically, rather than fighting heroically.

Stan Olber in Volcano

Staying on the theme of heroic sacrifices, Stan Olber (John Carroll Lynch) saves a bunch of people from a subway train being consumed by lava (for those that haven't seen it, Volcano is about a volcano erupting in down town L.A., for some reason). As a reward for his valiant efforts, he slowly burns to death after jumping into a pool of lava. You can't help thinking that Stan should have made a better job of his jump but this scene has the distinction of being one of the only memorable things in Volcano. Thus a small character is transformed into a tiny redeeming feature of an otherwise terrible, terrible movie.

Ivan Dubov in Face/Off

The character of Dubov is instantly rendered cooler by the fact that he's played by Frank Subotka from The Wire (Chris Bauer). His role is small, but important to the plot and featuring an impressive amount of drool. Dubov is an enemy of Nic Cage's (except Nic Cage isn't really Nic Cage, of course) but when the idea is suggested that they work together on a escape, he come's around to the idea pretty quickly and all of a sudden Cage and Bauer are best buds. Dubov does most of the hard work in helping Cage escape, but is thrown off a walk-way and dangles over a big drop with only a gun and Cage's hand between him and falling. Naturally, he falls and Cage is briefly sad before forgetting about him completely.

Confessions of a Film Fan

2010-11-24T11:43:00.003Z

Forgive me film world for I have sinned. Not since I admitted to enjoying Alien 3 has such a wave of guilt washed over me. But the truth must out.

So here goes; my confession, or to be more precise, confessions.

Confession Number One: Until last week I had not seen Inception or Toy Story 3.

Confession Number Two: When I did finally see them, I saw them on a plane.

On top of the shame of committing such a mortal sin, I actually managed to rationalise my decision. I had suffered the misfortune of not getting the chance to see two of the best reviewed films of the year in cinemas over the summer. Don't ask me how this happened, or how exactly I managed to catch mediocre fare like Prince of Persia and miss these gems, but I did. So when I heard that both films would be showing on my British Airways flight to Dubai, I let my excitement get the better of me. Sure the DVD and Blu-Ray releases of the films were only weeks (and in the case of Toy Story 3, days) away but I was finally getting my chance to see two films that I had completely failed to see in their rightful place on the big screen.

After all, I have a long-standing theory about great movies. They should be great, no matter how you view them. If you have a film that is great in 3D on an IMAX screen but is actually kind of dull when you stick it in a DVD player (Avatar) then it is not great film. Inception and Toy Story 3 are great films; they hold up entirely on their own merits. But now I wish I'd seen them in the way they should have been seen.

I have no problem with in-flight movies. If I am going to be sitting in one place for 7 and a half hours with barely any room to move I'm going to want something to watch. What's more, it's great that technology has moved on in recent years and you can actually choose what film you want to watch on a screen right in front of you. No more craning your neck because you're so bored you actually decided to watch the Katherine Heigl film that's on a monitor 8 rows in front of you. But, if I have learned one thing, it is NEVER watch an in-flight movie if you actually have high expectations for it.

During my flight, I found myself watching two amazing films on a 7 inch screen with a brightness adjuster that ranged between "pitch black" and "brighter than the sun" with nothing in between. My viewing experience was hampered by the rather large lady in the seat in front with a remarkable resemblance to Meatloaf who decided to recline fully and place her hands on the back of her seat, which just happened to be where my TV screen was. The sound was either whisper quiet or ear-bleedingly loud and the already quite difficult to understand Ken Watanabe was completely indecipherable. Important plot points or emotional scenes were routinely interrupted by bad food or somebody trying to sell me cheap booze.

Of course, I knew my viewing experience would be like this. I've been on a plane before. But somehow, I cheated my brain into thinking this was the best way to see these films, even Inception, which requires a lot of concentration at the best of times. I also happened to catch tedious crap-fests The A-Team and Predators on this flight, and I had no problem with seeing them there. Heck I missed Laurence Fishburne's entire appearance in Predators because I was distracted by a muffin the cabin crew had given me. I didn't care; the films were bad and I expected them to be bad so seeing them on a plane didn't matter.

Inception and Toy Story 3, on the other hand, are a different case. First chance I get I'm getting hold of them on Blu-Ray and finding the biggest TV I can. It's the least I can do to atone for my sins.

Oh, and while I'm getting things off my chest:

I've never seen Citizen Kane.

I'll go now.

Ealing Studios is a Monument to Great British Cinema

2010-11-12T11:53:00.003Z

So I've just arrived back from a stopover in Ealing. It's a great part of London to visit, not least for a chance to walk past one of the most legendary studios of them all. For an outsider there's not an awful lot of see, just a building with the iconic "Ealing Studios" logo on its front, but you can't help but think of the legendary films that have been made there and, for me at least, it sends a shiver down my spine.

Ealing Studios is truly something Britain should be proud of. It is, after all, the oldest continuously working film studio in the world. That's an impressive record, but more impressive has been the level of quality of its output. In recent years there have been lapses; the St. Trinians revival was unnecessary and the recent Burke and Hara was not well received considering the talent it boasted, but for a time in the late 40's and early 50's, Ealing Studios arguably produced some of the most unique and witty films around.

The Ealing comedies such as The Lavender Hill Mob, Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers seem just as sharp and infused with bitingly black humour today as they were more than 50 years ago. They were showcases for perfect writing, pushed boundaries and superb acting. Watching the Ealing comedies you can understand why Alec Guinness was so appalled that he became remembered chiefly for the Star Wars films. His performances in some of these films (memorably playing 8 roles in Kind Hearts and Coronets) were some of the best that Britain has seen.

If you're ever in Ealing and you have some time to kill, make sure you stop by to have a glance at the studios. To still be making films today is remarkable, but the history and quality of output of these studios make it a monument to truly admire.

The Birdsong film edges ever closer.

2010-11-09T12:39:00.003Z

Sebastian Faulks ever-popular 1993 novel Birdsong has had a bit of a troublesome time in making its inevitable appearance on the big screen. The rights were sold not long after the book was published but still we have not yet seen a finished product. There's been plenty of aborted attempts, but the Birdsong film has found it as difficult to be made as other troubled adaptations such as Watchmen and Don Quixote.

This did, however, look set to end when Rupert Wyatt, director of the excellent Brit prison escape flick The Escapist took the reigns. Michael Fassbender and Paddy Considine became attached to the project and there was even talk of the cast beginning to flesh out. But things have fallen eerily silent. Birdsong's IMDb page no longer lists the director or stars as being involved with the project, however it does still list a tentative release date of 2012. This seems optimistic.

As this excellent Independent article documents, this could be yet another one of Birdsong's false starts. However, progress is being made in other mediums. In September, a stage adaptation of the novel began a run at the Comedy Theatre in London, starring Ben Barnes (of Prince Caspian fame) as the novel's protagonist Stephen Wraysford. Reviews have been fairly mixed, but if the novel can be adapted for the stage, there is hope it can be adapted for the screen.

It will be a challenge to make, there is no question about that. To shift from the erotically charged first 100 pages of the novel to the horrors of the First World War requires no small amount of subtlety. Some of the book will of course have to be trimmed to make it manageable to movie audiences, but which bits? Will the producers, for instance, choose to skip over the story of Elizabeth Benson, the 1970's woman looking for clues about her grandfather's time in the war?

Then there is the war itself. The intensity and fear of the Battle of the Somme, described in Faulks book could well be adapted into an epic portrait of war, in the right hands, but the book is extremely graphic in its detail. Will this be toned down for today's audiences? If so, will the film be able to do justice to the horrors of war and the sacrifices made?

It's been many years since a great First World War film was made. A good adaptation of Birdsong could not only be a fine story, but could serve as intense portrait of what people went through in the war. It will make it to the big screen one day, but for the moment we are still waiting.

A.I: A Fascinating Mess.

2010-11-04T14:28:00.004Z

It's fair to say, that if you wanted one director to make a film Stanley Kubrick wanted to make, then Steven Spielberg wouldn't be an ideal choice. Sure, Spielberg is probably second only to Kubrick himself when it comes to his track record but their styles were completely different. Some say Kubrick's films are cold and even heartless, I would say they are detached. Spielberg's biggest fault is his sentimentality that despite his best efforts, he has never completely been able to reign in. As such, the directed-by-Spielberg, imagined-by-Kubrick A.I. Artificial Intelligence was always going to be a clash of two schools of thought.

The result is a mess. But it is a fascinating mess. I hate to sound harsh but the faults most people find with this film do seem to stem from Spielberg's own flaws. The completely needless tacked on ending, the overly cute teddy bear sidekick - things you wouldn't see in a Kubrick film. But it's not as if Spielberg made a hash of things; his flair for visuals and emotion shine through, arguably showing a side that Kubrick could not.

At the centre of the film is Haley Joel Osment's David, a truly underrated performance that, whilst bordering on annoying hits the uncanny valley of portraying an imitation of the real thing. The best way to think of it is like the creepy motion capture characters in Robert Zemeckis films; impressively real, but not quite human. Osment nails this.

Other characters are not so great. Jude Law's Gigolo Joe is apparently far removed from what Kubrick conceived. I am not surprised. His light hearted, cartoonish nature just doesn't seem to fit into Kubrick's conception of this world. Robin Williams cameo as the holographic Dr. Know is more distracting then it is engaging.

So how did a film with great visuals, an interesting concept and input from two of the greatest directors of all time turn out to be such a mess? Well, simply that; it was born of two directors. This film could have been Kubrick's last hurrah, an epic story of what it means to be 'human.' It could also have been an upbeat Spielberg fairytale, minus the darkness and menace that Kubrick would have wanted. Simply put, this film could have worked if it had been the baby of either of these two great men alone, but with Spielberg trying to carry on Kubrick's legacy it does not. It will still always be a fascinating lesson in what happens when two very different directing style clash.

The 10 best Nicolas Cage films.

2010-11-02T12:05:00.004Z

Nicolas Cage isn't exactly the most popular actor to ever make it big. Sure, he's appealing enough to land big budget roles, but there are plenty of people who'd much rather be forced to wear a helmet full of bees than sit through one of his movies (especially The Wicker Man).

Nic Cage is marmite. He's eccentric, he's weird, his hair is a bird, and he doesn't help himself by making some terrible, terrible film choices. I must admit it would be much easier to make a list of the 10 worst Nic Cage movies, but I won't, because in the last year or so Cage has made two films to help restore his reputation. They're in this list so I won't mention them here but they served to remind us that when he picks the right role (which he hadn't done for a very, VERY long time), Cage can be a damn good actor.

Over the years, he's had the mid-life crisis, made big budget duds (which despite a return to form, he is still doing), but in a career spanning over 20 years he has had his fair share of good movies. Below are 10 of his best:

10. Face/Off (1997)

Absolutely ridiculous. This is literally one of the most unbelievable plots an action movie has ever produced. Yet it is the best film John Woo made in a rather ill-fated spell in Hollywood, purely because it is an awful lot of fun.

Cage and Travolta are given the opportunity to ham it up and they take it with relish, producing cartoonish performances as a heroic cop and demonic villain who trade faces in a top secret undercover operation. It all gets very complicated but there are some genuinely good action sequences (Cage's prison escape is a highlight) and for a man who's made some pretty bad action movies, this is easily one of the better ones.

9. Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

Will not be the film Martin Scorsese will be remembered for, nor Nic Cage for that matter, but this film definitely had it's moments. Cage plays a paramedic haunted by visions of the people he's tried to save. Moody and atmospheric, it was a welcome change of pace for Cage, who was well into a string of ridiculous movies at this point. It gave him an opportunity to flex his acting muscles, resulting in one of his better performances.

8. The Rock (1996)

Probably the film that created Cage the action star, for better or worse, The Rock is an over the top Michael Bay film that came before Bay really lost it. After 81 tourists are taken hostage on Alcatraz island, Cage, a biochemist, must get to the site to disarm some stolen gas warheads, but he needs help. The interplay between Cage and Sean Connery in this film is great, and The Rock just works as a boombastic and entertaining action movie; a formula Cage would struggle to find in future movies.

7. Matchstick Men (2003)

Once again, a film that finds Cage working with a top director for a smaller, less spectacular film. What Ridley Scott's Matchstick Men lacks in big budget excess it makes up for in charm and wit. Cage is perfectly cast as an obsessive compulsive con-man, playing up to his trademark quirks and neurotic style. The twist is somewhat disappointing, but Matchstick Men makes for an entertaining and diverting conman movie that works well because it plays to Cage's strengths, offering great support from Sam Rockwell and Alison Lohman.

6. Lord of War (2005)

A film that is arguably best remembered for its inventive opening credits sequence if anything else, Lord of War may have glossed over a serious issue, but it certainly left the viewer with something to think about. Cage gleefully plays an amoral arms dealer, charting his pursuit by an interpol agent, his family relationships and the inner conflicts of his job. At times both funny and haunting, it's an entertaining way at confronting an issue that is at the forefront of modern conflict.

5. Kick-Ass (2010)

The first of the redeeming films I mentioned earlier, this is Cage demonstrating he has a sense of humour, and moving away from the overly serious roles that almost led to him becoming something of a self-parody. In a film with so many great bits in it, Cage is one of the best. The Adam West-style voice he uses in his Big Daddy alter-ego is hilarious and his bizarre relationship with his daughter is as touching as it is twisted. This is exactly the sort of role Cage needed to help restore a damaged reputation with the movie going public.

4. The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009)

The second of the redeeming films. This is Nic Cage at his crazy best. Too easily dismissed as an unnecessary remake of a not-that-brilliant film, it actually shares little in common with the Harvey Keitel original. Cage makes the role of the bad lieutenant his own; a drug addicted weirdo with a very loose sense of morals. The crucial thing is that he remains likeable, with a shred of decency that shines through and keeps you rooting for Cage's character. It's the strangest role Cage has taken since Adaptation, which is a shame because nobody does strange better than Nicolas Cage.

3. Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

The film that won Cage an Oscar. It's depressing, often heartbreaking, and a difficult watch but features powerful performances, with Cage putting in a career-best performance as an alcoholic screenwriter looking to drink himself to death. Darker and more personal than anything Cage had done before or since, the chemistry between Cage and Elizabeth Shue is great and Cage was deserving of the recognition he received for a very challenging role.

2. Adaptation (2002)

The film for which Cage received his second Oscar nomination, it marked a brief return to form after a mid-career slump. The famously complicated and highly unique plot charts screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's (Cage) failed attempts to adapt a Susan Orlean's 'The Orchid Thief' into a screenplay. The film features a wonderfully offbeat performance from Cage, playing a meek and uncertain man, and getting the opportunity to act against himself as Kaufman's (fictional) brother. The most original film Cage has starred in, with Nic at his oddball best.

1. Raising Arizona (1987)

Whether there is something to be said about the fact that Cage's best film came out 23 years ago is up to you but it is one of the Coen Brother's best and certainly Cage's funniest performance. Cage and Holly Hunter but in wonderful performances as an ex-con and ex-cop who steal a baby. The chemistry between the two actors is superb and despite their twisted actions, there is something very sweet at the heart of this movie. It's the kind of role Cage needs to be in again at some point, but with a Ghost Rider sequel in the works (who asked for that!?) we might need to hold our breath.

Classic Performances: Robert Shaw in Jaws

2010-09-09T17:07:00.003+01:00

Jaws has a fairly unique position in cinema history in that it helped create a mythic fear of a creature that endures till this day. Sure, people were aware of the stories of man-eating sharks but for most they were rarely regarded as a direct threat. However, after seeing Jaws, an awful lot of people became hesitant to go back in the water. Steven Spielberg had given us the ultimate movie monster; powerful, relentless, remorseless, and a significant threat to human beings.

I, like most youngsters upon first viewing Jaws, was captivated by it. But unlike many, the shark was never the star for me. I saw Robert Shaw's Quint as the best thing about the film, and I still do till this day.

The character has plenty of critics; Quint is often viewed as too much of a caricature, a character to be parodied. It's true that he was a part of the film that perhaps required a further stretch of the imagination than for the shark itself, but for me he was such a charismatic and menacing character that I was fascinated by him.

Many would suggest that Quint wasn't too much of a stretch for Robert Shaw. His grizzled and temperamental attitude was something that Shaw had made a career out of, playing similar characters to Quint before and after Jaws. But Robert Shaw was a brilliant actor, and demonstrated it in a single speech which, to me, was the most memorable thing about the film;

Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into her side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte. We'd just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes.

Didn't see the first shark for about a half-hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that in the water, Chief? You can tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know, was that our bomb mission was so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin' by, so we formed ourselves into tight groups. It was sorta like you see in the calendars, you know the infantry squares in the old calendars like the Battle of Waterloo and the idea was the shark come to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and sometimes that shark he go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away.

Sometimes that shark looks right at ya. Right into your eyes. And the thing about a shark is he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn't even seem to be livin'... 'til he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all your poundin' and your hollerin' those sharks come in and... they rip you to pieces.

You know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men. I don't know how many sharks there were, maybe a thousand. I do know how many men, they averaged six an hour. Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player. Boson's mate. I thought he was asleep. I reached over to wake him up. He bobbed up, down in the water, he was like a kinda top. Upended. Well, he'd been bitten in half below the waist.

At noon on the fifth day, a Lockheed Ventura swung in low and he spotted us, a young pilot, lot younger than Mr. Hooper here, anyway he spotted us and a few hours later a big ol' fat PBY come down and started to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened. Waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a lifejacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945.

Anyway, we delivered the bomb.

This speech is rightly viewed as one of the greatest in cinema history. The intensity with which it is delivered is mesmerising and it is one of the academy's great mistakes that Robert Shaw was not even nominated for an Oscar; he should have got one based on the strength of the delivery of this speech alone. It contributed so much to the depth of Quint's character; a complicated, often dangerous man bordering on obsession who has experienced the true horror of his aquatic enemy.

Jaws is fundamentally a horror film; the shark is not too far removed from slashers like Freddy Kruger and Michael Myers, but one of the reasons it rises so far above these genre conventions is the strength of its main characters; Chief Brody's cautious heroism, Hooper's boy-like enthusiasm, and most of all, Quint's maniacal intensity. It will always be one of my greatest film performances.

8 Memorable Movie River Trips

2010-09-01T19:36:00.008+01:00

Sometimes the movie road trip gets too much credit. It's one of cinema's great clichés; the voyage of discovery or bonding experience that comes from taking a drive. It's not the only way to travel though, and some of cinema's great journeys have been taken down (or up) river, and it's time they got their moment in the limelight. This is a list of 8 great movie river trips. It's by no means definitive; I chose to leave out great scenes that take place on rivers (The Deer Hunter) or indeed great scenes of crossing rivers (Temple of Doom) but instead focus on journeys, whether by boat, canoe or even paddle steamer. This is simply 8 films that use a journey on a river to great effect:

Deliverance (1972)

Burt Reynolds leads a group of friends on a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River in a determined effort to experience it one last time before it gets turned into a giant lake. It doesn't exactly go to plan.

For its time this was a truly provocative film and even today it has the capacity to shock. Along the way Reynolds, Voight and co. experience raging rapids, jagged rocks and a group of back-country yokels that set the standard for stereotypical, backwards Southern folk that most horror movies can't even come close to. The tension rises as the group make increasingly unwise decisions about how to deal with the problems that befall them, leading to an edgy finale of nervous glances and suspicious questions.

Although "dueling banjos" and the infamous rape scene will be the ones that stick in people's minds, one of the true stars of the show is the river itself. Filmed on location on the Chattooga River in Georgia, the rapid scenes are beautifully shot and bring about a real sense of excitement. Of all the journeys on this list, its probably the one you'd least want to go on. Except, maybe for....

Apocalypse Now (1979)

During the Vietnam war, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is sent on a dangerous journey up river to Cambodia to assassinate the dangerous and charismatic Colonel Kurtz.

This is one boat trip you don't want to go on. As Willard and his crew head "75 klicks above the Do Long bridge," they encounter the full horror and insanity of war, and that's before Willard encounters Kurtz at the end of his journey. Along the way they encounter the eccentric Colonel Kilgore and his interesting appreciation of certain scents, negotiate the natural perils of the jungle, and come under attack from the locals. Not only do the crew experience the horrors of war, they even commit atrocious acts themselves. The entire journey is an escalating descent into madness, with a destination that will top it all...

Fitzcarraldo (1982)

Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald (Klaus Kinski) has a dream of building an opera house in Iquitos in Peru. To do this he needs money. To get money, he needs rubber. Fitzgerald buys a paddle steamer and enlists a crew to reach an unclaimed patch on the Ucayali River. Its unclaimed for a reason though, and getting there is easier said than done.

In a way, this feels like a cheat. Sure this is a movie about a man trying to reach a place on a river, but the most impressive, and most memorable, part of the journey is Fitzgerald's attempt to physically pull the steamer over a hill to reach the inaccessible Ucayali River. Its a study into obsession, made all the more fascinating by the infamous on set difficulties and the conflict between director Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski (one of the native extras famously offered to kill Kinski for Herzog). The film shows an increasingly inconceivable attempt to overcome the obstacles of nature in pursuit of the ultimate dream. Likewise, the film was an ambitious project that had to overcome numerous obstacles to get made.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)

As Willy Wonka takes the five lucky golden ticket winners on a tour of his extraordinary chocolate factory. The best way to get around the factory is by boat, and Willy Wonka takes the group on a psychedelic and thrilling ride along a chocolate river.

"There's no earthly way of knowing, which direction we are going."

This may well be the creepiest song ever sung in a children's film, and the journey's a little bit intimidating too. A seemingly relaxing and docile trip along a chocolate river (as you do) descends into a dark and fast roller-coaster ride with multicoloured lights adding increasing menace to Gene Wilder's face. Demented images with no place in a children's film flash up, as the increasingly nervous group begin to question Willy Wonka's sanity. It's creepy as hell, but it's one of the reasons why this adaptation of a very dark children's book is such a classic.

The World is Not Enough (1999)

Or, if you'd rather, Live and Let Die (1973)

In an explosive opening sequence, James Bond uses a prototype MI6 speed boat to chase an assassin along the Thames, taking in London's biggest landmarks, soaking the odd traffic warden, and destroying a few things along the way.

Let's get one thing straight, The World is Not Enough is not a great film. In fact, it's one of Bond's worst outings. But the opening sequence promised so much. The scene was an attempt to make Bond a bit more up to date, accounting for the climax of the chase taking place against the backdrop of the Millennium Dome. The action's some of the most exciting we've seen in the modern Bond era and, as always, London provides the perfect cinematic backdrop, especially for such an iconic British character.

Special mention has to go to the swamp chase in Live and Let Die, but it loses out because of the presence of Sheriff J.W. Pepper; to date the most annoying character to appear in the Bond universe.

The African Queen (1951)

Rose Sayer (Katherine Hepburn) persuades a grizzled riverboat captain (Humphrey Bogart) to attack an enemy warship in WW1 era Africa.

An all time classic. The interplay between Hepburn and Bogart is the real star of the show, and the film is classic movie example of mutual hate turning to love. However, the thing that drives the film is the treacherous trip down the Ulanga River. The African Queen is a rust bucket, but its trustworthy and negotiates Hepburn and Bogart through rapids, jagged rocks and dangerous animals. At the end of the journey there's the biggest challenge of all; the Louisa, the warship they are determined to sink. This is one of cinema's truly great journeys.

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Having left Lothlorian, the remaining members of the fellowship set off down the River Anduin towards Parth Galen, where they will eventually part.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy did a pretty good job of leaving impressive and epic images in you head. The Two Towers and Return of the King would take this to the next level with their vast battle scenes but one of the most impressive and memorable visions from the first film happens as the group rides down the River Anduin. The fellowship passes huge statues of past kings of Gondor, showcasing impressive CGI and creating one of the defining images of the trilogy.

The river would also be the setting for the breaking of the fellowship and the site for Boromir's final farewell. All in all, a pretty important part of the journey.

Into the Wild (2007)

During his voyage of self discovery around America, Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch) takes a kayak trip down the Colorado River, disobeying the orders of park rangers, and encounters two of the many eccentrics he meets on his travels.

Depending on who you ask, Into the Wild is either massively overrated or massively underrated. Either way, its hard to deny that the film takes in some impressive scenery along the way. The journey down the Colorado River not only showcases its beauty but also provides an important insight into McCandless' character; impulsive, often reckless, and determined to live out his dreams regardless of the consequences. Along the way, we also meet a quirky Danish couple, which naturally means nudity. They're not the most important people that McCandless will meet on his journey, but at least they're not Vince Vaughn...

Rose-tinted Nostalgia: Gary Busey.

2010-08-27T12:34:00.003+01:00

Ah, Gary Busey. Internet meme, running punchline and scary, scary man. He's one of the stars the internet has latched onto and created a whole new mystique and fanbase for. Sure, he's not quite up there with Christopher Walken and Chuck Norris, but he's getting there. After all, you know you've made it on the internet when you have your very own popular spoof twitter account.

Busey's popularity seems to be largely down to the fact that he acts completely insane and seems to embrace his unhinged image with open arms. Its actually pretty easy to forget that this guy has been in some pretty big movies. Hell, he was even Oscar nominated once upon a time.

There was once an age, not too long ago when Gary Busey was the go-to guy for a psychotic, villainous henchman. It was an age when action stars were action stars; wise-cracking, playing against the rules, and sporting very, very bad hair. It was also an age when Busey hadn't quite descended into self parody.

In Lethal Weapon and Under Siege, Busey got to ham it up as a bad guy in two of the most popular action movies of the 80's and 90's. He was a minor star, popping up in big movies like Point Break and Predator 2. He was even given a shot at playing the action hero himself, although the less said about films like Bulletproof the better. But all in all, Busey, despite the toothy grin and tendency to overact had enough respect in Hollywood to get some big parts. When he was given some decent scenery to chew, he was pretty damn good at it as well.

Nobody really takes Gary Busey seriously now. However, despite being a very, ahem, unorthodox actor, he was once wanted. Maybe Mr. Stallone should have given him a call too....

Everybody loves Michael J. Fox.

2010-08-24T20:27:00.004+01:00

It is very rarely that I would get excited about a one episode guest star in a show I don't even watch. For Michael J. Fox, however, I will make an exception. Yup, according to Entertainment Weekly Marty McFly himself is to make an appearance in "The Good Wife" playing a "shrewd and cynical litigator" who exploits the symptoms of his neurological condition to his own advantage. I cannot claim to be an expert on "The Good Wife" but this really is good news.

Fox semi-retired from acting nearly ten years ago now to concentrate on his family and finding a cure for Parkinson's disease, which he was diagnosed with back in 1991 (although he did no go public with it until 1998). Whilst his reasons were very understandable, it was a sad loss for the entertainment industry. Fox's condition has limited him, but he remains one of the funniest and most likeable actors around. Of course, the glimmer of hope in his decision was the fact that it was a semi-retirement rather than an outright departure from the limelight.

Michael J. Fox has worked fairly regularly as a guest star throughout the last ten years. His characters now have to incorporate the limitations of his condition but his talent has always shone through. Fox's appearance in "Scrubs" as an obsessive compulsive super doctor in 2004 came at a point when the show was arguably peaking. For much of the two episodes he appears in, the surrounding characters seem to be inspired and in awe of the doctor he plays. This, I would imagine, required very little acting from Zach Braff and co. Fox is one of the most popular actors around; audiences have liked him for his nice-guy image long before Marty Mcfly burst onto our screens in Back to the Future way back in 1985. Not only that, but the attitude and awareness raised since his diagnosis with Parkinson's disease has been inspirational.

It is true that Michael J. Fox has bigger and far more important battles to fight than pursuing his acting career, but it is always good to hear that he is working again, even if it is the occasional one-off guest appearance. Viewers young and old are not going to forget him in a hurry and I can't imagine anyone being upset to see him popping up in their favourite show. I hope to see a lot more of him in the future.

Meg Griffin has ruined Mila Kunis

2010-08-20T16:36:00.005+01:00

So the Black Swan trailer has just been released and it looks like a pretty interesting project for Darren Aronofsky to follow up the critically-acclaimed The Wrestler with. Aside from the fairly obvious differences between wrestling and ballet, its a totally different project and could be crucial to the career of one of its stars: Mila Kunis. Kunis' star is on the rise and she's popped up in big budget films such as The Book of Eli and Max Payne but this could very well be the film that propels her into the Hollywood leading lady market.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. She's beautiful and though she hasn't exactly had a stellar role yet, there's another talent there to suggest she has a bright future; certainly enough for Aronofsky to cast her as Natalie Portman's rival in Black Swan. The only problem I have is a ridiculous one that I'm not particularly proud of; I can never suspend my disbelief with Kunis because all I can ever hear is Meg Griffin.

Kunis has voiced the character in "Family Guy" since its second season (eleven years ago now) and she is by no means the first, or last, film or television star to voice a character in a popular animated programme. Hank Azaria, for instance, has successfully juggled a film and television career alongside his voice work for "The Simpsons." It takes a lot of talent to voice animated characters successfully and even more to separate your own acting persona from that of your cartoon character. For most actors it's not a problem but whenever Kunis speaks in films all I see is Meg.

This is in no way Kunis' fault and she's at a distinct disadvantage here. Unlike a lot of voice actors, Kunis barely alters her voice for her character so its no surprise I would hear Meg every time she speaks. Then there's the fact that her character became famous before Kunis did; it's hardly as if we'd think of Patrick Stewart as that bloke out of "American Dad!" (if you do, you are a horrible, horrible human being). Then there's Meg Griffin herself. The writer's realised long ago that she was by far the most unpopular primary character and she's become a source of scorn and the butt of jokes for the rest of the family, often to good comic effect but without making her much more popular. Whereas sometimes it can be fun to hear a familiar voice in an acting role (Dan Castellaneta in "Arrested Development" springs to mind) hearing Meg's voice doesn't exactly fill me with joy.

I know this seems an incredibly trivial qualm to have, especially when Kunis is a long way from being like the character she portrays. But perhaps this is a challenge; if Black Swan really is to be her big break, maybe Mila Kunis can begin to grow as an actress to the point where the voice is no longer an issue.

A word on the new Spider-Man

2010-07-09T17:03:00.005+01:00

I like Andrew Garfield. He was one of the best things about The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and was excellent in the Red Riding trilogy. Now he's nabbed one of the biggest parts available for a young actor, and its interesting casting to say the least.

I have to admit, I'm not exactly going to be at the front of the queue when the new film comes out. As far as I'm concerned, the franchise went stale with the best talent available in Sam Raimi and I don't exactly see how refreshing a reboot will be. I'd love to be proved wrong however, and with the casting of Andrew Garfield and with Marc Webb on board as director, things certainly seem to be heading in the right director.

The thing that surprised me about the casting was that all the talk about the film has been that it was aiming to return to a young, teen aged Peter Parker, which seemed like a perfectly fine idea. Garfield is nearly 27, and though youthful in appearance, could be well into his mid 30's if the film gets a couple of sequels. It seems to be going against a lot of the things the producers were talking up, especially when much of the casting rumours were going with someone much younger like Aaron Johnson (20) or Logan Lerman (18). We'll have to see how long Garfield can convince as a teenager for, but this doesn't seem to be much of a concern for Hollywood; they haven't exactly been too concerned about actors being the same age as their characters in the past.

As for Webb, we'll have to see if he can pull this off. He'll certainly bring the heart back to the franchise that was so missing from Spider-Man 3. (500) Days of Summer was an excellent achievement in having just the right amount of emotion and strong characterisation without getting too cheesy. My only concern is that he could "do a Marc Forster." Forster is a director who has made great films and is much respected but when it came to making a big budget summer tentpole in Quantum of Solace, he just didn't have the action directing chops. In the end we had baffling action sequences that looked like a poor man's Bourne. I have no doubt Webb will get the angst of a teenage Peter Parker right, but the action's got to be impressive too. It is Spider-Man after all.

Reasons to love IMDb user ratings #2:

2010-07-08T14:50:00.003+01:00

M. Night Shyamalan's career trajectory in IMDb user ratings:

The Sixth Sense (1999) - 8.2

Unbreakable (2000) - 7.3

Signs (2002) - 6.9

The Village (2004) - 6.6

Lady in the Water (2006) - 5.8

The Happening (2008) - 5.2

The Last Airbender (2010) - 4.4

There's a pretty unmistakable trend going on here. I still had hope for this guy long after most people had given up on him. It may have become a bit cliché these days but The Sixth Sense was a truly great and inventive film and, despite having one of the world's most anti-climatic endings ever, Unbreakable was certainly an interesting premise.

The thing is, when you see a trend like this, and M. Night Shyamalan's ever decreasing reputation in the public eye, you have to wonder why a studio would hand him $200 million to direct in a genre that he's completely unproven in.

It will be interesting to see where Shyamalan goes from here. The Last Airbender might just irreparably damage his career but surely, SURELY he can't make a film that will get a lower IMDb rating than that. Can he?

Reasons to love IMDB user ratings #1:

2010-06-07T20:10:00.002+01:00

With a current rating of 3.6, Sex and the City 2 is currently level with Plan 9 from Outer Space, the film often voted the worst of all time (despite being ridiculously entertaining, even if it was unintentional). I would rather watch a million Plan 9's than Sex and the City 2, but its nice to see how the public rates this crap.

Stephen Norrington: The only reason to pay attention to The Crow remake.

2010-06-07T15:50:00.004+01:00

I've argued in the past that I'm not as anti-remakes as many critics tend to be but sometimes I look at one of Hollywood's latest reboots/reimaginings/regurgitations and I am completely baffled. The Crow, a rather good but not classic 1994 comic book adaptation starring the late Brandon Lee was perfectly good on its own. Yet now, just 16 years after it was originally released we're being treated to a completely pointless reboot of the franchise. Ordinarily I'd steer clear of a film like this and just pretend it never existed but something about it has taken my interest; the fact that Stephen Norrington is writing and directing it.

To most people that name is probably unfamiliar. To a group of die hard Alan Moore fans on the other hand, the name Stephen Norrington will probably fill them with an uncontrollable rage. Norrington after all, was the man that helmed the epically disastrous League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in 2003 and was part of one of the most infamous actor-director conflicts in film history.

It was no secret that 'LXG' had a troubled production. You only have to look at the shoddy, incomplete-feeling final product to guess that all was not well throughout the film's shoot. It would be an understatement to say that Sean Connery, the film's star (and the only actor in the film with any box-office pull) was not a fan of Norrington's methods. They reportedly constantly came to blows over aspects of the film and when Norrington failed to attend the film's opening party, Connery famously suggested to reporters that they "check the local asylum" to find him.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was to be Connery's last live-action film before retirement; a retirement that he has refused to be tempted out of, even to return to the Indiana Jones franchise (extremely good judgement in retrospect). It was also, however, the last film that Norrington made; the director had such a disastrous experience during the film's shoot that he vowed never to direct a film again.

So it is upon finding that Norrington will direct The Crow remake that my interest in the film spiked. His return to directing is not completely out of the blue; Norrington has been attached to direct several films in recent years, including the Clash of the Titans remake and Freddy vs. Jason, before pulling out. It will be an interesting to see how a man who has been convinced to give directing another shot will do on his return though. Many sceptics will describe Norrington as a hack and point to LXG as an example of why he should never have returned in the first place. However, Norrington did direct Blade; once again not a classic, but a perfectly good comic book adaptation and it would be unfair to condemn someone for one bad film. It is only when a director has been consistently bad (the Uwe Bolls and Paul W.S. Andersons of this world) that we should begin to pass such judgements. I still believe The Crow is a terrible choice of film to make a comeback, but I'll still keep an eye on it. After all, everybody deserves a second chance.

MGM's problems are bad news for film fans.

2010-06-02T15:53:00.004+01:00

Just months after the announcement that Bond 23 was to be indefinitely delayed while MGM looks to be sold off we've received the highly disappointing news that Guillermo del Toro has been forced to drop out of directing The Hobbit films due to delays and uncertainty over production. Anyone that had seen del Toro's extremely atmospheric fantasy work on The Devil's Backbone, Pan's Labyrinth and to a lesser extent the Hellboy franchise will realise what a big loss this is. Bar Peter Jackson himself del Toro really did seem the most perfect fit for The Hobbit; creative, unique and completely devoted to the source material. However, with work on the film now likely to take 6 years rather than 3, it was a commitment del Toro simply could not make.

Whilst its a sad loss to the film it is completely understandable that del Toro would drop out. The man has many future projects that he has had to delay or pass on due to The Hobbit films and simply couldn't afford to be waiting around with the uncertainty surrounding MGM. The sad fact is that MGM's financial problems have stopped two very lucrative and exciting franchises in their tracks. Bond films are more popular than ever, particular as we have the best Bond for decades. But with the ongoing delays one begins to wonder if we will even see Daniel Craig don the tuxedo again. Its a massive shame because, with the announcement of Sam Mendes as director, there were big reasons to look forward to a new Bond.

MGM has a proud history and the image of that roaring lion has become an iconic part of film history. The potential for the studio to go bankrupt is completely unthinkable but uncertainty remains. There doesn't seem to be a buyer in sight and debts are still crippling. One would have to assume that the Bond and Hobbit franchises would survive even if MGM didn't but any true film fan would be hoping to see these films in the not too distant future with that lion still roaring before the opening credits.

Dennis Hopper was a terrifying man. But that's why we loved him.

2010-05-31T16:42:00.003+01:00

A lot of things in David Lynch movies have freaked me out. The man does freaky and unnerving better than anyone else. When I watched Blue Velvet however, Dennis Hopper cranked things up a notch. He took David Lynch's blueprint and created and embodied a monster. And it was terrifying. But that is what Dennis Hopper did better than anyone else. In many ways Lynch and Hopper were a perfect marriage; demented, strange and, sometimes, just plain scary.

Even though we knew it was coming, the news of Dennis Hopper's death brings with it the shock of knowing we will never again see him devouring the scenery and upstaging every other actor in a film. He rivals Alan Rickman for the ultimate movie villain and always delivered with style and intensity. Sure he was in a few duds, but even in films such as Waterworld he emerged, eye-patch and all, with dignity.

He may have become typecast in his post-Blue Velvet career but there's one thing that's been consistent throughout his career; he has always been a brilliant actor. From his early work with James Dean to writing, directing and starring in the classic Easy Rider, Hopper has always displayed his talent. He was a true maverick; hard living and difficult to work with but producing the goods to keep him at the peak of the business. Hopper was the kind of strong and intense character that is all too rare in Hollywood these days. He will be missed.

The finale may have disappointed, but Lost's place in history is assured.

2010-05-25T13:45:00.003+01:00

Even the most die hard of thanks would have admitted it was a thankless task. Take a show that has built up six years worth of mythos, confusion, twists and turns and make an ending that rewards the fans for keeping the faith. In the end, the Lost finale didn't quite live up to the promise, but it gave it a damn good try. The final twist may have left fans angry and confused but all that led up to that point was deeply engrossing; hearts were warmed, connections were made, and tears were shed. Many of the more angry reactions to the finale suggested that we had wasted six years of our lives, but despite the confusion and the unanswered questions the fact remains that those six years were spent watching one of the most mind-boggling, frustrating and just pure entertaining shows ever made.

Funnily enough, one of the biggest problems that Lost had to deal with is the fact that the answers to the big questions just weren't quite as fun as the questions themselves. Not since Twin Peaks has a show had so many mysteries and bizarre events to keep you hooked and desperate to know the meaning behind a show that was essentially nonsense. Because that is what the show was; try explaining the last six seasons to someone who's never watched Lost and you'll realise how ridiculous it all was. We kept faith because the characters were so engaging, the twists so unexpected, the plot and production showing an ambition not seen in television before.

No matter what you think of the ending, it is hard to deny that for six years we were treated to a show that had a mark of quality that few shows had. Sometimes this went beyond the meandering plot and became something truly special; 'The Constant' is not just the show's best ever episode but it could (and should) go down in history as one of the greatest standalone T.V. episodes of all time. On top of that some great actors were given the opportunity to embody some of the most unique, complex and fascinating characters we've seen. Terry O'Quinn as Locke and Michael Emerson as Ben Linus are just two examples of actor and character perfectly matched.

You may not be completely satisfied with the ending, but for the strong attachment we felt towards the cast, the pathos, and the endless twists and turns it was worth watching. We went from polar bears and electro-magnetic bunkers to time travel and beyond. Lost, it was a hell of a journey. You will be missed.

Holocaust films and the issue of repeat viewing.

2010-05-24T14:18:00.004+01:00

Films about the Holocaust are placed in a fairly unique category. There is no doubt that classic films, some of the best of the last 20 years, have been made on the subject. But, by their very nature and the sheer brutality of the subject matter they become extremely difficult to watch. This is far from being a criticism; telling the stories of the Holocaust is highly necessary and cinema has a crucial role to play in ensuring we never forget the evil acts of the concentration camps and ghettos. Several generations have passed since the Second World War, and though the younger of us will probably never have the slightest inkling of its horror, we can at least begin to get a grasp of it through cinema.

Once we have seen these events put on screen, they become very difficult to watch again. I know many people who regard Schindler's List as a brilliant film but very few who have seen it more than once or twice. Indeed, I have relatives from Germany who cannot bring themselves to watch these films at all; a mistake in my eyes. Even Life is Beautiful, which made the audacious attempt to derive comedy from the harshest of situations makes difficult repeat viewing.

It is here that we come to a film that somehow manages to buck this trend, despite including one of the most brutal and shocking scenes imaginable. I refer to The Pianist, a film that was showing late at night on television last week. I happened to stumble on this film at the exact moment this scene takes place; an elderly man in a wheelchair is mercilessly dumped from a fifth story window before scores of innocent Jews are gunned down. It is arguably the most shocking moment in the film, yet it is utterly believable and leaves you dumbstruck by its power. I watched the film in its entirety yet again. The Pianist is a film that is no less shocking than any other Holocaust film, indeed it is more so than most, but it is a film that demands repeat viewing.

By shifting the attention away from the concentration camps to the squalor and destitute setting of the ghettos, The Pianist created an angle on the Holocaust we had seen little of before. We witnessed strong, proud characters slowly realising the desperation and hopelessness of their situation. In Adrien Brody (in perhaps the finest performance of the 21st century so far) we see a supremely talented man resorting to a desperate struggle for survival. The Pianist is the most human and personal of Holocaust films; the atrocities of the Nazis play second fiddle to the strength and resilience of the Jewish characters. Where The Pianist bears repeat viewing where others can not is that it works as more than a dramatic account of the horrors of the Holocaust, it works simply as a film. It may not be enjoyable to watch in the conventional sense, but the strong characterisation and pathos evoke a range of emotions that make re-experiencing it once in a while necessary, if traumatic.

The scene in question is below. If you haven't seen it in the context of the film, I urge you to watch The Pianist in its entirety. Be warned, its shocking stuff:

One half of New Zealand's fourth most popular guitar-based digi-bongo acapella-rap-funk-comedy folk duo to be the main villain in a big budget sequel?

2010-05-19T12:59:00.003+01:00

Everyone loves Flight of the Conchords. Honestly, I've never met anyone who hasn't at least warmed to Bret and Jermaine's adventures in New York. So now the series has finished its fair to say everyone was interested in what they'd do next. If I'm honest with you, I never expected one of them to end up in Men in Black III. But Jermaine Clement will be...

I love left field casting, especially if someone has the balls to do it for a big budget blockbuster with a lot riding on it. I have no doubt that Clement's distant, detached style will suit well for playing a character we can only assume will be alien, even if it is difficult to imagine someone so likeable being a main villain. I'm very happy to see him moving on to bigger, if not necessarily better, things. But there's a 'but' here...who the hell was asking for another Men in Black movie?

Don't get me wrong, the original was a likeable film. It had a great sense of humour, some impressive effects for the time, and truly showcased Will Smith's ability as an A-list star. But there was something about it that was so...90's. The fact that its first sequel was so awful doesn't exactly help things either. Its been 8 years since that film was released; too long in my book. I'm sure the film will turn a profit, I just couldn't really care less about it.

The fact that Will Smith would return to the franchise doesn't exactly seem right either. All I can guess is that there's an absolutely massive pay-check involved. Smith's no Vin Diesel; he doesn't have to return to his old franchises that he'd previously 'outgrown' just to pick up some work. The man is box office gold and can pick and choose what he wants to do. Doing Men in Black III just seems like a step backwards.

Oh well, we'll have to see how this one works out for Jermaine. He's still got a bright future ahead of him whatever he does. In the meantime, here's some classic Conchords...

You had me at "David Fincher to direct"

2010-05-18T16:43:00.008+01:00

Well this is an interesting one. The remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been floating around for a while, and for good reason. As impressive as the Kirk Douglas classic was in 1954, and as outraged as fans of the original will be, this is good material for a modern update.

My interest in this film had been growing for a while until a simple, three letter name completely ruined everything; McG. Oh McG, we tried to give you a chance, we really did. You were given a summer tentpole and the opportunity to breathe new life into a classic franchise. We ignored your awful track record and your STUPID NAME (I honestly don't know what's wrong with Joseph McGinty) but you blew it and then you attached your name to 20,000 Leagues. I have never been so certain that a director would make a hash of his source material as McG and 20,000 Leagues, and when I heard that he was pursuing Will Smith as Captain Nemo my heart sank completely (don't even get me started on Hollywood's complete refusal to cast actors of Indian or Arabic origin in the roles they were literally born to play).

Anyway, thankfully this didn't work out and the project appeared to be in the doldrums for a while until this week we heard that David Fincher was attached to direct the film AND that Fox was planning a rival production to Disney's remake (the original novel is in the public domain). Its pretty obvious that whichever one of these films gets released first is going to be the winner as previous releases of near identical films would suggest but the mention of Fincher has really peaked my interest in the Disney project.

Fincher has never once made a film that wasn't at least entertaining (damn right I'm including Alien 3 in that) and has always had a unique and exciting visual style. I don't think doing The Social Network was a particularly good move, but I could yet be proved wrong. I just feel with the increasing unpopularity and controversy surrounding Facebook's privacy issues that Mark Zuckerberg's story is just one I don't really want told. I'd just love to see what Fincher does with a different kind of big budget film. Sure he's handled the cutting edge (Benjamin Button) and franchises (Alien 3 wasn't a bad film, dammit!) but 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea could be something very different, and, potentially, very fun. I'll be watched to see how all this pans out.

Riddick is Returning (and it's a good thing)

2010-02-15T17:09:00.006Z

It's been no secret that writer/director David Twohy and star Vin Diesel have been trying to get a new Riddick project off the ground for a while but Variety has recently confirmed a new film is in the works, provisionally given the simple title of 'Riddick.' For Vin Diesel this marks another franchise return after he came running back to the 'xXx' and 'The Fast and the Furious' movies, presumably with his tail between his legs. So is this new Riddick movie a sign of desperation or an attempt to reignite Diesel's best work?

Pitch Black is the film that made Diesel a star. Ten years later it remains his best film and while he may not have quite lived up to his billing as the next big action hero in that time he can still carry a film if he is given the right role. Unfortunately, Diesel has proven to have a fairly limited range, explaining his return to franchises he had previously left. However, in Riddick it was clear that Diesel had found his perfect role. Complex, mysterious and with an intriguing and unexplained past, it was a character that could outgrow his ambitious but fairly humble beginnings in Pitch Black. Given the right treatment, Diesel's Riddick could have become a profitable, and maybe even iconic, character.

Which brings us to The Chronicles of Riddick. It wasn't a classic. In fact it was a gigantic mess but it was nowhere near as bad as critics, and the money it made, suggested. It suffered from the budget and expectations placed upon it; whereas Pitch Black had been a modestly budgeted sleeper hit, Chronicles was an epic behemoth; filled with scientifically questionable worlds, evil alien armies, and Judi Dench. The modern need for blockbusters to create a mythology and expanded universe saw Riddick hopping from planet to planet, a baffling Macbeth-inspired sub-plot and numerous new characters and races. Twohy's expanded vision was certainly intriguing and there were quite a few entertaining and interesting set pieces but in the end things didn't add up and the lack of a decent plot, and, most importantly, good character development effectively seemed to kill the franchise before it had even got going.

But with the news of a new film comes a new way of thinking; a good sci-fi film doesn't necessarily have to be a massively budgeted epic. A new film will be considerably cheaper than Chronicles and through this, like in Pitch Black, there should be more focus on character and suspense than size and spectacle. The character of Riddick grabbed our attention but Chronicles did nothing to build on this and paranoid horror was swapped for action set pieces. Of course, there is no guarantee that a new film won't end up a mess like Chronicles but with less resources and a bit more focus, the Riddick franchise could be back on track.

Worst. Criticism. Ever.

2009-11-29T15:16:00.005Z

I'm quite looking forward to the new movie year. I always do because no matter how pessimistic I get there's always something that has the potential to be amazing. One film coming out next year that's really jumping off the page at me at the moment is Green Zone, the film that sees Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon teaming up again to tackle the Iraq war.

The trailer hit a few weeks back and looked very impressive but there was a disgruntled murmur going around that it looked just like Bourne in Iraq. Corrupt government employees, rogue Matt Damon, mysterious MacGuffins, shaky cams and brutal fistfights; they're all there, just in a desert setting. I see where people are coming from, but my question is so what?

Of course it is going to look familiar. Bourne is the roll Matt Damon has become synonymous with (Team America aside) and Paul Greengrass has a very distinct, documentary style of directing that he's made his own and used to great effect in The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. He's one of the few directors that can use shaky cam well (see Mark Forster's Quantum of Solace for an example of how not to do it) and it could well be a perfect match for an Iraq war thriller.

Damon and Greengrass have proven to make a good team in the past and it's clear from the trailer that the film is going for the suspenseful, claustrophobic and action-packed feel that they've captured so well before. This doesn't mean they aren't taking risks; Iraq war films have so far proved very difficult to get right. Linger too long on the sobering politics and you lose your audience, skim too lightly over the issues that matter and you lack substance and depth. Most difficult of all, it's proven extremely difficult to make a film about such a controversial war that just happens to be entertaining. If Greengrass can get the balance right it will be some achievement, but he is the man for the job.

If you had any more doubts, just look at the cast. Damon aside, we've got the incredibly underrated Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs and Amy Ryan. If that wasn't enough, it's got Greg Kinnear(!)

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this to be Bourne in Iraq but if some of the style and expert handling of a thriller is translated to the Iraq setting then it is only going to be a good thing. My only hope is Greengrass, Damon et al. don't prove me wrong.

NBC Bay Area on Chevy Chase comeback.

2009-11-26T18:23:00.002Z

My attention has been drawn to this article on a mini Chevy Chase revival in the last few months.

You may recall my argument that it's time for Chevy to be welcomed back into the mainstream and it seems he may be gaining popularity once again. I haven't seen Community, the new NBC comedy that he has a role in but I was pleasantly surprised to see Chevy and Dan Aykroyd in a recent episode of Family Guy. The article seems to be making a big leap of faith to call this a full-scale comeback but it's more or less a plug for Community anyway. Considering the depths he's had to sink to in the pass it's good to see Chevy getting some positive press again.

2012 IS better than The Day After Tomorrow (just)

2009-11-26T13:43:00.008Z

But that isn't saying an awful lot.

Without giving too much away, my early concerns about 2012 blowing its disaster load too early like The Day After Tomorrow have been heeded. This is full-on, unrelenting disaster porn. After 30-odd minutes or so of the most unconvincing of set-ups and the standard bad science things start to go wrong. Then they get worse. And worse. And worse. For two whole hours.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with this. It's what people want to see in disaster movies and one-trick-pony accusations aside, Roland Emmerich has a pretty good idea of what people want to see in disaster movies. They want stuff getting broken in spectacular ways, (preferably recognisable Western monuments), a tsunami (because every disaster movie has to have one), people just barely escaping certain death and characters with just about enough depth for you to want them to survive.

So how does Emmerich do on these fronts?

Well stuff gets broken. A lot. In fact, this is the stuff-getting-brokenest of any film I have ever seen. Family homes fall into huge chasms, skyscrapers collapse, and, oh yes, you better believe some famous monuments get destroyed. Look out for a scene in Vatican City that may as well have METAPHOR flashing in huge red letters on the screen. You can't fault 2012 for the destruction it unleashes, and as you may have guessed from the trailer, there are tsunamis taller than mountains too. It's all rather fun actually, for a while. The effects are probably the best the genre has seen but after a while the spectacle of endless destruction begins to become surprisingly dull.

As for the narrow escapes, well it's pretty fair to say Emmerich went overboard. John Cusack's character is one of the luckiest I have ever seen and possibly the most heroic novelist since Stephen King slagged off Twilight. Think of a vehicle, any vehicle, and John Cusack probably came close to certain death in it in this film. Whilst watching the film, I wouldn't have been surprised to see him heroically outrunning a pyroclastic flow on a lawnmower as long as he was doing it to protect his children.

I really liked the look of the cast for this film so it was so disappointing that it was the characters that let this film down. Emmerich fails to give us a team of survivors who we really want to see alive at the end of the film. He makes a rather ham-fisted attempt at political commentary, complete with ruthless and bureaucratic governments and bad impersonators of real world leaders so it's not surprising that we're meant to not particularly like a couple of members of the American government. However, the whole of the main cast is so two-dimensional and self-involved that you begin to think about all those being killed in the carnage on-screen and wonder what makes these guys so worthy of survival. I honestly can't feel for people who decide that, in the midst of an event taking billions of lives, that they should have a heart to heart on why their marriage failed.

But I guess what I should have learned from Emmerich's films before is that it's not about plot or character development or plausibility or anything unimportant like that. It's about carnage. If stuff is getting broken and there are tsunamis left right and center who cares? As a form of escapism I must admit it is fun, but be warned, the moment you start to think about what you're watching you'll regret it. So abandon all logical thought and take in the effects and you might just enjoy this film.

Edward Woodward, 1930-2009

2009-11-16T14:58:00.003Z

It is with regret that I feel I cannot comment at length on Edward Woodward's career. Much of his work through the 70's and 80's, particularly on TV, were admitedly before my time. I am of course, familiar with his more famous roles, and I have enjoyed his sporadic appearances on our screens in recent years, particularly his small but memorable roles in Hot Fuzz and the excellent BBC thriller 'Messiah.'

However, I, like many, will always associate Edward Woodward's name with The Wicker Man, possibly the greatest horror film Britain has produced and one of the greatest the genre has seen. For all Sir Christopher Lee's scene-stealing eccentricities in the film, it was Woodward's perfomance that helped elevate it to another level. As the chaste Sergeant Howie, Woodward brilliantly displayed the outrage of a man aghast at the rituals and debauchery taking place on the island. The character was not particularly likeable yet his intentions were honest and his offence was genuine, which only served to make the famous finale more shocking. The look of horror on Woodward's face and the uttering of "O, Lord! O, Jesus Christ!" upon seeing the titular wicker man for the first time will live on long in the memory as one of the great horror moments.

So it was with great sadness that I read of the death of Edward Woodward today. I wish I was more familiar with his other work and could provide a more fitting tribute but I wish to thank him for the enjoyment he has brought me. Rest in peace.

The Clash of the Titans remake could be fun...

2009-11-11T14:43:00.004Z

There were groans all round when news of this film first hit. The original has its cult following but it's hardly a classic. But then we started to see the cast list Louis Leterrier started to gather together and although there was no-one quite in Olivier's league it was pretty decent and with a good budget and a capable director it began to look like CotT MIGHT be a fun blockbuster movie.

I've always stressed that a great remake doesn't have to be a remake of a great film. On the contrary in fact; when we get pointless remakes of classics such as Gus Van Sant's baffling shot-for-shot remake of Psycho it all just seems like a cynical money-spinning exercise. If you're going to remake a film universally loved by all you better not screw up because an awful lot of people are going to end up pissed off.

But on the other end of the scale we have Ocean's Eleven. It was a decent enough effort in 1960 but was little more than a vehicle for the Rat Pack. Steven Soderbergh saw the potential of the film, gave it a fantastic cast, a modern update and a crowd pleasing storyline and he was on to a moneyspinner. The original Clash of the Titans has the potential, and an update for the CGI era could be just the ticket.

Why? Well thats simple. Greek mythology is fun. I always felt Troy missed a trick when it skipped the gods in favour of a more realistic adaption of Homer's epic. These aren't serene, loving gods watching over us, they are jealous, vengeful, violent, and passionate. Greek mythology is a cinematic soap opera that has been underplayed of late. If this film does justice to it we could see more Greek myths on screen. It's not a bad thing at all if that happens; they're great stories that have survived for thousands of years and they deserve to be told again.

Anyway, the trailer looks good. Not so sure about the rock soundtrack but we'll see...

Film Stubs: The Return

2009-11-10T20:20:00.003Z

It has been far too long since I last updated this. There are many reasons for this but filmstubs will be returning with some more content this week and in the future. I may be making a few tweeks to the blog and changing things around a bit over the next couple of weeks. Watch this space.

What if the Best Picture changes happened five years ago?

2009-06-25T13:36:00.007+01:00

The announcement that the 2010 Academy Awards will feature ten Best Picture nominees has sent shock waves through the film industry. It's a huge change and it seems to be dividing people, with some arguing it is devaluing the award and others saying it gives more recognition to deserving films. I am very much in the latter group. In recent years the category has become too clogged with Oscar bait films and animation and foreign languages are often discarded and left to compete their own respective categories. This an opportunity for great films that would not usually get recognised to get their time in the spotlight. It may not change the winner, but a nomination is ample reward.

This also got me thinking about past films that missed out that would have benefited if the 10 nomination system had been in place in their year. This list features films that could have been nominated over the last five years if there were 10 slots. They consist of films that would likely have been nominated, genres that would normally be ignored, and a few pieces of wishful thinking.

2009

What was nominated:

Slumdog Millionaire (winner)
Milk
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

What could have been nominated:

The Dark Knight - The clear choice. Not the Academy's favourite genre but a cultural phenomenon.

Wall-E - One of the finest films of the year. It just happened to be animated.

The Wrestler - Popular with audiences and the Mickey Rourke comeback story was creating huge buzz

Gran Torino - Clint Eastwood's acting swan song. Universally acclaimed.

Doubt - It was clearly shooting for a Best Picture nod and just missed so would have made the extended shortlist

2008

What was nominated:

No Country for Old Men (winner)
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
There Will Be Blood

What could have been nominated:

Into the Wild - Surprisingly missing from a lot of award nomination lists. A strong, inspiring and well acted film.

Ratatouille - Another Pixar classic that could have made the step up.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - Scored a directing nod. An excellent film.

Eastern Promises - Hopeful, perhaps, but one of Cronenberg's bests.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - Criminally under-looked by the Academy, getting only two nominations when it deserved many. This deserved a Best Picture nomination.

2007

What was nominated:

The Departed (winner)
Babel
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen

what could have been nominated:

The Lives of Others - This was robbed in two respects as Ulrich Mühe deserved an acting nod. One of the best foreign language films of the decade.

Pan's Labyrinth - Another foreign film, and fantasy at that. It did get 3 Oscars though and it was loved by all.

United 93 - Sensitively made film dealing with difficult subject matter. The kind of highly emotive film that the Academy is drawn towards.

Children of Men - This is probably wishful thinking but for sci-fi this was deep and meaningful and very high quality.

Blood Diamond - It got five nominations and would have probably made the shortlist.

2006

what was nominated:

Crash (winner)
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Good Night and Good Luck
Munich

what could have been nominated:

Walk the Line - Very good biopic featuring great performances.

Pride and Prejudice - Not a personal choice, but the Academy loves a good costume drama.

Cinderella Man - May have been a bit of a box office failure but it was a great film that hit the mark.

The Constant Gardener - Well acted film that had a lot of buzz at the time.

King Kong - Lots of people expected this to get a nomination when it was announced following Peter Jackson's success. It was too long though and that probably killed its chances.

2005

what got nominated:

Million Dollar Baby (winner)
Finding Neverland
Ray
Sideways
The Aviator

What could have been nominated:

Downfall - Possibly the greatest portrayal of Hitler on film.

The Incredibles - Yet another Pixar film. It transcended genres and was one of the films of the year.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Perhaps wishful thinking but Charlie Kaufman was heavily hyped and it was very original.

Hotel Rwanda - Extremely moving. I was surprised this didn't make the original cut.

Vera Drake - Had a lot of critical acclaim. Would have made the ten.

As you can see there are some truly great films that deserved recognition on here and the decision to have ten nominees can only be a good thing. Lets hope this year produces ten films that make the new look Best Picture category an incredibly competitive shortlist.

The Archive #2: City of Lost Children (1995)

2009-06-25T11:54:00.007+01:00

Jean-Pierre Jeunet is one of the most creative directors to emerge in the last 20 years and, as a huge fan of his style, this is likely not the last time I will talk about his work. I will stress however, that I do not consider City of Lost Children to be his best film, but I have chosen it as the first of his films to enter the filmstubs archive. Why? because it needs to be seen to be believed and, frankly, not enough people have seen it. Most people know about Amélie, and most people that know Jeunet recommend Delicatessen to Amélie fans, and A Very Long Engagement, under seen though it was, had the benefit of being Jeunet's first film since the massive international success that Amélie brought him. Lost somewhere between all that is City of Lost Children, probably one of the most bizarre and inventive science fiction films made in recent years, and a product of the distinctly bizarre and inventive partnership of Jeunet and his co-director Marc Caro.

Revolving around a scientist who kidnaps children in order to harness their dreams and slow his aging process (so far, it isn't going well), City of Lost Children stars a pre-Hellboy Ron Perlman as a strongman who's brother has been kidnapped by said scientist and goes on a mission to rescue the boy. You may have noticed that Ron Perlman is not French, but, though not exactly talkative, he delivers all of his lines in a language he didn't even speak at the time and it's testament to his commitment that City of Lost Children is one of his finest performances. Along the way we meet some wonderful characters, including Dominique Pinon, making his usual Jeunet appearance, in multiple roles and providing some brilliant comic relief. It is however, Daniel Emilfork who is the real star of the show, playing the mad scientist Krank. It is probably one of the strangest performances ever captured on screen, with Krank being at once creepy, insecure, volatile and obsessive, all expressed by Emilfork's unique (and frankly terrifying) features. It has to be seen to be believed.

The future world that Jeunet and Caro create is impressive. It is not a mesh of CGI imagery like many modern sci-fi films, nor is it the colourful world we see in Amélie. City of Lost Children's world is grimy and surrealist, a world of varying shades of gray that somehow manages to showcase the unique eccentricities of it's filmmakers. The film is their vision, and the backdrop, the story, the characters we encounter and Emilfork's extraordinary performance make this film so unlike any other sci-fi vision that we are unlikely to ever see anything like it again. For that reason alone, it is something you should see.

A couple of World War II trailers

2009-06-24T11:34:00.009+01:00

First up is Inglourious Basterds, which probably doesn't need any introduction. I am a Tarantino fan, but I'm decidedly on the fence about this one. Brad Pitt's accent is grating already, Mike Myers' English officer seems a bit ridiculous, and oddly considering my usually morally dubious attitude towards films, something doesn't quite sit right with me about this film's content. I'll only assess that upon actually seeing the film though and I really hope this is a return to form for Tarantino after the frankly rather dull Death Proof. This trailer gives a lot more info on the plot and it does look like it could be fun.

FIND IT HERE

Next up is a World War II production to really get excited about. "The Pacific," Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks' long awaited follow up to the excellent HBO mini-series "Band of Brothers" has a trailer and it looks like it could well be the most visually impressive TV series ever. I think for events as complex as WWII, a mini-series is a better way of portraying it than in film and "Band of Brothers" was able to go into depth about regular soldiers and their relationship with their peers and enemies in far more detail than any film could. "The Pacific" is set against the backdrop of the war with the Japanese and if it's anywhere near as good as "Band of Brothers" it will be worth watching. The trailer is certainly impressive.

FIND IT HERE

Steve Buscemi can make your film better...

2009-06-23T14:16:00.010+01:00

He's widely praised for his fine acting ability, is a cult icon, has made appearances in great movies, and seems to be the most commonly used example for people claiming that "good actors don't have to be good looking." Steve Buscemi is many things to many people and to certain directors and producers he seems to mean an awful lot. He has made multiple appearances in the works of Quentin Tarantino, the Coen brothers, Robert Rodriguez, and...umm...Adam Sandler. These collaborations (not counting those with Sandler) have provided wonderful results, with Buscemi giving memorable performances in cult classic films. But if you tear yourself away from these wonders, you will be reminded of the fact that, like most film stars, Steve Buscemi is fallible, and, like most film stars, he has been in some trash.

This is where we come to the Steve Buscemi factor. Steve Buscemi, traditionally being a supporting actor, rarely gets enough screen time to completely save a movie and some films are simply beyond saving no matter how awesome the star. But, like Christopher Walken (the master of improving bad films) he has the rare ability of making crap films almost watchable by his mere presence alone. This is particularly useful for his appearances in Adam Sandler films but extends to much of his work.

Perhaps the finest example of this is the bloated cheese-fest that is Armageddon. It had its problems from the start, with a cast that, on paper, seemed to be high quality, but any good will towards this was completely negated by the acting of Ben Affleck. It didn't help that they were all given incredibly two dimensional characters either (Peter Stormare's mad Russian anyone?). The only actor to really emerge with any credit was Steve Buscemi, who, despite essentially phoning in a performance as the accident-waiting-to-happen joker of the pack managed to be more entertaining than the rest of the cast put together. He provided some much needed entertainment when Michael Bay realised that once we were past the exciting space mission we had to watch some people drill a big hole for a while and if it had not been for him Armageddon would have failed to convince me that Earth needed saving at all.

Another of Buscemi's occasional stabs at the action genre, Con Air, was saved by the genius who cast him as a serial killer. Nothing against Buscemi here, but he has made a career out of playing the creepy guy (Con Air wasn't his first serial killer role), and someone clearly noticed this and decided it was time to crank it up to eleven by casting him as a guy that wears severed heads as hats. Con Air wasn't an awful concept, it just had to cope with the burden of Nicolas Cage with a ridiculous accent and bad hair (sadly not the last time we would see this). Ving Rhames and John Malkovich made convincing psychopaths, but were nowhere near in the same league as Buscemi. With the exception of Dave Chappelle's skydiving, it was Buscemi that enabled me to see past Nicolas Cage. Perhaps it was the absence of Steve that stopped me from seeing past Nicolas Cage in Ghost Rider or Next.

There are other examples such as the Spy Kids sequels, where Buscemi only has small supporting roles, perhaps neutering his usual style (who thought he belonged in a kids movie!?) where the Steve Buscemi effect can still take hold and raise a smile in a sea of misery. Be it his tour de force as 'Homeless guy' in Big Daddy or his valiant efforts as we stared glum faced at the utter disappointment that was Escape From L.A., Steve Buscemi can make your bad film better by simply turning up (but we'd much rather he stuck to the good ones).

2012 looks better than The Day After Tomorrow

2009-06-21T12:16:00.003+01:00

Roland Emmerich doesn't exactly make classic movies but if you accept that you're going to get a lot of special effects, not a lot of depth and a huge dollop of cheese you can have a good time with them (or some of them, at least). In my Jeff Goldblum post I implied I was a fan of Independence Day and I must admit I do enjoy Emmerich's brand of cheesy, disaster movie fun.

I liked The Day After Tomorrow more than most people did but the problem I had with it was that its money shot, so to speak, was far too early. Once the twisters, and the tsunami and the big freeze were out the way we had another hour or so of people walking around in the snow and being attacked by terrible CGI wolves. For a summer popcorn movie it just got a little, well, dull. The new trailer for 2012, based on the Mayan prediction of the end of the world in, you guessed it, 2012 looks like Emmerich might have learnt his lesson. There's a lot of action on display here, and an awful lot of planes, which I'm guessing is an important plot point. The cast also seems far better than TDAT. Chiwetel Ejiofor could do with a bit more Hollywood exposure (and an easier to spell name) and I'd believe Danny Glover as the president any day. Well, a lot more than I did Bill Pullman anyway.

Anyway, Yahoo has an exclusive new theatrical trailer over HERE. It doesn't look a classic, but it could be fun.

A Tribute to the cigarettes guy in Dawn of the Dead

2009-06-20T14:37:00.003+01:00

At the risk of offending Kenan & Kel fans, actors in George A. Romero films do not traditionally go on to great things. This is often fairly obvious from their performances, which with a few exceptions (Scott Reiniger, Ken Foree) tended to fairly over-dramatic or just plain bad. This isn't a complaint at all; bad acting comes with the territory in these sort of films and working within the budgets he had, Romero still managed to achieve amazing things with what he had to work with. More so than not, the acting just makes the experience better. Dawn of the Dead (1978) is one of my all time favourite movies to watch with friends as its one of those few films that manages to be both schlocky and just plain brilliant. It's one of the greatest horror films ever made but there are a few scenes which just makes the group crack up.

Which brings us to the cigarette guy, aka "Officer at Police Dock", aka Randy Kovitz. This guy always raises a cheer for a just plain bizarre performance in his minute or so on screen. He is a part of the gang who confront our heroes as they ready for their escape about 20 minutes into the film and somehow manages to become the most unsettling character in a film full of zombies. In his time on screen he manages to shout all his lines unnecessarily, run back and forth on screen like he's about to break into song in a stage musical and ask for cigarettes with a cross-eyed stare, over-expressive facial movements, followed up by the most unsettling grin imaginable. He's little more than an extra but somehow me manages to leave an impression on the movie. To this day I still cannot figure out whether the character was intended to be a faintly psychotic fool or Kovitz just showed up one day and decided that was how he was going to play him.

Funnily enough, Kovitz seems to have had more of a career than most of Romero's other actors. Even more surprisingly considering his cigarette guy character he seems to have carved out a career playing doctors. Go Figure.

But anyway, I for one will always remember him for his unique performance in Dawn of the Dead. It will always put a smile on my face and for that I salute you, sir.

More 'stubs

2009-06-19T15:14:00.003+01:00

I'm pleased to announce that filmstubs now has a sister site going by the name of gamestubs, which is, appropriately enough about games. I'm not actually running the site seeing as my knowledge of gaming is limited to the occasional Wii game (recovering Smash Bros. Brawl addict) but the admin, going by the name of RW, is an expert in the field and will be posting news, opinion, reviews and debate on gaming and gaming culture with input from other writers and maybe even yours truly.

Its definitely worth a look and you can check it out HERE

Additionally, we'll be looking to set up a musicstubs in the near future, and there may well be a couple of new writers contributing to filmstubs at some point.

The archive #1: M (1931)

2009-06-18T13:45:00.004+01:00

Starting a semi-regular feature of short articles recommending classic films, hidden gems, or the just plain misunderstood, is M, Fritz Lang's masterful crime thriller. Whilst Metropolis may well be his most famous work, M is his masterpiece and a far more complete and engaging work. Following the hunt for a child-murderer by police, the local community and even fellow criminals, its subject matter was extremely provocative for the time; dealing with issues that are still disturbing for modern audiences. It is a film that was years ahead of its time and it remains one of the pioneers of the film-noir genre, employing a dark style and ingenious use of shadows.

What is remarkable about this film, is that 78 years later it still has the power to shock and get under your skin. This is not least because of a star-making turn from Peter Lorre as the villain, who makes one of cinema's greatest ever speeches, including the now legendary (translated) line: "Who knows what it's like to be me?" I won't give away the ending, but more than anything else the film is a remarkable study of human nature, both in the mentality of a murderer and the way a community reacts to him. In an ever paranoid and vigilant society, the content of the film is still incredibly relevant today, and the actions of the characters remain highly believable.

This is arguably the greatest film to ever come out of Germany and if you ever happen to stumble across it, watch it, and you will not be disappointed.

In case you haven't seen it elsewhere...

2009-06-17T16:25:00.004+01:00

This has been popping up in a few places in the last week but I absolutely love it.

To celebrate its twentieth anniversary Empire has commissioned a piece of artwork that contains references to 50 hidden films and challenges you to name them all. Its very similar to something Virgin Digital did a few years back with band names, which got me completely hooked at the time and I've spent ages on Empire's version now. Anyway, I got to 42 before I went looking for answers. Close, but no cigar.

Empire's Cryptic Canvas

Can we put Jeff Goldblum back in blockbuster movies?

2009-06-16T14:14:00.004+01:00

If someone were to ask you what you think of when asked about 90s blockbusters what would you say?

I'd have to give a number of replies to answer that, ranging from bullet time to that ginger kid with the mullet in Terminator 2 but someone who would definitely appear on the list is Jeff Goldblum. For some reason I think of him before I think of Schwarzenegger and Willis.

However, upon researching this article, it was to my great surprise that I discovered that the image I had of Jeff Goldblum cropping up in just about every big budget movie of the decade was actually a slight mental exaggeration. This was probably due to the fact that the last two 90's blockbusters I re-watched were Independence Day and Jurassic Park. But to my even greater surprise, Jeff doesn't even do very much in Jurassic Park. I admit it had been a few years since my last viewing, but I seemed to remember him doing more than sitting around injured and arguing with Richard Attenborough. It had got to the point where my brain had created its own improved version of Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum was knocking out velociraptors with a strong right hook and the children weren't in the film at all. In reality the guy from 3rd Rock From the Sun probably had a more important role than Jeff.

So it says a lot of Goldblum leaving his mark on the few big films he appeared in to make me think of him as synonymous with big 90's movies. Those years, however, seem long gone and Jeff has moved on to TV and theater work and the odd movie here and there, which is fine, but I don't think I've watched a film with him in since 2004's Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. Which is too long, frankly.

It seems in the noughties blockbuster age, Jeff Goldblum's dryly delivered and stuttering brand of irony has been replaced by Shia LeBeouf's yelping and just plain annoying brand of irony. It's to be expected of course; I'm not suggesting a 56 year old Goldblum should replace LeBeouf, but there seems to be a shortage of fun actors around at the moment. I don't mean comic actors necessarily in this respect, but talented actors that can bring their own brand of personality and humour to a role; a certain uniqueness that makes them stand out from the crowd. Robert Downey Jr. is the best example of this kind of actor around at the moment and much of the success of Iron Man was down to his natural, irreverent charisma. It helped make Iron Man a movie that was focused on being fun, which in the post-Lord of the Rings age where blockbusters are falling over themselves to be "darker" than the last is actually a far rarer thing than it was in the 90's.

In his best performances, Goldblum had a very similar tone to Downey Jr; he may not be his equal but he could certainly be entertaining enough to stand out. Spielberg saw it when he gave him the lead in The Lost World; Jurassic Park was well cast, but audiences seemed to connect well with his character. It was perhaps surprising in itself that he was in such films; he never looked like an action hero, and his quirky style seems more suited to offbeat drama. As long as he's still in movies, I'd love to see him crop up in some decent films of any genre, but it would truly be great so see him once more utter the lines "must go faster" as he flees from the dinosaur/alien/giant robot/army that happens to be chasing him.

About time...Christopher Lee Finally Gets a Knighthood

2009-06-13T14:12:00.006+01:00

It is with great joy that I read the news that Christopher Lee is to be bestowed with a knighthood in the Queen's birthday honours list. It has been a long time coming but it is well deserved.

Lee may not be this country's most decorated actor and of his hundreds of credits more than a few should be forgotten, but nevertheless Christopher Lee is one of the most iconic of British actors. He possesses one of the most commanding screen presences of any actor; at once being able to appear authoritative and patriarchal and with his instantly recognisable voice he can quite often be plain terrifying. It is little wonder then, that he was the perfect fit for his most iconic role of Dracula in the Hammer Horror series of films.

It was after all, the performances of Lee along with Peter Cushing that really made Hammer Horror what it was. Their films may not be regarded in such high regard as, say, the Ealing comedies and there was often limited funds available but they are remembered fondly and it was arguably Lee and Cushing that provided the quality that allowed many Hammer films to rise above their often campy tone.

My personal favourite Lee performance, however, is in the Wicker Man. His natural booming voice and menacing demeanor were the perfect fit for Lord Summerisle. It is the ability to believe that Lee's character could lead a group of Pagans to perform the eventual sacrifice that makes The Wicker Man as unnerving as it is. He is utterly convincing, and despite his numerous other horror roles, this is Lee at his most terrifying and demonstrating an acting talent beyond the limitations of his Hammer Horror roles.

Lee as Lord Summerisle in The Wicker Man

I do not believe that Lee would have received the knighthood he so richly deserves if it had not been for the Indian summer that his career has been enjoying. It is remarkable that at 87 he can still make so many appearances, not least in two of the most commercially successful franchises of all time in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Star Wars prequels. His Saruman introduced him to a whole new generation of fans and his omission from the Return of the King (and the baffling inclusion of the many epilogues) was one of Peter Jackson's few mistakes in making the trilogy.

However, the fact that he is working so regularly is testament to the respect he has gained in the industry as a truly talented actor. Tim Burton is a notable fan and has given him several small roles in his films and whilst his appearances are briefer as he gets older he can still be relied upon to provide a good performance and I hope that he continues to act for as long as he enjoys doing it.

So congratulations to Sir Christopher Lee, for a long and prolific film career well rewarded.

The Best Scenes of the Decade (So Far)

2009-06-06T16:16:00.011+01:00

So we're halfway through 2009 and the time is very nearly upon us when we can look back at the noughties and reflect on what the decade gave us. Opinions seem divided on its overall contribution to cinema. Most people I've talked to agree that this decade hasn't produced as many classic films as the nineties but recognise that movies have come a long way in the last ten years. There have been plenty of films that will be remembered for many years to come but it has also been a decade of great moments; individual scenes or sequences that stand out in the memory even if we forget most of the rest of the film. This list of personal favourites could very well be dominated by the many visual effects sequences of technical brilliance that have occurred over the last ten years but instead is focused on innovation and excellence in areas such as acting, camera-work, direction, dialogue and most of all their emotional impact. These are the scenes that play out in your head long after you have seen them...

Oh, and there may be some minor spoilers along the way.

10. The Pale Man- Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Why? In a film that inspired the imaginations of almost everyone who saw it, this scene highlighted the shear inventiveness of Guillermo del Toro and his design team. The Pale Man's eyeballs-in-hands are perhaps the defining image from the film and this incredibly tense and dark scene beautifully sums up this very grown-up fairytale.

9. Ritchie Tenenbaum's suicide attempt- The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Why? Wes Anderson has always incorporated dark themes into his offbeat world but with this scene he took things a step further. It's wonderfully edited and in Elliott Smith's 'Needle in the Hay' you have a perfect use of music in film that's difficult to beat. It packs a powerful emotional punch.

8. Winkies- Mulholland Drive (2001)

Why? It's a masterclass in tension and one of Lynch's greatest surreal moments in a career of great surreal moments. This scene has found its way on to several 'scariest moments' lists and for good reason; you know damn well that there will be something around that corner, you prepare yourself, and every time it still makes you jump.

7. "Call it"- No Country for Old Men (2007)

Why? Anton Chigurh is one of the best villains to emerge this decade and this scene demonstrates Bardem's superbly menacing performance. The Coens lift Cormac McCarthy's brilliant dialogue and showcase it with a directing flair that made them well worthy of their Oscar.

6. Anton Ego's flashback- Ratatouille (2007)

Why? I had to include something from Pixar in this, and choosing which scene was extremely difficult. They may have taken animation to the next level but it's in their storytelling that Pixar really showcase their genius. In this scene, scornful food critic Anton Ego is taken back to his childhood by a simple dish served up by aspiring chef Remy the rat. Its the sort of emotive and truly touching moment that Disney was so good at in their glory days. Never dismiss it as 'just animation;' this is one of the most moving scenes of the last ten years in any film.

5. "I drink your milkshake!"- There Will Be Blood (2007)

Why? People got so caught up in the meme surrounding this that many of them forgot how good a scene it was actually from. In it we feel the full force of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance; the best of the 21st century so far and a strong contender for one of the greatest ever. Don't forget Paul Dano's performance in this either. All in all a demonstration of great acting and dialogue.

4. Battle tracking shot- Children of Men (2006)

Why? The tracking shot in the car earlier in the film could quite easily have made this list too but this scene takes a truly thrilling approach to the absolute mayhem occurring on screen. We follow Theo as he races to rescue Kee in the middle of an intense battle. It's not actually a continuous shot but it is testament to the editing and CGI trickery employed that it appears to be completely seamless. A thoroughly different approach to an action scene.

3. Guiding the blind man- Amélie (2001)

Why? It can make you smile every time. It's such a simple thing, but it takes a lot of skill to create such a feel good moment. Take Amélie, one of the most lovable characters in film history, performing one of her kindest acts and combine it with the unique cinematography, the colourful market scene and the look of joy on the blind man's face and it all adds up to a big, satisfied grin on even the stoniest of faces.

2. Hallway fight- Oldboy (2003)

Why? The best fight scene of the decade. The progress is slow and the fighting may not be pretty but it is filmed with such innovation that you feel yourself becoming physically exhausted with Dae-su Oh. It may seem more brutal than skillful but the sheer amount of fight choreography that must have gone into such a long take would be immense. On top of everything else the hint of black comedy that counteracts the violence really makes this scene.

1. The 17 minute single shot- Hunger (2008)

Why? Simply stunning. This may seem like an odd choice; the film was well received but is probably the least well-known on the list but there is no scene as integral to plot and in possession of such brilliant acting and dialogue as this one. In it, hunger striker Bobby Sands discusses his past and morality with his discouraging priest and for nearly seventeen minutes we see the two, sat at a table and having a conversation in a single shot. Actors Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham briefly moved in with each other and practiced the exchange continuously for days on end to get it right, stretching their acting skills to the limit, but it truly pays off. Oh, and if you're wondering if two blokes having a conversation about morality can really be that absorbing don't worry. The dialogue is compelling and incredibly fluid and provides an insight into Sands' mentality and determination that is absolutely crucial considering the harrowing scenes that follow this conversation. In a film that is brutal and often difficult to watch, this scene is utterly compelling.

An Inventor Biopic for our Age (that isn't The Social Network)

2009-04-22T16:18:00.007+01:00

The still very much in-development Facebook movie was inevitable from the point the website took off. Three Harvard students work on limited resources to develop a modern cultural phenomenon, gaining fame and success in the process. There's certainly a film that can be made out of that story and the subject matter alone is likely to attract the coveted 18-30 market. It could well be the sort of feel good story so important to the industry in times of economic hardship; the 'average' guys who hit on a good idea and are successful against the odds. Its the sort of thing we can all dream of.

Except that's where the problem lies. Much like Tom from Myspace, Mark Zuckerberg and co. are too often portrayed as the 'average blokes who just got lucky' but try as I might I just cannot see them that way. As remarkable as Zuckerberg's achievements are, he is far from average. Much is made of the gamble he took in dropping out of university to pursue his dream but it was Harvard he dropped out of and he had already been courted by Microsoft and AOL. He may have stumbled on a very simple and brilliant idea but it was an idea born out of an incredible computing brain which knew exactly how to advance and spread the business. Don't get me wrong, this is still an underdog story, but not the sort the average cinema goer can dream of emulating.

So where am I going with this? Well I was recently struck by the remarkable success story of a company that was not just surviving in the recession era, it was thriving. It's a company that's main idea is remarkably simple but remains timeless. Born out of the most humble of beginnings its as universally recognised as it is iconic. It's Lego.

Yes Lego.

Its a story that deserves to be told and the type that a modern audience can really identify with and be inspired by.

You see, Lego arose from the ashes of the Great Depression. Its creator, Ole Kirk Christiansen was just a humble carpenter who in 1924 had seen his workshop burn down and had very nearly gone bankrupt as the world struggled in the early 1930's. He started making toys to get by and hit on a very simple, but very brilliant, idea in interconnecting building blocks. Its the sort of thing people look at and just think: "I should have thought of that."

The company's growth from such humble beginnings to what it is today is just as inspiring. With the help of his son, Godtfred, Christiansen set about building an empire, seeing the potential of the product and risking their livelihood on its success. There were setbacks along the way but Lego began attracting the attention, and the profits, to expand around the world.

Its hard to imagine a product that is so universally popular and so fondly remembered as Lego. Facebook may be phenomenally successful, but it's not universally loved. Does Lego create debates about a surveillance society? No. Is it criticised for its cynical policies on advertising? No. Is it accused of being hopelessly addictive and time consuming? Well yes. But the point remains its a company that everyone can get behind and a story that deserves to be on the big screen.

This is perhaps unlikely to happen. Details of the personal aspects of Christiansen are hazy, and of course personalisation is crucial in biopics. And then there is the fact that this is not an American success story, its a Danish one, and perhaps that is the only country where we will see such a biopic emerge from. I'd still watch it though because there are very few success stories that can beat the timelessness and true underdog quality of Christiansen's. Its a feel good, hopeful film we could all do with.

Considering the 'Chav' as Britain's New Movie Monster

2009-04-16T10:42:00.008+01:00

The class divide and juvenile delinquency have traditionally been an area of focus in British cinema. Many, such as Ken Loach and Shane Meadows have used these themes as a platform for social commentary, introducing us to highly sympathetic and human characters in bleak and forbidding environments. British cinema has always given us images of the violent, criminal youth but it has often been with a sense of disillusionment; young people driven into their situation by an unsympathetic society and a Thatcherite nightmare. Even the more recent considerations on the subject, such as Noel Clarke's Kidulthood, born very much in the wake of the tabloid structured panic about 'chav' culture, seek to put a human edge on the Daily Mail nightmare unfolding in the film.

Last year's Eden Lake, however, followed a very different approach. The film does offer flashes of the human emotions of its young delinquents and anyone who has seen the ending can testify that upbringing has had a huge influence on how the children have turned out, but to a large extent they are horror movie monsters; caricatures of savagery that lack the boundaries of civilised society. One of the most striking things about the reaction to the film was alarmed international viewers asking "is Britain really this bad!?" to which many British viewers responded "yes!"

Eden Lake is a film of ultra-violence, torture and remorselessness, so it is rather surprising, and perhaps worrying that many saw this is an entirely plausible story. This is perhaps because the film satirically incorporates many of the moral panics surrounding modern youth culture into its storyline. One of the most evident examples of this is the filming of the torture with mobile phones, a heavily exaggerated example of the 'happy slapping' phenomena that gets so much press attention in Britain.

Although some will see the film as a satirical sideswipe at tabloid panic, it could be argued Eden Lake is not a healthy portrayal of youth culture in Britain. It may, however, be the first of many films to incorporate the 'chav' into the horror movie genre. In America the redneck reins supreme in horror movies. You know the drill; young, attractive city folk head off into a remote, backwater town and encounter a hostile bunch of lower class, uneducated and uncivilised locals. It reinforces any number of stereotypes but it has been done a million times before and the redneck will continue to be a goldmine for horror movie directors. They are the 'other;' vaguely plausible and a part of the cultural landscape but not one of 'us,' watching the movie in our middle class homes.

Britain, tiny island as it is, does not quite have a redneck equivalent. In Britain, a 'remote' town is an hour away from a major city so the concept of a cut-off society with no concept of the 'real world' seems implausible (only slightly more implausible, it must be said, then it is in America). However, chavs are increasingly being portrayed in the media in the same way rednecks are shown in horror movies; violent and aggressive, low on education and social etiquette and with a "we look after our own" mentality. The simple lifestyle and religious reverence is replaced with a streetwise, urban community that fits modern Britain and in the chav we have our 'other;' we know they are there, we've heard the horror stories and they are not one of 'us.'

Its a worrying concept. Films like Eden Lake can only serve to fuel the tabloid fervour surrounding youth culture and an examination of the cultural and societal impacts on young people must be considered before they are portrayed as evil incarnate.

Bring Back Chevy Chase

2009-04-09T14:44:00.009+01:00

I'm not even kidding.

I may be in the minority in campaigning for a career resurgence for Cornelius Chase but I think people have become so focused on his post-80's status as a bad punchline that they forgot that this guy was actually pretty good once. I'm perfectly willing to admit that some of his later career choices were...unwise, and the phrase 'box office poison' does spring to mind but this guy was the star of Caddyshack and Christmas Vacation and that's two more classic comedy movies then you've been in. Probably.

Seriously, if you read over Chevy's C.V. and then got distracted at around about 1989 you'd think this guy was comedy gold (if you imagined Caddyshack II never happened, just like everyone else). But then it all went wrong. Catastrophically wrong in a way that makes it look like Eddie Murphy's career is going through a slight blip. The 90's had its fair share of disasters and the new millennium had Chevy pop in up in a few awful family movies but his career had basically been reduced to the status of television guest star.

But its time he got a break. He did once come close to a comeback when he was offered the lead in American Beauty; a role he turned down due to his commitment to family friendly films. That was the sort of facepalm inducing decision that half makes you want to weep for the man and half makes you want to let him commit career suicide and be done with it. But that was ten years ago and since Goose On The Loose didn't prove to be the huge success Chevy wanted, I imagine he wouldn't be quite so fussy if you offered him a third chance.

If it was well produced, I would be happy to watch a movie with Chase about getting old, sort of in an About Schmidt vein. He's in his 60s, so he's fairly limited to this type of film but he's got one of the best deadpan deliveries around and while he's got nothing on Jack, he has the charisma to carry a black comedy. Why else do you think they wanted him for American Beauty?

Of course, Hollywood isn't very likely to give Chase a lead role, especially when his star-power is virtually non-existent these days but comebacks are all the rage right now and if he can't get a lead role there should at least be an opportunity for him to snag a cameo in a film with the new kings of comedy and give his career a kick start. Playing Will Ferrell's dad would be perfect casting.

It makes perfect sense in the economic climate too, as Chase will probably work for less than the $7 million a movie he once reportedly earned. A lot less. And if the rumours are true and a new Ghostbusters film is going ahead that means Dan Aykroyd is getting another crack at the big time. And if Dan Aykroyd can do it...

Underrated: 5 reasons why The Fall deserves your respect

2009-04-06T16:19:00.013+01:00

Never before has a trailer for a film caught me so off guard as for The Fall. When I first saw it I had heard no buzz about the film at all but the trailer left me fascinated; why was such a sprawling, visually stunning movie creeping in under the radar? True, it had a no-name cast, a director who had only made one previous film, and a budget far smaller then its grand scope let on but this only peaked my interest and I made it my mission to see this film. This proved to be a more difficult task than I imagined, with the film being released in the U.K. almost 2 years after it had originally premiered at Toronto. The film has begun to get some love, with Roger Ebert in particular giving it an enthusiastic review, but it still remains sorely underrated, not least for the following reasons...

The Locations

Real, non-CGI, stunning locations from around the world. CGI may allow you to create any landscape you choose, but this was not an option for director Tarsem. He financed much of the film and over a period of four years took his actors around the world shooting scenes as they went. Its the kind of attitude a studio producer would balk at but The Fall is a labour of love. Tarsem's method may not have been the most time or cost effective but by shooting in the beautiful, hidden locations that the world has available, the film appears far more expensive then it actually is. Its all the more impressive that the film feels so surreal and stylised, much like 300, but without a green screen in sight.

Catinca Untaru

I'm really not a fan of child actors. They're either played up to be too cute or are molded by the industry to become far too self aware. Dakota Fanning is a good example. Catinca Untaru's was one child performance I did like. To date, The Fall, is her only screen acting performance and I would not be surprised if it was her last. She is not a product of Hollywood, she's a slightly chubby Romanian who can't really boast the child 'acting' ability of Dakota and co. But what is so good about her performance is that you never really think of her as acting at all. Every emotion she expresses seems genuine and heartfelt and rumour has it that she genuinely believed actor Lee Pace was a paraplegic rather than just his character. I can believe that; Untaru doesn't seem to be a character, she just seems to be acting herself, and is all the more believable because of it.

The blurring of reality

The fairytale-mirroring-real-life concept is far from new, and many narrative-within-narrative stories tend to over do it to the point that it becomes gimmicky but in The Fall its done with subtlety; reminding us that the epic story of revenge is the product of 2 people's imagination yet not requiring us to analyse the tiny details until we lose sight of the story. The characters cross over and the villain is inevitable but I love the little details. Watch out for the similarity between the henchmen's armour and the X-ray suits and the appearances of each of the revenge seeking heroes in very small, blink-and-you-miss-them roles in and around the hospital. Its not essential to the storyline, but its well thought out and demonstrates this film has far too much depth to be dismissed as a piece of eye-candy.

The Dark Themes

Every fantasy film that comes out these days seems to assume that darker is better but The Fall managed to trump them without even really trying. The film may be a story of a man telling a fairytale to a child but it is one of anger, revenge and death. The story reflects the ever changing mentality of its storyteller, suicidal and heartbroken, as he becomes increasingly desperate, so does the story. It doesn't take long to realise that he is not entertaining and gaining the trust of the child for her benefit and sets Untaru's Alexandria up as a symbol for hope and redemption. This is a grown-up and knowingly cynical tale that evolves with the characters to set up brilliantly intense climax.

And Finally, this guy...

'nuff said.

British comedians making the big leap: The highs and lows

2009-03-28T16:29:00.012Z

After the overwhelming success of Gavin and Stacey, James Corden and Matthew Horne could afford to pick and choose any project they wanted, and, like so many other successful comedians before them, they found the film world too tempting to resist. It may well prove to be an ill judged decision with Lesbian Vampire Killers falling foul of the critics and failing to become the monster hit that they hoped for. They're not the first TV comedy act to harbour bit screen ambitions and certainly not the last to choose a duff script. Its a trecharous transition to make, but when it goes right we can get genuine classics like Shaun of the Dead. When it goes wrong, however, you can get talented individuals like Mitchell and Webb labouring away in the distinctly average Magicians. So whats the right formula for Brits to make the big leap?

Is this really how you build on success?

The yardstick, in British comedy at least, for a successful transition from TV to the big screen is the Monty Python team. Undoubtably a collective of the most talented inviduals in the industry, this did not necessarily guarantee them success. Morecambe and Wise for instance, could pull in huge audiences and enjoyed unprecendented success but their film efforts were forgetable. Somehow, in Holy Grail and Life of Brian, the Monty Python team produced 2 of the greatest comedies ever made and the key to this success arguably lies to sticking to what they did best, and doing it well.

These films were not the type of money-spinning vehicle that so many greats have idly graced with their presence. It was the collective's attempt to bring the true scope and ambition of their comedy into realisation. They proved that by taking creative control over a project, maintaining the style of humour and values that made them successful, and applying it to the right material they could produce classics of the genre. Its a concept that has been so often ignored by others and it wasn't until Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg so brilliantly transferred the humour and heart of Spaced to their film projects that TV comedy acts have enjoyed that kind of big screen success.

All too often the trend has been for British talent to move away from their established roots to appear in low grade, fast tracked comedies that fatten their wallet and increase their exposure but show nothing of their potential. Thats why for every Hot Fuzz there's a Sex Lives of the Potato Men or Fat Slags around the corner meaning that within months of the "new saviours of British film comedy" (TM) emerging the critics will begin mourning its death.

The one comedian that is all too aware of all this is Ricky Gervais. After his incredible television success the only direction to go was into the film world and he has been wise in his choices so far. He's avoided the British produced duds so far and by going to Hollywood he has adapted his unique style of humour to American comedy. His first starring role, in the underrated-but-not-brilliant Ghost Town proved his star quality and ability to pick a solid script and still put his own personal stamp on a film. He hasn't rushed into the film industry and that patience is beginning to show its rewards. He has creative control over his next film; writing, directing and starring in This Side of the Truth and though its an American production he could well be the next "saviour of British film comedy" (TM). It probably won't be too long before it dies again, with the next-big-thing comedians wondering where it all went so wrong.

Underrated: Brendan Gleeson

2009-03-23T16:37:00.012Z

So you're making a big, epic ensemble movie, your lead actor is embarrassing himself and you need your supporting players to step up and give the film a bit of credibility. Who do you call? Brendan Gleeson. This guy's never gonna be your traditional leading man in these films. He looks a bit like the bloke down the pub who you're not sure if he's going to buy you a pint or punch you, but he is always solid and its no coincidence that he crops up in so many summer blockbusters. The guy's a pretty sure bet to put in a good performance without overshadowing the pretty-boy lead.

I'd seen Gleeson pop up in a number of films over the years, particularly in an awesome but brief role in A.I., but I only really started to follow this guy after I saw 28 Days Later. All I could think was that this guy does Ray Winstone better than Ray Winstone and that he was playing the rarest of things in modern horror movies; a believable, sympathetic character. Alot of this is testiment to the superior team behind the film but it was the perfect role for Gleeson. Very few people can do the gruff father figure better than Gleeson; he only started acting at 34 so its the kind of role he's grown into with each passing film.

However, where Gleeson really shines is in historical epics. Like Orlando Bloom, he cropped up in both Troy and Kingdom of Heaven, but unlike Orlando Bloom he was competant and believable as a historical character. He can play the eccentric, booming individual that characterise these films with ease and can challenge the Rickmans of this world for scenery-chewing brilliance that makes everyone else look boring or sit back and be the wise mentor if needs be. And if you need a guy to beat up Mr. Bloom and make him look as pathetic as possible he's your man. And who couldn't love him for that?

The film industry seems to finally be recognising Gleeson's value. He's joined the elite band of thespians proudly cashing their paychecks from the Harry Potter franchise and is beginning to get some seriously meaty roles, not least in last year's In Bruges, and later this year will be playing one of history's most interesting figures as Winston Churchill in Into The Storm, the follow up to The Gathering Storm. That film featured an amazing Albert Finney perfomance which will be hard to match but if anyone can fill his shoes its Brendan Gleeson and he could very well be a good bet for an Oscar nod. About time too.