Reviews

Pedro Almodovar of Spain has the reputation of being one of the world's great directors and though this is the only one of his films that I have seen, judging by it he deserves the acclaim. ‘Talk to Her' is the work of a master, one who knows when to be restrained and when to be passionate, one who has written and directed a film that shines with maturity and quality.

‘Talk to Her'is about two men in love with women who are in comas. Marco is a journalist who has an affair with Lydia, a female bullfighter and emotional wreck. One day she comes off the worst in a bullfight and ends up in hospital with brain damage. Also at the hospital is Alicia, a beautiful young dancer who injured her head in a car crash and her nurse Benigno, who has fallen in love with her. They are very different men – Marco is tall, handsome and assured while Benigno is short, plain and a virgin at 30 – but they become friends. As the movie progresses we find out about their pasts and the similarities and differences in their relationships with the comatose women. Then Benigno does something that leaves him with no one to turn to,except Marco.

The plot could have been material for a bad tearjerker, but Almodovar is more subtle than that – ‘Talk to Her' is poignant rather than weepy, lightened by touches of humour and has a couple of surprises that remind us that life and people are, for better or worse, unpredictable. I find anying to criticize in the acting or cinematography, and the music is wonderful – all of which does lead to a short review! It does not have as many really powerful scenes as other great movies I have seen, but ‘Talk to Her' is touching and except for one overly-explicit silent movie sequence, flawless. It will be enjoyed by anyone who can handle subtitles and has a taste for romantic dramas.



8/10

‘The Hours' is a strange film: sad, intelligent, expertly crafted and superbly acted, it should be great, but it adds up to less than the sum of its parts.

The film focuses on three women living parallel lives in different times and places during the last eighty years. In the 1920s Virginia Woolf (an unrecognizable Nicole Kidman) is writing her novel ‘Mrs Dalloway', which is about a hostess who is hiding how empty she feels behind a mask of happiness, much like 1950s housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) and modern-day socialite Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep). All are locked into suffocating relationships with men who do not understand them, except for Clarissa‘s ex-lover, the dying poet Richard Brown (Ed Harris), who understands all too well. There are other themes running through the womens' lives: emotional repression, bisexuality, parenthood and above all suicide. Director Stephen Daldry does a good job of visually showing how the women echo each other – they look into mirrors, depressed at what they see there, flowers are arranged and moved, food is created and destroyed. A strong image is that of eggs being broken, for the women lead eggshell lives – strong on the surface but fragile and liable to break into shards. Other images also linger, as this is a very well shot film: a woman walking into a river, the terrible arid neatness of Laura's house, a child's judging eyes, water flooding a hotel room.

Daldry also draws out nuanced and powerful performances from his actors, though you would expect them from such a talented cast. As well as Harris and the three leads it also includes John C. Reilly, who seems to be in every good film out at the moment, Toni Collette, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Dillane in a complex, touching role as Woolf's husband Leonard. The actors are given a good script to work with too. Particularly poignant are some lines between the Woolf's.

Leonard: ‘In your novel. Why does somebody have to die?' Virginia: ‘So that others will value life more. It is necessary … for contrast.'

But for all the good things about it, ‘The Hours' does not reach the level of emotional power it aspires to. Paradoxically it feels both overcharged and too slow, because we are hit by too much of the same things. ‘The Hours' is nearly all painfully shallow conversation or emotional turmoil – there are hardly any light moments to catch your breath or build up the tension for the next big scene. Watching it is like listening to a symphony that is all crescendos – no matter how moving they are they feel flat after a while.

7/10

Few movies begin as well as ‘Gangs of New York' does. ‘Priest' Vallon (Liam Neeson), watched by his young son, girds himself for battle, gathering about him a barbaric, rag-tag band of Irish immigrants as he walks through fire-lit tunnels and chaotic halls, then out into the still whiteness of an 1846 winter's day in New York's Five Points district. Out in the square he is met by his rival William ‘Bill the Butcher' Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), who heads the Nativists, an American-born Protestant gang. Then, with all the ceremony of Homeric battles, the gangs go to war.

Sixteen years later Vallon's son, now calling himself Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to Five Points where he seeks to re-establish himself. As an awesome aerial shot makes clear, Five Points is the grimy, crime-riddled heart of New York, which Amsterdam describes as ‘less of a city than a furnace, or a furnace in which a city might one day be forged.' Here he meets the lovely Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a thief and a con-artist, and is taken under the wing of the man he has come to kill, Bill the Butcher himself.

When he meets Amsterdam the Butcher introduces himself as ‘New York' and indeed his character towers over both Five Points and the movie. Orator, crimelord, father-figure, racist, patriot, sadist, warrior, showman, Day-Lewis rolls them up into one unforgettable moustached tyrant. It is a magnificent performance. Next to it, DiCaprio's Amsterdam is inevitably a bit pale, but he still does well. Do not imagine that this is a replay of ‘Titanic's charming pretty-boy – Amsterdam is, like the movie itself, angry, violent, conflicted and charismatic. Diaz is unconvincing but the rest of the cast bring to life the vivid assortment of crooks, whores, corrupt policemen and underhanded politicians who fill the movie.

Like all serious dramas dominated by larger-than-life characters like these, ‘Gangs of New York' is often in danger of getting overblown and sometimes becomes so. Though it is packed with great scenes, like when three different men pray to the same god, each claiming his power for their own, or a long tracking shot showing Irish immigrants arriving in the harbour, becoming citizens, being signed up to fight the Civil War and boarding a ship that is unloading coffins, ‘Gangs' does begin to drag after a gripping scene at the anniversary party of the 1846 battle. A long film, it does end strongly though not with the power it promised to have. So it is not one of director Martin Scorscese's greatest films but it is still outstanding, a dirty, gory, intense and beautifully realised epic. It does also have some depth: like many of his other films, such as ‘Mean Streets', ‘Taxi Driver' or ‘Goodfellas', ‘Gangs of New York' shows Scorscese's loving and loathing vision of his home and how in that city, as in the rest of the nation, blood, crime and hatred were, are and will remain an integral part of America. In the times we live in it is a theme worth thinking about.

8/10

The scene: a smoky, swinging jazz club in 1920s Chicago. Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger), aspiring singer and dancer, watches in awe as Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) sizzles through her rendition of ‘All That Jazz', minus the sister and cheating lover whose murders she is about to be arrested for. Roxie soon chalks up a killing of her own when she shoots her scumbag boyfriend so she too is sent to prison, where with the help of the warden, Mama (Queen Latifa) and Roxie's loving but dull husband Amos (John C. Reilly), she hires the slick and greedy Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) to be her lawyer. Flynn is also the lawyer for Velma and the two women begin a vicious competition for publicity as they try to manipulate the scandal-loving media so that they get off their charges and get rich off their fame.



It's big, it's bold, it's got 13 Oscar nominations and yes, it is really good. The musical numbers are all very impressive, with the standout being the ‘The Prison Rag', the production is high quality and both the acting and musical performances are good (though Richard Gere's singing is only adequate). For me the most impressive thing though was how ‘Chicago', unlike ‘Moulin Rouge', managed to tell an interesting story as well as razzle-dazzle us with song and dance spectaculars. Rather than have the characters suddenly and unrealistically burst into song ‘Chicago' weaves the musical numbers cleverly into the plot by showing them as actual stage performances or as taking place in Roxie's vivid imagination while a ‘real' event is happening. For example one of the movie's most powerful scenes takes place as Roxie imagines a hanging, another when Flynn questions a key witness.



‘Chicago' is excellent, but I still went away not wholly satisfied, because towards the end all the music was just beginning to get a bit much and, despite how deftly the plot was handled, there were still moments when I wanted more acting and less singing. But mainly the problem was that the main characters are basically horrible people. Charismatic yes, but still selfish, nasty and egotistical, which means that while they're interesting you don't care about them as much as you would about people you actually liked. Still, part of the point of the movie is that nasty but charming people can get away with an awful lot in our society if they know how to work the system, so I haven't marked ‘Chicago' down for that. If you like musicals, then you'll probably love this.



8/10

How exactly do you describe the plot of ‘Adaptation'? It is the work of Charlie Kaufman, the mind behind the delightfully weird ‘Being John Malkovich', a screenwriter who a while ago was struggling to adapt Susan Orlean's rambling, philosophical novel ‘The Orchid Thief' into a script. So instead Kauffmann decided to write a screenplay about himself struggling to write a screenplay. Sound warped? Well, in the movie Charlie (an outstanding Nicholas Cage), describes his decision as ‘self-indulgent, narcissistic, impossible to film' – fortunately he's wrong. What we get is an amusing, interesting, sometimes moving and above all clever film. It's centred around the struggles of Charlie, portrayed as an overweight, balding, self-loathing introvert, and his relationship with his fictional twin brother Donald (Cage again), who is Charlie's opposite: outgoing, confident, charming, a bit thick. Donald is also writing a screenplay – a hilariously corny and clichéd thriller that naturally sells for megabucks. This is Kauffmann contrasting the artistic and commercial sides of himself – Donald is also credited as writing the screenplay. Intertwined with the story of the Kaufmans is the tale of the troubled Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and her relationship with the bizarre, egotistical subject of her novel, John Laroche, the actual orchid thief.

What we have is a movie that works on several levels, blending fiction and reality in an entertaining mix. It's about flowers, it's about screenwriting, it's about loneliness, love and a bunch of other things. It does not hang together perfectly, but it is a tribute to Kaufman's skill and that of the actors that it's a coherent and enjoyable as it is. Like ‘Memento' playing time backwards or ‘Groundhog Day' repeating the same day over and over, ‘Adaptation' is one of those concept movies that's worth going to see just to admire how something so unusual is made to work. Unfortunately it is let down by the climax, which is unsatisfying. Seen in relation to a conversation Charlie has with a screenwriting guru and some of the comments both make about plotting, it is a clever way to bring the strands of the plot together, but it is perhaps too clever. With a too-sudden change from the tone of the rest of the movie it is neither comic enough to be funny nor believable enough to be satisfying. However overall ‘Adaptation' is a very good film and one film fans with a taste for post-modern culture will particularly like.

7/10

They tell a story in Whangara, a tiny town on the East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand, of how the ancestor Paikea arrived in the bay, riding from the homeland of Hawaiki upon the back of a great whale. Paikea's descendant in the present day is Koro (Rawiri Paratene), a grim man searching for the first-born man who will lead the people of Whangara out of lives sinking into a mire of apathy and drugs. He does not see this prophet in his son Porourangi (Cliff Curtis), an artist who left the town long ago, and certainly not in Porourangi's daughter (the luminous Keisha Castle-Hughes) who was defiantly named Paikea. ‘Whale Rider' is the story of Paikea's struggle to prove Koro wrong.

This is a great movie. And not just great by low-budget, didn't-they-do-well New Zealand standards, but by any standard. Based on Witi Ihimaera's fine novel, it has a strong, straightforward plot that is told with warmth and restraint, and, like the best films do, it draws out of you a range of strong feelings – laughter, pity and sadness among them. Though it has a strongly spiritual theme it feels grounded in reality, largely because of writer-director Niki Caro's mastery of the little, often funny, details of life in a small, Maori-dominated community. Aside from a brief, unconvincing taiaha fight between two children, there is very little to fault it on – the acting is very good, particularly from the intense, brooding Paratene, Vicky Haughton, who plays Koro's wise, wry wife, and the astonishing Castle-Hughes – and the music, special effects and cinematography are also top-quality. It makes a Pakeha boy from Opotiki proud to see the Coast, the land, the sea and its Maori people, shown in such a beautiful and moving way. ‘Whale Rider' is a must-see movie for all New Zealanders and is highly recommended to everyone else.

9/10

A man runs naked across a plain of ice and snow, his feet bloody and his eyes desperate as he glances back at his hunters. When he falls, even having just come in from the sweltering summer heat, you feel the cold.

This is the best scene in ‘Atanarjuat, the Fast Runner', a movie very different from any other you will have seen. What makes it so special is that it is about and made entirely by the Inuit of Canada. It immerses you in the harsh, nearly desolate world of a tiny Arctic community.

In such a small group, where a few families live in confined spaces, tensions can be explosive. The story is centered around the rivalry of Atanarjuat and Oki over Atuat, a rivalry which echoes that of their fathers, Tulimaq or Sauri, for leadership of the tribe. In the prologue to the main story we see Sauri assassinate his father with the aid of an evil spirit who continues to haunt the tribe. The struggles of the families of Tulimaq and Sauri lead to a betrayal and a murder that sends the naked man running across the ice.

It is a good story, though it is long, slow and sometimes hard to follow. What makes it so memorable is the remarkable lifestyle that it makes seem so real. From dogsleds and ritual combat to seduction and exorcism, we see many of the facets of pre-modern Inuit life, which was built entirely on just two things: water and the flesh and bones of Arctic animals. The acting is completely convincing, the music is sparingly but powerfully used and the cinematography captures both the beauty and cruelty of that vast wilderness in the north of the world. It is something far from the conventions of Hollywood and if you have the patience, you will find it fascinating.

7/10

Ah, James Bond. The Burger King of the movies (he's much better than McDonalds) - a reliable franchise where you know that when you're in the mood for it, you can get something tasty. But this is the 20th film in the series (as all the nostalgic references remind us) so is the recipe stale? Nope. Bond films will indeed have to wait to 'Die Another Day'.

I've always like Pierce Brosnan's Bond, who has nearly the charm, dangerousness and wit of Sean Connery's definitive version, but also has some vulnerability, which makes him a more human and sympathetic figure. It's an update to suit our age, as are the stronger roles women have had in the recent films. Kiwi director Lee Tamahori continues these trends and also updates the special effects, which are spectacular. This is one of the best Bond films I've seen - from the agents surfing in to North Korea, to the car-chase on ice, to the delightful scenes with Q and Moneypenny, 'Die Another Day' is great fun. Yes, there are too many corny puns, even by Bond standards, the action sequences get a bit much by the end of the film and Madonna's title song is awful. But Bond is still, as they so obviously wanted you to say with the ice and diamonds theme, very cool.

7 1/2/10

Tane

In my review of 'The Chamber of Secrets' I mentioned how tough the job of Chris Columbus, director of the Harry Potter movies was. However when it comes to adapting books to film his job looks straightforward compared to Peter Jackson's. Over a thousand pages of novel had to be trimmed and shaped into six hours of film, perhaps two dozen important characters to bring to life, millions of devoted Tolkien fans and also the general filmgoing public to satisfy. I thought he did an amazing job with 'The Fellowship of the Ring', which was, aside from a few overwrought moments, probably as good an adaption as could possibly have been made. Unfortunately I can not say the same for 'The Two Towers'.

Oh, it is very good - Jackson again shows what a master he is at staging battle scenes and creating moments of wonder and horror, the special effects and New Zealand scenery are breathtaking and the quality cast again do a good job. But there are moments that are a bit corny and scenes that could have been more tense and exciting than they were.

The story consists of three seperate plot lines - Merry and Pippin journey into Fangorn Forest where they meet the Ents, the ancient Shepherds of the Trees, Frodo and Sam head closer to Mordor with Gollum, the twisted former possessor of the One Ring, and the remaining members of the Fellowship fight to save the kingdom of Rohan from the forces of Saruman, who has used magic and a treacherous advisor to enfeeble Theoden, Rohan's king.

While it is packed with characters and events, there is not as much in 'The Two Towers' as there was in 'Fellowship', so while it does not have quite the variety of locations events that the first film did, Jackson has been able to create a film that is not as episodic this time (which was inevitable with the theatrical version of 'Fellowship' - see the extended DVD version for a longer, better-paced cut). The three-pronged story is still which was the screenwriters and editors biggest problem, as they had to try and juggle and balance the plots so that the viewer follows what is going on while the movie's momentum is maintained. Generally I think Jackson and company did a fine job but, especially towards the end of the movie, they could have done a better one. The film cuts between the climaxes of all three plots which reduces the power of each of them, especially the epic battle of Helm's Deep. The battle is a huge, superbly choreographed sequence but the tension that it creates gets released too often as we shift to what Sam and Frodo or Merry and Pippin are doing. I think it would have been better to finish Sam and Frodo's story, except for the epilogue with Gollum, which belongs at the end, before cutting between the battle at Helm's Deep and the hobbits' dealings with the Ents.

Partly to provide a climax, a lot has been changed from the book. Many things that were in 'The Two Towers' will now be in the third movie (which makes me wonder how they will fit everything into 'The Return of the King') and a few things have been added. Some of the additions, such as the battle with the warg-riders and the Black Rider's sweep over the Dead Marshes, are very good. Others, such as Aragorn's near-death experience and his triumphant return, the slow-motion fall of Haldir and the reunion of a mother with her children are cliched. The screenplay is a flawed one: it does not always explain what is going on adequately and there are a disappointing number of melodramatic moments. I could have done with less shots of frightened women and children, less inspirational speeches, less beams of shining light and, though he was funny, less of Gimli the dwarf as comic relief. Sometimes, as at Helm's Deep, the atmosphere should be grim and frightening and a joke spoils the mood. As do a few cute, anachronistic moments such as when Legolas skates down stairs on a shield or when Sam talks about what it would be like to be a character in a great story. 'The Lord of the Rings' is not supposed to be postmodern - such moments just take you out of the alternative world that the movie is trying to create by reminding you that it is a movie.

But while it is not up to the very high standard of 'Fellowship', 'The Two Towers' is still a quality movie: spectacular, sometimes stirring and gorgious to look at and listen to. There is one other thing that would make it worth seeing: Gollum. The first CGI character to actually act well, Gollum, with his split personality, creepy voice and pale, veiny, superbly rendered body, is fascinating to watch. All his scenes are among the movie's best. If 'The Two Towers' does get an Oscar nomination for acting Andy Serkis, who did the voice and the movements that Gollum was based on, will probably be the one. I suspect though that this won't be the year that Peter Jackson gets to go up for Best Director or Best Film. Oh well, there's still 'The Return of the King.'

7 1/2 / 10

Christopher Columbus, the director of the first two Harry Potter movies, has had a heavy burden to bear. He had to recreate on the screen what millions of adults and children imagined when they read J.K Rowling's books, he had to bring the characters and world alive for those who had never read the novels, balance out being exciting enough for the adults with not being too scary for the kids and endure the inevitable, unflattering comparisons with not just the books but Peter Jackson's superb ‘Fellowship of the Ring'. Overall he's done a decent job – the first movie was a good though straight and occasionally flat reproduction of ‘The Philosopher's Stone' and ‘The Chamber of Secrets' is an improvement on that, if not a major one.

If you haven't seen or read ‘The Philosopher's Stone' then don't bother watching this, as it will be very hard to follow what is going on. For those of you who have and want a summary of the plot, Harry again escapes from the Dursleys, his horrible non-magical relatives, and returns to Hogwarts, despite receiving a warning from a house-elf called Dobby that his life will be in danger. And indeed when he gets back there he not only has to worry about his enemies Professor Snape and Draco Malfoy, and the narcissistic new Defence Against the Dark Arts professor Gilderoy Lockhart, he also discovers that there is something monstrous stalking the corridors of Hogwarts, something that only he can hear.

Like the book, the movie ‘The Chamber of Secrets' is darker than it's predecessor and will be too scary for many young children. This makes it more intense and enjoyable for most of us adults, though there are a couple of moments in the climax where Columbus shies away from fully showing some graphic violence, which reduces the power of the scene. It is a difficult balance that he has to maintain and while he does a great job in an earlier scene with giant spiders, he can't quite pull it off for Rowling's pretty gory finale. Unfortunately again the movie is not as thrilling or satisfying as the book, as Columbus still does not seem to have the pacing and atmosphere quite right for every scene in the film. Some, like those with the Dursleys and the Weasleys at the start, do not seem long enough to fully bring across the flavour of the book. At other times what is happening is not properly explained, which would be confusing for those who have not read the book - parts of the climactic battle especially seem merely convenient rather than miraculous - while in the middle the movie gets a bit slow. Parts of this are not Columbus' or the screenwriters' fault – the movie is a long one already and getting across the richness of detail a book has in just a few hours is always difficult. Unlike in the first movie they did feel confident enough to make some sensible changes to the sacred text, such as adding to the book's action scenes and cutting out some minor details, but I do feel things could have been done better, perhaps by dwelling on some things a little more, cutting out some minor plotlines, and adding to the atmosphere of some scenes by using bit more music and some more imaginative camerawork.

However I should not get too negative, as this is an enjoyable and exciting movie. The special effects and sets are marvellous and one of the ways in which it is an improvement on ‘The Philosopher's Stone' is because of Daniel Radcliffe's performance as Harry. He still does not completely capture what I imagined the young wizard to be like, but he is livelier and more charismatic than he was in the first movie. The rest of the cast are very good, and there are two delicious performances from Kenneth Branagh as Lockhart and Jason Isaacs as the arrogant Lucius Malfoy. Seeing Richard Harris's final appearance is quite poignant too, as there is a quaver in his voice that suggests he was not a well man. Finding a replacement for him will not be easy.

7/10

This is one of those movies that is enjoyable at the time but does not exactly linger in your memory. One of the reasons is the plot, which is basically the same Cinderella story that has been reworked in countless films. ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding' is the story of Toula Portokoulos (Nia Vardalos), a frumpy Greek ugly duckling who meets her Prince Charming (John Corbett as an English teacher, who are often romanticised in movies. I'm still waiting for the sensitive, sexy Calculus teacher), turns into a swan and gets a life. Eventually she decides to marry her man. The problem is, her family are quite traditional and they have issues with the role of women in the family and her marrying a non-Greek.

It's a predictable, unoriginal plot and the movie is as subtle as a brass band. However what saves it from being just a routine romantic comedy are the lively performances from the Greek actors and the oddball supporting characters, particular Toula's hidebound father, a man who can trace the origin of any word back to Greek (even kimono) and who believes he is the head of the household (his wife says that may be so, but she is the neck – she tells the head where to move). It is a funny movie and, if you don't go in expecting anything great, you'll get a lot of laughs out of it.

6 1/2/ 10

Firstly, what a great title this movie has. ‘Road to Perdition' sounds cool and in this film has both a literal meaning, as it's a town near Chicago that some of the characters head towards, and a metaphorical meaning, as some of the characters are indeed on the road to Hell.

A great title and a great movie: this will be one of the big nominees at next year's award ceremonies. It is a gangster movie, but, like all the best gangster movies, it is more of a story about family and friends than crime itself. Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, an enforcer for his surrogate father John Rooney (Paul Newman), the head of an Irish-American crime syndicate during the Great Depression. His eldest son Michael junior (Tyler Hoechlin), curious to see what his father does for a living, sneaks along on a job and witnesses John Rooney's vicious son Connor (Ian Craig) kill a man. As a result the Sullivans go on the run, with hired hitman Harlen Maguire on their trail.

This is a movie dominated by quiet, character-building moments punctuated by sudden violence. It is full of atmosphere and tension, and does require an attention span, though there are also a surprising amount of funny moments in the middle. The acting is top-notch throughout: Craig is truly nasty, the 78 year old Newman is still an acting legend and Hanks, though I am not as big a fan as the Academy, is a master of playing a good man going through tough times. His Michael Sullivan is more than a reprise of his character in ‘Saving Private Ryan' though, as Hanks gives Sullivan an aura of menace that reminds you that though this man a good father, he is also a very good killer.

And then there is Jude Law, who is one of the finest and most versatile actors on the planet. I've seen him play a spoilt gay aristocrat, a moody playboy, an android gigolo, a heroic Russian sniper and now a psychotic assassin with thinning hair, a gangly walk and bad teeth. In each role he has been excellent. He's almost worth the price of admission to a movie by himself, even if you're not female.

‘Road to Perdition' ‘s greatest asset though is the cinematography. The movie was based on a graphic novel, which may have helped cinematographer Conrad L. Hall and director Sam Mendes (‘American Beauty') compose such an exquisite series of images. A room full of people in dark clothes barricaded behind pale grey newspapers. A bike illuminated by headlights, lying like a black skeleton in the snow. An old man standing perfectly still in the middle of a road as other men die around him. Without exaggeration, this is one of the best looking movies I have ever seen. As a whole the movie is not quite as great as it tries to be and the final quarter is not up to the standard of what has gone before, but the cinematography alone would make it one of the outstanding films of the year. It has been said that it is the best gangster film since the first two ‘Godfather' movies and, while I would not say it is a better movie than ‘Once Upon A Time in America' or ‘GoodFellas', it is excellent.

8/10

'Requiem' is one of the most overrated movies here on IMDB. To be sure it is an intense, often gripping and very well acted film. Ellyn Burstyn was unlucky not to get best actress for her harrowing role. However the film is badly directed: there are far too many camera tricks used and it feels like an exhibition of 'things I film school'. If it was just when the characters are tripping out on drugs, then the distorted camera views and use of fast-forward, slo-mo and fast editing of images would be effective. But when such things are overused, as they are here, they distance the viewer from the reality that the movie is trying to portray. They come across as showy rather than brilliant and break your suspension of disbelief.

Another thing that is rather hard to swallow is the casting of the young drug addicts: they are just a bit too good looking. Jennifer Connelly in particular is so angelically beautiful it is hard to imagine her as a drug user. She is a talented actress but, as in 'A Beautiful Mind' I think they should have cast someone who looked a little more average, who showed more of the wear and tear of life on her face.

The movie also thinks that it is smarter than it is - but it lacks the wit or gritty realism of 'Trainspotting' and basically all it has to say is that drugs are bad. It does do a powerful job of showing just how badly they can screw up your life, but really anyone with a brain knows that already.

'Requiem for a Dream' is very good, but it seems a little simplistic and loud when compared to truly great (and, significantly, non-American) films like 'Once Were Warriors' or 'Trainspotting' that also deal with drugs and domestic hells.

7/10

Canadian comedian Mike Myers has certainly got a lot of mileage out of 'Austin Powers', but I think it's time for him to find a new vehicle before this one breaks down completely. Not that this is a bad movie, indeed it is about as good as the second Austin Powers film, 'The Spy Who Shagged Me', but the signs of strain are there.

'Goldenmember' has Austin trying to foil Dr Evil's latest evil scheme for global conquest/destruction by traveling back in time to 1975, where he hooks up with his old flame Foxy Cleopatra and tries to rescue his dad Nigel Powers (played by Michael Caine, which is a nice nod to his spy roles of earlier years) from the clutches of Goldenmember, a swinging villain with a fetish for gold and his own skin. Meanwhile, Scott Evil and Mini Me are having trouble relating to their own father, Dr Evil.

The opening scenes before the titles of 'Goldenmember' are hilarious - describing them would give away what make them so good. But after that there are only a few very funny moments scattered throughout the movie. For instance Goldenmember's introduction - meet a leg-bending, rollerscating, hip Dutch wierdo doing a dance number - is great, but after that he becomes rather dull as the personalities of the other characters seem to overwhelm him. Likewise Foxy Cleopatra could have been a lot more interesting than she is - a babe with an afro and a bit of attitude who laughs at Austin's lame jokes. Mike Myers also often overplays those jokes. There's only so many times you can laugh at a giant mole or a funny accent, and that's not many times. I don't know why he wanted to stretch his material out so often, as the movie does feel overlong. I would have also liked to see something a bit wittier thrown in now and then, as it's nice to laugh at something clever jokes as well as something silly.

For all that 'Goldenmember' is a pretty funny movie and fans of the first two films will like it. But I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.

6/10

This is, by any intelligent standard, a bad movie. I can't say anything good about the characters, story or quality of production (except for Ali G's wardrobe) . The jokes are almost all crass and/or silly. But it did make me laugh a lot.

Ali G is a badass gangsta from the West Side, or at least he would be if he wasn't a poser from Staines, London. The community hall where Ali teaches little kids how to be like him is about to be demolished, so Ali starts a campaign to save them because 'dere is already too many bothers dyin' in da hood.' He ends up in Parliament due to the schemes of the evil Deputy Prime Minister, where he proceeds to wreak havoc.

Ali G is played by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, whose 'Da Ali G Show' became a massive hit, mainly because of the hilarious reactions of real people when they were subjected to what they thought were real interviews by Ali G or Cohen's other character, Borat from Kazakhstan. That is missing from the movie and while watching Ali G take the mickey out of gangstas and their lame white wannabes is fun, the rest of the film's humour relies on Ali being a dork and jokes about sex, masturbation and dope. If you're not in the mood to laugh at immature gags about those things, then this will probably be one of the worst movies you will ever experience. If you are and you're a fan of the series who doesn't go in expecting much (like me), then it's good for a laugh.

Respec.

5/10

Lady Bracknell: 'Are your parents living?'

Jack Worthing: 'I have lost both my parents.'

Lady Bracknell: 'To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.'

Oscar Wilde was possibly the wittiest man who ever opened his mouth. If you haven't read his play, on which this movie is based, then I totally recommend it. It's the funniest thing I've ever read, and that includes Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett.

The plot revolves around two wealthy and decadent men in London around the turn of the century. Both lead secret lives: Jack Worthing pretends to be his wild brother Earnest when in the city, so that he can live the good life and keep his good reputation, while Algernon Moncrieff has a conveniently sick friend called Bunbury, whom he 'visits' when he wants to escape into the country. Jack is in love with Algy's cousin Gwendolyn, but the marriage is opposed by her battleship of a mother, Lady Bracknell. Jack unfortunately was found in a bag left at a railway station, and Lady Bracknell refuses to establish an alliance with a man whose family heritage is a cloakroom. Things really begin to get complicated when Algy decides to woo Jack's ward Cecily, by pretending to be the infamous Earnest.

Clever as it is, the plot is no more than the coathanger on which the

wordplay and satire of social values are hung. The movie isn't the classic the play is, but it does do Wilde's brilliant script justice. Some great lines are cut out, but there are some good bits that are new, such as the scenes involving bills at The Savoy restaurant, which, unlike some film adaptions of famous literature, are seamlessly worked into the original story. The quality cast, including Colin Firth, Reese Witherspoon and Judi Dench, does a fine job of being seriously silly, though there were moments when I thought things got a little too serious. 'The Importance of Being Earnest' is a bit like a Monty Python movie in that way: the more absurd it is the better. The movie's best scene, involving muffins and despair, is it's silliest.

'Earnest' is all about frothy wit and rich British people with nothing better to do than stand around in gorgeous rooms making ridiculous statements. It has no more substance than a meringe, but it is just as fun to taste.

7/10

'Blade 2' is an action movie crossed with a horror. It is macho, gruesome and very, very violent.

That description will have put many of you off completely, which is fair enough, but if you do have a taste for the action genre then you should see this movie, because it kicks ass.

For those of you who have not seen the first film, vampire hunter Blade (Wesley Snipes) is half-human, half-vampire, with their strengths but not their weaknesses - except for a thirst for blood. He's a bit like Buffy, but a lot nastier. In the first film the vampires took his mentor Whistler (Kris Kristoffersen) and Blade is seeking him. Blade finds the old man but also learns that there is a new breed of vampire loose in the world, almost unkillable mutants called Reapers, who feed on vampires as well as humans. Blade must team up with a elite unit of vampires to try and destroy the Reapers, while watching his own back and developing feelings for one of his enemies.

The movie is actually an improvement on the original. We get a closer look at the vampires, particularly one family, and, ironically, they become more human, which makes them more interesting than when they are just sadistic killers. But the real foundation of the film, the thing that all action movies stand or fall on, is the intensity and style of the action. It is here that Blade 2 triumphs. The fights are adrenalin-surging amalgams of power and precision, speed and slow-motion, beauty and brutality. Guns, swords, fangs, kicks, throws, punches, dark glasses, black leather, tatoos (including a Maori design), vampires disintegrating in showers of sparks and gore. Because it is so spectacular, and occurs largely to the undead or faceless guards, the violence does not have the unpleasant, dehumanising feeling that many more realistic action movies do.

With its superhuman warriors the film belongs to the tradition of martial-arts fantasies developed in Hong Kong and is exemplified by 'The Matrix' and 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. While it does not have the class or intelligence of those modern classics, Blade 2, with its merging of Gothic shadows and cyberpunk technology, is very stylish. I could not say it was smart, and it certainly is gratuitous, but it is, literally, bloody cool.

7 1/2 /10

'Minority Report' should have been one of the year's best movies. It is directed by Steven Spielberg who, despite his gooey moments, is a great director. It stars Tom Cruise, who, regardless of what you think of him as a person, is a charismatic and talented actor (if you doubt me, go and see 'Magnolia'). It is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, the warped and brilliant mind responsible for the ideas behind 'Total Recall' and 'Blade Runner'. And the photography and special effects are superb.

It is the year 2054 and murder has been wiped out in Washington D.C., due to the Department of Pre-Crime, which uses the psychic powers of three pre-cognitives (Agatha, Dashiell and Arthur, presumably named after the famous mystery writers Agatha Christie, Dashiell Hammett and Arthur Conan Doyle, which is a nice touch) to prevent slayings before they happen. Cruise plays the leader of the Pre-Crime unit, a skilled cop who lost his son 6 years earlier and now uses drugs to try and dull the grief. One day he is monitoring the visions the pre-cogs have when he sees himself commit murder and is forced to go on the run from his own unit. As he tries to discover who set him up, he realises that what he needs is in the mind of Agatha, who may have had a conflicting vision of the murder.

The first half of the movie is excellent, with several tense and exhilarating action scenes and a some creepy moments, particularly involving a genetically-engineered garden and eyeballs. What is most impressive though is the technology of Spielberg's future world. Like most good science fiction movies, the technology seems both amazing and believable. I particularly liked the transparent viewing screens which Cruise could manipulate with cybernetic gloves, the chamber of cryogenically frozen criminals and the spiderlike, retina-scanning robots. The cast is solid, with a quietly haunting performance by Samantha Morton as Agatha.

However in the second half the movie goes a bit flat, becoming too like a routine murder-mystery. I was not moved by the way the relationship between Cruise and his son was shown and the villain did not impress me. Besides the obvious mind-bending paradoxes about changing the future, there are also number of questions that the movie asked but did not answer. Why are there no ethical storms about the way the pre-cogs are used? If the surgeon hated Cruise, why wasn't he less helpful? Shouldn't clothing fashions be different after 50 years? What exactly happened to Cruise's son? They are not large things, but together they add up. 'Minority Report' is very good, but it does not become the great movie it promises to be.

7/10

In 1902 Joseph Conrad wrote a story based on his own experiences called 'Heart of Darkness', which is about a steamboat captain travelling up the Congo. The captain witnesses the appalling effects of Belgian imperialism on the Africans as he slowly moves deeper and deeper into the jungle, where he will meet Kurtz, a formerly brilliant Belgian agent who has gone mad. It is a story of civilisation and savagery, and it is one of the great works of English literature.

In 1979 Francis Ford Coppola released 'Apocalypse Now', a movie based on Conrad's tale but about a different form of colonisation. Set during the Vietnam War, it is the story of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) who travels upriver with a boat of mostly young soldiers on an assignment to 'terminate the command' of Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a formerly brilliant special forces officer who has gone rogue. For all their hardware, for all their awesome technologies of death, the Americans are losing the war because they simply will not go as far, will not give as much as the Viet Cong. Nor can they win over the Vietnamese people, because they do not really care about them. They are tools, a means of stopping Communism from spreading to somewhere really important, and they are treated as such. Kurtz has decided to change this: he is leading a cult who will do anything to win. Anything.

The version that I have seen is a new, longer cut called 'Apocalypse Now Redux'. I have not seen the original so I cannot say if it is an improvement, but what can say is that Redux is a masterpiece. It is the best war movie I have seen: it shows modern battle in both its awful glory and its muddy, bloody wretchedness. The sun sets, golden behind dark trees, the jungle explodes in flames, choppers whir in and out of earshot, bullets zip out of the foliage, men and women lose their minds and lives. It shows, in a series of lurid scenes, what the war, the jungle and the heat have brought out in the men: their brutality, their casual race and sexism, the crumbling of their humanity. Though it seems pompous to say so - a silly feeling, as like all art movies can be more than just entertainment - this is a profound film.

However it could have been better. I could have done without the manic and rather irritating photojournalist played by Dennis Hopper: what he tells us about Kurtz could have been shown to us directly, or been spoken by the man himself. There is also a sequence set on a French plantation that was added by Coppola. The soldiers have a break from the war, bury a dead comrade, over dinner there is a discussion about the war in a wider context, and Willard has a romantic encounter with a lonely French woman. In itself it these are good scenes, but they breaks up the momentum of the movie. As the soldiers have been going deeper into the heart of darkness, facing horrors that have gotten more and more intense, this relatively peaceful episode dissipates some of the tension that has built up. It also lengthens what is already a very long movie.

That aside, in the blackness of a movie theatre, with the screen taking up my whole field of vision, the sound of The Doors' eerie 'This Is The End' filling my ears, from the beginning of the movie to the end I was riveted to my seat. There is a famous scene where choppers come out of the blue horizon, Wagner's 'Ride Of The Valkyries' thundering from their speakers, and rain death apon a village where the terrified Vietnamese scurry like insects. It is terrible and beautiful, grotesque and exhilarating. It is like reading Revelations. It may be what the Apocalypse feels like.

9 1/2 / 10

Adolescence is a tough time for a lot of people. For Donnie Darko it's more than tough. Donnie is a perceptive and highly intelligent young man, but he is also moody and troubled to the point of having to go to therapy and take drugs to control his anger. He comes from a good, if conventional home and goes to a good, if conventional school, but he just does not fit it. Donnie's problems are a part of his personality and in the course of the movie we see how he tries to deal with them. Just how big those problems are becomes clear when, just before a jet engine mysteriously smashes into his room, he has a vision of Frank, a demonic rabbit who tells him that the world is going to end at the end of the month. And things just get weirder from there.

‘Donnie Darko' does not fit neatly into any genre of film. I would describe it as a combination of black comedy and teen drama. Fans of ‘The X-Files' will enjoy the dark, surreal mood of much of the movie and though it will definitely not appeal to everyone, I found it both funny and moving. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job of playing Donnie, a role that requires him to be likeable, charismatic, pathetic and frightening, sometimes all at once. His romance with Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone), a new girl at school with problems of her own, is one of the highlights of the movie, as are the scenes with Patrick Swayze's terrifying motivational speaker and Beth Grant's evangelical gym teacher. But the most memorable part of the movie, and the one you will most want to talk to people about, is the ending. It is hard to discuss it without giving away what happens, so I will just say that it makes sense, in an ambiguous kind of way, but I still found it a bit unsatisfying.

Nevertheless, ‘Donnie Darko' is an excellent film and just the thing to get out if you want to watch something offbeat that will make you both laugh and shudder.

8/10

'm not sure exactly why I'm going to give 'Bend It Like Beckham' such a good rating. There are many other movies which I have given 7 to which are technically much better (in terms of acting, script, sound, look), such as 'Minority Report' or 'Blue Velvet'. But well, 'Beckham' is just so damn likeable.

The story is about Jess (Parminder Nagra), an English girl of Indian descent who idolises David Beckham and loves to play soccer. However her traditionalist parents frown on their daughter running around getting muddy and showing everyone her legs, and want Jess to be like her older sister, who is about to get married. So Jess secretly joins a womens team that her friend Jules (Keira Knightly, who is absolutely gorgious) plays for. Many of the best laughs in the film come from Jule's ditsy Mum, who also frowns on her daughter doing some so unfeminine as playing football. Not only is there trouble with both girls parents, they both fancy their coach Joe (the equally gorgious Jonathan Rhys-Meyers).

'Beckham' is a lot like 'Monsoon Wedding' in that it features one of those wonderfully colourful Indian weddings and highlights the sometimes uneasy meeting of Indian and Western cultures, though it does not have the richness of style and emotion that that film does. I'll get my criticisms out of the way first: some of the camera work is dizzying, there are a couple of moments when it gets a bit mushy and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers' performance is not always convincing. But it almost seems mean to be hard on this movie - it is a simple, straightforward and funny story, the kind of enjoyable, low-budget comedy-drama like 'The Full Monty' or 'Brassed Off' that the British do very well. It is nothing amazing but nor does it try to be. At the end of it you come out feeling good. And it is hard to argue with that.

7/10

I'm going to start this review with a weird analogy. Bear with me.

Films and their sequels are like meals. You can can cook them a different way, maybe add some new spices, and it might even be an improvement on the first dish (say, 'Batman Returns' versus 'Batman'). But if you just reheat the original - well, you've all microwaved leftovers. That's what happens to 'Men In Black 2' - it's the same story, tasty enough but not as good as when it was fresh out of the oven.

Perhaps because we've been here before the film feels flat until Jones appears. His weary, weathered face adds a bit of depth to the fun and he and Smith do the old funny-black-guy paired with straight-white-guy routine well. There are some nice touches in the film, such as the alien civilization kept in a locker or the Playstation control pad in the rocket-car, and the various tentacled, feathered, scaled and wormlike aliens are cool. But some things are done poorly too - for instance Smith's love interest is weak, the much more interesting woman from the first film is dismissed in one line and the climax lacks something new.

If you really liked the first MIB, or you are in the mood for some light sci-fi/comedy and aren't feeling too critical, you should enjoy this. But don't expect to be thinking about it a few days later.

6/10

'Monsoon Wedding' is indeed about a wedding, an arranged marriage for Aditi, the daughter of the middle-class Vedha family of New Delhi, and what happens to them and all the many other people involved in the festivities. You are immediately thrown into their world: noisy, chaotic and an fascinating mixture of Indian traditions and Western affluence. Cellphones and fast cars mix with saris and rickshaws, people effortlessly switch between Hindi and English, the groom is a computer programmer from Houston, the barman is from Melbourne. It's a refreshing look at cosmopolitan modern India, which I tended to either associate with ancient monuments or crowded slums.

The planning is an frantic, organised mess, as I imagine preparing for most weddings it. Still, things seem to be going well: there is so much laughter, music and colour it is almost impossible not to get dragged into the joy of the occasion. But there are unpleasant secrets beneath the surface. The father is struggling to finance the wedding. The bride is having an affair with a married man. And darker things. The film is full of such contrasts: women delightfully singing a love-song while a lonely servant cleans up, young people flirting while a woman remembers the old terrors, filth lying in city alleys while above the sun sets on the skyline of rose and gold. It is a heady, exuberant mixture of comedy and romance that sometimes threatens to become a tragedy.

There is nothing clever about the plot, indeed it could easily have become corny if it was not for the excellence of the acting and the quality of the production. Nothing is overplayed. We feel like we are looking into a real world with real people. 'Monsoon Wedding' is rich in emotion and spectacle, a vibrant and touching film. And, without being explicit, it is also very, very sensuous. You will not regret taking someone you care about to see it.

8/10

Why are screwed-up families funny? Is it because we like to see social conventions, like the ones that state that normal families are made up of people who are nice to each other, turned on their heads? Or do we feel better about our own lives when we see misfits and malcontents on screen? Whatever the case, some excellent films and tv shows have been based on dysfunctional but likeable families. This is another one.

Like 'Amelie', the other great comedy of recent times, 'The Royal Tenenbaums' begins with a deadpan narrator telling us of a series of bizzare, horrible and blackly funny events, as the film sets up its characters by showing us their past. In 1979 Royal Tenenbaum was kicked out of the house by his wife when their three kids were young, because, as Royal admits, 'I've always been considered an asshole'. There's no malice about it, it's just part of his nature. This is a man who always introduced his adopted daughter Margot as 'my adopted daughter Margot', who shot his 7 year old son Chas with a BB gun, who ignored this family for over 20 years then fakes a terminal illness to get back with them. In his abscence the Tenenbaums became prodigies: Chas a teen financial wizard, Margot an award-winning playwright at 14, Richie a tennis champion. Now they're all lonely and miserable, along with almost everyone close to them. Royal arrives to try and be a father and pep them up, as well as get a place to live, because he's broke.

It sounds depressing, but it's not. There's a sympathy and charm to this tale, and a delightfully odd sense of humour, all heightened by the well-chosen soundtrack. The cast is amazing: Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller (NOT playing an idiotic loser for once), Owen Wilson and his brother Luke, Bill Murray, Danny Glover, and they're given roles that allow them to become characters who are unusual in cinema: actually unique and interesting people. There's not a dull character in this film, and because of that we care what happens to them. The slow pace and sense of humour will not be enjoyed by everyone, and some will want something more decisive, but I grinned all the way through.

8/10

Heavily influenced by Guy Richie's 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels', with a similar plot (a few likeable lads get in over their heads with colourful local gangsters), style (slow-motion and other camera tricks, dark humour, some sexy violence) and setting (the seedier side a big city, particularly lots of bars), this is an enjoyable if shallow piece of pulp film. Like most Kiwi films some of the acting leaves a bit to be desired, none of the characters are particularly deep, you won't learn any higher truths or even move your intellect out of second gear, but it is good fun, particularly if you enjoy a bit of pool. Wait for the entrance of 'The Men In Black': it's the movie's best scene.

6/10