New trailer: Invictus

Mostly i don't mention new trailer's in the trailer bar (see right) at the moment because of all the screening posts but as this is Invictus - a film with the heady, awards baiting pedigree of director Clint Eastwood directing Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and throwing Matt Damon into the mix - this one has to be highlighted. It always sounded destined to be an awards season player and this trailer does nothing to contradict such assumptions.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/invictus/

Latest screening: A Serious Man

Ah, God bless the Coens. After No Country For Old Men and Burn After Reading they continue their stunning role in such style it is easy to imagine that The Ladykillers was merely a bad dream!

A Serious Man is at once hilarious, touching, intriguing and confounding – everything the brothers do so well.

After a funny, Yiddish-language parable shot in a different aspect ratio which opens the movie like a Pixar short film – connective to the main film but not really directly related – we launch into the story of college professor Larry (the excellent Michael Stuhlbarg).

Larry is a vintage Coen character. Like a 1960s, lead character version of Steve Buscemi’s Donnie character in The Big Lebowski. He is a somewhat hapless, put-upon character. A character going through life minding his own business who would happily avoid conflict or difficulty at every turn, but whom, like a cat to the allergic, conflict and difficulty is inexorably drawn. Problems beyond his control arise in just about every possible aspect of his life and he greats each one as best he can, while displaying the accumulating weight of this world on his shoulders.

Stuhlbarg is fantastic. As the film heaps more and more bad luck and misfortune on him you can see the despair in his eyes, the weight on his soul. You feel that sense of how close he could teeter on the brink of a breakdown, just hanging on as best he can, struggling for meaning in world that offers none. He is fair-minded, just, honest, hard-working, caring, practical, yet nothing he seems to do helps. The sense of his being overwhelmed grows so naturally that it is hard to believe more is not being verbalized, so clear is Stuhlbarg’s internal feeling.

But this is not a depressing film and it is not one of the Coen’s straight, more serious films. Tonally it probably has most in common with Barton Fink, but it is much funnier. A series of meetings with various Rabbis are highlights, especially the second which contains the relating of a story so brilliantly Coen in both imagination and delivery of dialogue that you kind of know how the joke is going to work but you’re enjoying getting there and so happy when it does.

It is very much Stuhlbarg’s film. Beyond Larry the world is the character. It is the Coens world, but also cinematographer Roger Deakins’ world. After skipping out on Burn After Reading Deakins is back with the Coens where he belongs and the world of A Serious Man is typically beautiful. Deakins has done period, suburban beauty with the Coens before in The Man Who Wasn’t There, but here he can also add a colour palette and the result is stunning visual that belie the unflashy setting.

Carter Burwell’s score is also deceptively well judged, to the point you almost forget it’s there but it resonates beyond the film. It’s no Fargo score, which really plays well divorced from image on CD, but it is another crucial part that makes the Coen world seem whole.

The best decision here though was to abandon their regular stock company, not just the “star” names like George Clooney but also the regular character actors like Steve Buscemi, Jon Polito, Frances McDormand, John Turturro, John Goodman, Peter Stormare, Michael Badalucco, etc. About the most recognizable name in the movie is Richard Kind (at least recognizable to fans of the Michael J Fox sitcom Spin City) and Barton Fink’s Michael Lerner does turn up ever so briefly. But Lerner’s brief appearance almost feels like it serves to say, “no, this is not one for the regulars”!

Stuhlbarg is so convincing in the lead, and seems so suited to the Coens world (much like Billy Bob Thornton stepped so easily into the barbers shoes of Man Who Wasn’t There) that while this film doesn’t feature the Coen regulars it did leave me hoping Stuhlbarg becomes one of them.

Some will no doubt find the conclusion frustrating but it feels like the end the film deserves. The Coens have never strived to make a ‘Hollywood’ happy fit movie, they have consistently shown Hollywood what can be done.

A Coen film is also a must see but A Serious Man does not disappoint. It is certainly one of the highlights of the year so far and, given the Coens heightened awards profile post No Country, should at the very least garner strong awards attention for Stuhlbarg if not for the brothers and their behind camera colleagues.

Latest screening: Bright Star

I love the score to The Piano. I’m stating that upfront because it’s about the only positive thing I’ve ever been able to say about a Jane Campion movie. I haven’t seen An Angel At My Table but I hated The Piano, Holy Smoke, The Portrait Of A Lady and In The Cut so you’ll forgive me for not seeking it out.

It was therefore with trepidation that I went to see Campion’s latest Bright Star, but I have heard good things about the stars and familiarity with both Ben Whishaw (significantly Perfume) and Abbie Cornish’s (most notably the powerful Candy) previous work compelled me to give it a chance.

I can say it is Campion’s best work. I can say I liked it more than any of her previous films. I cannot day I liked it. I didn’t.

Bright Star is a typically overwrought, tedious, unconvincing, tiring Campion movie. That this is based on the real, tragic love story of one of the world’s most celebrated romantic poets makes Campion’s talent for wringing all the tedium she can from a subject (see Portrait Of A Lady) all the more impressive. The leads fail to engage on any level. Fanny Brawne (Cornish) is unlikeable, self-absorbed and arrogant. Whishaw’s Keats is irritatingly pathetic. Perhaps these are accurate portrayals but they feel more like a modern idea of what they might have been like and so, even if they are accurate, the film has failed to convey a realism to them.

Where recently lead performances in films like An Education, A Single Man, A Serious Man and Precious, and even bigger more action oriented films like The Hurt Locker and even District 9(!), have seemed entirely authentic those of Bright Star always feel Acted, and yes the capital A is intentional!

That is not to say Cornish and Whishaw don’t try their best, and Whishaw pretty much gets away with it, but they are poorly served by a director who couldn’t stage drama in the middle of the war zone! I just didn’t care about these characters. In fact I’ll further than that, as Fanny is the lead character here you should engage with her, care for her, want her to get what she wants, sympathize when things go awry. Her emotional arch should be yours. In Campion’s inept hands I found myself not only not caring what happened to her but actually happy that such a self-obsessed, silly childish girl saw her “love” end in tragedy.

Part of the problem is that there is zero chemistry between Whishaw and Cornish. In the depressing quagmire that is a Jane Campion movie perhaps chemistry cannot exist, surely any spark would quickly be dampened, but this is supposed to be the love that inspired Keats to some of the greatest romantic poems ever written. This is a real life tragic love story that should lend itself to the emotional rollercoaster that a movie can deliver. It should be heartbreaking, I just found myself happy when the tragic events came about as I knew it was finally nearly over!

I also don’t get all the praise for Cornish. She was fine, doing the best she could, but was all wrong for the part. There are some actors that can play in costume drama convincingly (I hesitate to praise Keira Knightley in any way but she does have a natural look for it) and those that work in any period, modern or old (Kate Winslet, Natalie Portman, Kelly Reilly, Romola Garai, Rosamund Pike). Then there are actresses that are simply too modern looking to convincingly fit in costume dramas, such as Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway or Scarlett Johansson. Cornish is sadly one of the latter group. From the first instant she seems like a 21st century girl playing dress up (not helped by the sometimes so “TV Costume Drama” costumes that even Roman Polanski’s Oliver Twist looks convincing). Again Whishaw is aided by his look, he just fits in this world, but Cornish doesn’t.

Equally problematic is she has a distinctly antipodean look. Some people, many people, have an inescapable appearance that makes you know their nationality without them uttering a word. It’s a game you can play down the pub, and it’s all too easy sometimes. It’s no fault of their own and there’s nothing they can do about it. Michael Caine never works as American because (regardless of shakey accents – even his Oscar-winning one for Cider House Rules) he is inescapably British. Keira Knightley has the same problem. You couldn’t cast Thomas Haden Church as British, or Brendan Gleeson as French, or Penelope Cruz as Australian, or Sean Connery as Spanish (wait, hang on a minute – no, Highlander just proves my point!). Cornish looks Australian, it’s that simple. This is a big problem when she has to convince as a 19th century English woman! As a result she doesn’t.

A saving grace is the excellent Paul Schneider as Keats’ suspicious and cynical, but well-meaning friend Charles Brown. Schneider is utterly convincing and the scenes between he and Whishaw are highlight of the film. For me Schneider was the only performance I walked away knowing would remain with me come nomination selection time, but Whishaw may make it depending on competition. Cornish is a no go for me, as it the film as a whole, but no doubt given the British obsession with costume drama it will make a good showing at BAFTA regardless. It was at least nice to see the BIFAs not prostrate at Bright Star’s feet.

It Best Actress terms the beautifully played, naturalistic performances of both Gabourey Sidibe in Precious and Carey Mulligan in An Education run rings around Cornish and it would be a massive injustice if she beat either.

Campion is still zero for 5 in my book.

Latest screening: A Prophet (Un Prophete)

It seems to me that Jacques Audiard just gets better and better as a filmmaker and his latest film A Prophet (Un Prophete) is an assured, powerful work that resonates with you well after you finish watching it.

It the distributor gets their act together on screeners for this one A Prophet could be one of those films that breaks out of the limiting ‘Best Film Not in the English Language’ category at the BAFTA Film Awards and easily find itself with thoroughly deserved best actor and supporting actor nominations.

Tahar Rahim is superb as the lead, a character so real it’s like watching a nature documentary, you want to get in there and help him. Set in a prison this is no Shawshank Redemption although it is curiously uplifting in a strange way! Rahim takes his character from outcast, frightened newbie; to put upon weakling, subservient dogsbody; to crafty go-getter; to self-assured player – and all completely naturally. It is as impressive a performance as I’ve seen this year and deserves to stand along side the more typical English-language performances come awards time. At BAFTA at least he should have a shot.

Niels Arestrup, familiar to Audiard fans as the father in the BAFTA winning The Beat That My Heart Skipped (De Battre Mon Coeur S’est Arrete), is almost as impressive as the prison heavy, who rules by respect, control and fear, and when called for, violence. Arestrup is the Paul Sorvino Goodfellas character, the gang leader who seems in control and all powerful but deep down is as insecure as everyone else – well aware that not only is he a target for enemies but for ambitious underlings, and that his power is only as strong as his ties to those he controls. Arestrup says so much with just a look here.

A Prophet is Audiard’s best work to date and certainly among the best foreign language films this year, and arguably the best films full stop. The story may not be the most original, often going in directions you imagine it will, but it always feels right, organic, that it should. The prison setting is a familiar one for film goers but it is rarely handled in such a natural way, superbly balancing a sense of honesty, of how such a life would really be, with genuine, driving drama. True life prison story can often be honest but inert. Fiction can be dramatic, uplifting, moving but seldom feels realistic. A Prophet manages in large part to do both.

A truly impressive film.

Along with the Mesrine movies the French have set a high bar this year.

Latest screening: An Education

To those of us who have been steadily tracking Carey Mulligan’s career for several years from her small but key, eye-catching supporting role in the BBC’s Bleak House, to a star-making turn in a one-off episode of Doctor Who title Blink (the best Who episode of the modern series) to a blink-and-you’d miss her scene in And When Did You Last See Your Father? right up to a small role in this summer’s Public Enemies as John Dillinger’s wife it comes as no surprise that in her first lead film role she delivers a stunning, assured performance.

For all the good qualities of Lone Scherfig’s An Education, and there are many, it would be nothing without the luminous, brilliant Mulligan at its centre. If her revelatory guest role in Doctor Who was key in catching eyes in Britain then this is her calling card for Hollywood, and given her upcoming projects is surely already proving so. Mulligan is simply sensational here in the role of 16/17 year old Jenny, a high-flying school-girl and Oxford hopeful who gets swept up by the charm and high-living lifestyle of an older man, who her parents are equally taken with, in the early 1960s.

Her performance is so real that you don’t see a false edge. The character doesn’t feel acted but lived, she so embodies the role. You never doubt the character and that is impressive as this is a character that could so easily have come off false. Jenny is at once, incredibly intelligent, self-assured and seemingly wise, yet insecure and unknowingly naïve. She is too young to be an adult but too smart to be seen as a child. As a girl teetering on the brink of womanhood it is simply one of the best and most believable portrayals I’ve seen. She is assured of a BAFTA nomination for actress and should bag an Oscar one too unless there’s a fix going on.

She is ably supported by Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour as her parents. The three have such a genuine rapport together that they feel like a real family. Molina is excellent and deserves supporting attention come awards season. As a conflicted man living in a time on the verge of great change, but from a generation set to be slightly behind the times he is utterly convincing. Molina is a consummate actor but I’m not sure he has ever been as good as here.

Peter Sarsgaard has the tricky role of having to appear both slightly sinister and yet charming and likeable, and manages to pull it off. He can feel a little stilted at times, and I wondered if it he having to get to grips with the accent, but it could easily be read as part of the period setting. That said, it doesn’t play as well alongside the naturalism of Mulligan and Molina.

Cara Seymour compliments Mulligan and Molina as the third point in their failial triangle, and merely on a visual level is smart casting for Mulligan’s mother. Dominic Cooper seems a little unsure of his role in early stages but finds his footing, while the Oxford educated Rosamund Pike enjoys sending up Oxford students and playing an archetypal ditzy blonde – vacant looks abound to great comic effect.

Nick Hornby’s script is as funny, heartfelt and knowing as you would expect from the man responsible for books like High Fidelity, How To Be Good and About A Boy. Here he has found genuine voices for his characters and created a completely convincing world, whether at school, at home or out on the town. The film rushes a little at the end but on the whole the measure of how the script handles each incident and plot point is well paced and smartly thought out.

Scherfig of course deserves praise for realizing these elements on the big screen as well, though I suspect Mulligan and Hornby’s script will be the focus of awards season attention for this film, though a lot depends on the year’s other offerings.

An Education is superbly crafted on every level and as a complete film stands with A Single Man this year as leagues ahead of anything English-language that was on offer in the last awards season.

Smart, funny and genuine a movie as you’ll find this year replete with awards worthy performances, including a star-making turn from Carey Mulligan, you’d be a fool to pass up An Education.

Latest screening: Up In The Air

It’s starting to seem like every other George Clooney film brings with it a tag of George’s best performance yet. Intermixed with fun, goofy roles like in Burn After Reading and, from the looks of it, the upcoming Men Who Stare At Goats, we’ve had Syriana, Michael Clayton and now Up In The Air.

Up In The Air is not as serious as those other two but it is not goofy either. It is funny, very funny, but perhaps is Clooney’s most human performance.

Much of this can, no doubt, be credited to writer/director Jason Reitman. With Thank You For Smoking, Juno and now this he has shown a trend for mixing humour, both subtle and caustic, with heart and emotion without sentimentalising his character and descending into schmaltz. It is a fine line to tread and if anything Reitman is only getting better at it.

Up In The Air is a well judged look at the relationships in the life a guy who thinks he needs none. His relationship to his job, his “hobby”, his colleagues, his potential nemesis, his family, his lover, all come into the mix as we follow him as he flies around the US building up his air miles toward a dream goal and doing his day job – firing people for companies who don’t want to do their on dirty work.

This too is well handled. Reitman could have brought the more cynical and satirical edges he did particularly in Thank You For Smoking (and they do occasionally pop up, George one-liner following the revelation of how a boyfriend broke up with another character is the zinger of the year and evoked a massive audience reaction) but in a time when job loss and economic misery are effecting so many Reitman uses real people, mixed with an occasional actor (such as the ever reliable JK Simmons) to make you feel what they are going through. While doing this he also manages to make a likeable character out of the completely self-absorbed Ryan Bingham (Clooney) despite his job description. This alone would be an impressive feat.

This is almost a Frank Capra movie. Except this is a Frank Capra movie with edge. Ryan Bingham is no Mr Deeds or Mr Smith, an instantly sympathetic, loveable character. Bingham is kind of an ass but this is his story and you’ll be routing for him.

Clooney, as said, has rarely been better and Vera Farmiga gives sterling support as his literally fly-by-night lover. Danny McBride, Amy Morton and Melanie Lynskey are all solid in small roles, and Jason Bateman likewise has little to do. The real stand-out in support though is Anna Kendrick. It’s a tricky role that could easily come off whiny and irritating, or calculating and bitchy, etc but Kendrick takes an again not wholly likeable character and invests her with such vulnerability and well-meaning naivety that she wins you over. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a supporting actress nomination headed her way amongst several possible nods for this highly enjoyable and well judged film.

Latest screening: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr Fox may not quite be fantastic but I’d happily say terrific. A fun stop-motion animation the world works here. Some people may have issue in a CG animation world with the stop-motion, which especially due to the fur look compared with smooth plasticine takes a little more getting used to than say Corpse Bride or Coraline, but then you can judge that from the trailer.

The voice-cast is well chosen. George Clooney (especially busy at the moment) has the exact mix of charm, intelligence and brio for Mr Fox; Meryl Streep (is there anything this woman can’t do?) is perfect for the exasperated, but still in love, Mrs Fox; Jason Schwartzman is the best here as the unsure of himself and always taken for granted son of the Foxes; Eric Anderson (Wes’ brother) fits the bill for the perfect-at-everything cousin Kristofferson, that gets on Schwartzman’s nerves; Bill Murray is a nice fit for the sometimes over-eager Badger; and Wally Wolodarsky is superb as the well-meaning Kiley (sic) who just wants to do whatever he can to help.

The story moves along at a cracking swift pace, never letting up. It slows a little about half way through but is just gearing up for the dynamite finale. Crazy world interludes of the characters taking dance breaks in key locations after outfoxing their opponents add a nicely surreal touch.

Anderson very much creates a world here. How much you enjoy the film will basically depend on how much you buy into and enjoy the world. If you embrace it whole-heartedly it has much to offer. It is constantly funny, often exciting, occasionally bizarre and never less than entertaining.

The puppets look great, especially Badger and Mole to my eye and the film is full of small details that will no doubt multiply the more you watch the film. Inconsequential details are often some of the best touches. Badger’s son for instance is seen wearing a skeleton Halloween costume which, of course, blends in brilliantly with his natural colours, complete with mask over one ear. These little touches add so much to the world to really absorb you and take you on this adventure.

It’s over so fast (87 minutes) you’ll want to go again, like the best amusement park rides. A welcome all-round success after the so-so Darjeeling Limited. A great alternative for this year’s animation category, I hope it makes it. Although with film’s like Up and Coraline there’s stiff competition.

Latest screening: Away We Go

Sam Mendes' latest is a change in size, scope and style for the filmmaker but not a wholly successful one. You can see his thinking here. After the detailed, complex characters, settings and worlds of Road To Perdition, Jarhead and Revolutionary Road he would get back to a smaller, easier world - a contemporary story of two thirtysomethings trying to find their place in the world. Smaller than any film Mendes has done, including American Beauty, it is his "indie" film after the large scale studio films he's been making in the past decade.

Unfortunately it feels as if his approach was "let's make an indie film". It is as if he watched a whole series of recent, successful and/or popular independent American movies (like Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, About Schmidt, Sideways, Me & You & Everyone We Know, etc) and made notes. He took from these films that he needed slightly offbeat central characters, lost in a giant world but making their way; he needed a supporting cast if infinitely quirkier characters to make our offbeat leads seem more normal and closer to ourselves, while providing outrageous comedy; preferably he needed a road trip! You get the sense a wrote a list if US indie film plot points (cliches?) and ticked them all off as he went along.

The film is not wholly unsuccessful. The central characters, played by Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski, and indeed charming and largely likeable. Any scene with the two of them alone together works, and this, naturally, helps a great deal. Many of the supporting actors are also good, whether their characters work or not. Jeff Daniels and Catherine O'Hara are great as Krasinski's self-absorbed parents; Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey are solid as the most normal and believable of the couple's old friends/acquaintances met along the way; Maggie Gyllenhaal truly inhabits her character, even if the character does the film a disservice.

The Gyllenhaal character, a new age mum who believes you shouldn't put a child in a stroller because of the negative energy given off by the act of pushing them away, and various such mildly humourous clap-trap, is a typical US indie film cliche of a character. She's never believeable as a character because you know she exists solely for the comedic possibility of mocking her extreme views. It does lead to the film's funniest scene, involving the stroller liberation of Gyllenhaal's boy, ut is it worth it. Not least because Krasinski's character may be appalled by her views but in taking the action he does he seeks not to protect himself and his family from these views and rebuff them he actively attempts to sabotage the relationship (however kooky it seems) between his supposed best friend and her child. It may be funny but it doesn't fit his character. It might have fit Rudolph's but as Gyllenhaal is Krasinski's friend the moment is given to him. Funny in the moment, but on reflection it hurts the film - and it all stems for the original decision to make Gyllanhaal's character to extreme and unbelievable.

And Gyllanhaal isn't the only one. Allison Janney is awfully contrived here. I love Janney. I loved her in The West Wing, but i already loved her in a plethora of pre-West Wing roles such as the English teacher in 10 Things I Hate About You. Her over-the-top character here is very very similar to that of 10 Things but whereas in 10 Things it fit in the Shakespearean world of extreme action it just doesn't feel organic here.

Away We Go is not without its laughs and certainly the central characters journey is enjoyable enough to follow them on, but you never become invested, you never really care!

Ultimately this is a xerox of so many other films that as with all copies the quality lessens. A solidly average, Sunday afternoon type of film but not one worth prioritising over so many other, more worthy films this awards season.

Latest screening: A Single Man

Well, we have an early contender – certainly for Best Actor (Colin Firth) and Best Supporting Actress (Julianne Moore – who was robbed in the Best Actress category for Far From Heaven in 2002) – but arguably also for Film and Director.

A Single Man is one of the most assured debuts I can recall.

A beautiful film in every sense there are a few moments early on when the fact it is a film by fashion designer Tom Ford leave your mind getting in the way. One or two moments elicit an expectancy for a product logo to appear, but these are quickly thrown aside as you get drawn into the story.

The screenplay, co-written by Ford, is timed to perfection. The pace is quick yet allows for easy entry. Nothing about the world is covert and hidden yet neither is it in-your-face and confrontational. Each of the three leads, Firth, Moore and About A Boy’s Nicholas Hoult is given a fully rounded character regardless of screen time, because you can feel the unsaid underneath and each gets their own arc, without the story ever feeling like there is too much going on in its fairly short (99mins) running time.

The direction is highly stylised but it never gets in the way, always serving the story. It will be interesting to see if Ford can change the style down a gear when tackling other stories in future but here he has the balance right. It is easy to focus on the style in the early stages because of fore-knowledge but this is a film that just gets better as you watch.

It helps that is served by a faultless cast. It is interesting that Ford has chosen Brits Hoult, Matthew Goode and Lee Pace to play Americans and American Moore to play a Brit but it works and as most people won’t know (except for Moore) the nationalities of the cast the illusion will never be broken – you wouldn’t suspect.

Firth has simply never been so good. If every actor has one perfect, flawless role for them out there then Firth has found his here.

After a few years of noble efforts and oddities Moore reminds us that she really is one of the best American actresses working. This rivals Far From Heaven, while perhaps not quite matching it only because it is very much a supporting role. But if this isn’t the role that finally bags Moore a long overdue Oscar then there’s a phenomenal performance hiding out there somewhere because Moore ought to be a shoe-in.

There best summary is simply that A Single Man is a beautiful film – beautiful in tone; in intention; in acting; in realisation. If Ford can repeat the quality of this debut in future film projects people will be wishing he’d been doing this all along.

Latest screening: Up

Some day Pixar will make a terrible, terrible film and it will signal Armageddon but with Up the most consistently excellent studio has turned out another masterpiece. And masterpiece is the only word. Pixar have their lesser films, most notably the resolutely 3-star or 7/10 ish Cars and A Bug’s Life, but most of the time they bat out of the park. And that’s what they’ve done here. A 10/10, 5-star movie Up continues another superb run from the studio which follows Ratatouille and WALL-E.

I have now seen Up 3 times (all, appropriately, in 3D) and it just gets better each time. At various moments hilarious, touching, delightful, heart-breaking and beautiful it is a triumph for director Pete Docter and his team.

The film opens with a beautifully realised prologue that charts the life of our grumpy old man lead character Carl. One film on from WALL-E Pixar again proves the power of a dialogue free story. This segment takes you through emotional, funny highs and sad lows in a way that in itself would have made an Oscar-winning short film with ease. Ten minutes in you are already drained but Up won’t let you wallow as it is then immediately into a great visual gag involving a stair-lift.

Then we get to the real story which sees our hero Carl determined to avoid a fate forced on him by an evil politically-correct world with no heart or understanding by following his life-long dream to travel to ‘Paradise Falls’, an idealic lost-world in South America. As you’d have to have your head in the sand not to know he decides to achieve this by flying his house with the help of thousands of helium-filled balloons, which he used to sell at an adventure park.

He’s joined on his journey by surprise unintentional stow-away Russell, an idealistic wilderness explorer; and later Kevin, a giant bird of paradise; and Dug a “talking dog!” as they all come up against and get on the bad side of Christopher Plummer’s stir crazy villain and his pack of highly-trained dogs.

The genius of Pixar is evident at every turn. As a comedy it is the studio’s funniest since Docter’s debut Monsters, Inc. It has the heart and emotional impact of WALL-E. It works completely as an adventure story like The Incredibles, with genuine excitement and edge-of-your-seat thrills, always perfectly punctured by a well judged gag, whether visual or verbal.

The introductions to all three supporting characters are organic and expertly handled, whether Russell’s nervous excitement; Kevin’s mystery; or Dug’s easy joke. All 4 leads get to share the laughs and emotion equally.

Dug’s talking is well conceived and the insight into the canine mind seems spot on. Russell manages never to be irritating and Carl is never too cantankerous. All feel like real characters, and that makes it all the more intriguing, and yet right, that they’ve opted for a very cartoonish look. Up goes for no realism in the look, especially for Carl. After WALL-E’s beautiful imagery that belied its animated creation, Up is overtly cartoonish. Carl is basically square. His head is huge, his body short. One scene which sees Russell climb up Carl highlights this – Carl’s nose is the same size as Russell’s foot. Yet this is absolutely the right approach for Up. It is a film about an old man flying a house with balloons in search of a mythical land, realism is not what it’s about.

The 3D is also used better than any film has ever used it. Docter plays with the depth of the 3D, deepening it in moments of glorious joy and high excitement to add to the adrenaline; and then flattening it to the point of being able to take the glasses off and watch normally in moments of sadness and intimacy.

As usual Pixar shows the rest of the field how it should be done and if they don’t add a third consecutive Best Animated Feature Oscar to their mantle then the Oscars should simply be closed down for either corruption or stupidity.

As a last quick side note, the accompanying short Partly Cloudy is one of the most complementary put out with a Pixar feature. Again mixing humour with emotion in what is again basically a silent film. Bravo all round. If only all film’s could be Pixar films! (speaking of which check out the trailer for next summer’s Toy Story 3 on the trailer bar on the right).

Latest screening: Zombieland

Simply one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen this year Zombieland is a must-see. From the moment Woody Harrelson’s credit comes up (when was the last time Harrelson got above-the-title top-billing and the movie got a theatrical release?) to the end credits you’ll have a heap of fun.

The film is far better than it has any right to be, and is no doubt aided by a lack of expectations. I went in thinking it would be a US Shaun Of The Dead rip-off, likely missing the mark at least as often, if not more, than it hit.

But no this is a fast, funny, hugely entertaining romp.

Harrelson reminds you of the charisma and easy laid-back charm that made him a star in Cheers and early hit movies like White Men Can’t Jump. Since the mid-90s he has seemingly become a caricature of himself and rarely impressed. He’s tried to break his curse with different roles like in Paul Schrader’s under-seen but still ultimately unsatisfying The Walker and an occasionally genuinely good role – his brief turn in the Coens’ No Country For Old Men unfortunately lost amongst a glut of stunning lead performances. Here he shines, playing with the persona he’s now known. You simply can’t believe he’s not a bigger star.

Jesse Eisenberg delivers a likeable twitchy Michael Cera-type character but whereas Cera is always one-note and overly mannered Eisenberg strikes the right balance of geeky loser and struggling everyman, proving a great foil and companion for Harrelson’s testerone-fuelled meat-head with a heart.

Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin also make a great pair as sisters who come into contact with Harrelson and Eisenberg. The group has a fun dynamic, each bringing something very different to the table for an entertaining whole.

And the cameo in this is awesome, just freakin’ awesome. If you don’t know who it is I won’t give it away but every moment this person is on screen is gold. Hands down the best use of a cameo star in a movie in a decade, probably more. The star’s response to an “any regrets?” line is everything a fan could want. Kudos to the actor and the filmmakers for this one.

At 80 minutes the movie flies by and if you have a more consistently entertaining 80 minutes in the cinema this year then I suspect you’ll be ejected for lewd conduct!

Go see it!

Latest screening: The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

Like so many of Terry Gilliam’s films The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is one that is going to need multiple viewings to truly form an opinion on. Like Brazil, Adventures Of Baron Munchausen, Fisher King, Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas and Tideland (even Time Bandits really) there is so much going on here that expectations or reputations get in the way and make it hard to digest and appreciate on a single viewing. No bad thing necessarily.

Of course Parnassus has the particularly insurmountable problem of being the late Heath Ledger’s final performance and following on from his superb, Oscar-winning turn in The Dark Knight. It is impossible to see the film through eyes that don’t see it as the film he died making. Some parts of the film may perhaps work even better than they may of done had he lived – some of the best films are triumphs over adversity and adverse conditions don’t come much greater than your star dying mid-shoot. But whatever works and doesn’t in the film it is hard – impossible on a first viewing – to divorce yourself from the knowledge you bring into the theatre.

On first feeling Parnassus seems patchy, and curiously it feels like a film that may not have worked as well as it does had nothing happened to Ledger. Don’t get me wrong I’d rather have a Gilliam failure and Ledger still alive to put it behind him and move on than a wonderful film that is largely the result of his tragic death. But we don’t have that so I’m just looking at what’s there.

The fact is the film is at it’s best when galloping around the fantastical worlds of the Imaginarium, with Ledger’s character Tony now played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. Depp and Farrell are particularly good and imbue the film with an energy lacking in much of it.

The casting generally is good. Christopher Plummer is steadfast excellence as always. Lily Cole is a surprisingly strong choice. I’ve never understood the viewpoint of Cole as “sooooooo beautiful” that the gossip sheets and magazines espouse but she has a quirky intrigue that works wonders in a Gilliam world and proves herself as an actress amongst a proven group of impressive performers. Hers is probably the best debut performance I can recall of a model or singer turning to acting. She puts a lot of professional actresses (no Keiras named!) to shame.

Andrew Garfield is that intriguing mix of annoying and brilliant. Like DiCaprio in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? I started out thinking he was terrible and then grew to realise it was just that I hated him, his character. He annoyed the hell out of me. In another words he had inhabited the character so fully, so convincingly that my negative feelings toward him where directed at the fictional character. A superb performance.

Tom Waits steals moments constantly. Waits hasn’t been given such a juicy role that fit him better since Renfield in Coppola’s Dracula and he revels as Dr Nick (the devil) here.

Oddly the performance that, again I specify on first viewing, leaves you a bit underwhelmed is Ledgers. It is not a bad performance but the expectations as you go in, knowing it was his last performance, means you expect something special. Brokeback Mountain/Dark Knight special. But of course not every role is as powerful as his in Brokeback or as scene-stealing as the Joker. I mean he didn’t know it was his last performance for crying out loud. Therefore it cannot possibly live up to expectations and is destined to underwhelm until multiple viewings and some distance allow it to be judged fairly. That there was such a fully formed character there that three other actors could step in to play alternate universe versions of it entirely convincingly is arguably a testament to how strong a performance Ledger did give. It is not a likeable character or a flashy character (it doesn’t even really seem the main character until the alternate worlds with the alternate Tonys come in) and so Ledger’s understated subtleties are easy to miss.

When you watch Fisher King the first time you remember Robin Williams, not Jeff Bridges. In Twelve Monkeys it’s Brad Pitt that comes away with you not Bruce Willis. And yet on further viewings Bridges’ performance seems superb, Willis’ perhaps the best of his career. I suspect on repeated viewings I’m going to see the strength of Ledger’s performance better. I hope so.

And of course this is a problem much of the film has. Gilliam doesn’t make simple, overly explained films for the masses – thank Gilliam – you have to work with them. The problem here is that with your mind distracted with thoughts of Ledger and expectations built on that promise of Gilliam at his creative best, three step-in performances and Ledger’s final performance it’s hard to get your mind around the story and enjoy it as a piece of work.

Sometimes Gilliam films work, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they get better and better on repeat viewings (Brazil); sometimes they work instantly (Twelve Monkeys); sometimes they seem to work but the more you see them or think about them they crumble and ultimately don’t (Brothers Grimm). Sometimes they just seem to be a mix of great ideas, wonderful performances and ingenius set pieces but hampered by an overabundance of theatricality and almost too much going on for its own good (Baron Munchausen). On a first viewing Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus feels like this latter. Bits work, bits don’t. It’s enjoyable in places but perplexing ultimately.

I will definitely revisit it though to see if changes on repeat viewings. I feel sure it will, but whether that’s a good or bad thing, well, I’ll have to wait and see. I do advise seeing it at least once on the big screen though because the visuals here are a treat.

Latest screening: Fame

I have to bring down the axe on this one.

There was a great line in Edward Porter’s review of the new Fame in the Sunday Times that said something along the lines of “Remember their names? I can barely remember their faces!”

This essential sums up all that is wrong with the new Fame movie. There is nothing memorable about it.

You would think that when making a film about a group of dramatic arts and music students you would seek out the most talented unknowns out their. There must be dozens of them surely. Which makes you wonder how on Earth they finished up with this bunch of no-hopers! There is only one kid with any discernible talent, the pianist-turned-singer who has a teen Jennifer Hudson vibe, amongst the young cast. The rest is filled with lousy singers, uninspired dancers and wooden actors.

It does serve to make the underused teaching staff (Kelsey Grammer, Megan Mullahy, Bebe Neuwirth, Charles S Dutton) stand out more but I doubt that was an intention. In fact the script and direction goes out of its way to underserve these actors. Mullahy is given a terrible song to sing at a karaoke bar which does nothing to serve her natural singing talent, serving instead to make her sound shrill. It does perhaps show why her character did not make it as a successful singer and is just a teacher but that would be giving the director far too much credit I suspect and, besides, just not explain the awed gawping of the students. Grammer crops up in this scene out of nowhere making you think he was maybe just shoved in to give him more screen time. While Dutton has an hilarious storyline where one “troubled” student is telling a story and, in the timeline of the movie, it takes Dutton 2 years to ask the logical response question. What have these guys been doing for 2 years?!

And that brings me to the script which has two huge problems. The first is the timeline. The film follows the students over 3 years at the school, but does so so swiftly that it allows no time for growth. Most of the scenes follow in an ordered logic that would work just as well in a film that spanned a single week as 3 whole years. There is no growth. From one year to the next none of the characters appear to have developed, to have learnt a single thing. Those that are morose and troubled in year one are the same in year three. Naïve on day one? Yup, naïve on graduation. And this equally serves to kill any possible chance of rooting for a character to succeed. You don’t see characters getting better. Suddenly you are just jumped to another year and lo and behold someone quitting because they have an acting or dancing gig and you not only wonder “how did that happen?” but “who is that anyway?” The script does such a poor job of setting the characters up that often a characters “big moment” seems to be their only moment, leaving the audience shrugging and looking at their watches.

The other problem is the phenomenal lack of tension and drama. There seriously is none. It appears to be a phenomenon in Hollywood films I’m noticing more and more that they are so determined to hit all bases and offend absolutely no one that there is an almost comical lack of drama. The recent “thriller” Obsessed was this way. It had zero thrills. Fame is the same and hint as possible drama through unhappy parents or disappointments is so instantly resolved that no tension had built. A scene with one character possibly suicidal I was audibly rooting for the guy to kill himself just to give the film some sort of drama, an element of edge, a moment of guts, but no. Nothing. The closest thing you get to anticipation watching Fame (2009) is hoping it may at some point actually have something to anticipate!

This is probably partly the problem with hiring a choreographer to direct the movie. A good director (like the original film’s Alan Parker) can hire a good choreographer to help him but I guess a choreographer can’t exactly hire another director for advice. This films screams “I have no sense of story and drama” and while much of the blame can clearly be assigned to the script and the awful casting a good director would have seen those problems and, at least casting wise, probably helped avoid or overcome them. The director here is massively out of his depth.

Fame’s worst offence though is the truly unrealistic view of the world it portrays. The original went some way to at least suggest the work that such students have to put in, though perhaps in this age of reality TV where any moron can become an instant star this would be an unteachable, untenable lesson. Here any success any of the students have comes seemingly by luck and “right-place right-time” factors or from outside help. The school doesn’t seem to have helped them at all. And on top of that none of these students would make it because they are so phenomenally devoid of talent. A cast of talented unknowns with a choreographer director proved what can be done in Disney’s High School Musical. Given the potential for revisiting Fame in a modern day setting everyone involved should be ashamed of what they’ve turned out here.

Latest screening: Creation

A noble, if largely cerebral and often unengaging drama Creation has the problem of wanting to be about a moment more than a man; not quite biopic and not quite epiphanic story. This follows Darwin in the year leading up to the creation of Origin Of Species and its publication but deals more in the mental state of Darwin - his anxiety over writing and publishing a potentially incendiary theory; the conflict between his growing atheism, his wife's faith and his own weakness for wanting to avoid confrontation; and his dealing with the premature death of his (clearly favourite) child.

Of course this condences time and uses flashbacks to suggest all this conflict existed within Darwin as he pondered whether to write and publish his theory, and indeed if he were capable. But then dramatic licence is allowable, i don't believe biopics and true stories need be 100% accurate. Buy a book for God's sake!

But the main problem here is it's just not all that interesting watching Darwin spend 2 hours going over and over the same anxieties and issues. The drama feels forced because really you get the sense that in reality there's not much drama there.

It also doesn't help that as good as the supporting cast is they are barely in it, even Jennifer Connelly has next to nothing to do. She has more than the paltry single scene afforded Toby Jones or the couple of snippets for Jeremy Northam, and she is good when called upon - in a thankless role. It is at least impressive on her part that for a role that could so easily have come off as a cold woman you sense the care and love under her frustration and opposition to Darwin's atheism and self-obsession. Connelly has fallen into the seeming cold trap before and i suspect the underlying feelings achieved here and thanks in great part to the actual relationship she has with husband Paul Bettany.

Almost all the film sees Bettany either alone or interacting with a ghost/hallucation(?) of his dead daughter - acting as his conscience, his sounding-board, his only friend, his outlet and, of course, the only dramatic device the film has to avoid 90+ minutes of Darwin talking to himself. She's essentially Wilson the ball from Cast Away!

Despite the film's flaws Paul Bettany impresses. Doing more than you would think possible to make the film work it skates by on his performance, being just short enough that you don't lose all patience. He is engaging while the film fails to be and it raises the overall impact. Generally though this is a film that lives and dies on Bettany's shoulders.

Darwin may be a name remembered for centuries to come but it's doubtful memories of this film will continue much past leaving the theatre.

Latest screening: Toy Story 3D re-release

Is it possible for Toy Story (still Pixar's best film - and it has a heck of a competition - and one of the greatest animated films ever made) to be even better? Well, no - but it was fantastic to see it in 3D and back on the big screen.

Re-released in the UK for a one-week run a caught it twice. And it was glorious. I take nothing away from the 3D, it did look cool and on the first viewing it was almost impossible not to gaup for the first 5 minutes at the effect, but on reflection and the second viewing i realised it really only shows how brilliantly realised the Pixar worlds are already.

Many of the proponants of the new 3D talk about it being used to show depth and create a world instead of being a gimmick throwing things at you. The pluses and minuses of such an approach could not be more evident than here. This is film not made originally for 3D projection and therefore has none of the "gimmicks", so then the 3D is just adding the depth talked about. But then this is computer generated animation, it is and looks 3D regardless of the 3D projection. If the world has been thought out and created with care - and let's face it, it's Pixar so that's a given - then does the 3D projection add anything? I have to say no. If it had been re-released just as a standard re-release (like Disney always used to do with all their greats on a rota when i was a kid) i'd still have gone to see it twice.

But as said, it was still fun to see the effect applied even if it was largely unnecessary. For those who missed out look out for Toy Story 2 re-release coming to the UK on January 22. Let's hope now that these 3D prints have been paid for we'll see it cropping up back at cinemas a bit more often.

Latest screening: Me And Orson Welles

Orson Welles is alive and well and residing in the body of British actor Christian McKay!

McKay is simply stunning here as Welles - the look, the eye-brow, the mannerisms, the bounce, the voice - never have i seen Welles, as a character, better done. Many have tried few have succeeded (although i have a soft spot for Vincent D'Onofrio's Welles-cameo in Ed Wood. If you are a BAFTA voter you have to see this just for McKay, he's that good!

The same can be said in general for Richard Linklater's film in terms of featuring Welles and using the whole "putting on a show" theatrical device. I didn't like Oliver Parker's Fade To Black with Danny Huston hamming Welles. RKO 281 was solid and Tim Robbins' Cradle Will Rock was a noble, if unsatisfyingly drear effort. Aided by McKay's towering achievement, a (mostly) superb supporting cast and a deft lightness Linklater has delivered his best film in years.

To my mind he can be hit (Dazed & Confused, Before Sunrise) and miss (A Scanner Darkly, Fast Food Nation), but this is firmly in the hit category.

Other non-Welles films, such as Kenneth Branagh's In The Bleak Mid-Winter, have failed in their attempts to have fun at "putting on a show" format because they are too in love with moments that haver that "you just had to be there" element. Christopher Guest made a go of it in Waiting For Guffman, but then he was mocking the pretentions so many others embrace as part of the scene. Somehow McKay's (as Welles) enormous personality and Linklater's breezy "makes it look so easy" style make you feel like you are there in Me & Orson Welles and it works to great effect - tantalising the viewer with moments and flashes of the play to come without giving it to you until the right time. The 'Me' of the title really becomes the viewer. You are sweft along me both filmmaker and Orson (and it really does feel like Orson. After a few moments i never doubted the Linklater had somehow resurrected Welles and saddled him with Zac Efron!)

And this brings me the film's one real problem (and surely a marketing nightmare for the distributors!) Now i'm no Efron hater, i haven't seen any of the HSM movies, but he was fine in both Hairspray and 17 Again but here he has to register in a fantastic ensemble of actors and he simply doesn't. Admittedly he is hamstrung a little by the role. Since the story and Linklater's direction make the viewer feel like 'Me' observing Welles as he creates his legendary production of Julius Caesar and the Mercury theatre company it is easy to kind of forget about Efron's Richard, or at least to dismiss him as Welles so often does. He just makes no impression at all. He's not bad he's just not really significant.

This leads to the inevitable problem that as we reach the films final act, once the play is done and Welles is off screen you feel like the movie is over. You've seen everything there is to see here, it is time to move along. But no, because Efron's story is unresolved so we get another 10 minutes of him and his ending. But you simply don't care. Once McKay/Welles had gone off with his supporting cast the movie was over, it just didn't know it!

Amongst the supporting cast Claire Danes continues in display as easy charm, effortlessly likeable and curiously beautiful in her quirky angular way. Zoe Kazan (last seen in Revolutionary Road) is a delight as the underused other woman in Efron's life (although if she'd been used more it would have meant more Efron, less Welles so maybe that's a blessing in disguise). James Tupper is excellent as Joseph Cotten, a great match for McKay's Welles. If they ever (God forbid) remake The Third Man they have the cast! Ben Chaplin is also marvellous as George Couloris. I'm constantly impressed by Chaplin and have no idea why he isn't a bigger name. Kelly Reilly doesn't have much to do but look gorgeous, which, naturally, she does with ease. Eddie Marsan seems miscast as John Houseman. I like Marsan but he didn't fit the bill for me here.

Ultimately this is McKay's show. He gives an electrifying performance at the center of a movie that while it is about Welles efforts to put on Julius Caesar is a charming, funny and swift-paced joy; but unfortunately it also has to make space for Zac Efron and his own storyline and there-in lie the flaws.

How you market this i don't know! I can't imagine Efron fans getting excited about a film set in the 1930s about the creation of an historic theatrical production staged by a man who's been dead for 25 years! And on the flipside i nearly didn't see it because i dismissed it, on first awareness, as a Zac Efron movie and so not for me. Only on a second invitation did i notice it was directed by Linklater (always interesting, if not always successful) which charged my want to see it.

Ultimately though if you want to see it because you're an Efron fan, well go see it because your guy's in it and because you'll get to see something a bit different from what you're used it. And maybe you'll like it. If you're not an Efron fan, never fear, you can all but forget he's there and just enjoy Linklater at his breezy best and the best performance of Welles on screen since the great man departed this earth (and took possession of McKay!)

Latest screening: The Invention Of Lying

Oh dear! I had high hopes for this Ricky Gervais comedy. He's never proven himself on film, but here he was writing, directing, producing. He had come up with a great, funny concept. This was his chance to shine.

Unfortunately the light at the end of this tunnel is the train coming to run us down.

Like so many "high concept" comedies this is a concept in desperate, futile search of a plot... and some funnier lines.

It's no disaster. There are some funny bits. It starts well (or at least does after a hideously misguided voice-over explanation of the basic plot set-up) but the joke that everyone not only can't lie (lying doesn't exist you see, hence the title - obvious, right? So why the voice over explanation Ricky, why, oh, why!) but volunteers the truth, no matter how harsh, at every occasion quickly wears thin. He gets about 20 minutes out of it and some people handle it better than others. Curiously it is often the straight actors (like Jennifer Garner) that play it better and the comedians (like Tina Fey) who sound too much like they are delivering calculated lines to get a laugh - and therefore don't. I love Fey but every line of hers fell flat for me here while Garner sold the hell out of it. Perhaps it's the less comedic actors lose themselves more in the character and world and aren't trying for the gag, the laugh, just trusting in the script, etc. I don't know but it's noticeable time and again here.

A risky (for some American audiences) plot element involving his inadvertent creation of religion and the spiralling outcome of this is also amusing, but again it's funnier as an idea than in execution. Out-staying its welcome.

There are also some dynamite cameos, including two that had my laughing simply by their presence. A bar tender that joins Gervais and the excellent Louis C.K. in a scene is both funny by presence and in his dynamite delivery. I'm not going to say who plays it because if you're going to watch the film it was one of the highlights for me.

As was another cameo by a usually fairly serious actor (although he has shown a comedic side on occasion) as a traffic cop. Again just his presence is funny from the moment he walks on screen and the voice (cause you won't instantly recognise him) gives him away.

A scene with two Extras regulars is fun but feels out of place in the film, almost playing like an afterthought put in for faithful fans.

Amongst the other leads Garner triumphs and Louis C.K. is very funny, but Jonah Hill is underused and never hits the high notes he achieved in Funny People, while Tina Fey doesn't bring it (and i so wanted her to) and Rob Lowe really fails in an update of his Wayne's World character.

But ultimately this descends into sentiment and lacks resolve or real drama. It often feels like a string of stand-up one-liners extended into plot devices (as there is no lying movies are a guy -nice touch cameo from Christopher Guest as one such - reading a book on camera) that work once but then are repeated over and over, beating the gag into submission. Ideas like the use of lying to make people feel better are similarly used once to affecting and comedic effect but then overplayed.

And before you know it you're bogged down in a film about perception of others and looking beyond the surface that could have been reached by any number of devices, making the lying thing irrelevant!

Like Bruce Almighty the concept can only get the film so far before you notice you have almost no interest in the characters, there is no discernable plot and we're going to descend into sentimentality without passing through palpable drama or achieving any resolve.

Disappointing is the only appropriate word.

New Studio Ghibli!

A new Studio Ghibli movie is always a reason to celebrate (even if we in the UK are left waiting 18 months + between the Japanese release and appearance on our shores!) and news came this week that the legendary animation house's next prject will see the return of director Isao Takahata (Graveyard Of The Fireflies, Only Yesterday) for the first time in a decade. Takahata co-founded Ghibli with the more famous (to Western audiences) face of the company Hayao Miyazaki and many consider Graveyard Of The Fireflies to be one the the greatest animated films of all-time.

The new film will be based on one of Japan's oldest folktales, which dates from the 10th century, The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter.

Added to this the news the Ghibli blog reports Miyazaki-san is setting up two more features to do himself in the next 3 years. For a man who announced his retirement with Howl's Moving Castle, way before Ponyo was headed our way, this can only delight his fans.