Cold Souls

One of the great things about independent cinema is that they tell quirky and unusual stories we don't normally see in mainstream films. This movie is a perfect example.

There are so many questions raised by the concept of being able to remove your soul for storage. The film does not answer all of them but it makes for some interesting discussions. This I would say is why you won't see a concept like this explored in mainstream films. The audience has too much to think about. The film is well made and has an excellent story but I have one major problem with is and that is Paul Giamatti. Not so much with his performance which I'll discuss later but with why he is playing himself (or a version of himself) in the film. It is because of this decision by the writer/director Sophie Barthes to do this that she is asking the audience to make comparisons to 'Being John Malkovich'. There is no good reason, in my opinion, as to why Paul is playing himself. He could have been playing an actor with another name. 'Being John Malkovich' is a much better film so Sophie is not doing herself any favours by letting people make the comparison.

Paul Giamatti is the perfect actor for this kind of quirky story. He is brilliant at showing the neurosis of the character. Being able to act what it is like to not have a soul would be quite a challenge I imagine. Paul does a great job though. My only problem is that he is a little too much to handle on his own. He works better in a supporting role or with a side-kick. Emily Watson was a bit disappointing in so far as she is given nothing to do. David Strathairne is an actor we don't see enough of these day and his deadpan performance here is great. Dina Korzun as the soul mule is excellent. You really feel sorry for her character and how she ends up.

This film is for people who like their movies a little quirky. I know it won't appeal to everyone but is quite thought provoking and philosophical.

Amelia

There have been some historical figures that I know of through reputation only and I don't know all that much about their lives. Amelia Earhart is one such person. It seems if you wait long enough a film will be made about them.

Fox's release of this film in Australia has been very poor. With the cast it has and an Oscar bait performance by Hilary Swank I expected it to get a bigger release. Not that the film is worth it but they have given a better chance to less worthy films. For me the film is not cinematic enough. The story is not told with the big screen in mind. It was more suited to a TV movie rather than a big screen film. The makers seem more concerned with telling the events of Amelia's life rather than giving any time to telling us why Amelia is doing what she is doing. I've not said this many times but this film needed to be longer. I'd have liked to see more of Amelia's life as a girl and young woman and what led her to want to become a pilot. There is a terrible part of the film where they show Amelia as a young girl in a field watching a plane fly over and her saying she wants to do that. Is that it? Didn't she have to struggle in some way to convince people she could be a pilot? Being a woman at that time was not easy. How could she afford it? From what I understand, even today, learning to fly is an expensive operation. Were her parents rich? Did she get a job to afford flying lessons? None of this is explained and would have given us more to work with as far as understanding who Amelia is. I will say that the scene when she disappears was quite thrilling and a wonderfully directed moment. Mira Nair is a director known for making strong, thoughtful films. I'd like to know if the film is this way because of her or studio interference.

Hilary Swank is a brilliant actress and that is evidenced here. Despite the fact she is not given very much to work with, Hilary is able to give a good performance. Imagine what it could have been like if she had a better script to work with. This cannot be said of Richard Gere. He is pretty mediocre. He could have been better with better material to work with. The less said about Ewan McGregor the better.

For a woman who is held in such high regard in history, it is disappointing that she is given such a cursory telling of her story on film. With the reputation of the talent involved you expect a much better film and what we got was mediocre.

Dorian Gray

In between making 'St. Trinians' films, director Oliver Parker is returns to adapting Oscar Wilde. If I read about a film being made that is adapted from a book and I like the plot I will try to read the book before I see the film. I especially like doing this when the book is a classic.

I am a fan of Oscar Wilde's work and his clever, witty lines that he has created. I have also enjoyed Oliver Parker's previous adaptations of Wilde's plays. This story however is different as this is more of a drama. Although Parker portrays it more as a Gothic horror film. The film is very well done and Parker revels in portraying the debauchery that Dorian gets into as he descends into madness. The film is quite sexually explicit and not terribly subtle.This sort of stuff makes the first half of the film interesting and fun. However the second half as Dorian becomes conflicted gets very slow and drags. I lost a bit of interest and was getting impatient for the end. Which was actually quite well done.

Ben Barnes came to prominence as Prince Caspian in a film I did not particularly like. He is however very good here. His good looks work well for the character but Ben shows he is more than just a pretty face. The best part of the movie though is Colin Firth playing a very nasty type of guy. He gets all of Wilde's clever lines and delivers them wonderfully. Colin normally plays nice characters so you can see him reveling in playing someone so nasty.

A very good adaptation of the Oscar Wilde book. However it does loose its way in the second half but still has a spectacular ending.

The Brothers Bloom

Two years ago I saw an excellent film called 'Brick'. It made me an instant fan of the film's writer/director Rian Johnson. This is his follow up film.

I'm a big fan of writers who use clever techniques to tell their story. That is why I loved 'Brick' so much. I have a lot of trouble writing dialogue in my films that I'm always envious of writers who can do it so well. I am glad that he did not use that cleverness here. The dialogue is clever and witty but not done in a different tone like in 'Brick'. The film is more accessible to a wider audience than his previous film. But judging by the films release it may not get to a wider audience until DVD and Blu-Ray. That is not to say the film is not good because it is brilliant. The film is really funny and there are some hilariously funny sight gags in the film. Rian certainly knows comedy and can direct it extremely well. When ever i watch a film involving con artists I love to try and guess the twists before they are revealed. How I judge a film is based largely on how they can keep them a secret. If the story is involving enough that I forget to try and guess the twist then it succeeds for me. This film while not having many big twists still manages to keep them a secret from me. The love story is also one of the films great assets.

Adrien Brody is an excellent actor but he has mostly done dramas until now. If this is anything to go by he has a great future in comedy. He does a great job with the sight gags and has good deadpan delivery. Mark Ruffalo of course is great as always. Then there is the brilliant Rinko Kikuchi. I'm not sure is she has virtually no dialogue because she does not speak English very well but she makes a wonderful silent comedian. However the real joy of this film is the stunning performance by Rachel Weisz. I knew she was an excellent actress but this is by far the best thing she has ever done. So incredibly cute and wonderful as the brothers target. No wonder Bloom falls in love with her. I'm hoping all the Oscar talk for her performance comes true.

If you like your con artist movies clever and with a great love story then this is the film for you. You must see it, though for the brilliant performance of Rachel Weisz.

2012

Director Roland Emmerich has been spending most of his career destroying the world. With a major focus on North America. Not he takes his obsession to the extreme.

I will begin by saying that one of my guilty pleasures is disaster movies. Most of them have really bad story lines and characters but I just love seeing stuff being destroyed. Huge action set pieces where people run screaming from some sort of disaster. So for me this film was awesome. I was lucky enough to see it on a huge screen so that made it even better. The escape from LA scene was simply amazing. I had a the biggest grin on my face during that entire scene. Am I sick for wanting to watch masses of people being killed by falling buildings and shifting ground? As much as I love all the spectacular action there has not been a disaster film yet that can pull off a decent story or character development. And this film is no different. While this film is not completely terrible it is still not that good. Plus the film goes on for far to long so there is a lot more corny dialogue and silly situations. Roland and his co-writer Harald Kloser have tried to cram far too many characters in the film and so there are people in the film we did not need. A perfect example is Chiwetel Ejiofor's father and his friend on the cruise ship. While it gives Chiwetel a big emotional scene where he says goodbye to his dad, it was otherwise useless.

Now you don't go to these films for the acting. As long as the actor and scream pretty loud then they get the part. I must say that Roland has tried to class his film up a bit by casting some excellent actors. I'm a big fan of John Cusack. Most of his films have gone straight to DVD here lately so it is nice to see him on the big screen for a change. I'm also an Oliver Platt fan as well. He seems to ad a bit of dignity to his 'villain' role. Chiwetel Ejiofor is also excellent as the voice of reason. I also liked his scenes with Thandie Newton. Watching two English actors speaking with an American accent. Little things like that amuse me. Woody Harrelson is also perfectly cast as the conspiracy-theory-wacko.

As with most disaster films you don't go to see them for the intellectual thoughts that they raise. You just go to see stuff being destroyed and this is the ultimate disaster movie. I've heard Roland will no longer be making any more disaster films which is a good thing as I'm not sure how he could top this.

The Boys Are Back

Australia has been producing some awesome films this year. Just when we thought the industry was going down we pull some great ones out. And this continues the greatness.

A father having to struggle to look after his kids after his wife dies is not a terribly new story. So when a film takes this plot on you look for interesting ways it is told. This film may not tell it in an interesting way but it is really enjoyable and full of great performances. I was very pleased to see Scott Hicks return home to his native South Australia to make this film. I think he is one of Australia's best directors and I love when our boys come home to direct films on home soil. Scott is a wonderful director and proves it here. He is able to take this fairly predictable story and makes it compelling viewing. The film is based on a true story but in some cases directors still make the story seem made up. Here Scott makes the story feel real and that it really did happen. The cinematography is also brilliant in showing off this beautiful area of Australia.

As I said while the story is predictable it is the performances that elevate it. This is true of this film. Clive Owen is one of the best actors working today. He is normally in big Hollywood films but I like how he likes to stretch himself with smaller films like this. I think his star status elevates the film a bit and it would have been interesting to see if a lesser known actor was in the role. Clive does not normally play fathers either and he does an excellent job of it. I'd trust him with my kids. George MacKay is excellent as Clive's older son in the film. But the real surprise is Nicholas McAnulty as Clive's younger son int he film. This kid is phenomenal. Probably one of the best performances by a child his age that I've ever seen. His performance is so real and at no point do you think he is acting. There is one moment where his face tells so much without any words that I was totally blown away. Plus he has the funniest line in the film as well.

I'd like to encourage everyone to go see this wonderful new Aussie film. My overseas readers should try to see it too if it comes your way. Proving Australia has some of the greatest film makers in the world.

An Education

The English seem to be into the 1960's at the moment with 'The Boat That Rocked' and this film. The interesting thing being that Emma Thompson makes a cameo in both.

It is socially acceptable now that men will date younger women. This film kind of crosses the line with a man in his 30's dating a girl almost half his age. One thing I like to do in these situations is to imagine the sexes reversed. I'm not sure if it would work as well considering the guy would surprised to be dating an older woman but would he be into her for the sex or for the world she'd open up for him? My cynical side would suggest it would be all about the sex. It is also a film that could only occur in the 1960's. With women being as restricted as they were in that time it is no surprise that a girl like Jenny would grab the first chance she can to break out of it. I'm a fan of the film's director Lone Scherfig after a film she made a few years ago called 'Wilbur Wants To Kill Himself'. She is great at charting a person's emotional journey in finding themselves. The story is fairly predictable but as they say: 'the joy is not in the destination but the journey itself'. The journey is enjoyable but tragic as well. You are sitting there waiting for something to go wrong. You know that David is not all he says he is and so you wait for Jenny to find out about it. You kind of hope it won't happen but you know it will. The relationship is not right so it cannot end well. Maybe the surprise would have been to have the relationship to end happily.

The best thing about this film is Carey Mulligan as Jenny. Carey gives an excellent performance and is an actress I hope we see in more films in the future. She does an excellent job of playing the incredibly smart girl who is enticed away from her boring life by a better world but is not so smart to see the clues as to its eventual demise. Peter Sarsgaard is great at playing sleazy characters. Here he has to play sleazy and charming which he does quite well. His attempt at an English accent does not quite work though. Alfred Molina proves once again what a brilliant actor he is. I also liked seeing Rozamund Pike playing a less intelligent character. She plays the dumb blond really well as you know she is more intelligent than that.

A pleasant romantic drama that while predictable is still an enjoyable experience. I usually respond to intelligent characters so that's why I enjoyed this film as much as I did.

Capitalism: A Love Story

I need to begin this review by saying that I am a fan of Michael Moore. I realise he gets a lot of criticism for what he says and does but I still believe in him. For me he makes a very convincing case. 'Bowling For Columbine' is one of my all time favourite documentaries.

There was a documentary released in 2004 called 'The Corporation', which affected me a lot. I could not believe that corporations were allowed to operate the way they have. But I feel powerless to do anything. The only change I could make would be to go live on a self sustaining farm in the middle of no-where. You basically can't escape corporations and their evil powers. This film does not have the same power as 'The Corporation' but it still proves how evil corporations are. But are they? Society has let this evil flourish and capitalism is what drives this evil. All we care about in society is making money and so we let these corporations do what they do because we are under the illusion that we can share in their wealth. There is a brilliant Australian film called 'The Bank'. In it Anthony LaPaglia plays the chairman of a bank. There is a brilliant scene where he is talking to the board where he explains how the bank does not care about the welfare of its customers or society at large. All they care about is making money for their shareholders. That is who corporations have a responsibility to; no one else. Companies must make money or else shareholders will sell their shares and the company will go broke. They will screw any money they can out of a person or ruin their lives if it means they can make money for their shareholders. That is why they are allowed to get away with what they do. There is a heartbreaking section of this film where Michael explains how corporations will take out life insurance policies on their workers so they can claim when they die and not give any to the family. They basically make money off dead workers and in some cases think of their workers as better off dead than alive. That is how evil these people are. They have to make money and they will do what ever they can.

This film proves all these things and is excellent at doing it. While not as powerful as some of Michael's previous efforts, it is still very interesting stuff. I definitely learned a lot more about the Global Financial Crisis. The film is a little bit too long and drags in some places. Michael has a habit of repeating some things and driving his point home a little bit too much. But despite all the doom and gloom there is a happy moment in the film. To me it shows what we need to do as a society to stop these evil corporations getting away with the evil that they do.

If you want to know why the world is in such a bad shape financially at the moment then go see this film. It helps explain things for you and in an entertaining way.

The Time Traveller's Wife

Two years ago I found out that they were going to be making a movie from the book 'The Tim Traveller's Wife'. I was interested in the premise so I read it and after only a few pages I fell in love with it. So I was very much looking forward to this films release.

I like to think that I am a very romantic person. While I like typical romantic stories, I usually enjoy unusual ones even more and you can't get much more unusual than this. I find this idea one of the most romantic I have ever heard. A guy who despite his disorder is still able to find a life with the woman he loves. I love the way Henry's time shifting is able to help and hinder his relationship with Clare. All the best romantic stories have a way of keeping the central couple apart for as long as possible or put obstacles in their way to test their relationship and this for me is one of the best ever created. As for the movie, I loved it. I have heard from people that they find it very silly. I don't want to criticise another person's opinion but I think you lack imagination if you think this premise is silly. I know many people like things all nice and normal but sometimes you need to expand your thinking to include things that while impossible in the real world can exist in the imagination. But in saying that maybe the makers of the film did not explain Henry's disorder to well. That I can understand. The book explains the disorder a bit more and even looks for a cure but that is not done in the film. It is perhaps why people have said that you understand the film better if you have read the book. Despite this I still loved it. It is full of so many romantic and wonderfully emotional moments that I was mesmerised the whole time. The only other thing I'd have liked the film to do was have a few more scenes of Henry visiting Clare when she was younger.

I think Eric Bana is one of the best actors that Australia has produced. He has proven time and again how brilliant he is. My only problem is that I wish he would do more comedies like he did when he was in Australia. He is excellent here and gives a wonderful performance. Rachel McAdams has once again taken on a role involving a tragic love story. She likes to make her audience cry. So she is great at playing the emotion of this situation and makes a great Clare.

I think my work as a script writer has made me appreciate this film as much as I have. People who have not read the book get confused and those who have don't find it as good but I know how hard it is to adapt a book into a film so realise what you need to do. I'd love to hear from those who have read the book what they think and those who have not. Please leave me some comments.

The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus

Last year a big deal was made of Heath Ledger's performance in 'The Dark Knight' being his last. But this film was his last film but will be no where as successful as 'The Dark Knight'.

The all time greatest comedy group is Monty Python. I am a huge fan of their work and love following the members as they pursue their individual projects. Terry Gilliam has been one of my favourites because his dark sensibility matches mine. I like things a little darker than normal. The other thing I love about him is his determination. Just about all of his films have had a major problem occur to them. I'm one of the few people who love what is referred to as one one off the biggest flops of all time 'The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen'. So I always look forward to seeing his films. What I also love about Terry's films are that he has a strange way of telling his stories. They don't feel normal and feel a bit off kilter. I just love this as it means your not watching a normal film. The story here is pretty conventional as a man makes a deal with the devil to save the life of his daughter. But as I said it is told in a weird and wonderful way. Terry has always had an amazing imagination and that is shown really well here. The scenes inside the mirror look amazing. I love the way they are integrated into the story and are not just tacked on. The scenes in the modern world are well handled and have good emotional depth. They contrast with the fun of the mirror world. My only problem with the film was that one thing that wasn't explained is how some people disappear inside the mirror world. Obviously they have travelled around a lot and I'd have though that if people disappeared wouldn't the police be after them.

In 'The Dark Knight' Heath Ledger completely inhabited his role as the Joker that you did not see him. Here he is playing a character that looks and feels a bit more like the real Heath which is a good way to go out. He is excellent in conveying the hidden aspects of his character. You find out something new all the time. I loved how Terry was able to work out a way to keep the film and give Heath's role to 3 other actors. Jude, Johnny and Colin are excellent in continuing Heaths work. I also loved Christopher Plumber in this film. He has mostly been playing bad guys lately so its nice to see him do a nice character. I was also pleased to see Vern Troyer doing something where is is not the butt of jokes by Mike Myers. He is excellent in this film. Also wonderful is --- and is an actress you will hopefully see more of.

I encourage everyone to go see what is really the final film of the great Heath Ledger. It is not going to be every one's style but hopefully the presence of Heath will make you want to try something a little different.

Disney's A Christmas Carol

For those who have read my blog before will know that one of my Top 10 all time favourite films is 'Death Becomes Her'. So I'm a big fan of Robert Zemeckis.

I have been a bit disappointed with him lately though and the run of animated films he has done. I prefer directors who are a bit diverse but Robert has just been making motion-capture animated films. I'm not entirely sold on the idea yet. Motion-capture has mostly been used in live action films as a way for actors to work with an animated character. Such as in 'The Lord Of The Rings' trilogy. To me this is the best use of it. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of its use in completely animated films such as the ones Robert has been making. I don't see how it helps make the film any better. One of the problems I have with Roberts directing style right now is that because the films are made for 3D he is more concerned with spectacle rather than emotion. That was my main problem with 'A Christmas Carol'. It looks good and while I normally don't mind seeing spectacular camera moves and 'roller coaster' like shot, it should not be at the expense of the story. It worked well in his previous film 'Beowulf' as that was an action/adventure film. But just seems a little out of place here and looks like Robert showing off. I wish he would go back to doing a live action film.

I think Jim Carey is an excellent actor. I know many do not like some of his comedy roles but I think he is one of the best comedy performers around. His attempts to have a dramatic career have not always been successful but I admire him for trying. Here he is quite good and makes an excellent Scrooge. My only problem was him playing the ghosts. The Ghost Of Christmas Past and Present were good but I don't know why he did Future as all the character is is a shadow. The rest of the cast are very good too with Gary Oldman doing an excellent job.

This film looks spectacular but lacks emotion so comes across as very dry. I prefer 'The Muppet's Christmas Carol' and the brilliant 'Blackadder Christmas Carol'.

The Box

Richard Kelly is a director I admire. I'm one of the many fans of his first film 'Donnie Darko' as well as his lesser seen second film 'Southland Tales'. It went straight to DVD here in Australia but I was so pleased to get a chance to see it on the big screen at its only Aussie screening. I admire directors who make films that are a little different. However to call Richard 'a little different' is an understatement.

This is his most 'mainstream' film and even then he is able to work in some of his bizarre traits to make it different and to please his fans. I like how he has taken an unconventional route with the story. Most directors would have explored the moral implications of the story and Richard does that but does not let it dominate the story. Richard is more concerned with giving us a good sci-fi tale. Most people were confused by his last two film and they are both open to a deeper meaning. That is the case here but not as much. Most of the questions are answered but not all of them so he leaves you room to keep guessing. What I liked most was the authentic 70's look of the film. Many films I see don't seem to go to as much effort as it looks like they have here to make this film look as good as it does. There is no mistaking it is set in the 70's.

Cameron Diaz is an actress I respect for the diversity of roles that she does. She can go from the silliness of 'What Happens In Vegas' to the seriousness of 'My Sisters Keeper'. But this is by far her best role in a long time. I think it is because she has a more intriguing story to work with that requires her to stretch her acting ability. After a couple of fun roles I like how James Marsden can do serious stuff like this. He is also great at depicting the inner turmoil of his character and how he is being manipulated by forces bigger than himself. Frank Langella is suitably creepy in a role he has played many times before. The special effects on his face are excellent too.

I cannot recommend this film to everyone as it is a little bit too different. But if you like films that do not spell it all out for you and leave some interpretation then you should see it.

All About Steve

I had read recently that Sandra Bullock was reluctant to do anymore romantic comedies. She did 'The Proposal' earlier in the year only because she liked the script but here she goes again with another one.

I admit that most films I see have expectations attached. I am influenced by reviews and trailers that I see. This film is one that I had very low expectations for due to the number of people and reviews that did not like it. With this in mind I ended up liking it. I'm not saying it is a brilliant work of film making but neither is it the worst film ever made, which I was kind of expecting. I just found it to be a really pleasant comedy with a few good laughs. The plot is a bit unusual which I think is what I liked. The romantic comedy being one of my favourite genres I look out for films that try something different and this film does that. I enjoyed how it was not all that conventional and had some pretty quirky characters in it.

As I said I respond to things that are a little quirky so I really liked Sandra Bullock's character in this film. I think this is her best performance in a long time. I don't think I've seen her acting this crazy in a while. She was able to make the character endearing as well as socially awkward. I'm glad to see Thomas Hayden Church return to comedy after the seriousness of 'Spider-Man 3'. He is a great comedic actor. Bradley Cooper was ok, I did not think he was a very interesting character.

While not the greatest comedy out there and not the worst one either. If you just want a nice pleasant laugh then you should enjoy it. Probably best for DVD not worth seeing on the big screen.

Paranormal Activity

Every so often an incredibly low budget film will come along that becomes a huge success. Normally it is someone using their handicam to film a realistic story. This year it is 'Paranormal Activity'. I will begin by warning you that this review will feature some spoilers so if you want to see it uninhibited then do not read on until after you have seen the film.

This movie left me confused and baffled. As many of you know the film is enjoying huge success in the USA at the moment. It was because of this that I was interested in seeing the film and had fairly high expectations. How wrong I was. For me this is the worst film I've seen so far this year. I do not understand how it has become as successful as it has. It is not in the least bit frightening or scary, except maybe the last shot of the film. But even then that does not make up for the boredom that came before it. Virtually nothing even remotely spooky happens. A couple of bumps and some moving furniture are not scary. I think there should have been more of what happened in the final shot throughout the film as it would have made it scarier. There are a couple of moments where the girl Katie gets up in the middle of the night and moves around supposedly possessed but it only looked like she was sleep walking. She needed to maybe threaten her boyfriend during these sleepwalking moments. That's probably the big problem with it. I felt no sense of menace or threat against the couple. I did not feel their life was in danger so I only felt incredible boredom at having to watch them sleep, see furniture move and hear a few bumps. Even without menace the film's director Oren Peli has not been able to create a spooky or creepy atmosphere at all. While the couple we are watching obviously look scared I did not feel it myself as an audience member. There were several points where I almost walked out of the film but my curiosity got the better of me and I wanted to find out how it was going to end.

The acting in the film is pretty ordinary. The couple spend most of the film asleep so not much is required. Katie Featherston is quite good, but I really hated Micah Sloat as her boyfriend. I found his character incredibly annoying and was the reason I almost walked out. Mark Fredrichs as the Psychic was pretty bad too with his second scene being unintentionally funny.

I think the worst thing about the success of the film has been that there is going to be a sequel. Generally I'm willing to accept a film being successful as I can usually find a reason for it and understand its success. But I just don't get it with this film. It is this confusion that has made me hate it as much as I have. Its success has made me hate it even more.

Couples Retreat

Best buddies Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau return to dissect the modern marriage with some of their pals on a tropical island.

I can get a bit cynical when actors use their power to convince film studio to give them heaps of money to basically have a working holiday. It certainly makes acting look like an easy job. The film was a pleasant surprise for me as I was expecting it to be terrible but it wasn't bad. I got a few good laughs out of it. I think those with low expectations were what made me like it more. It is a good fun film with some funny lines. There was one by Jason Bateman that had me in hysterics. I also found the relationships of the couples very real as well. Vince and Jon have created some good characters that work well in helping develop believable problems that occur between the couples.

It is pretty common knowledge that Vince Vaughn pretty much plays the same character in all the films he does. I did not mind it so much in this film. He was not as annoying as he normally is. Plus he has so many co-stars to take the heat from him. I like how Jon Favreau is able to fit some acting roles into his hectic schedule as a big time director. Jason Bateman is always a pleasure to see and as mentioned above he has the best line in the movie. Malin Ackerman is the stand out of the women and is quickly establishing herself as a good actress. She seems to be sticking mostly to romantic comedies and is usually the best thing in them.

As long as your expectations are not too high then you should have some fun with this relationship comedy. I'm sure many couple will find lots to relate to in the film.

Astro Boy

Hollywood is not the only place where remakes are being made. The Japanese are now cashing in on their past successes to create new films.

I used to watch 'Astro Boy' when I was growing up. I don't think I loved it terribly as I can't remember much from it. It was just an enjoyable show I watched when I was younger. In some ways that is a good way to see the film as I don't have too many preconceived notions of what the film needs to be about. So it was a quite enjoyable film. Not the greatest but just a fun action film for younger people. I'm sure fans of the show will enjoy it. I don't know how faithful it is to the original story but I liked it for what it was. The only problem I had was Astro's birth. It's the same problem I had with Steven Spielberg's 'A.I.: Artificial Intelligence', and that is a parent replacing their dead child with a robot. I can not believe that a parent would do that. I know that grief is different for each person and they would do anything to bring the person they loved back to life, but making a robot version just seems kind of silly and ridiculous. I just can not believe it would happen. Invariably the parent comes to resent the robot child and wants to get rid of it, which seems even sillier to me. It is interesting how quickly Astro's father get rid of him in this film. I did like the background design of the film. You can really tell it is set in Japan.

There is quite a good voice cast assembled for the film. Freddie Highmore has not done much lately and he must look very grown up now. Luckily his voice has not broken yet so he can still play kids roles. Most of the other cast give nicely naturalistic performances that you did not see the actor doing the voice but rather the character. Except maybe Nicolas Cage. I normally like him but his voice to me did not suit his character. I found Eugene Levy really annoying too.

A good animated, action film for the kids but is fairly violent. But most of the violence is done to robots so it's not as bad.