The Adventures Of Tintin

Two of Hollywood's most popular directors come together to bring to life the works of Belgian writer and artist Herge.

I have known of Tintin most of my life. I have seen his books but never read them. I'm not sure why. Maybe I've found other things to read but these books have never grabbed my interest. I'm beginning to think though that I should have read the books. I'm going to get a lot of criticism for this problem I have. I have no problem with a film that is fast paced and action packed like this one is, however, it should never come at the expense of character development. I know that Tintin is a reporter but I would have liked to have known a bit more about him. Where his sense of adventure comes from and how he came to be a reporter. They could have maybe had him contact his editor. Where does the money come from that lets him travel the world as extensively as he does? He seems to be quite young for someone with so much experience. There are the Thompson twins as well. Where do they come from? Who do they work for? What is their relationship to Tintin? I'm probably asking far too many questions and maybe thinking about it too much but that's what happens when I see a movie.

Otherwise this is an excellent film. It is by far and away the best use of motion-capture I've seen for a fully animated film (this does not include films where a character or characters are animated in a live-action film). Robert Zemekis, who has made many films in this format, had the problem of trying to dazzle you with 3D looking scenes and not caring about story or making the action exciting. Steven and Peter have managed to make a thrilling and exciting film that has some of the best action sequences. The fact they are working in animation seems to have let them move the camera more. A motorbike chase was my favourite sequence. The story is also very well written (aside from character) and it moves quite quickly which is very good. The action comes thick and fast which makes for a very thrilling action adventure film.

Jamie Bell, despite having little character to work with has done an excellent job with Tintin. He makes him a likable hero that you could easily follow in an adventure. While the script lacks some back story this is not Jamie's fault. Andy Serkis is the master of motion-capture. He can make any character fun and exciting. Luckily he is the only one whose character of Haddock has a history that is explored in the film so we learn more about him. This makes him by far the most well rounded character in the film. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have worked together so often that they make a great bumbling duo. This helps to make their chemistry work for the characters. But as I mentioned above, I'd like to have known more about them. Daniel Craig does not get to play a villain very often so he seems to relish the chance here. He makes a very nasty villain.

My over worked mind may have ruined the film for me a bit. It is still an excellent action adventure film and certainly one of the year's best animated films.

The Women On The 6th Floor

Earlier this year we had 'The Help', a film about someone getting to know the people who serve them in America. We now get a similarly themed French version.

There must be something in the nature of French comedies that makes them very charming. The characters are usually delightful and usually feature someone who is a bit naive. In this case we have Jean-Louis Joubert who at the start of the film comes across as not so delightful when he forces his maid of many years to quit. This might seem a bit cynical when he learns to appreciate his maids when his new maid is very good looking. But as mentioned above there is a great deal of charm so you can over look this slight character flaw. Our hero Jean-Louis does help the other maids that live in his building too and not just the pretty ones.I think what really redeems him though is when he is willing to give up so much to help these maids out. The film was also educational with it exploring the use of Spanish maids in the 1960's in France. Through out history there is always one race or country willing to go to another to find work to feed their family.

As Jean-Louis, Fabrice Luchini is certainly very charming and delightful. My only problem is him being so much older than the woman he falls in love with. Natalia Verbeke is excellent as the object of his affection. A nicely feisty character that provides Natalia with some interesting material to work with. Sandrine Kiberlain is also very good as Jean-Louis wife. The woman who still treats maids not quite so well. She give an excellent performance as a rich snob. The most delightful characters are the group of Spanish maids. They are very funny and provide much of the humour in the film.

A great deal of fun and purely delightful. Seeing the rich cut down a peg or two by the lower orders is always fun.

Melancholia

Much like Pedro Almodovar, a Lars Von Trier film is a major cinematic event. In some cases it is more because of what goes on behind the scenes than what's on the screen.

Also like Almodovar, I'm a bit late in coming to the Von Trier train. His films are really polarising and you get many varied opinions. But you cannot deny that he is an artist. We get so bombarded with films that are made for entertainment that we forget that film is also an art form. Von Trier films are really well made works of art. Especially with this film where each frame is so carefully composed that is is like watching moving art. This is mostly true of the open sequence which nicely gives you a preview of what's going to happen in the film. The film is divided into two parts with the first section about Kirsten Dunst's character Justine and the second about Charlotte Gainbourg's character Claire. The Juntine story I found more interesting than Claire's. Justine's story is almost like a romantic comedy but not in a very obviously funny sense. There are no laugh out loud moments but the situation lends itself to some amusing moments. The Justine story is a bit more serious and a little bit uninteresting. I found it dragged too much and almost got boring. I think because you know what then ending is going to be and you really want to see it happen that you get too anxious.

Kirsten Dunst is an excellent actress and certainly proves that right here. She is so brilliant and wonderful at playing the many emotions here character has to go through. This is a very challenging story and she rises to the occasion. Charlotte Gainsbourg got off quite easy with this film compared to the last time she worked with Von Trier. She is not the most cheery of actresses but still does a very good job. Kiefer Sutherland is excellent playing Charlotte's husband. He is funny in a deadpan way in the first half of the film. Also funny is Stellen Skarsgard with his funny sub plot in the first half of the film. Charlotte Rampling gives some great funny moments too.

An excellent reason to go to the movies to see something not only visually beautiful but challenging in an intellectual way. A good reminder that not all films are made for entertainment value.

The Skin I Live In

When Spanish writer/director Perdo Almodovar releases a film it always a big event for lovers of quality cinema.

I've been a fan of Almodovar for a while now. He has a style that makes you know you are watching a quality film. He is a director who is so skilled at making films that while they may not be completely perfect they are still of a much higher standard than a lot of other films. The Almodovar name is a mark of cinematic quality. This film is no different.

The story for this film is very different to say the least. There is a plot twist that is not revealed until half way through the film and when you find out what it is, you will be amazed. I'm not familiar with the book on which the film is based but it is a really clever and interesting story. We have seen so many variations on the Frankenstein story that it is great to see someone do something very unique with it. Because of the twist it is told in a non-linear way. It did mean for me though that I got confused over the identity of a couple of characters but I did not mind too much. Then Almodovar has told the story with a great deal of skill. You just know you're in the hands of a master. He really knows how to film a scene and how to create a certain look.

Antonio Banderas has not been in many films lately so it is great to see him in something of such great quality. This is by far the best thing Antonio has done in ages. In the past he has over-acted quite bit but here he gives such a subtle and subdued performance. This is despite the fact he is playing such a crazy man. Elena Anaya is excellent at the 'creation'. Her character goes through many changes in the film and it is a testament to Elena that she can convey all those changes. Marisa Paredes is equally as good as Dr. Ledgard's maid. You really get a sense of how strong their relationship is, that despite what he is doing that she is willing to go along with it. Equally as good is Jan Cornet in a small but very pivotal role.

If you are a bit sick of the same old ordinary films being released and want to see something unique and different then make sure you check this out. Sometimes cinema needs to challenge your thinking.

New Year's Eve

The success of 'Valentine's Day' has lead to another romantic comedy crammed full of famous actors.

The problem I had with 'Valentine's Day' was that there seemed to be more time taken to see how many famous faces they could cram into the film rather than anything else. There was too much going on. The aim seemed to be to emulate 'Love Actually' but they failed because Richard Curtis is a far superior writer and can handle multiple story lines at once. There were some interesting stories but most were pretty forgettable.

This film is even worse to some extent. Obviously there was a rush on to get this film out. No time seemed to have been spent on a decent script. The stories are really ordinary and boring. Cliched and the type of thing you expect in a film set on New Year's Eve. Once again the cast has been assembled to try and hide the fact that the script is no good. People will be dazzled by all the stars on display. I think it would have been better if they chose a few writers to try and work on a story each. That way the stories might have been more interesting. Rather than have one person do everything at once.

The acting is not all that crash hot either. But then again this is not the greatest material for these actors to have to work with. There are some excellent actors here but this is not their finest work. A lot of these actors have won Oscars but you'd never know it after watching this film. Out of the whole cast Michelle Pfeiffer was the only one for me who stood out. Her story as OK but her character seemed a bit more interesting than most of the others. I did like some of the quick surprise cameos too.

Maybe worth a look if you have nothing else on earth to watch and you are looking for something to not have to think over.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Author John LeCarre is highly acclaimed for his spy novels. The most highly acclaimed is 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'. So is the TV mini-series that was adapted from the novel. Which means this film had a lot to live up to.

As I sometimes do, I read the novel of this film before it was released. I found the book a little hard to read. LeCarre wrote it with slang terms for the people and places with in the spy agency. While I had a general idea of what was going on, I think I missed some of the details. It was still an excellent book but I don't think I enjoyed it as much as I'd liked.

The film did help with its visual representation of events and people. The great thing about the film is that not all everything is explained. You have to look carefully and listen to what people are saying to get the full understanding of what is going on. Most films these days go out of their way to explain things and hammer certain points home so people understand them. It is the dumbing down of film making so that no one feels left out. Tomas Alfredson, who directed the brilliant 'Let The Right One In', has crafted a clever and intelligent film that makes you think about what is going on. The way he stages scenes and tells the story makes you feel like your in the hands of a skilled film maker. The look of the film with its costume and production design really make it look like it is not only set in the 1970's but made then as well. Writers Bridget O'Connor and Peter Staughan must also get credit for writing an excellent script. They have managed to keep all the important details and still make it a relatively short film considering the source material.

It is a testament to an actor when they play a role in a subtle way yet still have such a commanding performance. Gary Oldman does not do or say very much in the film. But he has a strong presence as he listens to people and gathers the information. He does not need to do much to let you know what he is thinking. Just little gestures and movements speak volumes. The suspects are an all equally shifty bunch. Colin Firth, Toby Jones and Ciaran Hinds all give excellent performances that make you suspect each of them equally. Tom Hardy is very good as is Mark Strong. Benedict Cumberbatch is starting to emerge into the spotlight now and he is excellent here.

If you're sick of all the big dumb blockbusters then make sure you check this film out. A smart, clever and intelligent film that forces you to think about what is going on. The information is not always given to you in an obvious way but subtly.

Restless

People come in all different varieties and the ones we fall in love with can sometimes be a bit unconventional.

Death is not exactly the most happiest of subjects with which to base a romantic story. And Gus Van Sant is the type of director to make unconventional love stories. This is an incredibly sweet story of two different types who meet and fall in love. Both have been affected by death in some way. It is this connection that brings them together. Fans of Van Sant might expect something a bit more from the story so you maybe disappointed. The plot is very typical of this type of story but it is the interesting characters that make it different to what you normally see in the standard Hollywood romance. Enoch is a troubled young man and he finally finds someone who understands him and his quirks. The ways that Annabel comes to accept his quirks is really wonderful. The perfect example is a scene where they visit the graves of Enoch's parents. Some might find his friendship with a ghost a bit weird, but that's why you see a film like this is to experience something different.

I've not seen Henry Hopper in anything else yet so it is a little to early to judge him. Here he plays the quiet loner really well. He gives a very heartfelt performance as Enoch. Mia Wasikowska once again proves what a great young actress she is. Her character's acceptance of her situation is wonderful and you can easily see why Enoch falls in love with her.

A movies for those who would like something a little different. If your sick of being bombarded by the run of the mill Hollywood romances then check this out.

We Have A Pope

As many of you know the Pope is chosen by a group of Cardinals locking themselves away in a room and voting for one of them to take the top job. But what if the one chosen did not really want the job.

The most interesting thing about this film is that despite being set in the Vatican it is not a very religious film. The story is presented in such a way that it could be about anyone who is thrust into a job that he/she does not feel confident in doing. This job, however, is an incredibly important one and so the pressure can be really intense. In some ways this makes you question the voting process for Pope. Obviously they do not lobby each other for the job and so you may get it when you don't really want it. After the cardinal in this film is chosen he is asked if he accepts the job but he says 'yes'. I think because he is just so shocked at having been chosen. He then has to struggle with his decision and what he's going to do. Thankfully he is able to sneak away from The Vatican and go explore his old life to find out if he can work out what to do. The strange thing is that he doesn't really ask for God's help in making the decision. He does go to a church but he as I said there is very little religion.

The film is not all serious soul searching as there is some humour in it too. The Cardinals bring in a psychologist to help the new Pope but because of the rules of choosing the Pope he cannot leave until the new Pope goes to the balcony and announces himself. So this poor guy is stuck in The Vatican with a bunch of Cardinals. He does come up with a very funny way to pass the time. The media officer is also the only one who knows The Pope has escaped and he comes up with a funny rouse to make it seem like The Pope is still there.

Michel Piccoli is excellent as the poor man thrust into this position that holds so much responsibility. His performance is excellent and really heartbreaking. You come to understand his plight and the tough decision he has to make. Jerry Stuhr is very good as the media officer who must hide this secret. A very typical marketing type trying to spin the bad situation in a good way. Nanni Moretti is very funny as the poor psychologist who gets stuck in the Vatican.

Don't let the fact that the film is set in The Vatican turn you off. The story is a very universal one about being put in a position you're not comfortable with. It is also told really well too.

Arthur Christmas

There have been many films about Santa Claus over the years and how he is able to deliver all those presents in one night. Film makers love to play with the Santa Claus myth and how his legacy is carried on through the generations.

Aardman animation is one of the best animation companies. They are like an English version of Pixar. However sadly they have not had the same success as Pixar. They are excellent at crafting great stories to go with the wonderful looking animation. It is not all about wise-cracking characters and spectacular stunts. They have created a lovely character in Arthur. He has that goofy, clumsy quality that makes him very endearing. His determination to do well despite not having the best job in the family is adorable. He worships his father and would do anything to have some role in what his father does. There is the cliched element of Arthur's older brother Steve being upset by his father not willing to give up the job but you don't really mind. This version of Santa is very cleverly realised. The use of technology and the military type precision with which he delivers presents is very funny. And while all that is well and good, there is still space for the old style present delivery. The middle of the film does drag a little bit but not enough to make you loose interest.

James McAvoy is certainly having a great year with animation and live-action films. Here he brings a lovely goofy quality to his vocal delivery that makes you love Arthur. Jim Broadbent also has great vocal skills and brings a great fatherly quality to his vocal performance. His tone is nicely old-age too. The biggest delight though is Bill Nighy. He is hilarious as Gandsanta. He has the funniest lines in the film. I was however disappointed with Hugh Laurie. Don't get me wrong, I love Hugh and think he is one of the best actors working today. But I do not think his voice suited the type of character he was playing. I think they should have cast someone who sounded gruffer and more militaristic.

A great Christmas film that will make you believe in Santa all over again. Even adults who may not have lost the faith a long time ago.

The Iron Lady

Between 1979 - 1990 the UK was lead by one of the most formidable women in history. One of the greatest actresses we have takes on the challenge of portraying this woman.

Phyllida Lloyd, the director of 'Mamma Mia', is not the director you'd consider for a film like this. But she has done a brilliant job with this film. The structure is Margaret today looking back over her life and trying to battle with dementia. This is an excellent technique and is a wonderful way to tell the story. Because the modern scenes are set after her husband Dennis has died so he acts as a kind of personification of her conscience. She is getting over her grief and is struggling with not having him there to guide her. While I grew up in the 80's and heard of Margaret, I was too young to know much about her. I did however get the impression that she was not well liked, despite being Prime Minister for 11 years. This film is kind of a sympathetic portrayal of her. It does not shy away from showing her as a bossy woman who does not suffer fools gladly. But you come to understand that she had to be like that in order to get where she was. Being a woman in such a male dominated society, she had to be forceful and tough. That is one important thing you need to know about this film, that it does not focus very much on her political career. There are edited highlights of some of the major events she was involved in but the film is more focused on who she is as a woman. That might be my only very small problem with the film. I would have liked to see more about the politics of what she did. How she came to make the decisions she did and what led to that. It is only a minor quibble but as I said it is not that type of film.

I don't think I need to tell you how good Meryl Streep is. This role merely cements her as the greatest actress who ever lived. You can not imagine anyone else playing this role. Meryl makes it her own. I got really emotional watching her, just from being totally blown away by her brilliance. You forget you are watching an actor playing a role and you feel you are seeing the real Margaret Thatcher. She certainly deserves to win the Best Actress Oscar next year, but I kind of feel that it is far too obvious and so she may not get it. But you never know. Her team mate in this film is the brilliant Jim Broadbent. If there is anyone else that deserves to win awards it is Jim. You needed a really strong actor for Meryl to play off and he steps up to the challenge. Alexandra Roach is wonderful as the younger Margaret Thatcher. It would have been nice to see more of Margaret's earlier days to see more of her. As mentioned above there is very little of Margaret's political side so we don't see much of the men she worked with. Anthony Head is the one who gets the most screen time and is excellent as one of her closest advisers Geoffrey Howe.

While most of the publicity for the film is all about Meryl Streep's brilliant performance, it is still an excellent film in its own right. You may think you know Margaret Thatcher but go see this film to find out more about her. Just don't expect too much about her political career.

The Inbetweeners Movie

The success rate of films that make the leap from the small screen to the big screen is not always good. For every good one there are several bad. This might be one of the better ones.

Before watching this film I had never seen an episode of the TV series 'The Inbetweeners'. When I heard the movie was coming out I decided to try and see if I could judge the film without any preconceived notions. One of the problems I had with the film is that I should have watched the TV series. I would have liked a bit more character development of the guys. The writers assume that most people would have seen the TV series so therefore know and understand the characters. But they need to take into account there are people out there such as myself who may not have seen the series. But in saying that it is probably not the type of film that needs a lot of character. The story is a fairly typical one of a group of teenage boys on holiday trying to get as much sex as possible. We've seen the story many times before and we know what will happen and what type of guys are involved. This being an English film does help. Not only do the accents make it refreshingly different from the endless American versions of this story that we get but the humour is a little different too. The only other problem I had is with the boys attitude towards women. Or I should say women's attitude towards them. As is typical with films like this the guys do not treat the women all that well. However the women seem to forgive them for their stupidity a little too easily. It would have been nicer if the guys had to work harder at gaining forgiveness from these girls. Their nerdy charm seem to go along way.

These are a very good group of young actors. The years of working on the TV show has made them work well as a group and give them great comedic sensibility. As is the case with groups there is one who gets the short end of the stick, especially with a big group like this. Poor Blake Harrison as Neil does not have much of a story line compared to the rest of the group. All he does is pursue older women. Which can be a bit amusing but it would have been nice of his character had more to do. As Will, Simon Bird I found to be the most interesting. Maybe because that while he is trying to have sex he seems less sleazy about it compared to his friends.

Fans of the TV series will no doubt get more out of this. Those that have not seen it will have a few laughs, even it is a story we've seen many times before.

We Need To Talk About Kevin

Many people get nervous when they find out they are about to become parents. Will they be a good parents. But what if that feeling was justified.

Much like 'Burning Man', director Lynne Ramsay, has created a film that jumps around in time to tell its story. I think it is a clever way of telling the story because you do not know where it is going. You know it is building up to something big but you don't know what that is.

This is a clever story about the nature of evil and where it originates. Can someone be born evil or bad? This film proposes that theory. Kevin's evil nature is all directed at his mother and seems to be building up over his life time to completely ruin her life. Many films like to play up the very close bond that mothers have with their sons, but what if the opposite was the case. I don't think that Kevin could hate his mother even more. As I said his every move seems to be a calculated effort to ruin her mothers life. It is all building up to a major event. We see what Eva's life is like after the horrible things her son does and you really feel sorry for her. One of the problems I had with the film is why Eva is being blamed for the actions of her son. After what he does, Eva is really ostracised from the community and vilified. I don't get that. While she may have been Kevin's mother, I'm not sure there is much she could have done to prevent what he did. Kevin is very clever in displaying his evil tendencies and as a result his father is oblivious to what he does. So even if Eva spoke up I'm sure that no one would have believed her.

Tilda Swinton is simply an amazing actress. While she does come across as very cold most of the time, it does seem to work for the role she takes. Here she is excellent as a mother who is being held hostage emotionally by the one person in the world who is supposed to love her unconditionally. I love how John C. Reilly does these smaller independent films sometimes. He is great here. The greatest performances though are that of the three young men who play Kevin at his various stages of life. Rock Duer and Jasper Newell are brilliant as the younger stages. Their looks are all they need to give to display their intentions. They make great evil boys. Ezra Miller as the older Kevin is equally as brilliant. He can go from the nasty young man to the sweet guy so easily. His actions are so cold and calculated.

A film for all those parents who are worried they might be raising an evil child. Use this as a barometer and a way of telling if your child is truly evil. For everyone else go see it as another reason for not having children.

The Ides Of March

George Clooney has long been interested in politics. Many think that he would run for President. This film shows us what that might be like.

One of my favourite types of films are those that involve politics. I'm not sure what it is but they always seem to involve a lot of deal making and can be quite thrilling. That's certainly the case here. It is a fairly simple story but is told in a really entertaining way. There are lots of nice twists and turns to keep you interested. It also makes you wonder how little the general public are involved in the process. The process is quite cut throat too with the people involved willing to do anything to get ahead. Things that many of us would not agree with. It does not do any favours for people who work in politics. For a film that is based on a play there is a hint of its origins but still George has managed to open it up nicely to make it very cinematic.

George Clooney certainly has a very Presidential presence. I could easily imagine him taking on the top office one day. His role in minor here but being the centre of attention he still carries a great deal of weight. It helps when he is backed up by an excellent cast. Ryan Gosling once again does his usual brilliant job. His character goes through many emotional phases and Ryan handles them all so well. Philip Seymour Hoffman gives another blustery performance. His dialogue is mostly cliches but he's still excellent. Paul Giamatti as his opposite number is equally good. Nicely shifty. Rachel Evan Wood is wonderful as the only really 'nice' person in the film. Marisa Tomei has a great small role too.

Good political thrillers sadly do not come along very often so we need to take advantage of them while we can.

Burning Man

This is one of those films that you should know very little about before going to see it. I recommend that you do not read my review until after you see the film. Just know that it is a brilliant piece of film making that you must rush out and see.

Regular readers will know that I am trying to be a script writer. I love to go see films to study them and learn what to do and what not to do with my writing. Occasionally there will be a film that makes me want to give up because it is far too intimidating. This is one such film. Writer/director Jonathan Teplitzky has crafted a brilliant drama that while presenting a familiar story does it in a unique way. The first half of the film can be a bit confusing. Jonathan presents scenes and half scenes that do not really make much sense. Eventually though you begin to understand what is going on but even then once he reveals the true story your still surprised. A man going through the grief of loosing a loved one can be a powerful story and that certainly what we see here. Tom is a man who is doing some unusual things to try and get over the death of his wife, but we all deal with grief in different ways. We don't always know what is real and what is not. His emotional journey is one that we become so caught up in that we begin to share his grief. This is the skill of a good director that can make you become so involved in a film.

Matthew Goode's introduction in this film is one of the best in cinema. He is brilliant at capturing the nuances of his character as he does some wild things while his family look on. Matthew is great at both the darker and lighter moments of his character. He is backed up by some brilliant Aussie actors. Bonjana Novakovic gives a wonderfully powerful performance as Tom's dying wife. Their scene where they meet is so hilarious. It is also a great testament to her skill that despite the fact we know what is coming with her character we still feel the emotion of the moment when it comes. Essie Davis does a very good job as Tom's sister-in-law. Considering what Tom does she is very forgiving. Equally as brilliant as his adult co-stars is young Jack Heanly. His scenes With Matthew are wonderful. He is such a great young actor. Rachel Griffiths also has a nice minor role in the film. Don't let the fact that this film being Australian let you down. This is one of the reasons we produce some of the best film making talent in the world. Do what ever you can to go see it.

The Debt

Another film whose release was delayed due to the financial woes of Miramax. Gladly the delay was not due to a bad film as is often the case.

This is a remake of a film called 'Ha-Hov' which I have not seen. But it is an excellent story. My only problem with the film is that I felt there was no enough known about the characters. Why they were chosen for such an important mission. The man they are sent to capture sounds like an important thing and they seem like fairly young and inexperienced agents. However they are chosen to go on this important mission. I was however able to get over this small problem and really enjoy the film. It is an excellent thriller. The ending is set up nicely at the beginning but there is a neat little twist in the middle which changes your perspective. The way the story unfolds with the flashbacks also adds a great deal of drama.

Helen Mirren once again proves she is one of the greatest actresses working today. I don't think she can give a bad performance if she tried. As her younger self Jessica Chastain is wonderful. Such a young forceful actress who is establishing herself as one of the best. She moves so nicely from sweet and innocent to tough and angry so easily. Marton Csokas has played creepy so well before and does it nicely here too. Tom Wilkinson as his older self was good but lacked that creepiness of his younger days. I love to see Sam Worthington do something with a bit more meaning and depth. He lacks a bit in his performance but I like that he is trying to move away from the dumb action hero roles. Ciaran Hinds does a better job as the older version of his character. Nicely portraying the burden he has had to endure. Jesper Christensen plays their kidnap victim with enough evil that your so glad they want to get rid of him.

There are so many great adult dramas out there at the moment and this is just one of the best. A great thriller with wonderful performances.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1.

Following in the footsteps of the Harry Potter series, the producers of the Twilight saga have decided to split the final film into two parts..

Regular readers will know that I'm not a fan of this series. Stephenie Meyer has watered down vampires so much that she has taken all the fun out of them. Making me wonder why she used them to tell her story. Vampires need to be vicious and blood thirsty.

I'm not entirely sure why Bill Condon took on the duty of directing these films. I think the money might have been a factor. As previous directors have shown there is very little for them to do to make a unique film. When you look at each film I don't think you would something distinctive to say that director made that film. There is only one moment in this film in a flashback that made me think this film was directed by Bill Condon.

So far these films have been very ordinary, bordering on boring. The fleshing out of the final book is very noticeable in the first third of the film with the wedding and honeymoon. This sequence could have been cut significantly. I know it is there to make fans happy because they all love to see Bella and Edward in love. Even when the main story of Bella's pregnancy kicks in there is very little thrills. The films need to get a PG-13 rating in the USA and so the film's makers cannot have anything that might get it an R rating. As a result they have had to take all the fun out of the story. There was potential there to make things a bit more interesting but they have decided to make it boring instead. They don't even need to have more blood. But there are film making techniques that Bill and his team could have used to add more thrills. The other part of the problem for me is Bella's baby. I know that a human having a vampire baby is a bad thing, but I got no sense of a threat that this baby could be. The soothsayer is even silenced because she cannot see the babies future. Maybe if we had some foretelling of what this baby means then we might feel it is a bigger threat. I also think that Bella's father could have been a bigger threat. His daughter is sick and being a cop I would have thought that he could have done a better job of trying to track her down. Him turning up at the house would have been an interesting plot twist.

The acting has not really improved over the series. Robert, Kristen and Taylor are pretty much the same. It was however nice to see Robert smile for once. The rest of the cast are nothing special and do the best they can with the weak material.

I realise that my opinion does not matter when it comes to this film. By now you know either love it or hate it and you know what you in for.

Anonymous

An interesting thing about human nature is that incredible events get analysed so much and questioned for their authenticity. One such incredible event is the amazing writings of William Shakespeare.

I am one of the millions of people who love the works of William Shakespeare. I studied a few of his plays at school, which was not much fun, but I do love to see his plays performed. I do not see them performed on stage, as they were intended, but I do see many of the films. He is truly one of the greatest writers who has ever lived. I can understand that this greatness will be analysed a lot. People have researched Shakespeare himself and his life but cannot understand how this man wrote what is attributed to him. If this film is an accurate portrayal he is an illiterate fool and more than likely not have written all those plays and poems and sonnets.

Writer John Orloff has created a brilliant story that incorporates the conspiracy theory about Shakespeare and weaving that into the story of British royalty at the time. I have always been a fan of this period in time and so have seen many films about Queen Elizabeth. So it was wonderful to see a different take on the period and the monarch. There are so many lovely twists and turns in the plot that you are kept interested the whole time. As you would expect there are some great references to Shakespeare's plays woven into the plot as well. After blowing up the world several times over it is great to see Roland Emmerich make a film that kind of creates a new world. His direction is excellent here and proves he is not just the master of action blockbusters. The production design and costumes are so lovely as well.

Roland has assembled an excellent cast of British actors. Rhys Ifans is one of those actors who has been lurking in the background of films for ages and doing excellent work. Now he steps into the spotlight. He is brilliant in this role. We always knew he was great but now that he gets a leading role that just emphasises it. Sebastian Armesto is very good as the man originally chosen to be the 'ghost writer'. Vanessa Redgrave and her daughter Joely Richardson are brilliant as the young and older Queen Elizabeth. Rafe Spall is excellent as Shakespeare. For a film about the 'writer' he has a nice supporting role. Edward Hogg is wonderfully slimy and evil as the Earl Of Oxford's main rival.

It does not matter if you believe the story or not, this is an excellent story. Full of wonderful political intrigue and mystery that is very entertaining.

I Don't Know How She Does It

For many years now women have had to contend with one of life's biggest balancing acts. Juggling work and family. This film explores the balance that women try to contend with.

I had my doubts going into this film about whether a film like this could pull off what it was trying to say. To me a person or family like the one portrayed complaining about not having enough hours in the day to do stuff just seems ridiculous. Especially when there are millions of families with little or no money trying to do the same thing and for less pay. It means we have less sympathy for our lead character because their struggle does not seem as worthy as someone you might meet in real life. What makes it more pretentious is that they want average people to see this film.

Despite my initial misgivings I did end up enjoying the film a lot more than I expected. Kate's struggle to balance her work and home life does feel legitimate. She is rich enough to be able to employ a nanny to help look after her children. But she also loves her job so much which is why she still works. The main problem I had though was that Kate tries to do everything herself. I'm not sure why she doesn't get her husband, Richard, to do some of the work for her. While he seems just as busy as she does, I'm not sure why he does not volunteer to help her out. I did like the unique approach the film makes in telling the story by making it like a documentary. Kate breaks the fourth wall and talks to the audience and supporting characters talk to the audience in interview situations. Writer Aline Brosh McKenna has adapted the book in a different way to conventional storytelling. It was a nice touch that made the storytelling feel different. Sarah Jessica Parker can be a bit hit and miss with me. I'm not a fan of 'Sex And The City' so lately she has not done anything exciting for me. To me she used to do more daring roles but now seems content to placate to her fan based and not breakout. That is the case here. She is a very good comedic actress and is good here but does not do anything terribly special. Pierce Brosnan does a serviceable job as the man Kate works closely with. Greg Kinnear does very little except fight with Sarah a lot and complain that she's never around. I did like Olivia Munn as Kate's assistant. She is very funny even if her character's plot is a bit obvious.

This might be more relate able and more enjoyable for women who have to struggle each day with the kind of situation that's depicted in the film. For everyone else there is some mild amusement to be had.

Moneyball

Australia has cricket and the Americans have baseball. Long boring games that involve the hitting of balls and running around.

Despite some similarities to cricket, Aussies have not shown much interest in baseball. Movies about baseball usually don't do too well here. Thankfully this film, while about baseball is more concerned with behind the scenes politics of the game rather than the game itself. Regular readers will know that I'm a huge fan of writer Aaron Sorkin and as he is a co-writer of this film then I was bound to enjoy it. Aaron loves to write films about behind the scenes of things, which is why he is so well suited to work on this film. I'm not a sports fan but I seem to enjoy most films about sports. I think because they edit the games so they feel more tense than they really are. I do know a little bit about baseball which comes from my endlessly watching 'The Naked Gun'. Using statistics to create a sports team seems like a good idea in theory but as is always the case the human element gets in the way. People don't always behave statistically. But Billy Beane managed to get the system working. The film is full of dialogue and analysing statistics, so it is a real testament to writers Steven Zallian, Aaron Sorkin and director Bennett Miller that they manage to make this story really interesting and compelling. While there is only one game of baseball shown in the film, you really root for these characters and their team and want to see them succeed. It is truly a David and Goliath story. The one game that is shown in the film is one of the most tense games I've seen played. It also has one of the best game climaxes your ever likely to see.

Brad Pitt proves once again that he is truly a brilliant actor. His portrayal of Billy Beane in this film is amazing. He is a man that despite being let down by the system that created him still wants to see it succeed. Billy does not let anything get him down and even lets other people take the credit. I loved how the film gave us some background to Billy's baseball career. Brad has some wonderful scenes with Kerris Dorsey who plays his daughter. These are some really emotional scenes. Jonah Hill is mostly know for his crude humour, so it is great to see him do something more serious. And he does a brilliant job of it. He is perfect as the nerdy type guy who helps Billy in his quest. Philip Seymour Hoffman is nicely gruff as the teams coach who resists Billy's new scheme.

Don't let the fact the film is about baseball put you off. This is one of the best films I've seen this year and is well worth seeing. No doubt it will be rewarded come award season.

In Time

Everyone always complains about not having enough time to do things. What if that was really the case and you earned your time alive.

I have this problem when I'm watching certain films that I over analyse the premise too much and it can ruin my enjoyment of the film. That was the case with this movie. So the premise is that humans have been genetically engineered to not age after 25 and that you have to earn any further time you live with work. My question is: how did the world come to be like this? Although some of the characters have been alive for more than a hundred years, this version of the future does not look that much different to ours as far as technology is concerned (such as cars). This means that at some stage soon scientists will engineer people to be this way. Forgetting the fact that we allowed genetic engineering to take place, how did we allow it to be done so that the rich live much longer than the poor? I think there must have been a gene added that makes people complacent to their lifestyle, because I can't imagine people letting this happen without protest. It was these questions I kept thinking about that made me not be able to fully enjoy the film.

Putting all that aside, the film is not all that thrilling considering the life and death struggle that these people must go through in their daily lives. As mentioned above, the poorer people seem to have accepted their situation and don't seem to try to improve themselves. When Will and Sylvia start robbing banks it seems quite easy to do and you wonder why no one had thought of it before. I would have expected Will and Sylvia to come across an underground revolutionary movement to steal back time. This means that while there is enough interest to keep you watching it does not have any lasting impact. It was quite funny though to hear what people's real ages are. Everyone looks 25 so you don't know if the person you meet is old enough to be your parent or grandparent.

Justin Timberlake seems to have taken a long break from music and has gotten into movies with this being his third film this year. He does a competent job here but is not required to do anything that will extend his range. So too is Amanda Seyfried. She is rather bland I find in this role.Cillian Murphy brings some credibility to proceedings but looks much older than the 25 years he is supposed to be. Alex Pettyfer does a very good job as a mobster.

Most people will no doubt enjoy this more than I did. As long as you don't think too much about the premise then you should have some fun with it.

Meet Me In St. Louis

Margaret & David on their TV show have a segment where they review an old film. A couple of months ago they did a review of 'Meet Me In St. Louis'. So when the chance came to see it on the big screen I just had to see it.

There are older films which have that nature of being 'of the time'. You could imagine them only being made when they did. This is a very sweet good natured film. I think if released today as it is, it would not appeal to modern audiences because people would find it far too sweet and good natured. The story is very much like a musical version of a Jane Austin novel. A group of young women looking to meet a man to spend the rest of their lives with. I can see a lot of similarities with 'Pride & Prejudice'. The film does give off a great deal of charm which means you can't help but like it. The songs are very familiar so you know what your getting. Vincent Minnelli directs them really well too so you can't help but love them. The film does have a dark moment though. There is a Halloween sequence involving the families youngest daughter Tootie going trick-or-treating with the neighbourhood children. They do some very strange things which is stands out a bit to the rest of the film.

I'm ashamed to say that the only other Judy Garland film I've seen is 'The Wizard Of Oz'. She is an excellent musical performer who can also act when required. Judy can definitely play the sassy rebel type nicely. Lucy Bremer is wonderful as her sister. Margaret O'Brien is very cute as the young sister. She pretty much steals the show from everyone. While the men play secondary characters a few like Harry Davenport as Grandpa being the most delightful.

It is always nice to go back in time cinematically speaking and see how they used to make films. It makes a refreshing change to some of the films we get these days.

Our Idiot Brother

Another popular theme in movies is that of a families one member who does not fit in. Commonly known as the black sheep.

There are some people in this world who are too trusting. They always think the best of people. But not everyone is nice and so they get taken advantage of. It also means they are honest to the people around them and it can get them into trouble. That is the problem for Ned in this film. He lives a kind of 'hippy' lifestyle and gets into trouble with the law. As a result he must rely on his sisters for help but ends up causing bigger problems in their lives. It is an excellent comedic premise where you get a character who enters the lives of a group of people and shakes things up. So this film is really funny. Ned can come across as a little bit too trusting and naive but you still believe he is real. There are some scenes where he does things where you cringe because you think people are going to take advantage of his trusting nature and they do but not all the time. He is also incredibly sweet. The story of Ned and his dog Willie Nelson is very cute and makes Ned a more likable character.

You would think that with a cast like this, the film would have been a more mainstream film. Paul Rudd is certainly an excellent comedic actor and he brings that excellence to the character of Ned. As mentioned above the character must tread a very fine line of coming across as dumb. Paul manages to never cross the line. The actresses who play the sisters are all excellent. But I do think that their casting is a little bit obvious. You kind of expect those actresses to play those roles. That's not to say they are bad in them but it would have been nice to see the mix it up a bit.

One of the years best comedies. A top notch comedy cast in a story that while familiar is still really funny.

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

A couple of years ago Guillermo Del Toro was working on 'The Hobbit' in New Zealand. While that was happening he also co-produced a horror film that he co-wrote in Australia.

Items that sit on a shelf for longer than they are supposed to tend to go off. Studio politics have kept this film off screens for a little bit longer than expected. Usually when this happens it is because there is very little faith in the film. While it is by no means the best film ever made, it is still a pretty decent horror film. I think the involvement of Guillermo has helped make it more reputable than you may expect. Because he has worked on the script there is a good story. In typical Guillermo fashion it involves a young girl discovering a new work. And also features evil pixies or fairy like creatures. Director Troy Nixey has managed to create a nicely spooky atmosphere with the film. But is could have been a bit more scary. The fact the creatures like children's teeth is an element I was disappointed that was not fully explored.

Katie Holmes has proven to be a good actress when given good direction. While she gives a decent performance she is saddled with the cliched role of a step mother trying to get to know her husbands daughter. Guy Pearce is very good but again his role is a little cliched. The work-a-holic father who has little time for his daughter and her problems. I was really impressed with Bailee Madison. She is a very good young actress who gives an effective performance. The Aussie support cast of Jack Thompson and Garry McDonald give some quality support.

Not the dismal failure of a film that you might expect. A good decent horror film that lacks the blood and guts of most of its ilk these days which is a good thing.

Psycho

The run of classic films continues with this Halloween screening of one of the greatest horror movies of all time.

There are some classic films that will remain that way for all time. They have a timeless quality despite being made in another time. Alfred Hitchcock has long been regarded as one of the best directors and this film is further proof of that. Hitchcock is highly skilled at creating tension in a film so the audience is always on edge. He has made some of the greatest thrillers on film. This film is really cleverly written and directed. In the script writing classes I've done this film is used as an example of how to build up tension. It starts off fairly simply with a woman, Marion Crane, stealing some money and escaping. The scene where Marion meets the cop on the highway is so brilliantly constructed and created that while not much goes on you still feel really tense. It is also true of Norman Bates. When you first meet him he comes across as just a normal guy who runs a rundown motel. But as the film progresses you learn about Norman and his true Psyche. This one is one of Hitchcock's bloodiest films and so to soften the blow for audiences he chose to film it in black and white. I do not find the film very scary but I don't normally find knife wielding maniacs scary. I'm sure that today it would not be found to be scary for modern audiences as they require more blood. It is just an excellent story told brilliantly.

Poor Anthony Perkins got stereotyped for playing this role. He went on to be in the three sequels of this film so maybe he realised that was the only way he could make money and just accept it. He is brilliant in this role. He plays the nerdy guy so well. At the beginning you don't think much of him and he plays his innocence really well. As the film progresses you begin to see cracks in his persona and his true intentions are revealed. Janet Leigh certainly makes a good victim. As Marion she does a good job of playing a woman who has not committed a crime before. Marion acts nervously so much that its always so obvious she is up to no good. Vera Miles gives an excellent performance as Marion's determined sister Lila. She comes across as very brave. The other males roles like Martin Balsam as the detective and John Gavin as Marion's boyfriend Sam are also great.

One of the greatest horror/thrillers ever made. While you may not find it very scary compared to films today, you can still admire the skill of master film maker.

Drive

Ryan Gosling is having a run of films in cinemas at the moment. We've just had 'Crazy, Stupid, Love.' and now get 'Drive'.

This is the first film I've seen that was directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. He has certainly crafted a very stylish film. It is obviously set today but has been made to look like it was made in the 1980's. The music and titles especially set up this tone. The rest of the film is very well filmed with excellent editing and camera work. The story is pretty familiar. A criminal who falls in love and that relationship leads to his downfall. But in cases like this, while you know where the story is going it is whether or not the journey is any good. This is an excellent journey. Nicolas tells the story really well and there are some interesting twists. I must warn the squeamish though that the film is quite violent and bloody.

Ryan is probably the greatest actor working today. He is proving to be so versatile in his choices for roles. Here he plays a really cool, calm and smooth operator. He has barely any lines to say in the film so most of the emotion of the character you must try to interpret in his face. His driving driving skills are quite exceptional too. Carey Mulligan play the object of Ryan's affection very well. She is mostly just a plot point but brings some nice vulnerability to her performance. Bryan Cranston makes a nice friend for Ryan's character. The biggest surprise though is Albert Brooks. He is mostly known for his comedic roles but is excellent at playing a mob boss in this film. He plays nasty really well.

There was the woman in the USA who wants to sue the makers of 'Drive' for deceptive marketing. From the trailer she expected a film like 'The Fast & The Furious' series. This is very true and a good way of making a case for how good the film is. It is a clever and well made thriller with excellent car chases.

Contagion

A couple of years ago director Stephen Soderbergh had 4 films come out in one year but he has been a bit quiet since then. Now he's back with an all star thriller.

The type of films that scare me are those that feature people dying by a deadly virus. Regular horror films with death and mutilation by a homicidal maniac, I don't find terribly scary. I feel I will have a better chance of dying from a virus than from a knife wielding maniac, so they seem more scary. In saying that I'm not a germaphobe.

Soderbergh and writer Scott Burns have crafted and excellent thriller which looks at how we would react if a deadly virus broke out. From an organisational view point it is fascinating to see what would happen. How the various organisations around the world would handle things. They also look at the types of situations that could develop. What some people will resort to when placed in a deadly situation. How some will take advantage of it and profit by it. The film does however lack a bit of emotional involvement. Most of the characters are people from government or medicine who are looking to control the virus. There is one character, Mitch, who is an average person. We see how he reacts so we see the more 'human' side of the situation. I would have liked a bit more of that average person viewpoint.

Soderbergh has assembled a top notch all-star cast for this film. As mentioned above, most of their role involves reacting to news and solving problems. Not much emotional skill. So while they are excellent as you would expect, it is not that much of a challenge performance wise. Matt Damon is the one who gets to emote more and does an excellent job. His scene when he finds out his wife dies from the virus is brilliant. I did also like Jude Law and is arrogant blogger character. A perfect amalgamation of all the bloggers you would see on the internet. I was a bit baffled by his character having a fake front tooth. I did not understand why he had it so my constant staring at it was a bit distracting.

A cleverly made virus outbreak thriller. Stephen Soderbergh once again displays his great skills as a film maker. It would have been better though with some more emotional involvement of the characters.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

I remember doing The Time Warp. Drinking those moments when the blackness would hit me and the void would be calling. Let's do The Time Warp again.

To celebrate Halloween Event cinemas have brought back this classic musical. I attended a screening which had the full interactive experience with actors reenacting the film and comments being shouted out during the film. It is something I've been wanting to experience for a while now and glad I finally got to see it.

My history with 'Rocky Horror' is a little weird. I remember growing up and seeing the video at the video shop and always being fascinated by it. I did now know what it was about or anything. I may have heard the song 'The Time Warp' but that was about it. I even thought it was an actual horror film. In my early teens (I think) I stayed up one night to watch the film on TV. I got the biggest shock of my life. While the film was not sexually explicit, all the frank sex talk was a real surprise to me. But the biggest surprise was the names of the two lead characters. My name is Brad and my mother's name is Janet. So that was always a little weird to me. I also got to see the stage show about 20 years ago which was amazing. I have since become a real fan of the show and the music.

To say this film is strange is putting it mildly. The basic plot is similar to that of a horror film and it is a satire on the horror conventions. But the film is far from conventional. So many strange things happen that your never sure what is going on. The ending is the strangest part. Characters come and go without any reason and all the characters are pretty weird. Frank-N-Furter and his gang all come from another planet which is weird too. I never understood why they come from another planet. There are many clever references to other sci-fi and horror films which are woven into the craziness. I think you have to be able to get into the craziness of it all and have a very open mind.

The live interactive experience is excellent. People act out the movie underneath the screen while others shout comments throughout to various lines in the movie. The audience shout at certain times too and throw things. I've been meaning to go to one of these screenings for a while and I'm glad I got to experience it. The comments they make are very funny. You would think the recreation is distracting but I didn't think it was.

When you think of 'Rocky Horror' I think Tim Curry's name is the first one you think of. He has become the iconic Frank that all others must live up to. Everyone copies his performance and accent when they play the role. This is one of Susan Sarandon's first roles and she shows her excellence as an actress early on. I'm not sure why she has not done a musical since. Barry Bostwick is also perfect as the straight laced Brad. Creator of 'Rocky Horror' Richard O'Brien makes a perfect Riff Raff and is wonderfully assisted by Patricia Quinn as Magenta.

One of the greatest musicals ever made. I love the weird craziness of the story and especially the great songs. Make sure you are open minded because this is not a film for everyone.

What's Your Number?

As a fan of romantic comedies and the fact that I'm trying to write one as well, I like to see as many as I can for research.

Some romantic comedies these days have some pretty flimsy premises. This one is based on the idea of a statistic. I'm not sure if the study is true but if a woman has more than 20 lovers then they are less likely to find a long term partner. This would be OK if the writers were able to create something funny out of it. Ally visiting past boyfriends could potentially have been funny but Gabrielle Allan and Jennifer Crittenden have managed to leave out the laughs from the situation. The other annoying aspect is this fixation writers have at the moment for having a wedding be part of the plot. The lead character seems to always be about to attend the wedding of a friend or relative which is why they have become so fixated on getting a partner. It is becoming very boring and they need to think of something more original.

Anna Faris is one of those actresses that frustrates me. While she has not always been in the best movies, she has shown some potential in being a great actress. But she insists on doing bad movies. I'm not sure if that is her fault or the way Hollywood perceives her. This is one of those films where she is not very good but that is largely due to the poor material. Chris Evans does a decent job in a role where he is mainly there for eye candy. There are some good cameos from actors who play Alley's old boyfriends but there are not enough of them.

A poor romantic comedy that has no comedy. While the premise is slim there looks to be some potential there for funny moments but they were never realised.

Midnight In Paris

Writer/director Woody Allen has a very prolific career and makes a movie a year. A bigger output than most of his younger contemporaries. However this is the first time in a long while where his film has gotten a wide release here in Australia.

I have been a fan of Woody Allen for a while now but have come to appreciate him more in the last few months. My regular readers will know that I went to see several of his earlier film at the beginning of this year. As a result I've come to love him more. The most interesting thing about this film for me is why this film, of all his previous releases, has been so popular overseas and as a result got a wide release here. It is not all that different from some of his other films and has an all star cast. Perhaps it is the story. Woody has been making several of his more recent films in Europe because they are more popular there so a return on their investment is more likely. This film is his tribute to Paris.

It begins much like his tribute to New York film 'Manhattan', with a series of romantic shots of the city set to jazz. It is a great way to introduce the film and the city in which it is set. This is very much a romantic version of the city. It is beautiful, sweet and delightful. The modern version though is not what excites Woody. He prefers the old 1920's version with its collection of writers and artists. Which is why he has his hero transported back to this era. I'm sure this is what Woody would like to do. The film is delightful in this respect, showing what it would be like if we could visit a time we have dreamed about. Woody is however good at pointing out the folly of having such dreams. There is a problem with the central relationship of the film. Cal and Inez don't seem like the perfect couple despite the fact they are engage to be married. You wonder how they got together. Perhaps this trip to Paris has unearthed some deeper emotions in the relationship.

I don't know what it is but on several occasions when Woody has chosen an actor as his lead they tend to act like him. Owen Wilson does that here. He plays Cal like you would imagine Woody would have if he played the part. This is not a bad thing, just an interesting observation. This is one of Owen's best performances and proves he needs a skilled director to work with. Rachel McAdams is good but is stuck with the thankless role of Cal's fiance who does not like his midnight walks. It would have been nice of she did not fight him so much. Marion Cotillard plays one of the 1920's characters Cal meets and is wonderful. The rest of the cast make good cameo appearances as famous people from that time.

Many of Woody Allen's films do not get a cinema release here so you should take the opportunity while you can. Especially when it is showing in so many cinemas. A nice, light little fantasy if you don't want something heavy and that will make you feel good.

Red State

Writer/director Kevin Smith takes a decidedly different and much darker turn with his latest film. Turning on fundamentalist evangelicals.

I am a big fan of Kevin Smith. I admit that not all his films are great but they are still really cleverly written. I seem to gravitate towards writers who can write great dialogue, which is Kevin's greatest strength. So I had high expectations for this film.

The film has not been very well received. Kevin has decided to make a film which is radically different to what he has previously done. He has not always been a hugely successful film maker financially or critically but he has a big cult following. The tone of this film is really different to what we've come to expect from Kevin, which is why I think it has not done that well.

The story is a fairly conventional horror plot with a group of teens being captured and tortured by a nasty family. What makes this film different is that this family is religious fundamentalists. There are many groups like this around but generally they don't kidnap and kill people. That we know of. These people are very radical in their approach to God, so you can see how it is not that far for them to go in making sure people believe like they do. They make the perfect villains.

Kevin has certainly grown up as far as his film making techniques are concerned too. He freely admits that he is not a very visual film maker but he has done an excellent job here. He uses the camera better and moves it around a lot more creating frenetic visuals which add to the thrills of the story.

I attended one of Kevin Smith famous Q & A talks last year and he spoke of his casting for this film he told a story of how he wanted Michael Parks and it is perfect casting. Michael gives a brilliant performance. He is suitably creepy and despite playing someone who is supposed to be promoting love he come across as pure evil. The centre piece of the film is a speech he gives explaining how his branch of fundamentalism works. It is frightening stuff. His assistant in this evil crusade is played by the brilliant Melissa Leo. She plays the wackiness of her character so well. John Goodman rounds out the trio of excellence with his put-upon agent who must stop this religious group from expanding. He is good as showing the exasperation his character feels at not being able to run the operation in the way he'd like to.

You know Kevin Smith for his crazy comedies so don't be put off by the fact that this is a hardcore horror film. Americans are worried about extreme branches of Muslims overseas, but they should be just as scared of those right in their own backyard.