UP IN THE AIR (2009) - Jason Reitman

We live in times which are rich for satire. It’s easy to poke fun at the state of the world, but sometimes satire can wander into the territory of cliché. Yet Jason Reitman’s latest film, Up In The Air manages to be satirical without ever being patronising. It’s a film that is perfectly timed for the world today. A world of unemployment, foreclosures and a society struggling for identity and direction.

Ryan Bingham has possibly the worst job in the world. He is the person companies hire in order to fire their employees. All he sees every day is people on the verge of nervous and emotional breakdown. And yet, he loves his life. He is constantly moving, working out of a suitcase. He travels the US, lives in hotels and counts air miles as achievements. And yet, he is alone. He barely talks to his two sisters, and has few friends. But his life is on course for a change. His company are introducing video conferencing, which would allow it’s employees to fire people from one central location. This threatens Bingham’s lifestyle. So he takes his company’s wunderkind, the developer of the video program, Natalie Keener, on the road to see what exactly it’s like to fire a person.



As I’ve mentioned, Up In The Air is the perfect film for these times. It deals with themes that many people can relate to right now. Unemployment is rife, companies are closing, and people just feel a sense of constant loss. It’s to Reitman’s credit that he uses real people to depict the people being laid-off by Bingham. Apart from a few actors who depict more plot-central characters, everybody Bingham fires are people who recently lost their jobs. Reitman instructed these people to tell the camera what they would have liked to have told their former employers, and the emotion really carries over. It adds gravitas to the film and makes the emotional impact more palpable.

George Clooney has found the role he was born to play. Ryan Bingham is suave and charming. Yet he seems detached from proceedings. It’s isolation he’s chosen, and perhaps, being a movie star and not interacting with ‘normal’ people like the rest of us, Clooney brings some of himself to the role. It’s a great performance from him, and indeed, the rest of the cast. Newcomer, Anna Kendrick plays Bingham’s charge, Natalie Keener. Keener is straight out of college and has something to prove, and yet is incredibly vulnerable when it comes to personal issues. She breaks Bingham’s isolationism down as he shows her that people aren’t just statistics. They’re perfectly cast against each other and lend real credibility to the film.



Jason Reitman’s career has taken off very well. His first three features, Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up In The Air are commercial and critical successes that deal with issues people can relate to. Up In The Air is probably the best film he’s made so far. It manages to capture the mood of the average person, while managing to tell a well-rounded personal story. It’s a very very good film, and worthy of the nominations it has received.


9/10

GRAN TORINO (2008) - Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood is the epitome of Hollywood legend. As an actor, Eastwood, in his fifty four years of working in the industry has become synonymous with the tough guy demeanor. As a director, Eastwood’s unfussy approach to direction has made him a director who knows how to get the best out of his actors. In Gran Torino, Eastwood takes on the dual role of actor and director, something he has done in films such as Heartbreak Ridge and Unforgiven.

Walt Kowalski is a retired Ford motor company employee and veteran of the Korean war. He has spent the majority of his life living in the same house in the suburbs of Michigan. Over the years he has seen the neighbourhood change with the arrival of more and more Hmong people. This is something that causes Kowalski irritation, as he is somewhat of a racist. When Walt steps in on a violent situation and saves his teenage Hmong neighbour (in actuality, Walt steps in just to save his lawn), he finds himself exalted as a hero in the Hmong community. Walt is then forced to deal with the unwanted attention his new celebrity brings him.



There’s two types of people in the world. Those who love Clint. And those who don’t. For those who do, this film is like a glorious epilogue for Eastwood’s career. For those who aren’t Clint fans, this film should turn them. Eastwood’s performance is just fantastic. He a grumpy, seething malcontent. And while that doesn’t sound like something to be entertained by, Eastwood is just so good in the role that it’s impossible not to enjoy the film. Racism aside, it’s easy to imagine Walt Kowalski as a retired Harry Callaghan. Eastwood has stated that Gran Torino will be his last film as an actor. While this is a sad thing to hear, it’s great that Eastwood went out with such a bang. Walt Kowalski is a no-nonsense, shit-kicking badass. And enormously entertaining to watch.



Where the film does fall slightly, it is with the support cast. To be fair, the Hmong actors are all first-timers, hand picked from the community for the roles. While their inexperience certainly shows next to Clint, they do a good enough job not to distract from the film. It’s a minor complaint. But Eastwood’s performance more than makes up for it. The script isn’t flawless. Some of the character arcs are a little questionable. Kowalski’s transition from racist to non-racist happens rather quickly. But aside from that, there’s not much to complain about. Eastwood manages to inject quite a bit of humour into the role that could otherwise be quite unlikable. With his trousers hitched up over his belly and a permanent scowl on his face, Kowalski manages to have elements of many of Clint’s iconic roles, while still being independent of these.

For the film that marks the end of Clint Eastwood’s acting career, Gran Torino is a great swansong. As a film by itself, it’s very entertaining, and questionably overlooked in favour of the more dour and serious Changeling. But it’s a film that surprises you in how entertaining it is. And at 78, Clint’s still got it and looks as badass as ever.


9/10

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008) - David Fincher

There are certain films that you know are made for awards ceremonies. Sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button certainly comes across as one of those types of films. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But watching them, you know exactly the type of audience the film is made for. David Fincher takes a different direction than the dark thrillers he’s known for by directing Benjamin Button. But will the unknown territory work against Fincher’s style.

Benjamin Button is a baby born on the night World War I ends. His mother dies in birth and his father, a rich factory owner is horrified when he sets eyes on his baby son. Benjamin is born with a condition that causes him to age backwards. He is born an old man and gets younger as he gets older. Benjamin ends up living in an old folk’s home, where he simply appears to be one of the people staying there. But as he gets older, and his faculties return, Benjamin wants to get out and see the world. Despite his love for a young girl, the granddaughter of one of the old folks, Benjamin must see the world. And so he sets off, unsure where his travels will take him.



A lot has been made of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button being very similar to Forrest Gump. And in ways, they are quite similar. They both feature protagonists who are unique in the world. They both long to go out and see different things. They are both in love with an unattainable girl. So, yeah, I’ll admit it could be argued that they’re practically the same movie. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Benjamin Button. Despite all the similarities, Benjamin Button’s still a very entertaining film to watch.

Firstly, it looks amazing. Fincher’s one of the great directors working today. Working with cinematographer, Claudio Miranda, Fincher creates a film steeped in detail and gorgeous colours. Aside from the special effects, which I’ll get to in a moment, the quality of the production is second to none. 1920s New Orleans looks amazing. Russia feels cold and sharp. And the golden era of 1950s America is suitably golden. And the special effects themselves are fantastic. The old (or is it young) Benjamin Button really looks as if they somehow aged and shrunk Brad Pitt. The only thing that still remains elusive when it comes to creating CGI people is they eyes. No matter how expensive and professional the CGI, they still can’t get human eyes right. There’s just something empty about them. I guess the eyes really are the windows to the soul!



Pitt’s performance is good enough for the role. The thing about Button is, he seems to be an observer in his own world, rather than somebody who drives events. When it came to Forrest Gump, while Gump was observing the things he witnessed, he did have a significant role to play in the events. Button seems to be drifting from event to event and allowing things to happen to him. And this reflects in Pitt’s performance. He just seems to be observing and isn’t required to do very much. Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the object of Button’s affections. While the character does come off as a bit of a bitch, Blanchett plays her very well. The rest of the characters are played by some very good character actors, including Elias Koteas, Jared Harris and Jason Flemyng and are all very good in their roles.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button’s not as memorable as Forrest Gump. Nor is it really deserving of the 13 Oscar nominations it’s received. I’m sure it’ll win a good few, but it’s in no way the film of 2008. It’s entertaining, and inoffensive, but it’s not going to set the world on fire. Fincher’s direction is rock solid. It looks amazing, and the performances are good, if not the best we’ve seen the actors deliver. And it should be seen on the big screen. But as I said at the start, some films are made to get awards. This is one of them.


8/10

FROST/NIXON (2008) - Ron Howard

True life often makes for better drama than fiction. Had somebody written the story of Richard Nixon and his fall from the most powerful political office in the world, few may believe it. But the truth was an unbelievable web of lies and deception with the president becoming one of the most hated people in public life. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, Nixon refused to admit he broke the law. After President Geral Ford gave Nixon a free pass, TV presenter David Frost took it upon himself to give Nixon the trial he escaped. Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard’s new film shows us the events that led up to the now famous interview between Richard Nixon and David Frost.

It’s 1977. Three years have passed since Nixon resigned from the office of the President of the United States after the Watergate scandal. People are pissed that Nixon was given a pardon for any wrongdoings by Gerald Ford. David Frost is a television presenter looking for a challenge. He’s not a major player in television, presenting an Australian chat show after a failed attempt to break the US market. Frost sees an opportunity when he approaches the ex-president with a proposal to do a number of interviews. Nixon is interested in one thing only. Money. Frost wants to further his career. But no network wants to touch the interview. And those working with Frost want to put Nixon on trial. As the interview approaches, a number of factors threaten not only the production, but also the integrity of all involved.



Frost/Nixon is the filmed version of the play by Peter Morgan. Michael Sheen and Frank Langella continue the roles they made their own on stage. And it’s pretty clear from the start that both actors are incredibly comfortable in the roles. The problem that can exist when an actor plays a real-life person is that the performance can focus on mannerisms and then become little more than a caricature of the person. But thankfully, that problem doesn’t exist here. Sure, both Sheen and Langella have the little quirks that make both Frost and Nixon such memorable characters. But once these little mannerisms are dealt with, the actors are able to concentrate on motivations and performance rather than imitation.

It doesn’t hurt that Sheen and Langella are joined by four great performances by Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt and Matthew MacFadyen. They play characters that are integral to the interview, but will never be recognised for it. While Sheen and in particular, Langella are the two actors given the most attention, the support they receive from these actors is vitally important. And none of the actors let anybody down.



There is in the film, a great emphasis placed on the power of television and the close-up. And in one pivotal moment, this is hammered home. Howard’s direction resists the need to be flashy or extravagant. After all, this is the adaptation of a play, and as such, doesn’t need to be anything more than a camera trained on actors. And for this reason, the film is successful. I will say however, that until the actual interview begins to unfold on screen, the film does tend to drag a little. A lot of emphasis is placed on how hard it is to get funding, and the problems that arise when people with different agendas clash. And in this section, I did find myself willing the film to get to the money shot, so to speak. However, once the actual interview arrives on screen, things get very very interesting.

Frost/Nixon is a very interesting look at an interview that has become a part of popular culture. It’s also a detailed examination of the power of television. The performances are rock solid, and Langella in particular is brilliant as Richard Nixon. He refrains from caricature and thus is very compelling to watch. Is it one of the best films of 2008? I don’t think so. But it is still a very solid film.


7/10

THE WRESTLER (2008) - Darren Aronofsky

Hollywood is full of comebacks. The rags to riches, to rags and back to riches story is not something consigned to fiction. And with the release of Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, The Wrestler, we may be witnessing a comeback that would be somewhat unbelievable if it were projected on screen. Mickey Rourke’s resurrection is bolstered by his performance as one-time wrestling superstar, Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson. The accolades have come thick and fast. But is the praise lavished upon the film justified?

Randy Robinson was once a professional wrestling superstar. He was the world champion, the people’s champion and a symbol for the United States of America. But he is well past his prime. His past glories have faded into almost obscurity and the only glimpse he has of his former glory is the occasional fan who looks for his autograph. The only action he sees is in the small, poorly-paid amateur circuit. For the most part, he is alone. The only companionship he has is in the form of a stripper called Cassidy. And that companionship is consigned to the club. And he has to pay for it. But an opportunity arises for Randy to regain some of his former glory. But his failing health stands in his way. He’s alone; his estranged daughter won’t talk to him. But he is just looking for somewhere to belong.



There is no doubt, the film rests on Mickey Rourke’s massive shoulders. He is in almost every frame of the film, and his performance needed to be close-on perfect. And, thankfully, it is. Rourke’s career became a train-wreck in the early nineties. Bored with acting, Rourke returned to his pre-acting passion, boxing. And it took it’s toll on Rourke. Both physically and when it came to his career. He turned down roles, and became almost unemployable. In the last few years, Steve Buscemi, Sean Penn and Robert Rodriguez have given Rourke choice roles in order to bring the actor out of the cold. But it is Aronofsky’s film that is the make or break for Rourke.

Thankfully for Rourke, his performance as Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson is fantastic. To use a cliché, it’s pretty much the role Rourke was born to play. Or at least, the role he has prepared for for the last fifteen years. Robinson is a broken down man. He is battle-scarred, run down and pretty much down on his luck. But he’s not a bad guy. For the most part, he’s a genuinely nice guy. It’d be too easy to make the character an unlikable kinda guy. But Rourke takes the blows, both physically and mentally with a wounded pride and this is what makes Robinson a compelling character.



Marisa Tomei plays Cassidy, the object of Robinson’s affections. Sure, she’s a stripper, but she’s far from the ‘hooker with a heart of gold’ type character you’d expect from the film. She is a mirror of The Ram. They both take off their clothes and are scruitinized for what they can do with their bodies. But the difference between them is, The Ram wants to return to his former glory. Cassidy wants out of the stripping business. She provides some comfort to Robinson. But she holds back. She can’t get too close to a customer. And Tomei balances these two sides very well.

Darren Aronofsky previously made four excellent films. With each film, the scope of the story increased. He came in for some criticism for the woefully-received The Fountain. But it was a film that some people just didn’t get. Here, he returns to a smaller, more personal story. And it’s just as good as anything he’s done before. Aronofsky was met with some scepticism when he said he wanted Rourke for the title role. But thanks to his tenacity, we as the audience benefit. The film is excellent. The script is very strong, the direction is spot-on. Aronofsky really capture the sub-culture of amateur wrestling. As a companion piece, the fantastic documentary Beyond The Mat should be seen. When viewed along-side The Wrestler, you appreciate on a whole new level, just how well Aronofsky captured the scene.

With Golden Globes won, and rumours of Oscar glory, The Wrestler is a triumph for all involved. Rourke has come in from the cold, and if he continues with performances as good as this, he’ll be here to stay. The second film of 2009 is another fantastic piece of work. Long may this trend continue.


9/10

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008) - Danny Boyle

A lot of superlatives have been bandied about when it comes to Danny Boyle’s latest film, Slumdog Millionaire. People are going about declaring it ‘the feel-good film of the decade,’ and other such clichéd statements. All this does is highlight how little these people know about film. Certainly, Slumdog Millionaire has it’s moments that are uplifting. But it also has some pretty grim and depressing moments. After all, it is a film whose central characters grow up in abject poverty.

Jamal and Salik are two brothers who live in the slums of Mumbai. They spend their days living amongst the poverty of their city. They don’t go to school, but pass the time getting into adventures amongst the rubbish tips of the city, being chased by police for playing cricket on an airfield and generally getting into as much mischief as two young boys can. After their mother is killed in a riot, the boys are left alone. They meet Latika, a young girl who is also alone. We see Jamal as an older boy. He is a contestant on the Hindi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Jamal has made it all the way to the final question, relying on knowledge he has acquired during his life on the streets. But as the final question awaits Jamal’s answer, questions as to whether he has cheated are raised. Jamal has one goal. To find Latika who he has lost contact with due to unfortunate circumstances.



Slumdog Millionaire has garnered praise from nearly all corners of the globe. And rightfully so. It’s a brilliant film. Director Danny Boyle is one of those rare directors who can handle both big budget movies, such as Sunshine, and smaller-budget character driven stories. The screenplay is written by Simon Beaufoy, who was nominated for an Oscar for his screenplay, The Full Monty. As with The Full Monty, Beaufoy is able to craft a screenplay that mixes darker elements with uplifting themes. He once again successfully merges these elements in Slumdog Millionaire.

One of the best elements of the film is the performances Danny Boyle has gotten from his cast. Many of the young actors are first-timers, but you wouldn’t guess that from the brilliant performances from the children. They have grown up in Mumbai, and that has just benefited their acting. Because of the troubles Boyle experienced using a British crew when shooting The Beach in Thailand, the director chose to use local talent to shoot the film. The crew were used to working on Bollywood films, and this experience shows throughout the film. Boyle chose to shoot the slum scenes in the slums of Mumbai rather than on constructed sets, as suggested by the crew. And it’s this attention to detail that adds to the realism of a film that is otherwise fantastical and a little melodramatic.



As mentioned, the film has been bandied about as the feel-good film of the decade. This is a rather incorrect statement. There are some very dark moments in the film. Moments that may make some viewers uncomfortable. It’s not that these moments are unrealistic. But they reflect a side of the slums that (as far as my limited knowledge tells me) is an unfortunate side of poverty. That’s not to say you’ll walk away from the film depressed. If it fails to put a wide grin on your face, there’s something wrong with you. It’s a highly entertaining yarn with great performances held together by lead Dev Patel. And for the first film of 2009 that I’ve seen, it bodes well for what’s ahead.


9/10

AUSTRALIA (2008) - Baz Luhrmann

If Baz Luhrmann will be remembered for one thing, it will be for the striking visual style he injects into his films. While Luhrmann has only so far directed four films, he has become known as a director of big, epic, romantic films. Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! were highly successful films that pitted two people from opposite backgrounds who find love despite the odds. Not much has changed with Luhrmann’s latest, an epic tale of romance set against the backdrop of World War 2 and how it affected Darwin and the nation of Australia.

Lady Sarah Ashley is married to a wealthy landowner who is living in Australia looking after his cattle ranch. Lady Ashley travels to Australia to oversee the sale of Faraway Downs. She is met in Darwin by Drover, a tough Australia cattle drover who will escort Lady Ashley to Faraway Downs. When Lady Ashley arrives at Faraway Downs, she finds her husband murdered, supposedly at the hands of an Aboriginal man named King George. Her land is under threat from Neil Fletcher, a man once employed by her husband. Fletcher wants the land for himself. Lady Ashley has little choice but to drive 2000 cattle across the Northern Territory to Darwin. She takes with her a half-Aboriginal boy named Nullah and enlists the help of a reluctant Drover.



When I was sitting watching the opening scenes of Australia, I found myself watching a film I wasn’t really prepared for. I had prepared myself for something more... serious. But having thought about it, the film fits in exactly with Baz Luhrmann’s style. While the film deals with serious matters, the film feels like it belongs to another era. It feels like it’s a film that was made in the forties or fifties, but with today’s technology and budgets. Which is what I guess Luhrmann was going for. The film does have the feel of a John Huston epic. There are huge, open vistas, a rich romantic plot and clearly defined heroes and villains. There’s no room for ambiguity here.

However, Australia is quite a flawed epic. While Romeo + Juliet and in particular, Moulin Rouge! were quite solid films, Australia falls down a few areas. It’s a long film. Very long. And in areas, you can’t help feeling that the film would have benefited from a bit of editing in the script stage. One thing that Luhrmann could really have cut back on is cliché. The film lathers on the schmaltz very thickly and thus, falls into a few obvious cheese traps. From the opening few scenes, you pretty much know exactly where the story is going, and surprises are few and far between. Having said that, the film doesn’t suffer really badly from these faults. If you can overlook these problems, the epic nature of the film will suck you in.



Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are cast as the two lovers from opposite worlds, Lady Ashley and the man known only as Drover. Each of them are suitably different that it’s believable they’re from opposite worlds. Nicole Kidman’s not an actress I’d rush to see. It seems the woman has no soul. It was hard to see her as a romantic lead since her last few films have required her to be cold. However here, she’s a lot easier to warm to. Jackman, on the other hand, once again delivers a great performance. While the film doesn’t require the depth Jackman has shown in The Prestige or The Fountain, Jackman can play tough and he does so here. But the real heart and soul of the film lies in the character Nullah, played by newcomer, Brandon Walters. Walters is the incredibly optimistic and playful Aboriginal child who brings and ties Lady Ashley and Drover together. It’s a great performance from the kid and is the soul of the film.

While Australia is flawed, it’s still very entertaining. It’s huge, epic and hopelessly romantic. And while some of the special effects are a little poor, this is due to the constraints of making a film outside the Hollywood studio system. We’re too used to spit and polish and poor story, but Australia overcomes these minor flaws to remain faithful to it’s goal. Australia looks gorgeous and it’s full of compelling if somewhat clichéd characters. It’s not quite as good as Luhrmann’s other work. But it’s still great to watch.


7/10

W. (2008) - Oliver Stone

History was made in the last month for two reasons. The first saw the election of the first black man to the seat of President of the United States. The other reason was the beginning of the end of George W. Bush’s tenure as president. He remains the most controversial president since Nixon and arguably one of the worst presidents in US history. But this isn’t a political discussion. It’s a review of Oliver Stone’s biopic of the man, W.

W. is released at a strange time. It’s too far into the Bush’s last term to have any impact on his legacy. And it’s too soon to fully judge Bush’s impact. However, the film attempts to understand Bush’s motivations by looking at some of the key moments in his life that made him the man he is now. Starting while Bush is in college, we trace his life, through the many jobs he held until he became governor of Texas, helped get his father, George H.W. Bush elected as President of the United States and then W.’s own election to the same office.



It’d be very easy to label George W. Bush as an idiot and fool who was, and is a front for big oil and similar shady interests. And while I’m sure that’s not entirely inaccurate, there’s no denying that it takes some brains to get to be president. It doesn’t just happen. And despite these assumptions that a lot of people have about Bush, Stone’s film is somewhat gentle on the guy. The easy thing would have been to make a complete farcical comedy about Bush. There’s enough footage of Bush gaffing to make a pretty funny comedy that is steeped in reality. But Oliver Stone instead looks at Bush as a man who’s constantly living in the shadow of his father. It’s somewhere he despises being. He wants to out-do his father while making his individual mark on the world. And in an attempt at being fair to Bush, you can’t help feeling that there’s also something missing from the film.

The performances are pretty good for the most part. Josh Brolin is excellent as George W. Bush. Stone’s film creates a Bush with a lot of charisma, and Brolin carries this across very well. It’s difficult to watch a film like this without seeing some of the performances as charicatures. And is some cases, this is true. Thandie Newton’s Condaleeza Rice does seem like it stepped out of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Yet in other cases, particularly Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Chaney and James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush, the performances are spot on. But over-all, the performances are generally pretty entertaining.



There are some funny moments in W. A few of the famous Bush-isms are featured, although they are shifted in context to fit in with the drama of the film. One particularly outstanding scene is set in the ‘war room’ where Bush and his cabinet discuss the strategy of Iraq before the conflict begins. It’s like a cross between high-drama and Dr. Strangelove-esqe satire. As a document and comment of Bush’s time as President of the United States, Stone’s Bush isn’t that type of film. Subjects like that are more suited to documentary. But as a character drama, W. is quite entertaining. It does, however, feel unfinished. Had the film been made five, or even a year from now, I’d imagine it would have been quite different in many ways.


7/10

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH (2007) - Paul Haggis

The Iraq war continues to provide filmmakers with difficult subject matter. Sure, there are many excellent documentaries that provide insight into the conflict which is perpetually in the news. But when it comes to drama, the conflict is rarely tackled head on. We’ve seen films that deal with the war on terror, films that deal with how the Coalition handles suspects in this war. And in In The Valley Of Elah, we have a film that deals, somewhat, with soldiers returning from the war.

Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank Deerfield, a retired military investigator who’s son returns from Iraq, only to go AWOL days later. Deerfield takes it upon himself to investigate his son’s disappearance. It is very unlike his son Mike to take off without letting his parents know where he is. Hank tries to enlist the help of the police only to be told it is a military matter and he should seek help from military police. But eager to keep his son out of trouble, Hank looks for help from Detective Emily Sanders, a single mom fighting for recognition in a job dominated by men. When a body turns up that is revealed to be Mike, Hank and Emily begin the search for Mike’s murderers.



I’ve never been a huge fan of Paul Haggis’ work. While Crash was an interesting if unremarkable drama, I’ve found when Haggis gets behind the camera, the films he produce are a little dull. Haggis is a better writer on other peoples’ films than he is a director, and this is evident in In The Valley Of Elah. At face value, In The Valley Of Elah is a crime drama. A crime has been committed, and Tommy Lee Jones is determined to get to the bottom of it. Underpinning this drama are a bunch of morality statements about what happens to the soldiers sent to fight in Iraq. These two elements provide two different problems with the film. The first, the drama isn’t particularly engaging or compelling. You know the mystery will be solved, but it’s a bit of a long haul getting to the reveal. The second problem lies with Haggis’ determination to drive a point home.

Haggis’ screenplays are packed with morality and life lessons. The problem is though, he’s as subtle as a rusty chainsaw in how he delivers his little lessons. When he works with other directors, the morality is reeled in a little. But when Haggis goes it alone, his morality is incredibly ham-fisted. The closing moments of In The Valley Of Elah are so blunt in their delivery of morality that I found myself actually angered at the approach Haggis took. I felt like screaming ‘OKAY PAUL, I GET IT ALREADY!’ It’s one thing to teach a lesson in a film. It’s another thing
entirely to ram the point down someone’s throat.



The performances are very good in the film. Tommy Lee Jones is on top form as Hank Deerfield, a life-long military man who finds himself questioning something he’s stood for his entire life. Jones is at his best at the moment, and while his character’s development during the film could feel like too much too soon, Jones handles it well enough that it doesn’t seem that way. Charlize Theron is in Oscar mode as Detective Emily Sanders. She’s dressed down and glum looking. But it’s a shame her character is such a cliché to prevent her from really shining. The single mom fighting prejudice in the workplace? It was entirely unnecessary to write the character in such a way, and seems ridiculous in the context of the film. Susan Sarandon has what amounts to little more than a cameo as Hank’s wife.

The problems with In The Valley Of Elah prevent from becoming a great film. The dullness of the mystery added to the ham-fisted approach to lessons prevent it from becoming the film Haggis desperately wants it to be. The film is beautifully shot by Coens-regular, Roger Deakins, but it takes more that beautifully shot film to make a film interesting. Perhaps in the hands of another, more talented director and without the clichéd aspects to Detective Emily Sanders’ character, it would have been a better film. But as it is, it’s only just mediocre.


6/10

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) - Paul Thomas Anderson

There are good films. There are great films. And then there are films that come along, once in a decade, if we’re lucky, that are so different that they seem to reinvent the medium. These films are received in different ways. Sometimes they’re heralded as the second coming, and sometimes they are even lambasted by critics and it’s years before they’re properly appreciated. What defines these films for me, is their affect on me. How much I’ll be thinking of them after I see them. Rarely has a film perplexed me and astounded me as Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood.

Adapted from the Upton Sinclair novel, Oil!, first published in 1927, There Will Be Blood is a tale of greed versus religion and a clash between two forces who are relentlessly ambitious but have vastly different goals. The novel Oil! was a very political novel with Sinclair even sending it to members of congress. In his adaptation, Anderson changed the protagonist and stripped the novel down to the story of Daniel Plainview. Plainview is a silver prospector who stumbles across oil in his silver mine. He drills for oil and hits paydirt, but in the process, one of his workers is killed, leaving his son an orphan. Plainview takes the baby on as his own. Years pass and Plainview has made a name for himself in the oil business when he is approached by a young man who claims his home town is rich in untapped oil. He sells the location of the town to Plainview, who takes his son H.W. and seeks out the town. When he finds that it is indeed rich with oil, he sets about selling himself to the town to take their oil. But the brother of the young man who approached Plainview, Eli Sunday has his own plans. He’s a shrewd preacher who wants Plainview’s money to build his church. They have vastly different goals which cannot be achieved without great confrontation.



By now, you’ll have read or heard quite a bit about There Will Be Blood. Not only about the incredible performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, but also about the film itself. But to be honest, it’s extremely difficult to do the film justice here. In fact, just one viewing of the film doesn’t do it justice. It’s so packed with detail that the nuances of the actors’ performances, every minute detail of the production design and direction cannot be taken in first time. Central to this wonderful dilemma is Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance as Daniel Plainview. There are very few scenes in the film where Day-Lewis isn’t on screen. And when he is, it is next to impossible to take your eyes off him.

Plainview is an incredibly complex character. At the very heart of him, he is the embodiment of ambition. Ruthless ambition. But aside from that, there are so many levels to his character. He’s charismatic, yet hates people with a passion. He’s gentle in some moments, and explodes with rage in others. He’s greedy, yet generous if it helps him achieve his goals. Yet the depiction of this character isn’t just of an evil man. Throughout the course of the film we see the disintegration of Plainview into a twisted, bitter old man. By the third act, Plainview is consumed by the worse parts of his character, and in some ways becomes a more typical movie villain. But this isn’t a flaw. This is, after all, a character study film, and this part of it is warranted after what has preceded.



Day-Lewis’ performance is as detailed as the character he is playing. Every gesticulation, every twitch in his face is essential to the performance and is fascinating to watch. While I’d heard great things about the performance before heading into the film, I was fascinated at how Day-Lewis just seems bigger than the screen size. He seems to transcend the film, and at points overshadows the plot. In some cases, this might be a problem, but the tension built in the film prevents this from happening. There are moments of such palpable tension that the film becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. This is what filmmaking can do when it’s executed perfectly. Some have criticised Day-Lewis for channelling John Huston in Chinatown, which is where he drew inspiration for his accent in the film. But if doing this was a problem, it would be a problem I would like to see more in films these days. While I’m trying desperately to avoid hyperbole, it’s no exaggeration to say that Day-Lewis’ performance will be remembered as one of the screens’ greatest. It’s up there with DeNiro playing Travis Bickle and Brando playing Terry Malloy.

Playing opposite Day-Lewis is Paul Dano as both Paul and Eli Sunday. It’s an unenviable task. How do you possibly try to make your presence felt in the face of such overpowering acting? Yet Dano does an excellent job as Eli. Eli is similar to Plainview in only one way- ambition. And Dano carries this across quite well. He’s playing a fire and brimstone preacher, and delivers the scripture spouting venom you’d expect from the role. But it’s when he’s playing off Day-Lewis when he’s at his best. It’s a shame Dano wasn’t recognised more at awards time. Despite being overshadowed by Day-Lewis in the entire film, he does hold his own when opposite him.



But the film isn’t only about the actors. It’s a film not only about ambition, but also made with ambition. A hell of a lot of it. The scope of the film is enormous. It attempts to chart the beginnings of the oil industry through one story. And in a way, it does achieve this. We get a sense of how prospectors and oil companies moved into an area, staked their claim and basically took over. Business took precedence over people, and money was the ultimate goal. This is clear. But at the same time, it’s a microcosm of this, told through the eyes of two men. And it’s this that stops the film from being overshadowed by the acting. It’s through Anderson’s superb writing and direction that the film is such a fascinating watch. There are a number of scenes in the film that are just perfect. The cinematography, by Robert Elswit is incredible. The Californian desert blisters the screen. Jets of flaming oil burn beautifully in the dark. The music, by Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood is very different to what you’d expect from a film as epic as There Will Be Blood. It’s stripped down and doesn’t rely on themes. Yet this compliments the film more than a full orchestral score would. In one of the many perfect scenes, an oil well explodes. Plainview similarly explodes into action. The screen erupts with the image of a towering flame, and the score bursts into percussion. All elements fall into place perfectly.

At this stage, I could write another ten pages about There Will Be Blood, and I’d still not do the film the justice it deserves. It’s difficult to refrain from hyperbole when a film just hits you so hard that you feel it days afterward. With this film, Anderson has elevated himself to the level that few directors achieve. If his career continues as it has begun, we may have a new Stanley Kubrick on our hands. Indeed, it seems fitting that for one particular scene, Anderson wanted to invoke A Clockwork Orange. I do believe that this film is the first classic of the twenty first century. A film that will define this era. The forties had Citizen Kane. The seventies had Taxi Driver. The noughties have There Will Be Blood.


10/10

A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS (1999) - Shane Meadows

Over the last ten years, Shane Meadows has proven himself to be one of the finest writer-directors not just in England, but in the world. His films are stripped of gloss and glamour and retain the gritty realism that his stories call for. Since Twenty Four Seven, released in 1997, Meadows films have gotten steadily better with each release, but that’s not to say his earlier work is any weaker than the likes of Dead Man’s Shoes and last year’s This Is England. A Room For Romeo Brass, Meadow’s follow up to Twenty Four Seven retains the hallmarks of Meadows’ style and marks his first collaboration with Paddy Considine.

A Room For Romeo Brass follows the fortunes of two young friends, Gavin and Romeo played by Ben Marshall and Andrew Shim. Romeo is an outspoken kid, who’s father has walked out on him, his sister and mother. Himself and Gavin get into a fight with some older boys, but are rescued by Morell, a twenty five year old eccentric man. Morell starts to hang around with the boys, and takes a shine to Romeo’s older sister. But after she rejects his advances, Morell starts to show a dark, dangerous and obsessive side to his personality. A side that threatens now only Romeo, but his family, and his friendship with Gavin.



As with the other films that Meadows has done, the look and feel to A Room For Romeo Brass would make some think that it is a low budget, amateur piece. And while the first part of that statement is true, the later part is in no way true. Meadows’ script and characterisation are very tight. The dialogue is witty, and at times, the film is very suspenseful. Quite a part of that must be credited to Considine’s performance as Morell. At first, Morell comes across as harmless, and you feel quite fond of him. At moments, his naivety is endearing, and you can feel sorry for him. But then it becomes clear that this kind of naivety can be dangerous, as Morell loses control of his actions. Considine’s performance is as good, if not better than that of Richard in Dead Man’s Shoes. It’s difficult to chose between the two performances, as they’re incredibly different. Considine seems to completely change physically between the roles, and it’s this that shows just how good of an actor he is.

Also collaborating with Meadows for the first of many times is Andrew Shim as Romeo. His performance needs to be strong, playing against Considine, but it’s no problem for Shim. He captures Romeo’s cock-sure nature very well. It’s easy to see why Meadows continues to work with Shim, as he’s quite comfortable in the role. Meadows has the knack for drawing great performances from his actors, who quite often are not professionals, and while the rest of the cast aren’t as integral as Considine and Shim, each of the actors is completely at home in their roles.



While A Room For Romeo Brass might not exactly be the type of film you’d expect to fill the multiplex, none of Meadows’ films go for that kind of audience. There’s no glitz or glamour to them. They present quite a grim view of their characters’ environments, but despite this, each of the films are steeped in reality. For first timers, Considine and Shim, their performances are outstanding. The script for A Room For Romeo Brass is tight, funny and suspenseful. The direction is excellent, and not a moment is wasted. While A Room For Romeo Brass isn’t as good as Dead Man’s Shoes or the truly outstanding This Is England, it’s still a brilliant film, and definitely worth getting your hands on.


8/10

CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007) - Mike Nichols

Based on a true story, Mike Nichols’ new film, Charlie Wilson’s War is a flawed, but entertaining examination of one man’s crusade to help the people of Afghanistan fight the Russian invaders, a decision that would have repercussions for the United States years after the conflict ended. The Afghan war in the 1980s is a subject rarely tackled, with the only other really notable film tackling the subject being the lamentable Rambo III.

Charlie Wilson is a congressman representing Texas. He’s doesn’t cut the form of what you’d expect from a congressman, and spends his free time cavorting with strippers, womanising and being an all-round player. He drinks whiskey like it’s going out of fashion and uses his position within the government to benefit his social life. While at a coke party in Las Vegas, Wilson watches a news report about the Mujahedeen fighting the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Wilson is intrigues by this and sets about finding a way for the US to help these rebels. He is contacted by Joanne Herring, a billionaire widow who has the similar goal of helping the Afghans. Meanwhile, Gust Avrakotos, one of only a few CIA operatives interested in helping the Afghans stop the communists contacts Wilson to ‘thank’ him for doubling his department’s budget. Wilson and Avrakotos, funded by Herring’s money and contacts set about helping the Afghans get the training and weaponry they need in the biggest covert operation the US has ever undertaken.



First off, let me just say that the subject matter of Charlie Wilson’s War is pretty fascinating. It’s very interesting to see just how Wilson was able to raise billions for the Mujahedeen and help them defeat the Russians. However, it’s a common misconception that the US defeated communism, when in fact, the communist USSR was crumbling under it’s own weight and was only months from a complete collapse. But that point aside, Charlie Wilson’s War is a good, if flawed film.

Mike Nichols no stranger to political films, having directed the excellent Wag The Dog. While Wag The Dog was an excellent satire on spin and how to divert the public’s attention away from the real issues affecting the government, this satirical style doesn’t quite work for Charlie Wilson’s War. It seems at times that the film is a farce. And while this may be all right for a fictional film, this film is a true story, and the style just seems really out of place at times. The script, written by Aaron Sorkin of The West Wing fame moves pretty quickly and the dialogue is very sharp. But the overall film doesn’t quite fit the story it’s trying to tell, and it’s this that is the weakness of the film.



The acting from pretty much everyone is top notch. Tom Hanks is as brilliant as always playing the slightly sleazy but lovable rogue, Charlie Wilson. It’s good to see Hanks playing someone who’s maybe a little morally questionable, as Hanks is somewhat known for playing clean-cut romantic leads (when he’s not delivering awards-worthy dramatic performances). But he seems very comfortable playing Wilson and he’s on top, as always. Julia Roberts, who I don’t really like as an actress at all, is also quite good playing Joanne Herring. However, the show is stolen, as always, by Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos. Hoffman is simply a fascinating actor to watch. Every role he plays, he seems to take on a physical and personal change. He completely embodies each of his characters, and always is the one thing on screen you cant help but watch. He’s loud, brash and extremely abrasive as Gust Avrakotos, but that’s the role, and he plays it fantastically. The only member of the cast who seems somewhat wasted is Amy Adams. It’s only a matter of time before she becomes a household name, and it feels that she’s not given enough to do here.

All in all, Charlie Wilson’s War is a good, but not great film. The film ends just after the Russians withdraw from Afghanistan, and the ending seems a little abrupt. During a party celebrating the success in Afghanistan, Avrakotos gives Wilson a serious warning about what happens next in Afghanistan. Knowing what we do now, this warning is even more grave. But this part seems to be brushed over, and at a running time of 97 minutes, you are kind of left feeling there could have been a little more in the film that explored this. Charlie Wilson’s War is quite entertaining, and Philip Seymour Hoffman is amazing to watch. It’s a flawed film, but worth a watch.


7/10

I'M NOT THERE (2007) - Todd Haynes

When is a biopic not a biopic? The answer is when it’s Todd Haynes’ examination of the life and experiences of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There. Dylan is one of, if not, the greatest songwriter of all time. As well as writing some of the greatest songs ever sung, Dylan’s life has seen the singer go through many different personas. After emerging as the great poster boy of 60’s folk music, enlightening a generation to social problems, alienating a great many of his folk fans by switching to electric guitar, to his ‘rebirth’ as a Christian, Dylan’s life would make for a pretty packed straight biopic. But Haynes departs from the conventional biopic and presents Dylan’s many personas through a number of different characters. This is not Walk The Line.

As mentioned, I’m Not There concentrates on six different characters, each of which personify either Dylan at a different time of his life, or an aspect of his life. Firstly we have Marcus Carl Franklin who plays an eleven year old boy by the name of Woodie Guthrie (after the folk singer and inspiration for the real Dylan) who travels the south in box cars, singing songs and spouting wisdom far beyond his years. Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins, a protesting folk-singer who turns his back on music in favour of devotion to God. Heath Ledger is Robbie Clark, an actor who makes his break playing Jack Rollins in a biopic of the singer. Ben Whishaw is Arthur Rimbaud who answers questions in front of what seems to be some sort of panel of agents. Cate Blanchett portrays Jude Quinn, who is the personification of Dylan we’ll be most familiar with. Quinn has just arrived in Britain to hoardes of fans, accusations of selling out, and more drugs than he can handle. And finally, Richard Gere plays Billy the Kid who has turned his back on society to live a life in solitude in some sort of anachronistic version of the old west.



As much an examination of what a biopic is as a study of Dylan’s life, I’m Not there mixes many different styles and techniques as it presents each story. For example, the segment about Jack Rollins is shot as a documentary that is a retrospective of Rollins’ life. Where as, the segment about Jude Quinn is more what would be expected from a conventional biopic. Haynes mixes up the stories and cuts back and forth between each character. The result is we never quite know what time period we’re in, and where things are happening. The Quinn part being the only sure part of the film since that period in Dylan’s career is probably the most famous. We see Quinn’s first live performance using an electric guitar, something that horrifies his fans and spills over to the tour of Britain he undertakes where cries of ‘Judas!’ are heard from the crowd.

In biopics, the performances of the actors portraying the real life person is always going to be under the most scrutiny. Having six actors portray the same person, or an aspect of that person does make for an incredibly interesting experience. Yet it’s not like you spend the film thinking ‘well, that actor is more the Dylan I know than that actor.’ In fact, every performance in the film is excellent, whether it’s one of the six central actors, or a member of the supporting cast. One of the best performances in the film comes from Bruce Greenwood, who plays Keenan Jones, a BBC journalist who personifies all the journalists who attacked Dylan for turning his back on humanity and the plight of his fellow man when he made the change from folk to electric. Greenwood also plays and aged Pat Garrett, the arch nemesis of Billy the Kid, who wants to destroy the town the Kid has come to love after turning his back on his former outlaw life.



However, the performance that is getting the most attention, and deservedly so, is Cate Blanchett, who plays Jude Quinn. Aside from the fact that Blanchett is a woman portraying a man, she also becomes a version of Dylan that is instantly recognisable. Anyone who’s seen Martin Scorsese’s brilliant No Direction Home will recognise what Blanchett has achieved when they see the footage of Dylan in Britain in the 60’s. Not only is Blanchett brilliant at portraying this pastiche of Dylan, she also puts in a brilliant performance of a singer at the height of his fame, and how the excesses, and his own personality are slowly destroying him physically. Blanchett’s scenes with Bruce Greenwood, and the moments with David Cross as beat poet Allen Ginsberg are among the highlights of the film.

It’s needless to say that the soundtrack is fantastic. Haynes doesn’t just go for the instantly recognisable songs from Dylan’s vast catalogue throughout the film. Of course, anyone vaguely familiar with Dylan’s music will recognise some of the bigger hits. However, Haynes also employs a number of artists to cover Dylan’s songs throughout the film. The characters sing Dylan’s songs, but sung by different artists. There are Dylan-sung Dylan songs in there, but by the cover versions add a refreshing twist to the film, and suit the scenes perfectly.

Of course the question begs, is there anything for non-Dylan fans in this film? While I’ll admit, being a Dylan fan, and having knowledge of his life certainly did add something to the film, I think there’s plenty to allow non-fans in. Like I said, I’m Not There is very different to the likes of Walk The Line. It’s certainly a more art-house film, and in no way a conventional biopic. But for someone as enigmatic as Dylan, it’s the perfect way to take a look at his life.


9/10