Reviews

Several years back I invented a new movie category: Friday Night Fluff. That's a movie you can escape into after a hard week at work, without taxing your brain too much but without actually insulting your intelligence. Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit fails because while it was hardly taxing, I did regard it as a bit of an insult. They threw every cliché in the book at this one. Kevin Costner is probably the best thing in it. It's truly inadequate on every level - predictable, self important and in a few places, quite laughable.

I like Chris Pine as Captain Kirk in the Star Trek re-boot, but he is totally miscast here, and as for Keira Knightley as a gifted doctor..? Arghhh!! She's about as convincing as I would be as a gifted NFL Quarterback. Leaving aside the fact that Ms Knightley has but one facial expression and it involves a forward thrust jaw (which she has put to use in every movie since Bend it like Beckham), I found the 'morning after the night before' scene where she wakes up in bed with Chris Pine's Ryan, simply laughable. There she is, after what is intimated might have been a night of passion, in full un-smudged make up, including copious amounts of perfect eye shadow, and with not so much as a hair out of place. That was the point at which the female part of the audience cracked up laughing, because we all know that she should look like a panda. And if they can't be bothered to even get that right, why should I suspend belief and bother with the rest of this twaddle?

There are also some egregious editing faults. This just drives me nuts, it's such an insult to the audience, so lazy, so cynical. One moment the villain is clinging to a chain about to be swept away by a torrent of water, the next he's in the back of a truck barreling down the road with the hero. Or did I fall asleep and miss something vital?

How on earth did Kenneth Brannagh get sucked into this, either as an actor or director? My, but he must need the money... I found his Russian villain pretty clichéd too. Admittedly, it's hard to pull off an eastern European bad guy without parodying Blofeld. Patrick Stewart had it about right in the original TV series of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; he just looked tough and kept his mouth shut.

The plot revolves around Chris Pine's Ryan (a gifted economist) being embedded in a Wall Street business, where he uncovers a plot in a Russian subsidiary to fund terrorism in the US and bring the financial world crashing down around our ears. Ryan is an undercover CIA agent, and his subsequent trip to Moscow, followed by Knightley (his g/f), leads to one of the worst lines I have heard in a movie in a long time

Ryan: I'm in the CIA

G/F: Thank God - I thought you were having an affair.

Unfortunately all the writing is of this caliber. And isn't it interesting that we have come full circle and those damn Ruskies are back as public enemy #1? Ironic really, when you recall that in 2008 we managed to bring the financial world crashing down around our ears all by ourselves and without the aid of either the Russians or terrorism.

This is almost a very good movie. Almost. But not quite. It was so, so close to being very good but there were a few glaring items that for me, made it fall short.

I want to state upfront that I am a big fan of Cormac McCarthy's writing (when will they film Blood Meridian?) He could write a laundry list and I would probably buy it. I also love movies and go to the theater at least once a week, usually with my husband, also a McCarthy fan. Movies require suspension of disbelief; you have to be able to lose yourself in the story and the characters to the extent that you truly forget for a couple of hours that you're watching a highly paid Hollywood star, not a real drug baron. With the best movies, you are slightly startled when it ends, and you realize with regret that you are not in Mexico, or the Himalayas or wherever, and you actually have to go home and empty the dishwasher… For me, the best movies have me getting up from my seat with regret and a sigh.

Here's the things I loved about The Counselor; Cameron Diaz, not an actor I usually appreciate and about whom I have actually written some quite scathing reviews in the past, sucked me in totally, in the way I described above. It's simply the best thing I have ever seen her do. Brad Pitt, Penelope Cruz and Michael Fassbender similarly. I loved the colors and cinematography, the atmosphere, the dialog and the story. I had braced myself for gore but really, it wasn't as gory as I anticipated. There was more menace than gore. This is a tale of people made stupid by greed, hubris and a sense of entitlement, in so far over their heads that they have lost sight of land completely. A tale for our times and for me it mostly worked.

But here's what didn't work for me and why I can only give The Counselor an eight and not a nine or ten. First, Javier Bardem, with a tan, a white suit and spiked hair, looked so much like a middle aged Tom Jones that I kept expecting him to burst into song. I simply never took him seriously and that pretty much ruined the movie for me. And casting Dean Norris as the Chicago Buyer was an error too. Now Norris is an excellent actor, but when he came on screen briefly, literally everyone in the theater shuffled in their seats and muttered to their companion "Isn't that what's his name from Breaking Bad..?" Really, you could hear it being whispered right through the theater.

Now I'm not sure how you get round this, when an actor has become famous in a popular role on TV, but I suspect that had Norris had a BIGGER part in The Counselor, we'd have actually had time to assimilate his presence, accept him and move on. But his brief injection into the plot was just jarring. I couldn't suspend disbelief, and by the time we had all settled back in our seats, the plot had moved on.

Third, I have lost count of the number of times I've seen the piano wire/beheaded motorcyclist cliché done on screen. It's popular in WW2 movies where the Resistance frequently use it to lop off a few Nazi outriders' heads before blowing up Herr Commandant in his staff car. It may well be favored by drug gangs, but to me, it just felt old.

I also spotted a couple of egregious continuity errors. You know, this is really inexcusable, such lack of attention to detail in a movie. It always irritates me. Do they think we are too stupid to spot them? Are they too broke to go back and fix them? Or do the editors truly not see them? Just one; Malkina in a posh restaurant, the waiter pours champagne, we are looking over her shoulder and see her pick up the glass firmly by the bowl. The camera tracks around to a front view of her and… Hey Presto! She's holding the glass delicately by the stem, all without moving her arm. Either Malkina has amazing sleight of hand to go with her gymnastic ability on cars hoods, or the editor needs to think about a new job.

And for me the spell was broken. I'm not a person who goes to movies just to spot the errors, but this kind of thing makes me think that the people who make the movies sometimes lack respect for the audience. Which is a pity, because this is almost a very good movie.

To be honest I only watched this movie because I like Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal, but I hoped it might be modestly amusing. In truth, it's funny for the first few scenes but it's a joke that wears thin very quickly. It had potential, and the stars are all engaging actors, but really, it's not very good and it's not very funny. I've seen worse, but as a spoof of a Spaghetti Western meets Tarantino, which I assume it's trying to be, it's simply too weak. Not quite sure what Luna and Bernal are doing here..? Paying the rent I guess. I think the coyote meets stuffed puma part with overlaid text was one of the weakest movie jokes I've seen in a while. Have the courage of your convictions guys! If you think a stuffed animal mock fight is funny, go for it. Don't pad it with a 6th grade voice over and explanation..! Truly disappointing.

This is a very good film about an astonishing man. I rarely throw the word 'genius' around loosely, but I truly believe that's what Bob Marley was. There are a few musicians who died far too early and you wonder what they might have gone on to achieve had they lived longer... Buddy Holly, Mozart, Lennon and Bob Marley. Still, he packed quite a lot into his 36 years, before his tragically early death from cancer in 1981, and has left the world a wonderful catalog of music along with 11 (or was it 12?) children. Bob Marley is truly an international superstar, possibly even more famous in death than he was in life. The music transcends cultural boundaries in a way that little else does.

This movie directed by Kevin Macdonald traces Bob Marley's life from his very humble beginnings in St Anne's Parish Jamaica, through a move to Kingston, a brief early stint in Delaware USA and extended periods in London, interviewing those who knew him best; fellow musicians in his band, his wife and several girl friends, some of his children, an early teacher, his Mum, record producers, even politicians. Marley didn't invent Reggae, but he took it to the world, and the many, many songs he wrote carried his personal message of peace and love, and it also became the medium of his desire to see his fellow men and women world wide getting along better together. He was a modest man and generous to a fault, giving away swathes of money to help others in Jamaica. He was a perfectionist, making his band rehearse for long hours to perfect what looked effortless and laid back on stage. What he wanted more than anything was to get his music and his message of love, out to the world.

And, it has to be said, when women threw themselves at him, he rarely turned them away. But no one seemed jealous, least of all Rita his wife, although I suspect that her generous acceptance of his wandering ways probably hurt more than she let on, then or now. His daughter comes across as somewhat bitter, lamenting that even at his death, his family didn't really get quality time alone with him, Bob wanted to share himself with the world.

The seventies, the height of Marley's creativity, coincided with a time of dreadful political violence and rivalry in Jamaica, and Marley, although he never aligned himself with any party or leader, survived an attempt on his life. He fled with his band to the UK for some peace and quiet, producing some of his best music at this time and embarking on tours that took his fame worldwide. And it was in London that he first encountered the melanoma that was eventually to spread to his lungs and brain. Had he accepted the advice of doctors and had his toe amputated, he might be alive today, but he loved football (ie soccer to my US readers) so much that he was afraid a missing toe might affect his ability to play, and to dance on stage. Invited back to Jamaica, the only person capable of bringing any peace to the warring political factions, he staged one of his most memorable concerts, free in Kingston, and managed to get both leaders on stage, shaking hands.

After doctors gave up on his cancer, he went to Germany for a last ditch effort at turning back the tide at a controversial holistic clinic. But the cancer was too advanced, spread all over his frail body. He died in Miami in May 1981, a mere 36 years old.

Yet today, Bob Marley is an iconic figure around the world, the first great planet-wide music star to come from a developing country. "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights" is a rallying cry in slums everywhere. My own personal favorite has to be One Love, his anthem to the union of the world's people. The only thing I find problematic is his adoration of Haili Selassi, late emperor of Ethiopia, a small and inconsequential man as far as I can see. But maybe it's my loss, and Marley saw something I have missed. And I haven't even touched on the huge ganja intake, that can hardly have aided his lungs.

In fact I have barely touched on so many elements of this film and of Bob Marley himself. Just go see. Great movie, great man.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this movie. Visually it's stunning and mesmerizing. I am not sure I would call it a documentary, much of it is performance art. I freely admit I know little about modern dance technique, but there does seem to be a fine line between dance and mime on occasion. We learn little about Pina Bausch herself which is kind of annoying, was the movie only made for people who were already avid fans? As I watched archive film of her in the studio smoking, I found myself idly wondering what she died of..?

On the other hand, here I am still thinking about it, and looking her up on Google, so it must have made an impact at some level... Some of the locations where the pieces are set, are simply stunning. A street scene, an overhead light rail car, a quarry, a glass enclosed building, a stage and my favorite, a series of stone doorways.

It's obvious that these are superb dancers, but I actually found quite a lot of the choreography repetitive and a little irritating. But then again, one of my favourite moves, where a female dancer dived through the arms of her male partner, was never repeated! Arghhh!!! Possibly I have spent too much time watching 'conventional' dance, ballet, jazz and tap, because I found myself thinking "Get on with it.." more than once. And I'm still a bit puzzled by the leaf blower, what was that about?

But like I said, what do I know? Interesting, compelling and a visual feast. But a documentary? Not really.

This is not a bad movie, but it could have been better. We left the cinema on a Friday night feeling like we had been entertained – which is about all I really need on a Friday night – but it was a little bit of a mess. Prettily shot though, in New Mexico I think.

The problem with Cowboys and Aliens is that it's one of those movies that wants to be all things to all people and doesn't pull it off. Is it a drama, a spoof, a serious sci fi movie or a parody? Daniel Craig gives a good solid performance as the central character, an outlaw who has lost his memory and lands in the middle of a scruffy New Mexican, failing, mining town, lorded over by a cattle baron bully totally hammed up by Harrison Ford. I can't deny that simply looking at Craig – who is super buff – for 2 hours is probably pleasure enough for a Friday night. The aliens are irredeemably evil – no attempt at any of the touchy feely 'they are so much more intelligent than us' stuff. These guys are bad, ugly, rapacious and not even very bright. Everything barring the kitchen sink is thrown in, the local Apaches, the outlaw gang, the tough but beautiful, mysterious woman, the weakling son, the Indian boy raised by white men, the upright local sheriff, the mild mannered saloon owner, the kid on the brink of learning about manhood, a dog… I mean this is a pastiche on one level.

But then there are one or two scenes which are really quite jarringly violent and nasty, which made me wonder exactly what this movie is supposed to be? The one that had me wincing most, was the guy being tortured by being strung between 2 horses with the threat of being pulled apart, like a western equivalent of the medieval rack. He is released from that fate only to be dragged off along the ground at a gallop, presumably to his death. The kid learning to wield a very large knife to kill an alien was pretty vivid too.

But then there are other scenes which are just plain silly, like the low tech rocket which looked like something that came free in a cereal box. Had the violent scenes been more tongue in cheek, it might have worked. Had the science fiction been even slightly more 'sciency' it might have worked. If it's a serious attempt at depicting an alien invasion of earth, I found it pretty unconvincing. As pure sci fi entertainment, it's no Men in Black.

Perhaps one problem I have with this is Harrison Ford, who seems to be playing a parody of himself. I loved him as Han and even as the archaeologist, but this? No way. Then there is Craig's mystery bracelet, which I never quite understood. I mean are they kidnapping people for food or to make them into warriors or what? Why did Craig's character have that bracelet at all? So many holes, so little effective dialog. But then again, it was nicely shot with dramatic scenery, and it WAS a Friday night…..

1962 wasn't a good time to be gay. When George Falconers's lover of sixteen years, Jim, is killed in an auto wreck, poor George isn't even invited to the funeral - even though they had been together longer than most married heterosexual couples can manage. He is definitely persona not grata around the parents and other family members, and he's told of the tragedy as an after thought. The Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name. Can't recall who wrote that, but it was certainly true of homosexuality in 1962, even in liberal LA. (This movie is set at about the same time as Brokeback Mountain by the way.) As polite society put it, George was a confirmed bachelor. As a neighbour less politely put it, George was light in his loafers.

Even George's neighbour, long time friend and one time lover Charlotte, can't quite believe that what George and Jim shared was real love, Wasn't it, she inquires, really just a substitute for the real thing? No replies George angrily, probably the only time we really see his teflon demeanour crack.

A Single Man is a superb movie. Moving, beautifully crafted, well written and fabulously well acted. The only reason I haven't given it ten is because the ending is perhaps just a little too 'pat'. Fashion designer Tom Ford can feel justifiably proud of his debut as a film director. The movie is based on a Christopher Isherwood story and written for the screen by Ford himself and David Scearce. Every scene is beautifully constructed, perfectly lit and the design is, as one might imagine of someone with Ford's artistic eye, unimpeachable. Every detail of early 1960s life is here, from the interiors to the attitudes.

When the movie opens, Jim has been dead eight months and George cannot come to terms with the loss. Every day it's agony to wake up, every day just has to be gotten through. George, a college lecturer and an ex-pat Brit, has lost his soul mate, his life, his love, but cannot even express that loss openly at a time when homosexuals were still persecuted. He is invisible and his grief doesn't exist to the world, except for Charlotte (Charley), neighbour and fellow Brit, who sympathises and yet still yearns for George in a naive way, a feeling still lodged in the recesses of her under-used brain that all would be right with the world if they could only get together. Julianne Moore is perfect as Charley, a heavy drinking and smoking, rich, divorced fashionista with no proper job and way too much time on her hands, as clever women so often had, in those pre-feminist days.

The story follows George through the day he has chosen to end it all. Suicide will end his pain. He methodically puts his affairs in order, leaving everything neat and tidy, right down to the clothes for his funeral, the insurance policies neatly laid out on his table, last compliments paid to his staff and co-workers. He buys bullets for his old gun, and, in a scene infused with black humour, tries to decide how best to shoot himself so as to leave the least mess for his house cleaner. But he can't quite get it right, so goes off to the liquor store to buy a bottle of whiskey and while he is there, meets one of his students, Kenny, himself struggling to come to terms with his sexuality. A series of people reach out to George in small acts of kindness throughout his day, and the movie turns on whether or not these small acts will be enough to convince George to go on with life, or whether he will still pull the trigger.

It may sound like a rather gloomy subject, but A Single Man is life affirming, and moving, and an excellent study in bereavement. Colin Firth gives the performance of a lifetime, beautifully contained and you have to feel he may have finally have shaken off the ghost of Mr Darcy and his Thinking Girl's Crumpet tag forever. He is a much better actor than he is usually given credit for and should be a bigger star than he currently is. I would not be surprised to see both Firth and Moore nominated on the strength of these performances.

This is obviously subject matter close to the heart of Tom Ford. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with next time.

If you are going to see Avatar, see it in 3D. I can't imagine it having anything like the impact in boring old 2D as it does in 3D. Possibly 2010 will be the year that 3D finally comes of age? I really loved this movie – it blew me away. The movie just leaps off the screen visually and grabs you by the jugular.

The story is quite obviously director James Cameron's unapologetic take on the white man's conquest of North America and the assault on the Indians (well it could be any act of colonialism really, the British in Australia, the Spanish in Central America….. basically the locals are in the way of the invaders' desire to grab the resources), except in this case, the Indians win. You can call the story simplistic, you can accuse it of plagiarism, but it is what it is and Cameron need make no apologies for it. It's a vehicle for the stunning CGI, nothing more nothing less, it's not subtle but neither is it pretentious or 'posy'. What you see is what you get. And what you get is spectacular.

The performances are all excellent; I loved Sam Worthington in the role of hero Jake Sully. I last saw Worthington in the Australian movie Getting Square, alongside one of my favourite actors David Wenham and I think he has a huge future ahead of him as an international star. Worthington's Sully is a paraplegic ex marine on the planet (OK it's a moon really) Pandora, taking the place of his dead twin brother to become an avatar, mind melded to the genetically modified body of an aboriginal inhabitant of the planet. Pandora is under major assault from the military industrial complex, who are after a local mineral, Unobtainium. The biggest deposit of Unobtainium is right under the local's main spiritual site, and the invaders want to move them. As Dr Grace Augustine, Sigourney Weaver is in her element. Grace is the leader of the avatar program, and determined to protect the locals from the rapacious advance of the miners under the command of Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) a slightly rabid, gung ho Colonel who has little time for the bleeding heart, liberal approach to planetary conquest.

Going undercover on Pandora amongst the locals – the Na'vi – Sully in his avatar embodiment inevitably falls in love and turns from the Dark Side to the side of the angels, becoming a hero who helps them fight off the invaders. His love interest is Neytiri (Zoe Saldana – previously fabulous as Uhura in Star Trek). Neytiri is a bow wielding strong Cameron woman in the tradition he has established of Girlies who can take care of themselves - and I love him for that alone.

That is the bare bones of the story. It is how it is told that makes Avatar worth seeing – possibly more than once. Cameron throws in elements from just about every big movie franchise of the last two decades. There are 'nods' to Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dances with Wolves, The Magnificent Seven and even, dare I say, My Little Pony. But it is all quite upfront and obvious, nothing subtle here, so I don't have a real problem with it. Pandora is a low gravity planet and the science makes reasonable sense. My spouse – who counts himself as something of an aviation expert – tells me the helicopter rotors were believable for low G, and certainly low gravity plus a very thin atmosphere might lead to tall, lean people of the type seem in Avatar, I'm not sure the blue skin color is believable, but who knows? Certainly if evolution had followed a similar course to the earth, the absence of a cataclysmic meteor impact might leave a population of large reptiles, even flying reptiles, and a fairly insignificant mammal population. This is all stunningly presented to the viewer in glorious technicolor and 3D which literally leaps out of the screen and grabs you by the eyeballs, aerial jelly fish float above the seat in front of you, primordial creatures leap off the screen at you. I haven't seen anything this impressive since I last went to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and I found myself wondering how long Cameron has spent standing in front of the Sea Nettle exhibit?

Avatar is an astonishing achievement, and I am quite prepared to forgive Cameron the simplistic characters and linear story, because he has had the guts to produce something this visually stunning. I'm really looking forward to the next 3D offering that the movie world has to offer.

Sherlock Holmes as imagined by Guy Ritchie, is not the Sherlock Holmes of Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. Downey brings a certain punkiness to the role which somehow I had never imagined Holmes to be capable of. Yes I know he was a morphine smoking junkie, but dash it sir, he was a classy one! I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the movie, but it was all just a little frenetic for someone brought up on a more cerebral imagining of the great crime solver. Some of the geography left a little to be desired too. I mean they go into the sewers beneath the Houses of Parliament and pop up in no time at all, next to a half built Tower Bridge….several miles away to the east along the Thames. Hmmmm…….. curious my dear fellow.

The story involves some confection of Hellfire Club type sacrifices of young women, dastardly noblemen and a plot to take over the British Empire. Or something. It's really not that important. The costumes are pretty, the acting smart and the movie is entertaining, in a Friday Night Fluff kind of way – in fact it's probably the best Friday Night Fluff I've seen in a year. Rachel McAdams is a beautiful Irene Adler and Jude Law is excellent at bringing some pith to Watson. It's a chance for any number of British character actors to pop up and earn a few bob, including James Fox, Geraldine James and the quite wonderful Eddie Marsan as poor old leaden footed Inspector Lestrade (Marsan was last seen as the vitriolic driving instructor in Happy Go Lucky.)

No, what annoyed me just a little was some of the rather cartoonish CGI. There were just too many places where it was obvious we were looking at a computer image, which in this day and age I find really inexcusable. And some of the studio scenes which were supposed to be outside were very badly lit, making it quite obvious that the action was taking place indoors. Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic, but if you are going to use CGI instead of real locations or studio sets, make it seamless, and if you are using studio sets get the lighting right. Thanks!

I had no real expectations of this movie and was quite pleasantly surprised that it turned out to be a mid week gem. This could make me like Robert de Niro again.

I last saw him in the inexcusably bad Righteous Kill where he struggled to convince as a tough guy cop, a role he is quite clearly too old to play. In Everybody's Fine, de Niro makes the brave move of actually playing his age, and he is very good. The basic plot is uncomplicated - a widower is let down over the holiday season when his kids all cancel their visits. So he sets off to visit them instead and begins to realise that he barely knows them - his late wife took care of all the intimate, messy, emotional support of family life. One of the four kids is in hospital in Mexico but none of the other three will tell him what is going on. And not one of them quite lives the life that he thinks they lead.

Robert de Niro convinces as the widower, and Drew Barrymore, Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale hold up their ends as the kids. Sam Rockwell can do no wrong for me anyway, but Beckinsale here was a vast improvement on anything I have ever see her do before. Barrymore is cute but I find her a rather one note actor.

Not a great movie but not at all bad, given some of the dross I've seen in 2009

Poor old Michael Jackson. He didn't deserve to die so soon. But he left us quite a legacy. I love his music; always did, always will. He was the sound track to my college years, to my twenties.

This Is It casts an intriguing light on the star, a driven perfectionist who lived in a bubble much of his life. Looking back over Jackson's years as a star - virtually his entire life - to be honest the only thing that surprises me is that he wasn't even nuttier than he actually became. How can anyone be expected to live the life that he led, to lose their childhood, never be able to just walk the dog around the block without Papparazzi, and be even passingly 'normal'? I was pleasantly surprised at how well he came across – almost unassuming at times. And he obviously watched the news and world events. He knew what was going on outside his bubble, even while he lived inside it.

As the whole world and his dog knows by now, This Is It has been patched together from video footage shot during rehearsals for Jackson's come back concerts in London. The movie works on several levels; at its most basic, it's a fascinating insight into the process of putting a modern stage show together, the creative process, the hours of sheer slogging hard work interspersed with flashes of brilliance, the endless repetition until everyone gets it right, so it will look totally spontaneous on the night. We get to see the clever stitching together of sound, light, video, costumes, dance and singing, all anchored by a great, great band, fabulous dancers and Jackson's astonishing stage presence. It would have been quite a show. And of course on another level completely, it's a fascinating and poignant last look at one of the world's star performers, the King of Pop. On stage, he just oozes charisma.

Michael Jackson was probably going back on stage because he was broke, although of course, that's never said on screen. He could have taken the easy route, a flaccid re-enactment of earlier set pieces, he knew the fans would have turned up and paid, just to watch him tie his shoe laces. But he never took advantage of his fans, he never lapsed into cynicism. Michael was determined to finish on a high note, he gave this show his all, to give everyone full value. And what we see is most definitely not an over the hill, sad ex-star past his sell by date, trying to relive the glory years. Jackson is sharp, fit, into everything.

Acting against a Green Screen, peering over the shoulder of the director, rehearsing his dancers, keeping his band up to scratch, polite, restrained but insistent, he never raises his voice but then he never has to. Everyone idolizes him, a star so bright that when word went out that auditions were being held for dancers, they quite literally came from all over the world. What we see is the best of the best; he could attract them. OK, he's not performing hand springs or twirling on his head. He never did. And the man is – was - fifty years old. But he is still turning on a dime, dancing like an angel, and giving the kids dancing with him a serious run for their money. Conscious of preserving his voice during the rehearsals, he doesn't always sing at 110%, but when he does, it's all still there. The favorite songs, sung as they were recorded, just as the fans would want to hear them, the same old songs, but sounding sharp, contemporary and perfectly delivered. His music is standing the test of time, and sounds as good today as it did in the 80s. I am a fan, and wanted to think the best of him, but I was actually quite pleasantly surprised at how good he looked and sounded. I was horribly afraid that he would look like a pathetic has-been. He didn't.

For me Smooth Criminal probably worked best of all the pieces, some of the fitted together footage for other songs doesn't work quite so well. But every song, every set piece, was an individual show in itself. The only low note for me in the whole movie, was how thin Jackson looked. Was he starving himself to try and keep the years at bay? Who knows? He certainly had plenty of energy. I just got the feeling, sitting back in my seat, watching him perform with such perfection, that if someone had given him a decent meal and a beer occasionally, he might have slept better, and he might still be with us. Instead he lived on a knife edge. And one day he fell off.

I'll nail my colors to the mast right at the start by saying that I am a long time science fiction fan, so when a rare sci fi offering comes around - and they are few and far between - I'm predisposed to feel positively towards it. And whilst there have been some fairly lukewarm reviews for Moon, personally I really enjoyed it. The movie hinges on a really very good, very strong performance from Sam Rockwell as the 'hero' Sam Bell. It's a pity that sci fi very rarely gets recognized by the panels who select nominees for awards, because Rockwell's performance here is really outstanding. He IS the movie, it's nothing without him.

I last saw Rockwell in one of 2008's stranger offerings, Choke, the story of a guy who spends his days working in an historic re-enaction theme park, and his evenings pretending to choke in restaurants so that people will save him. He was also pretty good in Brad Pitt's recent Jesse James film. In Moon he simply IS the whole movie, and he is compelling to watch. Few other actors can command our attention in that way. I just find him an utterly believable actor.

The story is fairly standard sci fi fare, but enjoyable. The director successfully creates the feeling of claustrophobia that I can well imagine must exist in such a confined space as a space station. It's basically a movie about worker exploitation, hardly a new theme. Yet put in a new setting, it is fresh.

I must be getting old, but when I was a kid reading about astronauts living in space for months – or even years- on end, it was all just total fantasy. Now of course, with the international space station, we barely register anymore when a new crew blasts off, or someone returns after several months up there, in orbit above our heads. It is almost routine and we only seem to take much notice if something goes wrong. Has space travel lost its mystery and excitement, are we too jaded for a film like Moon? I hope not.

My daughter (now 21) wanted to see Where the Wild Things Are because she loved the book when younger, and I was happy to go with her (and pay....) but neither of us was especially bowled over. I thought the movie very attractive to look at but - I hate to admit this - I dozed off about half way through and when I woke up with a start, it didn't seem like I'd missed much. It is so slow that the struggle to stay awake was beyond me after a day at work.

On the positive side, it's lovingly crafted. The puppets are stunning and it's so good to see a children's fantasy movie which isn't a cartoon. The CGI effects are seamless, the scenery ravishing (shot in South Australia I believe?) But...... there really isn't much to it. Attempts to pad out the story with psychological excuses for child hero Max's angst (missing father, busy single mother who is dating, problematic older sister etc) feel false and bolted on. Instead of a journey inside his head, we see Max run away and take off in a boat. I'm not sure why, because it would have worked perfectly well as an internal journey or dream.

Will the monsters eat Max or make him king? Well, I think we know what a brief movie it would be in they ate him so..... they make him king. But the monsters' dialog is more banal than profound, and little happens. There is a heavy, ponderous feel to the whole enterprise, and little story.

So, while I admire the technical skill of the puppet makers and cinematographers, I'm disappointed at the end result, and I can't imagine many young children really being enthralled. Frightened maybe? It's a movie probably aimed more at the adults who have fond memories of the book, than the kids.

I didn't think Bruno anywhere near as funny as Borat. Obviously Borat had the advantage of being novel, while Bruno has the feeling of being a joke stretched just a little too far and a little too thin. Somehow I doubt Sacha Baron Cohen can pull off another movie of this type.

Nonetheless Bruno has its moments and I find it hard to be too critical of something quite so deliciously politically incorrect. As the ultra camp Austrian fashionista Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen heads to California to become a celebrity, acquiring an African baby along the way (which he says he swapped for an iPod..... and the reason this is horrifyingly funny is because in this utterly corrupt 21st century world, it could just feasibly be true that someone somewhere has sold a baby for an iPod.) The joke, of course, is that many people do indeed become celebrities with about the same amount of talent as this guy appears to have. I especially loved the two dumb blonds trying to find him a 'cause' to promote.

Interesting scenes include seeing Paula Abdul seated on a Mexican workman posing as furniture, a day time talk show in Dallas where baby OJ is introduced to the world, a 'Christian' pastor who specializes in 'curing' gay men, (and another with some very strange and patronizing views on women) and a photo call in California where mothers (and one equally frightening father) are apparently willing to prostitute their toddler offspring for the chance of being on TV. One mother agrees her child can undergo liposuction to lose weight. This baby is all of 3 years old, if that. But at that point the movie ceased to be funny and just became frightening.

The final wrestling bout had me yawning. By that time - I'd had enough.

And no where is there a scene to match the classic shot from Borat, of the chicken getting loose on the New York subway train which to my mind will become a classic of the comedy genre. Still Cohen is an excellent actor, and seems to have an uncanny ability to bring out the absolute worst in people. Or at least in Americans. Maybe his next move should be to go somewhere slightly more cynical (say France) and see if he can pull off the same thing.

Personally I thought the first third of Public Enemies was rather disjointed. Had I known nothing about the background to the story, I might have been struggling. I sat in my seat with a slight sense of disappointment, but not quite able to put my finger on exactly what wasn't working for me. Then, about one third of the way into the movie, maybe slightly less, it picked itself up, and I started to enjoy it. Maybe it was the appearance of Marion Cotillard as Johnny Depp's love interest that livened things up and made everyone suddenly multi dimensional? Or perhaps it's just that we expect so much of star Johnny Depp, and so much of director Michael Mann, that anything less than utter perfection is bound to disappoint? Public Enemies is certainly one of the better movies I've seen so far in 2009, and I watch a lot of movies. But it didn't really live up to the high expectations I'd set for it. Good? Yes. Great? No.

Let's be honest here, any movie featuring my two favourite actors on screen at the same time – Depp and David Wenham – would have to be pretty dire to truly disappoint me, and I simply cannot see Depp getting involved in anything dire, can you? But this isn't Bonnie and Clyde, although it may well have had ambitions in that direction. It will not be seen as a classic of the gangster movie genre.

Depp, as always, is charismatic, as Public Enemy No. 1 bank robber John Dillinger in the Mid West of the depression era. This guy was no Robin Hood, and the movie doesn't gloss over the slaughter and mayhem his gang caused. When the movie opens, the gang is being busted bloodily out of jail. They set off on a string of bank and train robberies across the Mid West, upsetting not just the authorities but also the Mafia, for whom Dillinger is a renegade, a free agent and a nuisance beyond their control. Crime has moved on, they tell him at one point, beyond the freelance small time gangs such as his, into massive organized crime such as wire fraud. Against this backdrop, J. Edgar Hoover (a very good Billy Crudup) is trying to set up the FBI, a force able to pursue outlaws across state lines. Christian Bale plays Melvin Purvis the G Man tasked with tracking Dillinger down, but it's a rather one dimensional performance. Eventually Dillinger is betrayed by a supposed friend, a woman who will be deported if she doesn't finger him.

The performances are all pretty good. I especially liked Cotillard as Dillinger's girl, Billie Frechette, and Diane Krall puts in a brief appearance as a night club singer. The sound track is good and the cinematography just fine, the time period is lovingly recreated. But somehow, for me, it never really rose above the sum of its parts to become the truly exciting film it should have been with a director and a cast this good. It lacks that extra magic that distinguishes a good film from a great one. As I said above, good but not great.

This BBC TV mini series is so far ahead of the remake released as a theatre movie earlier this year, that it could almost be another piece entirely. OK, maybe that's an unfair comparison as the TV series had 6 hours and the movie had a little over two. But it's telling to make the comparison and take note of what the main differences are, and what they say about the current state of the film industry.

The TV series featured an ensemble cast of really good solid actors with a few real stand outs (Bill Nighy, David Morrissey, John Simm, Kelley Macdonald) playing a convincing crew of real characters. The movie is a vehicle for a Big Star (Russell Crowe) with most of the other parts being reduced to stereotypes. The TV series had some well rounded female characters with real lives and real motives and faults – just like the men. The movie has as its women a ball breaking newspaper boss (Helen Mirren), a high glam stick thin side kick for Crowe (Rachel McAdams) and a cardboard cut-out as the wife (Robin Wright Penn). So we have The Bitch, The Cutie and The Fallen Saint – pretty much the usual Hollywood take on women. (Although to be fair, I will add that many of the male characters are played as stereotypes too.) Of particular note is how utterly underwritten is the character of Anne Collins, wife of the straying politician, in the movie version. She is reduced to a very passive role, with very few lines. In the TV series, love her or hate her, this is a woman really enjoying getting her kit off and having a revenge affair.

Given that the action and intrigue had to be stuffed into a third of the time, what the movie sacrifices is, of course, the female characters. Unless they are cute. And that just about says it all. The TV series is excellent and rewards extended viewing, and requires a little more than our usual gnat like attention span.

There are several very good reasons to see Cheri, directed by Stephen Frears and written by Christopher Hampton from the novel by Colette. It's a beautifully made costume drama, shot in some wonderful locations. It's well scripted (although it does wander off track and get a little rambling in the middle)and it's moderately entertaining, although probably only for a limited audience. But the best reason of all is to see some really interesting performances from an array of predominantly female actors.

Michelle Pfeiffer makes a very welcome and long overdue return to center stage, as Lea de Lonval, a Belle Epoch (ie turn of the 20th century) courtesan in Paris. Lea is ready to retire from her profession, the business of sex, and takes up with the son of a fellow courtesan, the beautiful, languid Cheri (meaning Darling), not for money this time but for love. Pfeiffer is radiant in the part, and watching her is a sheer pleasure.

Cheri is played by Rupert Friend, who keeps popping up on my radar as one of the more interesting and talented of the young male actors around. He seems to be taking his career slowly but carefully, picking some interesting roles. I first spotted him in Pride and Prejudice, as wicked Mr Wickham, after which he was excellent in Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont, opposite Joan Plowright. I thought at that time how much like Orlando Bloom he looks, but luckily he is a far better actor, and will, I think, ultimately have a longer shelf life.

Also fabulous is Kathy Bates as Cheri's mother. It is her plan to marry him off to Edmee, the young daughter of a fellow courtesan, taking him away from his true love Lea (his senior by many years) that sets the scene for what will become a tragedy. The courtesans were hugely rich, but lived lives of isolated splendor. Not accepted by polite society, they turned to each other for social interaction, a small, intense and rather incestuous circle. Bates' Madam Peloux needs to marry Cheri off but has limited options. Edmee, the daughter of another old rival, is available. Both are an only child set to inherit large sums of money. Business takes precedence, marriage is a joining of fortunes and love means nothing, leaving everyone unhappy, Edmee, Cheri and Lea.

Perhaps almost as interesting - or even more so – than this movie's story, is the story of Colette herself. The novelist lived from 1873 to 1954, married three times, had many lovers of both genders including her stepson, played the music halls, wrote an opera with Ravel, ran a hospital during WW1 and helped her Jewish friends survive during WW2. She wrote some fifty novels including Gigi, (made into a play and an award winning musical), and is often referred to as one of France's greatest writers.

And I can't review this movie without saying how quite wonderful it is, for once, to see an older woman entangled with a sexy younger man, and how rarely we get to see that on screen. Time and time again, we see quite ridiculous age gaps between male stars and much, much younger women. Here, Pfeiffer and Friend make the opposite work perfectly. I appreciate that costume drama has a fairly limited audience, and this movie is certainly not perfect, but personally - I loved it!!

I enjoyed Rudo y Cursi, directed by Carlos Cuaron, but it's hardly a ground breaking work of art. I might describe it as a pleasant way to while away a couple of hours but it's fairly lightweight.

The story follows the fortunes of two banana plantation workers in Mexico who are 'discovered' by a football scout Batuta (and by football I mean the game that the whole world barring America calls football, ie soccer) and taken to play in the Big City, in this case, Mexico City. The moral of the story is be careful what you wish for. Escaping a mundane life of dull mediocrity and relative poverty in the countryside, our heroes find the life of a professional soccer player a mixed blessing and never reach their full potential, but instead slip into bad habits and totally lose any semblance of self discipline they ever had.

Rudo harbors delusions that he can be a pop star (fabulous scenes of Gael Garcia Bernal making a music video! Probably worth the ticket price alone….) and Cursi cannot escape his gambling habit. Caught in a cycle of debt, Cursi must 'throw' a match to keep creditors off his back, while Rudo must win to keep his career on track, or sink without trace back into the obscurity from which they both came. His woman has already dumped him and moved on.

Overseeing all this, with an air of Latin American Magic Realism, is the world weary scout Batuta (Guillermo Francella).

The movie features nice performances from Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna. If Gael Garcia Bernal isn't one of the cutest guys on the planet, then I don't know who is? And not only is his face fabulous to look at for extended periods of time, but he can act and I also get the feeling he has a sense of humour and can laugh at himself just a little, an asset I always find attractive! There is a wonderful scene of Rudo – and Bernal is not the tallest guy in movies – pants around his ankles having sex in his kitchen with his leggy girlfriend who is built like a giraffe. There aren't many actors willing to make themselves look that undignified, but it's a priceless attribute! Cursi meanwhile, is being outshone by his wife Tona (Adriana Paz) who has taken advantage of his migration to the city to launch her own career. But unable to escape his gambling, he falls into the clutches of creditors.

It's an interesting but fairly superficial look at a culture where soccer is a cut throat game to be won at all costs, a way of life and an escape from poverty, as well as a game of skill and beauty. As a pairing of Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna, I much preferred Y tu Mama Tambien, which I felt was a film with much more substance. But Rudo y Cursi whiled away a not unpleasant two hours on a Friday evening. Rent it if you missed it in theatres.

Rent The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford when you have a whole evening to spare and an entire bottle of wine to drink. I'm not saying it's a bad movie – it's not, it's pretty good – but it doesn't have a great deal of action and it's overly long, for a theatre movie. I understand it has been lovingly gleaned from the pages of a biography of James by Robert Hansen, but somewhere along the line the director and producers lost sight of what makes the difference between a good read and a good view. Or perhaps it's just that this would have worked better as a 3 episode TV mini series than as an almost three hour movie? It's the medium which is at fault here, not the message.

First, let's consider the positives; the cinematography is superb, there's no doubt about that. The whole enterprise is wonderfully filmed. The sets look authentic, the cold winter scenes look genuinely chilly, the houses are Spartan, the outdoor shots absolutely stunning. Ten out of ten for cinematography. Then there are the period details; the costumes and the accents look and sound spot on. In fact the latter are so good that occasionally I was straining to catch the dialog and had to hit the 'back' button on the DVD player to listen again to a line of speech. The performances are all very good, and the script is fine – or perhaps it's more accurate to say that it would be fine if this were a 3 episode mini series. Given that it was released to be seen in theatres, the script could have done with some pruning and tightening. This is very close to being that personal bete noir of mine - the 'Depends' movie (and you'll have to read some of my other reviews to find out what a 'Depends' movie is.)

And that brings us to the negatives; the movie is too long and too slow for all but the most dedicated fans. It's also almost exclusively a Boys Club, with the women playing very small bit parts on the periphery. That may well be an accurate representation of how women lived back then, on the periphery of the men's world, but to keep the interest of a mixed age, modern audience in a 21st century movie theatre, some effort could have been made to make the women slightly more visible, even on a domestic level. I tend to get tired pretty quickly of watching taciturn men doing manly things, even when well acted and basically factual.

The actual story, of the killing of James (Brad Pitt) by Ford (Casey Affleck), is interesting and well presented, we get the full psychological picture of the younger man, an over confident under achiever if ever there was one, smitten with his hero then, after the ultimate betrayal and shooting, sliding into a life of parody and gutlessness before being shot himself - in an act of poetic justice perhaps? The James Brothers were described as Confederate guerrillas during the Civil War. After the war they took to plain old fashioned robbery; Robin Hood they were not. The movie follows the last few months of James' life from meeting Ford until the killing. We see James living life on the edge, a family man trying to blend into polite society when not out bank robbing and holding up trains, but being chased by the Pinkerton Agency, and becoming increasingly ruthless, paranoid and depressed, killing in cold blood, but constantly watching his back – literally – waiting to see which of his gang would turn him in, and picking them off one by one as the Feds move in.

It's a good story and it's well made. It's just not a theatre experience – it's a TV mini series. But of course if it had been made as a TV mini series, we wouldn't have seen Brad Pitt in the starring role, would we?

Up is fabulous, and I love Pixar. Were it not necessary to submit at least 10 lines to IMDb, I'd leave it at that and leave you groaning at the terrible pun above!

As with WALL-E last year, it's taken an animation studio to give us an object lesson in story-telling and empathy. When did you last see a mass audience film featuring an old person and a boy scout? And enjoy it? Up tells the tale of seventy eight year old Carl who always wanted to travel to South America with his wife Ellie to find their hero the missing explorer Charles Muntz, but life kept getting in the way and Carl and Ellie never made it before Ellie died. With his beloved wife gone, and their home threatened by redevelopment, Carl ties thousands of balloons to the roof, and takes off for South America anyway, taking along an unlikely accidental stowaway, the intrepid scout Russell. Up is the story of their adventures.

The story features a pack of dogs that have been given voice by the wicked Muntz, by way of collars containing technological wizardry. But the dogs are still dogs, not too cutesy, and are interested in doggy things like squirrels. In fact, one of the best gags in the movie is the sound which emanates from the voice box of the most macho hound, the Alpha dog who sounds like a diver on helium. What Pixar are so good at, is eliciting the audience's sympathy for the characters without drenching the movie in the over wrought sentimentality so often used by Disney. We are allowed to listen and observe, and reach our own level of sympathy and empathy, rather than being hit over the head by unbearable cuteness – the dogs being a case in point.

For me, Up is not quite in the same class as WALL-E which I adored, hence my score of nine out of ten rather than ten out of ten, but for script, direction and technical brilliance, it's the best movie I've seen so far in 2009.

When I got back home from watching the utterly depressing documentary Food Inc., I booted up my computer to check my email, and the first headline I saw on the news site I use as my homepage, was a report on an outbreak of E. coli. The bacteria were apparently found in a sample of that vital staple of the modern American diet, chilled cookie dough. At that point, some dozen or so people were sick. I'm not sure which type of E. coli this report referred to specifically, but it seems there is a modern type of E. coli which causes internal bleeding in its victims, is often fatal and apparently didn't exist until we started pumping cattle full of corn (instead of grass or hay) to fatten them up faster. One of the film's most compelling 'stars' was a mother whose toddler died of E. coli infection after eating some hamburgers.

To be honest, Food Inc. didn't really tell me anything I didn't know already, which is why I didn't give it 10. Meat production is no longer about happy smiling farmers chewing on straws, beside their plump, warm-bodied cows in sun filled, grassy fields. Or even about Marlboro smoking cowboys riding the range on trusty steeds, to round up stray mavericks while the sun sets over the western horizon. It's about feces encrusted cattle jammed cheek by jowl into manure filled feed lots, mile after mile after smelly mile, while we pump them full of subsidized corn, growth hormones and antibiotics and process them like so many slabs of raw industrial protein. And when we do process them, (a job usually carried out by cheap immigrant labor because none of us squeamish meat eaters want to do the job) the manure randomly falls off the cattle's hides and onto the meat where it festers until we cook it – or fail to cook it – and eat it. But don't worry, soon we may have a way to make sure no nasty bacteria remain on the meat….we're going to wash it all with another chemical to kill the bugs ( I forget…but was that REALLY caustic soda - sodium hydroxide? - Lovely eh?)

Food Inc. doesn't just look at beef production, although that's probably the most compelling part of the film, because watching a mother try to recover from the death-by-food-poisoning of her toddler, by turning into Erin Brokovich and taking on the might of the food industry AND the government, is fairly riveting stuff. Food Inc. also looks at the chicken industry, GMO soy beans, and the ludicrous subsidies that have made nutritionally poor fast food far, far cheaper than anything remotely healthy. Like fruit and veg, whole grains or humanely produced meat. And not only that, the subsidies have underwritten the cost of grain exports (via NAFTA) to the extent that producers in developing countries can no longer compete in their home markets, putting farmers in places like Mexico out of work. So what do they do? They migrate – often illegally – to the USA to work in meat processing plants.

And if you are a farmer trying to grow non GMO soy beans – or any crop really – please don't be silly enough to do it anywhere downwind of a GMO field, because if stray pollen happens to land in your field, and the mighty seed company finds evidence of their genes on your patch of ground, boy are you in trouble. Quite how you keep your crop GMO free under these circumstances is beyond me. But should anyone out there want non GMO food – well we can always import it from another country. And we do. Meanwhile Big Seed is putting out of business a centuries old small industrial practice that helps farmers save seed from year to year. If this were happening overseas, we would call it fascism.

And in this manner, following individual cases, Michael Pollan (author of the excellent Omnivore's Dilemma) and maker of Fast Food Nation Eric Schlosser, show us how food production has strayed from being about producing, well, food, and has become a huge industrial operation controlled by a frighteningly small number of big businesses. Never mind Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the Military Industrial Complex. Why did no one warn us about the Agricultural Industrial Complex? The European Union's past obsession with industrializing food production is at least understandable given the horrendous WW2 shortages which led to rationing which continued for years after the war. But when did America ever have rationing? Truly a frightening and depressing movie. I'm a lucky middle class person. I have a garden where I grow veggies and I can afford to buy organic eggs and meat. I know not everyone can. But there must be some way to break this ludicrous vicious circle. When we see the people who are now existing on fast food use money they could – and should – be spending on fruit and veg to instead pay for their prescription drugs to treat the diseases they get – from eating fast food – something snaps in my head and I wonder if the whole world is totally and utterly bonkers? And on it goes.

But, as the small scale organic farmer said as he processed some home grown chickens and pigs through his family run business (where people come to buy genuinely farm raised, grass fed meat after a 3 or 4 hour drive), "Don't say you can't afford $3 a dozen for organic eggs when you're standing there with a 75c can of coke in your hands….." Exactly. Eat less – mostly greens as Michael Pollan (approximately) says.

Changeling is a reasonably well written and well made movie, but personally I don't think it's one of Angelina Jolie's best performances and I'm not certain she was truly Oscar-nomination worthy for this. (She didn't win.) Normally I'm an Angelina fan, but I couldn't warm to her in Changeling at all. The cast includes John Malkovich, Michael Kelly and Colm Feore, all of whom are good within the limits of fairly one dimensional characters, but there was something about Jolie's persona in this movie that I just didn't find believable.

Perhaps she has reached that unfortunate stage where she is just such a big deal in the media, so often plastered all over the internet and the gossip magazine covers, that it's hard to suspend belief and allow her to sink into a character. In the morning, while standing in line at the grocery store, you idly read about her marriage to Brad, in the evening you try to believe in her as a devastated 1920s mother. Tom Cruise has reached a similar stage for me; I just look at him and think "Oh yeah, that's Tom Cruise in a costume…" Which is a pity because he's not a bad actor either.

I've loved Jolie in many other movies, I thought her performance in A Might Heart for instance, far superior to this. I also liked her in that popcorn flick Wanted, because in a film of that nature, it doesn't matter that she's a media babe. But for me this movie was all about Angelina Jolie in a costume, not about Christine Collins, the character she was trying to portray on screen.

Ms Jolie looked stick thin even by her usually skinny standards, almost to the point of emaciation, with huge rouged lips which dominated the screen in every shot she was in, emphasized by her skeletal appearance. I just couldn't take my eyes off her mouth, which may well have been the director's intention but it ruined the movie for me. Angelina has two gestures in this film; eyes brimming with tears or her hand attempting to cover her mouth. I found the gestures over used, and no substitute of good acting. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I've seen her give much better performances and I think she was miscast.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, the script is based on reality and deals with both the disappearance of a child in 1920s Los Angeles, and the corruption of the city's police force at that time. It's certainly an interesting story and well worthy of telling. When her son Walter goes missing, single parent Collins (Jolie) is understandably frantic with worry. Days, then weeks and finally months go by with no word, then finally a child of the right age turns up in Illinois and the police bring him home. The LAPD arrange a big photo op at the train station, to help their flagging public image, damaged by accusations of corruption at the highest levels. But the child isn't Walter, and Collins says so, vociferously.

The police will not admit they have made a mistake and try to convince Mrs Collins that Walter has simply changed because of his long absence. How, she wonders, can he have shrunk three inches? How come now he is circumsized? But the police employ a psychiatrist to refute Mrs Collins assertion that the child is not Walter, shifting the blame onto her (thin) shoulders and trying to label her reaction 'feminine hysteria'. Hysterical women were a popular theme back then, with us girlies labeled as too unstable and hormonal to hold down serious jobs. Women had, after all, only just gotten the vote. It was the word of an emotional mother against the might of the LAPD, and the latter won. Collins was shunted off to a psychiatric hospital for a strip search and examination and held against her will for some time, alongside some genuinely disturbed people and many rather clichéd stereotypes, such as the Tart with a Heart. We also see the Unfeeling Brutalized Ugly Nurse and the Macho Doctor Who Can Never Be Wrong.

Eventually, aided by Malkovich's crusading Pastor Briegleb, Collins is released. The truth comes out about the 'son's' identity when the bodies of many small boys are revealed at a desolate country farm after a police investigation into an illegal immigrant. Arthur, the substitute son admits he just wanted to get to LA to meet cowboy Tom Mix. But Walter is still missing, presumed dead.

Vindicated, but still dedicated to finding her lost child, Collins takes part in the subsequent trial of the killer and the clean-up of the corrupt police force, but never really achieves resolution about Walter's fate. To her death, she still hopes he is alive. It's a tragic and poignant story, yet at no time did I ever truly believe in it. All I ever really saw was Angelina and that mouth. Sorry, not a winner for me. You can do better Angelina. You can do MUCH better Clint.

OK, I'm a closet Trekkie, let's get that out of the way upfront. But you don't have to be one, to enjoy this movie. It's fast paced, well acted, exciting, beautifully made and perfectly cast. It's a good movie - Trek or not. It's not especially cerebral, but neither is it as dumb as most big budget action flicks, and importantly for those of us who have watched every version of Star Trek over 40 years, it does stick to the spirit of the original show, bringing humanity and humour to space.

Watching this origins episode (tagline The Future Begins Here…) of the ongoing Star Trek story (and calling it a mere franchise just doesn't do it justice. It's a part of our cultural heritage) something occurred to me yet again, something that I often felt while watching the TV shows. The reason Star Trek works, is because it's about people. It's not about space flight, or science fiction or digital trickery or aliens or warps in the fabric of the space-time continuum or fabulous special effects, although those are all there in abundance. It's about people. As Kirk famously said in an earlier iteration of the Star Trek story (and I'm paraphrasing) "I'm from Iowa. I just work in space." This story just happens to be set in space but what it's about is Spock, Kirk, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu and the anonymous ensign who always dies early. It's about the humour and the interactions, the relationships and the characters that have seeped into our consciousness over the decades. And it had me hooked by the end of the excellent opening sequence.

The story traces the early days of the crew of the USS Enterprise, as they pass through Starfleet Academy and take their place in the ranks of Starfleet officers. It explains the background of Kirk and Spock, and follows them and their colleagues as they must work through their differences to save earth from destruction (well what else would it be about?) Others will explicate the detail of the story, which involves the Romulans as enemies of the Federation, enemies who are seeking vengeance in the past for the destruction of their home planet at some future date, allowing their bad guys to travel back in time to confront Spock, Kirk et al. and the fabric of space time to be thoroughly upset. I think.....

But what I'd really like to emphasize is the excellence of the casting which is truly inspired, the tightness of the script and the perfection of the effects which do EXACTLY what special effects should do – namely enhance the story telling, not drown it. I thought each and every actor was perfect in the part, but special mention must go to Zachary Quinto who is just superb as a young Spock wrestling with his human-Vulcan biracial origins. He looks uncannily like a young Leonard Nimoy but he is also a nuanced actor. Chris Pine as Kirk actually looks less like William Shatner (as compared to Qunito/Nimoy) but has the character to a 'T' without in any way just being an impersonation. Zoe Saldana as Uhuru was super and her flirtation with Spock was an unexpected but welcome aside to the main story, they brought a real sensuality to their scenes. Simon Pegg and Karl Urban were also perfect. I found Sulu perhaps the least believable of all the characters but that's a minor criticism. Chekov was perhaps a little too puppy-like, but nonetheless endearing.

My only one slightly negative comment might be that this is very much a Boys Own story. Uhuru was of course the only significant woman on the original show back in the 60s, but we've gotten used to seeing the girlies take a bigger role in The Next Generation and the various other spin offs. It seemed strange in a prominent movie about the future, to see the women taking such a small role. And Scotty's fluffy friend was a bit unnecessary and reminded me too much of an Ewok. But apart from that - great! I'll buy the DVD. (Sad eh?)

It's hard to know how a movie with Jake Gyllenhaal and Reece Witherspoon (apparently now a cute real life couple) could fail, but Rendition managed it. It's not actively bad, it's just not very good, a movie I'm relieved I saw on DVD at home rather than shelling out $20 for two tickets . Rendition's full of good intentions, trying hard to say some things that need to be said, and to draw our attention to injustice, but like last year's Lions for Lambs, it's yawn inducing where it should be gut wrenching, and over stated where it should be subtle. It's not that I don't agree with what it's trying to say, it's just not saying it very well. Everything is black and white, whereas we all know in real life black and white tend to leak into each other making everything much greyer. Tedious and predictable are two words which come readily to mind. No, tedious is too harsh; it's not that bad. But it is predictable. This is the kind of bad political movie which makes Hollywood look immature and gives liberal politics a bad name.

Witherspoon plays Isabella, a pregnant American woman who is married to Egyptian engineer Anwar. After a business trip to South Africa, he disappears. Isabella is told he never got on the flight home but she knows he did because he used his credit card to buy her some duty free while in the air. Apparently he vanished after landing and never went through passport control. In fact Anwar has been whisked away by the CIA to an overseas prison because he is a terrorist suspect. His cell phone has been linked to calls to a known terrorist. Now how those call logs got on to his cell phone is open to speculation; phones get passed around families, especially in the overcrowded chaotic cities that people like Anwar come from. But that's not really the point; if there is evidence he has links to terrorism he should of course have been arrested and charged in the USA, not rendered overseas, made invisible and tortured. But Anwar is held incommunicado for several months and tortured to reveal information. Gyllenhaal plays a CIA officer who develops doubts about the system, and there is an unconvincing sub plot about a young, Middle Eastern woman trying to escape her oppressive father.

Meanwhile back in the USA Isabella is trying to find out what happened to her husband and being given the brush off by every agency she confronts. She also has a 'past' with Gyllenhaal, but chose Anwar over him.

Now we all know that rendition has actually happened, and it's in direct contravention of international law. So it's a real pity that this film fails to fully engage us in caring about it. I freely admit my indifference may be partly my own fault. Possibly I came to this with a slightly more jaded and cynical attitude than is required to fully appreciate the movie's good intentions. If I were 23 instead of 53, and political movies were new to me, I'd be more excited and gripped by it. Or maybe not. Anyway, it struck me as a wasted opportunity to make some very valid points about what's been happening in America in the last 8 years and how far the nation has strayed from the moral high ground it claims. There is a good movie to be made about this, by someone braver than director Gavin Hood, and his scenic but unconvincing cast.

How often do you see a movie with two such great roles for young women? Not often enough, and Sunshine Cleaning is worth praising for that alone. Set in Arizona, Sunshine Cleaning follows the fortunes of Rose (Amy Adams) and her grungy sister Norah (Emily Blunt) as they try to drag themselves out of the morass of a dysfunctional upbringing and – in Adams' case – single parenthood, to make a success of their own business, the very unromantic task of cleaning up the mess at crime scenes.

Rose was a stereotypical pretty high school cheerleader who dated the football hero but who ultimately sank without trace when he moved on and married someone else, leaving her holding the baby (Jason Spevack – an excellent young actor.) She discovered rapidly that cheer leading isn't really a marketable skill and she'd have been better off paying attention in biology class. Then she'd at least have been better positioned to understand the intricacies of bio hazard waste disposal when she moves out of her house-cleaning number and into crime scene cleanup, at the suggestion of her (now secret) married lover. Norah is into some minor drugs and serial waitressing, dad Joe (Alan Arkin) is a no hoper who drifts from one hair brained money losing scheme to another, and hovering over them all is the ghost of Rose and Norah's dead mother who apparently committed suicide when they were young.

My local critic suggested that the ending has been changed substantially from the original version, rendering it more palatable to what are considered main stream audiences, and certainly the ending is a little too pat (defined by my thesaurus as 'so gliby plausible as to seem contrived.') I wouldn't disagree with that. It all works out for the best and everyone apparently lives happily ever after....Hmmmmm…………… There is a thread quickly dropped of Norah having a lesbian relationship and certainly she seems pretty bored during a brief, cursory bonk with her boyfriend. But I find it hard to believe that after the success of Brokeback Mountain and Milk, mainstream audiences are considered unable to deal with a secondary character being gay; it's not even the main character we are talking about here. If that is indeed what happened to the script of Sunshine Cleaning, then it certainly was a cop-out on the part of the producers, distributors or whomever, and personally I think they are misjudging their audience.

But that doesn't detract from the overall quality of the movie which is well written, often very funny (extracting humour from the macabre nastiness of death and mayhem), has some nicely observed scenes such as the dire baby shower, and is highly original both in concept and execution, (set on the unglamorous outskirts of Albuquerque rather than New York or LA yet again). It's very well acted. I truly think that both Amy Adams and Emily Blunt are very good young actresses and they are both going to be around for a long time to come. The fact that they are also very attractive is secondary here for a change. Both bring a brittle vulnerability to their roles and it's a pity the movie was apparently sanitized for our viewing pleasure.

Good movie. Go see.