Hidden (Cache) (Michael Haneke, 2005)

As the opening credits appear on screen, the scene onto which they appear is of the front of a house on a very average looking French suburban street. The credits disappear but the shot of the house remains. People walk past going about their daily lives. But it is not they that we focus on. Except for the noise of such passers by and the odd vehicle the shot is pretty much silent. The camera does not move but a got a feeling of understated tension building up inside me. What a curious way to begin a film. Why are we forced to watch this house for so long? Then voices begin to talk over the shot and it is only when the film appears to be being rewound that we realise we are actually watching a videotape. And we are not the only ones because Georges and Anne Laurent (Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binochet) are watching it too; and they are doing so not for pleasure.

The tape that we watch in this opening scene has been left on the Laurent's doorstep one morning. They do not know who by and there was no indication on the tape or it's envelope. The house we see is theirs but why we are seeing it is a complete mystery. Perhaps borrowing it's premise from David Lynch's Lost Highway it is this one tape that sparks off paranoia within the Laurent household as the arrival of more anonymous tapes lead to Georges having to deal with painful childhood memories that he had long forgotten.

Instead of sticking to convention, talented Austrian director Michael Haneke chooses not to provide a standard answer to the obvious question of who it is that is sending the tapes but instead decides to opt for a much more sensitive storyline which will deal with themes such as trust, guilt, revenge, surveillance.

The French's attitude to immigration and foreign policy as a whole is also questioned by Haneke. The videotapes eventually lead Georges to a flat where he is reunited with Majid, a young immigrant Algerian boy of whom Georges is blamed for ruining the life of through the act of telling a lie. This French attitude is epitomized by the relentlessness of the videotapes at refusing to let Georges to continue to repress the memories that are still so vivid to Majid. His life could have been so much better than the way it turned out and Georges, through constant reminders of this via the tapes, struggles to deal with it.

There are two moments in the film that remained with me and hopefully they will remain with you too but to explain what they are would spoil the surprise. The first moment will catch you by surprise. The second will fill you with intrigue. I will speak no further about the former but the latter is the very last scene of the film and it's one of the most brilliant yet subtle endings to a film I've seen in a long while but to understand why you will simply have to look very closely and pay attention to each and every person you see. We have met two of these people before haven't we? But have they ever, until now, met each other? And what is it that they speak of? Reconciliation? Justice? That is up to you to decide but whatever it is they are discussing will this have any effect of the lives of the future Majid's?

Hidden (Cache) is one of the best thrillers I've seen. It strips itself of a score which invites upon itself a chilling reality about the situation the family find themselves in. Most thrillers opt out of such reality but the situation in Haneke's film feels like it really is happening. Most thrillers would feel it necessary to solve the puzzle for us but is this really how it should be? Why not leave it open ended? It's much more interesting and unsettling that way. Political aspects aside this is still a highly enjoyable, intriguing piece of cinema that will take a lot of beating if it is not to be my favourite Haneke film. I've always read of the respect that the film industry has for Hidden (Cache) (after all Haneke did win best director at Cannes) but it is only as the decade draws to a close that I understand how much respect this film really seems to have. In a very recent poll by The Times newspaper Hidden (Cache) came out on top of a poll entitled 'The 100 Best Films of the Noughties'.

Rating: 9/10

Up (2009)

"A wilderness explorer is a friend to all, be it bird or fish or tiny mole!"

Pixar are simply leaps and bounds ahead of anybody else when it comes to animated films. Their multi-level storytelling is better than any other animation company around and visually Pixar films are bettered by none. 2009 brings us their latest effort in the form of Up and looking back through the years it has been a rarity that 'their latest effort' has failed to live up to the expectation that has been placed on their shoulders.

Up is Pixar's tenth feature length film and the first time that audiences could choose to witness it in 3D. I have just returned from viewing it and I guess the question that I needed to address beforehand was '2D or not 2D?' 3D on the face of it is a completely superfluous luxury that cinema has coped without for over one hundred years and is only being employed in recent times due to advances in technology for one but mainly due to dwindling numbers of people going to the cinema. Offering films in 3D and the chance to wear fancy glasses is meant as a temptation for film fans to enter back through the cinema doors due to the fact that illegally downloading and making pirate copies of 3D films is impossible. Personally, I don't think the extra entrance fee for 3D films is justified so I 'boringly' opted to see Up in 2D. Scandalous.

Anyway back to the film. Up centers around 78 year old grump Carl Fredriksen and his desires to fulfill his lifelong ambition of visiting Paradise Falls, South America. With Charles Muntz as his idol we initially meet Carl as a young boy as he happens to meet fellow Muntzian Ellie, a young girl whose energetic personality initially overwhelms Carl but the two bond due to their shared desire to explore. After this chance meeting what follows is the highlight of the film in which we see Carl and Ellie fall in love, marry, fail to have children and grow old together whilst still maintaining that one day they will visit Paradise Falls together. During this scene in which words are absent and the only sound comes in the form of a beautifully fitting piece of music Carl and Ellie are constantly having to spend the money they have saved up in hope of visiting Paradise after they are hit by unfortunate circumstance after unfortunate circumstance. Eventually Ellie dies and their dreams never come true leaving the now empty Carl to develop a grumpy nature and live out his life alone in a house he refuses to leave despite building work going on all around him. As a side note, it is rare that a scene from an animated film touches me so deeply. Gems like this are few and far between in films orientated towards the whole family but Pixar have created poetic brilliance here that is both heartwarming and heartbreaking and probably goes down as one of the greatest scenes in animated history.


This scene sets up the rest of the main story which reminded me a little of David Lynch's 'The Straight Story'; one man realising that he has only one more chance to undertake something he believes that he needs to do in his lifetime despite the odds of doing so being stacked heavily against him. Carl, on the verge of being placed in a home for the elderly uses his job as a balloon attendant to float his house up and away into the sky, destination Paradise Falls. Expecting to be alone on his journey Carl is surprised when the plucky Russell, an eager Junior Wilderness Explorer whom Carl had met the previous day, inadvertantly joins him.

The only negative feelings I have towards Up is in the choice of content once the duo reach Paradise Falls. It descends into stupidity, which once again sees animation studios insult the intelligence of their younger audience. The introduction of dogs who can talk through electronic voice translator devices was way over the top and their reason for being there was never fully understandable. And don't get me started on that stupid bloody bird. Are these things really necessary? No. Were they in keeping with the beginning of the film. Not at all. In all honesty the magic that was created in the first fourty minutes of the film was never truly lived up to but it's importance did remain obvious throughout the film. Despite the introduction of stupid, superfluous characters the script is witty throughout, the colours always vibrant, the visuals are always very, very, good and the house with all it's balloons remains an important reminder of Ellie. Russell and Carl despite being such different characters do work wonderfully together. Up isn't just another animated adventure. It is Pixar's most character driven piece to date. The trip feels like it means something to Carl. He displays real emotion and the purpose behind his actions seems clear.

Rating: 7/10

The 400 Blows (1959)

"Oh, I lie now and then, I suppose. Sometimes I'd tell them the truth and they still wouldn't believe me, so I prefer to lie."


French New Wave cinema is something I know virtually nothing about. It is an era of cinema which took place predominantly in the 1950's and 1960's which apparantly brought about a fresh look to the world of film. The 400 Blows, a film by Francois Truffaut one of the most famous New Wave directors to come out of France, is often said to be one of the films that defines this exciting and perhaps at the time radical new genre.

The film tells the story of Antoine Doinel a boy on the verge of entering his teenage years. At his all-boys school he has been labelled the trouble-maker and his teachers often hand out overly severe punishments to him whenever they believe him to have done wrong. This is illuminated near the beginning of the film when a 'distasteful' calendar is being passed between the boys none of whom want to be caught with it in their possession. As each of the boys quickly passes it on to the next it is the unfortunate Antoine who has it in his hand as the teacher notices what is going on. As you would expect it is he, not any of the others who receives the punishment.

At home life isn't much better. His mother and stepfather don't often refer to him by name, especially when they are talking about him without his presence. His mother seems uninterested in him except when Antoine can be viewed as a means to her own end. At times Antoine seems to have a healthy relationship with his stepfather but his short temper appears to stop this from flourishing more than it does and the pair never seem fully attached to one another. Neither parent seems to know Antoine too well and instead go off reports from others when it comes to judging him which just seems fundamentally wrong when it comes to parenthood. Perhaps it is the cramped living conditions, in which the family constantly have to squeeze past one another; the living conditions that mean Antoine's mother has to step over his bed just to get in the house when she returns from her affair with another man, that have led to the family's lack of togetherness. Or perhaps it is just the affair. Either way Antoine struggles to cope with the dullness of everyday life.

Without knowing how the story unfolds you would assume that Antoine ends up in a youth detention centre because he genuinely is a bad egg. But throughout the whole film it seems obvious that really he isn't. He is more unlucky than genuinely bad. It is the attitudes of those around him who seem responsible for his 'locking up' and not Antoine himself. The calender moment has already been noted but after this we see him punished again this time for plagurism of the famous French novelist Balzac but Antoine saw this simply as a homage not a blatant attempt to plagurise his work. Antoine is a playful and creative character but whenever he displays this side it is often met with disapproved looks and comments from those seeking to control him.


But The 400 Blows most certainly is not all doom and gloom and there are actually some moments that genuinely make you smile none more so than the rather redundant yet brilliant scene where the P.E. teacher (at least that's who I assume it is) takes the class of boys on a jog which plays out like more of a work through the streets of Paris. The scene is shot from well above the rooftops of the buildings they pass but, unbeknowst to the teacher, two by two and three by three the boys dash off into shops and alleyways slowly deminishing the trail behind the oblivous 'coach.' The score is also one of the more happier delights in the film. It has a childlike quality that seems to suit the various scenes that it suppliments.

The lead role of Antoine Doinel is played by Jean-Pierre Leaud and he plays the role in exactly the right manner. Many child actors deliver performances that just do not seem to accurately reflect how children are but here Leaud captures the essence of being a growing boy quite brilliantly. Truffaut must have seen the qualities of the young man as he stuck by him for a twenty year period in which each time Truffaut hired Leaud to play Doinel ina series of films that developed Antoine's life even more.

The film's final and most famous shot, the zoom in to freeze frame of Antoine's staring face as he stands by the sea's edge really seems to capture the period of Antoine's life that he (and we as viewers) have now reached.

As soon as I had finished watching I was unsure of my opinion. In terms of great character studies I had seen before it it is Scorcese's Taxi Driver that stands out as the greatest in which Travis Bickle is a character that literally fascinated me. But the study of character evident in The 400 Blows is a bit different and on first assessment didn't fascinate me half as much as Bickle did. Antoine's character didn't really grab me as an individual but on reflection his character did grab me in terms of the whole. Antoine represents the whole of the youth of France in the 1950's and how the methods of dealing with delinquency were unfair and unjust. It wasn't until I realised this that I felt sympathetic towards Antoine and it was only then that I felt I could label this a brilliant study of character and French society as a whole.

Rating: 9/10

The Elephant Man (1980)

"I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!"


In his review of The Elephant Man, Roger Ebert raises philosophical questions about the film's portrayal of John Merrick's life, questions regarding the emphasis on courage displayed by the man with the disfigured body. He asks, 'What type of courage is Merrick really displaying?' Is it courage based upon going against the easy choice and facing up to hardship or is it just the courage to deal with the cards that Mother Nature dealt you? Ebert chooses the latter and concludes that this is really nothing special.

I disagree. Sure, fate has dealt Merrick a huge inconvenience. He is heavily disfigured and upon first glance (and maybe even second, third, fourth, fifth and so on and so forth...) is a visual displeasure. But Merrick is couragous. Why? Because in the beginning he is obviously lacking an any faith in the human race. Gradually however, throughout the course of the film this faith is increased.

The first fourty minutes or so in David Lynch's emotional powerhouse of a film captures this well and is a frustratingly curious opening to the film. We never really glimpse Merrick's body in all it's glory(?). He speaks very little, even when under the care of Doctor Treves. Merrick is a sheltered man who is rarely treated like a person should be treated. We see many examples of this: he is treated like a zoo animal by the hoards of people who pay to stare at his unusual body, he is called an 'it' and his 'owner' beats him with a stick and verbally abuses him. In the beginning, Merrick's personality seems non-existent.

The courage arises in his willingness to open up and eventually he shows us that he is in fact the most human-like character in the whole film. He is intelligent, polite, kindhearted and really would just like to enjoy the finer aspects of living. Furthermore it is the most human looking people that display the least human like traits. Consider for example the drunken mob who ransack Merrick's accomodation taunting him in the process. These physically perfect examples of human beings seemed anything but so.

I can't help but think that this role of John Merrick must have been a terribly difficult role to play but John Hurt is fantastic in it. To get the walk, the talk and the emotions across of a man so unlike any other man in such a perfect way is a real credit to Hurt and it is amazing that he didn't collect an Oscar for it. In fact, it's only when you realise that Hurt was up against Robert De Niro for his brilliant performance in Raging Bull that you start to understand why he was overlooked. Nevertheless, he produces one of the most likable characters I've ever come across in film.


It's quite easy to forget that The Elephant Man is a David Lynch film. After all, I approached the films of Lynch from the surreal side. I started off with Mullholland Drive, a film I declare perfect in every sense. I moved on to the equally surreal Eraserhead, a film joyously heavy on symbolism which is also a feature of his 1986 film Blue Velvet. I rounded up my initial foray into Lynch's works with Inland Empire, an amalgamation of Lynchian ideas built up throughout his career in to a bizarre but beautiful three hour epic. But my most recent Lynch films, this and The Straight Story, really show his sensitive side. OK, The Straight Story isn't too great but The Elephant Man feels nothing like your typical Lynch film. It grabs you emotionally and doesn't let go. The creative side of Lynch, a side to him that in 1980 we had only glimpsed at in Eraserhead is for the most part none existent although there is a bizarre opening to the film in which we see Merrick's mother trampled by elephant's in a bizarre dreamlike sequence and an equally bizarre but strangely moving ending where she pops up again floating through space uttering words that really moved me. And I really didn't think I'd ever need to hold back the tears during a Lynch flick.

I guess the only question that I was left thinking about was 'Why did Merrick choose to sleep lying down at the end of the film knowing what it would do to him?' This looks like an apparant suicide and may seem to somewhat knock my defense of the negative questions raised by Ebert. Nevertheless it is a conclusion that left me metaphorically speechless and emotionally drained and further strengthened my opinion that David Lynch is one of the best director's to have ever graced this earth.

Rating: 9/10

Point Break (1991)

"If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love."

Looking down a list of Patrick Swayze's filmography what strikes me is how uninteresting it is. He is a household name but is somebody who has never starred in anything that comes close to being brilliant. Saying that I've only ever seen him in two films; Dirty Dancing, a performance for which he has received universal acclaim from women everywhere but it's a performance in which he excels at dancing not particularly acting. The other is Donnie Darko, but then he's not really in that much to form an opinion either. (Yes I've not seen Ghost) Perhaps then his performance in Point Break, in which he features heavily, will prove to me that he is a decent actor and I got the chance to decide after pancreatic cancer got the better of Swayze leading to a flurry of films featuring the late actor, including Point Break, appeared all over British television.

Kathryn Bigelow's 1991 surfing themed action flick stars Swayze as the charismatic Bodhi, the prominent figure amongst a group of surfers but it is Keanu Reeves character, Johnny Utah, who we meet first. Utah is a plucky FBI agent new to the California area who along with his new partner Angelo Pappas (Gary Busey) is investigating a long string of bank robberies in the area by a group calling themselves The Ex-Presidents. Donning rubber masks of former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Lyndon B. Johnson (hence the name) the foursome seem to enjoy the thrill of robbing banks with such extravagance and effectiveness making them impossible to catch due to their policy in being in and out in ninety seconds concentrating only on the cash registers rather than the vaults. For The Ex-Presidents greed plays no part in their games.

The group appear to leave no clues behind them but one of them is insistent on mooning the securities cameras which has lead the FBI to believe that the men are surfers due to an obvious tan line on said 'mooner.' They have also acquired a strand of hair which matches chemicals that are present at a popular surfing area. The mission? Send Utah undercover with the surfers.

Utah learns the basics of surfing from Tyler Endicott (Lori Petty) which allows Bigelow to put into her film one of those shameless unnecessary love interests which adds nothing to the film at all except to bore me and send those eyes rolling. Once these basics are mastered he enters into Bodhi's surfing lifestyle as they gradually accept him as one of their own whilst he attempts to find evidence against them.


A random residential area is the scene for the films highlight. A footchase through the streets, alleyways, gardens and living rooms of California's residents is impressively shot and is one of the most realistic chases I've seen at the movies with Johnny and the Reagan masked crook stumbling their way through areas that you could totally believe they would come across in such a situation. There is something vaguely slapstick about the whole affair but it works brilliantly.

On a visual level Point Break provides some gorgeous to look at cinematography. In scenes which serve no purpose except to visually impress us we see numerous slow motion shots of surfers riding the waves of the Pacific and impress me they did.

But the high points of Point Break are sporadic whereas the negative aspects to the film are glaring. I found myself constantly questioning Utah's motives. I won't mention them all but the one that sticks out most is his decision to launch himself out of a moving plane four thousand feet in the air absolutely unequipped with anything to slow himself down except the hope that he will catch up to and cling on to Bodhi who had launched himself (who was most definitely equipped with a parachute) a few seconds previously. For sure, silly things happen in movies, but this decision was made by a perfectly normal, sane character who in the world of reality would most definitely not have decided to do such a thing with the odds so heavily stacked against survival. Ebert tells us not to spend a lot of time analyzing the motives of the characters here but I simply cannot overlook this one, sorry Roger.

Adding to the woe is Keanu himself. I started this review highlighting my desire to decide once and for all whether Patrick Swayze was a good actor. One thing I didn't have to decide was whether Keanu Reeves is a good one because the answer is simple...no he isn't. In places Point Break really works but whenever Reeves opens his mouth and words come out I couldn't help but cringe. His delivery just seems so forced and rehearsed. Perhaps it's just the sound of his voice and I guess he can't help that can he the poor soul?

However, philosophically speaking both Bodhi and Utah have their own beliefs and these bounce off each other to create obvious good and evil but, through a mutual love of surfing (Utah's develops throughout the course of the film) and a mutual acceptance of the importance of riding the ultimate wave, what is created is an interesting relationship between the pair. Utah becomes mesmerized by Bodhi. At times we get the feeling he likes him, at times we get the feeling he just wants to see him locked up and this sets the stage for a final showdown with real feeling on the coasts of Australia. A fitting end.

If it wasn't for some ludicrous motives that I simply cannot overlook, Reeves' hammy acting and rule break number one in having a totally pointless love interest Point Break would score higher marks. It's a surprisingly decent film which really has it's moments. It doesn't set the world alight but it has great chemistry between its two main male leads, some visual delights and a really remarkable chase scene. When it's good it's great but when it's bad it's terrible, a fitting phrase if ever there was one.

Rating: 6.5/10

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

"We're your friends, Rosemary. There's nothing to be scared about. Honest and truly there isn't!"


That's the question really isn't it? Except, that's what you would expect the question to be. Usually, we the viewer are asked to work this out one way or the other. In the case of Rosemary Woodhouse you would expect us to have to work out if her neighbours really are Satanist or whether Rosemary is just suffering some sort of mental breakdown as a result of her traumatic pregnancy. But quite quickly the outcome seems so blatently obvious, Rosemary's worst nightmares are very much true. This works because Roman Polanski doesn't refrain from telling us anything but just lets the story play out and leaves it up to Rosemary to discover what everybody else is telling her is not the case. We know the truth, she knows the truth and the horror comes from our knowing that we cannot help her.

The story follows Rosemary and her husband Guy Woodhouse. Initially they seem like the ideal couple. He is a semi successful stage and commercial actor, they have just moved into a new swanky apartment and together they want to settle down and have a family. Their neighbours are an eldery couple, Minny and Roman Castevet who seem likable if slightly peculiar. Rosemary gets her wish of pregnancy but when an old friend gifts her a book that highlights the fact that her elderly neighbour Roman is actually the son of a devil worshipper she begins to fear that her neighbours are a part of a Satanic cult. These fears escalate and the rest of the film is dedicated exactly to Rosemary wishes to satisfy these fears either way.

One of the films strongest assetts is the performance of Mia Farrow as Rosemary. In fact, it's such a brilliant performance that it ranks alongside Laura Dern's performance in David Lynch's Inland Empire, Francis McDormand's performance in the Coen's Fargo and Bibi Andersson's performance in Ingmar Bergman's Persona as one of the greatest performances by a female in a lead role. It is simply sublime. John Cassavetes is adequate in his role as Guy but Farrow's performance is backed up by two great supporting roles by Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer as the Castevets.


The most impressive scene is the surreal dream sequence in which Rosemary believes she is being raped by the devil himself. Visually it is extraordinary but it also leaves the question of whether or not it really is a dream or whether she actually is being raped. Some will tell you one way, others will tell you the other. I'm sure there is an answer, I just don't know what it is.

I've read a couple of comments by people whose opinion means nothing to me who comment that the ending is anticlimatic and 'rubbish'. Well yes it is anticlimatic but Rosemary's Baby is not a film that builds up to a climatic ending. As I said earlier, it was obvious what the outcome was going to be and as we watch we wait for the horrific truth to be revealed to Rosemary. Many of these comments question why Rosemary didn't kill the baby? After all these Satanists had ruined her dream of settling down into a family. But, I say to these people, look how much she wanted a child throughout the whole film. It's her number one goal and her maternal instincts were always going to be sky high and although she may have given birth to the child of Satan, that child is still hers and I think these maternal instincts stop her from making use of that meaty kitchen knife that she clutches in her right hand in this final scene.

Rosemary's Baby is one of the most chilling films I've ever seen acheiving Hitchcockian levels of suspense along the way. Everything in it works and it firmly ranks along side Polanski's Chinatown as being somewhere near masterpiece status and you simply have to view it.

Rating: 9/10 - highly recommended.

Moon (2009)

“Perhaps you’re…imagining things.”


Moon is without doubt one of the best, if not the best, science fiction films of the decade. Whereas most recent attempts at science fiction focus more of their attention on action rather than intelligence Moon does exactly the opposite putting itself in the cateogory of other classic sci-fi's such as 2001:A Space Odyssey, Alien and Blade Runner.

The film is Duncan Jones' debut feature length film and the son of David Bowie (yes really!) does not disappoint by giving us a film that delivers and can be enjoyed on many different levels. It tells the story of Sam Bell (played by Sam Rockwell) who is isolated on the moon working for Lunar Industries. Their and his project is to extract an energy, Helium-3, that is found in the moon's rocky surface, which is much needed as a power source back on planet Earth. Bell's only companion is GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) a thankfully pleasant robot who bears many silimilarities to 2001's HAL (it would have been a tragedy if GERTY had deteriorated in the same way HAL did, hence the use of 'thankfully'). GERTY is a great assett to Bell and acts as a great source of company as Bell's only contact with Earth is through pre-recorded messages from his wife and daughter.

I will refrain from plot spoiling but what I will say is that Moon raises and touches upon many philosophical questions regarding personal identity. Questions such as, what is that really constitues I? Is it bodily identity? Is it memories and thought? Both? Or are both of these insufficient? There are a couple of twists along the way that help raise this problems and I hope you find yourself pondering over these once these twists are revealed.

Moon also displays perfect pacing. At only 90 minutes long it is surprisingly short for a film that calls itself an intelligent science fiction film. We would expect it to be longer. Why I'm not sure, but we would. But it's running time is perfect. Jones fits everything that is necessary into the hour and a half and nothing feels unecessary and I wasn't left with a feeling of wanting more.


There are also some gorgeous visuals. The moon and surrounding space looks fantastic. The numerous shots of the harvesters going about their work are gorgeous and there are no showy, unecessary special effects that we associate with your more action filled science fiction films.

Aronofsky's The Wrestler was 2008's character driven piece and Moon is surely 2009's. It is all about Sam Bell and Sam Rockwell is incredible in his role. He carries the film perfectly in what is surely an Oscar worthy role!? Sam Bell was likeable and we sympathised with him and this was all down to Rockwell superb acting skills.

Moon is currently my favourite film of 2009. It's a great blend of science fiction with philosophy and even if philosophical issues aren't your thing it can still be enjoyed as it provides us with an enjoyable, fairly easy to digest story and a couple of humourous moments. It's a modern era rarity to get such a thought provoking science fiction film when instead we are given sci-fi action failures such as I,Robot and the disappointing big budget Star Trek reboot. The sad thing is not many will see Moon unless the marketing improves for the DVD release. It's received little advertisement both on television and on billboards and has had a worldwide limited cinema release. In fact The only advertisements I've seen for it were on the tubes in London on a recent visit and this is a real disappointment. What isn't a disappointment is the final product. See it.

Rating: 9/10 - highly recommended.

The Descent (2005)

"Hey, there's something down here..."


...there sure is and chances are you probably aren't going to get out alive. Here we go again? Perhaps but perhaps not...

Whilst watching The Descent it seemed apparent that it's director, Neil Marshall, is a big fan of film, especially film of the horror genre. What is also apparent in the modern era is that horror films just aren't very good anymore. For every one horror film that can be considered good, there is about fifty that are pretty terrible. Neil Marshall wanted The Descent to be that one.

The Descent is a claustrophobic British horror film which tells the tale of an all female group of British cave enthusiasts who are venturing up to Scotland on a caving expedition. Upon descending into their chosen cave things quickly take a turn for the worse as strange human-like creatures pursue the women.

I've read many reviews and comments for The Descent many of which praise it for being just a little bit different and more considerate than many horrors, not just focused purely on mindless violence and mutilation of random bodies. So I guess the question is do I agree with this common assessment? My answer would be partly yes and partly no. When we meet the characters we immediately see that Marshall wasn't interesting in falling in to the trap that many modern horror films do in which we see a mixed sex set of 'friends' embarking on whatever trip they may happen to be embarking on. Usually these 'friends' don't actually seem to have that much in common as they all seem to have vastly different personalities so that it becomes easy to separate and recognise them. The Descent however has an all female group as its main protagonists all of whom seem very similar to one another. In fact it was actually quite difficult to establish which character was which due to this similarity but this certainly is not a bad thing. The abandonment of familiar character developments such as this, that we see all the time in horror films, brought a more realistic edge to the story and simply allowed Marshall to 'get on with it'.


Don't get me wrong, The Descent does have it's brutal moments. But instead of over the top gore that simply makes us queasy The Descent truly scares us into caring about the outcome with some horrifying scenes of bodily mutilation nicely blended with a sense of doom, madness and sheer terror. The picture above spoils the ending but it is ending filled with relief. I was genuinely delighted that Sarah escaped and this sense of relief was brought across perfectly with some great acting and writing. After escaping she gets into the girl's vehicle and drives away at great speed, clearly disturbed by the days events.

One thing I rarely get to say about horrors is that there were actually some nice visuals here. The shot through the bullet holes in the road sign as the women make their way to their destination, the beautiful shot of the only surviving female clambering up the rocks as she spots an exit from the caves and the use of red flares to illuminate the caves throughout the film are all excellent. The latter gave the situation an air on impending doom. As the girls celebrate the fact that they have made it down in to the cave by lighting a red flare, the cave is awash with colour as the walls gleam. Is this a sign of the blood that the walls will soon be smothered in? It is a warning sign, red does mean stop after all?

But it is not all positive. The story in general is rather familiar. It is obvious from the get go that the majority of these women will end up dying, probably with one lone figure surviving. Although the usual format of the protagonists each making individual stupid judgments in their 'quest' for death is not apparent in The Descent the film still does follow the plot line mentioned which gives the film the familiar air of inevitability. Furthermore, the use of unrealistic, 'these creatures simply do not exist' predators is another aspect of modern horrors that I do not like but Marshall insists of using them here which disappointed me (but did make me curious to see Eden Lake).

It's not perfect but is a great attempt at bucking modern horror trends that has some brilliant moments along the way and for this it has to be commended. The problem is that Marshall just doesn't go far enough in trying to complete this goal of true originality when it seems clear that he really did want to.

Rating: 7.5/10 - recommended.

The Anderson Tapes (1971)

Sidney Lumet has directed numerous films that are viewed as cinema classics. 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Network and even Serpico are all highly regarded by film lovers and film critics alike and have all, except Serpico, received an Academy Award nomination. I recently discovered however that Lumet has directed many, many more films than the ones he is most famed for, most of which I've never heard of. The Anderson Tapes is one of those and by complete chance I happened to stumble across it on BBC1 the other night.

The Anderson Tapes is essentially a heist/caper movie. It follows an identical plot outline to many other caper movies, for example one of my favourite films, The Italian Job. We meet our leading character (in this case it is John 'Duke' Anderson played by Sean Connery) who has just been released from jail. This immediately tells us he has been on the wrongside of the law at least once. It is then revealed that he wants to commit another crime almost as soon as he is a free man. Said crime is revealed and described as the lead character seeks out his crew that will aid him throughout. The final act or two is dedicated to the crime itself. Familiar?

So Anderson has been released from prison after serving a ten year sentence. Whilst he was locked up there has been an increase in surveillance and survelliance techniques such as security cameras are now an established part of everyday life. Upon visiting an old lover, who lives in a swanky apartment, he comes up with the idea for a new crime. He and his crew will drive a van up to the building and rob all the high value goods from the other apartments in the building. Simple. However, unbeknowst to Anderson his associates are being monitored, each for different reasons and by different organizations but none of them can put the pieces together and anticipate the heist allowing it to go ahead and Anderson and his gang make their way through the various apartments, rounding up the inhabitants and robbing their goods. Eventually, the police are informed and they assemble a large presence outside the building and close in on the unsuspecting men who once alerted attempt to escape.


The Italian Job is the magnus opus of heist/caper films. It is excellent from start to finish. Sadly, The Anderson Tapes is not. The actually heist begins around the hour mark of a film that runs for about ninety five minutes and sadly Lumet forgot the make the first hour interesting. It's worse than uninteresting, it's mindnumbingly boring or perhaps that's a little harsh. We are introduced to our characters but once the heist begins it kind of felt like that first hour didn't really count or matter at all. This should come as a surprise because from the description of the plot above the plot does actually sound quite interesting. Things do improve however once the heist begins but even then the overall pacing was a little out. It was a little bit pedestrian at times, seemed to lack any urgency but at least the second half was a lot more watchable.

One thing I did like here was the flash forward scenes we see on numerous occasions during the heist. When Anderson's group enter the various luxourous apartment's and we are introuduced to the victims of their crime, the story suddenly cuts only a few hour ahead to the point at which the victim's are giving witness reports of the very scenes we were about to see before the leap ahead in time. They give their reports and then we go back to the actual heist scenes.

Unfortunately this positive note is tarnished somewhat by the horrible, ear splitting electronic score Lumet seems insistent on using in order to instigate each flash forward in time. I understand why he would have wanted to use it. After all, The Anderson Tapes main focus is on technology, from surveillance through to telecommuncations and back again. Right from the opening credits which uses an illuminous green L.E.D style font in telling us the name of the film it was obvious that Lumet wanted to orientate his heist movie around the subject of technology. We are constantly seeing some piece of equipment, be it CCTV, a computer screen, telephone or monitors. In fact, the police are alerted of the robbery by a hospital bed bound child who uses his amateur radio equipment to contact them and when Anderson is apprehended he immediately has a recording device thrusted in front of his face whilst being asked for a statement. Lumet presumably thought that an electronic bleeping noise fitted in with this theme, which perhaps it did, but was there any need to make it sound so ugly?

All in all The Anderson Tapes just isn't very interesting as pathetic an attempt at criticism that is. It feels a little half hearted and when there are so many better heist films out there Lumet's effort suffers and seems a little weak. And this is a disappointing because actually it's quite a nice idea for a film. I liked the over exagguration on surveillance but ultimately as a film I felt it lacked quality execution with little in the way of atmosphere. It does make me wonder how talented a director Lumet is. I'm astonished that only four years later, he would direct Dog Day Afternoon, a film that may not be a caper movie, but is however very similar in genre to The Anderson Tapes and about ten times better. He has directed 46 films yet I couldn't even name ten of them. Did Lumet just strike lucky throughout his career? Perhaps he did, but he certainly didn't strike lucky in 1971.

Rating: 5/10

CRASSIC NOT CLASSIC #1 The Usual Suspects (1995)

"Who is Keyser Soze?"
(actually it's pretty bleeding obvious)


Prepare yourself for spoilers. Allow me if you will to set the scene. The date today is the 28th August 2009, that is fourteen years and three days since Bryan Singer's showpiece The Usual Suspects was released over here in the United Kingdom. In these fourteen years the film has garnered mountains of critical acclaim. IMDb, that's the Internet Movie Database, has it listed as the 22nd best film of all time. Empire Magazine has it listed as the 61st in their list of the Best 500 films ever made. So when I sat down to watch it a few weeks ago I was expecting something incredible. Sadly however, The Usual Suspects gets the priviledge of being the first entry into my bad good films section which has been named quite brilliantly by me (thanks to my genius ability to rhyme) 'Crassic Not Classic.'

The story begins on a ship which explodes. This leads to a curious policeman wanting to know all the details as to who, how, what, why and when (actually he knows when...or does he...!?). His one witness is Roger 'Verbal' Kint, played pretty well by Kevin Spacey. What follows is an overly complicated story in which Kint tell us lie after lie about a large cocaine heist until ultimately the most famous twist in film history is revealed to us. Yawn.

The twist is nothing new when it comes to story telling. Most films, even those that are not famous for boasting a huge plot twist, have twists and turns along the way to their conclusion but not all films put all their eggs in one basket like The Usual Suspects does. There is no subtly here, it basically all hinges on what plot turn at the very end.

After the film had initially finished I thought I had enjoyed it. Then, as the days passed, and I thought about the film and thought about my reactions as the story unfolded I realised that I didn't enjoy all that much. Thinking back over it, attempting to understand everything that happens until the revelation is completely pointless because none of it actually occurs. OK, on first viewing we are likely to try and understand what is happening because we are unaware of the final outcome but on a rewatch everything would be completely redundant. We waste the time trying to interpret the majority of the film just to then be told that it was utterly pointless to do so.


I also have issues with the films attitude towards itself. It thinks of itself as refreshing, original and really quite clever but in truth it is none of these things infact it just looks a little tired and lazy at times two words I'm sure Bryan Singer would be horrified to hear aimed at his 'intelligent' little flick.

Don't get me wrong The Usual Suspects is not a badly crafted film, It doesn't display any of the techniques associated with 'bad' film making but by constructing the story the way it did it went and made itself completely unrewatchable. Unlike other films boasting big plot twists, The Usual Suspects has absolutely nothing else going for it and I doubt I will ever want to see this overrated, overconfident mishap ever again. This probably sounds more like a rather short rant than a critical review but a short rant is exactly what I needed to do in order to vent my fury at such a poor attempt of a film.

Rating: 2/10

Public Enemies (2009)

"They ain't tough enough, smart enough or fast enough. I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time."


After a recent viewing of 2004’s Collateral, Michael Mann instantly became a director whose filmography I had to explore. Heat had been sitting on my DVD shelf for a good while and to this day I still haven’t viewed the film critics call his best. I also added another Mann DVD to that shelf in the form of The Insider but that too is still to be viewed. So I was obviously excited at Mann’s 2009 release Public Enemies, his latest effort revolving around the genre of crime.

The film portrays the true story of F.B.I. agent Melvin Pervis (Christian Bale) and his attempt to track down and apprehend public enemy #1 John Dillinger, the notorious bank robber, played here by Johnny Depp. The impression is given that Pervis is the best man for the job as we see him take out Pretty Boy Floyd, another bank robber high on the F.B.I’s wanted list, midway through his efforts to seek out Dillinger.

In other reviews of the film that I have read it has been highlighted that Johnny Depp is fifteen years older than Dillinger was at the time in history in which the film's events take place. Not being familiar with the notoriety of Dillinger, this age difference was not something that bothered me as Depp came across totally believable in his role. This should not come as a surprise to anyone as Depp is firmly amongst the world's elite actors and a huge favourite of mine. Depp's portrayal of Dillinger is one of a man who comes across as a cool customer and Depp has some excellent dialogue to back this up. Despite him being the villian of the film's story I was on his side throughout and was a little saddened after the film's final scene (which impressed me greatly on both a stylistic and intensity level) had finished.

The other two main roles of Pervis and Dillinger's female interest Billie were given to Christian Bale (as I have already pointed out) and Marion Cotillard respectively, both of who were unspectacular in their roles. Bale was his usual, mediocre wooden self whilst Cotillard's performance can be classed as nothing more than solid, which is a disappointment as I hear she is an actress with bundles of talent. Here though, she was given little screen time to shine in her role and provide us evidence of that.

On a positive note, there are some great action scenes throughout. Many have complained about the shaky cam effect, a side effect of shoddy camera work all too common in the modern era and an effect we hear many a complaint about. For me however, the shaky cam issue in Public Enemies was non-existent. Instances where shaky cam did occur were when Dillinger and his men were on the move and the camera was in amongst the group which gave off the appearance that we too were walking with these people. Personally, I thought this worked quite nicely and the shaky cam was nowhere near the severity that can be seen in other films. People who speak of it being anything other than mild in Public Enemies are, in my opinion, being a little unfair.

Public Enemies does however fall a way short of the near perfect score that I would give to Collateral, a film I find fault hard to ascribe to. My biggest issue with the film was the lack of attention given to the supporting characters. By this I mean that I thought there was little attempt at telling us enough about them and expanding on their roles and at times I had to give more thought than I should have to when it came to reminding myself which supporting character was which and what there role was in the whole Dillinger saga. Perhaps this was a purposeful choice by Mann, choosing to put the majority of attention on Dillinger, after all he was public enemy #1. But personally, a little more attention to detail on this aspect of the story telling, especially when Mann had so much source material to choose from and researched so hard whilst making this film, would have bumped up my rating significantly.

A small comment must also be made about the score for Public Enemies. For it's score Mann drafted in Elliot Goldenthal, the same Elliott Goldenthal that Mann got to score Heat (a score that received near universal critical acclaim) but it just did not work out here. It has been a while since a score struck me as being odd as much as this one did. There were a few times when it seemed completely wayword and misplaced.

When it comes to making crime films in the modern era Michael Mann is certainly the front runner and by some distance too. He has his own, non-generic style that appears obvious to me after viewing only two of his films and this is something that cannot be said for many mainstreams films from similar genres.

I am very curious as to how Public Enemies will perform at the Academy Awards this year. With the Best Picture Award widening it's bracket back to ten nominations surely Public Enemies will be one of these. Whether it will win or not I am unsure but collectively Mann, Depp and Cotillard have a history of Oscar nomination and success in the Best Director, Actor and Actress categories before and it would not surprise me if the first two were nominated again this year. Only time will tell.

Sure Public Enemies has its flaws and I would not call it a 'fantastic' film but what I would call it is a really, really good one that is highly enjoyable to watch and since when was being called a 'really, really good film' been a criticism? Roger Ebert describes this a a very well disciplined film and he is spot on with that assessment. It is a film that knows exactly what it wants to do and does it. It is a film that strays away from the cliches that it so easily could have fallen prey to for that it should be commended. It may not be Mann's best and it may not turn out to be Mann's second, third or even fourth best (I'll have to find out for myself) but what Public Enemies is is a film that surely strengthens Mann's filmography even further, justifying claims that he is a truly splendid director of film.

Rating: 7.5-8/10 - recommended

Airplane! (1980)

Can you fly this plane, and land it?

Surely you can't be serious.

I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

David Zucker is a one trick pony director who has dedicated his film career to churning out mostly parody/spoof type films. More recently he has directed the latter half of the Scary Movie franchise films in numbers 3 and 4 and has produced the universally condemned Superhero Movie and the soon to be universally condemned Sci-Fi Movie. Along the way he directed the not so bad Naked Gun films which did actually provide some great comedy moments even if the gags did start to become slightly repetitive.

But there was a time when words such as 'atrocious', 'average', 'forgettable', 'mediocre' and 'useless' did not apply to Zucker. In 1980, the year which produced two classics in Scorcese's Raging Bull and Kubrick's The Shining, Zucker, along with his brother Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams (ZAZ as they have become to be known) directed and wrote their first feature length film, a film that comes very close to the classic status of the two films mentioned above, albeit in the genre of slapstick parody comedy.

The film follows Ted Striker (Robert Hays) a man who is now fearful of flying after a traumatic incident he was involved in during the war. Elaine Robinson (Julie Hagerty) was the love of his life during the war and Ted wants to be reunited with her. The trouble is, Elaine is now a stewardess and Ted is going to have to overcome his fear of flying if he wants the chance to charm her. He boards the flight but she initially spurns his advances. Things take a sharp turn to the right however when a large amount of passengers on board the flight, including the pilot and his crew, are struck down with food poisoning. Fearing that nobody is going to be able to land the plane successfully Elaine realises that Ted may be the only chance there is of survival.

I firmly believe that what ZAZ have created here is the greatest comedy of all time. It's a film where there is no need to talk about film techniques. Cinematography is redundant, there is no special musical score or great lighting effects, it is just good, in fact very good, laugh out loud comedy from the moment it begins.

Dr.Rumack (played by Leslie Neilsen): "You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital. "

Elaine: "A hospital? What is it?"

Rumack: "It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."

The above is just one of the many examples of incredibly witty gags in which ZAZ play incredibly successfully on the double meaning and context of words found in the English language which make it one of the most quotable scripts in film history. It's a script that could almost be described as shameless. At times you will cringe (whilst laughing your head off) at the corniness of some of the gags but that is what makes Airplane! so good. Comedies are just not made like this anymore, it's simple. Also, I do wonder where it all went wrong for the Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker partnerships because they have not made a comedy that comes anywhere near close to the greatness of Airplane! ever since and the way their filmography is heading, it doesn't look like they ever will.

If anything negative had to be said about Airplane! is that it takes everything it uses from elsewhere but this isn't really a negative at all because Airplane! isn't simply a rehash it's a highly original piece of work that acknowledges that it's borrows from other sources but then turns it all into something really rather special. Airplane! is a truly great comedy that will really take some beating to knock it off it's perch. It's the only comedy that I would consider one of my favourite films of all time. It's a must see for people that like a good laugh, groan and a giggle.

Rating: 9/10 - highly recommended.

Road To Perdition (2002)

"There are many stories about Michael Sullivan. Some say he was a decent man. Some say there was no good in him at all. But I once spent 6 weeks on the road with him, in the winter of 1931. This is our story."


Michael Sullivan Snr. (Tom Hanks) is both a member of an organised crime mob and a father to his son Michael Sullivan Jnr and Peter. Peter and Michael Jnr curiously wonder what their father does for a living and eventually Michael Jnr sneaks into the back of his fathers car when he and fellow mob member Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) are sent on a job. Through a hole in the bottom of a door to the warehouse where the job takes place young Michael witnesses the brutal killing of a man by Connor. When Michael Snr and Connor flee the area they notice Michael Jnr and it is obvious that he saw the horrors that occurred inside the warehouse.

This incident, the first time that Michael Jnr witnesses what his father does for a living sets off a series of events that makes up the majority of the film's story and allows us to see the various themes that are evident in Road To Perdition. Ultimately the film is about the consequence of gangsterism and more specifically living a violent life as an individual impacts on your life as a member of a biological family. And this it what a like about Road To Perdition. Most films like to glamorise violence but Road To Perdition flips this over showing how this type of life can negatively impact your offspring. I also like the touch of both father and son being called Michael Sullivan. This deliberate naming of your child as your own name instills thoughts of the father wanting his son to grow up in the same way as he did but in this case this is far from the truth as we can get.

It is also imperative that attention is given not only to the father son relationship between the two Michael Sullivan's but to the other 'father and son' relationship that we see. Here I refer to the relationship between John Rooney, father of Connor who unlike Michael was all for his son following in his footsteps, and Michael Sullivan Snr. Although not biologically related there is a clear sense of a father/son relationship between the pair with Hanks' character looking up to Rooney as a father figure of such. We see evidence of this when Sullivan Snr explains to his sons that Rooney helped the family out in times of trouble in the past indicating that Sullivan has viewed Rooney as a father figure for many years. The last half hour of the film is where the plot really steps up to the next level. It is an incredibly powerful half hour even if it does suffer from being quite predictable and fatalistic. It is here that Sullivan Snr's choice of choosing his relationship with Rooney over that of his sons really comes back to trouble him.

On an acting level I was entirely convinced by Tom Hanks' performance. I felt he was a little uneasy and unsure of himself at times but nothing too tragic. Neither Daniel Craig or Paul Newman overly impressed me either but again their performances weren't bad so to speak. I thought the standout performance went to Jude Law. I haven't seen many films in which he is required to play 'the villian' but he was convincing here and probably should have at least been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars.


But back to the positives. The cinematography here is simply wonderful, surely one of the best efforts of 2002. The opening photo to this review is just one example of this and it is no surprise than Conrad Hall won a posthumous Academy Award for his efforts here. The night time scenes really are a joy to look at as Hall uses some truly original lighting effects whic results in some beautiful looking shots. Hall also perfectly captures the rain drops dripping from the characters clothing as they walk through many a Chicago downpour.

The film also has its humerous moments particularly when Michael Snr is teaching Michael Jnr how to drive prematurly so that Michael Jnr can act as his father's getaway driver from the various banks he needs to 'take' money from. In one scene, Michael Snr has exited one particular bank but Mcihael Jnr is nowhere to be seen. Then, gradually, a car appears on screen as Michael Jnr slowly pulls up at the side of the road.

I guess the main question is do I like Road To Perdition? Well I guess I do. It's not Mendes' best (for that see American Beauty) but it certainly comes with the highest of recommendations and further strengthens my thought that Mendes is a special director of whose other works I am keen to see. Many comparisons can be made between American Beauty and Road To Perdition however despite them being from rather different genres. Both have as their focus the emotional family problems suffered by one man in the situation he finds himself in in his life and it is a topic that Mendes handles perfectly. The plot, as I have said, is nothing entirely special but it is Mendes' attention to detail in what plot we do have, the emotions that Mendes' stirs inside of us as a viewer, Hall's wonderful cinematography and the spectacularly slow but incredible pacing to the film that I truly respect about it and what stands it above many films.

Rating: 8.5/10 - highly recommended.

Eagle Eye (2008)

"Jerry Shaw, you have been activated. Your compliance is vital."


The action-thriller genre is, in my opinion, a tired and overused genre of film that is all to easy to produce in the modern era and takes something really special, like The Matrix, in order to stand out. Year upon year these instantly forgettable, heavy on C.G.I. action-thrillers are churned out by distinctly average directors and they go on to be instant summer blockbusters. Eagle Eye, directed by D.J. Caruso ("rehasher" of the Hitchcock classic Rear Window), was the latest in this long line to be added straight to the rubbish pile.

Jerry Shaw (played by Shia LaBeouf) is a young man who displays high intelligence but ultimately lacks focus in his life and is in financial trouble. Upon the double discovery that one, $751,000 has been deposited in his bank account and two, a large amount of military weapons and forged documents have been delivered to his flat, Jerry receives a phone call from a mystery woman who claims that the F.B.I are about to apprehend him. He doesn't believe her but she proves to be correct and the F.B.I do indeed apprehend him. He continues to receive phone calls from the woman who helps him escape custody. Jerry eventually meets Rachel (Michelle Monaghan) who has been receiving similar phone calls. The pair continue to receives the calls and the woman continues to help Jerry and Rachel evade the continuous efforts from the Chicago Police to capture the pair.

Plenty more happens from this point but in truth it is all irrelevant. Midway through the film, up to the point at which my plot summary ceases, I was shaking my head in disbelief at what Caruso was attempting to get away with and what he was expecting us to accept as real. As a plot, Eagle Eye is incredibly implausible. 'Why, there have been many implausible films, many of them classics,' I hear you say. And you would be true in saying that, but the problem that Eagle Eye presents is that it doesn't think of itself as implausible. The story unfolds in the real world, the stuff in the film is real stuff; real news channels, real cars and real modes of public transport. Implausibility is unintentional yet the whole first half in which we are expected to believe that this woman, (who actually turns out to be a 'supercomputer'), can control every security camera, L.E.D display screen, traffic light in Chicago, can monitor every mobile phone of every citizen, can observe all the traffic on the busy city streets and can even control the exact movements of cranes in scrap yards, is precisely that...totally implausible.

Further implausibilities include Jerry and Rachel's sudden ability to achieve things that even Jack Bauer would struggle to get away with. They manage to hold up an armoured van with incredible success, they manage to sneak on and off an aeroplane that one would assume had a high military guarded presence and then they have the audacity to attempt to, and unsurprisingly yet amazingly, sneak into the Pentagon! Yet Jerry and Rachel are, in truth, your everyday Joe Bloggs not super stealthy agents. Just how do they do it..incredible!

This is not my only issue. Everything in this first half of the film feels incredibly timely. For instance, there was a moment in which Jerry falls onto a train track and seconds later a train appears whizzing towards him at high speed so that he has to quickly recover from his fall in order to avoid certain death. Also, when they are sneaking off the cargo plane after it has landed, they obviously don't really know where they are going. Fortunately for the pair there is an emergency exit map right in front of them. How handy! This timely nature of events occurs simply to fabricate suspense creating a computer-game-like atmosphere, which is as far from reality as you can get.


The sad thing is a lot of people will enjoy this. It certainly looks slick and it has an electric pace to keep even the most inattentive of people alert and on the edge of their seats. It is filled with explosion after explosion, after explosion, after explosion, after explosion, chase scene, after chase scene, after chase scene, C.G.I. overload if you will, and for a large proportion of folk this is all good. But for me it is incredibly unoriginal and pretty dull.

Overall, Eagle Eye is a train wreck of a film. Sure, the special effects here are great and the film is incredibly intense, so intense that I half expected to be holding my X-Box 360 controller in my hands when I looked down at them whilst watching Eagle Eye. Trouble is, when I did look down at them and saw no controller in my hands, the film becomes impossible to enjoy. Shia LaBeouf, supposedly one of the brightest young actors around, produces an all too familiar 'Shia LaBeouf role' which happens to be a distinctly average one. The film is an insult to our intelligence as human beings which just reels off implausibility after implausibility until it's conclusion, which happens to be the all too familiar unnecessary love scene moment. After only just meeting, in a rather peculiar scenario, with little time to get to know each other before the next implausible attempt to evade capture is imminent, it seems that actually they really quite like each other. Bleurgh.

Rating: 2/10 - Terrible.