Blood Work (2002)

Clint Eastwood, as director, has mastered the art of writing himself into his own films. In Pale Rider, for example, he knew just where to place himself in front of the camera and throughout his career he has delivered some great one-liners. Here in Blood Work, Eastwood delivers a performance that feels like all the characters he has played before but just a little older.

Eastwood plays Terry McCaleb, a retired F.B.I agent, who suffers from health problems after needing a heart transplant, following an incident we see right at the beginning of the film. Eastwood himself was 72 when he directed, produced and starred in Blood Work and having himself portray McCaleb immediately establishes a believability about the character.

McCaleb lives aboard a yacht and one day is visited by Graciella Jones whose sister has been murdered in a convenience store. In a seperate incident, a man has also been murdered whilst using an ATM and McCaleb is convinced the two are linked. These killings provide the platform for the screenplay to unfold in what will come to involve a Russian factory worker and ultimately a blood link. The police in the film view McCaleb as poking his nose in buisness that is no longer his concern but McCaleb has personal reasons of his own for wanting to get involved. Happy Valentines Day.

The screenplay is excellent and fluidly shifts between three ongoing plotlines. The investigation is obviously the main focus of the film and remains interesting and intriguing throughout the film but there is also the subplot of McCaleb's health with remains an issue until the very end as well as the developing (and perhaps unlikely) relationship that develops between Terry and Graciella.

There is good support from Jeff Daniels, Wanda De Jesus and Paul Rodriguez who all portray memorable characters but like most of Eastwood's films he steals the show on the performance front.

The story perhaps comes full circle twenty minutes too early. The mystery is solved but the film carries on as we see it at it's most Hollywood (although the film actually never comes anywhere close to falling into that Typical Hollywood Thriller mould) as the film climaxes with an action scene aboard a ship that didn't really have me caring about it half as much as I cared about the rest of the film. These scenes do however allow Eastwood's clever direction and the intelligent screenplay to shine once again as there is something of a lethargic nature to the sequence due the health of McCaleb.

Blood Work is though up there with Eastwood's best and of the nine films I've seen with him at the helm I'd say it is only better by two: Million Dollar Baby and Changeling. Eastwood is in his 80's now and is directing his best films in this period. His work in the noughties eclipses everything I've seen by him from the 70', 80's and 90's and with Letters From Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers up next I'm sure I will continue to vouch for that statement.

Rating: 8-8.5/10

Inception (2010)

The hyperbole surrounding Inception over the past two weeks has been nothing short of ridiculous. Flocks of people who don't really know what they are talking about keep on labelling Christopher Nolan's latest effort 'like da best film evvva'. It's release has seen in burst in at number three on the suspect and easily influenced IMDB Top 250 List, as fanboys around the world vote it a massive 10/10 whether they have seen the damn film or not. So is Inception the best film ever? Does it deserve to be number three on the list? Is it a 10/10? And are the comparisons of Nolan to legendary director Stanley Kubrick justified? No, no, no and um..no.

I was however massively looking forward to Inception. Despite his two Batman efforts leaving me feeling a little cold, I have liked what else I've seen by Nolan, namely Memento and The Prestige. And in a world where 3D is increasingly sapping any creativity out of mainstream cinema, Nolan is gaining a reputation as being a 'thoughtful' director. I'm also massively keen on films that take on dreamlike atmospheres or explore the nature of dreams in any way they see fit. How could a film billed as one about dreams within dreams within dreams possibly go wrong?

Leonardo Di Caprio stars as Dom Cobb, a professional dream stealer, who places himself in the dreams of others in order to steal ideas from them. Through his impressive work he is approached with a request to attempt 'inception' the art not of stealing an idea but of implanting one. It's a lot more technical and apparently a lot more lucrative. Dom's partner Albert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) calls 'inception' impossible but Cobb ignores him and assembles his team. Ellen Page is hired as the architect to create the worlds that the dreamers will occupy.

The job requires the implantation of an idea into the mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). That idea is that Fischer will want to break up the empire of his terminally ill father in order to stop the company from being a threat. A plan is formed and Nolan allows his characters to explain and carry out the complex operation in what becomes an increasingly confusing and multi-layered narrative as it heads towards its conclusion.

The film features an all star cast, some of whom I have already mentioned, but one that further includes Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard and more. Employment of such a cast is always dangerous as it can often lead to an absence of memorable performances and despite my love of Di Caprio, Gordon-Levitt and Page, they all fail to deliver. Like with his Batman films there isn't much in the way of an emotional attachment to any of the characters on show.

But the film's major problem is just how prosaic it is. My hopes for a film that genuine explores the nature of dreams, creating a dreamlike atmosphere in the process were never satisfied and instead Nolan presents us with what is actually a pretty standard heist film that eventually becomes your typical Summer Action Blockbuster. Only difference is is that Inception isn't a remake, a reboot or a sequel but a truly original screenplay that wants to share with us some interesting ideas but doesn't have the right man at the helm to do so. I appreciate the thought but I don't appreciate the product.

Perhaps on seconds viewing, knowing that this is predominantly an action film and nothing over and above an action film I'd enjoy it more but the criticism that Nolan has create a film that describes dreams as occurring too literally (thus not allowing for the fluidity and lack of logic that often have) still stands. The response is usually that this was never Nolan's intention and that he always wanted to make Inception an action film, but Inception was created entirely from scratch and it could have been about anything. Nolan choose to make it about dream exploration but then didn't truly carry this idea through in a way that seems correct.

On a positive note I really enjoyed the films score. It's big and booming and shares a similarity to another of the years films starring Leonardo Di Caprio, a.k.a. Shutter Island (and that's not the only thing the two films have in common). The special effects (all $160 million dollars of them) are also good most noticeably the zero gravity corridor scene but this and all the other effects are lessened by the fact that I had already seen them countless times before in the trailer. The film doesn't surprise us with any fresh visually dazzling moments not chosen for the trailer.

Despite my complaints Inception isn't another in film to suffer from 'third act syndrome'. It's not one that falls apart at any moment after building itself up to be something special. It's the entire focus of the film that was disappointment but it remains loyal to what Nolan wanted it to be throughout and it does prove that Nolan is one of the best when it comes to creating big action blockbusters. It's just a shame that he choose Inception to fall into that category.

On a certain level I did enjoy Inception. It's energetic and despite a reasonably lengthy running time it does whizz by, never letting you out of it's grasp. It's what I'd call an enjoyable cinematic experience. Take that statement however you will. It seems that Inception is this years Avatar.

Rating: 6.5/10

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

There was a moment in 'Wendy and Lucy' at which I paused the film and wondered how on earth I could possibly feel any sympathy towards the situation that Wendy now found herself in. The film tells me nothing about why it is that she has become so lonely, so poor and so determined to travel to Alaska. We learn nothing of her past, we learn only fragments of her present and we will know nothing of her future. Wendy's ambitions, Wendy's past jobs, relationships and hobbies are never revealed.

I thought to myself, 'surely we need some sort of back-story to this woman's life to sympathise with the fact that she finds herself alone with her dog Lucy in an unfamiliar town with little money, no friends or family around her, and a car whose ignition will no longer fire up?' But at the same time of asking such question I realised that I did feel sympathy. The question was a redundant one, for it mattered not what had happened before in Wendy's life. In the here and now, Wendy was in a torrid situation and that is all that seems to matter. It's a credit to this film that it manages to successfully tease out that emotion from it's viewer despite not giving us much of a reason to attach ourselves to it's lead character.

Wendy's only friend is her 'yellow-gold' Golden Retriever called Lucy. Together they have travelled perhaps from Indiana and are heading for Alaska so that Wendy can find work there. The job plans there do not bring about excitement raising questions as to why Wendy things travelling so far to get there is such a good idea. It's as if Alaska is viewed as the end of the world.
Wendy takes overnight comfort in her car but one morning is woken by a friendly security guard whose job it is to watch over a car park that never seems to have any cars populating it. Despite his friendly persona he takes his job seriously and reluctantly informs Wendy that overnight stays in the car park are against regulations and she will have to pull out. Wendy agrees but her car won't start.

This is only the beginning of her problems. Needing to restock on dog food but not wanting to pay, Wendy is caught stealing from the local store and taking to the local station for questioning, finger prints and so that she can pay her fine. When she is eventually released she returns to the store to find that Lucy (whom she had tied to a bike rack whilst she went into the store previously) has disappeared. Even lonelier now, Wendy is advised by the friendly security guard to keep checking the local dog pound to see if she is handed in. She has to walk there and walk back again to see if the local garage has fixed her car yet. Most of the time she hears bad news, "No dogs match that description" or "Your bill could be $2000". Eventually she gives up on the car, but never on Lucy.

The film stars Michelle Williams an actress I'm unfamiliar with despite her being in familiar films such as Shutter Island, Synecdoche New York and Brokeback Mountain. Most of this credit I just mentioned should be given to this 29 year old's performance, which is so good and convinced me to believe in her. The Toronto Film Critics Association also recognized this talent by awarding her their 'Best Actress Award' in 2008 fending off competition from Meryll Streep for her performance in Doubt. Past recipients of the award are Thora Birch in Ghost World, Ellen Page in Juno (who beat Laura Dern to the prize in her powerhouse performance in the epic Inland Empire) and Carey Mulligan in last year's An Education. That is how good a performance this is by Miss Williams.

The cinematography helps too. Not only does Sam Levy capture wide-lens shots that look really nice but he also points the camera straight at the expressive face of Wendy which really captures the emotion of the journey that she undertook and may now regret. We'll never know.

And then, by the end, when Wendy makes that heart-wrenching decision, we salute the film for making us realise, in it's short running time of 80 minutes, that the decision was the right one and for convincing us so truly that Wendy's emotions were real.


Rating: 8/10

Funny Games U.S (2007)

**CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Golden rule number one when reviewing a film is that it has to hold my interest from beginning to end. It seems daft to open this review with such an obvious point but it feels fitting in this case, for Michael Haneke's Funny Games U.S. does exactly that. Indeed I was interested from beginning to end. But that does not tell the full story because despite being an interesting film, perhaps even an enjoyable one, Funny Games is not entirely successful. At the heart of this is that fact that it's a Haneke film. Now, I don't mean that derogatorily for Haneke is an intelligent director and one of the most important currently working today. But there is so much more going on in Funny Games U.S than meets the eye and I think that Haneke fails in getting his thoughts across successfully.

Funny Games U.S is a shot-for-shot remake of his effort ten years previously. Yes that's right Haneke remade his own film, Funny Games, shooting it exactly how he shot the original. However, the remake is in the English language and stars familiar names Tim Roth and Naomi Watts in the lead roles. Roth and Watts play George and Ann, a happily married couple who, along with their son Georgie, are on their way to their lake house for a presumed weekend break. To make their journey go quicker they entertain themselves by playing 'guess the classical song and composer'. This is a well-to do family, comfortably settled in familiar family life. Shortly after their arrival at the lake house they are introduced by their next-door neighbours to two seemingly friendly young men Peter and Paul who, despite their friendly persona, appear to be a little odd. The men continue to impress themselves on the family and, when a persistent request for eggs tests Ann's patience forcing her to demand that they leave the family alone things begin to get a little sinister as Peter and Paul, dressed in all-white, force the family to take part in physical and psychological games testing their resolve to stay alive.

This plot description may lead you to believe that this is just another run of the mill horror film but you would be far from the truth. In fact I wouldn't, perhaps controversially so, even describe this as a horror film per se. Despite the perhaps tired and familiar story at no point did I think that Haneke was trying to produce his own take on the horror genre. Funny Games U.S. is more of a commentary than a film in it's own right. Haneke has said of his film that it is a reaction to the way that violence in films has become consumerized in America and it is often said that the original Funny Games was Haneke's way of 'telling off' those film viewers who take pleasure out of such violent films. Haneke remade Funny Games in order to elevate the film (i.e. his message) to those unfamiliar with viewing films in any other language than English (i.e the Americans of whom Haneke refers to).

Haneke's way of getting across his message sees Peter and Paul (perhaps Haneke's messengers?) consistently 'breaking the fourth wall' (i.e. talking directly to the audience). The two perpetrators consistently ask the audience questions like 'why are you watching this?' as well as predicting whose side the audience is on and what the audience expect to ask next. There is even a bizarre scene in which a remote control is used to rewind time in order to have a scene play out differently.

I'm fine with Haneke's message in fact I even admire it. But as a film Funny Games U.S. isn't too successful and in many respects (but I stress not all) it does just become another exploitation film with predictable outcomes and unsavoury characters that are not explored too well.

But there are a lot of positives about Funny Games U.S. Firstly, the eerie performances of Michael Pitt (Last Days) and Brady Corbet are excellent and as a growing fan of Naomi Watts I enjoyed seeing her here as well. Secondly,Haneke's direction is sublime and the film is well constructed and like there is in his 2005 near-masterpiece Cache, there is one scene that totally comes out of nowhere and blew me away with how well it was captured. I admire Haneke's basic and still camerawork that was present in Cache and is present again here. Thirdly and tying in I guess with the purpose behind Funny Games is the admirable scene in which Ann dies. I admire the unimportance Haneke ascribes to the scene that sees Peter and Paul nonchalantly dispose of her body. Fourthly, the thrash screamo metal song (Bonehead by Naked City) is used as a score in a way that only Haneke would dare to do. It makes for such an odd and contrasting opening scene. And finally, the film does remain tense throughout and did, as I mentioned at the start, refrain from breaking golden rule number one.


Rating: 7/10

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

And so the stage was set: take my favourite animated film of all time and put it in the hands of someone with the visual imagination of Tim Burton and hey presto a brilliant re-imagining of a classic children's story should result. Surely Alice in Wonderland was going to be one of the highlights of 2010 despite the decision to show it in 3D? Well no, not exactly. The trouble is, is that Tim Burton just isn't very good. Granted I've seen only a handful of his works but so far none of them have received anything more than half marks. Edward Scissorhands is probably the best I've seen so far. Visually quite interesting but ultimately unspectacular. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was just a little bit too glossy for my liking and Burton's vision of Willy Wonka somewhat peculiar. Corpse Bride, distinctively average. Batman, again visually interesting, (more so than Christopher Nolan's acclaimed Dark Knight), but the story is, well, a bit of a mess.

Perhaps I've just not seen his best. Big Fish looks interesting. The word 'masterpiece' often gets aimed at Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd certainly has it's fans and everything looked perfectly set up here with Alice. I grant Burton his visual flair (although that doesn't make me a fan per se) and it seemed that it should perfectly match up with Carroll's classic novel, but sadly it doesn't. But what goes wrong?

Burton, according to the trusty source of Wikipedia, said this of his production of Alice in Wonderland: "new movie is to give the story "some framework of emotional grounding...to try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events." But this seems contrary to the reason that I especially loved the original Disney version. Is Burton not a fan? I loved the original precisely because Alice walks around the surreal world of Wonderland and engages with it's inhabitants for short periods of time. There isn't a 'story' as such in the 1951 but instead an adventure and adventures don't have to have beginnings, middles and ends.

The plot of Burton's version does share a lot of similarities with the version of Clyde Geronimi and co, more so in the first third than the rest of the film. Once again we meet Alice, except this time instead of lying on the banks of a river, she is a little older and about to wed the peculiar Hamish Ascot against her will. Eventually she follows a White Rabbit and falls down a hole, before engaging in the familiar activities of eating 'Eat Me' cake and drinking 'Drink Me' liquid. If only the key fit a normal sized door eh? Eventually Alice is just the right size to fit through the tiny door and once again she finds her self in Wonderland (or 'Underland in fact, as Burton chooses to coin it). We quickly meet familiar characters: Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), the Caterpillar (Alan Rickman), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry) and eventually the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). And abruptly this is where the familiarities stop
.

Alice eventually gets embroiled in story with an all too familiar arc, that ends up suffering from a syndrome that many modern day multiplex films suffer from: Third Act Syndrome. What makes Alice in Wonderland even more insufferable is that it suffers from it as soon as Alice steps foot in Wonderland. The story immediately because a generic action-adventure and exploring Wonderland's fantastic landscape is never on Burton's mind. Those moments in the film that we do get to stop and look at the surroundings didn't please me but disappointed me. Even getting on board Robert Stromberg of Avatar fame couldn't help to make the film visually appealing and looking at the Wonderland surrounding the Mad Hatter's tea party looks like a scene from John Hillcoat's gloomy post-apocalyptic film The Road. Now that's not exciting is it?

Some characters get more screentime than others but the choice is a bad one. Depp disappointed me as the Mad Hatter. Don't get me wrong, Depp is magnificently talented but I think the character of the Mad Hatter is written wrong here, again the fault of Burton. Helena Bonham Carter (who obviously had to be in this didn't she?) gives a pretty annoying, noisy performances as the Red Queen. Mia Wasikowska is adequate as Alice but the only noteworthy performance is Alan Rickman's voice work of the Caterpillar but sadly he is given less than five minutes screentime I'd say.

And so we come to the third act. By this time we are really meant to care about the outcome remember? But here we don't. It involves a standard, over-long, dull, battle scene that would be just as suited to Robin Hood or Clash of the Titans or District 9 and so on, which involves Alice having to slay some big Jabberwocky. Lovely. Not. It's generic and it's mind-numbing and it sums up mainstream cinema in the 21st century.

Vulgarization doesn't even come close to explaining what Tim Burton has done to Lewis Carroll's and Disney's classic story. Every choice he makes is the wrong one, and although the script is occasionally humorous and some performances are decent I'm sorry to say it's a disaster pretty much from the word go.

(I fail to mention that I actually saw this in 2D. Alice in Wonderland 3D, now that really would give me to something to moan about.)


Rating: 2/10

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

"I have a sadness shield that keeps out all the sadness, and it's big enough for all of us."

Adapting a book that consists of just under ten lines into a feature length film cannot be an easy task. But this was precisely the problem facing Spike Jonze when he decided to adapt Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s picture book, Where The Wild Things Are, into a film that would eventually span around 95 minutes.

Too young to play with the older children and dissatisfied with his life at home, the ever-playful Max gets into an argument with his mother and proceeds to flee from his home. Eventually Max reaches the waters edge of a lake where a small boat is moored. Eager to escape the problems facing him at home Max escapes into his imagination and soon he is sailing across the vast ocean in a boat now more than double the size it first appeared. After battling heavy rain, Max eventually reaches unfamiliar land and quickly stumbles across a group of furry creatures much bigger than he, already engaged in some form of domestic. These are the Wild Things (voiced by familiar names such as Forest Whitaker, Paul Dano and Chris Cooper) and soon they install Max as their king in order to restore some form of order.

This world that Max has created for himself consists of a forest, inhabited by the Wild Things themselves, and an expansive desert landscape. The Wild Things are interesting to look at and in contrast to most films aimed at children in the 21^st century are not forced to look ‘cutesy’ and ‘fluffy’. Their creation is interesting too, a combination of real-life muppetry and computer-generated imagery that works together perfectly to make the Wild Things look as if they really do occupy the same space as Max himself.

The film is a perfect encapsulation of the wild and vivid imagination that fascinates young children. Watching it I was reminded of my younger self, as Max’s imagination produces ideas not too dissimilar from ones I remember having growing up as a child. Talk of battles and of forts and imaginary objects such as the ‘sadness shield’ invented to allow good to prevail are precisely the things that I myself conjured up when I too was under the control of my imagination.

Under-lying symbolism is also suggested with the Wild Things of Max’s imagination perhaps playing the roles of the people most prominent in his life outside his vivid thoughts. Several times throughout the film I considered the possibility of Carol as representing Max himself, with his horns very much resembling the ears on Max’s wolf costume.

The challenging role of Max is played with craft by Max Records. Not only does he boast an incredibly cool name, but he also proves himself to be a fine young, budding actor. He is required to carry the film on his own and does some whilst maintaining the innocence and enthusiasm we would come to expect of a child immersed in his own creative thoughts.

But despite its short running time parts of the film do seem to drag. Regardless of its many charming moments the film is guilty of plenty of uninspired padding in order to stretch it out to feature length and it seems simply that Jonze does not have enough ideas of his own to justify refusing to settle for a shorter running time. The film will undoubtedly make me smile as you revel in its innocence but taken as a whole it just is not as successful as I had hoped.

Rating: 6.5-7/10

The Road (2009)

The end of the world is upon us and well, there ain't a whole lot we can do about it. This sentence just about sums up the plot of John Hillcoat's adaptation of the novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy, author of the book that led to the brilliant Coen Brothers film No Country For Old Men. In The Road, civilization as we know it has been wiped out. The majority of the population has died, animals no longer exist and food is sparse. The reason for this remains unknown throughout the whole film but in this situation a reason isn't necessary. This sparsity has led some to cannibalism but not the Man (Viggo Mortensen) or the Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee), these are the 'good guys' as the Boy often refers to them as.

The landscape is beautifully captured by Hillcoat and his team. CGI aided I am sure but nevertheless Hillcoat's palette of predominantly grey and murky colours matches the bleak outlook of the film perfectly. Visually, it's a very impressive film to look at.

The film also stars Charlize Theron in a role that is almost superfluous. She plays the Wife of the Man and mother of the Boy. She only appears in flashbacks, from a time when civilization was slightly less bleak but clearly the destruction of the world has already kicked in. We see the Wife give birth to the Boy but soon after, failing to see any hope in the future, walks out of the house leaving behind her family, and disappears, quite literally, into the shadows to die.

What The Road is, and where it stands above many post-apocalyptic stories, such as I Am Legend, is that it doesn't bastardize the situation with daft flesh-eating zombies or fantastical mythological nonsense. What we have here is exactly what I'd imagine 'the end of the world' to be like. Simply a hopeless world in which it is a struggle to survive,not because of the dangers of being mauled to death but by the sheer forces of nature and evaporation of the human world as we can to accept it.

But would I ever want to see this film again. Probably not. As I am sure I've made clear, it's a bleak film with no outlook on the future. It's not what you'd call easy viewing and isn't a film that you'd get much out of a second time round. It's lacking in as much emotive punch as it probably should have, and the emotion it does try to draw out of the viewer, especially in scenes at the very end of the film, is a little manipulative and an attempt to force the hand. But by no means is The Road a bad film and hey...it's better than Avatar.


Rating: 7/10

Snake Eyes (1998)

In a similar vain to the recently reviewed Suspiria, Snake Eyes is a masterclass in 'all style, no susbtance' film making. It seems like a tag permanently attached to director Brian de Palma, creator of familar gangster films Scarface, Carlito's Way and The Untouchables as well as the the brains behind the more experimental Femme Fatale, The Black Dahlia and Body Double.

But boy does Snake Eyes begin in a technically impressive way with an opening, unbroken single shot following Rick Santoro (Nicholas Cage) through doors, up and down stairs whilst he talks on his phone and engages with people before he finally takes his seat inside the arena. He is at a boxing match after all. This technically astute opening shot allows de Palma to introduce the key players in the film, Santoro, his good friend Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise) and of course the arena itself; de Palma uses this shot to explore it's layout.

Shortly after the bout begins the champion Lincoln Tyler does gown (Tyler never goes down) and shots are fired. The man Dunne was in charge of protecting, Secretary of Defence Charles Kirkland is wounded. The arena is cordened off and a real-time investigation gets under way. We meet two women, a fiery haired woman who fled her front row seat just before the shooting began and a woman in a blond wig who converses with Kirkland again just before shots are heard. Their place in the story is gradually explained.

Santoro hears the opinions of the various characters in the film as explanations of the shooting are attempted. People lie, things don't make too much sense, but the more Santoro hears and the more camera angles he attends to, the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together more kindly and eventually it is revealed that a conspiracy took place.

But the film descends into ridicule. Not only does the suspense that it successfully builds fall flat with still around 35 minutes to go, but the ending is so nonsensically convenient. Successful character developments like the sinister side of Dunne's personality are abadoned as Snake Eyes stumbles to it's conclusion. It's all a shame really because if de Palma could use his hands to write as well as he can use them to man a camera then Snake Eyes could actually have been pretty good.

Rating: 6.5/10

Suspiria (1977)

On a stormy German night Suzy Bannion arrives from New York to enroll at a prestigious dance academy there. But her night doesn't go too well. Starting with a less than comfortable taxi ride, Suzy is eventually refused entry to the school under strange circumstances as she witnesses one student, already enrolled, storming out of the school, screaming into the distance. In a scene many have described as misogynistic, we follow the fleeing girl, Pat Hingle, to her friend's flat where she is brutally stabbed several times before being hung. Her onlooking friend is also killed, in one of the film's most iconic images (see picture above), as her face is severed by shattered glass.

The next morning Suzy returns to the academy and everything appears to be normal. Suzy recalls something that Pat said as she fled the school the night before but she can't recall what it was. Remembering this is obviously going to be key to solving the mysterious events that follow. Argento's screenplay is the typical 'everything seems to be normal but something sinister lurks beneath' storyline; it reminded me of the superior Rosemary's Baby in that sense. I won't spoil any of the plot in this supposed Italian horror masterpiece but what I will say is that it is much less successful than Roman Polanski's film at chilling the viewer to the bone.

The films most effective, most memorable scene is the scene that sees fellow student Sarah escaping through a high window using a tower of boxes before falling into an unseen wire pit on the other side, whilst someone or something attempts to pick the lock of the door in order to catch her. The reason is stayed with me because half way through the scene Argento strips it of any music whatsoever and suddenly the urgency that the score fuels falls flat. Is Argento purposely showing us the false facade that a film's score provides? I believe so.

Where the term 'masterpiece' is most apt to apply to this 1977 effort is towards its score which is perfect. Not only is the score, provided by Italian rock band Goblin, unique in it's production but it is one of the most apt scores I've ever heard. I'm not usually one to get over excited by a film's music but Suspiria's is simply sublime. Goblin combine their instruments with excellent breathing-like vocals to create something that perfectly balances the innocent and magic of the ballet with the creepy atmosphere you come to expect of a horror film.

But an incredible score does not make a good film. The acting in Suspiria is somewhat stagy and the overall aesthetic feel of the film, despite occasional impressive colour and lighting techniques, looks somewhat grainy and dated. Further, poor direction and structure in the scenes in the film intended to have the most effect, strips them of any 'scare factor' and they are occasionally totally incomprehensible as the film descends into messy chaos in it's final act.

Rating: 5/10

The Cell (2000)

With the point at which the bold, cloudless sky meets the vast orange sands below strikingly clear Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), dressed in white meanders through the desert. Already we are presented with symbolic imagery. The landscape is one, the burnt-out ship wreck, the scorched trees and the motionless horse. Catherine Deane meets a boy, the son of a millionaire. He appears well here but really he is comatosed. He's not really in a desert either. The opening scenes depict the results of unconventional science methods of unlocking the thoughts of those who cannot share them otherwise. Back in the desert with a squeeze of her hand, we are transported to surroundings that seem more familiar but are still equally perplexing. Scientists peer through wide glass windows at two bodies head to toe in red virtual reality suits, squares of material covering their faces. They are hooked up to some kind of machine, a machine that produces the visions we just saw.

This is Tarsem Singh's The Cell and it is unlike any film I've seen before. It possesses the psychology of The Silence of the Lambs and blends this well with the artistic creativity and beauty we would come to behold in David Lynch's Inland Empire. Mixed in for good measure is the race against time nature of any bog standard crime thriller and a bit of science fiction too... oh and there are even scenes in there that modern day audiences are likely to associate with the Saw and Hostel franchises.

After it's intriguing start the film switches focus pretty quickly. We meet Novak (played by Vince Vaughn, still in his pre-comedies stage) and his F.B.I. team as they track down a serial killer they identify as Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio). Trouble is, although they successfully apprehend Stargher, this is not before he has fallen into a coma. This incident provides the link with the film's beginning. Using the unusual, experimental methods from the beginning of the film Deane will attempt to unlock the mind of Stargher in order to try and locate the killer's next target who they discover is locked in a glass tank in an unknown location, a tank that is gradually filling with water.

I don't want to ruin the storyline but simply put, The Cell combines all the genres it appeals to and creates a multi-layered film of the highest artistic quality in which we really care about the characters and really believe that well-being is on the line.

Those viewers expecting more thrills than psychology are likely to be left disappointed, choosing to pass this off as bizarre, pretentious nonsense. Perhaps they aren't far from the truth there but by choosing to study human psychology in such a unique, unconventional way, Singh gives himself the opportunity to allow his artistic side to truly run wild. By blending bold, vibrant colours with unique set design and an unmatched visionary direction we the viewer are treated to striking image after striking image. The Cell is without doubt one of the most artistic film of the past decade.

Is it's conclusion one of satisfying clarity? No not exactly, but a film of this kind doesn't need nor deserve clarification. It's not always as simple as fitting square pegs in square holes, but it does admittedly get a little lost in it's own ideas in the final scenes. However, these issues are only minor and further viewings will only help to piece together what is an already brilliant film.


Rating: 8.5/10

Avatar (2009)

So, here it is. I'm sure you have heard of a little film called Avatar by now. After twelve years, the 'King of the World' is back. Yeah that's right Mr. James Cameron's Avatar, fifteen years in the making, is finally upon us. Smashing his own box-office record by becoming the most popular film at the cinema ever, thus knocking Titanic down to number two, Avatar has already made, the I'm-sure-he is-already-loaded-director, even more money, thus perhaps justifying the reported $250 million it cost to produce. So what's it all about?

Avatar's main protagonist is Jake Scully (Sam Worthington). His twin brother, a former avatar operator has been killed, and as Jake is a near-perfect genetic match he has been brought to Pandora, the far away planet on which the film is set, to replace him, despite no longer having the function of his lower body. Humans are on Pandora for a reason, to undertake a mining operation to secure a rare yet valuable mineral called unobtanium. Through the creation of avatars, virtually identical replica's to the inhabitants of Pandora called Na'vi's, humans are able to get close to the Na'vi and increase the quality of their research of the planet. Avatars are operated via a mental link by matching a human to an Avatar body, thus rendering Scully's disability unimportant.

Scully's avatar eventually links up with Neytiri, whose massive Na'vi colony live in an area that the humans want to bulldoze. Scully's mission is to befriend Neytiri and convince her and her colony to relocate. At night, whilst Scully's avatar sleeps, the human Scully is brought around, back to headquarters and updated on the next part of the mission. However, Avatar could be called a film of self-awakening. Scully begins to enjoy life as an avatar and eventually swaps sides, deciding that he would quite like to live on Pandora permanently, much to the disgust of the humans.

Now one of the main discussion topics that Avatar has aroused is regarding it's visual achievements and sure, I'll allow them to be described as 'sharp' but visually stunning perhaps not. With such a big budget Cameron is obviously going to make the film look incredibly slick. Boasting the most expensive and technologically advanced special effects the film does look very good, and the use of 3D allows Cameron to fully display the expansive and intricate nature of the Pandorian forest. But films have been made at a snip of Avatar's budget and have been visually a lot more beautiful. Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain and Wong Kar Wai's 2046 spring to mind.

The most curious and perhaps even most enjoyable parts of the film came when Jake and Neytiri discussed the environmental aspects of Pandora's forest plant and wildlife. These scenes allowed Cameron to get full benefits out of the magical colours he employs and allowed the 3D side of the film to shine the most. I must give out the highest praise for these scenes. Unfortunately such moments take up far too little of the film's running time.

All the pre-Oscar talk suggested that Zoe Saldana could become the first motion-capture actress to ever be nominated in the Best Female category, for her performance as Neytiri. She missed out though, and I think that this was the right choice. This isn't because I disagree with motion-capture performances being considered in such categories but simply because I do not think that she stands out in the film, say above Sam Worthington's performance as Jake Sully, and I didn't hear of him potentially being up for Best Male. Nor does Santana give a performance as good as the only nomination in the Best Female category that I've seen, Carey Mulligan, in her role as the charming Jenny Miller, in the very good coming of age tale, An Education. Of all the performances in Avatar I was probably most impressed with Sigourney Weaver's. She stood out above the majority of average actors despite her small role.


Predictably, the last act of the film is devoted to high octane action or, as I like to call it, people dying and things blowing up. Fellow 2009 Best Picture nominee District 9 also sets itself up in this way, and this story arc is what I consider a major flaw in the film as it simply boils down to an arbitrary battle to decide a winner. I was hoping that Avatar did not follow in District's shoes. In a sense it does, however, the final action scenes are amongst the most impressive scenes of this type that I have ever seen. Not only are they put together incredibly well, but Cameron has, by the time these scenes come about, established his characters and the unfolding situation in such a way, that, for once in an action film these final few scenes really feel like they mean something to all involved. This wasn't just about coming to an arbitrary conclusion, this really was deciding the fate of Pandora. And for achieving this I almost begrudgingly have to give Avatar credit.

Avatar is not revolutionary cinema, primarily because this is not revolutionary storytelling and for me that is such a main part of being original and distinctive, which this is not. It is riddled with cliches, from a predictable love story, to stereotypical, one-dimensional characters, and even just a general, all too familiar, we have seen it a million times before structure. It's a shame really because Cameron is a big name in cinema, he loves films, so with such special effects at his disposal why not go just that one little step further and not only prove that you can make state-of-the-art special effects films but that you can also revolutionise storytelling, then you can make us all happy? Instead Cameron seems happy just to provide us with some sort of prototype of what is to come.

But what Avatar is, is incredibly good popcorn cinema. It's a good ride, and at around 160 minutes it does fly by. I do worry at how well Avatar will transfer from the big-screen to home viewings on DVD. I fear that it's flaws may become more apparent and the magic that is created through the use of 3D glasses and a big cinema screen will evaporate. For me this is a massive problem in classing a film as good. Great films are universal. They can be viewed on the big screen, on a portable DVD player or on just your standard living room television. If Avatar is only worthwhile on the cinema screen, then in a few weeks time when it's cinema contract runs out will it disappear from our lives altogether?

Is this the best film of 2009? No, the answer to that question is Moon. Is this the best film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Again, I'd have to say no. But what it does prove is that hype is everything, and I'm sure James Cameron isn't complaining.


Rating: 6.5/10

Zodiac (2007)

2007, it is often said, is one of the best years for cinema of the past decades. In the Coen's No Country For Old Men and Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood, it is quite simple, we have two bona-fide masterpieces that will be remembered for years to come. Gus Van Sant's Paranoid Park ain't bad too. Perhaps including the Academy-overlooked Zodiac in the bracket of masterpiece, or pretty close to it, wouldn't be too far from the truth.

The film tells the true to life story of the mysterious Zodiac killer who was never caught. The paranoia begins with a letter that arrives in the mail at the headquarters of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. The letters are encrypted with codes and make little sense. An employee there, political cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) shows the most interest in the letters but due to his status within the company, he is not taken seriously by his peers. However, Graysmith is able to crack one of the codes, thus enabling him to become a part of the attempts to solve the case.

Zodiac isn't a film that tells the story of a serial killer from their point of view as they meticulously hunt down their victims. For sure, the film does show three of the Zodiac's murder that are shot with a genuine sense of realism with Fincher refusing to glorify the killings for the sake of visual enhancement. But most of the film is dedicated to showing how the police try and fail to solve the case of exactly who is guilty for commit the several murders. They continue to try, get a little further and then fail again until the majority of them give up. All except one man.

When it comes to noteworthy performances I was really, really impressed by Jake Gyllenhaal. I've only seen him in Donnie Darko, Jarhead and The Day After Tomorrow, and in all three, although adequately acted, I was never struck by anything overly special. However, his performance in Zodiac perfectly illustrates the obsession that his character Robert has with the Zodiac case. Just look how many years pass throughout the course of the film, and still, even as time passes into the 1980's Gyllenhaal still manages to portray the fixation controlling Robert's life perfectly.

I'm first to admit that I didn't absorb every detail contained within the picture. First of all, at 156 minutes, it's longer than most films but the task of understanding every little intricacy is made ever harder by the plethora of characters, the fast yet perfectly pitched pace and the intensity of the well-written dialogue. However, this does not detract from the overall pleasure gained on a first viewing. It is still a mesmerizing watch and a film that I'm sure will benefit from multiple rewatches, thus allowing for all of the minor details to tie together nicely.

Many viewers will be wrongfully frustrated by how the film turns out. Zodiac isn't a film that can have a nicely rounded ending, with all burning questions answered. But this cannot be avoided, after all the film is based on a true story and the Zodiac killer was never caught, so Fincher cannot provide us with a satisfying conclusion. But what he does do, through his flawless direction, is create a fascinating yet strangely unsettling film that hinges on the absolute persistence of one man to solve. Despite being shot digitally, the cinematography is at times gorgeous, probably the most visually impressive digital film I've seen aside from David Lynch's Inland Empire.

Further, Zodiac is noticeably void of many 'action' sequences. There are no car chases, no shootouts, no rise and fall of climatic events. It's not a film that requires them and for me, this was a breath of fresh air.

David Fincher is one of the most talented, stylish and intense directors working today. His filmography includes Fight Club, a film that seems to have universal love and Se7en, another film about serial killers. These two are labelled by many as modern day masterpieces, but in Zodiac, Fincher has created his best film to date that for me simply aside the two aforementioned films. It's an intense, seemingly very accurate depiction of the ways in which police work genuinely does function and the frustration that can occur when they don't always strike gold.


Rating: 9/10

Irreversible (2002)

"Time destroys everything."

If approached by a man who informs you that he can tell you of your future would you want him to go on? Are we happy to live our lives not knowing what lurks around the corner or would we prefer to know? Decide for yourself.

Irreversible tells the chronological story of a couple, Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Alex (Monica Bellucci) and their best friend and Alex's ex-partner Pierre (Albert Dupontel). Marcus and Alex are deeply in love. Alex has just found out that she is pregnant and Marcus is clearly delighted at the prospect. The two are the epitome of happiness. The trio are spending the night at a house party. Whilst there, Marcus high on drugs, and probably drunk as well, acts very flirtatiously with other women, much to the distaste of Alex who informs him that she is leaving the party and intends to take a taxi home. After struggling to cross a busy road she is told by a passer-by to take the underground passageway, which she does. Whilst beneath the road, Alex is brutally raped and beaten for a lengthy nine minutes. A while later, Marcus discovers her body being wheeled onto the back of an ambulance and is informed by the paramedic that Alex is in a coma. Incensed, Marcus and Pierre are led on a revenge quest to find the perpetrator, which eventually leads the pair to a gay bar called The Rectum.

However, where Irreversible differs from most films is that, like Christopher Nolan's Memento, it tells this story in reverse chronological order. The first 45 minutes of Gasper Noe's highly controversial 2002 effort are tough going and many film-goers won't make it past them. Everything you can think of that is often deemed morally repugnant is included here; explicit homosexual language and content, racism, savage and brutal violence and more which culminates in the punishing unbroken, nine minute long rape scene which is unbearable to watch. Noe refuses to take his camera away from the attack, subjecting the viewer to nine of the longest minutes you are likely to ever sit through. Heads have to be turned away, eyes have to be closed but still, the sound of Alex screaming at the top of her lungs and the aggressive tone of the rapist's voice as he asks her to call him 'Daddy' refuse to go away. And all this occurs after we have already sat through another static shot focused on Pierre as he beats a man who he thinks is the rapist, several times over the head with a fire extinguisher.

The rest of the film which tells the beginning of the film chronologically actually make for pleasant viewing. The scenes on the Metro make for some light-hearted, even humorous moments as Pierre tries to figure out why Alex didn't rate him in bed. At the very end (the beginning) we see Marcus and Alex at their most comfortable which each other. The chemistry is excellent, unsurprisingly so seeing as the pair were married in real life (and still are).

I began my review by raising a relevant question regarding whether we would like to be able to know our futures and I think this is a major reason why Noe decided to reverse the chronology like he does. This isn't a film that aims to show us the happiness and then shock us into seeing everything fall apart for the pair. The shocks come at the very start, before we really even feel anything for the characters. In actual fact, Marcus is the first character that we see being overtly violent, yet he is not the evil here.

By getting the shocks 'out of the way' so to speak, Noe gives us time to reflect on what has happened (or what will eventually come to happen). For example, at the party, Alex now comes across as vulnerable, in a way that she wouldn't have done had the film played out in order. Her perfect body and revealing dress have us wishing it was otherwise. Some of the conversations hint at things that are yet to come and the colour of red on the wall of the house from the party that we see just before Alex leaves act as a warning of what is about to take place.

If you can overlook the film's brutality, on a technical level the film is very impressive. The swirling cameras and pulsating sound effects create a tense atmosphere which brilliantly illustrates the chaos surrounding the search for the rapist undertaken by Marcus and Pierre. The conversations are mostly improvised, heightening the sense of realism. The twelve or thirteen scenes that make up the film are all shot in a single take each (even if clever editing helps to make it this way).

I'm unsure on it's rewatchability and whether it will be as affective second time around, once you are already familiar with how it unfolds. Regardless, this is an impressive film and an original one at that. It's a film that aims to show just how thin of a thread happiness hangs on and how quickly that thread can be broken and lives altered forever and it's quite unsettling to see quickly Gasper Noe thinks that can happen.


Rating: 8.5/10

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

Lars Von Trier is making a name for himself as one of the most talented, unique yet highly controversial directors working today.. His latest film, Antichrist has had critics in a bit of a fluster due to scenes of extreme violence and genital mutilation, and this, Dancer in the Dark, was the focus of similar critical division back in 2000. As a maker of films, he is not one to sugarcoat his audience, opting instead to achieve what he wants by whatever means he feels necessary, no matter how divisive they may come to be. But this is a musical I hear you say, a genre notoriously dead in the water, so void of any originality that it seems almost counter-intuitive to suggest anyone would have the audacity or indeed the talent to reinvent it. Well that is exactly what Mr. Von Trier has done. This is a musical like no other you have ever seen in your life.

The film, starring Icelandic singer Bjork, Catherine Deneuve (Repulsion, Belle de Jour) and David Morse (Disturbia, Twelve Monkeys), tells the story of Selma, a Czech immigrant now living in America with her son Gene. Selma suffers from a hereditary condition which is slowly causing her to go blind. She works in a factory solely to raise money for an operation for Gene which would stop him from suffering from the same condition, thus saving his sight. She stores her money in a little pink tin in her home, which she rents from the town policeman Bill and his wife Linda.

Selma has an amazing singing voice (unsurprising since she is played by Bjork) and is a big fan of musicals (in fact she is currently rehearsing the role of Maria, from The Sound of Music) and this together with the triviality and bleakness of her life causes her daydream often, daydreams in which she imagines she is the leading lady in big Hollywood musical scores.


It is in these musical scores that the film really shines as a fabulously unique piece of work. There is something pulsating, something rhythmic about them. You can sense them coming, slowly, as Selma, using only the cacophony of noises from her surroundings (i.e. factory noise, the noise of a train moving down the track, the footsteps of the prison guards) then suddenly bursts into song and those people around her become the backing dancers. The sequences really grab a hold of you, they are the most pleasurable and enjoyable parts of the film and are masterfully edited. 100% film genius.

This is not a film that intends to visually satisfy you. In fact, von Trier has done his best to achieve the opposite. Staying partially loyal to his Dogme-95 statement, whereby films are made using hand-hand digital camera (in this case a pretty dowdy looking one) to create a documentary-style feel, Dancer in the Dark does not look 'nice'. But this rule of thumb is abandoned when Selma abandons the reality of her life. Then, the cameras become static, the colours are vibrant, and this echoes how musicals really are, colourful, detached from reality just as Selma is momentarily lost in a world in which she wishes she could permanently be.

But it is not all song and dance. In fact the musical side of the film does not really dominant. On top of this there is devastating emotional content touching on themes of staying true to yourself in the face of those who abuse the trust that you place upon them. This manifests through the actions of Bill, who steals the money that Selma has been saving up. These leads to a really unpleasant scene where Selma murders Bill and thus is arrested and placed on death row. The final scene, of which I will not spoil, is one of the much emotionally impacting pieces of cinema I have ever seen. A truly incredible way to end the film.

Dancer in the Dark is a film that thrives on the wonderful performance that Bjork gives and a lot of credit must be given to von Trier for having the vision and confidence in Bjork to come up with such a role. Selma, is a likable character and one who you no doubt will empathize with massively. It seems so rare that a female gives such an amazing performance in a lead role, but Bjork delivers what is probably the best I have ever seen.

It is a shame that the state of cinema in the modern era means that many will not see this conventional shattering masterpiece and winner of the Palme d'Or. It is a truly original piece of work, a re-imagining of a genre that usually tends to regurgitate itself time and time again. This is a truly remarkable piece of work.


Rating: 10/10

Aguirre The Wrath of God (1972)

In my foray through classic cinema, there has always been something about Werner Herzog's tale of the search for the lost city of El Dorado that has not taken to my fancy, so much so that I have put off a viewing of it for almost two years. However, it's status as a classic, as a must-see is too strong and this week I finally laid my hands on a copy. So the question is, were my presuppositions about the film justified? Absolutely not...

...and it didn't take long for them to be quelled either. From the very first shot of Aguirre: The Wrath of God, I was mesmerized. This shot, of which I have tried to aid my description of, by providing an image of it below, is of the Spanish conquistadors descending down a mountain into the jungle below. The foggy conditions and the haunting, hypnotic score in the background help to establish an immediate sense of unease and reluctance to continue this journey of which we have now become a part of. We see no summit of the mountain; the Spanish are descending, we see no goal to which they are aiming to attain. Within minutes, Herzog has managed to get across to the viewer the inescapable, foreboding sense of doom facing these conquistadors, and he does this in a remarkable fashion. The journey facing these men is going to be a difficult one and there seems little chance of success.


Once this impressive first, pre-credit shot, is over, we learn that under the command of Pizarro, a small group of men will be sent down river on man-made rafts in search of gold in the lost city of El Dorado. They are given a time limit; one week to return with news or they will be considered lost, presumed dead. Aguirre (played by the impressive Klaude Kinski, in the first of his collaborations with director Herzog) is put second in command. What follows is the rather quick process of Aguirre's rise to domination over his fellow conquistador's. And then, for want of a better way of describing the following turn of events...things happen. People die, horses go crazy, dead bodies are mysteriously found, the few remaining survivors of what has become a doomed trip go hungry and hallucinate, disillusioned men walk off into the forest never to be seen again, Indians open fire and kill all. All except Aguirre. Aguirre doesn't die (although how could he possibly go on after the camera stops rolling?), Aguirre doesn't starve or hallucinate, or get hit by an arrow.

And then, just as the film began with an impressive shot, it ends with one too. As the camera swirls around the raft, we see Aguirre standing tall, surrounded by corpses, refusing to accept defeat, perhaps with further plans of how to go on alone already being formulated. A truly memorable way to conclude a film that packs a punch of monumental impact. Aguirre: The Wrath of God truly is an impact film. It's been nearly a week since I watched it, and I still cannot get some these two shots in particular out of my head, so much so that they compelled me to write down my thoughts.

This is not a film that uses action sequences to link up scenes towards an ultimate plot end. (There is never, in my mind, any question regarding whether the group will reach the lost city or not). What it is is a film that thrives on the desire for power, the force of nature, the madness of it's lead character and the stubborn beliefs that he holds. None of the other characters really seem to matter; this is all about Aguirre, as the title may suggest. It is all about his mistaken vision that he could achieve great things, that he was somehow superior, that he could overcome all the odds to secure power. Atmospheric, haunting and bold and made under conditions so intense that describing them as 'difficult' is simply and under-statement; this is a near-masterpiece.

Rating: 9/10

Once Upon A Time In The Midlands (2002)

"My wife and I had an argument over whether or not I should have a vasectomy so we said we'd let the kids decide. I lost 13 - 12."

Shane Meadows is one of the most distinct and original film directors working today and what makes this even better is the fact that he is British. His most recognised work, 2006's 'This is England', is a raw, brutal yet highly mature look at the effects of racism, nationalism and skin-head culture within a group of friends. Two years earlier, Meadows made his best film, the excellent 'Dead Man's Shoes', which goes down as the greatest revenge film I've ever witnessed, a film that packs such a strong emotional punch. His 1999 effect 'A Room For Romeo Brass' isn't bad either but in amongst these he directed his spaghetti western 'Once Upon A Time In The Midlands.'

One morning Jimmy, played by Robert Carlisle, wakes up to the sound of 'Face to Feltz' on the television (a programme similar to say The Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer show). On the programme is his ex-girlfriend, who is asked by her partner Dek (Rhys Ivans) to marry him. She declines but, realising he wants her back, Jimmy travels down to the Midlands from Glasgow in an attempt to reignite their former love for one another.

Meadows call Once Upon A Time In The Midlands a spaghetti western and by doing this he is basically declaring his love for the all-time great Western director Sergio Leone (director of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and Once Upon A Time In The West). The problem is that Meadows doesn't seem to go all out into making this a true spaghetti western. OK, so we have the mimicked film title, and we have a typically western score, good versus evil, a standoff and even a character who occasionally dresses as a cowboy, but this is about it. Present is also some really impressive photography of the exterior of the bingo hall at nightfall, and this two echoes the classic Leone westerns but for the majority of the film Meadows' holds back on going all out for a true spaghetti western, and I have to question why he does this.

Does the film succeed? Yes in so far as it is a nice, enjoyable, little film with typically Meadows-style, larger-than-life, working-class characters and has a brilliantly British ensemble cast including Kathy Burke, Ricky Tomlinson, Robert Carlisle, Rhys Ivans, Vanessa Feltz, Vic Reeves, Bob Mortimer(did you spot them?!) and Meadows regular Andrew Shim (who is technically American but came to Britain when he was very young) . Does it succeed as a spaghetti western? No not really, it just strays too far wide of the western-oeuvre and doesn't really attempt to force itself to be one. Is it Meadows' best film? Far from it, in fact Meadows himself would later go on to express his own disappointment in it, but if you love This is England and Dead Man's Shoes, like I do, then you will probably find something to smile about here.

Rating: 6/10