aidanbrack

Under discussion:

The Snows of Kilimanjaro  (1952)

Whilst I like to think myself generally well read, I have to confess to there being some very sizeable gaps in my knowledge of literature. I am in my element talking about Dickens, Austen, Chaucer or Hardy but F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway are a different matter. To my shame I have never got around to familiarising myself with the works of “The Lost Generation” - the works of the great American writers based in Paris in the aftermath of the first world war.

The Snows of Kilimanjaro is based on a short story by Hemingway and tells the story of an American writer, who falls into a fever after being wounded and reflects on his failures both at love and in his writing. His neglected wife takes care for him as he slips into delirium, trying to keep him alive long enough for a plane to arrive to rescue them. In doing so she must listen to him talking of lost loves and prevent him from destroying himself or giving in to his sickness.

The film opens with writer Harry Street already injured, teasing us with two conflicting accounts of how he was injured. Harry argues that his skin was broken by a thorn in a bizarre twist of fate and that led to his leg becoming infected; his wife says he injured it when saving a young man who had fallen in a fast-moving river.

Screenwriter Casey Robinson establishes in this early scene each character’s view of Street - Harry sees himself as unlucky and with self-pity, his wife thinks of him as heroic and capable. As the film plays out we learn more about these characters and their relationship, although it is far more interested in Harry’s story than Helen’s.

Feverishly Harry’s mind races back to growing up in rural Michigan, breaking up with his girlfriend and running away to Europe where he encounters the striking Cynthia Green. As their romance develops, so does his writing. On a safari trip to Africa, Cynthia falls pregnant and, with their relationship at an end, Harry’s life spirals into turmoil. He remembers another failed relationship before meeting Helen, mistaking her for Cynthia not once but twice.

These short flashbacks vary in interest and quality with the strongest being those centred on Harry and Cynthia, first in Africa and then Spain. Ava Gardner is superb as the playgirl who is challenged by the discovery that she is pregnant, realising that she does not want the same things from life that Harry does. In one scene she tries to tell him that their life will change, hoping that he will respond to the prospect of a new life with a family. The look on her face when he replies is heartbreaking and we know that their romance will be at an end.

Gregory Peck’s easy charm as Harry perhaps feels a little out of character, yet it does help to explain why women would be interested in a man that bad-tempered and cruel. He handles the sarcastic dialogue well, though at times it seems as if the film would have been better served by someone with a more severe, cutting edge in their performance.

Susan Hayward, as his wife Helen, is anonymous for large chunks of the narrative as the script requires her to mop Harry’s brow and be patient with him. Only towards the end of the picture is she really tested as an actress as Harry’s sickness worsens and she is required to treat the infection on his leg herself.

The scenes between Helen and Harry take place, for the most part, on what is clearly a soundstage recreation of a camp in an African clearing. Camera movement feels restricted at points, particularly when compared with some of the often spectacular second camera crew work that was done on location in Egypt and Kenya.

Director Henry King mostly intercuts between the soundstage material and location footage, doing an acceptable job of marrying the two together although the joins are noticeable. However there is no excusing a sequence on a lake featuring some of the worst back projection I have ever witnessed. I always try to bear in mind the technical limitations of the period when looking at an older film but the poor execution of these shots ruins what ought to have been one of the most tense sequences of the picture.

His work elsewhere in the picture however is solid and he uses the camera and lighting well to signify a mood of nostalgia and then melancholy. Sound is used well to give the film a haunting, unnerving texture, the sound of animals in the distance giving the film a real sense of place.

The Snows of Kilimanjaro is not a film that has stood up particularly well to the tests of time. It is hard to overlook its bizarre mesh of stylised, staged dialogue scenes and wildlife footage shot on location or the film’s often slow pacing. Yet for all its faults the film still is affecting and, at moments, moving.

Under discussion:

Impromptu  (1991)

Apparently a musical impromptu should create a facade of perfect spontaneity, intended to hide the careful, almost mathematical constructions that make them work. It should feel almost improvised, as if it is being created at that very moment.

The title of this film by James Lapine refers explicitly to composer Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu but could just as well describe the style of the piece. Here we are introduced to a cast of brilliant, extravagant artistic personalities and we watch them interact and attempt to hide their machinations and true purposes from one another.

Impromptu tells the story of noted author George Sand (real name Amandine Aurore Lucie Dupin) who became noted for taking a man’s name, smoking cigars and dressing in male attire. She shocked the establishment at the time by refusing to dress or act like a conventional woman and lived a scandalous lifestyle, marrying a baron and then leaving him aged 27 to go to Paris where she led a number of high profile affairs.

Judy Davis plays Sand and invests her with an appealing swagger exuding self-assurance and sexual energy. Like many great artists she lives life with a passionate energy, picking an obsession and then chasing it. From the earliest scenes of the movie we see this play out in the creation of her novels as she works long into the night and then sleeps through half the day.

We follow Sand’s attempts to ensnare Polish composer Frédéric Chopin, a sickly and timid young man who seems to be permanently at death’s door. When she hears his music she is entranced and is determined to have him, despite making a poor first impression on him.

Like a musical impromptu, this film has its purpose but delights in running off in comical whims, such as a duel between two of her former lovers, and throwing in unexpected twists and turns. This lends the film a floaty, dreamy quality as the characters dance around each other and the rhythm of the piece changes.

Hugh Grant is cast opposite Judy Davis as Chopin but has little chemistry with her. Characterisation of that legendary composer is slight, consisting of little more than a cough and looking a little bit sorry for himself. The film is far stronger when talking about his maladies and his temprement than when it tries to show them to us.

The film also portrays several other notable artists of the period including playwright Alfred de Musset, composer Franz Liszt, Romantic artist Eugène Delacroix and novelist Felicien Mallefille. Each are superbly portrayed by an accomplished cast but all are upstaged by Emma Thompson’s turn as the Duchess d’Antan, an aspiring socialite who wants to be surrounded by the greatest artists of her time. One scene when she welcomes them to her home, giving each a laurel wreath, is a particular delight.

These scenes set in the d’Antan estate are lively and frequently very funny, veering from bedroom-hopping farce to slapstick to teasing wordplay and a literally explosive ending. As well as satirising the misguided attitudes that patrons of the arts can develop, these scenes also explore the corrosive relationships that can develop between artists as they push each other to self-destructing ends.

Once the characters depart the estate the film sadly takes a turn towards the conventional, morphing into a more traditional romance albeit with female and male roles reversed. In these sections the film’s impromptu facade falls and its structure becomes more evident as we are guided towards an uncomfortably clean ending.

Films full of famous figures run a significant risk of revelling too much in the fame of their characters rather than entertaining with a good story. On too many occassions such films can degenerate into checklists of historical figures of the period. Thankfully Impromptu focuses instead on narrative and characterisation.

Hugh Grant’s wet Chopin is the weakest link in the film, diminishing the character’s presence to portray the composer’s fragile health. He tells us at one point that he feels almost as if he is a spirit, floating in music yet Grant conveys little sense of detachment from his physical self. It is Judy Davis as Sand that makes him believeable and her passion gives his character the stature it needs.

I wished at points that it was more ambitious and more challenging as a film. That the story would match the off-kilter nature of its central character. Yet whilst Impromptu never pushes boundaries as hard as it might, strong performances from Davis and the supporting cast and enjoyable comic moments ensure that it is a film that succeeds more often than it fails.

Under discussion:

No Country for Old Men  (2007)

No Country for Old Men is set in the Texas of the 1980s - a world that still believes in its cowboy past that is startled by the rise of drugs trafficking across its border. Whilst persuading us that this will be the story of Josh Brolin’s hunter who discovers a drugs deal gone wrong and a suitcase full of cash, this film is equally about the realisation of Tommy Lee Jones’ local sheriff that the world has changed and he no longer has a place in it.

These are powerful and lasting themes that stayed with me after the credits rolled, but more immediate is the strength of Javier Bardem’s performance as assassin Anton Chigurh. Cold, dry and terrifying, Bardem is the definition of screen presence here. Just the sight of him sat in a chair can chill, but it is in his relentless movement and relentless pursuit that he comes to life. He seems unstoppable.

Chigurh is searching for the suitcase and leaves a trail of bodies in his wake as he tries to track it down, each killed with an unpleasant, compressed air weapon that churned my stomach. The film alludes to this character’s psychology but never tries to explain it to us - a move that makes him the more chilling. From his first, almost sexual, killing experience wrestling with a police officer to the flipping of a coin, it is as if there is a beast inside of Chigurh that drives and compells him.

Searching for both Chigurh and Brolin’s hunter is Sheriff Bell, played elegiacly by Tommy Lee Jones. He is one of the old men in the title, nearing retirement and struggling to comprehend a world where killing takes place seemingly without motive and concerned about the impending tide of violence. He asks himself in a stunning opening monologue how would the famous lawmen of yesteryear have coped with such a world, the obvious conclusion being that they couldn’t. The world has changed and left characters like Sheriff Bell behind.

The chase takes all three across Texas and, at one point, two of them into Mexico. Chigurh and Llewellyn Moss bloody each other repeatedly in scrappy encounters that are dripped in tension. The Coen Brothers’ allow light and sound to star in these scenes, with Moss noticing tiny changes in the atmosphere as he prepares for the onslaught of violence.

We not only see the violence, we see the aftermath too. Both have scenes where they have to patch themselves up before the cycle of violence kicks off again. You sense that this cycle of violence could go on again and again without resolution - Moss and Chigurh are too perfectly matched. It is the unexpected interference of a third party (other than Bell) that proves decisive.

Brief mention must be made of Kelly Macdonald, perfect as Moss’ nineteen year old wife, Woody Harrelson as a cocky bounty hunter and Stephen Root as the man who hires him. Although each only has a small amount of screen time, they are so well cast that you know who they are almost immediately. Macdonald is particularly fine towards the end of the movie as she wrestles with the question of what would be best for her husband.

No Country for Old Men is a great achievement in film-making. Tense and unrelenting, it only missteps towards the end where it never shows us the confrontation we are expecting, keeping a key incident off-screen.

Watching this film, I could not help but be impressed by Javier Bardem’s chilling performance. Yet I was left in the hours that followed turning to Tommy Lee Jones’ quieter performance. This is the heart of the film, the struggle of that older man to understand purpose where there is none and to predict the actions of the unpredictable.

No Country for Old Men is an unsettling, brilliance piece of filmmaking that affects as much as it thrills. Its ending prevents it from being immediately satisfying but in many ways that only speaks to the notion that it is the unpredictable that gets us in the end. Not the ending we want, but one that fits perfectly with the themes of Tommy Lee Jones’ speech at the opening of the movie.

Under discussion:

V for Vendetta  (2006)

V for Vendetta is that rare thing amongst big budget Hollywood films – a surprise. I came to it expecting a run of the mill action film with a little bit of politics thrown in, but found something more complex and thought-provoking.

The film is set in a futuristic Britain under the control of a fascist, manipulative government. The media are puppets of that government, blaming Britain’s problems on homosexuals, immigrants and Muslims and spreading misinformation. The people seem powerless and subdued and isolated from the rest of the world.

Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) is walking the streets one night when she is attacked by government thugs for being out after curfew. She is saved in true swashbuckling fashion by a masked figure, styling himself after Guy Fawkes (Hugo Weaving) who stuns her and the government by blowing up the Old Bailey whilst he stands on a rooftop “conducting” the explosions.

“V” is an interesting figure with mixed motivations, some personal, some idealistic. We learn more about both in the course of this picture as he talks with Evey. The role is a tough one, played from behind a fibreglass mask, yet Weaving is up to the task and conveys subtleties of character and emotion with his expressive voice and gestures.

Weaving also shares good chemistry with Portman that, like the morality of the film, is complex and thoughtful. Whilst relationships in action films often feel incidental, this feels integral to the success of the story. Our understanding of “V” is informed by her own yet never feels prescriptive – we can think what we will of him.

Portman is excellent and it is fascinating to watch her character transform through this movie as Evey gets caught up in events, learning more about the events that have caused British society to change. The film calls on Portman to show considerable range and subtlety of performance.

In one particularly disturbing scene we see her imprisoned, broken down and tortured mentally. It would be easy for an actor or actress to make the mistake of giving a big performance, reminding us that they are acting. Portman makes no such mistake, almost underplaying the scene and the scene is all the more effective for that as it gives us space to contemplate what it must be like to be treated in such a horrific fashion and to have your dignity stripped away from you.

Also impressive is John Hurt in a small but dominating role as the head of state, Chancellor Sutler. For most of the film he is seen on a wall-sized television screen, interrogating his underlings. He gives off an impressive, brutal dignity that is beautifully undermined later in the film.

Further support comes from Stephen Fry as a talkshow host who Evey works with, Rupert Graves and Stephen Rea as the policemen charged with tracking down “V” and Tim Pigott-Smith as the head of security. Each are excellent and make significant impacts in relatively short periods of screen time.

V for Vendetta is a bold and challenging movie. Some of its ideas will make people feel very uncomfortable and certainly its climax will inspire mixed reactions in its audience.

Some may object to the film’s freedom fighting stance, feeling that it is a comment on politics today. Others are likely to take away the message that we have the responsibility to educate ourselves and to take the matter of who rules us seriously.

The film’s success is that it prompts discussions and makes us think. It invites us to engage in a moral debate - what would you do if you were in Evey’s position and there was a totalitarian government in Britain. If the world didn’t care and there seemed to be no end in sight. I may not have liked the answer this film gives but I appreciated it asking the question.

Under discussion:

Kiki's Delivery Service  (1989)

Spirited Away  (2001)

Howl's Moving Castle  (2004)

Kiki’s Delivery Service is an adorable, good-natured movie that tells the story of a thirteen year old girl who leaves home for a year to live in the city where she will train to become a witch.

When she arrives in the city with her cat Jiji she discovers that the city is less welcoming than she expected and struggles to find somewhere to stay. A chance encounter with the owner of a bakery leads not only to Kiki being offered her spare room but also the discovery that she has a talent for delivering items. Starting her own business, Kiki makes new friends and gets herself into a number of scrapes.

These scenes gently amuse, demonstrating Kiki’s sweet personality and determination as she tries to ensure that her customers receive their goods in time. We also see her gain confidence as she begins to feel comfortable in her new home and she finds herself attracting the attention of a young boy obsessed with flying, Tombo.

The film’s animation shows the imagination and artistry of director Hayao Miyazaki. It lacks the spectacle of his later work such as Spirited Away or Howl’s Moving Castle, but the delightful hand-drawn animation has a delicate beauty that is mirrored by the film’s score. Well, at least until the credits sequence when we are treated to an obnoxious burst of pop music.

At its heart, Kiki’s Delivery Service is the story of a girl learning to become independent. She is helped by several female role models who become her friends who assist her not only to overcome her practical problems of where to live and how to earn money but her philosophical ones as well. Yet at no point does the film become heavy, maintaining its light, delightful tone throughout.

Kiki herself is an appealing heroine who has a sweet but determined nature that makes her easy to like. Kirsten Dunst plays her in the English dub and does a good job, making her very likeable. Joining her are Janeane Garofolo as an artist living in the forest and Phil Hartman, in his last film before his death, as Kiki’s wise-cracking feline sidekick, Jiji.

Beautifully animated, populated with interesting characters and filled with amusing incidents, Kiki’s Delivery Service is a charming movie that is suitable for all ages. Its use of humour and episodic storyline gives the film a light, frothy touch, yet under the surface it has much to say about the insecurities and difficulties of a girl’s early teenage years.

Under discussion:

Primary Colors  (1998)

Charlie Wilson's War  (2007)

Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of a Texas congressman and the impact he made on the Cold War and in the politics of Afghanistan.

Tom Hanks portrays the Democrat congressman who guided money to Afghanistan that armed the mujahedeen and enabled them to win a war against the might of the Soviet Empire. The movie portrays his actions as decisive in the collapse of the Soviet system at the end of the 1980s and touches upon politicians’ short-sightedness in abandoning Afghanistan at the end of the conflict which allowed the radicals to take charge.

Wilson is a six term congressman whose greatest achievement is that he has been re-elected five times. We quickly learn of his chaotic personal life. He is a drinker, spending most of the film with a glass in his hand, and is indiscreet in his sexual and social connections.

He is enjoying some indiscreet connections when he spots Dan Rather on the news and hears the newscaster report on the Soviet force’s aggression against the largely defenceless Afghan people. Spurred on to learn more, partly out of his own interest but also because he has a soft spot for right wing Houston socialiate Joanne Herring, he flies to Pakistan where he sees the refugee camps and is spurred on to do something.

When he confronts the head of CIA operations there he is disgusted to see that America’s efforts are tokenistic and have little to do with defending those fighting the war. He returns to Washington wanting to find a way to support the Afghan forces and help them to defend themselves against the Soviet army.

Demanding to meet with somebody from the CIA back in the capital, he is disappointed when low-ranking outsider Gust Avrakotos appears in his office rather than a head of service. Avrakotos, played superbly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, explains the scale of funding needed to help the Afghans win their war and Wilson sets about getting it for them by striking deals with arms dealers and pressuring fellow committee members to back his proposals and appropriate the funding he needs.

This film has a lot of potential for greatness but is too determined to sanitise Charlie Wilson. By making this as a mainstream movie, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tread an uncomfortable line between drama and humour, never subjecting either Wilson or his actions to proper scrutiny.

After all, Wilson is a man who avoids democratic accountability by using the rules of the committee he sits on to funnel money and arms. Even if the filmmakers did not wish to devote the body of the film to the aftermath of his actions and the rise of the Taliban, Wilson’s methods are never scrutinised or debated.

A more critical portrait could well have made this movie work more for me, not as a romp but as an examination of a man who, bored with his lifestyle, longs to do something of lasting significance and to give himself purpose. Who manages to use the Washington systems and persuade people with political objectives (the fall of communism) to back him in his more moral crusade to enable the Afghan people to stand up for themselves but who does not realise that his actions could create problems. The film goes some way towards addressing these themes but is never savage enough in its satire or in its portrayal of its lead.

Charlie Wilson’s War can be very funny at points, particularly in the farcical doors opening sequence when Wilson juggles discussions with Avrakotos and his secretarial pool, “Jailbait”. It features slick dialogue and strong performances from most of its cast (I am still undecided whether I liked Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring).

Compared to Primary Colors, a previous Mike Nichols political drama, this film feels too affectionate towards its main character and towards Washington. A bit more viciousness and a bit more bite could have transformed this film into something more consequential and more interesting instead of a film that is merely entertaining.

Under discussion:

Planet of the Apes  (1968)

Inspired by a novel by Pierre Boulle, Planet of the Apes is the story of a group of four American astronauts who volunteer to be cryogenically frozen and sent into space. When the flight crash lands on a seemingly desolate planet in the year 3978, the surviving astronauts venture into the desert where they encounter a race of primitive humans ruled by fearsome simian overlords.

Charlton Heston stars as Colonel George Taylor, a cynical man who volunteers for the mission to escape mankind and its inhumanity towards one another. Captured and isolated, he is unable to speak after being shot in the throat and must persuade the apes holding him prisoner that he is intelligent and that he deserves his freedom.

Do I detect the distant sounds of allegory? I think I do.

Yes, Planet of the Apes turns our world on its head to make points about man's barbarism to one another, the negative influence religion can have on free scientific inquiry, racial injustice, blood sports and keeping animals caged. Most of this is laid on heavily in philosophical discussions and in a memorable court sequence.

Yet these sequences do not slow the film. In fact, they are amongst the most compelling in the picture, energetic and fascinating as we see the ruling apes refuse to allow their beliefs to be challenged.

Heston shines in these sequences, full of moral superiority and later frustration as he attempts to reason with his captors. It is not a subtle performance but without the energy he injects into the piece it could easily have fell flatly in its moralistic middle section.

Praise should also be given to Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans for achieving captivating performances despite being behind rubber masks throughout the picture. The maks, whilst more flexible than many and simulating speech reasonably well, are not able to indicate emotion particularly clearly and so it falls to the actors to communicate those feelings vocally - no mean feat.

The ape characters are handled nicely by the script, being given strong personalities and characteristics. From the inquisitive Cornelius, who privately doubts that apes have always been the dominant lifeform but is scared to speak out, to Dr Zaius, who is scared of order being undermined, it is easy to believe in these characters and their motivations.

This film rarely gets it wrong but when it does can provoke unfortunate chuckles. The sight of the three male astronauts naked and running through the woods yet with their modesty completely in tact is ridiculous, and several traditional sayings switched to refer to humans ("human see, human do") sound ridiculous. You may also find yourself questioning why the apes are able to speak perfect twentieth century English whilst the humans cannot.

Despite these weaker elements the film still holds up reasonably well if treated as a campy science fiction adventure rather than a more serious effort. It is entertaining and intense, leading to a highly satisfactory ending.

Unfortunately the film's shocking twist is now so ingrained in pop culture that its effect is slightly dulled. Yet Heston sells it so well that it still has a powerful impact as we watch Taylor realise what has happened.

Planet of the Apes features compelling performances, a couple of exciting set pieces and a fanastic conclusion. It is a less serious movie than it clearly considers itself to be but is no less enjoyable for that.

Under discussion:

Schindler's List  (1993)

Primary Colors  (1998)

All the King's Men  (2006)

There are occassions when you look at the cast list, look at the crew and look at the source material for a film and are forced to ponder how so many promising elements turn into a turkey.

Based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was to Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long what Primary Colors was to Bill Clinton, the film tells the story of a fiery, populist politician (Sean Penn) who takes on the oil industry.

We see the events from the perspective of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a newspaper writer who is drawn into Willie Stark's campaign for Governor and subsequently his administration.

Stark, who was based upon Governor Long, is urged to run by a political schemer named Tiny Duffy who is trying to use Stark to get his own candidate elected Governor. When Burden reveals to Stark that Tiny is using him, the politician responds with a verbal tirade at his next stump stop against the fat cats - a theme that resonates with the crowd.

Sean Penn's Stark is a curious beast that never really settles for me. I can admire the way he physically apes Long when giving speeches, most noticeable in the way he moves his hands as he talks, but his personality feels indistinct. It is almost as if he had decided that Stark is a morally ambigious character and so should be "grey". Not a mixture of motives, not a mixture of actions - just soft, "grey" ambiguity.

Now, I have nothing against ambiguity in and of itself in a character's motivations if we are presented with a character and asked to make judgements. However, Zaillian's script never lets us see Stark clearly, keeping him at ambigious middle-distance and shrowding the impeachment proceedings in mystery. In doing so it becomes ambigious as to whether those charges, whatever they are, are trumped up or based on evidence of some kind. We never know Stark so how can we judge him?

We also cannot share in Burden's disillusionment concerning Stark when we never get a feel for what attracts Burden to him in the first place. More ambiguity. Is it that he is drawn to the underdog? Does he respect Stark's resume? Does he want to undermine his newspaper's line on the election?

The principal problem with Burden is that he simply is not a likeable or empathic character. From the opening frame of this film he is cold and unhappy. We never really understand the hopes and aspirations of the character, or why he takes some very dramatic decisions. Clearly there is a reason he is drawn to Stark but by not letting us share Burden's journey, it is hard not to be baffled by one major decision the character takes.

Perhaps the film's broken narrative structure is also to blame. We do not follow the relationship between Burden and Stark as it happens but we begin near the end of the narrative. A more conventional chronological timeline may have been less flashy but it would have made the story and the characters more accessible.

The film attempts to guide us emotionally through its style but the music is too brash and the visual design tries far too hard to be eye-catching. Both the music and art design end up being counter-productive, being distracting rather than aiding the telling of the story.

For instance, in one scene the production suddenly switches from colour to black and white and when blood appears it is the sole colour on the screen. A nice effect certainly, but it is very reminiscent of a scene in Schindler's List (which Zaillian also scripted) and feels like it was only shot that way to show off the effect. Zaillian forgets that design should always be in service of the story, clumsily pulling the focus away from the actors and towards the direction.

All the King's Men is a disenaging and disappointing work that fails to make the most of its elements. Given its cast, which contains the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and the pedigree of its crew it is astonishing how this picture could end up falling so wide of the mark.

This is a film that never decides what it wants to say or why its messages, whatever they are meant to be, are relevant to today's audience. It is clear that the makers have a love of the original text, the excruciating voice-overs culled and stitched together from the novel are evidence of an admiration for Warren's poetic prose, but the film needed to go further to make a connection from the politicking of the mid-20th century to that of the start of the 21st century.

Zaillian himself recognises this problem, explaining that this was the reason he moved the setting of the story from 1930s Louisiana to the 1950s. Yet in terms of campaigning style there is little difference between the two.

The original novel's success was in its daring examination of the political machine at a time when we lacked cynicism. What could have been a biting satire with relevance to today's politics feels like a record of a bygone age and a missed opportunity.

Under discussion:

Withnail & I  (1987)

American Pie  (2001)

Superbad  (2007)

Juno  (2007)

Superbad is a movie that has a great trick up its sleeve. In its opening thirty minutes the film appears to be an American Pie-style comedy about three high school boys who want to attend a party in order to get laid, yet by the end it has evolved into an examination of friendship and a moment of change in young people’s lives.

Evan and Seth (named after the film’s two writers) are social outcasts. Awkward and geeky, they never receive invitations to high school parties and lust after two girls from their school.

When Seth’s crush, Jules, invites him to a party and asks him to pick up liquor he leaps at the opportunity, seeing a chance to get her into bed and make her his girlfriend until college starts. Meanwhile Evan tells Becca that he will be at the party and promises to pick up a bottle of vodka for her on the way.

Unfortunately for Seth and Evan, their plan hinges upon another lad who is picking up a fake ID. Fogel is beyond awkward and is a rail-thin geek who the boys are vaguely embarrassed to be friends with. He is also a little dim, as is revealed when he produces his fake ID in one of the film’s funniest scenes.

What ought to be a simple task goes badly wrong when Fogel goes into the liquor store and events spiral quickly further and further out of control. At this point the narrative splits in two, separating Evan and Seth from Fogel, who have their own adventure.

Superbad’s strength is in its power of observation. I remember my own high school days and college days and instantly recognized each of the characters from my own circle of friends. Of the three I would like to think I was Evan but that is for others to judge.

Much of the humor comes out of the way the boys talk to each other. The writers capture perfectly the casual use of obscenity and the obsession with all things sexual that makes up the character of teenaged boys. The dialogue is incredibly blue and laced with teenaged misogyny.

I found it amusing for the most part although it does push the boundaries a little hard for my liking on occasion. It is quite possible that some may find the male characters’ attitudes toward women to be tasteless or offensive. For instance, a sequence involving menstruation is puerile and an indulgent low-point of the film.

Overlooking that moment however, I found this film funny and perversely charming. Its leads are fun with Michael Cera, who was recently in Juno, proving a particular delight as the shy and awkward Evan, whilst the script rarely lets up on laughs.

I began this review by saying that the film’s opening led me to expect American Pie. By its end it has developed into Withnail & I, showing us the end of an era and the breaking apart of a significant friendship.

I cannot unconditionally recommend Superbad – its style of dry, blue humor will certainly not appeal to everyone – but the surprise it pulls through this shift of theme was significant for me and left me pondering my own teenaged friendships that disintegrated as I grew older.

Under discussion:

Starsky & Hutch [TV Series]  (1975)

Zoolander  (2001)

Starsky & Hutch  (2004)

Based on the TV show which ran for 93 episodes from 1975 to 1979, the movie version of Starsky & Hutch teams up Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson as the bickering California cops.

Having never seen the show I worried that the film, which is part homage, part loving spoof, would go over my head. Fortunately the script is funny enough in its own right that even if you do not know the material it spoofs you will still find much to enjoy.

Set in "Bay City", California - our two heroes come from decidedly different schools of policing. Starsky (Stiller) is intense and highly-focused whereas Hutch (Wilson) is laid back and prepared to make a quick buck on the side. Forced together by their Police Chief when nobody else is prepared to work with them, they struggle to overcome their differences and become a team.

After discovering a corpse in the water, Starsky and Hutch find themselves hot on the trail of druglord Reese Feldman (played wonderfully by Vince Vaughan). Feldman has developed a new form of cocaine that smells and tastes of sweetner, making it almost completely undetectable.

Whilst none of the elements of this film are particularly fresh in and of themselves, here execution is everything. Stiller and Wilson are some of the best bickerers in the business and they do a fine job here, demonstrating enormous chemistry and excellent comic timing.

They are joined by a fun cast that includes Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear, Jason Bateman as Feldman's business partner and Will Ferrell in a hilariously overblown cameo role.

The film also has a number of excellent set pieces including a disco dance-off (very Zoolander but done just as nicely), infiltrating a Bat Mitzvah and another infiltration scene near the end. Sending up both the seventies and cop show cop-outs (does putting a stetson and a false moustache on really make you undetectable?), it packs enough laughs to ensure its 101 minute run time rarely drags.

Starsky and Hutch may break no boundaries but it is an enjoyable romp and a spoof that feels genuinely affectionate towards the material it sends up.

Under discussion:

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy  (2004)

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby  (2006)

Blades of Glory  (2007)

Semi-Pro  (2008)

Hot off the success of Anchorman and Talladega Nights, Will Ferrell stars in Semi-Pro. This is a movie that tries to combine the retro 70s elements of Anchorman with the sporting action of Nights and yet ends up a poor cousin to both films.

Its familiarity is a substantial part of why this movie fails to impress. Ferrell plays Jackie Moon, owner, coach and player for The Tropics, a basketball team that is going nowhere. With the threat of the semi-professional leagues shutting down, Moon aims to score a top four finish for his team that will result in being moved to the prestigious NBA in a merger.

Like Anchorman, Ferrell's character struggles with newfound competition, this time from Woody Harrelson as former NBA player Ed Monix. Like Anchorman there is a scene in which Ferrell fights a member of the bear family (though it is far less funny). Like Anchorman, Ferrell's character relaxes musically - this time by spinning lps rather than playing the flute.

Sure, there's some fun moments making fun of seventies fashions and tastes (including a fondue scene) but everything here feels tired or second-best.

Whilst Talladega Nights was enjoyable for its affectionate mocking of the hyper-butch NASCAR scene and Ferrell's Blades of Glory lovingly lampooned the world of professional ice skating, semi-professional basketball simply isn't all that funny. It also doesn't feel that interesting.

Good jokes and character humour can always make up for a weak situation but the script is seriously weak and frequently predictable. Other than a glorious scene between Monix and the wife of a fan in the second half of the picture little grabs the attention. I would challenge anyone to be able to quote more than one line of this flick once the credits roll.

Ferrell and Harrelson both throw everything they have at this and manage to elicit a few chuckles yet the material they are working with simply is not very funny.

This film is a disappointment, weaker than its obvious influences, and the first misfire from Ferrell in a long time.

Under discussion:

Father of the Bride  (1950)

Father's Little Dividend  (1951)

Father of the Bride II  (1995)

If Stanley Banks had not been ready to see his daughter get married in the 1950 comedy Father of the Bride, he certainly was unprepared to become a grandfather.

This cute 1951 sequel would later be adapted for Steve Martin as Father of the Bride II, but here Spencer Tracy once again portrays grumpy Stanley Banks as he comes to terms with his newfound status.

The material is episodic and relatively cosy but strong performances from Tracy, Elizabeth Taylor and Joan Bennett give the film sufficient charm to be quite entertaining, if not a riot.

The film was directed by Vincente Minnelli who handles the material well, particularly the chaotic scenes with hoardes of well-wishers. Unfortunately however the film is in poor condition, looking washed out and with high levels of background noise.

That said, for fans of the first movie or the remakes this is a diverting eighty minutes that manages never to outstay its welcome.

Under discussion:

Dr. No  (1963)

From Russia With Love  (1963)

Goldfinger  (1964)

Live and Let Die  (1973)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service  (1969)

The Spy Who Loved Me  (1977)

Thunderball  (1965)

Licence to Kill  (1989)

Die Another Day  (2002)

Casino Royale  (2006)

Quantum of Solace  (2008)

It's been a while since I last did a top 5 list but my appetite for Bond has been whetted by the news that there will be Blu-Ray releases this year for Dr No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, Live and Let Die and Die Another Day. Now, one of those films may be my least favourite Bond movie of all time (and another one of those is certainly bottom half of my league table) but nonetheless the news has me pumped.

So when I thought to myself "What top 5 should I tackle next?" the choice was obvious. Bond has been in my blood since I first saw The Spy Who Loved Me when I was five or six and I quickly became hooked on the series.

The first films I bought on DVD when I went to University were the Bond films and I watched and rewatched them throughout my time there, on at least two occassions marathoning the films and watching them back to back.

I have seen only two movies at the theatre - the last two - and I cannot wait to see Quantum of Solace on the big screen. Suggestions that we might see a return to the gadgets disappoint me but hopefully Daniel Craig's performance will give me something to really latch onto.

Without further ado - here are my top 5 Bond movies:

5. Licence to Kill - The two Dalton movies were the last two "classic" Bonds I saw but both rank amongst my favourites these days. Licence to Kill is an interesting picture - certainly darker and more bloody than other Bond films but with a focus on the character that I found irresistible. I love the way Bond's history is used to give him a personal connection to what is taking place - it really adds something to the storyline and helped me to invest in it.

Sure, this film has its flaws. It feels distinctly of its time period (but then, don't the films from the 60s and 70s?) and its female lead feels a little bland. However its dark humour and excellent action sequences are amongst the best the series ever offered and for that reason it makes the cut.

4. From Russia With Love - No doubt some people would accuse me of pushing out Goldfinger to make room for From Russia simply to be iconoclastic but permit me a second to make my case.

From Russia With Love is gritty and has three wonderful performances at its heart. Robert Shaw is superb as Red Grant - smart and brawny, he also has an intensity that complements Connery's style beautifully. The actress playing Rosa Klebb is a very different, interesting Bond villain - smart and manipulative.

The action sequences are excellent and the supporting cast of characters really stand out. Little wonder that Sean Connery himself lists it as his favourite movie from the series.

3. Live and Let Die - Moore's debut is thrilling and a real departure of style from the previous entries. The action is superb, the humour cheeky without being too over the top and it features the magnificent Jane Seymour.

It is a shame that Moore's Bond would quickly degenerate into wisecracks and eyebrow raising but here he is charming, ruthless and cold all at the same time. His best performance and one of the best Bond movies.

2. Casino Royale - No, not the Woody Allen version - this is the 2006 Bond blockbuster that really put the franchise back on the right track, at least as far as I am concerned. Daniel Craig is intense and really plays beautifully off Eva Green.

The romantic scenes between the two of them are full of tension and layers of understanding. There is one scene which gets to me every time. Not to mention a scene which holds the honour of being the only torture scene to make me laugh.

1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Lastly my favourite Bond film and one of my favourite films, period. Lazenby is under-rated as Bond, turning in a gripping and emotional performance opposite Diana Rigg.

The setting is stunning (and definitely cries out for Blu Ray conversion) whilst the action is gripping. I love the texture of this film and the awkward alliance between Bond and Tracy's father.

There is so much going on here that at some point soon I'll have to give it a review-type post of its own, but from its opening scene to its self-aware quips to its sixties "free love" influences this never puts a foot wrong for me. It's just a shame that Lazenby did not want to do more of these - he could well have developed into a great Bond.

Under discussion:

Hair  (1979)

Across the Universe  (2007)

Spoilers follow

Across the Universe is a film that threatens to get it right at numerous points in its two and a quarter hour running time, but never really is sure what it wants to be about.

Set in the 1960s, it begins as a quest for a father, then becomes about making a new friend, then about meeting a girl, then about the friend being drafted, then about American drugs culture... I could go on.

The result is a bit of a mess that simply feels like an attempt to force as many Beatles songs into a plotline as is humanly possible. A simple glance at the characters' names will tell you which songs are going to come up. Asian girl named Prudence? I suspect we'll be getting "Dear Prudence". Lead character called Jude? "Hey Jude"!

What frustrates me is that there are decent stories here but in combination none feels like they are given the time they need to develop (despite its engorged running time). The one I would have liked to have seen more of was Max being called up and the absence of a friend for Jude and a brother for Lucy. Its hinted at but becomes lost in the obligatory and unconvincing romance shoehorned into the middle of this story.

Whilst I liked Sadie, Jo-Jo and Prudence - their appearances could all easily be lopped out of this story without being felt. The film may even have been better for a tighter, sharper focus on Max, Lucy and Jude. As it is Julie Taymor throws every 1960s element and stereotype at the main characters to put them through scenario after scenario.

Jim Sturgess is so-so as central character Jude, bumbling from each of these scenarios to the next with little sense of purpose. Yet I had trouble really liking his character; whilst Jude is angry at himself for his lack of a cause, I was feeling more annoyed that we never get a sense of what he wants. I remain unconvinced that he is really wanting Lucy - they have remarkably little chemistry together and he spends precious little time in the film having fun with her.

Evan Rachel Wood as Lucy is cute enough and she does a good job of conveying Lucy's naiviety about her revolutionary friends and the methods they will use to get what they want. Her fear that she will lose her brother as she lost her boyfriend is one of the few solid emotional hooks to latch onto here and was one of the most interesting areas of the film.

Joe Anderson as Max was my favourite of the three. His character is irresponsible and foolish, suffering a little bit from his sister's naiviety yet is so full of energy and so much fun that I missed him during the middle third of the film. His absence is felt and immediately I found myself disengaging.

There are some vivid, exciting visuals here, yet at points they feel like a distraction from the weak points of the narrative rather than an attempt to move the story forward. For instance, "I Want You" is a visually exciting sequence reminiscent of the medical in the excellent Hair (1979). Yet these sequences remain inherently predictable and never really surprised me despite their technical brilliance. Indeed, at points the imagery seems far too heavy-handed (such as in the "She's So Heavy" coda to that same song).

With less songs and a simpler story structure this could well have been more successful. The film needed a clearer sense of purpose to truly succeed. Despite energetic performances from its cast, this piece falls flat and misses its chance to redeem itself with an unhappy ending, instead opting for the oft-trodden path of romantic reconciliation.

This film succeeds in saying nothing fresh about one of the most interesting periods in modern history, relationships or ideas and so disappointed enormously.

Under discussion:

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum  (1966)

The Three Musketeers  (1974)

Doctor Who [TV Series]  (1963)

Set in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum is the story of the attempts of a lazy, sloppy and conniving slave (played by Zero Mostel) to win his freedom. Adapted from a Broadway musical, there are surprisingly few songs in the movie, apparently being chopped by screenwriters Melvin Frank and Michael Pertwee.

With his master and mistress away, the slave Pseudolos realises that their son, Hero (Michael Crawford), is in love with a virgin concubine who is owned by their next door neighbour, Marcus Lyrus (Phil Silvers of Bilko fame). Unfortunately the girl has been sold to a general returning that very day from war in Crete. Pseudolos, having been promised his freedom by Hero if he can arrange for them to be together, finds his plans falling apart at every turn as his actions become more and more outrageous in best farce fashion.

The story, inspired by the work and characters of Roman playwright Platus, does a good job of taking a classical story structure and updating it for modern sensibilities. Most of us love a plucky underdog and Mostel's Pseudolos certainly fits that category - backtalking to his employers and refusing to be beaten by circumstance.

He is supported by an excellent cast featuring some of the biggest names of that period in comedy. Even some of the smaller roles feature excellent actors including Jon Pertwee (later the star of TV's Doctor Who), Buster Keaton (in his last film performance) and Roy Kinnear (who would go on to be Planchet in the Three Musketeers series). This quality-in-depth gives every character a life and a presence of their own and adds to the feeling that we are watching some of the best comics at work.

Unfortunately towards the end of the film the piece degenerates quickly into a run-of-the-mill chase around with a chariots sequence that feels like it exists both to fill in time and to try to add something to the production that could not be seen on stage. This section is overrun with slapstick comedy and ultimately disappoints as a conclusion to the smarter wordplay and situations that had preceeded it.

Despite the weakness of its ending, the film manages to entertain. This is not laugh-a-minute material but with such an excellent cast giving their all, somehow it comes together.

Under discussion:

Carry on Cleo  (1965)

Carry on Cruising  (1962)

Carry on Doctor  (1968)

Cleopatra  (1963)

Carry on Loving  (1970)

Carry on Spying  (1964)

Carry on up the Khyber  (1968)

Don't Lose Your Head  (1967)

The Carry On series are a British institution and one of my guiltiest pleasures. Unashamedly low-brow, they are packed with terrible puns and wonderfully hammy performances.

I first discovered the series of films when I was in elementary school and they have remained favourites ever since. I certainly would never claim that they were great or even particularly good films, but the cheeky humour and (in the later years) heavy use of innuendo amused me and fundamentally affected my sense of humour.

To date there have been twenty nine original Carry On films and one compilation (That's Carry On!), the most recent being released in 1992. Amongst those films are parodies of Cleopatra, James Bond and Beau Geste, as well as more original stories based around national service, the medical profession and holidays.

So below are my top five films from the Carry On series. I will not argue that they are great films but I hold enormous affection for them, and the series to this day. To the list...

5. Carry On Cruising - the early films were penned by writer Norman Hudis and followed a very tight formula. Cruising, the first of the colour Carry Ons and the last to be penned by Hudis, is the story of the inept new crew of a cruise liner and its passengers. It is fun, lively and colourful with all of the cast given a chance to shine. My favourite scene: Esma Canon, Dilys Laye and Liz Fraser getting drunk in the liner's bar.

4. Carry On Loving - I never rated this one but at University a friend who disliked the series told me it was the one film that he liked in the run. I gave it another go and found it much more enjoyable as an adult than I had as a child or teenager. There are some great gags and Richard O'Callaghan and Jacki Piper made for a very cute couple. My favourite scene: the opening scene between Terry Scott's character and the priest on the train.

3. Carry On Cleo - filmed on sets left over from the film Cleopatra, Carry On Cleo is a romp through one of history's best known stories. Here Caesar, played with gusto by regular Kenneth Williams, is portrayed less as an awe-inspiring general but a rather pathetic coward. Believing a British slave to be responsible for saving his life, he installs him as his official bodyguard and goes to Egypt to meet Queen Cleopatra. My favourite scene: Caesar running through the Temple of the Vestal Virgins crying out "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in 'fer me!" - a line that has been voted the funniest film one-liner.

2. Carry On Up The Khyber - perhaps the best-loved of the series, it is the wonderful portrayal of the British Empire mentality that makes this film so enjoyable. The story is suitably ridiculous (a group of soldiers attempt to recover a photograph that proves they were wearing underwear under their kilts) and the Boys Own adventure style is suitably lampooned. My favourite scene: another obvious one - the dinner sequence where the British leadership sit at the dinner table and ignore the building being blown up around them.

1. Don't Lose Your Head - at first not labelled as one of the series, Don't Lose Your Head is my favourite because it has so much going on. It's certainly not the funniest of the films (being more of an adventure-comedy than a comedy) but its over the top characters and its star turns from Jim Dale and Sid James as the two foppish aristocrats saving their French counterparts from the revolution are amongst the best the series ever offered. My favourite scene: Citizen Camembert's executioner getting tricked into lying under his own guillotine.

So there you have it - my top five. Amongst those that were on the verge of being put on this list were Carry On Spying (my first!) and Carry On Doctor.

Under discussion:

About Last Night...  (1986)

The Breakfast Club  (1985)

Only the Lonely  (1991)

There is nothing terribly original or inspiring about the plot in this Chris Columbus-helmed romantic comedy but that is not to say it is unenjoyable.

Only the Lonely is the story of a grown man still living in the shadow of his dominant and prejudiced mother. When he meets Theresa Luna (played by the wonderful Ally Sheedy of Breakfast Club fame), things seem to be going well until his mother gets in the way.

Danny, played by unlikely romcom lead John Candy, is torn between his love for Theresa and his mother's well-being. Unable to stand up to her, his relationship looks doomed to fail.

The film is not tight, meandering towards its conclusion, but managed to keep my attention. Whilst I found it lacking in big laughs, it had buckets of charm courtesy of its three principle players who work together beautifully.

Overall, I enjoyed this and found it happily diverting. Besides, any film with Jim Belushi in the buddy role is inherently worth a watch (cf. About Last Night - one of my favourite eighties romantic comedies).

Under discussion:

Batman Begins  (2005)

The Dark Knight  (2008)

Batman: Gotham Knight  (2008)

Batman: Gotham Knight attempts to bridge the gap between Batman Begins and this year's Dark Knight with a collection of short adventures taking place between the two stories.

Each episode in the anthology is 10-15 minutes long and is directed by a different anime director, giving each part a unique feel and flavour. The stories are linked in their goal to explain the character of the Batman and how his presence has been felt on Gotham since the events of the first movie.

The concept is solid enough but the execution varies wildly between each of the installments making it feel choppy and lacking in depth. The short running time of each segment gives little time for a plot to develop - these are all about character and style. Fortunately Gotham Knight doesn't do a bad job of either.

Some of the segments look stunning - of particular note for me was the filmic approach adopted in the Killer Croc story. Sprays of blood and movement capture the imagination and up until the point when we saw the "villain" I was thinking that Croc might actually work in the Nolanverse. On second thoughts though maybe not...

Each portion reveals something about Wayne/Batman - his attitudes, how he is seen, the way he handles pain. I liked this but wished that there had been fewer stories given more time.

Whilst far from perfect this is a great way to whet the appetite before you head to see The Dark Knight (though if you're considering this you've probably already been to see it more than once by now). I hope that Warner Bros release another Batman anime title at some point soon; the concept clearly has legs and based on this, the style suits the caped crusader well.