seawalker

"The Boat That Rocked" will not trouble the Oscars next year. I would not call it a work of genius.

Reasons?

The film did not have a plot. A series of sketches strung together is not a plot.

The film was set in 1966, but the music cues were all other the place. This could have been because either

a) the producers were incredibly slack in researching the music that would have been played on the radio during the period that the film is set

or

b) the film was actually a piece of science fiction, as the DJ's appeared to have access to a time travel device, allowing them to obtain and play music from the future.

(Examples? Oooh, lots. "Let's Spend The Night Together" and "Jumping Jack Flash" by the Rolling Stones (1967 and 1968, respectively), "H-Ho Silver Lining" by Jeff Beck (1967), "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" by Procol Harum (1967) and "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells (1969). There were more. Have fun finding them yourself.)

The film was 129 minutes long. 29 minutes too long, in my opinion. I suppose that a broad comedy can be longer than 100 minutes and still work, but you would need a better director than Richard Curtis to make it work. As with his previous film "Love, Actually" (which I actually like a lot), I felt that Richard Curtis is a better writer than a director. Another director might have made "The Boat That Rocked" a tighter movie.

There was a whiff of sexism about "The Boat That Rocked". Just a whiff, but a whiff nevertheless. Society has moved on, guys. There were strong, capable women in the 1960's, but none in the 1960's of this movie. Why not?

So, "The Boat That Rocked" was a disaster then? Yes?

Well, no, because "The Boat That Rocked" was mostly a funny, unpretentious and entertaining film. It had a soundtrack that was out of this world, idiosyncratic performances (does anybody pout quite like Bill Nighy or lick a microphone like Rhys Ifans?) and was just a nice, feelgood movie. Honest injun. I left the cinema with a big smile on my face and bought the soundtrack album the very next day.

The critics have not been kind to "The Boat That Rocked". Hell! Who cares what any critic has to say? "The Boat That Rocked" was not a classic, but give it a go. You might like it.

Funny thing. Just before this weekend I was thinking to myself, 'Where the hell are all the bad movies? About time you searched one out, lad.' Phew! In the nick of time "The Unborn" turned up.

Make no mistake, "The Unborn" was a real stinker. A horror in the worst sense of the word. I cannot imagine the wager that fine actors like Gary Oldman and Carla Gugino must have lost to get them to appear in this poo, but it must have been a big one.

Hurrah! There were some good things.

Some of the twisted body imagery was quite effective. (It was effective when it first appeared in "The Exorcist", twenty six years ago.) Also, Megan Fox lookalike Odette Yustman looked quite nice in her underwear.

Boo! There were many more bad things.

A predictable plot, cobbled together from a million other direct-to-video movies. No tension or scares whatsoever, with every story twist sign posted miles ahead. Awful acting, of course, with 'best friend' Meagan Good being top of the list of shame. Slow, boring, terrible.

I thought that "The Unborn" was absolutely dreadful. A rotten film.

Avoid.

Hollywood cannot please all of the people all of the time. Hollywood cannot please Alan Moore any of the time.

... And it's a real shame, because if Alan Moore had not chosen to distance himself from the movie adaptation of "Watchmen", and made it clear that he had no intention of seeing the movie, he would realise that "Watchmen" was a very good movie indeed. Possibly the best adaptation of the legendary comic book that could be made.

True, "Watchmen" wasn't perfect. The dialogue was more comic book than movie. Carla Gugino and Matthew Goode were underused. Some of the popular music cues were misplaced. (Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound Of Silence" is a beautiful and evocative song, and was used well, but appeared in the wrong time period in the movie. Compare and contrast with the perfect use of Dylan's "The Time's They Are A Changing" over the opening credits.) There was a tad overuse of slow motion action sequences. Some of the density of information of the original book was missing. (Then again, to have fitted it all in, how long would that movie have had to be?)

When "Watchmen" worked, it worked perfectly. Excellent period detail, realistic violence (so brave of Zack Snyder to not compromise on showing the hard violence of the original book to get a more audience friendly certificate), massive scope and beautifully pitched performances. (No better performance than that of Billy Cudrup. A walking, talking special effect, to be true, but his calm serene voice hinted a unknown reserves of power and philosophical intelligence. He was the perfect Dr. Manhattan.)

There is a small part of me that feels sad that he will now never see the Gilliam/Aronofsky/Greeengrass versions of "Watchmen", but Zack Snyder made a great film. It was a hard movie to pull off. He should be proud.

In modern day London, a jilted young man hooks up with an old flame, a man searches for his sick son and a young female art student expresses her art in an extreme manner.

Meanwhile, in the Gothic, sprawling metropolis of Meanwhile City, a vigilante by the name of Jonathan Preest makes plans to kill the cult leader responsible for the death of a young girl.

The stories are connected, but in ways that you cannot imagine.

Or maybe you could imagine, oh so easily, how the stories were connected?

After a first hour of pure confusion and head scratching by yours truly, I thought that the final revelations in "Franklyn" were a tad bit obvious. It was a shame because "Franklyn" did have some good ideas, looked wonderful (the comparison between the darkly futuristic Meanwhile City and boring old London was strikingly realised), and the performances of Bernard Hill and Eva Green were top notch, even if she looked a little bit old to be playing an art student. Sadly, Ryan Phillipe was definitely not a convincing vigilante, a la Rorschach, and Sam Riley was kind of bland.

So, "Franklyn" was not bad film, but it did not hang together as it should have. It should have been better.

It's been interesting watching Anne Hathaway's evolution from teen queen to proper, grown up actress capable of pushing for acting honours. It's not been without it's traumas ("Bride Wars" anyone?), but when she is good, she is really good.

... As she is in "Rachel Getting Married" as the unhappy, brittle, needy, recovering drug addict sister of the title character. Then again, "Rachel Getting Married" is an outstanding piece of work, and when you are playing off an excellent ensemble cast including Bill Irwin, Debra Winger and, especially, Rosemarie DeWitt as the Rachel of the title, if you have a modicum of talent, you should not go wrong.

I really enjoyed "Rachel Getting Married". A very naturalistic, sometimes funny, often raw, in-your-face analysis of a family wedding, with all of its irritations, annoyances, joys and pleasures. Possibly the film is a bit too long, and it sometimes loses focus, but it is a good film and it proves that Anne Hathaway can do drama as well as comedy. No, really she can. I am not at all surprised she is up for the Best Actress Oscar. Maybe she will win? I think she is the only actress on the list with a chance of beating Kate Winslet.

"Rachel Getting Married" is definitely worth a look.

Another year, another frat pack comedy...

Actually, maybe that is not such a bad thing? I rather liked "Role Models". I thought it was funny. In fact, at times "Role Models" was very funny, especially any scene that featured magnificent super geek Christopher Mintz-Plasse, vile child Bobb'e J. Thompson or mad charity worker Jane Lynch.

Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott were both good. True, you could argue that Paul Rudd's character (disillusioned, cynical, loser) might have been better played by someone like Vince Vaughan, and you could also argue that Seann William Scott's character (cocksure, man child, loser) was exactly the same character that he had played in, well, practically every single other film he has been in, but that would be picking hairs.

"Role Models" is a straight, down the line comedy. Often rude, frequently relying on bad language in the absence of solid jokes, and fairly crass, but weirdly feel good. Sometimes that is exactly the kind of film that you want to see.

I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed "The Reader". I did. I thought it was a good film. A passionate, thoughtful and moving piece of work about guilt, shame and the secrets that can blight a life. In the first half Kate Winslet and David Kross carried the film, and both were very good, but when Ralph Fiennes took centre stage, "The Reader" became outstanding. "The Reader" was a solid and quality piece of work.

My problem? Er... Well, the nudity. Kate's copious nakedness was really kind of distracting and "The Reader" didn't need it. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it took something away from the power of the movie. Perhaps the filmmakers thought they had to demonstrate, in a blatant and provocative way, the passion and the intensity of the affair between the older woman and the younger boy? I don't know. I just felt that the explicitness was draining and a little bit unnecessary.

Come on guys (and gals)! There are other ways to shoot love scenes. You can concentrate on the legs, the arms, the back, the lips, the feet, the face. Especially the face. You don't need to show everything.

I am not a prude. If Kate Winslet still wants to take her clothes off on screen, then that is just great. In fact, it is fantastic! More power to her elbow. At 33 she is still a fine looking woman. I even promise to only slightly smile when she comes out with the standard spiel about the nudity being 'essential to the plot'.

But be honest. The nudity was not essential to "The Reader", now, was it?

Lazy though it might be, it is impossible to write about "The Spirit" without making comparisons between it and "Sin City". Both were directed by Frank Miller (in the case of "Sin City", co-directed with Robert Rodriguez), were based on comic books, were visually highly stylised and, more or less, were noir thrillers. Sadly in almost every respect "The Spirit" was inferior to "Sin City".

Whereas "Sin City" possessed a hard edged visceral energy and relentlessness, "The Spirit" was slow, confusing and, let's be honest here, really, really dull. It may have helped to have cast a lead actor with a bit of charisma, but Gabriel Macht did not have the screen presence of Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke or Bruce Willis. It may also have helped to have had some kind of a plot in there, but there was no story to speak of.

There were good things. On a purely visual level "Sin City" did look great, the women were hot (Scarlett Johansson, Sarah Paulson and Eva Mendes, take a bow), and Samuel L. Jackson made the most of the psychopathic villain role, but "Sin City" was a disappointment.

Roll on "Sin City 2".

I have a strange and disturbing relationship with movies made by the Coen brothers. More often than not I will go to see one of their films at the cinema, dislike it intensely, dismiss it and then months or years later, after re watching it on DVD or TV, discover that it is actually a little masterpiece. It happened with "The Big Lebowski" and "Fargo". It didn't happen with "The Ladykillers" and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (I hated them both) or "No Country For Old Men" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" (I loved them from the start).

I wasn't even going to bother to see "Burn After Reading". No particular reason. I just didn't fancy it. A lot of A-listers acting dumb in a clever-clever movie? Nah. Thanks, but no thanks. It was only a 'I've-missed-the-bus-what-else-is-on-at-the-cinema?' scenario that led me to deciding that it might be worth a look.

I am so glad that I did. I thought that "Burn After Reading" was kind of wonderful. Farce is a very difficult thing to pull off, but with "Burn After Reading" the Coen Brothers manage it with aplomb. I thought it was a very funny film.

I think the key to the success of "Burn After Reading" was down to the way that the Coen Brothers cast every single role perfectly, openly utilising the common public personas of their very strong cast. Frances McDormand is kooky. Brad Pitt is a himbo. John Malkovich is strange. Tilda Swinton is an ice queen. J. K. Simmons is gruff. George Clooney is... what else? A ladies man. (George Clooney, in fact, is truly superb and has never been funnier.)

Of course the plot is guff. Some nonsense about spies, secrets, infidelity, misunderstandings and sudden death (very surprising that bit). Maybe the Coens should have called it "Spy Farce"? Actually, that would have been a pretty good title.

"Burn After Reading" is good. It is very good. Enjoy.

7.9/10 on IMDb's user rating? Are you kidding? I think you must be.

It makes me very sad to say this, because I have generally been a big Kevin Smith fan, but I thought that "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was a bit disappointing.

Definitely not as good as "Clerks", "Chasing Amy" or "Dogma". In fact, scratch that. "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" is not as good as any previous Kevin Smith film. The script is not as funny, the performances are not as assured and I did not warm to the characters as much. Kevin Smith by numbers, I'm afraid. "Star Wars" gags? Check. Sex talk? Check. Pop culture references? Check. Jay and Silent Bob? Er... OK. Fair enough. No Jay and Silent Bob (it would have been a better film if they had been in it), but I kept thinking to myself that maybe it is time for Kevin Smith to change the record.

"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" is not totally terrible. It is funny, and it does have some great moments, just not enough of them. Elizabeth Banks is sweet. Jason Mewes is funny. So is porn star Katie Morgan. Justin Long and Brandon Routh are really funny in their little cameo. Seth Rogan is... Seth Rogan. If you like him, you will like him in "Zack and Miri Make A Porno", if you don't like him, you won't. Traci Lords seems to have come to terms with her porn past. Interesting, that.

"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" just made me want to shrug my shoulders. Yeah, whatever. Was that it?

Kevin Smith's worst film, but it is OK.

Going into see "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex" I was filled with trepidation. This was a long German film, with subtitles, by a very serious Director, dealing with the potentially tortuous subject of politics, the radicalisation of students in the late 1960's and the myriad gangs, brigades and groups that came out of that period. Not knowing an awful lot about the German political scene of that time, I was worried that I would struggle to understand it all.

No worries on that front. It is a tribute to director Uli Edel and writer Bernd Eichinger that the story of the Baader-Meinholf gang was presented cleanly and clearly. I thought that "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex" was a beautifully constructed, visceral movie, with note perfect performances from the main leads: Moritz Bleibtreu's Andreas Baader - egotistical, irresponsible, charismatic and, let's be honest for a moment, a bit of a horse's ass; Martina Gedeck's Ulrike Meinhof - a faintly left leaning journalist, intelligent, thoughtful, introspective, somewhat seduced by the glamour of the 'movement' and Johanna Wokalek's Gudrun Ensslin - Baader's girlfriend, obsessed, twinkly eyed, dedicated and ruthless. All outstanding.

Interestingly, the movie does not judge. You see the position of the group, and of the authorities that battled them, equally. The quality of the movie and of the performances is such that that you do feel a degree of sympathy for the 'terrorists' as their plans fail, their members are picked off one by one and their mental state starts to unravel. You feel sympathy, despite the fact that they were bombers, kidnappers and murderers.

I do feel that "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex" was a tad too long. The second half of the movie, dealing with the incarceration of the senior members of the group, could possibly have been tighter, but I am just being picky. "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex" was an extremely good movie. I think that it is one of the best of the year.

(And shame on the two people who left after 5 minutes, no doubt distressed by the fact that they had accidentally paid to see a foreign film with - whisper it! - subtitles. The horror! I nearly called out to them that "High School Musical 3" was on next door and that maybe they should try that film instead. Very sad. They do not know what they missed.)

Have you ever been to see a movie, where you hated everything about the movie, except for one little thing that made it worthwhile going to see? "The House Bunny" is one of those movies.

Don't get me wrong. "The House Bunny" is a rotten film. Skin crawlingly awful, in fact. A disaster, truly terrible and, in these times of the credit crunch, a dreadful waste of a Hollywood budget. "The House Bunny" is cinematic poo of the highest degree. Bad performances by nearly everybody in the cast. Perfunctory plot. Predictable outcome. Nearly a total waste of time and effort.

Nearly? Well, actually yes, because, amazingly, I thought that Anna Faris in the title role was really very funny. Trust me on this. She was as wide eyed, open, honest and naive as Amy Adams in "Enchanted", if, perhaps, not quite as innocent. I loved Anna Faris in "The House Bunny". Frankly, she made the movie.

Shame that the film is so bad. (And let's not even talk about the appalling version of "I Know What Boys Like" by Katherine McPhee. Have they no shame?)

I have a theory about "Quantum Of Solace".

Marc Forster, who is a good art house Director ("Finding Neverland", "Monster's Ball", "The Kite Runner"), is signed to direct "Quantum Of Solace". Forster, who is very adept at directing performance based movies, quickly realises that he has no idea how to direct an action film. So, he researches, checking out some of the most successful action movies of the previous couple of years to get ideas and a feeling for tone, structure and look. Forster, finding his template, starts work.

"Quantum Of Solace" is Bond filtered via "The Bourne Ultimatum".

Now, don't get me wrong. I liked "Quantum Of Solace" just fine. Maybe it was a little pofaced and one-note throughout, and did not have the variation in plot of "Casino Royale", but I thought "Quantum Of Solace" was a good film. It started well and got better as it went along. It just did not feel like a Bond film. It felt like a Bourne film.

Scenes of intelligence mandarins tracking the action via high-tech surveillance. Bone crushing, close up, fight sequences. Super fast, adrenalised car chases. Sudden death. Blood. Dirt. Heroes and villains that really get hurt. The mental effect on a person of having to watch a person die. All classic Bourne.

Maybe all action films from a particular period do have a particular look and feel to them? I don't know. I will say that "Quantum Of Solace" does frequently achieve a kind of poetry of violence, especially in the 'Tosca' segment. "Quantum Of Solace" is refreshingly short, looks great and Daniel Craig is fantastic as the tormented, revenge driven Bond.

For me, though, the only truly traditional Bond moment was Bond's brief interlude with foxy Gemma Arterton's posh Agent Fields. Perhaps it was a tiny little hint of what the Daniel Craig/Bond persona might be like when/if he lightens up in future movies. Also, a nice little nod by the filmmakers back to a memorable exit in "Goldfinger". (Do you miss the daft names that Fleming used to give his female characters? Check out Agent Fields full name on IMDb. It will make you laugh. I did.)

I hope Daniel Craig makes another Bond film, but I hope that next time it is more Bond and less Bourne.

It is a sad admission, but regarding the movie adaptation of "Brideshead Revisited", I am at a disadvantage. Every serious critic has either

a) Read Evelyn Waugh's 1945 novel, or b) Seen the 1981 television adaptation

and literally all of them have painted the movie adaptation as inferior to one or both.

I cannot comment. I have neither read the book nor seen the television adaptation. I hope to do both, one day. All I will say is that, although the movie adaptation was no masterpiece, I rather enjoyed "Brideshead Revisited" as the reasonably good period drama that it was.

Matthew Goode was especially... er... good as Charles Ryder. He was an outsider, an innocent and a social climber. A man fascinated and mesmerised by the damaged aristocratic Flyte family and the circles in which they moved. It was a good performance, thank God, because it had to be. He was centre stage for the entire movie.

As good as Matthew Goode was, he was possibly exceeded by Emma Thompson in her extended cameo as the Marchioness of Marchmain, the head of the Flyte family. A cold, inflexible and disappointed woman. Dedicated to her Catholicism and slowly ruining her family because of it. I thought that Emma Thompson was so good she might even have a shot at Best Supporting Actress at next years Oscars.

Maybe when I finally get around to reading the book/seeing the television series I might be disappointed at how shallow the whole thing was, but until that unhappy day dawns, I thought "Brideshead Revisited" was not bad at all.

Question: Why does Hollywood persist in releasing lame movies like "Disaster Movie". Answer: Because they make money.

"Disaster Movie" made it's 25 million dollar budget back in 3 weeks, on release in the States. I am assuming that it also went straight into the Top 10. From then on it was into pure profit. "Disaster Movie" will certainly make even more money overseas. On those terms alone "Disaster Movie" alone is a successful movie.

I paid money to see this dreck. (Well, kind of. I have a pass that, for a monthly fee, allows me to see unlimited movies at a particular cinema chain.) You may have paid money to see "Disaster Movie" as well, and so you should. No pirate DVD's here, thank you very much. We are responsible for potentially more rubbish like "Disaster Movie" being inflicted on the world. I apologize deeply and humbly. I hope you do to.

"Disaster Movie" is almost totally awful. (Almost totally awful? OK. I admit that for a microsecond a slight smile played across my lips at one of the "Juno" jokes, but that could just have easily been a small belch.) "Disaster Movie" is a terrible movie. A piece of cinematic poo. A textbook case of how not to make a comedy in the Noughties.

Magnificently unfunny. Obvious, witless, stupid, crass, vile and so very, very bad. Not bad in a good way. Bad in a bad way. There was definitely a whiff of death coming from that screening. People left the cinema dazed and in shock. I saw a man who looked like he had eaten his own tongue in horror at what he had just seen. When I got home after seeing "Disaster Movie", I rushed into the shower to wash off the smell. My Girlfriend noticed it. She said to me, "Have you just seen 'Disaster Movie'?"

Amazingly "Disaster Movie" is worse than "Meet The Spartans" and worse than "Superhero Movie". At least the latter had Pamela Anderson in a Fantastic Four outfit.

I would say that sometimes it is worthwhile seeing a real stinker of a movie, because that can help you appreciate the gems even more. I cannot say that seeing this movie would serve even that purpose.

If you have to see "Disaster Movie", wait for it to appear, for free, on the television. Trust me. It's not worth the effort.

"Eden Lake" is the second film I have seen at the cinema in as many weeks, about an attractive young couple, in a remote location, tormented and pursued by malevolent forces. The first film was "The Strangers".

"The Strangers" and "Eden Lake" are movies that follow a formula. Nothing wrong with that. The success of "Eden Lake" or "The Strangers", or any other generic couple-in-peril movie you might care to mention, stands or falls on the execution of it's central idea. I do admit that I liked "The Strangers" a great deal, but I think that I preferred "Eden Lake".

"Eden Lake" is a brilliant horror movie. Really horrible, extremely nasty, gory and violent, with a memorable ending that will play itself over and over in your head long after you have left the cinema. More than just a straight horror movie, "Eden Lake" touches on themes ripped straight out of nice, right wing, tabloid headlines: Urban collapse. Youth, ignored, damaged by the indifference of parents, teachers and society. How will they can threaten the middle classes? How will they threaten YOU!

"Eden Lake" boasts quality naturalistic performances. As the 'Scream Queen', Kelly Reilly is fantastic, throwing herself into the role and into all kinds of filth. But, for the most memorable villain in recent years, watch Jack O'Connell as a character called Brett. Brett is a cold eyed, arrogant, borderline psychopath. Brett is one of the scariest people I have seen in a cinema in a very long time.

My Brother lives in inner city Birmingham. He normally laughs long and loud when he watches horror movies. He did not laugh once during "Eden Lake". In fact, he was particularly thoughtful when we were leaving the cinema. Later, with regard to "Eden Lake", my Brother said to me, 'That film wasn't funny. I know a**holes like that. I live in a place like that'.

When all is said and done, "Eden Lake" is only a horror film, but it is a great horror film. I cannot recommend "Eden Lake" enough.

I rather enjoyed "The Strangers".

The whole young-couple-terrorised-by-malevolent-forces has been done to death, but "The Strangers" is a very good old fashioned horror movie. Director Bryan Bertino is a man who knows the power of out-of-context music. He knows the power of the sudden noise in the silence. He knows the power of the glimpse of something just outside of your field of vision.

By modern standards "The Strangers" is a short movie (85 minutes), but Bryan Bertino wisely takes his time and allows us to get to know young couple Liv Tyler (a really great performance from her) and Scott Speedman, their fears and their problems. When the horror begins, it is even more effective, because we care about the participants.

"The Strangers" is a great film. Right down to the 'Whoah!" ending.

And please, Hollywood. No sequels. Totally unnecessary.

I like Vin Diesel. Even if he is not flavour of the month anymore, if he ever was, I make no apologies for that statement. I have a story I would like to share.

In 2002, after the release of "Pitch Black" and "xXx", and even though I was possibly too old to indulge in such childishness, I wrote Vin a fan letter. I expressed my admiration for his work and politely requested an autograph on a magazine, featuring Vin on the cover, that I had enclosed with a stamped addressed envelope. A month later the magazine arrived back and it had been autographed.

I have no idea if the autograph is genuine. It may well have been signed by Vin Diesel, or maybe it was just signed by somebody in Vin Diesel's office. I will never know. Do you know what? I don't care. Somebody went to the effort to send that autograph to me for that I think that Vin is sound, is cool and I give him much respect.

I just wish that Vin appeared in better movies. This brings us to "Babylon A.D.".

Good things. The presentation of the near future world in "Babylon A.D." is beautifully done. Compare and contrast the difference between the collapsing, grunge-like, shabby Eastern Bloc, with the hi-tech, neon lit New York. Very well put together. "Babylon A.D." also has a really intriguing cast (Charlotte Rampling, Mark Strong, Michelle Yeoh, Gérard Depardieu), some good action sequences and an interesting, if derivative, plot.

Bad things. "Babylon A.D." is a mess. There is evidence of extensive tampering with and shortening of the movie in the editing suite. (I read one rumour that 70 minutes had been cut from the movie, although the Director claims that this was more like 15 minutes.) The ending is absolutely awful and apparently not the one that the Director intended.

Director Mathieu Kassovitz has mostly disowned "Babylon A.D.", calling it a movie of 'pure violence and stupidity'. There is nothing wrong with cinematic 'pure violence and stupidity' as such, but I for one would like to have seen Mathieu Kassovitz's original vision. It could have been great.

Such a shame. I have always felt that Vin Diesel could have been the new Stallone, but bad choices have turned him into new Van Damme.

Still, "Babylon A.D." is currently the #2 film at the US Box Office, so what do I know?

I took my Nephew to see this on Sunday afternoon. He used words like 'sick' (which apparently means 'really, really good') and 'awesome', to describe it. I don't think I would disagree with one word of that.

I really enjoyed "Hellboy II: The Golden Army". I thought that it was better than the first "Hellboy" movie.

It is action packed and very funny (great slapstick), and as far away from the brooding and dark comic book hero as it is possible to go. Hollywood take note. It is possible to make a good comic book movie without having to go 'dark' on the material. I read recently that, with the success of "The Dark Knight", it is believed that a 'darker' take on the next Superman movie, and other movie adaptations of DC characters, is the way to go. Rubbish. Horses for courses. 'Dark' will not work for every adaptation. Here is a crazy idea. Try making the next Superman a not boring film. That is the way to go.

Anyway...

"Hellboy II: The Golden Army" would be nothing without it's cast. Ron Perlman was perfect as Hellboy, and so was Selma Blair as Liz Sherman. Nice to see Doug Jones this time being able to use both his body and his voice as Abe Sapien. I also really loved Seth McFarlane's ectoplasmic scientist Johann Krauss and the 12A rating pushing German pronunciation joke. My Nephew especially liked that one.

It is extremely important to point this out. "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" is a stunningly beautiful looking movie. Imagine the creatures of "Pan's Labyrinth" multiplied by a thousand and you will get some kind of idea of the range and variety of creatures that fill the screen during the Troll Market sequence. Amazing. Really amazing.

It is such a shame that a lot of movies have been squashed during this Summer of "The Dark Knight". According to IMDb "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" only just made back it's budget on it's US release. Hopefully worldwide "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" will do well enough to give us a 3rd movie.

It is not a disaster, but I thought that "Kung Fu Panda" was a bit disappointing.

"Kung Fu Panda" is big, bright and colourful (and, by the way, looks wonderful in an IMAX DMR print). It does have wonderful animation, some nice comedy sequences and good characters, but "Kung Fu Panda" is not nearly as funny as it could have been, and is severely lacking in character.

I think the worst crime of "Kung Fu Panda" is the waste of a potentially top class voice cast. Half the fun of modern animated movies, especially for adults, is in the spotting of various celebrity voices having fun. "Kung Fu Panda" manages to leech all of the character and idiosyncraticness out of the voices of fine character actors like Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, and others, that you may as well have used a cast of unknowns.

A real shame, then, but not a total waste. My Nephew (12 years old) liked it. My Niece (11 years old) thought that it was OK.

Everybody is allowed to do a job just for the money, I know that I do, but when it comes to the acting profession, I irrationally think that I expect a little bit more from our finest thespians. I don't know why. I just do. Take, for example, the actor Ben Kingsley.

Ben Kingsley sometimes annoys the hell out of me. He is one of the best actors in the world, but sometimes plys his trade in the likes of films like "Thunderbirds", "A Sound Of Thunder" and "The Love Guru". Such a waste. Such a shame. Thank God he occasionally realises how good he is and signs up for a movie as sublime as "Elegy".

"Elegy" is a great movie. Ben Kingsley is supreme in it. He plays David Kapesh, an expat British teacher and writer. Kapesh is selfish. He is a player and a commitment phobe, who takes and drops lovers at the drop of a hat. That is until he meets Penelope Cruz's Consuela Castillo, with whom he begins a pretty standard affair and, against all expectations, and much to his dismay, falls in love with her.

"Elegy" has some seriously good, sure footed performances. Ben Kingsley is on Oscar worthy form. It is as different, but as good a performance, as his Oscar nominated turns in "Sexy Beast" and "House Of Sand And Fog". Patrica Clarkson, as Kapesh's long standing mistress, defines hurt and betrayal, Penelope Cruz completely puts word to the lie of one daft critic who said that she simply cannot act in the English language, but the surprise here is Dennis Hopper: His performance as Kapesh's best friend is light years away from the eye rolling villain that he normally portrays to make a crust.

"Elegy" is erotic, touching and beautiful. I think that it is a cracking movie and deserves a bigger audience.

It may well be as slender and as insubstantial as Paris Hilton's last meal, but I really enjoyed "Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day".

"Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day" is a very silly, 30's set screwball comedy. Amy Adams (in the best role that Marilyn Monroe never played) is the ditzy, strangely monikered, actress/singer Delysia Lafosse, juggling boyfriends and career choices with the aid of the stoic Francis McDormand, the titular Miss Pettigrew of the title: lately rubbish, fired, and homeless, governess, currently Ms. Lafosse's 'social secretary'. Ms. Adams and Ms. McDormand give two very good performances, in a film full of good performances. Lee Pace, Mark Strong, Shirley Henderson, Ciaran Hinds are all excellent.

My word, I do hate the word, but "Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day" really is delightful. A lovely little surprise of a movie on a grim Sunday afternoon. It will be gone from British cinemas in a week. I urge you to go and see it while you have the chance.

"The Dark Knight" has been the cinema sensation of 2008. It has been, very nearly, universally acclaimed by the critics. It is the biggest film of the year so far, by far, and is unlikely to be overtaken by anything else released during 2008. For weeks "The Dark Knight" was the #1 film on IMDb's top 250 films list (which surprised me a little bit, as it was a very new film), although it is down to #3 this week. It has endured unprecedented levels of hype and has come through unhindered as a big, solid hit movie. A perfect Summer blockbuster.

I don't think that "The Dark Knight" is a perfect film, but it is a really good film, if not a great film. Certainly it is the best high octane, high weaponry action film released in many a year (for high octane, high weaponry, I think "Heat" or "Die Hard") and would still have worked even if it had not been a Batman movie. It has great set pieces, a huge scale (I saw it on an IMAX screen - Good Lord! - highly recommended) and had good performances by the whole cast, but especially by Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart. Particularly Aaron Eckhart. He had the most difficult character arc to follow during the course of the film.

I said that "The Dark Knight" is not a perfect film. It isn't. Let me elaborate.

1. It is too long. Sorry, but it is. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. The first half of the film could have definitely been trimmed.

2. Bale's Batman voice sometimes verged on the ridiculous. I kept thinking of The Kurgan from "Highlander".

3. Michael Caine's screen time as Alfred was little more than an extended cameo. I seem to remember he had more screen time in "Batman Begins".

4. Ditto Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox.

5. Maggie Gylenhaal's Rachel Dawes really had nothing to do. True, I will admit that her final scenes were crucial to the motivation of Harvey Dent in the latter part of the movie.

6. Unlike in "Batman Begins", this time around Batman/Bruce Wayne was not nearly as interesting as the villains. The typical curse of any Batman film.

I am being picky. Sure I am. Minor issues.

I really enjoyed "The Dark Knight". I definitely recommend it, even if you cannot stand superhero movies.

"The X-Files" television series ran for 9 years between 1993 and 2002. For the first 6 years or so I was a huge fan. I think that I lost interest in "The X-Files" at about the same time that David Duchovny did, although I kept watching due to some kind of misplaced loyalty. Was Duchovny staying in the series? Was Duchovny leaving the series? Who the hell knew? He kept popping up to tease the audience.

By the time "The X-Files" finally finished, I was kind of relieved. I didn't have to stay in on a Thursday night anymore (phew!) and, anyway, it had gotten kind of boring.

Then, last year, they announced that there was going to be a second "X-Files" movie and that David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson would both be on board. Hmm... OK. Might be intriguing? What did become of Mulder and Scully after the events of "The Truth"?

Sadly "The X-Files: I Want To Believe" isn't intriguing. Not at all. In fact, and it pains me to say this, I really wish they hadn't bothered to make the film at all.

It was nice catching up with Mulder and Scully: Both of them older, but obviously still the same characters, with the same sexual chemistry. The bizarre casting of comedian Billy Connolly, as a tormented ex-priest suffering from visions, worked really well and he was good. Surprisingly, maybe, so was Amanda Peet as the leader of an FBI task force, who wants to involve Mulder in the case at hand.

But, "The X-Files: I Want To Believe" comes across as nothing more than an extended episode of the television series, and not an especially notable one. Way too low key and quiet. Plodding, not exciting, and with barely a reference to the extensive mythology of the television series. In fact, other than the main characters, "The X-Files: I Want To Believe" could have been any FBI procedural movie with a supernatural/sci-fi bent.

"The X-Files: I Want To Believe" was a big disappointment. Possibly one expected by the studio who, in their wisdom, decided to release it opposite "The Dark Knight". Frankly, no contest.

Pop quiz. Tell me, what do you consider to be the most successful Stephen King adaptation, made for film or television? "Carrie"? "The Dead Zone"? "Salem's Lot"? "Stand By Me"? No! Not "Maximum Overdrive"!! (And if that is your choice, may God forgive you, because I won't.)

All of the above, except "Maximium Overdrive" of course, are great pieces of work. But my choice as the benchmark Stephen King adaptation would probably be "The Shawshank Redemption", directed by Frank Darabont.

Stephen King has been very good for Frank Darabont. "The Shawshank Redemption" has become a modern classic and "The Green Mile" was nearly as good. I am glad to say that "The Mist" is nearly as good again.

"The Mist" is a great film, perfectly structured, but a film that requires patience. It is a film of the slow build and of a gradual getting to know the characters, their obsessions, their fears and prejudices. It was nice to see a King horror film where his great talent of touching on the reality of a small town, has been exploited. It makes it all the more horrific when all hell does break loose, because the people who are getting hurt are ones that you know.

Thomas Jane is faintly wooden. Personally I would not have cast him, but all of the other performances are top notch. Marcia Gay Harden's possibly psychotic, fundamental Christian, Toby Jones' short, pudgy, perfectly ordinary hero, Andre Braugher's uptight, big city lawyer and William Sadler's scared, malleable blue collar worker. All excellent.

"The Mist" is not "The Shawshank Redemption" in one crucial way. Whereas "The Shawshank Redemption" was about hope and life, "The Mist" is about hopelessness and death. One thing that they have in common is an astonishing ending. The ending of "The Mist" is wonderful, horrific, twisted and shocking. Not anything that I saw coming.

"The Mist" is marvellous. Must see.