kaos-23

Brilliant collection of pop music videos directed by Michel Gondry. Until I saw this DVD by chance in HMV, I had no idea that one man was responsible for so many of my favourite music videos - such as The White Stripes' Lego one, the one where Kylie Minogue walks down the street encountering lots of other Kylies, and the Chemical Brothers 'Let Forever Be'. It also includes some more obscure French ones (Gondry's earlier work). The most outstanding video is probably Bjork's 'Bachelorette', a creepy and beautiful postmodern fairytale with layers upon layers of reality and fiction.

It's fascinating to see them all side by side, as it really shows up some of the themes that run through all of Gondry's videos - for example, repetition but with a slight difference, lots of things that look nearly but not quite the same. The extra bits, short films, interview with Gondry, etc are also very interesting and a must-see for fans of his work.

Also a great DVD to stick on in the background if you have friends round - good tunes, variety of artists, and the coolest videos ever.

I'm not usually a fan of true-life heartwarming stories, but I happened to catch this on TV today and I was impressed.

It tells the story of the actress Patricia Neal, who has a massive stroke while still in her thirties and pregnant. She nearly dies but manages to pull through. Gradually, through speech therapy, physiotherapy, etc. and with the help of her husband, Roald Dahl, and her friends, she recovers and returns to her career as an actress.

The film is not overly slushy and sentimental, unlike many TV movies. This is mainly due to the excellent performances of the two leads, Glenda Jackson as Neal, and Dirk Bogarde as Dahl. They both portray the characters in a very convincing way, as real people with a believable relationship. Bogarde in particular gives an understated but really excellent performance. Although the film focuses mainly on the two of them, the rest of the cast provide fine support.

The direction and cinematography is also very good and understated. The realistic and stripped-down style of the film works well with the personalities of Neal and Dahl, who both come across as resilient and intelligent. The film benefits from the lack of sentimentality and overblown melodrama - it makes the situations and the people seem much more real.

This isn't a real tear-jerker, but the story is fascinating. The methods used by Dahl and the other therapists have been adopted as mainstream treatment for stroke victims, since they were so successful. The end of the film shows some contemporary (1981) footage of the real Patricia Neal helping in the rehabilitation process.

In short, while I would not necessarily bother to get this on DVD, it's well worth watching. As a TV movie, it's considerably above average, Bogarde's performance is outstanding, and the true story is very interesting.

This is one of those films which would get much lower ratings if it was in English. Because it's Japanese, pretentious people think it's terribly 'dark' and 'meaningful' and 'challenging.' It is none of these things.

I watched this film two nights ago and was hugely disappointed. It starts well with some genuinely chilling moments in the first part of the film. There were shots which actually made me jump and made my skin crawl. The eerie sense of not knowing quite what was going on, the slow pace, the dreamlike sequences, all added up to an impressively spooky atmosphere.

However, from about halfway through, the film rapidly deteriorates. The spookiness is replaced with interminable repetition of unpleasant scenes, and essentially it becomes some weirdo's sexual fantasy. I'm not in any way a prude. I have no problem at all with sex and/or violence in films. But there also comes a point where you just think 'yeah, and so what?' The chilling, eerie atmosphere of the first half of the film is totally discarded, and replaced with pointlessly unpleasant and meaningless gore.

The scene where Aoyama is tied up and having needles stuck in him, and his feet cut off, etc., is just stupid. It goes on and on and on and on and on, and Asami repeatedly says 'deeper' then 'deeper' then 'deeper' then 'deeper' then 'deeper'. If you think that sentence is boring, it's nothing compared to watching it for ten minutes (unless you happen to get off on this sort of thing - I'm sure if your fetish is watching girls pretend to be sadistic in an unconvincing way, you'll love it). It manages the impressive feat of being dull AND unpleasant at the same time. The same goes for the decapitation, the scene with the hot pokers, and so on - it's not meaningful, it's just silly.

Any hint of three-dimensional characters also disappears as the film progresses, to be replaced with cardboard cut-outs. I have no idea why you're supposed to care what happens to any of them. I certainly didn't. Maybe these are decent actors, but they don't have much chance to express that with the ludicrous scenes they have to play.

I have rarely, if ever, watched a film that so dismally failed to live up to the promise of reviewers. It amazes me to see the high ratings on here. I can only conclude that it's the same pretentiousness which means that subtitled films ALWAYS get higher ratings than they would in English. I will not bother ever watching another film by this director.

I happened to catch this film on BBC4 last night. My attention was immediately caught by the stunning Japanese setting, and as the film progressed, by the unusual storyline.

This film is about the Shinsen militia: a group of samurai in shogun times. The story explores the homoerotic tensions between the men, as well as the conflict with another militia (group of samurai).

In a way, not much happens in the film, but at the same time, it is fascinating from beginning to end. Takeshi 'Beat' Kitano gives an impressive performance as one of the older samurai, and in fact all the actors are very good.

While the overall atmosphere of the film is quite dark, there are many funny moments which lift the mood. The humour is quite subtle - no slapstick here.

The film is visually stunning, with wonderful use of light and colour to emphasise the mood of each scene. The Japanese mountains, lakes, and buildings look gorgeous.

There are some moments in the film which are quite graphic, both sex and violence. However, this is not done in a gratuitous or grotesque way, and I didn't find it offensive.

Overall, as another reviewer has commented, this film is somewhat cold. Despite the powerful events that happen in the film, they don't really emotionally involve you as a viewer. The film almost feels like a parable rather than a 'realistic' story.

In summary, this is a gorgeous-looking film with an unusual subject matter, which is well worth watching.

For some reason, I didn't get round to seeing this film until quite recently (just one of those weird things). I was excited to finally see it since I'd heard so many people rave about it, but I have to say I was somewhat disappointed. Without question it is an entertaining, surprising, and well-acted film, but I can't see why it gets quite such high ratings on here.

Kevin Spacey does a fine job of playing the part of Verbal, and Gabriel Byrne is okay too, but otherwise there were no outstanding performances. Similarly, while the plot was clever, it was nothing that amazing, and I saw the twists coming a mile off. Unlike something like Reservoir Dogs, which gave the gangster film a much-needed injection of not taking itself seriously, the crims in The Usual Suspects are just the typical bad-boys-who-fancy-themselves. Also, maybe Americans can accept Pete Postlethwaite's bizarre accent and make-up, but for me it really detracted from the film - what WAS he supposed to be? Indian??? If so, why on earth didn't they get an Asian actor? Sorry, I don't mean to slag off a film that I know a lot of people really like, I'm just giving my honest opinions. I suspect if I'd seen it when it came out, I too would have found it an amazing groundbreaking piece of cinema, but IMHO it hasn't really stood the test of time.

Still, it was a decent way to pass a couple of hours, so I've given it 7/10.

This is a fascinating film that really lives up to the hype. It raises all sorts of questions about personal identity, memory, guilt, truth, and time: for example, if you commit a murder but do not remember committing it, are you still guilty? What does it mean to be 'the same person' that you were last week, or last year? Memento implicitly raises these questions, in a subtle way, without being heavy-handed in the way that the Matrix is, for example. The real genius of this film is that, while it raises all these issues and is genuinely thought-provoking, it manages at the same time to be a truly entertaining, tense, and compelling thriller.

The story revolves around Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) who, after a blow to the head, suffers from a neurological condition which means he cannot form new memories. He can only remember things for a few seconds, and then they fade away. This means he has to write himself notes, take Polaroids, and even tattoo himself to try and form some kind of continuity in his life. He has no idea who to trust, where he lives, or even where he was five minutes ago. All of this complicates Leonard's quest in life, which is to find the man who raped and murdered his wife, (and caused his own condition) and take his revenge.

This is a genuine neurological disorder which I had read about in a piece by Dr Oliver Sacks called 'The Lost Mariner', and I was fascinated when i heard there was a film dealing with the subject. I didn't think it would be possible to really depict this condition in a film, so I was amazed by the skill of the director, Christopher Nolan, who really makes you appreciate the tragic and horrific quality of this condition.

It is a stroke of genius on Nolan's part that the film itself runs backwards. Or rather, while each moment of the film runs forwards, we see Leonard's life in a series of small chunks lasting a few minutes, which we see in reversed chronological order. This is an incredible use of film to make you understand the sort of endlessly unknown, frightening world that Leonard lives in. It means the viewer has to make that little bit more effort to understand what is going on, it demands a bit of intelligence and attention.

Unlike most Hollywood films, it's not a simple progression from mystery, to disorder, to the solution. It's more complex than that. When someone comes in and speaks to Leonard, we are in a position like his - we don't know if he has met them before, if they are friend or foe, whether or not they are telling him the truth.

The pace, direction, script, and acting are all outstanding. All three of the leads (Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Joe Pantoliano) give excellent, gripping performances. I was impressed that the female lead, Natalie (Moss) is not just used as eye-candy or objectified, but is a fully developed and intriguing character (all too rare in Hollywood films). The cinematography is gorgeous, with great use of colour and light to create atmosphere. The music too adds to the tense and gripping nature of this film.

In short, this is one of the best films that I've ever seen, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys films that are a bit different.

There's not a lot to say about this film. It's an above-average example of its genre, with enough of everything to keep the viewer entertained: jousting and sword fighting action, lighthearted romance, humour, great costumes and scenery, and eye candy in the form of Heath Ledger, Rufus Sewell, Shannyn Sossamon and Laura Fraser.

The story is fairly predictable from start to finish. When his noble master dies, peasant boy William Thatcher takes his place in a jousting match and wins. This gives him the idea of making a living by winning jousting tournaments. Only problem; you have to be a noble (a knight), so William pretends to be Sir Ulrich of Lichtenstein, helped out by his two friends. Along the way he meets Geoffrey Chaucer, yes, THAT Geoffrey Chaucer, played brilliantly by Paul Bettany as a dissolute gambler with a good heart and a silver tongue. They are also joined by Kate, a farrier, armorer and feminist centuries before her time. Big thumbs up for making her character attractive, intelligent and strong-minded.

From then on things develop exactly as you would expect. There's a gorgeous love interest, a smoldering villain (played hammily but brilliantly by Rufus Sewell), a number of action scenes and some heart-rending emotional stuff when William revisits his childhood home.

The only real surprise in the film is the incorporation of rock music like Queen and Thin Lizzy, such as the beginning where the excited crowd at the jousting sings 'We Will Rock You.' These musical interludes, perhaps inspired by Baz Luhrmann films such as 'Moulin Rouge', give the film an edge and make it stand out from other medieval action flicks.

Other than that, the film never particularly surprising, but it's very good. The script is sparkling and witty and the film never loses its energy. It is especially good at giving you a humorous if not totally authentic feel for the period, e.g. the crowds at the jousting who are just like football crowds, and the taunting between the English and French supporters in the tavern.

All in all, this film is very entertaining and a fun way to spend a couple of hours. It won't change your life or make you think until your head hurts, but it's well-made, professionally acted, and looks and sounds great. After some consideration, I give it 8/10.

As a rule, hyped-up self-consciously-arty Hollywood films aren't much good. But Magnolia breaks that rule, along with every other rule in the book.

In superficial terms, the film is about a group of people whose lives are connected in various ways. It takes place on a single day in which their lives intertwine and cross over.

Unusually, there is no single main character, or even two or three; we end up being equally interested in almost of the eight or nine major characters. They range from an elderly man dying of cancer, to a policeman looking for love, a game show host, a coke-snorting young woman, and a misogynistic motivational speaker for men.

The film initially seems fragmented, and slightly confusing. We jump from one character to another with no idea of what the connections are between them. Often, when films start off fast-paced, they become predictable and boring. But Magnolia doesn't do that. Instead, it keeps up the momentum and as the film progresses, you begin to understand the relationships between the different fragments.

The actors put in very creditable performances. Tom Cruise is very convincing as traumatised, aggressive misogynist Frank T. J. Mackey. Mackey could easily be a cartoon villain, but Cruise portrays him with depth, even if he does over-act occasionally.

Julianne Moore is surprisingly good as the drugged-up, guilt-ridden trophy wife. Her blank-faced style of acting, which doesn't work in all films, is very effective here. John C. Reilly deserves a special mention for his portrayal of nervous cop Jim Kurring. He manages to be somewhat contemptible, sweet, and funny all at once. William H. Macy also puts in a fine performance as quiz kid gone bad, Donnie Smith.

There are some truly amazing moments here, in a film that pushes the boundaries of both style and content, without ever being offensive or gratuitous. It shows the harsher side of life without spilling over into 'gritty realism', and is not afraid to have characters who have both good and bad aspects. No cardboard cut-out goodies and baddies here.

It is a bit too long, but to be fair it does keep the standard up, and I did see it on TV with lots of ad breaks that made it even longer. A few of the actors are not quite up to scratch – Alfred Molina's accent is very odd indeed – but the film can cope with that.

The best thing about this film is that it makes you think about the issues it raises, and it raises them implicitly and subtly. Those issues might be described as fate, coincidence, death, love, parents, children, power, drugs, forgiveness, and anger, but to list them like that doesn't do justice to the subtle way the film draws these out.

And I'm not going to spoil it, but there is one particular weather-related incident which, in and of itself, makes Magnolia unmissable. See it!

This is a classic film and it's a shame it's not better known, so if you get the chance to see it, go for it. Made just after WWII, it's also a fascinating glimpse into the lives of American soldiers in France and a very clever satire on bureaucracy, relationships, and gender.

The plot involves a French soldier (Cary Grant) and an American soldier (Ann Sheridan) stationed in Europe. Grant and Sheridan are wonderful together in the starring roles. They have a hilarious love/hate relationship with great chemistry between them. Initially sworn enemies, they are forced to work together on an assignment - yes, that old chestnut.

They have a number of escapades, with lots of slapstick comedy action, and realise that they are attracted to each other. However, getting Grant back to America turns out to be a complicated task, which leads to the cross-dressing mentioned above.

Sheridan plays a tough, intelligent and independent army officer who rides motorbikes, fixes boats, and is still very attractive. A great female role model - very different from the submissive housewife types of the 1950s.

The script is fast-paced and witty, and the comic timing is perfect, with a good mix of verbal and visual gags to keep you entertained.

As well as being simply entertaining, there is a also a quietly subversive thread running through this film. Especially knowing that Cary Grant was bisexual and something of a maverick, it's very interesting to observe the way that gender roles are parodied in this film. Watch out for the way he eyes up the young male army officer in an early scene!

The difficulties he encounters come from the fact that he is a man in a typically female role – a foreign national married to an American army officer – and the implications of this are explored in an interesting way, without any sense of being preached to, and without ever being unfunny.

This is a funny and entertaining film with plenty of food for thought.

First of all, Seven Years In Tibet is a very aesthetically pleasing film. The snowy Himalayas, the Tibetan villages, and the amazing costumes and religious ceremonies are all filmed beautifully, with rich colours and lighting. The music by John Williams is also excellent, and it's fascinating to hear how it blends with the unusual Tibetan music.

It's not all surface though, there's depth here too. Don't believe the negative comments about Brad Pitt's acting. Admittedly his accent slips a bit in places, but he does a great job as Heinrich, both the unpleasant, arrogant character at the beginning, and the more gentle and wise man that he becomes as the film progresses. His relationship with the young Dalai Lama (a very impressive actor) is an unusual one and refreshingly unsentimental. The film is well edited; scenes are not drawn out any longer than they need to be. As a whole, it is fast paced but also peaceful, tender and moving. You don't get bored but you're not bombarded with pointless action scenes either.

It's a pleasant surprise to see a Hollywood film where women and other cultures aren't treated as objects, and are allowed to be full, complex characters. It could be argued that this film has a Western perspective, but after all, it is adapted from a book written by a European living in Tibet, and intended for Western audiences. It treats the Tibetan culture with a great deal of respect, so I don't really see a problem with that. Similarly, those who have complained that it doesn't tell you enough about the Dalai Lama and too much about Heinrich, ultimately it is Heinrich's story, and that is its strength: that it is one man's tale, and not a political polemic. It gives you a great sense of how people's stories intersect and how the whole world is connected.

Overall, an unusual film, very involving and emotional without sentimentality, with wonderful music and outstanding cinematography. Highly recommended.

Some people complain that subtitled films are hard to watch and that they don't get a fair chance with English-speaking audiences. With this film, there's an opposite effect; because it's in French, people think it's a lot better than it actually is.

In fact, there's no depth to this whatsoever; the dialogue is shallow and superficial and could have come out of any 1970s Hammer horror (only without the kitsch retro pleasure). So could the heaving bosoms, cheesy special effects, and hammy acting. Unlike Hammer films, which never took themselves very seriously, this has pretensions to being a good film, which makes it even worse. It means you can't even enjoy it as a 'good romp', as it has such a high opinion of itself. Every scene is dragged out for far too long and the fight scenes are like a very poor version of Buffy or Xena.

I wasn't moved once while watching this film, nor was I excited, turned on, or even interested. The lingering shots of naked female bodies, before and after they get ripped to shreds, and some pointless and embarassing brothel scenes, only make the whole thing more unpleasant, as does the 'noble savage' Iriquois character, whose storyline is patronising and insulting. The plot is creaky, unconvincing, and hard to follow in places, with every 'twist' visible from a mile off.

I could go on criticising this film for a long time, but frankly I'm bored of it, and annoyed that a 'friend' made me sit through it. All I can say is, if you have the opportunity to see it, DON'T BOTHER. I can't get back those couple of hours of my life, but you can save yourself the time.

Saw this film for the first time last night and I'm still confused about whether I liked it or not. Overall, I'd say see it if you get the chance; there were some brilliant touches that make the whole film worth watching.

There's great attention to detail throughout, with a few really beautiful shots, and sublime music by Marius de Vries (Moulin Rouge, Romeo and Juliet). However, the plot line is very confusing; something seems wrong about the pace and development. There are a lot of loose ends that don't get tied up. This struck me not as deliberately ambiguous, but ultimately unsatisfying. It was as if they didn't know how to answer the questions they had raised, not that they preferred to leave them open-ended.

From a feminist perspective, you're left in no doubt that the male character (Ewan McGregor) is the viewer, while Ashley Judd is there to be looked at. Because this is explicit in the film - i.e. he is supposed to be watching her in a voyeuristic way - it's difficult to judge the tone. For example, she regularly strips off without any real reason for it in the narrative. And since Ewan's the voyeur, we don't get to ogle him much!

However, despite some dodgy bits and a somewhat wobbly storyline, the cinematography, music and acting rescue this film. Finally, the sound (on my DVD anyway) seesaws from very quiet to very loud, so don't watch it late at night!

Before going to see this, I watched The Matrix again and was reminded of how incredible it was: the fascinating premise, the amazing special effects, combined with the discussion of fundamental philosophical questions of ontology and epistemology. If you expect the sequel to be as groundbreaking as the original, you'll be disappointed; but if you're happy to see more of the same, just bigger and better, you'll have a great time. The philosophical questions this time round are more concerned with free will and determinism, and the special effects (despite the hype) are truly amazing, although some of the action sequences go on for a bit too long and there could be more dialogue. You get a wider perspective than in the original; because they assume you've seen the first film, and thus have a good grasp of the basics of the Matrix universe (how it works physically, for instance), there is more exploration of different areas, characters, and so on. The insights into the workings of Zion are especially interesting. I strongly recommend seeing this in the cinema as it's the only way you can really appreciate the scale and detail of the special effects.

I loved this film when I was 11; now I'm 22, I've just bought the DVD and fallen in love with it all over again. In some ways, Edward Scissorhands is an update of the Frankenstein story: an artificial being, created by a mad old scientist, and his attempts to fit into the human world. But there's more to it than that. The actors all give fantastic performances, for example, Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder, Dianne Wiest, Alan Arkin, and of course, Vincent Price. Tim Burton's amazing aesthetic vision is fully realised here in the contrast between the colourful, sanitised, plastic town, and the monochrome, industrial world of Edward and his creator. It's one of the few films that genuinely manages to be funny and sad in turn, without getting TOO sentimental. Finally, Danny Elfman's haunting music completes the sense of wonder that this film produces. Very highly recommended.

Even if you're dubious about modern-day settings for Shakespeare, you should see this film. Like Moulin Rouge (also directed by Baz Luhrmann), it looks great, with vivid colours and great cinematography. Most of the cast are excellent, and even though Leonardo di Caprio can be a bit irritating, his melodramatic acting style really works for the character of Romeo, who after all is a melodramatic and overemotional teenage boy! The California gangland setting works brilliantly and the soundtrack is inspired.

The plot of this film has obvious similarities with A.I., but it doesn't set out to challenge humanism in quite the same way as A.I. However, despite the fact that it doesn't go as far, it is still a thought-provoking and interesting exploration of posthumanism. Robin Williams, as ever, is a bit too sentimental, but it's one of his better performances. The actors in general (especially Sam Neill and Oliver Platt) are very good and the special effects are excellent. This is well worth watching on telly, and worth renting if you're interested in the question of what (if anything) it means to be human.

I wasn't sure if I would like this, as I haven't enjoyed some of von Trier's other work, but it was outstanding. It was very intense and emotional. Bjork's performance is brilliant, both singing and acting, and all the other actors are also very convincing. The musical numbers are beautifully executed and the direction as a whole is unique and interesting, without being intrusive.

This film really exceeded my expectations. As well as being well acted, with a great script and storyline, it's got a good sense of humour and doesn't take itself too seriously. Perhaps because of this, the serious bits really have a lot of impact. It's a film that men and women will probably enjoy equally, which is too rare in my opinion. Brad Pitt proves again that he's not just a pretty face, and Edward Norton's performance is great. I even managed to get over my usual hatred of Helena Bonham Carter! Far far better than American Psycho, which has some similarities.