themcquade

There is almost a documentary quality to this movie. Aside from one short sequence the film almost exclusively focuses on the characters at work. In essence the film is about two groups of exceptionally competent professionals- one set cops, one drug dealers - at work. And their work is a cat and mouse conflict between the two. There are almost no exposition or explanatory scenes. Similarly the film makes no concessions to the viewers in terms of the use professional jargon and language. The viewer is thrown in at the deep end, as in many documentaries, and has to work out for themselves what is going on.

In other words the film treats its viewers as intelligent people and challenges them to understand. If you are prepared to accept the film on these terms then it is quite a stunning experience - beautifully shot, well acted, with some exceptional and realistic action sequences - by one of the finest directors alive.

This film is several leagues ahead of the brainless pulp that often passes for thrillers or action movies. Outstanding.

First of all the film is a work of fiction so any criticism regarding specific incidents and details is somewhat missing the point. Having said that the movie catches well the tone of the times, as reflected in personal accounts and scholarly work dealing with that period. The film is shot chronologically so, the first period dealing with the war of independence is particularly striking visually as the change from autumn 1920 to spring 1921 is reflected in the changing light in the landscape.

Loach spends some time dealing with people's political arguments. While some criticize this as boring they are missing the point. People involved in politics talk about politics. To make a film about a revolution with only battle scenes would be as much a distortion of truth as to make a war film without death.

The core of the film however is about the dehumanizing effect that war has on decent human beings. This is powerfully portrayed and it is this that haunts more than any of the film's other considerable merits.

Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph against the odds.

The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in "Even Stevens" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he appears.

A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a great movie.

The film is worth watching for bringing to wider attention the struggle of the Warsaw Ghetto fighters and the stories of those courageous people who resisted the Nazis in the Ghetto uprising.

However the film does some disservice to the wider Polish community. They are regularly referred to in the film as "Aryans", which is historically inaccurate: the Nazis regarded the Poles as "Slavs", much inferior to the mythical Aryan race. Further great play is made of Polish anti-Semitism as a reason that the Home Army did not give greater support to the Ghetto fighters. Anti-Semitism certainly was a feature of much of the western world through the 20th century. However Polish anti-Semitism is perhaps overstated in many analysis of the Second World War. Gitta Sereny in her book "Into that Darkness" details the efforts of the Polish Home Army and the Polish Government in Exile to document and draw the world's attention to the genocide in eastern Poland – something that flies in the face of the stereotype of Polish anti-Semitism. Norman Davis in his account of the 1944 Warsaw uprising argues that the post war emphasis on Polish anti-Semitism was, at least in part, an attempt by the western allies to exculpate themselves of guilt over their betrayal of democratic Poland to Stalin and decades of Soviet occupation. It is a calumny that can be too easily taken up in the name of dramatic effect.

Roman Polanski, himself a Polish Holocaust survivor, saved by non-Jewish Poles, in his film "The Pianist" paints a much more balanced picture of Warsaw society during the war. He seems to recognize that celebration of the courage and heroism of the Ghetto fighters does not require defamation of the rest of the Home Army, who at a later date also fought with enormous courage and sacrifice against the Nazis, and have also been forgotten by much of the world.

A deeply moving account of the 1998 bombing of Omagh by the Real IRA and its aftermath. The film focuses on the struggle of the families of the victims to obtain justice in the face of puzzling official indifference.

Gerard McSorley's performance as Michael Gallagher, the chairman of the families group, is extraordinary. It is reminiscent in its intensity and emotional range of Jack Lemmon in Missing. McSorley deserves to win every award for which he is eligible and it is unlikely that a better performance will be seen on film this year.

When so much film making glorifies those who perpetrate slaughter across the world this film demonstrates the real heroism of victims of violence coming to terms with grief, rebuilding their lives and refusing to be ignored by the powerful.

Superb.

The English director Paul Greengrass has made an very fine film about an atrocity which many British people would still like to wish away.

The abuse levelled at the film is distinguished by ignorance of what happened and a partisanship that the director has plainly tried to avoid. If Greengrass is on the side of anyone it is the moderates on both sides whose hopes of establishing a non-violent way forward were brutally undermined in one bloody afternoon.