C22Man

The Prestige opens and closes with Michael Caine's stage engineer Cutter informing us of the three acts behind every magic trick. The pledge: setting up something that seems ordinary (a bird), the turn: making that thing do something extraordinary (the bird disappears), and the prestige: restoring that thing to reality (the bird reappears). The final of the three, which is meant to be the hardest to achieve, is the key to the trick working. It's eerie then that the film collapses within the most crucial area. Its own prestige.

Nolan's film is effectively a game of showmanship between two rival magicians. How when one performs a trick that seems impossible, the other drives himself to the edge in order to figure out its secret. The film isn't really about magic. It's more about the magic in creating the perfect illusion. Yet it goes on to deal with heavier themes. Most notably the dangers of obsession. How our lead Robert Angier is frequently told that his obsession with his rival Alfred Borden will lead to grave consequences, and it eventually does. It's themes of obsession, guilt and deceit are so well handled that the film could have been about anything. The fact that both men happen to be magicians just adds to the overall mystique.

The trick itself is known as the 'Transported Man' and involves Borden entering a door on one side of the stage and emerging immediately from a door on the other side. Angier is convinced that a double is being used, despite Cutter claiming that it isn't possible, and sets up someone to look just like him. Of course the act is a success, until Borden sabotages it and leaves Angier even more determined to work out the secret. This is a fantastic pledge that the story has created. It leads to Angier travelling to snowy Colorado in order to find electricity genius Nikola Tesla (a fictionalised take on the man, played by David Bowie) who he believes can help him.

Both lead characters are strangely underwritten. It's understandable why the stern Borden and more flamboyant Angier would become rivals (and that's even without the death of Angier's wife to provide some forced conflict), but we know barely anything about them as individuals. Take away their obsessions and there is little below the surface. We need deeper insight to know what makes these men tick and in order to understand why they are taking such massive risks. It relies on actors with big screen presences to make the roles appear interesting, something that Bale and Jackman just about manage to accomplish.

What balances this out is its excellent directing, cinematography and pacing. Nolan's use of place and atmosphere has always been one of his strong points. He breathes life into his representation of early 1900's London and of the darkness that is consuming his leads. This is also one of the most clinical uses of a time shifting narrative I have seen, nothing seems awkwardly placed or moved. Nolan's prowess is what guides us through the pledge, but can he complete the cycle and deliver the ultimate prestige?

Well, is it possible for the payoff to totally derail a film? Yes, and here is the perfect example. The film constantly tells us to look at the smaller details, to 'look closer', that understanding the illusion is everything and that the cleverest ruse is what ultimately matters. It spends the entire run time telling us that magic isn't real or of any importance. But Angier's master trick can only be explained by magic. The audience has basically been deceived, in entirely the wrong way, by this 'twist'. The Sci-Fi elements that enter the fore in order to make the payoff work clash with everything, mainly because the film has been so heavily based in realism and real trickery. So what is it telling us? That everything that it talked about was a lie? It somehow manages to ruin its own prestige with such a convoluted and nonsensical twist.

The films climax is almost nothing but twists and turns. Scenes revealing that nothing was ever as it seems and deception was constantly taking place. I'm a big fan of films that have twists that leave you in awe or amazed. But the twist here is so left-field and against the very principal of the story that it ends up effectively derailing entire sections of the film, making sequences illogical in every aspect. It saddens me, because I was extremely impressed by the film on a technical level. The story was intriguing and it felt as if it was building to the most impressive payoff it could. Instead, we're left confused and irritated as the film simply throws the rule book out the window for its climax and decides its own fate.

Right from the opening credits the mood of quiet tension never lets up. The strong contrast between the icy landscape and blood leaking all over a material isn't there just to be a cool visual. We see our protagonist Will Dormer, a weary detective whose face looks burdened by the troubles that follow him. An insomniac, hunted by internal affairs for his suspect methods and now sent to investigate a murder in a remote town where the sun never sets. It's a question of how long before he snaps.

Pacino is on top form in the type of role he's always excelled in. Tough and experienced after years in the job, but emotionally vulnerable and perpetually on the edge for exactly the same reason. His younger partner Eckhart is willing to dish out information on him. The turning point comes when a trap set for the killer goes wrong and Dormer kills Eckhart after mistaking him in the fog. There's no doubting that it was an accident, but Dormer knows that with the case against him he has no chance of making such a claim. He manages to just about suppress his guilt and concoct a story that lets him off clean. There's one major problem for him however, the killer knows that he did it.

Insomnia isn't just a moody title, it's a reflection of Dormer's mind-set as a whole. How a man's mental state has become so damaged that his morality and ethics have become blurred. It questions how far he's willing to go to do what he knows is right deep down, even if it goes against the very principles he's lived by his entire life. The permanent daylight of Alaska serves to highlight his insomnia in a visual sense, bringing it to forefront so there's no place for him to hide. Too often films of this ilk try to add some kind of quirk or motif without giving it a reasoning or representation. But it's something that is handled impressively here.

Bar Pacino, two performances really standout. The first being Hilary Swank as the plucky Ellie Burr, a role she plays to perfection. She never goes for the typical rookie cop trying to impress, she instead plays it audacious but collected, someone who wants to do the right thing but understands the difficulties that come with the job. The second is Robin Williams as the killer Finch. It never ceases to amaze me how someone so funny can reach such depths and play such disturbed characters. It's comparable to his part in 'One Hour Photo', released the same year. He takes an understated approach, making Finch more unnerving than raving and it works in give the role an edge.

The relationship between Dormer and Finch actually turns out to be one of the highlights. We very rarely get a thriller that makes such a valid connection between the hero and villain. It is clear that the two of them share the same psychological problems. Insomnia haunts their every step. Notably their both trying to achieve the same thing, clearing their names. Finch wants to people to think he's innocent and Dormer wants to pin Eckhart's death on anyone but himself. Their relationship is fascinating for how manipulative it is. Both latch on to each other despite appearing to be polar opposites because they need to work together to survive.

There are a couple of occasions where things can happen a little too conveniently or the plot ties together too neatly. Some of the action sequences feel a little out of place given the tone, though the chase across the logs is handled excellently. Nolan's reliance on the bigger picture can sometimes lead to the little details being forgotten about or hastily connected. However the story itself is a nice antidote to his previous film 'Memento'. While that film was chained so tightly to its gimmick that there was no room for anything to breathe or develop, Insomnia is much sparser and atmospheric. More interested in building tension through fog and isolation. It allows the characters to soak up the ghostly settings and for that to play into their psychology.

Why the film drew Nolan's attention is obvious. It plays on themes that he finds interesting, mainly the troubled morality of the central character. Whereas most thrillers are interested in the details of the investigation and the crime, Insomnia makes a wise choice to instead examine the mind-set of Dormer and how he is distressed by his choices. The brightness proves a crucial aspect. Despite the murky underside of the case, the light is always on Dormer. He has nowhere to hide his feelings, even sleep has rejected him.

Hitchcock never limited himself. He stuck mostly to the thriller genre but his films always blended varying styles and themes. The Birds is his venture into pure horror, an area that he'd touched on previously but never fully dived into. It's him taking the atmosphere that runs through many of his mysteries and combing it with imagery and ideas that succeed in being as macabre as possible. The whole idea behind the film is preposterous, yet it is clear that the whole point is using it to create as frightening a spectacle as possible and that is something the master of suspense achieves.

The set-up involves wealthy Californian socialite Melanie Daniels journeying to Bodega Bay in order to woo lawyer and bachelor Mitch Brenner, after he makes a thinly veiled invite to her. She meets his icy mother and cheerful little sister, the local school teacher and the townspeople all seem nice enough so she decides to stay for the weekend. Of course this is part of the film's genius, everything moves along smoothly and seems pleasant for most of the first half, creating a sense of ease on the surface that you know is just waiting to be torn apart. Tippi Hedren puts in a very good performance, far greater than she would later do in 'Marnie' where she appeared to be suffocated by the complexities of the material. She is clearly at her best when she can play to her naturally warm and charming personality, which are traits she aptly passes on to Melanie.

Something more sinister starts to form when large groups of birds begin attacking and killing the locals at random with no reasoning, leaving the entire town stranded, confused and defenceless against further attacks. It's a true testament to Hitchcock's genius that he was able to make a species as seemingly harmless as birds appear to be the most vicious and terrifying out there. He does what he is so good at, building unease and dread slowly out of seemingly ordinary situations. It would be nowhere near as scary if it wasn't for the deliberately paced build-up. The film is surprisingly brutal and visceral even for modern day. There's no shortage of people cut or sliced as a result of the attacks. The scene where the farmer's body is discovered is truly horrifying. Even the bleak ending, something Hitchcock was no stranger to, feels much darker than usual.

The characters present here are so enjoyable and distinctly drawn that you could lose the entire birds gone wild aspect and it would still be an interesting watch. The suave Mitch (played smoothly by the ideal Hitchcock leading man Rod Taylor), his distant mother Lydia, the sharp school teacher Annie Hayworth, the crotchety old ornithologist, they are all sharply defined and engaging presences. It's something that Hitchcock also did to great effect in his previous film 'Psycho', he gave us characters that we gain some kind of connection to so that when the terror begins we feel invested in what's at stake. There's plenty of smartly handled scenes that establish details about their personalities and moods, such as a nicely emotive one that explains Lydia's coldness. Hitchcock has paced the film perfectly, there isn't a second that is boring or uninteresting to watch.

The effects are understandably dated, but still rather impressive for how much creativity was used in making it look like a massive flock of birds was causing so much destruction. All kinds of techniques were used and most of them blend together effectively. If anything it is simply guilty of showing too much ambition for the time period. What is notable is that the film contains no score, regular collaborator Bernard Herrmann is noted as 'sound consultant', and that is an interesting stylistic choice. The film appreciates the strength of silence and uses it fantastically. How unease can be crafted because everything appears to be too quiet. There is a potency with in that which the film taps in to. It also means that the piercing squawks that emerge once the birds attack are all the more startling.

For me personally this is Hitchcock's last truly great film. One where the story, the writing, the acting, the scares and the direction all came together to create something both spectacular and memorable. None of his films that followed ever reached the same heights, whether it was because one of these areas was dealt with poorly or a multitude of them were. Here Hitchcock knew better than anyone that there has to be a story and set of people that we feel invested in for the film to truly work. As a result this film is a masterpiece in how to gradually build tension and craft horror that packs a punch. When the scares come along they work outstandingly, partly because of the gruesome imagery but also because we're invested in the story.

What is so striking about Psycho is how much it differs from Hitchcock's usual stylish thrillers, even in his bleaker work like 'Vertigo'. Made with his TV crew, on a small budget and shot in black and white, the film shares more characteristics with noir and pulp than it does with his grand suspense pieces. In saying that, the film still delivers everything you would expect it to and more. It contains some of the most iconic imagery, characters and shocks ever put on screen. Being more terrifying than it had any right to be. It's Hitchcock holding the audience in the palm of his hand. And now it feels as if every important aspect of the film has become a big part of pop culture.

The best word to describe the film is unnerving. From the moment the plot is set in motion the sense of dread never lets up. Said plot involves Marion Crane, a secretary who steals $40,000 from a slimy customer and leaves town. We get some insight into her actions, mainly her lover Sam having to pay his ex-wife alimony and their inability to marry as a result. It's a classic Hitchcock theme of a normal person caught up in crime. Marion isn't a bad person, just one forced to do something morally wrong which she later regrets. She stops off at the deserted Bates Motel and seems to get along with the quirky but seemingly pleasant owner Norman, which includes a fascinating dialogue scene in his parlour. However, the film turns on its head, as one event completely changes what we thought the film was initially about into something else entirely.

Hitchcock's idea to kill off the leading lady barely halfway through proved to be a brave and ultimately inspired decision. It's a genius choice because it keeps the tension raised throughout. We know that if a main character can be axed off then surely nobody is safe. It is this thought process that provides the suspenseful moments with an added punch that makes them memorable and even more unsettling. They keep us constantly checking over each frame, afraid that anything might leap from the shadows and strike a killer blow. Playing with the audience's uncertainty and understanding just how powerful the feeling of unease can be. Bernard Herrmann's chilling, pulsating score weaves in and out of these scenes, adding even more layers of tension.

Despite becoming famous for its sudden violence and shocks, the film has only a few moments that rely on startling the audience. Yet because these moments aren't overused they retain the fear factor. You see very little blood or wounds or gore that is usually associated with the genre. Most of the scares come from the imagery used and the way tension is built. A good example being the highway policeman who seemingly stalks Marion, with dark sunglasses leaving his face expressionless. The scene at the car dealership is truly frightening, the way in which he simply stares at her from across the street. It's pretty amazing how so much discomfort can be built from not only something so simple but someone who is meant to be a figure of good. He represents Marion's last chance to confess her crime, which would have ultimately saved her life. It shows how much we're invested in Marion's dilemma that we are terrified of her being caught.

What always amazes me is just how well paced and executed the whole film is. There are long passages with minimal dialogue or plot development, where events play themselves out slowly and cautiously. And they remain effortlessly gripping throughout. A good example is Norman disposing of the body. Who'd of thought that a ten minute long sequence of cleaning up a murder scene could be so riveting? The film is deliberately sparse in that sense. A lot of time is devoted to building up the atmosphere and tension, giving us a feel of the characters and the environment that everything is taking place in. However, the dialogue heavy moments are just as engrossing. Any time Bates opens his mouth you can guarantee that something interesting will come out. The tense scene of him being grilled by detective Arbogast is a good example of that.

You have Hitchcock's typical blondes in Janet Leigh as the reserved Marion and Vera Miles as her more inquisitive sister, both elegant and enjoyable to watch. But the truly fascinating character is definitely Norman Bates. What a wonderfully deranged individual. A man who appears to be controlled by his mother. You can tell instantly that something is not right with him. His quirky demeanour hides something disturbed lurking below. A great deal of that is down to Anthony Perkins superb performance. The things he captures complete the character, the way he moves, stammers, smiles, defends his mother, it's all perfectly done. This film very much becomes Norman's story, his actions are what keeps the plot moving forward. He ultimately becomes the character that everyone remembers.

So what ends up making Psycho so memorable? I personally think it is down to how competently made and detailed it is. Hitchcock did something that many films of its ilk miss out on completely, he made the story, characters and scares all hold equal importance. The story is weaved perfectly, which in turn makes us feel something for the characters, and leads to the horror being so much more impactful. It is also the ultimate example of why atmosphere and tension will always beat gore and shock value on the scare scale. This is Hitchcock at the peak of his powers, working with a crew and cast that excel in every area and adding his own faultless direction to the mix. As a result it remains as powerful, gripping and terrifying as it has ever been.

Marnie can be considered the last of a strong run in the second half of Hitchcock's career. It was his last featuring an icy blonde, much of his technical team, a score by regular collaborator Bernard Herrmann and the films that followed were more politically motivated and not of the same quality. At the time Hitchcock was on an amazing run, making four films in a row that are certain classics. Marnie differs from these films in that it is first and foremost a drama, one with little mystery or suspense and much more focus on psychology.

Our title character is a thief who moves from job to job, donning different guises and stealing from them when she has gained trust. Despite her behaviour Marnie is a tough individual to get a grasp of, leaving us wondering why she carries out such acts. We gain little insights into Marnie's life throughout. She had no father, a mother who was distant and seems disturbed by the colour red. We know that it must add up to something. As a result this is by far Hitchcock's most character focused film. Marnie is the centrepiece and trying to figure her out is the core story, everything that takes place is built around the character. Tippi Hedren does an acceptable job playing such a difficult part but she seems out of place. Her emotions sound forced and she makes the character appear a little too passive at times. She simply struggles under the weight of such a role.

The story takes shape when Mark Rutland, a wealthy publisher whose company she works for, finds out that she robbed from his safe and reveals to her that knows everything about her past habits. Things take a strange turn when Mark blackmails her into marrying him in order to keep her from going to jail. Mark does seem likable at first and we initially wonder what his reasoning is. But I struggle to believe that he's so attracted to Marnie that he's willing to jeopardise his image in order to uncover some type of trauma in her past. Not to mention that some of his sexual action towards her can make him difficult to sympathise with or understand. Sean Connery plays the role with all the sophistication and charm you could want which certainly adds appeal, but even then I don't think he gets that deep into the character.

Much of the films strength lies with how it looks at its themes. This is a very psychological story and touches on issues that were seldom studied in films at the time. The idea of trauma controlling someone's personality and that person's inability to understand why that is. Much of the plot deals with Mark thinking that he can figure out Marnie's psychological issues and stop her compulsive lying and stealing. These parts of the film are the most interesting, we get glimpses into the characters mind-sets and can begin to understand their feelings. More of this would have been beneficial to the film on the whole. As the majority of the characters are hard to relate to or figure out we need to some insight into their situations. Instead we're left cold because it's hard to get a grip of their motivations.

The direction is pretty good, Hitchcock doesn't try anything to fanciful but that works here. There are some really ropey effects during the horse-riding moments and the red fades do look daft, but I think that can be forgiven for the time period. The pacing is very well handled. Despite the films length and it's slower pace, there were never any passages were it became boring or unfocused. The sets, lighting and costumes all look effective too. I do enjoy the films colour scheme in fairness, its use of more muted colours matches the tone it is going for. And I know the film is going for more straight-up drama, but I find the lack of mystery and suspense slightly disappointed considering this story is perfect for both.

In the end my biggest issue with Marnie is that it is rather unmemorable. It's the type of film you enjoy whilst watching but find it difficult to recall anything that outstanding afterwards. It's well directed but nothing out of the ordinary. It's competently acted but nobody stands out. We never really feel involved with these characters like we should do. I get the impression that Hitchcock loved the idea behind it all yet struggled to bring it into one flowing narrative. I give it credit that its story is an intriguing one and it manages to tackle some fascinating themes effectively, but beyond on that it is very much by the numbers. Not one of Hitchcock's best, not one of his worst, just very much middle ground.

North by Northwest is a personal favourite of mine. It is Hitchcock's most light and purely entertaining film, a smart change of pace after the darkly psychological 'Vertigo'. It takes his signature wrong man storyline and simply sees how much fun it can have with the idea. It makes the characters as charming as possible, the action grander than ever before, the locations exotic and the situations as exciting as you could want them to be. It's a film that succeeds in its aim magnificently, give the audience a thrilling adventure.

It revolves around suave advertising executive Roger Thornhill who is kidnapped after being mistaken for 'George Kaplan' and interrogated before almost being killed by the shady Vandamm. Nobody believes Thornhill's story so he sets out to find Kaplan himself. However he has to go on the run when he's framed for murder, which draws him into a world of deceit, spies and simply trying to stay alive. This story is not only brilliantly entertaining, but it twists and turns all the time. You don't know who Thornhill can trust or what's waiting around the corner for him, making him a vulnerable hero. A good example being when he meets Eve Kendell, we don't know whether she's a kind stranger, a spy herself or working with the enemy. It is great at keeping you guessing like that.

What always impresses me about the film is how it blends genres so easily. It is a thrilling adventure at heart of course. Yet there are smatterings of mystery, action, romance and comedy throughout. It leaps between all of these without any feeling out of place and without losing sight of the plot. Most of the characters actions drive the narrative forward in that sense, what we initially think is only loosely connected may end having a larger bearing. Almost everything that happens on screen has leads to something else. In fact the humour in the film is something that really stands out. The situations are dangerous yet they can also be wonderfully absurd and the film finds genuine laughs with the idea of a normal person being forced to risk his life in such a way.

The performances are great all round. Cary Grant is delivers one of the most stylish performances of all time as Thornhill. He makes the character so debonair and charming, seemingly unfazed by the deadly situations he finds himself in, with a sharp wit and wisecracks at the ready. He's clearly enjoying himself and is a magnetic screen presence. Eva Marie Saint is effortlessly appealing as Kendell, probably the most humane of Hitchcock's icy blondes. James Mason is just wonderful as Vandamm. He's the perfect villain. Subtle, mysterious, cunning, strangely charismatic, all with a smooth voice and expressive features. The notable supporting performances come from Martin Landau as creepy heavy Leonard and Jessie Royce Landis as Thornhill's sardonic mother.

The film is filled with memorable sequences and imagery. The romantic playfulness of the scenes aboard the train. The brilliant scene where Thornhill deliberately sabotages an auction. The truly spectacular climax that takes place atop Mount Rushmore. One of my favourite sequences in all of film is when Thornhill waits for 'Kaplan' on a stretch of road in the middle of nowhere. The way Hitchcock manages to build a sense of tension and isolation is simply masterfully. It also leads to the noteworthy crop duster sequence. This is how you do action. It might not seem like much, but we really do feel as if Thornhill's life is at risk and that gives it so much more impact than any fancy effects or choreography could.

Hitchcock's direction is as good as ever. The camera-work is very fluid here, it moves gently around the screen at times, almost as if it's surveying the area. His staging of the action sequences and moments of important dialogue help immensely in giving the scenes the weight they need. This is also a handsome looking film. Everything from The hotel interiors to the train carriages to the UN building looks fantastic and is lit well. Ernest Lehman wrote the screenplay and it is a brilliant one, full of witty dialogue that roles off the tongue exquisitely. Apparently he was attempting to write the ultimate Hitchcock thriller, I think it's fair to say that he succeeded in doing so. Bernard Herrmann's dynamic score, and its wonderful main theme, is just the icing on the cake.

In many ways North by Northwest is like the prototype Bond film, except it's unrestrained by any formula and contains Hitchcock's trademark thrills. We have a dashing main character, the beautiful female for him to latch on to, a diabolical but charming villain, a surging plot and visually interesting locations. Of course the difference maker is Hitchcock himself. He has a plot and script that allow him to do what he does best to the most unrestricted level he's ever done. The thrills, the suspense, the action, the excitement, not to mention the subtle comedy and romance. It's all here and it's even grander than before. This is Hitchcock's exercise in escapist fun. It gives us pure thrills without any pretensions and I wouldn't change a thing about it.

Vertigo might very well be Hitchcock's magnum opus. The film that tops a list of so many greats. His most personal and haunting piece. It stands out in his filmography because of that. It demands repeated viewings. It has to be questioned and reflected upon. It is Hitchcock's most thought-provoking and complex film in that regard, one that stays with you long after it is over. I'm delighted that after being dismissed when it was first released that the film is now rightfully considered one of the greatest of its kind.

It revolves around Scottie, a former detective crippled by acrophobia, lured out of early retirement to help an old friend named Gavin Elster. Elster asks Scottie to follow his wife Madeleine, whose strange behaviour he believes is the result of being possessed. To say much more about the plot line would ruin some amazing twists that have to be discovered with fresh eyes. It truly one of the most well thought- out and detailed narratives of all time. One that cannot be second guessed and leads to situations that are impossible to see coming. This is where the repeated viewings come in too. Seeing the film for a second time opens up entirely new perspectives. Something that might not have appeared fully realised before now makes perfect sense. It gives the film immense replay value.

The film moves slowly in exactly the right way, building everything up with delicacy and secrecy instead of rushing to the payoff. It relies on atmosphere more than any other Hitchcock film. The almost dreamlike quality conveyed by the camera-work. Our sense of uncertainly increasing along with Scottie's, as he begins to feel some kind of connection to the woman he's following. The initial payoff is put together so well that everything falls into position perfectly. The first two thirds of the film unravel beautifully because of this and the mystery remains totally gripping. We are as intrigued by the mystery as our main character. We are kept in the dark during these scenes and discover information as he does (a technique Hitchcock used frequently).

Both James Stewart and Kim Novak deserve massive acclaim for their intricate and detailed performances. Stewart plays against his usual role as the charming everyman, making Scottie gentle but increasing edgy and cautious. A man troubled by his ailment and past failures. Stewart portrays the emotional turmoil beneath the character with such subtlety that we can't help but feel for him. Novak is his equal. Her uneasy acting style fitting such an uneasy character. She's an actress that can convey so much using just her eyes and that is always an impressive feat. Novak is hauntingly beautiful, a crucial detail given with have to believe that Scottie grows to obsess over her. Barbara Bel Geddes deserves credit too for bringing some needed levity as Scottie's friend Midge.

The third act is where the film really hits home for me and reaches its pinnacle. Without spoiling anything, the way in which everything comes full circle is done masterfully. It is also here where the film delivers on some really powerful themes such as loss, guilt and obsession. All of these are handled with grace and intelligence, joined to the struggles of our main characters. The emotional connection to the story and empathy we feel for the characters exceeds any expectation, making the films twists and turns all the more impactful. This is a very moving film, something that we very rarely associate with Hitchcock. Yet this is undoubtedly his darkest and most psychological film, deliberately devoid of the wit that usually runs through his work. It delves deep into the psyche of Scottie and all the twisted thoughts and feelings that come with it.

Another stand-out is the score. Bernard Herrmann's score is simply magnificent, easily one of the greatest of all time. It is both elegant and eerie, invoking both unease and uncertainty, tying itself to the film masterfully. It makes every scene seem grander or chilling depending on what it calls for. It does everything you could want it to and more. Adding to that is Hitchcock genius camera-work. Every camera movement feels as if it was done for a reason. It helps us feels the uncertainty with Stewart as he sneaks through San Francisco, putting the characters fears into a visual sense. It frequently swirls stunningly in time with the music. It lights the characters to represent their true feelings. The direction is some of the most accomplished you will see. Backing this up are the brilliant title sequence by Saul Bass and the truly unsettling dream sequence, both being great touches that add to the films allure.

Vertigo succeeds because it is a film that stays with you. Not just for its plot, acting, visuals and music, but for how it evolves each time you see it. All the pieces of the puzzle are being put into place and you won't be able to connect all of them the first time you see it. Once you do, you realise just how superbly constructed the film is. How this ghostly mystery is simply one piece that leads to something even more affecting. It is undoubtedly one of Hitchcock's best, whether or not it is first on that list simply depends on personal preference. It is a haunting, elegant, frequently surprising and almost dreamlike piece. Its power continues to grow over time.

Hitchcock's decision to remake one of his own films was certainly a strange one. Of course the story behind The Man Who Knew Too Much lends itself to countless interpretations and deliveries, with this version relying more on its star power and build-up than the original ever did. Sadly the film simply lacks the sense of suspense and gripping narrative we're so used to seeing Hitchcock provide. It never comes close to being a bad film (is that even possible for Hitchcock?) and is exceedingly well made, but for me it's just lacking too much to succeed.

We follow Dr. Ben McKenna, his wife Jo and their son Hank on holiday in Marrakesh. There they meet a Frenchman named Louis Bernard who they befriend, but whose behaviour seems a little too mysterious. Their suspicions are proved right when Bernard is killed and in his final words he tells Ben spy information that has to be delivered to London. These scenes in Morocco are comfortably the film's best. I really like how exotic nature of the location is played, which includes a fantastic scene in a restaurant. They are also the most suspenseful moments. The wonder of who Bernard really is and the questioning of what his words mean. The McKenna's are just as much in the dark as the audience are, we discover as they do (a technique Hitchcock used so well in 'Rear Window').

Things take a twist when Hank is kidnapped by a couple they also befriended called the Drayton's and Ben is warned that if he reveals any information then their son will be killed. I think this is handled well and the helplessness that the McKenna's are overwhelmed by is conveyed excellently. However, the film never really builds on what it has and becomes needlessly convoluted. They travel to London to use the information Ben has and search for the name Ambrose Chappell. This leads to a bizarre scene at a Taxidermist and the eventual realisation just feels too simple, to the point where you question how they didn't figure it out sooner. It's as if any suspense and tension the film had completely disappeared once they enter London because you never get a sense of fear or panic that is needed in order for us to feel like there's something at stake.

As stated the film relies on the ability on James Stewart and Doris Day to really sell it, and I think both do good jobs. Stewart is as engaging as usual and Day really impresses in a rare dramatic role. Sadly I think the characters are a bit dull. They're just not well rounded, they seem nice but that's about it. We do get hints that their marriage is unbalanced and it should have been explored further, as it would have at least allowed us to sympathise with them more. By the time they figure out what's going on and the whole nonsense over Ambrose Chappell you start questioning how foolish they can really be. I also have to note how peculiar it is that a song as universally known as 'Que Sera, Sera' originally came from this film. It certainly isn't one that fits the tone or conjures up the imagery you might expect.

The film builds to a grand third act at the Royal Albert Hall, where it turns out a minister is in danger of being assassinated. It's a suitably big climax, yet it never hits like it should because there is such disconnect to the characters. There is a lengthy sequence of the orchestra playing that is visually and technically impressive, but it leaves you asking what the point of it was once it is finished. As far as the technical aspects are concerned, the scenes in Marrakesh are certainly visually stimulating and I think the location is made both attractive and mysterious. Yet once the action moves to London it's on autopilot, almost as if Hitchcock didn't see the need for anything provoking or eye-catching to take place there. Stewart walking around the streets in broad daylight is neither fun to watch or suspenseful. It seems so weirdly flat.

I read that one of the reasons Hitchcock did this film was to fulfil a contractual agreement. I can easily believe that to be the case. It feels as if so little energy has gone into it. As if they took the basic outline of the earlier version and just decided to make a couple of changes whilst updating it on the technical side. There's no denying that it's well made or that the actors give it their all and it does have its moments, notably in the earlier scenes. But there is such a lack of intrigue, tension and detail that are synonymous with Hitchcock's work. It ends up being a strangely by the numbers and forgettable effort.

If you ever want to see Alfred Hitchcock at his most refined and playful then look no further than To Catch a Thief. This is him in complete control and at ease with the material, going for a slightly different take on his usual work. That's probably the most striking thing about the film. How it manages to weave a typical Hitchcock plot line about a man forced to prove his innocence with such a charming tone and in as beautiful a setting as the French Riviera. It is what really sets the film apart from the majority of his later work.

Cary Grant stars as John Robie, an American living in France who was once an infamous burglar known as 'The Cat'. Robie's comfortable retirement is interrupted when a new thief copying his techniques emerges and he becomes the prime suspect. It's in the classic Hitchcock style of a man trying to prove he's innocent as Robie aims to catch the thief in the act, and it's to Hitchcock's credit that he manages to make the formula seem fresh once again. He's aided by Cary Grant who is at his most suave and cool here. Grant is one of the films major strengths. He's such a magnetic screen presence and he makes the character that much more alluring as a result, and I believe that with even a slightly less charismatic lead the film would have suffered.

The plot develops nicely as Robie gets close to wealthy potential victim Jessie Stevens (enjoyably played by Jessie Royce Landis) and her daughter Frances, biding his time before the next robbery. Robie develops romantic feelings for Frances who starts to question his real identity, leading to a well detailed and laid out third act. Frances is played by Grace Kelly in her third and final appearance in a Hitchcock film and, much like Grant, she provides the charisma needed in spades. This is possibly Kelly at her most fun. She's playing a character full of personality, both cheerful and stern, and I don't think she ever looked more elegant than here. The romantic aspects work really well, once again in part because both leads are such fun to watch and the dialogue sparkles in their scenes. Yet the film does a solid job of making it clear why they fall for each other's charms.

The only real issue I have with the film in relation to the plot, and this might sound strange, is that it is a little too relaxed. Don't get me wrong, I still greatly enjoy the film's charm and style. Yet I can't help but feel that with this type of wrong man storyline a more impactful narrative would have benefited it even further. There's just a few too many scenes or pieces of dialogue that distract from the main focus and at times the sense of mystery that the film is trying to convey is lost.

Nothing negative can be said about the visuals however. This is one gorgeous film. I'd go as far to say it's one of Hitchcock's most impressive for its sheer glamour and radiance. The French Riviera is the perfect setting and it is photographed beautifully. The mountainsides, the villas, the winding country roads, the fancy restaurants, the splendid hotels, ever single frame is glowing with colour and beauty. It's easy to see why it won an Oscar for best cinematography. I actually really like the way colour is used in the film, such as whenever The Cat is committing a robbery the whole screen is washed with a muted green. It's a nice stylistic choice and adds a touch of menace to what is otherwise an exceedingly attractive setting. Little touches like that go a long way.

The appeal of To Catch a Thief definitely lies with its charm and sense of fun. It is still unmistakeably Hitchcock, but it is him showing a different side to his usual work. The thrills and chills remain, but the backdrop is much more stylish. The almost oppressive suspense we're used to seeing him deliver is traded in for something that is still suspenseful yet in a much more easy to enjoy way. It is something we would see him do to an even greater degree a few years later in 'North by Northwest'. And while it doesn't hit the heights of much of his work, I don't think that was ever the intention. Said intention was simply to offer glitz, excitement and a fun mystery, which it does successfully.

The true strength of Rear Window lies with Alfred Hitchcock's understanding of voyeurism. How spying on people and seeing things we shouldn't can be thrilling. For the entirety of the film we're looking through the eyes of our main character Jeff, looking at things he knows he shouldn't be. We become connected to Jeff and when he can't stop himself from seeing and believing things he shouldn't, nor can we. This is the genius of Hitchcock. His main character becomes a vessel. We live the film through him. We share all of the opinions, concerns and limitations he has as a result.

Jeff is a notable photographer laid up after breaking his leg and in a cast up to his hip. It's established that he's man of action, a veteran of war and used to globetrotting wherever the job takes him. Hitchcock notes all of this smartly with subtle visuals and dialogue. It's no surprise that being stuck in his apartment leaves Jeff bored, so to pass the time by he begins to spy on his neighbours. His nurse Stella, detective friend Doyle and fiancé Lisa are initially concerned by his behaviour. This conduct is tied to Jeff. He's unable to commit to Lisa and it reinforces her view that'd he rather live through others than himself. The relationship creates an interesting dynamic, as if he gets more gratification spying than from Lisa. Both James Stewart and Grace Kelly are perfect here. Stewart always convinces as the normal guy in over his head and Kelly's elegance adds layers of charm to Lisa.

Jeff's prying has unexpected consequences. He becomes convinced that a salesman named Thorwald, who lives in the apartment opposite, has murdered his wife. He sees newly dug spots in the flower bed, a suitcase bound by ropes and the wife completely absent. The film excellently follows a thread where we don't feel cheated because, even though he can jump to conclusions, we see Jeff work everything out. We see him piece together the information and consider its importance. Initially nobody believes him, but little by little and as more becomes apparent it turns out he might just be right. This is all visual story-telling done to perfection. We don't even need words to understand what is taking place. What we see through the lens and piece together is enough.

It's intriguing how the seduction of crime is used. Not in taking part in one, but in discovering it. Jeff is snapped out of his boredom when he thinks he's caught someone up to no good. It gives him something to concentrate his efforts on. When Doyle initially tells him that the he has evidence that Thorwald is innocent Jeff is greatly disappointed and so are we. Not because we want someone to be dead, but because we lose the wonder of figuring out what happened. The film plays with moral and psychological issues like that brilliantly. Jeff isn't a detective or a do-gooder, he' simply a normal person. It makes the character more relatable. He sometimes lets situations occur he shouldn't because there's nothing he can do to stop them, he's just an observer. When he wants police action there is nothing he can do. When he can't prove anything he feels frustrated. We can ask ourselves what we'd do in those situations. Probably something similar.

For me this is the film that secured Hitchcock's position as the master of suspense and as a master filmmaker. Initially the film seems relatively smooth, yet once Jeff believes he's found a murderer the feeling of unease just keeps on building and building. I no problems in saying that the films climax is one of the most nerve-wracking I've ever witnessed in a film. As Jeff is wheelchair bound we know there is little he can do if spotted and that adds an extra layer of vulnerability. When Lisa risks her neck to investigate there is no way to alert her of danger. We share that same sense of helplessness. Apparently Hitchcock shot all of the film from inside Jeff's apartment, providing a real authenticity to what we see play out. In fact, I think the set itself deserves a mention for just how well-crafted and intricate it is.

The heights of suspense, tension and threat reached in Rear Window are so great that very few films have ever been able to come close to following it. For a film that has little connection to policing, serial killers or the unknown that is some achievement. It's also why the film is held in such high regard to this day. It connects the audience directly to the main character. Everything he does we have to follow, almost as if we ourselves are sharing the secrets that he discovers. It also explains why the film's suspense works so well, we are equally as scared of being found out. Tapping into all kinds of thoughts and fears whilst remaining effortlessly gripping. It showed perfectly that Hitchcock was a master of his craft.

This really could have been something special. Influential director James Cameron's first film since the mega-hit 'Titanic'. 12 years of waiting, in part so that the technology was advanced enough for the film to be made. The man who gave us Sci-Fi classics like 'The Terminator', 'T2: Judgement Day' and 'Aliens' giving us his most ambitious piece yet. But for all its visual grandeur, its technical marvel, its fine detail, Avatar ends up being a disheartening failure. Why? Because it makes the fatal mistake of completely ignoring the two things that are crucial in any film, story and character.

The film follows paraplegic marine Jake Sully as he takes the place of his deceased brother on the avatar project. Based on the distant planet Pandora, the project involves controlling a body of the natives (known as the Na'vi) in order to gather information about them. Well so far so good, there's at least some creativity. All that disappears quickly. We learn that the military and business tycoons are there to take a valuable material called Unobtainium (oh how do they come up with this stuff). I'm so sick of these lazy plots that have suits taking what isn't there's. We get the message they're hammering us with, leave the indigenous people and their land alone. Of course Jake is persuaded by Colonel Quaritch to deliver information and secrets about the Na'vi directly to him so he can figure out their weakness in exchange for the spinal surgery Jake needs.

But wait a second, something incredible happens. The more time Jake absorbs the Na'vi's culture, the more he grows to love its people and begins to doubt whether or not he can turn on them. Well I've never seen that before. Oh wait, I have in 'Dances with Wolves', 'Pocahontas' and 'The Last Samurai' to name but a few. It is exactly the same story as all of these. It has the same set-up, it follows the same beats, it has the same character motivations, and it even has the same preachy moral lesson. The white man comes to conquer, but the main character can't fight against the culture he initially dislikes but grows to care for. There is not a single moment in the film where I didn't know what was going to happen next. For all the money spent why couldn't they write a better story?

Throughout all this Jake develops a relationship with a Na'vi called Neytiri and it is literally there just to serve the plot. These two share absolutely no chemistry. There isn't even a reason for them to like each other. The only reason Neytiri changes her mind is because some kind of sprite lands on him and that's a sign that he has a good heart. Sadly the film is littered with convenient and mystical hogwash like that which is never looked at in any detail. It's fair enough that the film has its own mythology, but at least try to give some meaning. The film suffers badly from lack of explanation. Like why are the military so fixed on destroying the planet to gain the material when it's clear that the Na'vi can be befriended with relative ease? It is basically because we need some villains and those mean humans will do just fine.

The only thing as one-note as the story are the characters. Sam Worthington's agent deserves a medal for getting one of the blandest, most expressionless, cardboard cut-out actors ever to grace the screen to helm a film of this magnitude. It boggles my mind as to how insipid an actor he is. Jake as a character isn't very interesting but there are countless actors who could of at least brought something to the role. Zoe Saldana suffers too, but that's mainly because Neytiri is a totally unlikeable and irritating character. You even have good actors like Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang wasted in clichéd roles as the plucky scientist and the colonel blinded by stupidity. In a film like this we need characters that are either relatable or interesting in order to keep them from being swamped. You'd think Cameron of all people would know this.

What I can't discount is just how visually stunning the film is. The world created is something we've seen before, but the detail and vibrancy really is something to behold. This film is gorgeous. The textures, the colour scheme, the shades of light, the environment of Pandora, it all looks pretty incredible and I can see why it took so long to craft. The CGI both stands out on its own and blends with the live-action seamlessly. The Na'vi's design is a bit conventional, but again the detail gone into creating them is there for all to see. The visuals truly are the films only outstanding feature. The same can't be said of the action sequences even though they're are decently staged and can get suitably intense, they're nowhere near as imaginative or gripping as they could have been. That's partly because you don't care who lives or dies.

James Cameron did something here that I struggle to understand. He made a film with such creative potential and possibilities safe. Something that is a boring and hollow experience. Something that is so reliant on its visual brilliance that without it there is nothing to offer. How could someone as talented as Cameron create a story that is so cliché riddled and unengaging? In many ways the film's success is disappointing. It's telling filmmakers that we want more films where the stories and characters can be as basic as possible as long as we get some impressive visuals, where we value style over substance. I want style, but I also want a film that I can be invested in and where I care about what happens. Avatar failed to provide this on any level.

The Abyss certainly feels like James Cameron's most personal and low-key directorial effort. The big action set-pieces and ahead of their time special effects are still here, yet the story he's trying to tell feels much more human and conscious of its time period. It's his first film to mainly concentrate on humans and have the science fiction elements play more of a side role. On a technical and atmospheric level there is nothing to hold the film back, only Cameron himself does that with some inconsistent plotting and writing which leads to a frequently spectacular but unbalanced film.

We follow the workers of an underwater oil rig as they are joined by navy seals and asked to investigate the crash site of a navy submarine and find out what caused it. The rigs designer Lindsey insists on going along despite her estranged husband Bud being the foreman. You can see that this will lead to their personalities clashing and it does which creates an interesting dynamic to the films credit. It's no surprise when we learn that something alien caused the crash, after Lindsey comes face to face with a life form that can manipulate water. This alien story works best when it's shrouded in mystery, yet I really don't like the eventual resolution to it. After a lot of interesting build-up we end on a note that feels straight out of E.T and doesn't fit the films tone at all.

The real meat of the story comes when navy seal Coffey steals a warhead from the wreckage. Struck with paranoia he believes that the life form is a Russian spy and turns on the crew when they don't cooperate with his plan to attack it. The tension during these scenes is wonderful. Coffey is the most interesting character and seeing him slowly snap is disturbing in all the right ways. The clashes between him and the crew are always brimming with intensity too. The film is at its best when it lets the claustrophobia of these situations wash over it. The sense of isolation and unease does get appropriately strong, as scenes like the crew trapped as water floods in or racing to stop the warhead being launched are what really suck you in. I actually think that if the film discarded the Sci-Fi elements then it could probably work even better as a straight-up thriller.

An area of weakness is in regards to the characters. Most of the crew just don't have much personality because of a lack of development and bland writing. Having characters like Hippy whose trait is being a conspiracy theorist and carrying a rat or Standing whose nickname is One Night (which is the worst excuse for a nickname you'll see) stinks of laziness. Ed Harris is solid as usual and Mastrantonio does a serviceable job, yet its relying on their acting talents to carry bland characters. The only real standout is Michael Biehn who provides a genuinely chilling performance as the paranoid Coffey.

With that said Cameron's direction and staging is as impressive as ever. The set itself is simply incredible. Not only does it look gigantic, but it is lit perfectly and gives a real sense of being deep in the ocean. The special effects are impressive and still hold up well, while the in-camera effects still amaze too. I didn't think it was possible to make a fight scene between two mini-subs gripping but they managed to pull it off. There are also a number of sequences that are really deliver the tension necessary. Notably the resuscitation scene which, though a little ludicrous, is almost overwhelmingly intense and superbly acted by Harris. The same goes for Harris attempting to retrieve the warhead, it's heart-pounding in every way you could wish.

When The Abyss reaches its conclusion I was relatively satisfied. It is an intelligent and frequently thrilling film based around an interesting idea. The issues arise from when that idea isn't fully realised and the writing gets in its way. When the film concentrates on offering thrills and intensity in a unique environment then it really does engage. Yet all the talk of alien life forms feels out of place in such an oppressive setting and the majority of characters aren't strong enough to really involve the audience for such a long film. In saying that I was never bored or confused by the film, and with a little fine-tuning it could have been something special.

In effect, True Lies features every aspect you should expect from a Schwarzenegger film. The manic action sequences, extravagant special effects and strong doses of humour throughout. Where the film differs is in its audacity and creativity when pulling off the more overblown set-pieces and by being helmed by a director who is a master of action in the form of James Cameron. This is clearly Cameron's most relaxed and purely entertainment based film, something that makes it greatly accessible but lacking in the punch of his better works.

It follows Harry Tasker, a top U.S spy who has successfully fooled his wife Helen into thinking that he is a computer salesman. Why she isn't suspicious of all the times he comes home late we'll never know. For the first and final thirds of the film Harry and his team are tracking an antiques dealer who has links to a terrorist group who they believe are sneaking weapons into the country. It's pretty much as basic a spy plot as you can get but it's perfectly serviceable for a film like this. Schwarzenegger is enjoyable here. He'd played these type of roles so much by this point that he slips into it with ease. It's also the closest we'll coming to seeing Arnie playing James Bond so that's something else I suppose. Tom Arnold also deserves credit as Arnie's partner Gib, providing a lot wisecracks and sarcasm that make him a fun foil.

The films entire second act is what really sets the story apart. Harry believes his wife is having an affair with slimy car salesman Simon (brilliantly played by Bill Paxton) who is pretending to be a spy to add some excitement. Harry then cooks up the idea of having his wife complete an ''assignment''. This leads to a really strange sequence where Helen does a striptease and dances in front of him in a hotel suite. Firstly, how can she not tell it's him? Secondly, the entire scene is unpleasant when you take a step back. I understand Harry wanting to get some kind of revenge on his wife, but to degrade her like he does just feels wrong. Jamie Lee Curtis excels in these moments of physical comedy and the natural comedy that comes from her interactions with Paxton are very amusing, yet the eventual payoff ends up feeling forced and unnecessary to the plot.

As you'd expect the action is wonderfully stylised and unrestrained in all the right areas. Take for instance the best action scene which involves Harry on a horse pursuing the head terrorist on a motorbike and the way in which the scene works is how it just keeps building. First they chase through a park, then a hotel lobby, then get elevators to the roof, where the terrorist escapes via free fall into a swimming pool and Arnie's horse refuses to follow in a funny payoff. There are no lengths the film won't got to in order to provide the most excitement it can. The climax is similar. At one point it features Arnie flying a jet with his daughter clinging onto the cockpit and the terrorist dangling from a missile. It's bordering on ridiculous. Yet one of the films strengths is that it knows these situations are far-fetched and it clearly has fun in seeing how far it can go.

James Cameron's direction is as smooth as ever and there are not many directors who are as competent when it comes to action as he is. Cameron also wrote the screenplay which is fun and well-paced yet certainly lacking in something extra. Even though I enjoy the first the two-thirds of the film, the weird payoffs in all, the final act does feel a little contrived and the film loses a lot of steam as a result. The strength of the writing is definitely in the films humour. It mostly keeps its tone light and playful, leading to plenty of good one-liners and interaction, especially between Harry and his team. Elsewhere, Brad Fiedel provides a brilliant score, brimming with excitement and energy that fit the films tone perfectly. It's a nice move away from the more atmospheric work of his previous scores.

True Lies doesn't quite hit the heights of much of either Cameron's or Schwarzenegger's other works, partly because of its simply trying to be fun entertainment and partly because of the limitations in its plotting. The plot itself is too simplistic for it to ever be that gripping and the tonal shifts do frequently feel unwarranted. Its approach is both an asset and a hindrance as a result. Yet, when it comes to big action, comedy and effects then you'll struggle to do better than here. When the film sticks to its strengths it is undeniable fun.

What is most interesting about Body of Lies is that it manages to rise above the predictability and formula that plagues the vast majority of espionage films. It is post-Bourne wrapped up in a more mature Bond plot with a politically conscious edge. Yet it never feels like it is stealing elements of those, more using them as a launch-pad for its own ideas. Though the film itself is sometimes guilty of falling back into safety, it remains consistently exciting and intently engaging even when those moments occur because of how keenly detailed and acted it is. It makes it standout as a cut above many of its contemporaries.

We follow Roger Ferris, a ground CIA operative who moves throughout the Middle East in an attempt to lure out and capture terrorist Al- Saleem. Of course his practices involve plenty of lies and deceit as he tries to retain the support of the head of the Jordanian Intelligence. Ferris is played by Leonardo DiCaprio who makes an excellent centrepiece for the film. DiCaprio is a great choice for the role, given his superb ability to convey emotion and his delivery making even mundane dialogue seem important. I'm not sure many could have been as appealing as he is here. Ferris grows into a more interesting character as the film progresses. His disillusion with the lies he has to sow and backstabbing from his superiors make for some of the most intriguing moments, whilst providing some welcomed morality that never feels forced.

His superior Hoffman is played terrifically by Russell Crowe, whose weight gain and distinct accent allow him to become the character. Crowe is at his best playing characters like this. Confident, forcefully honest, almost egotistical, yet understanding the importance of the situation. They're traits he always nails. Hoffman appears all-knowing, frequently surveying from the air, keeping constant contact with Ferris as he aids him in setting up a fictional terrorist group to smoke out Al-Saleem. He also clashes with the Jordanian head Hani Salaam, who is convincingly played by Mark Strong, a man who only asks that the CIA don't lie to him, which is something that Ferris finds increasingly difficult to avoid.

The interactions and differences between these three main characters is definitely the film's most interesting aspect. All three have distinct personalities that are well developed, conduct their jobs in very different ways and are portrayed by actors who always convince. The scenes that bring them together are always gripping, Ferris meeting Hoffman in Washington to devise a new plan, Hani questioning how Ferris could lie to him, the three of them discussing their mission. They all share a suspicion of one another that is fascinating to see play out.

There is a romance between Ferris and an Iranian doctor that is nicely played out and expands the characters. It also offers us an interesting look at the perception of a relationship with someone from the West in the Middle East. However, the issue is that it doesn't really fit in with the tone of the film and ends up becoming a plot device later on in the film which makes it feel rather forced. The action scenes and shootouts are always very fluid and exciting to watch. Notably, there is a weight to them that makes the injuries feel painful, these operatives don't just bounce back up like in so many spy flicks. There's a torture scene near the end that is brilliantly intense and really keeps you guessing as to its outcome.

With Ridley Scott at the helm the film is fantastic to look at and his direction is as smooth as it's ever been. In fact I don't think the Middle East has ever looked this vibrant and authentic on screen before. Scott directs the film masterfully. He manages to make the dialogue driven scenes feel just as tense as the action ones. I especially like the use of aerial surveillance, as it gave the film a much wider scope and added to the feeling of always being watched. Scott is saddled with a script that can be jargon heavy, but he's able to make it understandable and technical without dumbing it down or filling it with dialogue that nobody would comprehend. The funny thing is that this is type of film Scott's Brother Tony would usually at home doing, so it's nice to see him try his hand at it and go for a more subtle approach.

Despite its amalgamation of various espionage tropes and some misplaced plot points, Body of Lies is an exceptional genre film. It manages to work as both an exciting action thriller and as a more controlled politically-charged piece. The story is packed with deception and intrigue, just right for this type of film. The main characters are well-rounded and captivating to watch, they guide us through the film and I always wanted to see what their next move was going to be. It is a layered story and it's impressive just how well it is conveyed. Plenty of praise should go to Scott, his three leading men and script writer William Monahan. They have crafted a film that is well- balanced, a vivid portrait of the CIA in the Middle East and makes a number of potentially clichéd aspects feel fresh again.

Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe teaming up once again to do a light- hearted romp set in the south of France. Sounds interesting. There is something admirable about directors and actors trying to tackle different genres than their usual work. Whether it is to challenge themselves or just to offer a nice change of pace. With that said, comedy is a different ball game usually. If a director or actor try their hand at comedy when they don't understand what makes it work then it can be disastrous. I'm sad to say that A Good Year is a great example of that.

It's about Max, a thirty-something bond trader who is successful even though his practices are rather unethical. He's uncomfortably droll, slightly obnoxious and seems to jump from woman to woman. Gee, I think we're going to like this guy. He gets a letter that his Uncle Henry (the only actor who truly delivers here, Albert Finney) has died and his vineyard in France has been passed to Max, who flies out with the intention of a quick sale. We get some overtly sentimental flashbacks to a time when Max was a young and innocent soul. I think it's incredibly obvious where the film is going even at this early stage. His uncle gives him advice and they have great relationship, which I admit is portrayed well. Yet the flashbacks do nothing but fill in the gaps in the plot instead of actually building the characters.

Of course Max is then suspended for a week and decides to stay in France to see how it goes. The biggest problem is that Max seems relatively happy in his life and any past issues are barely touched upon. He's got money, he's good at his job and the woman seem to love him. Why would he want to leave that? I doubt a potential lawsuit is enough because even he seems nonchalant about it. We get typical romance between him and a French waitress (played by the lovely Marion Cotillard). This doesn't work because Crowe and Cotillard share no chemistry, and because from a story perspective it's impossible to understand what she sees in Max that would win her over. We also get a weird sub-plot about American backpacker Christie who might be Henry's illegitimate daughter. This adds nothing to the film except some stupidly forced and hollow conflict.

The films fatal flaw comes in the shape of Russell Crowe. He can't do comedy. Crowe is a fine actor, but ask him to be funny and what you get is a mess. Max should be a sly yet charming individual, someone who's imperfect but has something that might win us over. But Crowe plays him like a conceited fool. Always mumbling mild obscenities in a polite tone and totally oblivious to any pratfalls that lie around the corner. He just does the same smirking expression for the whole film and his attempts at slapstick are best described as painful. It's a horribly misplaced performance.

In regards to the films 'comedy', it really baffles me. It's as if it just decides to throw all kinds of styles at you and see what sticks. Crowe's comic timing is non-existent and as a result the majority of his jokes die a quick death. The slapstick is really annoying. One scene has Max stuck in an empty pool and he keeps trying to get out but cant and it's just weird to watch because it lacks any sense of physicality or flair. You then have formulaic stuff thrown in for good measure, like a dog that hates Max for no reason and him getting frustrated over the language barrier. Finney's joke in the film's opening was the only one that got a laugh out of me. Considering the films style it didn't have to be hilarious, but it needed to be clever or subtle to be effective. Falling back on slapstick that has been done better a million times before isn't funny.

Seeing as this is Ridley Scott the sole area where the film constantly delivers is the visuals. The French countryside has never looked more radiant. The way the glow of the sun is captured, the splendour of the vineyards and the graceful beauty of these small villages. It might be eye candy, but it sure is gorgeous. Yet you could easily argue that it's almost too idyllic, for the stories sake. The sun is permanently shining, the French are witty, the women are all beautiful and there's nothing to worry about. You can paint a pretty picture, but at least try to be authentic. In fact many clichés spread throughout the film with such classics as the American tourists that are idiots and the French waitress whose heart cannot be won. Haven't seen those before.

By the time A Good Year draws to a close pretty much everything you assumed would happen fifteen minutes in has happened. I haven't an issue with films that are deliberately simple and light-hearted. What I have issues with is when they are not the slightest bit amusing, alluring, smart or generally entertaining. This is a film that is crying out for charm and instead we get Crowe playing a character so incompetent and insufferable that we don't care about his plight which happens to be the whole basis of the film. It's the done-to-death guy find himself in a new environment film but with much less appeal than usual. I can only hope that both director and actor learnt their lesson.

Hannibal takes the rules set up by its predecessor and throws them out the window. It trades in the focus and grittiness for something far more depraved and disturbing. The stylistic change sees the film evolve from a harsh cop thriller to a wildly imaginative horror spectacle. It clearly acknowledges what worked so well with the massively successful 'The Silence of the Lambs', yet it twists and turns into something else completely. It becomes something interesting, a sequel to a mega-hit that openly decides to be something entirely different.

The film starts roughly ten years after Clarice's first encounter with Lecter. She is disgraced after a drugs bust goes horribly wrong. A lifeline is offered to her in the form of finding Lecter, who is now in Florence masquerading as an art curator and being tracked by Italian detective Pazzi (well-played by the melancholic looking Giancarlo Giannini). The Clarice here is vastly different and not just in terms of actress. She's much wearier and more cynical, no longer an ambitious inquisitive detective. Julianne Moore suffers from, if anything, playing it too safe. She doesn't copy Foster, yet she doesn't add her own touches. She just plays it blandly straight and serious. Of course this isn't Starling's film, but all the same she shouldn't become a dreary addition.

We soon learn that Lecter is being hunted down by the wealthy but disfigured and paralysed child molester Mason Verger, determined to get revenge after falling victim to Lecter and cutting his own face off. Verger himself is played with a calculated cunning and subtle creepiness by an unrecognisable Gary Oldman. Characters like him are naturally interesting. He has so little control over own body yet he able to amass a group of men whose purpose is to find Lecter and bring him to his mansion, so that he can be fed to a group of flesh- eating boars. It's an extravagant plan, but Verger works as a diabolical villain and his crazy plan fits the films tone in the grand scheme of things. It just about works because it's that type of film.

It's no shock that Lecter is the star and Anthony Hopkins delivers a fine performance in the role that won him an Oscar previously. He keeps it hammy, but he does well to get across that this is an older and more devious Lecter. He slips out of tough situations, tricks people, even managing to ensnare Clarice's conscience, there are layers added to the character which is what any sequel should do. There are some issues with him being free to roam. He loses some of the psychological edge and eerie charm that made him so fascinating. By making him the focal point we almost gain and lose a character. Lecter remains engaging despite this. The character almost develops into a protagonist given the odds against him, but it simply can't happen due to his nature. But it's a testament to his intrigue that we want to see him survive and make it out somehow, if nothing else but to see what his next actions are.

Hannibal's unpleasantness knows no bounds and that is part of its strength surprisingly. The film isn't afraid to be very disturbing and really show us the mind-set of these deeply troubled individuals and I really do admire it for that. It's not as psychologically scary as its predecessor but it goes for more upfront scares than ones that lurk in the darkness. The most important thing is most of the gory imagery doesn't feel as if it was done solely for shock value. It is usually set up well and the set-pieces themselves make the gruesomeness feel justified.

The film remains engaging throughout, impressive given much of the subject manner, though it undoubtedly loses its way in the last 30 minutes. The first half works brilliantly due to its ever-building sense of dread and because the plot threads are delivered so captivatingly. Then as the film keeps building it appears unsure of how to tie everything up. By the time we get to a man eating his own brain you feel as if the film is really pushing it, just seeing how grisly it can get. The eventual ending feels a little misplaced and it doesn't really offer the closure for the characters that it should. In fairness Ridley Scott, who is a strange yet interesting directorial choice, has done a fantastic job to carry over most of such a bizarre novel and make it coherent. Some of the most out-there aspects are retained so it is difficult not to appreciate his bravery.

This is not an easy film to like, mainly because it's not designed to be, and it will undoubtedly be viewed as too distasteful by many. I for one find myself respecting the film a lot. So much so that I am willing to let minor issues slip by and even though the film is flawed on the whole. How a film about a cannibal, a disfigured child molester, a stern FBI agent and all the grotesque imagery that comes with that is constantly engaging is a pretty amazing feat. The film works for me because it's a sequel that isn't afraid to change itself into something else, even if the characters don't always connect and it does lose its way at times. It's made with creativity, dynamism and understanding, all of which shines throughout the film.

You have to question what Black Hawk Down is trying to do in order to understand it. If it's trying to be a simple, straight to the point war film then I suppose it succeeds on a number of levels. If it's trying to tell a detailed and interesting account of real life events then it fails massively. This is a film where everything is on a surface level. Even attempt to dig a little deeper and you will be left bitterly disappointed. For all its technical excellence and hammering intensity, the film lacks intrigue or balance or emotion, just anything that makes you invested in what's taking place.

The film is based around the real life Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993, when a raid by the U.S military went disastrously wrong and troops were trapped on the ground under heavy fire. I say based because a lot of stuff is fictionalised (as you would expect) despite what the film tells us. The first 30 minutes of the film are absolutely pointless in reflection. Instead of at least trying to develop the vast array of characters or explore their internal thoughts, the film just wastes time on a whole host of war movie clichés. The soldiers lounge around, they insult each other, some of them are scared but others are calmly confident. This might make them seem authentic, but it isn't going to make the audience remotely interested in them once the shooting begins.

Once the troops land the film basically becomes one gigantic action sequence. Men are split up, helicopters get shot down, the injured have to be rescued and the superiors behind the scenes bark out orders. It's all done with great efficiency. However, the film is so pounding and forceful that it never gives itself a chance to breathe. As a result there is little chance to build up any drama or provide vulnerability.

You have a number of capable actors present who are just playing blank slates when they could easily have delivered so much more. Eric Bana, Tom Sizemore, Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs, Sam Shepard, these guys are perfect for the film yet they're so underused. Josh Hartnett is effectively the main character but he delivers a performance of dour machismo because the script won't let him do anything else. The Somalians themselves are faceless antagonists, which I don't usually have a major problem with as most war films have portrayed the opposite side negatively, but I think the lack of any type of development is disappointing. They just seem to want to irritate the American forces, there's little to them beyond that.

Ridley Scott shoots the film with great vibrancy and a visceral edge. His vivid visual style is easily one of the films highlights. He manages to make the battle scenes feel up and close, giving them an almost documentary-like quality that works very well. There's also no denying that the action is incredibly gritty and intense. There's no attempts to sugar-coat or exaggerate and I respect the film for that. Plenty of blood is spilt, limbs are blown off, soldiers are trapped in wreckages, it's very brutal stuff and certainly not for the faint-hearted. The attempts to recreate these hectic fire fights are some of the film's most effective moments.

Yet no matter what the eventual outcome of the film is, it boldly makes the point that these men are heroes. It doesn't matter if they're victorious or defeated, the fact that they were willing to die for their fellow man is enough. Now I like the thought behind this idea, but it ends up falling flat. Because the film doesn't explain why the soldiers are there, we never know what they risked their lives for. I don't like how the message ends up being handled or how preachy it gets. It's almost as if the film is saying that it doesn't really matter whether you're fighting for something that might be morally wrong because you stood by your fellow soldier and got behind your country. War films should always at least attempt to examine the psychology and reasoning behind war, but this is something that Black Hawk Down completely bypasses.

Going back to my earlier point, the main problem with Black Hawk Down is that it is all surface. We end up knowing very little about why the United States is there in the first place, what they're trying to achieve or what is going through the minds of the soldiers. I understand that the film is trying to make these soldiers more true to life, but for the film to really work then they needed to be fleshed out because once the action starts you don't really care who lives or who dies. It doesn't even bother to deal with any complicated issues that may arise, whether they are political or moral. For all its grittiness and technical skill, if it's not going to develop anything then why should we should we try to be invested in it?

Gladiator should be the type of film that I enjoy. Ridley Scott taking on something much grander than anything he had previously. A cast of fine actors led by Russell Crowe. A return to the sword-and- sandal epics of years gone by. It's a film of fine visual finesse, engaging action sequences and large themes. So why is it that Gladiator left me feeling so cold? Well it falls flat in its two most important areas, story and characters.

It follows the gruff general Maximus who is named protector of Rome by Marcus Aurelius, that is until Aurelius is murdered by his own son Commodus who has Maximus exiled and his family killed. From here you can see exactly where the film is going. Maximus finds himself as a slave and is sold to a gladiator trainer named Proximo (played by the always great Oliver Reed) who wants to take him to Rome and help him fight his way to the top. This story is about as basic and clichéd as humanly possible. The hero is betrayed and fights his way back in order to get his revenge. That is effectively the main premise of the film. For such simplicity to work the film has to either add twists to the story or be incredible detailed, yet it does neither.

The story also contains a weirdly handled sub-plot about Commodus trying to crush the senate who are constantly attempting to make him tackle real issues instead of hosting games. This could have been a decent side story but it's never fleshed out enough to leave an impact. Involved in basically every story thread is Commodus' sister Lucilla, who he also happens to want a child with (yes, he's that kind of kooky), and she becomes a plot device to link all of these pieces together. Joaquin Phoenix hams it up big time as Commodus and to be fair he is clearly meant to be a pantomime villain and Phoenix is probably the only person having fun in the entire film. Connie Nielsen deserves credit too for holding her own despite her incredibly underwritten character.

Of course when Maximus and his gladiators get to Rome, they smash through all that stand in their way leading to the crowd turning over to Maximus' side and an inevitable confrontation with Commodus. How Russell Crowe won an Oscar for his performance is a mystery. Crowe himself is fine, but the role is as basic tough guy as it comes and anyone with a bit of muscle could have played the role as it is. Maximus is simply a poor leading character. He's just dour and dull as a rock for the entirety of the film, even before his family are killed off. What's is also notable is that the character doesn't grow. He's a bland, unsympathetic slab from the get-go who just becomes slight more revenge-fuelled as things progress. How can we empathise with this type of main character?

Clearing those obstacles, I have little problems with the film on a technical level. It's Ridley Scott so you know the film with be very detailed and beautiful on a visual level and that is exactly what we get. Rome looks magnificent. Vast, majestic and full of people, whilst even the CGI is impressive and manages to blend in seamlessly. The film has an almost dirty brown, hazy look to it that actually works to its advantage. It fits the sullen mood that many of the gladiator's find themselves in. Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard provide a score that feels like it's been ripped off by every action movie since it, especially the pieces where Gerrard appears to be singing in a made up language.

The action scenes are a highlight. There is a grittiness to them that works for this time period. They not that well-choreographed and I thing that ways purposefully done, in order the show how many of the gladiators were fighting by using sheer aggression and desperation. Every stabbing or wounding looks and sounds painful and not in an overblown or unnatural way. The Coliseum looks fabulous and the films gets across the intimidating atmosphere of having to fight in there. I do have problems with how easily Maximus rises to the top, seeing as he's able to lead the gladiators through tough battles and defeat the only undefeated gladiators with relative ease. Then the climax eventually boils down to Maximus v Commodus and its entirely predictable and just a boring way to end.

What is notable is that Gladiator didn't affect me on an emotional level at all. Even comparable epics like 'Braveheart', which shares similar issues, moved me. Gladiator left me numb. I didn't care about Maximus' plight because I was just given a shell of a character to try and get behind. I wasn't engaged in the story because it was simply a downbeat repeat of a storyline that has been done to death. I didn't even care on a basic level to see the villain get his comeuppance. All the talks of political treachery, what it means to be a gladiator and of meeting again in the afterlife just seemed like pieces to fill the film out. I can't deny that the film is a technical marvel or say that it bored me, but I can state that is built upon a story and set of characters that are wholly uninteresting.

Thelma & Louise is a take on the road-trip movie genre with one interesting difference, both of the protagonists are women. When you consider all of the films in this style, from 'Bonnie and Clyde' to 'Rain Man', this is the first time that we have followed the journey of two ordinary, working-class women. It puts a nice twist on a type of film that is usually full of twists itself. Adding to that is Ridley Scott, known for making technical marvels, trying his hand at something much more human and sensitive.

The story follows our title characters as they break the shackles of their ordinary, dull lives and hit the road for a weekend of fun. Thelma is upbeat but naïve and controlled by her overbearing husband Daryl, whereas Louise is much tougher and resourceful despite her relationship with a musician going nowhere fast. Both girls have large contrasts but they seem to fit together despite that. They're characters are well-formed and emotive, endearing because they feel like real people who are simply trying to break away from their repressive lives. Importantly their characters transform as they experience more and more. They have to rely on each other and they begin to take each other's characteristics as a result.

Of course things are never that straight-forward and the women are soon on the run when they kill a would-be rapist. Pursued by the police, they decide to keep on moving forward whether that includes breaking the law or disrupting their romantic relationships. Callie Khouri's script already has two interesting leads, but the acting can't be underestimated. Both Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon inhabit these roles with all the passion and wit that you would be hoping for. They work together flawlessly which helps make their friendship seem all the more plausible. Sarandon especially stands tall given how she manages to capture the weariness and yearning of Louise whilst giving her relationship to the more innocent Thelma an almost motherly edge.

Along the way the girls meet a handsome drifter played by Brad Pitt (in an enjoyable early performance) who soothes Thelma's sexual desires, but then robs them of all their money. Harvey Keitel is as solid as ever playing the detective how has sympathy for their plight. He doesn't want their situation to become increasingly worse. The issues with the film come with the male characters. Though Keitel's cop does come across as genuinely concerned his colleagues don't share his sentiment. Pitt's drifter basically lies and tricks them. Thelma's husband is overly bitter and aggressive towards her for little reason. Even Michael Madsen as Louise's boyfriend seems prone to lashing out rather than calmly resolving the issues. These male characters all seem to be edgy and hostile in some way. It's not to say they're badly played or totally unrealistic, but they all appear to against the women when there is little reason or logic for them to be.

Scott is a visual master and he brings his A-Game here. For a filmmaker so used to neon colours and atmospheric murkiness, it's satisfying to see him visualise the dusty trails and open roads of Southern America. The opening credits scene is simply overlooking a long road leading to a canyon. Yet it's sheer scope and its vibrant blue sky makes it the perfect introduction. There's plenty of dusky Blues music to fit the scenery and it usually sits nicely alongside Hans Zimmer's score.

Sadly I really have issues with the films ending. The idea itself is fine and it is a conclusion that we don't often see and I like how everything isn't wrapped in a neat little bow. Yet the film has hit its end point and screen just fades to white after just a few seconds. It is far too abrupt. After having spent so long with these characters, growing to care about them and seeing their journey change their lives in so many ways, it almost feels like we've been duped by such a hasty final shot. It doesn't completely derail the precision of the film, but it does help stop it from reaching the true heights it was so close to.

Putting its ending and its portrayal of its male characters aside, I think Thelma & Louise is a very enjoyable film that tackles subjects that aren't usually handled well and takes itself seriously. The title characters become memorable, in part due to a well written script and some wonderful acting from both actresses. It is mostly a film about friendship and freedom, something these two very different characters have in common. They escape the numbing grind of their everyday lives for something that lets them feel free, even if they break the law doing so. It's difficult not to at least appreciate a film that tells a story like this and even though it doesn't quite soar, there's still a great deal to admire about it.

On a purely visual level, Black Rain draws immediate comparison to Ridley Scott's earlier Sci-Fi classic 'Blade Runner'. The almost claustrophobic industrial streets of Osaka surrounded by neon advertisement boards and the dark hue of the city lights are reminiscent of that. These damp, dark, unknown conditions that our protagonists find themselves in is the source of most of the films strength. They're strangers in a strange land, stripped of many of their policing abilities and stuck where their hard-edged procedures are no longer acceptable despite having to face criminals who are as ruthless as they come.

The film follows two cops Nick and Charlie who have to escort a member of the Japanese Mafia back to Japan and then work with the local authorities to track him down after he manages to escape. The cops are played by a stubborn Michael Douglas and a smooth Andy Garcia. Most important is that both actors are very charismatic and therefore have little trouble carrying the film with them. They manage to convey a variety of emotions whilst always convincing as tough cops. As the film progresses they realise that the Japanese police don't trust them and they fall in with honest cop Mas, whose law-abiding ways are at odds with Nick's beliefs.

This is where Scott's intelligence with the film comes to the fore as he turns it on its head. It appears to be a straight-forward, almost buddy-cop like film done seriously (I still think the Rush Hour series gained a lot from this film). It certainly contains a number of 80's action film clichés and is over-stylised to a degree. Yet it goes much deeper than that. It turns more into a study of the characters morality. Nick's questionable ethics, Charlie's laid-back approach and Mas' by the book method which is seen as the true way in Japan. The way these three characters bounce off of each other is where the films best moments are. Whether they argue or laugh or mourn, they're relationships feel genuine and so does the way in which they have to change in order to succeed.

I don't think the film succeeds to this degree in its other areas. The plot itself is far too clear-cut and by the numbers. So much so that if it wasn't for the strong central characters then I think the film could be easily forgotten. The Japanese culture is interesting and the way in which their criminal underworld works is interesting, yet we only get glimpses of these sides. At one point we see the Mafia meeting in a steel foundry, which is a unique setting for such a thing to happen, and it leads to them having dull conversations that musters up to very little. Same goes for Sato, the main antagonist. If it was intended to make him shadowy and intimidating then well done, but if he was meant to be interesting and layered then they failed.

Kate Capshaw puts in a good performance, showing she can act after her irritating role in 'Indiana Jones', as the nightclub worker who feeds Nick secrets about the Mafia. The problem is, even with suspended logic considering the type of film it is, I have trouble believing that she would know so much about them. How could a simple hostess from Chicago find out so much, especially when she tells Nick that the Americans are seen as ineffective? Her role simply seems too convenient considering how hard the film is trying to play this story straight.

Scott is in his element when it comes to how the film looks. He is a great visual story-teller and he lets the dark glow of Osaka guide us through the film. He manages to make the skyscrapers, industrial centres and stacked apartment blocks look simultaneously futuristic and decayed. Some of the neon and lighting can become overbearing, but I feel that was intentional in order to add to the oppressiveness of the location. The action sequences aren't anything out of the ordinary, but they can be effective. The climax takes place at what appears to be rice fields, which I can't say I've seen in a film before and it certainly adds something different.

Despite having some big issues with its plot and the logic behind it, I think Black Rain is an enjoyable enough film if you are willing to accept it as the strongly stylised piece that it is. When it focuses on the bond between the three protagonists then it is very entertaining, down to how straight the actors play it. Yet I never felt that involved with the film because the plot simply doesn't allow you the opportunity to be sucked in. The characters, visuals and the new environment are all exciting features, but the plot line and dialogue are flat because nothing remarkable is done with them. It was clear that at this point in time Scott was stuck doing films that he liked the concept of but was always unsure about how to make it all come together.

There is no doubt that Someone to Watch Over Me is a smoothly paced and extremely well made film. It is directed by Ridley Scott after all. There is also no doubt that the cast is fully capable and gets into their roles with a much needed grit and determination. Sadly, there is also no doubt as to just how unmemorable the film is. Here you have Scott genre hopping once again, with a story that has potential if told right and a talented cast that lend an air of believability to the cop genre when it is usually so overblown. Therefore it is so striking to me that so little of the film stays with you. It's almost as if those involved where intrigued by the premise but simply grew weary and bored the longer they were involved.

Said premise is effectively that family man cop Mike is assigned to protect wealthy socialite Claire after she witness a murder and the mobster who did it vows to come after her. The problem here is that you know exactly where this story is going and if you think there's going to be any twists or changes to the formula then you are sadly mistaken. Mike's wife seems trusting at first and Claire seems to appreciate how much he cares for his family. Yet after some encounters bring them closer they become more attracted to each other and Mike's wife begins to become suspicious. It's a shame that so little comes of this. Mike's wife and Claire have almost no contact so we don't get any feisty scenes or morality questioning ones.

Then you have the romance and it just doesn't work. Most of that comes from the fact that the actors have zero chemistry together. Though it's not that their performances are bad. Tom Berenger is one of the few serious actors of the time who could convincingly play a tough cop and Mimi Rogers does her best at giving Claire a gentle, attractive personality. The romance itself is just on autopilot throughout. They have a few close calls, he gets more protective and their suddenly head over heels. To the film's credit it is done with subtlety and isn't completely rushed, but for it to work you really must believe that these two characters are genuinely in love with each other and I never got a sense of that.

Lorraine Bracco performance as Mike's wife Ellie is one of the films best features. She brings a much needed liveliness and aggression to the film, as well as providing the dialogue with the punch it calls for. The character is believable as a wife who has stuck by her husband through thick and thin, whilst her more grounded beauty is a nice contrast to high glamour of Claire. I also think the scenes Berenger and Bracco share are always engaging and well-acted.

There is a distinct lack of danger and intensity throughout the film that is really noticeable. There is a sort of shoot-out at Claire's apartment that lacks any sense of threat and the would-be assassin looks very similar to Berenger, almost to the point where you can't tell who is who. The villain of the piece is so one-note, uninteresting and underdeveloped that he's barely worth a mention. While the climax certainly gets across that the stakes are high, it's a boring situation and one that is entirely predictable.

Scott's visual flair is evident throughout the film. Its warm atmosphere and subdued lighting scheme fit the image of New York it creates. The opening credits sequence, featuring Sting's title track, floats over New York at night and it is a beautiful way to open the film. In a way the film restricts Scott somewhat and it's a shame that the films grittiness limits his eye here, even if he does make the best of what he has. Michael Kamen's score is appropriately subdued and ambient, suitably lurking in the background instead of jumping out at you. Questions have to be asked over the sets however, with Claire's apartment appearing to be never ending.

In reflecting on the film, Someone to Watch Over Me becomes something curious. A film that is clearly well made and directed, but one that is mostly unengaging and leaves very little impact when it's finished. It sticks rigidly to a well-worn formula when it should attempt something fresh. It tries to convey a convincing romance without any chemistry. It comes to the conclusion you knew it would from the moment the story was set in motion. There is no questions over Ridley Scott's ability, I just wish that he'd have attempted to go against the grain with a story like this. In a way it is a testament to Scott's expertise that he was able to make the film as watchable as it is.

Matchstick Men represents a pleasant change of pace for Ridley Scott. For a director known for doing films that are both large thematically and in scope, it's nice to see him tackle a film that has a simple premise which allows him to build the themes that he wants to discuss. Matchstick Men is a difficult film to categorise, as is the case for most con films. It has touches of dark comedy and pieces of crime thriller, plenty of drama without losing its quirkiness. It often plays out like a character study of a man who struggles to balance his dirty deeds with his mental issues. All of this delivered in a very free-flowing and vibrant way, much like the majority of Scott's work.

At its core the film is about con man Roy Waller who suffers from serve OCD which become even worse once he loses his pills, shown in a scene that is both funny and sad where he spends a day cleaning his entire house. He then goes to see doctor who takes an interest in his life and wants to help him defeat his illness. Cage is the star centrepiece of the film. He also provides one of his best performances. In a way it is prefect casting, Cage has always been at his best playing edgy and jittery characters and here he gets a legitimate reason to act that way. His performance provides a surprising amount of sympathy as well as humour, he gets so into the character that his frequent ticks seem natural.

The story develops further when it turns out Roy has a 14 year-old daughter called Angela who he decides to meet, which leads to him struggling to balance out both sides of his life. Enter Alison Lohman who is fantastic. It's hard to believe that she is playing a character ten years younger than she was at the time given how natural her performance is. She manages to capture the essence of what a character that age would be like, without detracting from the emotional weight and likability that she brings. I also think that Sam Rockwell (who I swear has never put in a subpar performance) deserves some praise for his role as Roy's confident business partner.

It is tough to reveal much more about the plot without giving away pieces of information that might spoil its ending. Scott's direction is certainly a highlight, as usual with his films. It is possibly his most fluid film and he manages to convey Roy's breakdowns with his subtle use of the camera, whilst the frequent use of blue shade invokes the calmness of water which becomes something of a motif. From a visual standpoint the film reminded a lot of 'Catch Me If You Can' given its vibrancy and colour scheme. Adding to this is both the editing and the transitions which are seamlessly done. Hans Zimmer's score is also worth a mention, trading in his usually bombastic compositions for more jazzy and bass heavy pieces that fit the film perfectly.

The only part of the film that left me cold was its climax and its eventual twist (which I won't reveal). For me the twist did disrupt a lot of the film's emotional and grounded aspects that had been developed excellently throughout. It brings a jolt that almost pushes you out of the film and instead of feeling that the twist transformed the film into something completely different, it simply felt like an unnecessary addition. I think the film would have been even stronger had it avoided said twist all together.

Matchstick Men ends up feeling exactly like what Ridley Scott wants it to be. It's a film that blends multiple genres together and basically plays them off against the typical con man film style. It does go deeper than the story initially suggests, almost working as a psychological study of Roy and the building of his relationship with the daughter he never knew existed. On a surface level however, the film is constantly entertaining. Whether it is for the excellent acting, the charming central narrative, the tension building con or Scott's wonderful direction it doesn't really matter because all of these aspects blend with and play off of each other so well. I don't think the twist works, but it's a testament to the films strength that it isn't overly damaged by that. For me it's a film that is meant to be enjoyed on the surface, before you start to analyse what is underneath.

A film adaption of Edgar Rice Burroughs cult Barsoom series had been in the works for decades and it was Disney who finally got the chance to deliver it on the big screen. The films years of development hell and mammoth budget would be looming obstacles it needed to overcome in order to be a success. Based on the first book in the series, it follows the intergalactic adventures of haunted Civil War captain John Carter as he is transported to Mars (known as Barsoom) and plays a part in quashing civil unrest upon the planet. From that alone you can tell that this film is one where a strong suspension of disbelief is needed and in fairness the film makes full use of the imaginative possibilities as a result.

From the outset it's clear that John Carter's biggest strength is its pulpy sensibility. It is certainly more Flash Gordon than Star Wars. It aims to be more quirky and amusing, and while it does have many cheesy moments but it is clearly having fun doing so. It understands that this story is larger than life and it frequently succeeds in making it pure entertainment. The issues come to the fore when it tries to balance out too much. It just feels weird when we keep jumping back and forth between images of Carter chopping up aliens in battle and him burying his dead family. I understand that the film wants to try to give the film an importance and intensity to certain parts, but it really struggles to balance those out with the more light-hearted pieces. Director Andrew Stanton, known for his Pixar work, knows how to make films engaging so it's sad he couldn't get that balance right.

The action is undeniably spectacular and the many battles sequences certainly have the massive scope the film needs. The battles between the aircrafts and the frequent scuffles of the multi-limbed Tharks are shot excellently and carry a real sense of excitement. In fact the swordplay itself is very fluid and fun to watch throughout. The eventual climax does have a lot at stake and is appropriately grand, but it loses some of its edge due to its short length and because of how the films end unravels itself. The CGI is a mixed bag. The effects to create the Tharks and enormous cities are superb, yet there are a few occasions during the action sequences where things get a little ropey and the CGI is definitely noticeable. Michael Giacchino's score is a positive. He creates melodies that are both memorable and capture the sense of wonder that the film is aiming for.

The cast is full of solid character actors. The likes of Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Ciaran Hinds and Mark Strong all offer a weight to their characters even if they aren't that fleshed out. I was worried Taylor Kitsch wouldn't be able to hold the film up yet he does a fine job as Carter. He has the chiselled looks and body to go along with the intense demeanour. He is a little too serious at times, but I actually think he has great comic timing and that is utilised smartly throughout. Lynn Collins also does a good job as the princess, and eventual love interest, Dejah. Her subtle performance and delivery certainly gives a strong presence to her fiery character. The only performance that doesn't quite work is Dominic West as Sab Than, mainly because the character isn't fleshed out whatsoever rather than anything subpar from West.

There is undeniable convolution in the plot and character motivations that harms the film. We never discover how the gateway to Mars came to be or how the atmosphere on the planet works or how Carter suddenly becomes the sole hope in defeating Than. We also never really know anything about the Therns (who are effectively Gods in this world) or what they are really trying to get out of their acts apart from creating some chaos. You could say the film deserves some leeway with these things, but I think it's reasonable to think that they should be explained. I think a slightly longer running time could have helped the film flesh out many of its underdeveloped or confused areas. The film's title also bugs me. I understand the change to give it more appeal, but I think it does the opposite. If you don't know the character then it sounds more like a biopic or a political movie. John Carter of Mars has a much more suitable feel and sound to it.

When it's all said and done, I actually think John Carter just about manages to be a good film. When it doesn't take itself too serious and lets the pure excitement wash over then it is a great deal of fun. Technically the film is very impressive and the cast all do fine job. When it tries to make more sense of its overblown storyline and give a serious take on the plot, it is here that it fails. The plot and characterisations frequently get too convoluted and that does drag the film down somewhat. Sadly the film tanked at the Box Office, which is a great shame because I think the film had big potential for a franchise (certainly more so than films that end up getting one) and that more stories could be told involving these characters.

Oliver Stone has always been a director willing to tackle social and political subjects within his films. Whether it's the evils of war, corporate evil, political conspiracy or the influence of mass media, he takes on all of these subjects with intelligence. His first film after the success of 'Platoon' was to look into the shadiness and corruption within stockbroking. It is the story of rookie stockbroker Bud Fox who comes under the wing of Gordon Gekko, an affluent corporate raider whose determination is unparalleled. From this premise the film builds as Bud becomes more involved in Gekko's suspicious business plans whilst getting to experience both the highs and the lows of such dealings.

What is most impressive (and positive from an entertainment aspect) is how you don't have to know much about trading or the stock market to enjoy the film. I myself know very little on the matter, yet the film manages to make some rather complicated issues understandable and the dialogue is very snappy throughout which makes it easy to swallow. The dialogue manages to do something very notable, which is make almost everything said sound equally naturalistic and quotable. What the characters say carries enough authenticity to make it sound like something they would actually say, whilst retaining a flair that allows it to be memorable. Gekko's famous ''Greed is good'' speech is a perfect example of this. Bud's conversations with his father and witty interactions with his workmate Marvin provide a nice contrast to the corporate elements.

Michael Douglas won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Gekko and it's easy to see why. The character has become synonymous with the business world and the corruption of the stock market. Douglas himself strikes the perfect balance between hammy and intense. The character is very slimy and cunning but he's also magnetic and interesting, and Douglas captures all of these sides without diluting the part. Charlie Sheen also deserves some praise for his solid performance as Bud. It's not an easy role to play given he isn't as brash as Gekko and has play around the characters naivety, yet Sheen leads the film fine and his rigid acting style fitting the role surprisingly well. I think Sheen could have had an interesting career had he stuck with more serious roles.

The film is quintessentially 80's and I mean that in the nicest possible way. The fashion, the technology, the cars, the décor, it's all stylised to large degree. The surprising thing is that the film doesn't suffer from feeling dated. I think that this story is so strongly linked to the time period that it manages to suit the stylisation perfectly. Adding to this is Stone's exceptional direction and some very slick editing. Stone's films always have a fluidity and energy to them, which can make even the slowest moments engaging. He also has a good gage how long a scene should go on for and when it is time to move on, none of the scenes here outstay their welcome. The editing also stands out, as with many of Stone's later films everything moves along at a swift pace without coming at the price of any story or character development.

I think all the characters are well developed and have clear motivations. The supporting roles are especially important. The always interesting James Spader, Stone's regular John C. McGinley and the great Terence Stamp are all excellent actors and add credibility to their small roles. Martin Sheen as Bud's honest working-class father playing off against his real life son creates an interesting contrast and actually gives the relationship added realism. The only blemish is the wooden Daryl Hannah whose vacant performance is lost here as Bud's girlfriend. Elsewhere, Stewart Copeland provides a very complimentary score. Filled with a lot of ambiance and clattering yet subtle rhythms, it gives the film an edge and works well with many of the visuals.

Wall Street is a very memorable film and one that always come to mind when you thing of either the stock market or excess within film. It has retained its power after all these years. I think this is in large part down to the success of its director and cast. Stone proved that once and for all that he was a director of great understanding with this film, whilst the performance of Michael Douglas has pretty much become synonymous with 80's greed and corruption. It isn't a completely flawless film, but it is one that understands its own story and importantly the message it's trying to get across. Throughout the film we ask, will Bud turn out like his greedy mentor or his honest father? It is this dilemma that keeps us gripped and guessing.

Clint Eastwood is a great example of an actor who made a smooth transition into directing. His films are always fluid and visually gripping, direct and deceptively simple, told with a straight face whilst retaining emotional weight. Though some of his directorial work doesn't quite achieve what it set out to, it is it is nearly always gripping on some level and interesting to watch. Whenever he delivers on a script that that allows him to use all of his expertise then he usually provides something engrossing. Never is this clearer than with Changeling, based on the true story of the disappearance of Christine Collins' son and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Here you have a period piece that is tailor made to Eastwood's understanding of human struggle and involving story- telling.

The relatively straight-forward story is set in 1928 and mainly details Collins' struggle against the LAPD after her son Walter disappears. The boy they return to her 5 months later isn't hers. Her protests fall on deaf ears as the police insist that she's just in shock and that she should give the boy a trial run. The film continues to build tension and unease brilliantly until Collins is sectioned, which leaves a crusading Reverend and a detective on a case as her only hope. Eastwood had shown previously that he could handle both mystery (Mystic River) and drama (Million Dollar Baby), so a story featuring plenty of both his right up his street and it certainly shows. He handles this story with delicacy and emotion, developing characters and their feelings without letting the story itself become unfocused. The deeper we get into Christine's plight, the more we want to know the truth.

The further the film progresses, the more impressive Angelina Jolie's performance is. I was sceptical that should could carry such a film on her shoulders, but she brings everything needed to the role. What she does that is most striking is give us a woman who appears vulnerable on the surface yet contains an inner strength that cannot be broken. I believed every act of defiance and cry of anguish, as much as I believed every tear and melancholic expression. Above all she manages to make Christine authentic. Her reactions are just as you'd expect a real mother to act in such a situation. This isn't an easy performance to play off and carry with conviction given its complexities, I think Jolie did an extremely noteworthy job and received a deserved Oscar nomination.

The film develops the themes of female disempowerment and corruption of the law with an appropriate subtlety. We see Christine's worries dismissed by men in charge, whether they are doctors or police chiefs, and just how easy it is for them to make her life even more of a struggle. The two high ranking police only appear to care about the public's image of the LAPD and Christine only finds support from a radio reverend. All of these roles are played with dependability, Jeffrey Donovan and Colm Feore as the seedy cops, John Malkovich going against type as the generous Reverend Briegleb. The film does well to reflect the nature of its period. There is an authenticity and stark beauty to the visuals, almost as if they were painted. You get a feel of the time and you never question it because it washes over you. The score provided by Eastwood fits the mood too, somewhat stark and lead by a sombre piano, it suits what is happening on screen perfectly.

As the film builds we discover all kinds of secrets and corruptions. The film leaves you thrilled and shocked, upset but hopeful, it manages to bring in so many emotions without making them feel forced like so many films of its style do. Eastwood is clearly in his element with films that tell deep stories about people, he gives them heart without losing sight of the story that he is trying to bring to life. In Jolie he has an actress who handles the material with grace and courage, who becomes the person we care about and want to succeed. There is a mystery that unravels excellently and Christine's case becomes all the more engaging as it does. Most importantly the film very rarely sags or loses focus, I was completely engaged from beginning to end. It gave me plenty to be entertained by, be involved with and finally reflect upon.