dannydenshaw

The premise of this kids' film is promising, if not particularly original. Meester Kees, a young student supply (US: substitute) teacher is assigned to a strict middle school whose principal believes that all work and no play makes Jack a wise boy. Kees has other ideas; he thinks that learning should be fun. His unconventional methods inevitably lead him into conflict and ultimately trouble with his boss.

The story is told from the perspective of the students and ably highlights the incomprehensibility of adults in a way that younger viewers are bound to love.

The problem with the film is that Mees Kees himself is not an inspired teacher. He is socially and professionally inept to the point of incompetence. He bumbles his way through class, teaching them nothing. In reality, his spirited pupils would have eaten him alive, rather than falling for him.

This is a charming film with great performances from the young cast, including Kees himself, but the fundamental flaw in the plot spoiled it for me. No doubt that's just because I'm getting on a bit...

Times are hard in the German-occupied Netherlands, not least for young Tuur. He's worried that his parents seem to be working for the resistance movement and he can't get his head around the ambivalence of his peers to the occupying force. At the same time, he has to stick up for his best friend Lambert, whose family are Nazi sympathisers.

To crown it all, when he falls in love with the new girl in town, Maartje, she reveals a dangerous secret to him...

This isn't the most sophisticated of World War II movies, though it has an entertaining and engaging plot. What makes the film notable is the portrayal of the two principal boys by Maas Bronkhuyzen and Joes Brauers. The interplay between the cheeky and wonderfully expressive Tuur and the stoical but tender-hearted Lambert creates magic that saves this film from mediocrity.

The central themes of loyalty and courage will appeal particularly to younger viewers making this a good bet for family viewing.

Nimmermeer (AKA Nevermore) tells the story of Jonas, a young boy who lives a happy, albeit impoverished life with his fisherman father until one day his dad fails to return from the sea. He is adopted by a well-intentioned but heartless clergyman and loses all sense of joy in his life. Can he learn to smile again? Only a carny freak holds the key...

Beautifully filmed with a fairytale aura, this is German cinema at its best. Aimed at older children (it's too psychologically scary for younger ones) this movie will touch the hearts of all ages.

The German dialogue is straightforward for anyone with a working knowledge of the language, otherwise English subtitles are available from opensubtitles.org

Tony Hailstone's début is a testament to what can be achieved in a low-budget indie short film. It's a grim, grainy black and white rendering of a sad and horrific story of child abuse and tragedy. With no significant dialogue it tells the tale through excellent acting and masterful minimalism.

Non-British natives will struggle with the Birmingham accents but that doesn't matter.

The final twist beats The Sixth Sense at its own game.

Not available commercially, this film has been distributed under a GPL Public Licence and is available on You Tube.

I saw this when it premièred in Cannes and, frankly, I was surprised it was selected for screening.

Not particularly well-shot, it was, in my opinion, an unsuccessful attempt at surreal artiness that missed its mark. Others seemed to like it, but it wasn't for me.

Of course, opinions on this sort of film are subjective so, if you can track down a copy then judge for yourself.

Animal lovers should steer clear of this one, though.

Not to be confused with Andrew Griffin's acclaimed short of the same title (previous year).

This one is available on the director's Vimeo channel and it popped up as suggested viewing for me.

I clicked on it with no particular expectations, seeing that it was yet another short film about domestic violence. Do we really need any more of those? In this case: a most emphatic YES! It tells the story of a young boy in therapy who relates the tale of his drunken and neglectful parents. What happens next has to be seen to be believed and I'm not going to spoil it here.

Be warned, though, that the gore, though surreal, is a shocker.

French dialogue with English subtitles.

The Children's Film (and Television) Foundation were famed for their second-rate B-movies made for screening at kids' matinées in the UK from the 1950s-80s. They were low budget efforts, despite featuring many A-list actors who participated for standard Equity rates (presumably just for the fun of it).

Out of the Darkness was one of their last productions and truly broke the mold. Based on John Hoyland's novel "The Ivy Garland" (a favourite of mine as a kid) it features good cinematography and strong performances all round. It's also pretty scary in places and steeped in real-life history. I saw it as a tween on TV in the late 90s/early 2000s and never forgot it; now I am delighted to find that it's been made available as part of the CFFs re-releases on DVD.

Educational and entertaining. Recommended for viewers of all ages (though a bit too scary for younger children).

Even if the viewer gasps from the outset of this short film that the boys' father is making crystal meth (which is not made explicit), the storyline is still disjointed and unconvincing. I guess the climax was intended as a cliffhanger; unfortunately it dives nose-first into the ocean of oblivion.

That's a real shame, because this piece features some excellent cinematography and great acting from the two lead characters.

I've given it a 5* rating but in no way is this an average film. It's 2* for the screenplay and 8* for the direction and performances.

Mustn't grumble, though, since it's been made available for free streaming on Vimeo and is certainly worth watching.

This was Jamie Travis's first film: the first in what was to become his "Saddest Children in the World" trilogy. And though he probably wouldn't be happy to hear me say this, it's by far my favourite of the three.

Food, that most basic of provisions, provokes such intense feelings in children, which can make mealtimes the best of times or the most traumatic of ordeals. One's inner child still feels that and this gem of a short taps that anxiety with an astute flourish bordering on cruelty.

Surreal, comedic, disturbing and stomach churning it has to be seen rather than described. It's a superb piece of weirdness and far too darn good to have been a directorial début.

Luckily, Travis has shared it (along with the other two, "The Saddest Boy in the World" and "The Armoire") on his Vimeo channel. He suggests watching this one last. I saw it first (before the others were made) but I imagine it would make a tasty dessert.

Not for the lilly-livered, but clearly the work of a genius. I look forward to so much more from this man.

This is a film with many elements to entice me, as a lover of fine food, admirer of Nigel Slater and fan of British independent cinema. I have been put off watching it till now, though, not being keen on biopics and doubting that there was enough substance to Slater's autobiographical novel to make a full-length feature.

In fact, there probably wasn't, but it didn't matter thanks to strong performances all round. Oscar Kennedy makes a notable début as the 9 year-old Nigel and Ken Stott was made for the part as his emotionally stunted, bullying father; but for me it was Helena Bonham Carter who stole the show as the manipulative, vulgar and mildly toxic Mrs Potter. Freddie Highmore, in his first young-adult role, was good too and carries what feels like a rushed ending well, though the role didn't give him the chance to shine as an actor as he did in the likes of August Rush.

(MILD SPOILER FOLLOWS) The weakness in the screenplay for me was the cut from Slater's childhood to his late adolescence 2/3 of the way through the film. It jarred the continuity and left me wondering what had gone on in the intervening years. From then on I felt the story lost its way, and all sympathy for the protagonist evaporated with his behaviour, which seemed every bit as heartless as his step-mother's. It seemed to me that Slater's intention was to portray how much of a bitch the woman was but, if that's the case then it misfired in my heart.

A thoroughly enjoyable film all the same: whimsical, nostalgic (even for one born in the '80s) and engaging in its own right. One wouldn't have to be aware of who Nigel Slater is to enjoy it.

Though I'm a lover of psychological horror, bloody slash-'em-ups really aren't my thing. Had Welp/Cub come from an established US or British stable I probably wouldn't have bothered with it, but its being a debut from a Flemish-Belgian director intrigued me.

Cinematically, it's an accomplished piece that belies Jonas Govaerts' inexperience. His actual screenplay I found less impressive: it's cliché-ridden (horror in the woods; the unhappy boy who gets bullied; the damsel in distress; the sadistic youth-leader...) and much of the "horror" element is unexplained. We just have to take it as read that there's a feral boy resident in a treehouse and that the woods contain elaborate booby-traps despite being virtually unvisited. It's all a bit silly, really, and for a film that takes itself seriously it doesn't ride well.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed it more that I expected, despite its managing to be too gory for my taste yet not particularly scary. Maurice Luijten, in his first full-length feature, shows considerable promise as the troubled and unpopular cub scout while the adult cast do a good job with some rather unlikely characterisation.

I must say, though, that a few of the scenes (SPOILER ALERT) pushed the boundaries of taste and decency for me. I'm certainly no advocate of censorship and of course I *know* it's all make-believe, so I'm not saying that films of this genre shouldn't have depictions of dogs being battered to death, young boys being brutally assaulted by those in a position of trust or vehicles ploughing into tents full of kids. I just think that where such scenes are included then they should have a damn good raison d'etre and in this instance I didn't feel that they were justified. The quality of the storyline simply didn't reach the threshold to render it forgivable. Shock value alone is not a good-enough excuse to play on an audience's emotions like that.

When I first saw the ending I took it for a grace-saving plot-twist of Shyamalan proportions: WOW! Kai never existed! He was a metaphor for Sam's psychopathy after all! On closer analysis, though, I don't think that this is what we are meant to deduce (although it would have been an excellent ending if it were). In fact I don't know what to make of the ending any more; I like ambiguous conclusions but this one just ended up feeling unresolved and unsatisfactory for me.

Still, a film worth watching for the cinematography and special effects if you like that sort of thing, and several names to watch out for in European cinema in years to come.

Hugo is visually stunning piece, even for someone like me, who has no stereopsis and therefore can't appreciate the 3D effects.

Beyond that, it's one people either love or hate. I fall into the former camp: it's a film I can watch over again, each time being drawn into the dark yet fairytale fantasy of Hugo's world. Asa Butterfield is perfect in the pivotal role, portraying a contrasting depth of naive wonder and knowing street-wisdom that haunts me long after the final credits have rolled. Ably supported by Chloë Grace Moretz under Scorsese's skillful direction, the pair put the schmaltz of the Harry Potter flicks to shame. True magic.

But they are decidedly Harry and Hermione for grownups. There's nothing supernatural here and, despite much talk of adventure, it's true that not a lot actually happens story-wise. This boy wizard's talents are rooted in the mundane art of clockwork and Voldemort is a peg-legged station inspector (with an excellent low-key performance from the wonderful Sacha Baron Cohen). Some more discerning older teens might enjoy it, but this is not stuff for the kiddies.

If you love cinema and enjoy movies that rely on visuals and symbolism rather than fast-paced action, then this is a film for you. It's a masterpiece that I believe will stand the test of time and come to be regarded as a classic by film historians of the future.

Needful Things isn't one of Stephen Kings better novels; it's overblown and leans heavily on gory horror and satanic menace rather than the compelling psychological tension that characterises his later work. The book's saving grace for me is the wit and charm of King's narrative style, which is inevitably lost in a screen adaptation.

This film pares down the story considerably: not necessarily a bad thing, though it leaves several loose ends for anyone familiar with the novel. Bolstered by strong performances from Ed Harris and Max Von Sydow in the leading roles, the result is a good horror film that's worth a watch, though it's several leagues below the likes of The Shining and The Green Mile.

Filmed with an amateur cast of real-life scouts during a real-life scout camp, I found this movie enchanting when I saw it fortuitously on TV in the Czech Republic.

The story and performances capture the essence of late childhood and adolescence in an innocent yet unsentimental way. The children's performances are natural and delightful, belying the fact that they have no previous acting experience. There are moments of humour, mischief, coming-of-age and tenderness.

Though dated, it stands well as a period piece. I have used this film recently in language classes with pre-teen secondary students who have found it almost as engaging I do! It's not an easy piece to find, though if you do manage to track down a copy, good English subtitles are available from opensubtitles.org.

Having heard many positive reports about this film I sought it out for months. Although I'd have been happy to pay for a download or a copy on optical media I eventually had to resort to underhand methods of online acquisition -- and then, finding the Canadian French dialogue and its Quebecois argot incomprehensible, go on a further search for subtitles.

Was it worth the effort? For me, certainly; but I stop short of recommending it to others.

The story, such as it is, centres around 10 year-old Tommy Leblanc (played with outstanding skill and sensitivity by a 13 year-old Robert Naylor). Tommy is from a broken home, a thorn in the side of social services. He is short-fused, violent, inappropriately sexualised and gets sent to (what we in the UK call) a secure unit, or locked children's home, for assessment.

The question posed is whether young Tommy is a hopeless psychopath in the making or whether he can respond to the professional help from the well-intentioned but overstretched staff at the unit.

The signs don't auger well. Within minutes of the opening title we've seen Tommy masturbating to a hard-core porno-movie, forcing a younger boy to commit an act of gross indecency and then getting his face beaten to a (sickeningly realistic) pulp by that kid's older brother. (I did say that this film pulls no punches, didn't I?) Then within days of his arrival at the home, he's kicking off in the face of the staff's best efforts to support him, smashing the place up and creating a thoroughly nasty atmosphere for both his carers and the other volatile young boys resident there.

Personally, I found Robert Naylor's performance (ably supported by Claude Legault's portrayal of his sympathetic but long-suffering key-worker) heart-wrenching and deeply moving; but then I'm a teacher of kids with emotional and behavioural disorders. I can quite understand how, to anyone without a special interest in child psychology, Tommy would come across as an insufferable little brat who deserved what was coming to him -- negating what, I assume, is the fundamental message of the film.

I'm not knocking it. Daniel Grou's direction is first-class and the cinematography, using hand-held cameras that give the piece that air of a reality TV show, together create the grim aura of a facility for disturbed youth with considerable aplomb. And however one views him, Tommy comes across as real -- scarily so. Could this really be a child actor depicting so vividly the rage and panic descending into desperation for a badly damaged little boy? But in my view this is in spite of rather than thanks to the screenplay. Convincing though the characters' emotional responses may be, they all lack depth as people. There is little development of either the characters or the narrative, despite the manifest opportunities to do so.

Given that the film is clearly well-researched and skilfully constructed, I can only assume that this was intentional on author Claude Lalonde's part. And, fair dues, in real-life situations such as these, the players often do come across as two-dimensional; nothing particularly interesting does happen beyond things getting broken, staff getting stressed and tempers getting frayed. But this is not reality TV. It's a screenplay, a feature film, and I guess in that context I hope for just a l'il bit more.

And if you're not going to use the wonderful potential of Tommy's inadequate beatnik father (for whose portrayal Martin Dubreuil deserves an honourable mention) and his mentally ill mother as vehicles to develop the narrative then why bother to introduce them as nothing more than failed parental stereotypes? Not to mention Tommy's encounter with the paedophile Nomand towards the end which could have been (and may have been intended as) a thoughtful counterpoise to the opening scene but in the event was an all-too-predictable and meaningless throw-away.

As for the ending, what an underwhelming anti-climax! It may have addressed, in part, the question posed at the beginning but I think most of us had worked that one out mid-way through the film. This is not an easy movie to watch: it's disturbing -- harrowing in parts -- and to fob an audience off with such a weak finale isn't "minimalist" in my view; it's a con.

Nevertheless, this is a powerful piece of cinema and, though it won't be for everyone, it deserves wider distribution and recognition than it has.

Grange Hill meets Lord of the Flies in an unlikely tale of two boys from contrasting backgrounds who decide to make a video as an entry into a kids' TV film-making competition.

The bizarre plot has little (if anything) original to say about the story's main themes of tween friendship and dysfunctional parenting. The narrative is poorly constructed and implausible. The mawkish sentimentality of the denouement ranks alongside the most stomach-churning that Disney has ever had the poor taste to dream up.

But the performances of the two young leads makes the whole thing forgivable. I loved it and recommend it wholeheartedly.