MoodyB84

Fly fishing, and more specifically the making of the flies that help to catch the salmon, does not exactly sound like the most cinematically pleasing of subjects does it? Well, through his obvious passion for his subject matter, Eric Steel has managed to create an engaging documentary. Using beautiful visuals, a stunning score from Paul Cantelon and telling the story of Megan Boyd as though she were at times a mythical figure, Kiss the Water is a beautiful cinematic portrait and tribute to a woman many (including me) may never have heard of, but for those that fly fish, was the name of legend.

Her secluded and traditional lifestyle may have made Megan seem an almost mythical and poetic figure, but in the context of Kiss the Water makes for a film with a genuinely cinematic feel. The beautiful visuals and score make sure that this is no generic warts n all documentary, but a passionately made cinematic portrait. Megan herself made the flies purely as a form of art and took no pleasure in the fact they were for catching (and killing) salmon, the fact salmon are attracted to the flies is a fact that cannot be explained as the film mentions, but yet hers were by far the best at this. For that reason she was honoured by royalty, but despite that remained humble. To learn the stories of her later life within this film also evoke emotional engagement with the film, though of course I do not want to say anymore.

Kiss the Water is not a film that I expect people to rush out and see due to its apparent niche subject matter. However for anyone after a film that is made with genuine passion, as well as being an informative watch but also a rewarding, invigorating and visually pleasing tribute to one individual that was the best at she did, then I would certainly recommend Kiss the Water.

I must confess I only stumbled across this riveting and powerful but relatively unknown documentary because my local independent cinema was showing it. McCullin did actually receive a BAFTA nomination for best feature length documentary and this was fully justified. I cannot recommend this film enough; it is truly fascinating and extremely well put together that the 90 minutes of its running time just fly by. Not only is this superbly edited, but the music also enhances the mood and atmosphere.

Don McCullin himself is uncomfortable with the title of 'war photographer' and throughout his interview he gives fascinating accounts of his life and what effect witnessing the horrifying experiences that he did affected him. This documentary also serves as an insightful documentary into some of the conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century.

McCullin's firsthand accounts of what he witnessed gives harrowing but fascinating insights into scenes some of us can only imagine. As with all wars, the main victims are those innocent civilians stuck in the middle and McCullin's descriptions of such people really put life into perspective and the luxuries that we all take for granted. This is at times uncomfortable and sobering viewing, but only due to the raw honesty of McCullin's stories and photos. McCullin himself also emerges as not only a fascinating man, but a man of integrity and honesty. We could only imaging what witnessing some of the horrific events that he did would do to us psychologically and it is genuinely fascinating as he reveals what it did to him. This film also serves as a reminder to an irretrievable bygone era of journalism and does make us pose some questions about the integrity and honesty of 21st century journalism, especially photojournalism. As Don McCullin himself says: "Photography is the truth if it's being handled by a truthful person."

This is an extremely honest and genuinely powerful documentary that not only provides insight into a fascinating man, but also the horrifying truth about the effects war can have on nations and innocent civilians. This is unforgettable and devastating, and though not an easy watch at times, one I would thoroughly recommend.

Well, where to start, Rise of Cobra was loud, fast but enjoyable nonsense. Retaliation is in my view louder, faster, even more ridiculous than and just as enjoyable as its predecessor. With a few provisos of course.

This was never made with the intention of being Hamlet, so is there really any point in going through in any real detail exactly what is wrong with it? Not really as looking at the poster will probably tell you everything you need to know. The plot is as generic as any action film you will ever see, every character is a cardboard cut out caricature, the dialogue is embarrassingly clunky, the acting is cheesy, logic is left at home and Bruce Willis apparently has high cholesterol. There is even a quick catch up for those that have not seen the first film with some awful Top Trumps-esque introduction.

All this aside (!) Retaliation is actually loud frantic fun. If you don't think about the plot, or indeed logic then the action is half decent and the pace never really stops leaving a very entertaining, but obviously forgettable 90 minutes. Every aspect of this film, including the running time, action and plot show that they know what they are making and just do not care. On the subject of logic, I do not feel it is a plot spoiler to mention that Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) is very much a part of the plot; he seriously died in Rise of Cobra yet appears here with not a single scratch, and no explanation. This is the kind of nonexistent logic we are dealing with here. This is also a very funny film, some of the dialogue and scenes are so bad it is impossible not to laugh, though predominantly at than with as you would expect. So anyone who hates Retaliation does quite frankly have only themselves to blame for watching it in the first place.

A footnote: Once again the 3D adds bugger all!

Basically G.I.Joe: Retaliation is exactly what it says on the tin (well, poster): Loud, frantic, nonsensical over the top forgettable nonsense but undeniably good fun if you leave your brain and logic at home and know what to expect.

So much has been said about Danny Boyle's status as a 'national treasure' after his excellent job of the Olympics. Leaving that all to one side he is first and foremost a film director, and in my view a very inconsistent one. From, in my humble view, complete classics such as Shallow Grave, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later, underrated classics such as Millions and Sunshine, an extremely overrated Oscar winner in Slum dog Millionaire and over ambitious failures such as The Beach and A Life Less Ordinary. One thing to his credit, he likes to give different genres and styles a go, and Trance is certainly different to anything else he has done. That appears to be a good and a bad thing here in my view.

I will try my best to avoid spoilers, and I think I can easily achieve that by saying all the inevitable plot twists and turns are all to be taken with a pinch of salt. For me, firstly there is not enough actual plot here to truly care too much about all the jumps between reality and imaginary. With it being hard to care about the minimal plot, then perhaps the desired impact of all this supposedly mind bending narrative is very minimal. To care too much and to actually think about the half baked plot would be to actually realise there is not too much going on and it is all rather predictable. It is also hard to care about the characters as they have no redeeming features, the acting from the three protagonists is fine, but they are all actually characters that we would rather have nothing to do with. The other four members of Cassel's gang all fit so well into cockney geezer stereotypes it all feels a little embarrassing.

However, to not think too much is the best way to approach Trance. This is a very well made, stylistically audacious piece of film making. It is obvious Danny Boyle is having tremendous fun here using all the different techniques he can possibly think of. The use of heart pounding music is excellent, all the different styles of shots fit together well with the excellent neon cinematography. Trance is a pure example of style over substance, however as long as you accept this, when the style is this good the whole experience is tremendous, but forgettable, fun. This however does lead Trance to feel like a film about film making. However, with Danny having this much fun, it is impossible not to enjoy it with him. This is not essential Danny Boyle, but one of his most ludicrously entertaining guilty pleasures.

Trance is a surprisingly very hollow and predictable experience plot wise, but made in such an audaciously breathless way that it is a very entertaining trip.

I would love to get inside good ol' Quentin's head and know exactly what his intentions were when making this thing as that would make it a damn sight easier to review the bugger. For me Django Unchained is potentially many things but fails to be specifically anything, making it almost an enigma. However I prefer to refrain from using that word as that sounds too much like a compliment.

Is it a serious depiction of the age of slavery in America? Is it a buddy comedy? Is it a spoof? Is it a homage to westerns of a bygone era of cinema? Is it just an orgy of over the top violence? Well, there is potential for Django Unchained to be any of these things. However, all that it feels like is Mr. Self Indulgent being even more self indulgent than ever with no actual idea of what he is trying to specifically make.

I fail to see how it is possible for this to be a serious document of a moment in history. I would be out of my depth commenting on this too much, but when there are so many moments of outrageously cheesy and over the top dialogue, as well as some outrageously hammy performances (DiCaprio and Sam Jackson in particular) and moments which are intended to be farcical and humorous this cannot simply be possible. There have also been complaints about the language used throughout the narrative, but I am not going to dwell on this as I think it is pretty obvious that this is not ever meant in a derogatory or insulting way. Anyone who knows me will know I have plenty of bad things to say about Tarantino, but I firmly believe the language used is solely there to represent the language used of the era it is set.

However, to say Django Unchained is not like Blazing Saddles is not entirely true. There is far too much farcical humour here that is genuinely funny, but detracts from this ever being a serious film. It is the comedy and Tarantino's eye for snappy and witty dialogue that is Django Unchained's saving grace. The first third is an absolute blast; it is tremendous fun and works perfectly as a buddy comedy that never takes itself too seriously. Waltz is on top form and a joy to watch whenever he is on screen, Foxx is however very forgettable in what is supposed to be the title role. It is the charismatic and extremely likable character of Schultz that not only seems to drive the narrative forward but makes Django Unchained effortlessly watchable and tremendous fun.

However, when the two protagonists go to retrieve from Von Hilda from Candie in the final two hours (!), this is when Django Unchained takes a serious nosedive and becomes almost knotted up in its own self awareness and indulgence. As with most Tarantino films Django Unchained contains many obvious moments of 'inspiration' from films and genres of the past. There is of course nothing wrong with this, but Quentin just seems to be like Peckinpah, then Sergio Leone, then John Ford. These are all great film makers of this genre, but here this just leads to a frustratingly uneven tone to the narrative which does actually get quite boring at times. Quentin is obviously a man full of ideas, but he needs to develop some kind of filter to know to leave the bad ones out of his films. There is still an amateurish sense of a man that knows a lot about films, but nothing about making films. I know a lot has been said about the running time, and I am afraid I will have to say I am in agreement as Django Unchained is at least 45 minutes too long. There are so many moments, both of action and dialogue that add nothing and just make Django Unchained an effort to watch.

In the final third when the (occasional) action happens and the whole theme of 'vengeance' takes over this is once again all done with a lot of filler that detracts from the potential guilty pleasure fun that could be had by the ridiculously over the top violence. The whole experience feels very frustrating in that when things are going to kick off, they infuriatingly do not. There are also some very lazy plotting devices to keep things ticking over: The plot device that Schultz is German and Von Hilda was raised by Germans feels a little too contrived and almost Dickensian in terms of its neatness. This would work if the film was constantly tongue in cheek, but due to the running time and self indulgent tone, it cannot help but feel a little lazy.

In my opinion, the fact is the protagonist and actual story are too weak for this to ever work as a serious character driven vengeance thriller, especially one that is 165 minutes. Also, two minor quibbles: A director cameo involving an embarrassing Australian accent and occasionally using 21st century rap music were very bad ideas Quentin!

In summary, (yes, finally) with all the comedy, over the top performances, even more over the top violence and a (much) shorter running time, Django Unchained would work perfectly as a not to serious fun period romp that even gets away with a little self indulgence. It is certainly worth a watch with some genuinely great moments, but prepare to be frustrated by an uneven, inconsistent self indulgent narrative mess.

I watched Tabu knowing very little about it and found the film a real treat to watch, but however I will try to avoid giving too much away as this is one of those films that are best to watch not knowing too much. The whole viewing experience is very rewarding, not just emotionally, but also in that your required patience is amply rewarded. Though the entire film is shot in black and white, the two different stories are told in differing stylistic ways, making Tabu a very fitting tribute to cinema itself.

The first half, firstly being set in the present day, has almost a surrealist feel to it, with some apparently random moments and new characters being introduced suddenly. This does require your attention and anyone could be forgiven for wondering where the hell the film is going. However, as the first half reaches its inevitable conclusion and we enter the second half, this is where Tabu becomes an engaging and emotionally rewarding film. Many of the supposedly random moments of the first half now fit in perfectly as we are revealed what happened when Aurora was a young woman living in Africa.

The second half is a rather simple story of an illicit love affair that could never be but is told in an emotionally powerful way, enhanced by the framed narrative structure and deeply mournful narration of who we discover to be the man she loved. The power of the voice over is enhanced by the completely different stylistic approach of the second half, the only dialogue throughout is the voice over of Aurora's lover and the whole second half is shot in 16mm. The poignant reflections of the narrator can easily be interpreted as also being the director's and perhaps us the viewer's feelings towards silent era cinema of a bygone age. This stylistic approach is very much purposeful, all other diagetic sounds can be heard, and the characters are physically talking to each other. The emotional power is only enhanced by the fact all we can hear is the non-diagetic narration and having to otherwise rely on expressions and body language of the characters. Part two feels like a two sided approach to love of the past; a past loved one and a love of cinema of the past.

Despite the main subject of the story at hand, Tabu is not a completely bleak film, the playful use of different cinematic techniques and music are a joy to watch and the catharsis of the ending leaves a feeling of poignancy but not abject misery. There are however elements to Tabu that may frustrate. It feels that the protagonist of part one is Pilar, Aurora's neighbour and her story does feel frustratingly unfinished as we see elements of her daily life that make us truly care about her as these moments have literally nothing to do with Aurora. However, this is the story of Aurora through the eyes of those around her and in that case the stylistic approach of part one in retrospect fits with that of part two. The surrealist and playful approach to narrative structure in part one may seem pretentious and potentially alienating to some, but after watching the entire film I could only look back at it with positive feelings.

Original and unique, Tabu is a thoroughly engrossing and emotionally rewarding story that serves not only as a tribute to human love, but also love of the history of cinema. The first thirty minutes or so may feel hard work at first, but what the remainder of the film has to offer more than amply rewards the viewer's patience.

These days it seems that French films predominantly fit into one of two categories: Smug, over long and preachy, such as Rust and Bone or Little White Lies. Or they produce deeply involving but simplistic stories containing the most genuine heartfelt emotion such as Amour (in French, therefore French) or The Kid with a Bike. I am happy to say that Le Havre falls in the latter group. In fact the story here is one of pure simplicity and the tone of the film contains nothing but genuine optimism towards the theme of human compassion. That is it, this film has no ulterior motive or no gimmicks, and it is a very simply and extremely involving story based around that one simple theme. However, this film is not just a tribute to human compassion, but contained within it are tributes to the history of cinema that are quite simply a joy to experience. When I say that, the use of music as well the way certain scenes are lit pay a respectful tribute to films of the 40s and 50s throughout the narrative.

This is not to say that this film is not without its realism, Marx and his neighbours all live a humble life bordering on poverty. The plight of Idrissa is unenviable and there is an honest depiction of a refugee camp just outside Calais. However, the theme of Le Havre is not that life is simply good, that would be naive. It is how these characters deal with life and the situations that it presents. Of course it would be so easy to fall into to the trap of patronising and borderline preachy cliché here, but this never happens due to the genuine feeling of honesty depicted throughout the narrative. Every character is presented very honestly with all their flaws quite clear to see, but it is their ability for natural compassion that drives the narrative forward. By the time Le Havre reaches its very satisfying conclusion where there are no loose ends, it is difficult not to feel that not only have you been entertained, but also enlightened.

Firstly, let's establish the facts: This is one of the many films produced from The Asylum, they can usually be found on the SyFy channel or Movies for Men. So, we have: A ridiculous title, an even more ridiculous story, wooden acting, extremely clunky dialogue and mega drive standard CGI.

Of course, for the reasons I just listed Dragon Crusaders is an absolute turd of a film. It would be easy to go on a rant, but I will refrain from that temptation. The fact is that Asylum films know their place, all those involved surely know what they are making, and these films that they make tend to actually make a profit, so fair play to them. Calling these films B movies is probably too much of a compliment, maybe Z movie, but they certainly deserve to be a genre in their own right. As long as you know what you are getting in too, have a strong alcoholic beverage at your side, then films like Dragon Crusaders are more entertaining and certainly funnier (intentionally or not) than anything Adam Sandler or Nancy Meyers ever produce.

I must confess that when I saw the trailer for this I thought it looks like an enjoyable enough, but generic and conventional typical Hollywood thriller. Argo looked to me as a film to rent, but not to watch at the cinema and the expense that entails. All of a sudden, the hype seemed to get bigger and bigger, with constantly excellent reviews. However I had missed my chance to see Argo at the cinema, and then of course all the awards came along. There was a one of chance to see it again at my local independent cinema, but that showing was completely sold out. So I had to wait for the DVD release. Sometimes films can be over-hyped, putting expectations sky high and only leading to disappointment. I am pleased to see I personally feel that the hype is justified. Foe me, Argo is an extremely enjoyable and well made old fashioned style thriller.

I particularly enjoyed Gone Baby Gone, and The Town was also a good watch. Argo poses a much bigger challenge to Affleck as a director with different story strands, various contrasting locations and trying to create a sense of tension while holding all this together. I have to say I thought this is all handled extremely well. There is very rarely a dull moment as the pacing is excellent and the film constantly grips with something always going on as what is happening in Tehran, CIA headquarters and Hollywood is all held together extremely well. The scenes in Tehran are extremely well made, feeling claustrophobic and containing a real genuine sense of intensity and edge. There is also a genuine and authentic feel of what these various places would be like 1980. What is produced is an excellent thriller proving that Hollywood can produce genuinely gripping and intelligent thrillers instead of the generic and forgettable crap it usually does.

However, Argo is not without flaws. There is a subplot involving Mendez' relationship with his son. This may be here to try and add depth to the character, but they add nothing and just prove an annoying distraction from the main plot. Affleck himself is adequate but not amazing, which begs the question as to if he was not producer and director, would he be the one playing Mendez? Maybe Ben should decide to remain behind the camera, especially as he has a brother who is a very talented actor. Argo is of course based on a true story; the key word here is 'based' as this allows a certain amount of dramatic license. There were possibly a few too many clichéd 'that was close' moments towards the end, it surely could not be the case that these all happened. I understand the need for dramatic tension, but these sometimes feel a little clichéd and mechanical, detracting from what is already a naturally tense situation. There is also a really cringe worthy scene at the end involving an American flag in the background. I do not know if this was intentional, but it all feels a little Team America. However, these are minor quibbles with what is otherwise an excellent thriller thoroughly deserving of the awards it has received.

Argo is an excellent addition to a directorial CV that is becoming continuously impressive. Argo is a very entertaining and extremely well paced thriller that grips till the very end, demonstrating Affleck as potentially one of Hollywood's up and coming directors.

Firstly, let's face it, anything that can be said about Daniel Day- Lewis' performance has already been said. The fact is that he is one of the best actors of his generation, if not of all time and his tendency to be a picky bugger when it comes to taking film roles is to be respected, well maybe apart from Nine. His performance here is as committed as ever and utterly spellbinding, you do genuinely believe you are almost watching a reincarnation of the man himself on screen. One of the things that enhance the power of this performance is the very effective depiction of Abraham Lincoln's physicality. He was 6'4" tall with long arms and legs, and Spielberg uses this to great effect as in every scene he always towers over everyone as I am sure he would have done in real life. It is also credit to Spielberg for not simply depicting Abraham Lincoln as a saint, his weaknesses and moments of self doubt are portrayed just as clearly as those that made him such a great man.

I came into this film with a couple of fears: Firstly all I seemed to hear was praise for Day-Lewis' performance but very little else mentioned, a great performance does not necessarily make a great film. Also, for someone who knows only the basics of this period of American history like me, would this leave the film feeling alienating? Well, the film does actually boast a huge array of well known names in its cast such as Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley among others. Despite the nature of this being a character driven narrative, all these characters get their own individual moments to shine and all the actors excel with excellent performances. It is a credit to Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner that Day-Lewis does not appear in every scene, leaving other very important characters in this moment in history the chance to shine and for us the viewer to be made aware of their own very important individual contributions. It is fair to say that the dialogue is littered with constant wannabe Oscar speeches, however given the moment in history and the talent saying it, this is forgivable.

That was the first fear resolved, now the second: There is no denying that Lincoln is effort and you are certainly required to concentrate especially as it is dialogue heavy throughout which certainly includes plenty of political jargon. However, after 15 or 20 minutes when it is established who everyone is, what their place is and what everyone is trying to achieve; Lincoln is a deeply involving and thoroughly gripping political drama. Abraham Lincoln's desperate bid to persuade people of great power to vote with him is gripping and compelling, even though we all know what the end result will be. What also adds to the involvement of the drama is that Spielberg lets characters that face a real life conflict when deciding how to vote have the screen time for us to genuinely understand their conflict and not just portray them as simply against Lincoln therefore bad people. This is a film which treats the viewers as intelligent people who clearly understand that in such a dramatic situation, things are never simple or straight forward. Anyone expecting the dramatic visual set pieces of previous Spielberg period dramas will be disappointed as this is a dialogue heavy film. It is definitely true that is not the most cinematic of films, and perhaps feels a little more like a television drama at times, but this is not a criticism as though the film is dialogue heavy, the narrative for me moved along at a quick pace as there is always something happening. Even John Williams' usually dominant music is very minimal.

It is not until the final 20 minutes after the result we all know happens that Lincoln feels cinematic with sweeping music and dramatic outdoor scenes. However, for me it this last 20 minutes that severely lets this film down and does not need to be there at all, almost undoing all the good work in the preceding two hours. This may well sound like I am criticising Spielberg for basically being Spielberg, but the final 20 minutes is overblown cinematic schmaltz and sentimentality which is completely different from the dialogue heavy tone of the previous two hours. For me, this just did not need to be there, this is a film about a moment in history and one man paid a major contribution to that, it is not an arse licking biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life. However these last twenty minutes feel exactly like that. I of course do not want to spoil the ending, but we all know what happens afterwards to the President once peace is agreed and how it is portrayed here is embarrassingly cheesy, adding nothing to the compelling political drama we have just spent two hours watching. It almost feels like we have forgotten that we are watching a Spielberg film, The Beard has realised this and decided to remind us, and maybe trying to please the academy to make it a hat trick at the same time, very disappointing.

For the first two hours Lincoln is a compelling and deeply involving political drama about an extremely important moment in history. An amazing central performance is also complimented by excellent supporting performances. It does require effort but this is amply rewarded, especially if you leave twenty minutes before the end.

St. Georges Day is a debut effort written and directed by eloquent and softly spoken Shakespearean thespian Frank Harper, famous for his roles in The Football Factory and Lock. Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Guy Ritchie, 2008), and let us not forget his scene stealing performance as the bank robber in Kevin and Perry Go Large (Ed Bye, 2000). I thoroughly enjoyed Dexter Fletcher's (who is, of course, briefly in this) directorial debut Wild Bill last year, so maybe this could be another enjoyable treat. He seems to have persuaded all his mates to be in it, the only ones missing are Danny Dyer and Tamer Hassan; maybe they were performing Hamlet at the Old Vic during filming? Well...

I will come back to term 'enjoyable' later if I may? First, a quick review:

It seems Frank Harper has certainly learnt a few things while starring in all these geezer films, in basically that he has cut and pasted all the clichéd plots from these and stuck them all together in what is an absolute narrative mess. This film received consistently horrific reviews, and I have to admit that they are all deserved. St. Georges Day is the most possibly generic and clichéd 'cockeney gangster' film you could imagine. Every cliché in terms of plot and characters is there to see in full clunky and embarrassing glory. I am not going to list them here, but anyone who watches this will be ticking them off in their head almost involuntarily. As for the dialogue, co-written by Frank himself, when there are lines such as "The Price is Right? This isn't the game show you c**t!" or "Two words: Angry Russians", it is basically Eastenders with swearing.

There is a also a very insular and quite racist approach to this film, such as the typical evil Russian gangsters and double crossing Dutch drug dealers. However, what becomes really embarrassing is Frank Harper's deluded sense of patriotism that comes out within the script, there are many occasions where he compares their drugs operation and how they are going to sort out the mess they created to strategies deployed by Churchill and the British armies in both of the world wars. This is both insulting and rather embarrassing to watch; as we have to remember that these men are criminals despite whatever 'moral code' they follow. There are many voice-over scenes, usually with Frank Harper looking pensive on some riverside where he tries to justify to us why he is essentially a criminal. He often mentions things like 'loyalty' and tells us that he never killed anyone that "didn't deserve it or would have done the same thing to him". No Frank, you are criminals, you are not the good guys. Even the police are portrayed as bad guys for simply doing their job; does Frank really think we are that stupid? Also, it is worth saying that Keeley Hazell stars in her debut film role and is shocking, though let us face it, she is not there for her acting is she? She also plays Mickey's girlfriend and there are many scenes where Frank Harper gets to kiss her. Hang on! Isn't Frank Harper writer, actor, director and producer? Indeed he is. Oh, Frank, you dirty old man! However, her character as 'Peckham Princess' (No, me neither) is beyond caricature, as with all the women here who are simply portrayed in a shamefully misogynistic way. However, this just adds to the list of generic narrow minded stereotyping like evil Russians, drugged up crazy Dutch people, angry Scottish people etc.

Now, I will return to the phrase 'enjoyable', and though I may well be contradicting what I have previously just said, but I must confess that I found St. Georges Day extremely enjoyable. This does come with a proviso though: If you take St. Georges Day with a pinch of salt, and when you see a cast list like that (maybe with the exception of Charles Dance – maybe a marketing ploy?) how on earth can you take this film seriously? I went into this film expecting ridiculous nonsense and was not disappointed; I must confess that it frequently made me laugh. It is obvious that Frank Harper thinks he is making the Citizen Kane of British gangster films. St. Georges Day takes itself so ridiculously seriously; this almost makes it even funnier to watch. You never laugh with it, but frequently at it and because of this I will confess that I actually really enjoyed it, though certainly not for any of the reasons dear old (now officially an auteur) Frank Harper would want.

In summary: Predictable, clichéd, crap. This is the definitive British gangster film in that every cliché and caricature is there to see, all put together by the chunkiest script imaginable. However, this may well be (unintentionally) one of the funniest British films of recent years.

The term 'A Tim Burton Film' has almost become a cliché in itself these days in that it basically refers to a film being weird almost for the sake of being weird, especially Tim's remakes, or 're-imaginings' as they are often called. Being the cynical bugger, I regarded Frankenweenie with a little scepticism, especially as I am an animal lover and do not want to see one die in any film, let alone a kid's film! However, I found Frankweenie a pleasant surprise. I remember hearing in an interview that Burton, as a fan of horror films as kid, wanted to make the kind of film he would have loved at that age. This is what lies at the very heart of what makes Frankenweenie such a success; it is obviously a very personal film and made with total compassion and affection. After all the big budget remakes, Frankenweenie is a much welcome reminder of why Tim Burton is popular and regarded as a unique director.

However, when a film is personal to the director it can of course become over indulgent and alienate a lot of the audience and sometimes lose sight of even any clear narrative. An element of restraint is necessary, and I am pleased to say that I felt Frankenweenie demonstrated a perfect balance of this. This is a film that adults and children can all enjoy and relate to. Despite being all in black and white, this is a film children will enjoy; there is enough heart and a sense of adventure, as well being told from the perspective of a child. Victor's position as a slight outsider to the norm is one that is easy to relate to, and many of us do. There are also countless nods and winks to various horror films that adults will enjoy, these all always tremendous fun as well as respectful to their original source. Of course, it goes without saying that people of any age who are animal lovers (like myself) and have experienced the companionship an animal can give you will find a genuine emotional connection to this film.

There is also style to the substance, with some important underlying moral messages within the narrative that keeps Frankenweenie being a film with a good narrative structure and character arcs. The inevitable 'dramatic' scenes towards the end, though they feel inevitable, they still are good fun and never feel they have to be there as they fit in perfectly with the tone of the film, mirroring perfectly scenes from past horror films in consistently fun way. My one issue was an aspect of the ending. I don't want to give anything away, but there is a certain aspect of the ending that was a little inconsistent with a moral message that had up until then been a major theme of the narrative. Of course, this is essentially a kid's film so I am sure that may have had something to do with it, which I understand. I know that Frankenweenie was not a major box office success, and I understand why, I was a little guilty of having reservations against it myself. However, now it is available to buy, it is a film I would strongly recommend to kids and adults alike.

Made with passion and heart, Frankenweenie is Tim Burton's most personal for a long time. It is all the better for it as Frankweenie is very accessible, involving and great fun for viewers of all ages

As soon as I was aware of ROTG I immediately thought Avengers for children, and I know many others have said this. Well, this is kind of the case as there is of course obvious comparisons but it is best not to dwell on those comparisons, but ROTG is in my opinion a great concept, especially for children, and is tremendous fun. What proves very effective about this concept is the non-traditional depiction of these very traditional characters. Santa, called 'North' as a tattooed sword wielding Russian and The Easter Bunny as a sarcastic Australian warrior. Jack Frost himself is a very cocky upstart and the interaction between these characters proves very entertaining to watch, with plenty of jokes.

The animation and the action itself looks spectacular, the winter setting proving a real spectacle that dazzles on screen. For children, I can imagine this is a great watch as there is a perfect balance of heart, action and humour. For adults too, this is a great watch as it is a poignant reminder of the feeling of believing in these characters and of the magic associated with these seasons. There are plenty of themes within the narrative that add feeling and involvement such as finding your own identity, belonging and learning to have faith in others.

As much fun as ROTG is, there is still a slight feeling of unrealised potential. For me, there could have been so much more fun to be had with these characters and maybe a stronger script could have provided more laughs for children and adults alike. The story is a little too predictable, even for a kids film, and at times the moralistic messages feel a little too preachy and in your face when a viewer of any age would have already got the message, but this only rarely detracts from what is otherwise tremendous fun.

Firstly, I feel it is important to state that though the marketing says everywhere 'from the director of Rec', and I understand why, this is nothing like Rec. I personally thought that Rec was an excellent film, and despite being an addition to an over exhausted genre, at the time it brought something new to it. Sleep Tight is however, though a 'horror' by genre, much more subtle and psychological. For me, this it to its credit and what is produced is a master class in psychological horror. It is very hard to describe the plot to Sleep Tight without giving too much away about the developments in the plot, as it are these constant developments that are central to the psychological and emotional impact of the narrative. I also feel it is important to say that from what I described in the plot that it is not a film that is brutal or horrific just for the sake of it, or is torture porn. Sleep Tight is a far more intelligent film that in fact has very little blood or gore, and the horror lies simply in the atmosphere, psychology and emotional impact of described plot developments.

I personally found that one of the shocking aspects of this film was the personal revelations that our revealed about our own sub conscience. César commits some quite despicable acts that any moral human being would never consider doing; however we do feel sympathy and understanding towards the protagonist. We almost feel a part of his actions due to how the story is told from his point of view and when there is a risk of him getting caught I genuinely felt nervous, despite the fact he should obviously be in prison for what he is doing. I am of course only speaking for myself here, and the viewing experience of this film and emotional reaction to what goes on within the narrative may differ between viewers. I was however relieved to read that other reviewers have said similar things. Our emotional sympathy for the protagonist is most definitely partly down to Luis Tosar's magnetic performance as César. He strikes up feelings of fear and disgust, yet also evokes sympathy, in a similar way to his stunning performance in the excellent Cell 211 (Daniel Monzón, 2009).

Sleep Tight is a film consisting of some deeply unforgettable moments that stay with us for a while. The feelings we often get from these moments may not be good ones, but it is due to the expertly crafted psychological horror with images that are often only described that lies in what makes Sleep Tight such a deeply effecting experience. Many horror films tend to have far-fetched concepts which take away some of the effectiveness, however what happens within the narrative of Sleep Tight is perfectly believable and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this can happen to anyone, possibly without us even knowing. The shocks never get boring, leaving to an extremely compelling experience, leading all the way up to unforgettable ending that will haunt for days. Also adding to the horror is the extremely effective juxtaposition of there always being bright sunshine outside and having an up-tempo swing soundtrack, despite what is happening within the narrative leaving an extremely disconcerting feeling even during the day when everyone is supposed to be safe.

One criticism is that some of the few things that César does without getting noticed are perhaps a little unbelievable. However, maybe I thought this because I know he is there. If you are not aware of his presence then maybe you indeed would be less likely to notice. Proving that less can indeed be more; Sleep Tight is vastly more effective and genuinely haunting than any big budget horror film that Hollywood tends to produce these days. With some unforgettable moments, Sleep Tight is genuinely guaranteed to haunt your sub conscience for days.