A Bridge Too Far (Richard Attenborough, 1977)

Seen before: Yes

Featuring perhaps one of the greatest cast lists of all time, 'A Bridge Too Far' is the longest film I have watched so far in my project. That said, it needs to be long, as it tries to fit in an awful lot.

---Plot Summary---

Based on real events during World War II, 'A Bridge Too Far' concentrates on the Allied forces attempts to capture three bridges behind enemy lines in what was nicknamed 'Operation Market Garden'. As the German forces are pushed back from France, control of the bridges in Arnheim, Nijmegen and Eindhoven would allow the Allies to trap the retreating Germans and then allow them to march on to Berlin.

---Review---

I must begin with the cast. When the opening credits of a film start with: 'Starring, in alphabetical order' you know that the list of names that follows is going to widen your eyes and make your jaw drop. Dirk Bogarde, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Robert Redford, Edward Fox, Anthony Hopkins, Gene Hackman, James Caan, Laurence Olivier, Ryan O'Neal... the list goes on. It is mightily impressive that a cast such as this was assembled, although since it is a film by Richard Attenborough, I am sure that many will have signed up as soon as they got the call. They all perform admirably, without any real standouts (although it is clear that Redford's character is meant to be a 'hero' of sorts). The reason behind this lies in the fact that not one of them is given sufficiently enough screen time for you to be totally drawn in. And what also puzzles me is why Hackman was chosen to play a Polish character when he quite clearly is terrible at putting on an accent.

Anyway, on to the film content itself. This was clearly an ingeniously devised plan to attack the Germans whilst they were down, but is it an interesting enough period of the Second World War to provide an interesting film? Thankfully, the answer is yes, although I am not entirely sure Attenborough achieved this as successfully as he could have done. Whilst entertaining and at times captivating, it suffers a little later on, as we are still being introduced to new characters, and other characters remain sidelined in locations that they seem to have been in for the entire film. I hate to use the phrase 'it's too long' in a review, but it really is, although this is mainly due to involving several characters (James Caan, Laurence Olivier, Gene Hackman) who surely could have been left out entirely, so that we could concentrate more on the central protagonists? (Sean Connery, Ryan O'Neal, Anthony Hopkins)

Despite all this, one thing you can't fault Attenborough for is his eye for scenery. The film stages some excellent sequences on some stunning locations, from rural mansions to the shells of buildings left obsolete by the bombings. It is a completely believable representation of war-time Holland (a country not actually involved in the conflict), and I cannot count the amount of times (lots) that I was astounded by the grandeur of it all. To partner the stunning scenery, is an exquisite music, that whilst typical to this sort of film, stands out as one of the more pleasing war film soundtracks.

I feel I must reveal (to those that are not aware) that this 'Operation' was not successful, so we know that at some point, there will be death/surrenders from the Allies. This does not prevent you from enjoying what is at times a muddled film, but on the whole is a valiant attempt at informing us of the events of a little known part of the Second World War.

---Rating---

7/10

Tomorrow: A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971)

A Bittersweet Life (Kim Jee-Woon, 2005)

Seen before: Yes

Another South Korean film, one that gained slightly more interest over here due to it being compared to a Tarantino film, which seems to happen to a lot of foreign cinema, but if they're as good as this, I guess I don't mind the comparison (even though it's much better than any Tarantino film).

---Plot Summary---

Kim Sun-woo (Lee Byung-hun) works at a hotel, as a loyal enforcer/associate to a leading crime boss, Mr. Kang. When Mr. Kang goes away on a business trip, Sun-woo is instructed to take care of his new girlfriend, who Mr. Kang suspects is seeing someone else. After spending a few days with her, Sun-woo discovers not only that she is cheating, but that he is in love with her. His decision not to kill her or her lover then leads to complications...

---Review---

'A Bittersweet Life' is frankly, a wonderful piece of cinema. From the offset, when we are greeted to the sight of Sun-woo at the hotel bar eating a dessert, before he promptly beats the living daylights out of three troublesome henchmen, we know this is going to be a slick, stylish, and fairly violent thriller. Every scene is meticulously filmed, with astonishing attention to detail that rivals any film I have seen. It is clear that the director, Kim Jee-Woon, knew he was making a film that would succeed not only in South Korea, but worldwide.

The first half of the film is tasked with introducing us to the central character, his line of work, and Mr. Kang. It is clear that neither of them are nice people. Whilst Sun-woo remains outwardly calm and un-emotive, he does retain an underlying sense that he is a cold, cruel killer. Mr. Kang is clearly someone who you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of, and we never learn what led Sun-woo to work for him, but I can imagine he was taken in at a young age and that this is all he knows. Which makes it all the more surprising when he falls in love with Kang's girlfriend Hee-soo (Shin Min-A) and shows uncharacteristic leniency in letting her and her lover go when he discovers them together.

From the moment he meets Hee-soo, Sun-woo is smitten. He gazes lustfully over her beautiful eyes, her sleek black hair (he focuses on her when she tucks it behind her ears). It is tragic that a man in his situation, who wishes Hee-soo was his, has literally no chance of ever being with her. Of course, she remains unaware of his affection, but enjoys spending time with him. All this leads Sun-woo to question Mr. Kang's motives as to why a man his age is seeing a girl this young, or indeed how the two of them even met.

Things take a turn for the worse when Kang discovers what Sun-woo has done, and he is then captured and tortured by his former associates. They then ask him to apologize to Kang, but instead he decides to fight his way out, and some of the most expertly and intricately choreographed fight scenes I have ever witnessed then take place. Sun-woo then attempts to purchases some weapons from an arms dealer, but ends up having to kill him too. And then the stage is set for his confrontation with Kang, who realizes that once Sun-woo has escaped, that he will stop at nothing for vengeance (although, when he does eventually confront Kang, he wants to know why he has mistreated him so badly).

In a film that is probably more renowned for it's style and ultra-violent fight scenes, Byung-hun as Sun-woo pulls off a genuinely affecting performance of a tormented bad guy who makes a mistake and pays the price. But is a mistake he has no control over, which sheds light on the fact that maybe he isn't so bad after all. Unfortunately for him, he is in a situation where there is no possible way for things to go as he might wish. You feel genuine sympathy towards him and his plight. The supporting cast act well around him, particularly Hwang Jeong-min as Mr. Baek, a cruel and slightly crazy crime lord who attempts to kill Sun-woo before Kang's men get to him first. He accurately portrays an unstable mad man who believes he has had the last laugh.

With an almighty string score that seems to be a staple of Southeast Asian cinema, this film cements itself as one of the more enjoyable and accessible films to come out of South Korea in recent years. The only downside is that the 'Mr. Baek' storyline seems somewhat out of place at times.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: A Bridge Too Far (Richard Attenborough, 1977)

71 Fragments Of A Chronology Of Chance (Michael Haneke, 1994)

Seen before: No

So, we arrive at the film that my blog is named after. Despite the fact I have never seen it previously, I just thought that my blog title was a 'cool' variation of it's title. Was I right? Only time will tell.

Michael Haneke is amongst my favourite directors of recent times, I enjoyed 'Funny Games', 'The Piano Teacher' and 'Hidden' to various degrees, so was looking forward to seeing some of his earlier work. This film is part of his self-titled 'emotional glaciation' trilogy, which also includes 'Benny's Video' and 'The Seventh Continent'.

---Plot Summary---

The film comprises of 71 scenes that chronicle the lives of several different groups of people in Vienna over the course of a year. They include a lonely old man, a young Romanian immigrant, a couple in a loveless marriage, a disillusioned college student, and a couple who have recently adopted.

---Review---

'71 Fragments Of A Chronology Of Chance' is a curiously segmented film by Austrian auteur Michael Haneke. Split into exactly 71 fragments, it is a non-linear tale of the events leading up to an horrific, violent incident that involves nearly everyone we are introduced to throughout the film's duration. Initially, we are introduced to several characters that all appear to have no apparent link, and even seem unlikely to provide prolonged story lines in the film. But it soon becomes apparent that the structure of this film is not conventional, as we spend more and more time with each of these characters 'segments', we learn a little more about each person, and as the film progresses, we can see where it is all leading to.

The main theme of this film, and possibly most if not all of Haneke's films, is the alienation of people. We have a couple with a young baby, who show no love or compassion toward each other, and whose only reason to speak to each other is to say 'Good Night' or to ask when the other will be home. We have a young, homeless immigrant, who has to steal or eat from dumpsters to survive. We have another young couple, who adopt a daughter, who alienates herself from her new foster parents, strongly refuting all her new parents attempts to connect with her. We have an old, lonely man, whose daughter dismisses him as a burden, when all he wants is to talk to and be accepted by his daughter and grand-daughter. And finally, we have a college student, who under pressure from his table-tennis coach, and with the demands of his higher education, distances himself from his learning and eventually snaps from the emotional weight of it all.

In the climatic scene, where the young student tries to fill up for petrol and is vehemently denied access to the bank to withdraw the funds to pay for it as he is out of cash, he returns to his vehicle, composes himself, then precedes to shoot and kill several people in the bank, and a couple of road users, before once again returning to his vehicle and shooting himself in the head. It's a scene that the film has been elegantly building toward, slowly building up it's momentum for the final act, as it were.

Punctuating the scenes regarding the various characters, are vignettes concerning worldwide news stories at the time of filming, including the Yugoslav Wars of the early Nineties and alleged child abuse allegations against the singer Michael Jackson. These interludes provide a slight respite from the drama unfolding before us, and also imply with an impending sense of dread that something is going to happen within the film that will later make it onto these so-called 'news channels'.

I found this film immensely fascinating, and held particular interest in the young immigrant's story, as he seemed the most believable character, and indeed is even given his own 'story' on the news channels. It's obviously low-budget and this is sometimes evident by the settings, but it still remains a well thought out and well shot piece of artistic filmmaking.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: A Bittersweet Life (Kim Jee-Woon, 2005)

3-Iron (Kim Ki-Duk, 2004)

Seen before: Yes

I bought this after watching the same director's 'Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... And Spring' which I loved. I am also fascinated with Korean cinema in general. Just to let you know.

---Plot Summary---

A young, homeless man places leaflets on doors of homes around the city. He returns later, and enters the houses that still have the leaflets on the door. He then spends the night, washing the clothes of the owners and taking photos of himself. One house he believes to be empty turns out to contain a young woman, victim of an abusive husband, and they both seem to relate to each other.

---Review---

Firstly, let me just say that '3-Iron' is a very peculiar film. The premise is somewhat unbelievable, there is virtually no dialogue, and towards the end it goes a bit... well, crazy. But despite all this, it does retain your interest throughout, and there's a certain charm about the main character, Tae-Suk (played by Lee Hyun-Kyoon) and his almost ghostly existence.

At first, it appears that Tae-Suk is a typical leaflet distributor, as he rides around an unknown South Korean city, placing leaflets on the door handles of people's homes. However, it quickly becomes clear that he is definitely not a typical person, as he later returns to one such home, and discovers that a leaflet remains on the door handle. So he breaks in. Not with force, with a lock pick. He then proceeds to help himself to the facilities within, showering, eating, and watching TV. But he also fixes a broken BB gun that he finds in a child's bedroom. And he washes all the dirty clothes of the absent residents. After staying the night, he awakens in the morning to find the family are returning and so leaves, as unassuming as his arrival. It's a strange routine that we learn he has done before and intends to do again.

The next house he breaks into contains a young woman (Lee Seung-Yeon) who he is unaware of, yet she is aware of him, and instead of ringing the police or confronting him, she remains hidden and watches him from afar. When she reveals herself, without saying a word, they appear to have met a kindred spirit that they have been searching for their whole lives. What follows from this usual circumstance creates a film that is on face value full of simplicity, yet has a deep underlying complexity. I was questioning myself throughout, trying to work out various things. At one point they enter a house where they discover a dead man, who they clean, dress and bury, but then remain in his house overnight, and are found out by the dead man's son the next day, leading to their inevitable arrest, which seems highly implausible (why would they stay at the dead man's home?).

In a film that appears to say very little (no pun intended), you can't shake the feeling that this is a pure, beautiful piece of work. It is immaculately shot, and from the gorgeous interiors of South Korean homes (the house with the fish 'pond' looks amazing) to the busy, yet still somehow peaceful, city streets, everything retains an essence of beauty. The eventual blossoming of love between the two central characters only adds to the magic of it all. I do feel however that it is a highly interpretive film, which has the ability to both infuriate and confuse, and at times I found it was trying too hard to be 'quirky'. Also, whilst not terrible, both actors could have performed more convincingly, in my opinion.

---Rating---

7/10

Tomorrow: 71 Fragments Of A Chronology Of Chance (Michael Haneke, 1994)

28 Days Later... (Danny Boyle, 2002)

Seen before: Yes

I have possibly seen this film more times than any film, which is slightly surprising. It's also one of the few I own on DVD that I also used to own on VHS (going back in time a bit). It kick started my 'love' for Danny Boyle and his films.

---Plot Summary---

A bike courier (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma in hospital. He discovers that he is the only person there, so sets out to find where everyone is. Upon being attacked by a group of savages, he is rescued by two other 'survivors', who inform him that Great Britain has been hit by an epidemic that fills people with 'rage', causing them to attack others on sight. Along with a father and his daughter, they set out for an army base in Manchester, hoping to find answers.

---Review---

After a frenetic opening in which the 'rage' virus is released because of some animal activists freeing the chimpanzees that are carrying it, we are greeted with perhaps one the most memorable and striking scenarios in British cinema, as Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens to an empty and desolate London. It's truly remarkable and jaw-dropping, as locations which are usually teeming with people and traffic are completely vacant. If you start as you mean to go on, then this is a blistering start, although nothing else in the film quite matches the visual impact of these early scenes (although the M1 devoid of any vehicles comes close later on).

Jim wanders aimlessly through London, looking for signs of life, and ends up seeking refuge in a church that turns out to be filled with dead bodies, but is then attacked by the 'infected' priest. He tries to outrun and escape his attacker, and is rescued by two other survivors, Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley), who then inform him of the events that have happened whilst in his coma. Through a series of unfortunate events, Mark ends up being killed and Jim and Selena find another two survivors, Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and Hannah (Megan Burns), who have discovered an army broadcast that directs them to Manchester. But what waits them there is not exactly what they had expected...

With it's incredibly low budget, Danny Boyle has managed to create a masterpiece. I still love this film, even after seeing it over, I'd say, 20 times. It works not only as a horror piece, but as a portrayal of the extreme measures people will go to in order to survive (not unlike 127 Hours).
It is brutal, at times hard to watch, but still remains almost bleakly beautiful, with some scenes causing your jaw to drop. When they spend the night in the countryside, Jim, Selena, Frank and Hannah see a group of horses gallop past. When asked whether he thinks they're infected, Frank replies: 'No... no they're just fine'. It is a scene accompanied by some haunting music, as are many of the scenes. And the pain Jim has gone through discovering that his parents are dead leads him to see Frank as a father figure, in a scene of amazing poignancy.

Phenomenal performances are brought out of a variety of well know actors (Christopher Eccleston excels as Major West, a man with who disturbingly views the two women in the film as 'the future'), but unfortunately for the rest of them, Megan Burns as Hannah nearly ruins it for everyone. I know she was young and inexperienced, but this is perhaps one of the worst performances I have ever seen. She manages to convey no emotion at any point during the film, even when Frank dies in the second half of the film. A truly terrible performance. But luckily for her, the script and story allow the viewer to almost ignore her scenes.

I feel I must bring up a controversial talking point in the film, where Jim encounters a young infected boy, who he manages to trap under his foot before killing him with a baseball bat. The boy screams out 'I hate you!', the first and in fact only infected person to say anything in the entire film. It is indeed curious, perhaps Boyle's way of suggesting that whilst these people are indeed enraged animals, they retain some sense of humanity. It is certainly a curious scene to leave in the final edit.

I do not feel I can sum up how much I love this film here, but I think one scene can almost achieve it for me. Whilst they are driving down an empty M1, Jim leans out of the window with his hand, brushing it through the air, to the music of Brian Eno, and with giant wind farms in the background. It is perhaps the most beautiful scene in what is largely a violent and bleak film, but fits in magnificently.

---Rating---

9/10

Tomorrow: 3-Iron (Kim Ki-Duk, 2004)

25th Hour (Spike Lee, 2002)

Seen before: Yes

I have never seen a Spike Lee film other than this one (I own 'Inside Man') but am aware of his importance as a visionary filmmaker, and would like to see more of his work. The first time I saw this I was on an Ed Norton 'binge' after watching 'American History X'.

---Plot Summary---

Monty Brogan (Edward Norton) is a convicted New York drug dealer. In the final day before he is due to serve a seven year jail sentence, he takes the time to re-evaluate his life and wrestles with his conscience in trying to find out who tipped off the police to the location of his drugs.

---Review---

The film begins with Monty and his 'henchman' Kostya (Tony Siragusa) finding and rescuing an injured dog. Both characters provide an interesting back and forth that culminates with Kostya misquoting 'Murphy's Law' as 'Doyle's Law'. 'Murphy's Law' is meant to mean what can go wrong will go wrong. And that roughly sums up Monty's imminent situation, as we cut to the present day and Monty is preparing for his jail time by meeting up with and seeking closure with the people most important to him in his life, his two best friends, his girlfriend Naturelle (Rosario Dawson) and his father.

The film is a fascinating portrayal of what a man does with his final day of freedom. Monty spends the day walking the dog he saved in the opening scene (now called Doyle), as he has a lot to think about. At the front of his mind is who betrayed him to the police. He toys with whether it was Naturelle, as in flashback he recalls the day the police came to his apartment and found his 'stash', and the way that she couldn't look at him as the police searched the place. In interrogation with the police, they even try to convince him that she was the one who turned him in. Could Monty truly have misplaced his love and trust in her? He eventually spends his last few hours partying with his friends Jacob and Frank (Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper) and preparing himself for the horrors that will inevitably come with prison life, before a nicely judged ending that is completely believable and appropriate, as Monty asks Frank to beat him to a pulp so that he won't get 'picked' on in prison due to his good looks (characters keep mentioning Monty's good looks throughout).

This is an incredibly stylish film, with a great soundtrack and excellent cinematography. The setting is post-9/11 New York, and there is one particularly memorable scene between Jacob and Frank in Frank's apartment, in which they are discussing how prison will change Monty as a person, to the back-drop of Ground Zero. It is through scenes like this that the film puts forward the importance of time with our loved ones.

Norton puts in an emotive performance as a man who is trying to find redemption. Yes he is a bad person (making money off of people's misery), but he creates a sense of empathy that not many other actors could have matched. You genuinely hope he finds some way of avoiding prison altogether. Seymour Hoffman does his usual supporting role of a level-headed individual laboured with a difficult morale conundrum, as his teacher character struggles to accept he has feelings for one of his students. And Barry Pepper turns in yet another masterly underrated supporting performance (he is always completely watchable) as a stock broker who can't deal with the loss of his friend so tries to convince himself, and others around him, that Monty will be lost once he is released.

I've been led to believe this is not a typical Spike Lee film, but the director really supports his source material well with some snappy editing and a few Lee-esque scenarios (when Monty literally is saying 'Fuck You!' to all the nationalities and religions of the people of New York). It's certainly a powerful film that reminds us how precious life is.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: 28 Days Later... (Danny Boyle, 2002)

24 Hour Party People (Michael Winterbottom, 2002)

Seen before: Yes

The first and in fact only Michael Winterbottom film that I have watched. I remember my university lecturer arguing with me when I said that I thought Danny Boyle was the current best British filmmaker, and Winterbottom was his choice. I guess I need to watch more Winterbottom films before I make a sound judgment.

---Plot Summary---

The year is 1976. The music scene in Manchester is about to erupt, and Tony Wilson (Steve Coogan) is at the epicentre, along with the soon-to-be iconic club, the Hacienda. From Joy Division to the Happy Mondays, this is an exciting time for music, and Manchester.

---Review---

'24 Hour Party People' is a curious piece of cinema. Filmed in a mock-documentary style, and with a massive ensemble cast of actors, including Steve Coogan playing Tony Wilson not too far dissimilar from Alan Partridge, it's at times a mess of a film. But it is however, an entertaining mess. I personally was not fully aware of Joy Division, the Happy Mondays, or Factory Records before I watched this film, and I have to say I did not really have an interest in any of them. But this film does it's best to convey how important these contributors were to the 'Madchester' scene of the 1980s, and it does so through a variety of well edited stock footage and some pleasing visual techniques (the emergence of Bez from the Happy Mondays is particularly memorable).

The film is a homage to the people and city of Manchester. It is glorified throughout the film, even at times when arguably things are getting out of hand, as the birth of rave culture creates a wave of drug dealing and gun crime. At the centre of this way of life is the Hacienda, a warehouse style club that Wilson buys after the success of Joy Division. Whilst initially a disastrous investment, it eventually comes good with the emergence of the Happy Mondays, who create this 'rave' genre of music. I have to say, whilst not a fan of 'rave' culture myself, the film does indeed make it look fascinating and even fun. Their are some amazing sequences filmed within the club that almost create a sense of actually being there, and at the same time make you aware that everyone who was actually there knew they were at the heart of something special.

This film has, as I said, a huge ensemble cast, that includes a wide variety of familiar faces. They include, but are not limited to: Peter Kay, Paddy Considine, John Simm, Ralf Little, Keith Allen, Shirley Henderson, John Thomson and Andy Serkis, who manages to create on of the greatest comic performances I have seen for a while as Martin Hannett, the infamous producer of many of Factory Records best works. Serkis is a masterful performer, bringing to life the larger than life personality of Hannett whilst making him seem utterly believable. It is perhaps the best performance amonst a host of admirable ones, with even characters that have fairly small parts in this story creating a significant impression (Keith Allen is one that comes to mind).

In what is at times a darkly comic film, it certainly has it's fair share of laugh out loud moments, mostly involving either Coogan or Serkis. The film looks great, and is further enhanced by some surrealistic moments (Wilson sees God late on in the film), and whilst the music may not be to everyone's taste, it definitely draws you in. I do feel that however that it can only be fully enjoyed with a prior knowledge of either one of the bands involved in the scene, or of Wilson/Factory Records itself.

---Rating---

7/10

Tomorrow: 25th Hour (Spike Lee, 2002)

24 7: Twenty Four Seven (Shane Meadows, 1997)

Seen before: Yes

Shane Meadows' first feature length film '24 7...' benefited from the fact that a well known face put their name to it, in Bob Hoskins. Without him in the central role, I fear that it would not have been the film to jump start Meadows' career.

---Plot Summary---

Set in the Midlands, an area of poor economic and social growth, Alan Darcy decides to set up a boxing club, a way of getting young men off the streets and out of trouble, a way that he grew up with when he was a youth. The night of the club's first match against another club arrives, but all does not go to plan...

---Review---

I will start by saying that I love Shane Meadows' films. I have seen all of them, including this one, a good few times. Whilst certainly not my favourite of his films, '24 7...' has a certain charm to it that I believe would not be lost on any viewer who was not aware of Meadows. It begins with a young man named Tim (Danny Nussbaum) walking his dog down by the abandoned railway tracks (just one of many symbols of the great, bleak Midlands that Meadows frequently uses in his films), when he finds a down-and-out Alan Darcy (Bob Hoskins) in a derelict shack. He takes him back to his house, puts him to bed, and then begins to read from his journal. The rest of the film is then one extended 'flashback' as Tim reads about Darcy's take on the events that led to him being in the shack.

Darcy is a man who is tired of the young lads in the town sitting around and doing nothing, getting involved with drugs and violence, so decides to set up a boxing club. His main motivation behind this is that he used to box when he was a young man, and it led to drops in crime rates and gave him and his mates a hobby. So he goes about recruiting lads for his club, and uniting previously hostile factions of young men together. The actors playing the young men are almost all first time actors (another common trademark in meadows' early work) but generally all perform pretty well, almost naturally, as I'm sure that a couple lived lives not dissimilar to their characters in the film. Each character lives in different circumstances (one is a junkie, another has an abusive father) and in their own ways we do come to sympathize with their situation.

The boys, whilst reluctant at first, all warm to Darcy's project and eventually become keen and enthusiastic, which leads to Darcy organising a big fight night against a rival club. It's here where everything seems to go off the rails, with Darcy's boys losing their fights and one lad losing control. It leads to a heated crowd reaction and as Tim comes out to box, Darcy gets into an altercation with Tim's father, who he then beats to within an inch of his life. It's this which leads to Darcy's descent into squalor as he leaves the town in shame. It's an ugly scene to watch, as Tim's dad, played by Bruce Jones (Les in Coronation Street) laughs as Darcy beats him, and threatens to slit his own wife's throat when he gets home. It is hard not to feel sympathy for what happens to Darcy after this.

Hoskins turns in yet another great performance as Darcy, it is both an uplifting and at times comical portrayal. As I said before, all the young actors shine in their own way, and it saddens me to think how James Corden, who plays the son of the boxing clubs investor, had such a promising dramatic acting career (he also starred in Mike Leigh's 'All Or Nothing') before he went down the 'funnyman' route. The film is shot in black and white, which I believe was for financial reasons, but it actually works really well in adding to the bleakness and hopelessness of this working class area of the Midlands. Meadows really knows how to show working class in all it's gory detail.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: 24 Hour Party People (Michael Winterbottom, 2002)

21 Grams (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2003)

Seen before: Yes

I remember reading reviews about this film at the time of it's release, and thought it sounded very unique and interesting. 21 Grams is allegedly the amount of weight lost when a person dies.

---Plot Summary---

A dying mathematician (Sean Penn), a suburban mother (Naomi Watts) and an ex-convict who has found strength in God (Benicio Del Toro), have their lives changed by a tragic car accident. These three seemingly unconnected people are brought together as they attempt to deal with guilt, loss, love, and faith.

---Review---

The follow up to Alejandro González Iñárritu's 'Amores Perros', 21 Grams is in many ways similar to his previous film. The story is centered around these three characters, which is a theme common in Iñárritu's films. What sets it apart however, is that the structure of the story is interjected and non-linear. It's a technique seen infrequently in film, and largely succeeds in this film thanks to the excellence of the script (co-written by Iñárritu and his frequent collaborator, Guillermo Arriaga). It means that from the beginning, we have a rough idea of what is going to happen at the end, as we are shown a few glimpses of some of the final scenes. It does mean you have to be paying attention to what is going on, as we learn a little more about each of the three central characters.

Sean Penn plays Paul Rivers, a man on the brink of death, who requires a heart transplant to stay alive. He ends up with the heart of a man who was killed as a result of a hit and run, who he later finds out to be the husband of Naomi Watts' character, Cristina Peck, whose two daughters were also killed in the accident. The driver of the vehicle was Jack Jordan, played by Benicio Del Toro, a reformed ex-convict who believed he had found forgiveness in God. But he then begins to question his faith as to why God would allow him to kill these three people. Paul and Cristina begin a relationship and then decide that Jack must be punished for what he has done.

All three actors are on top, top form, with Del Toro outshining the rest for me. He is completely believable as a man who has been troubled all his life, but has 'been saved'. His mannerisms and the emotion lying behind his eyes conveys the pain he then has to go through, as he turns his back on his family, because he is constantly reminded of what he has done (his children know he has killed). The early scenes of him at his church, trying to teach a young man about right and wrong, are a lesson in self-contained acting. Whenever he is on-screen, he makes his presence felt. Penn and Watts perform admirably too, as their characters turn to each other for some sort of comfort, or answers. The supporting cast also turn in some memorable performances, particularly Eddie Marsan (I had to blink twice) as the priest of Jack's church.

The film looks a little rough around the edges, and has a grainy feel to it, but this actually works perfectly in harmony with the subject matter. Hospital interiors, motel bedrooms and desolate wasteland all convey the sorrow, pain and misery these characters are going through. The fact they are able to attempt to redeem themselves at all is somewhat surprising given their situations. And their turmoil is accompanied by some eerily, haunting music by Gustavo Santaolalla, which never gets in the way of the drama. With it's interesting takes on love and death, it's certainly a film worth watching.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: 24 7: Twenty Four Seven (Shane Meadows, 1997)

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

Seen before: Yes

The first film in my collection to have an 'intermission' halfway through (they seemed to be used frequently in the 60s), '2001: A Space Odyssey' is exactly that. Stanley Kubrick is of course widely recognised as perhaps the greatest director ever, largely due to his ability to make an outstanding film in whatever genre he turned his hand to (comedy, period drama, horror, in this case sci-fi, amongst others).

---Plot Summary---

A mysterious artifact is unearthed on the moon's surface, and is discovered to be transmitting a signal to Jupiter. An expedition is organised, and five crew members (three of which are in hibernation) are sent to investigate, along with the artificial intelligence unit HAL. The secrecy of their mission inevitably leads to complications....

---Review---

First off, I have to say that this film is not to everyones taste. If you are not a fan of extended sequences of minimal dialogue, watch something else. If you are not a fan of non-plot or character based films, watch something else. What this film does have for anyone who is lucky enough to watch it, is pure and simple. Beauty. From the first sequence, labelled 'The Dawn Of Man', in which primitive, early representations of man discover the use of tools, everything looks amazing (The 'ape' costumes are incredibly realistic, it's hard to establish that they are actually people in suits).

Kubrick's vision of the future is remarkable. From the fully rotatable living quarters in the 'Jupiter' section of the film, to the interior of HAL's 'brain', he has created some truly unique visual set pieces. The stand-out is of course the sequence towards the end of the film, when Dave (Keir Dullea) finds himself travelling through time and space, into his own future. For nearly 20 minutes, we are submitted to an assault on the senses, as wave upon wave of fantastical shapes and colour are pushed towards the screen, accompanied by a frenetic score. It is an absolutely mesmerizing part of the film (I can imagine if you were on drugs it would cause you to go crazy).

In HAL, the expedition craft's artificial intelligence, Kubrick and his screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke have created an entity of immense creepiness and cold logic. It becomes apparent from the moment we see his 'eye', a black circle with a small red light in the middle, that something is bound to go wrong. The idea is that he could convey genuine human emotions is toyed with early on, and this is just what happens, as he witnesses Dave and Frank (Gary Lockwood) trying to secretly talk about him, and becomes aware that they are suspicious of his motives when he informs them of a malfunction with the communication equipment that turns out to be false.

In sense, it is hard to interpret what Kubrick set out to achieve with his film. I believe that is a story of the evolution of man, which eventually leads to death and then birth once more. However, the presence of the monolith throughout the film does pose a great deal of questions as to what it represents, or indeed what it actually is. I like to think that it is an instrument in man's evolution through time, an immortal artifact that oversees all life and death. It certainly provides a wide variety of interpretations, which adds to the mystery and enjoyment of this frankly astounding achievement of a film.

With an eclectic score of now immediately recognisable music, that is used in everything from other films to advertising, and an unforgettable visual experience, '2001: A Space Odyssey' is perhaps Kubrick's masterpiece. Quite possibly the greatest technical achievement in cinema.

---Rating---

9/10

Tomorrow: 21 Grams (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2003)

13 Assassins (Takashi Miike, 2010)

Seen before: No

Bought this film recently, after generally positive reviews from critics. What intrigued me is that it's director, Takashi Miike, is infamous for highly explicit violence in all of his films, yet this film seemed, on face value, to be a typical samurai film. Surely it couldn't be as grotesque as Ichi The Killer and Audition, amongst others?

---Plot Summary---

Set in feudal, Shogun-era Japan, an evil lord seems determined to shatter the country's peace and return to an age of all out war. A group of samurai (led by Kôji Yakusho), on order from the Shogun council, set out to kill him. They are up against an army of 200 men, so plot a trap within a local village to increase their chances of success.

---Review---

Whilst something of a departure for it's director, it becomes apparent very early on that this is a Miike film. In the immaculately restrained opening, in which several meetings of the Shogun council take place in order to discuss what to do about the tyrannical Lord Naritsugu (Gorô Inagaki), we are introduced to the lead samurai, Shinzaemon. His task is described to him by the council leader, but for extra incentive, he is shown a victim of Naritsugu's merciless cruelty. We are then submitted to the distressing sight of a young woman who has had all her limbs severed and her tongue cut out, a symbol of horrific brutality that would fit comfortably into any of the director's other films. However, after this initial shock, Miike fashions a film that is largely dissimilar to most of his previous work (whilst steadily violent, there is nothing in the rest of the film this graphic).

The first half of the film largely focuses on the recruitment of the 'assassins', as friends and associates of Shinzaemon travel to his dojo in order to stake there claims to be part of his expedition to kill Lord Naritsugu. The Lord's personal samurai, Hanbai, even shows up to face up to his foe, without violence. It is a fascinating study of the politics and honour that samurai adhere to, but becomes a little lost, in that it's efforts to inform the viewer of the history of feudal Japan succeeds in drawing us away from the drama occasionally. But this is just a small criticism of what actually turns out to be an extended build up to the second half of the film, in which the samurai reach Ochlai, the stage for their elaborate trap.

Having learned a little more about each of our 13 assassins (one of which turns out to be a hunter the samurai encounter in the forest), they then attempt to create 'a village of death', setting explosives at tactical locations, creating gates that will close upon releasing a lever (trapping whoever is trying to escape), and, perhaps most extravagant of all, flaming bulls (yes that's right).
We know and have know throughout that they are totally outnumbered (13 vs 200+), but you can't help feeling that they might just pull it off, due to their finesse and experience, as Naritsugu's army is largely made up of unskilled, inferior samurai.

So the scene it set for what is perhaps one of the longest and most violent battles of recent cinema. Lord Naritsugu, Hanbei and the army reach Ochlai, completely unaware of the trap that awaits them. By the time Hanbei manages to spot signs of trouble (swords stuck into the roofs, arrows set in the wood at outposts), it is too late, and the army panics and is separated by the gate traps, as the assassins strike with bow and arrow from the rooftops. They also release the bulls to charge down any men in their way. It is a genius plan, if somewhat a little unrealistic/unbelievable. With the numbers of the army severely reduced, the samurai then attempt to strike down all that remain by sword. The fighting is expertly choreographed, so much so I think that the editors decided to leave a lot more scenes in than they should have (it looks like they are fighting and killing double the amount of men).

After the battle, which includes the inevitable deaths of all but two of the assassins. Shinzaemon and Hanbei square up to duel, and Shinzaemon eventually manages to complete his task, at the cost of his own life as well. It's a well scripted confrontation that manages to convince us that Naritsugu needs to die (if we didn't need convincing already). In fact, it is another scene that reminds me that, truthfully, this is another typical 'samurai' film. But it is one that is expertly crafted by it's director, a man who is known for his controversial and cult films, but here is given the license to create a big budget epic.

The film provides a simplistic, appealing setting of the land and surroundings that were likely to be similar to those of the period, which is then destroyed in the climatic battle scene, where the ground is muddy and covered in blood, as rain pours from the sky, yet fires rage on the rooftops.
All the central actors provide credible portrayals, with no one really outshining anyone else (perhaps Gorô Inagaki for being truly believable as a deeply despised warlord), and it is a thoroughly enjoyable and stylish film.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

127 Hours (Danny Boyle, 2010)

Seen before: No

Based on a horrific true story, I have to say, whilst looking forward to watching this, all I could think about throughout was the infamous scene towards the end and how I would react to it (I have a history of turning pale and sweating profusely in especially graphic scenes of violence). Luckily, I did manage to watch it without passing out so therefore can review it unscathed. Sort of.

---Plot Summary---

James Franco plays Aron Ralston, an avid mountain climber, who one weekend decides to head into the canyons in Utah, on what he thinks will be like any other expedition. Unfortunately for him, as he is traversing a narrow canyon, a boulder falls and traps his arm against the canyon wall. What follows is his struggle to escape from his predicament.

---Review---

As much as I'd rather start with something that happens at the end, I'm not going to, I'm going to start at... well, the start. The opening credits are a fusion of stock footage and Aron's 'preparations' for his trip. I'm not really a fan of the 'split-screen' effect, or even the erratic editing, but it's really just a filmmakers technique in order to speed up the process to the main event. It's when Aron reaches the canyons that the film comes to life.

The cinematography is absolutely stunning. I can see why someone like Aron would love to spend his weekends in this epic, beautiful and desolate landscape. From the gorgeous underground lagoon that he experiences with two female hikers he encounters (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn), to the sweeping clear blue sky above, everything on screen looks amazing.

After these early, fresh encounters with the surroundings, it is no surprise that once Aron becomes trapped, everything looks and feels worse. The title of the film appears at this precise moment, which was a clever way to introduce the film (his 127 hours begins now). Aron's arm is fully wedged between the boulder and the wall (there is blood where it has scraped along the rock) and he tries all (non-horrific) available means to free himself. Distressingly, he finds himself unable to move, and fully knowing he could be there for a while, even begins to ration his food and water.

James Franco put in an excellent performance as Aron, a man who clearly knows he is in deep trouble but somehow manages to stay somewhat calm about his situation. Of course, he does start to deteriorate after a few days, and begins having flashbacks and talking to himself. These flashbacks are a mixture of childhood memories and of a previous girlfriend (Clémence Poésy). I felt that these little asides helped us to understand Aron a little better (he seems self-centered and almost oblivious to others). As his water runs out, he turns to increasingly desperate measures, such as drinking his own urine, in order to survive, which reflects what some people would be willing to do just to live.

And now to what is amongst the hardest scenes I've ever had to watch. After nearly 6 days trapped, and after already toying with the idea, Aron decides he must cut his arm free. And since all he has is a blunt Swiss army knife, that it what he must use to do so. And while it may be (barely) sharp enough to cut through his skin, it certainly isn't sharp enough to cut through his bone. Therefore, he must break his arm (in several places) in order to succeed. I have to say I felt sick throughout the scene that follows, as Aron somehow manages to saw through his arm from just below the elbow. When he cuts the nerve I did close my eyes for a few seconds, but I think it is brave of the director to show the true horror of what Aron had to achieve. For the man to actually do this to himself shows immense strength, courage and willpower. With the worst part of his ordeal over, Aron then sets out to reach someone who can help him. Thankfully for him, he does.

This film shows the extreme measures a human being will go through when he is literally, in this case, stuck between a rock and a hard place (which is also what the real Aron Ralston named his book). The director Danny Boyle, who is never one to shy away from brutality and controversy, has succeeded in making a film with a basic premise into a fascinating character study, with some appropriate editing techniques and music along the way (I always love the music in Boyle's films).

Whilst not the best film I have seen recently, it's certainly accomplished and definitely, definitely won't be forgotten for a while, although I feel that is part of the reason I didn't fully enjoy it.

---Rating---

7/10

Tomorrow: 13 Assassins (Takashi Miike, 2010)

12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957)

Seen before: Yes

The late Sidney Lumet's '12 Angry Men', adapted from the play by Reginald Rose, is another film widely regarded as one of the best ever. It is one of the first imdb 'Top 250' films (that I used to use as a guideline as what to watch next) that I managed to get hold of and watch.

---Plot Summary---

An 18 year-old boy has been charged with the murder of his own father. After hearing the evidence against the boy, and his lacklustre defence, the twelve jurors retire to the jury room in order to carry out their verdict. In what seems on face value a simple open and closed case, one of the jurors refuses to accuse the boy of being guilty, as he believes there is reasonable doubt. He then attempts to convince the other jurors that his misgivings are indeed credible.

---Review---

I have seen this film on many previous occasions, and it never ceases to draw me in. Henry Fonda plays Juror 8, the one man in the room who cannot send a young man to his death purely on circumstantial evidence. He is a man alone. Everyone else believes the boy to be guilty, and at first, it does seem as though Fonda's character's views are just wishful thinking. But what Lumet crafts from this unlikely opening is a masterclass in persuasive argument, using facts that previously appeared concrete, and dissecting them to perfection.

The film is largely set within one room (the jury room), but this takes nothing away from the suspense and complexity of the drama. In what appears a simple setting, the viewer is completely absorbed into the situation that these twelve men find themselves in. You find yourself rooting for Juror 8 and his eventual allies as the film progresses, because you feel that you are on that jury too. We gradually find out various information about the other jurors (one is a racist, one is underprivileged, one just wants to get to his ball game) that invariably reveal reasons why they decide to vote guilty initially, and then eventually sympathise and agree with Juror 8.

The script and dialogue is absolutely wonderful, and wonderfully performed by an ensemble cast (including Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall and Jack Warden). Each of the twelve jurors has an important part to play in the film, i.e. none of them are there just to make the numbers up. Fonda gives an assured performance as Juror 8, in what is the most important and central role, and manages to convince that that he is indeed right to have so many questions and doubts about the trial. And Lee J. Cobb is terrific as Juror 3, the one man who seems to have a personal vendetta against the accused. He provides a realistic portrayal of a man who feels he has been betrayed by his own son so feels like he must take it out on this young boy instead.

On a shoestring budget, Lumet has expertly managed to craft a superior film that both enthralls and astounds the viewer (how, how, can a man 11 to 1 turn everyone to his favour?!). With a simple, almost unnecessary soundtrack, that provides welcome interludes between heated discussions, this film captivates and remains with you long after it has finished. A masterpiece.

---Rating---

9/10

Tomorrow: 127 Hours (Danny Boyle, 2010)

(500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

Seen before: No

One of the more recent films I own, I bought it largely due to my admiration for Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the pre-conception that it was not a 'typical' romance film. I had actually seen half of it before but was then marshaled out of the room by my sister, so never got to finish it that time round....

---Plot Summary---

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a boy. Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) is a girl. The day Summer comes to work at the greeting card company that Tom works at, he falls in love with her. He later finds out that she does not believe in love. What follows is an unlikely relationship between the two in which Tom hopes that Summer will eventually fall for him, but as we learn through various jumps backward and forward in time, it's ultimately hopeless.

---Review---

I want to say that Tom's situation mirrors my own life. I want to say that I understand completely where he is coming from. I want to say that we all have our 'Summer' at some point in our lives. Unfortunately, I can't say any of that because it's simply not true (at least not in my case). (500) Days Of Summer is a tale of one man falling utterly and incomprehensibly in love (which has happened to me on a couple of occasions), but then somehow allowing himself to become part of a relationship in which he has been told he has no chance of convincing Summer to love him. Tom is a cool guy, he likes architecture, he likes The Smiths, he likes karaoke (erm...), and he likes what he has with Summer. But he wants more.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt convincingly portrays a man who is bound to one woman, and I mean well and truly glued. The morning after the first night he sleeps with Summer, he emerges from the front of his building with a grin wide enough to fit two faces, and immediately bursts into a grand musical number. This is just one of many 'quirky' techniques the director Marc Webb uses throughout the film to emphasize the fact that this is a 'trendy' and 'indie' romance film. Now while many of these are quite pleasing at first, I found they eventually became tiresome. What did not become tiresome however, was the use of inspired music in this film (that includes the karaoke scenes, I genuinely want to go to a karaoke bar like the one in the film).

What I do like is that the writers and director have tried to convince us, the viewer, that we are in love with Summer too, through, amongst other subtler ways, Tom's descriptions of everything he loves about her. Unfortunately, Summer is played by Zooey Deschanel, who I have always found incredibly annoying (it's her voice and her general doughy eyes). I know that to some people she is the perfect 'girl-next-door' but I just don't understand her appeal. That's not to say she doesn't produce a satisfactory performance, but I may have been drawn in further by another actress.

There are some genuinely touching and laugh out loud moments in the film (the penis shouting scene is something that me and a friend actually used to do), and at times it is heartbreaking, especially when Tom finds out that Summer has moved on from him when he so clearly has not. But ultimately, what I gained from the film is to never give up hope of true love (which I guess is a good message to put forward). It's certainly an interesting watch, but just lacks that little bit of magic to make it a modern classic.

---Rating---

7/10

Tomorrow: 12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957)

2046 (Wong Kar-Wai, 2004)

Seen before: No

'2046' is a sequel (of sorts) to 'In The Mood For Love', Wong Kar-Wai's critical and commercial breakthrough to the West. As a big fan of Asian cinema, and a big fan of science fiction, it's safe to say I was looking forward to viewing this (even after an evening of drinking).

---Plot Summary---

Tony Leung plays Mr. Chow, a writer on a permanent vacation in a small Hong Kong hotel. He is writing his latest novel, '2046', a story about a fictional place where a fictionalised version of himself searches for lost memories, represented in the forms of fictionalised versions of people he is involved with in reality. As he struggles to come to terms with the fallout of his previous relationship with his true love, he encounters several women who become involved in his life in some way or another...

---Review---

As much as I'd like to avoid it, this film cannot avoid comparisons with 'In The Mood For Love'. It is essentially a carry on from that earlier film, with Tony Leung's character Mr. Chow apparently comfortable with the result of his failed affair with Maggie Cheung's character in that film. Stylistically, the two films are very similar. Wong Kar-Wai is an absolute master at producing sumptuous visuals to support his equally sumptuous actors (Zhang Ziyi and Faye Wong, who star in this film, are without a doubt two of the most achingly beautiful actresses around). Scenes which appear simplistic at first, such as those filmed within a restaurant, are given layers of detail which other filmmakers would pay less or no attention to. Chow's mental visualisation of his own idea, the realm of '2046', is a perfect representation of a future that is both bleak and beautiful.

If Tony Leung was an English speaking actor, he would probably have more Academy Awards than anyone else. This film provides just another shining example of his supreme acting talent. He purveys a subtle, accomplished performance of a man who at face value appears to have moved on, but deep down is still seeking what he once loved. With a single glance Leung expresses more repressed angst than most actors can manage in a career. He is amongst my favourite actors of all time (others on the list include David Thewlis, Paddy Considine, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Toshiro Mifune and Vincent Cassel). His co-stars also perform admirably, with Zhang Ziyi's playful Bai Ling providing a welcome 'distraction' for Chow throughout the first half of the film (perhaps providing Chow with the relief of not having to write).

In the second half of the film, Chow's vision of '2046' becomes fixated on the presence of another two women, Jing-Wen Wang (played by Faye Wong) and Su Li-Zhen (Gong Li), with the latter turning out to be a namesake of his lost love. It is from Chow's encounters with these two women that he gradually begins to remember what he once had with Maggie Cheung's Su Li-Zhen in 'In The Mood For Love', which he channels into one extremely emotive act towards the climax of the film (accompanied by the haunting music of 'Casta Diva' by Vincenzo Bellini).

I was however, frequently frustrated by the constant use of slow motion. I don't feel it added much to the film, therefore I deemed it unnecessary.

One of the last lines of the film is as follows, Chow addressing Bai Ling with:

"Do you remember you asked me if there was anything I wouldn't lend? I've given it a lot of thought and now I know there is one thing I will never lend to anyone."

It is clear from this that Chow will never allow his love to someone else. Su Li-Zhen is his true love, and will be forever. In reality, and in '2046'. Excellent film, can't wait to watch it again in 2 years time ;) (or maybe even 34 years!)

---Rating---

9/10

Tomorrow: (500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

1984 (Michael Radford, 1984)

Seen before: Yes

The film is, as you may have guessed, based on George Orwell's 1949 novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', which termed a number of modern phrases such as 'Big Brother', 'thought police' and 'Room 101'. I have never read Orwell's book and had no prior knowledge of it before watching the film, other than 'Big Brother' somehow controlled everyone.

---Plot Summary---

John Hurt plays Winston Smith, a man, who along with the rest of society, is presided over and somewhat controlled by 'Big Brother', the leader of a totalitarian party that outlaws independent thought. He becomes drawn into a forbidden relationship with a woman named Julia (Suzanna Hamilton) who, like him, has grown tired and frustrated with Big Brother's rules. They attempt to maintain a relationship, knowing that they may be caught at any time...

---Review---

After watching '1984', I have to say I will definitely be looking to read the book, as the entire concept is one which interests me greatly, and adaptations are usually (with some exceptions!) not up to scratch when compared with the source material. It's essentially a futuristic (although set in our past - confusing?) take on what could happen with the outbreak of a third world war.

From the offset, it becomes apparent that the central character Winston does not agree with or adhere to the rules set by Big Brother. The opening scene is set during a rally in 'Victory Square', where every member of the party gathers to watch propaganda videos and messages, during which they are subjected to an image of 'the enemy', Goldstein. Winston shows less enthusiasm than the others in proclaiming shouts of 'Traitor!', implying already that he has become dissatisfied with this society.

As the film progresses, we learn more about the society Winston lives in, which is captured terrifically by Michael Radford with images of derelict buildings and streets, bombs going off in the distance, and tanks and helicopters patrolling the area. It gives a real sense that Oceania (the 'fictional' country where the film takes place) is indeed in a gruelling conflict with the forces of Eurasia/East Asia. The settings are dark, damp and rustic, which in turn creates a growing sense of unease within the mind of the viewer (Big Brother is always watching you)

John Hurt turns in an emotional performance (more towards the end) as a man who wants to be different but is denied this. Winston appears frail, physically, throughout but shows great strength, mentally, just before a climax that sticks in the mind for a while. Richard Burton stars as O'Brien (in what was his last film role before his death), who is a high level member of the party, and turns in an immensely unsettling performance of stoicism as his character attempts to break Winston's will.

I liked the vision of '1984' that the director uses in the film. On a social level, it is clearly in the future, but physical objects remain intact that give us a vision of the past (bottles of gin, razor blades, phones with a dial ring), leading to a view that it could have been an entirely possible setting the world may have found itself in at that time, and Eurythmics provide an enthralling soundtrack to this dystopian/utopian (depending how you look at it) landscape.

As previously mentioned, the scene at the end of the film set in Room 101 is both despairing and shocking, as throughout the film we are led to believe (through Winston's dreams/visions) that it is a place of beauty and peace (I guess in some weird way it could be argued that it is).

The one criticism I level at the film is that at times it appears disjointed and slightly confusing (I am still not certain what has happened when Winston remembers stealing the chocolate from his sister as a child) but otherwise it was very enjoyable and has convinced me I must read the original novel.

---Rating---

8/10

Tomorrow: 2046 (Wong Kar-Wai, 2004)

8½ (Federico Fellini, 1963)

Seen before: No

So here we go. Starting off with what is perhaps regarded critically as one of the best films ever by one of the world's greatest ever directors. Start as you mean to go on I guess. Or something like that.

---Plot Summary---

The central character Guido (Marcello Mastroianni) is essentially a semi-autobiographical version of the director himself, who just so happens to be making a film that in itself is semi-autobiographical. Confused? I was initially too. It's really a film within a film. Guido has lost all inspiration and vision for his new film, and as a result wrestles with memories and dreams of people (mostly women) he has met and moments he has spent in the past, rather than deal with the intense pressure being put on him by his producer, screenwriter and actors.

---Review---

I had been meaning to watch this film for a while, and even attempted to once last year but fell asleep during it (purely due to tiredness!). It's certainly a complex, original, and intriguing portrayal of the severe pressure put upon film-makers to deliver something successful, but throughout we are aware of how much Guido wants it to remain his own vision (although he never seems quite sure what that might be).

The film opens with what appears to be a dream sequence in which Guido finds himself trapped, in more than one sense of the word. He is trapped in traffic, and as we are shown the motionless people in their motionless vehicles, Guido begins to suffocate in his own car. He tries to escape but is unable to, and everyone around him remains motionless. This feeling of being trapped is an ongoing theme throughout the film, as Guido becomes trapped by the women he loves and the questions being constantly asked of him by people involved with his film.

I was captivated from start to finish, if only to find out whether Guido would actually go ahead with his film. Along the way we meet some fascinating and beautiful women (Claudia Cardinale, Barbara Steele and Sandra Milo amongst them) who Guido has either been with or fantasizes about being with. There is a glorious scene where, within Guido's mind, he lives in a house with all the women he lusts after, where he is fed, bathed and dressed by them (if only), and once they get too old they are banished 'upstairs'. One of the women who is banished such incites a revolt, and Guido then attempts to control the situation by whipping those who are revolting. Its a complex scenario during which his wife remains the voice of reason (perhaps implying that even though he may not want to admit, she is the one he should be with, as she treats him with disdain yet still looks after him).

The ending is again obscure and open to interpretation which I'm not going to go into here, but it remains a satisfying ending nonetheless. The one major criticism I have of this film is that the lighting was very poor throughout the film, especially when indoors, but the acting, dialogue and camerawork was superb.

---Rating---

8/10
(possibly 8½...? No, I'll stick with 8)

Tomorrow: 1984 (Michael Radford, 1984)

Welcome

Hello,

I'm either bored, crazy, or just a nerd, but I have decided to take on this demanding project as a way of promoting my love for film and cinema, as well as hopefully giving people an insight into films they may not have seen or even heard of.

I will be posting once a day, probably in the evening, with the title, director and year of release of the film, as well as a comprehensive review, and then finally, a rating out of 10.

Please feel free to comment, ask questions or provide your own rating.

(I shall be attempting to watch in alphabetical order, but depending on demands within my own life, this rule may occasionally waiver)