January film roundup

Kinsey *** - Biopic about the famous sex researcher, who starts off trying to educate the students at the university where he teaches entymology about sex and relationships, but ends up compiling the world's largest dataset on sexual behaviour in human beings. The film explores the man's own relationships as well as the examining the establishment's attitudes to his research. Interesting but not especially profound.

Following ** - Before Christopher Nolan made the brilliant Memento, he shot this short black & white feature about a man who decides, for his own self-amusement, to trail complete strangers. Perhaps the most common mistake that first-time writers/directors make (I know I've done the same) is to take a structural idea - in this case, the time frame jumps between several different sequences of events - and over-use it. Such is the case here, although it does help to disguise the fact that the plot is quite weak.

Etre Et Avoir **** - Fantastic documentary about the teacher and pupils of a rural French primary school. The teacher's dedication to his flock is genuinely moving.

December film roundup

The Descent *** - Occasionally scary horror which, despite British credentials, is set in North America. Every year, a group of young women get together for an adventure holiday: white-water rafting etc. This year, they're going caving. Predictably, there are tensions amongst the group and, also predictably, certain corners have been cut in the planning of their trip, leaving them vulnerable to whatever lurks in the darkness. Whilst I have no doubt that being trapped without lighting in a cave inhabited by something intent on ripping one to pieces would be utterly terrifying, the filmmakers are hindered by the fact that the medium obliges them to show images most of the time, even in supposed absolute darkness.

King Kong *** - Poor Naomi Watts: although she's one of the world's finest dramatic actresses, she's also one of the most frequently imperilled. So it proves here, with her character contributing little more than (1) wide-eyed stares; (2) screams; and (3) standing around in a very wet dress. There must come a time in a successful director's career when he can get away without somebody telling him that it's all going wrong. Peter Jackson desparately needed someone to tell him to cut out swathes of the material here: in going for an epic feel, he ends up leaving in scenes that are of very limited relevance. Whilst undeniably spectacular in places, in other scenes the special effects don't seem all that special at all; there are particular problems when the CGI elements are supposed to interact with the humans. There are a few nice touches: when Jack Black, as the film director, is trying to find an actress for his film, Faye Wray is dismissed because she is "shooting a picture for RKO". But such moments are few and far between. It's also unexplained why it's set in the 1930s: sure, the original was, but that's because it was made in the 1930s. Finally, in going for a motion-capture Kong, played by Andy "Gollum" Serkis, they have invested the ape with too many human emotions; ironically, then, this hugely expensive bit of animation ends up looking like a man in a monkey suit.

Under The Greenwood Tree (TVM) **** - Effective adaptation from ITV that maintains Hardy's sense of humour.

8 Femmes *** - Bizarre whodunnit-style film about eight women stuck in a country house during a snow storm with a dead man; one of them must have committed the murder, but which? The film takes frequent, slightly surreal turns as it is also a musical, complete with song-and-dance numbers. However, overall it feels a little too much like a stage musical, relying on a single set.

TV review - Movie Lounge *

Waaaaay back in the day, I had this great idea for a new television programme about films that was based on BBC2's Top Gear. The thing about current TV shows about films is that, well, they're dull, which is a real shame, because films are anything but. Top Gear seemed like a good model because I love watching it, even though I have absolutely no interest in cars. A TV show format that can do that is a powerful thing.

Here's what's available in this arena at the moment: There's Film 2006, of course, which is the most reliable of movie review shows, but suffers greatly from having a single reviewer's point of view (Jonathan Ross now, Barry Norman before him) and also suffers from Ross' insistence on sucking up to his guests, or asking crass questions like, "Have you lost weight?"

There's Talking Movies, which is another BBC production concentrating on the latest releases on the other side of the pond.

On ITV, you have regular "behind the scenes" programmes, which are basically cheap filler, because they are provided essentially as advertising for the film in question. Channel 4 fills its film-reviewing remit through its weekend T4 strand, alongside a very nice website which, with the demise of FilmFour's production arm, seems to have taken rather a severe pruning recently.

So, up steps Five, with its new offering, Movie Lounge. At first glance, this seems to be exactly what I was hoping for: the Top Gear of film review shows, with celebrity guests offering their opinions, and a weird and wacky sense of humour underpinning the show.

That's not exactly how it turned out. The "celebrities" selected for tonight's opening episode were hardly experts on, or even very interested in, film. One of them, who was charged with the task of reviewing the critically-acclaimed, award-winning film Capote, confessed early on to not knowing who Truman Capote actually was, rendering his opinion of the biopic rather moot. His contribution became even more derisory when it emerged that he hadn't seen any of the other films under discussion. "I don't go to the cinema," he said, twice; "I stay at home and watch Antiques Roadshow." So, an ideal guest for a show about films, then.

Things got steadily worse as the host was repeatedly ridiculed by his guests for being "posh". As he struggled to keep the uninformed debate under control, he introduced "the most famous actor in the world... under four foot." I was expecting, as I am sure every other viewer was, Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer, but no, it turned out to be Warwick Davis, whose main credits are as Marvin in Hitchhikers' Guide To The Galaxy (in which he doesn't actually appear) and an Ewok in Return Of The Jedi (ditto). The format of this interview was uncomfortably similar to Jonathan Ross, inasmuch as it comprised mainly praise for Mr. Davis' work in a series of low-budget horror films called Leprechaun.

There was a brief diversion into the history of local picture palaces - a subject in which I am very interested - that went absolutely nowhere apart from a long and pointless plug for the presenter's local cinema. No mention of the fact that local cinemas are being shut down and demolished at an alarming rate, but an invitation to the viewer to submit the local fleapit for consideration for a future bit of irrelevant propaganda.

There were two moments that nearly saved the show. First, they had a teenage boy "reviewing" Into The Blue, which focused exclusively on the exact moments in that opus at which either Jessica Alba or Ashley Scott disrobed. That would have been moderately funny, were it not for the sinking feeling that the producers are going to re-use that gag every week. Then they had snooty art critic Brian Sewell on to rant about the latest multiplex-fodder, The Fog. He's always good value for money. Unsurprisingly, his scathing review appeared only to encourage the show's studio guests to go and see the film he hated.

The programme lasted 45 minutes but felt longer, even though it imparted absolutely no useful information whatsoever. It is utterly impossible to make a judgement on whether to go to see the films reviewed on the basis of the studio discussion shown here. One can't help but feel a scintilla of sympathy for the presenter, Giles Coren, who probably is a genuine cinema buff, who happens to have been landed with a dull, pointless TV show.

Movie Lounge (2006) *

December pre-Christmas film roundup

Stage Beauty ** - A film about the end of the era of men playing women's roles in Britain's playhouses and the start of the brave new world of women doing it instead, centred on the relationship between the leading female impersonator of the day and his dresser who, despite being an awful actress, is at least famous for being the very first. Neither Billy Crudup nor Claire Danes are at their best, but Rupert Everett has an absolute ball as the decadent Charles II and Richard Griffiths, as would-be theatrical patron Sir Charles Sedley, steals the screen. The film, which inevitably draws comparisons with the much superior Shakespeare In Love, makes half-hearted attempts to show parallels to the modern day, particularly in the "cult" of celebrity (Danes, having her portrait painted, is encouraged to expose her breast because that's what the punters really want to see). The recreation of London of the era is inadequate and stagey, although perhaps appropriate for a film such as this, particularly one made by a renowned stage director. But ultimately there is a terminal lack of sexual energy between the two leads.

The Majestic *** - Frank "Shawshank" Darabont's ode to an America that has never really existed is not amongst his best work, but does at least prove once again that Jim Carrey can be extremely powerful in dramatic roles. Carrey plays a blacklisted Hollywood writer of the McCarthy era who washes up in a small town where, suffering from amnesia, he is mistaken for the missing son of the town's cinema owner and given a hero's welcome. Darabont handles the story well and evidently has a good handle on evoking the appropriate era, but even in the context of his other films this is pretty implausible stuff.

Crash **** - Described fairly early on in 2005 as "film of the year", this is an ensemble piece about the theme of prejudice in twenty-first century Los Angeles - particularly, but not exclusively, racial prejudice. The interest comes from having an A-list cast in an essentially independent production, many playing against type - Sandra Bullock is a particularly nasty, elitist specimen. Some of the scenarios take on the horror of nightmares in their crushing inevitability. One scene in particular is a masterpiece of emotional manipulation on the part of writer/director Paul Haggis (author of the excellent Million Dollar Baby), leaving this reviewer deeply moved. The film's overall lack of cohesiveness is only a minor niggle: this quite possibly is indeed Film Of The Year.

The Forgotten *** - Bears an uncanny resemblance to an extended episode of The X Files, with grieving mother Julianne Moore investigating the air crash that killed her son and finding mysterious goings-on. A few jolts but, ironically, rather forgettable.

The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe *** - Suffers, as most adaptations do, from damaging comparison with the novel (or even the BBC television serial). Some ropey graphics makes it occasionally hard to care about the CGI-based characters and consequently Aslan's death, which is extremely moving in other versions the story, is curiously uninvolving. The New Zealand-shot battle scenes are highly unlikely to convert anyone who didn't appreciate The Lord Of The Rings. But some of the acting is rather fine, particularly Tilda Swinton, who relishes her role as the evil White Witch, and newcomer Georgie Henley as young Lucy, who, at only ten years old, provides an astonishingly mature performance.

Perfect Day (TVM) ** - While it's great that Five are investing in original drama, this is a bit of a dud, not only covering ground seen elsewhere a hundred times before, but doing it in a rather plodding manner. Set on a couple's wedding day, it's essentially a will they / won't they situation with the ending never in any doubt. The comedic elements are never as funny as the likes of Four Weddings even though they are often much the same, occasionally wandering into uncomfortable territory (there's a recurring "gag" on the idea of underage sex).

The Chorus  (Les Choristes) **** - This is, in essence, a French version of Dead Poet's Society with slight overtones of Mr. Holland's Opus, a smattering of Billy Elliot and spiced with the counter-authoritarian attitude of The Shawshank Redemption in which the inmates take delight in small victories over the oppressive regime. In this case, it is music that provides redemption for a bunch of orphaned and disruptive kids in an austere reform school in rural mid-twentieth century France. Despite all these antecedants, though, and despite the modern-day framing story, the film remains realistic and unsentimental. While the outcome is predictable, the journey there is entertaining and moving enough to keep the audience involved throughout. The memorable performances are all the more remarkable for the fact that the young actors do all of their own singing.

November film roundup

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride **** - It's frustrating to try and review this. I want to give it *****, because it's a brave project and, in its own way, a remarkable achievement. But I feel I ought to give it ***, because the story is weak: love triangles can never be resolved both happily and satisfactorily, and Corpse Bride ducks out. Neither the story nor the songs are as effective as Burton's earlier Nightmare Before Christmas, but the romance is sweeter and the animation inspired. If, in five or ten years time, Burton makes another animation combining the best elements of both films, then it will certainly be brilliant.

Mystic River *** - Clint Eastwood directs this rather depressing tale of three friends torn apart in childhood by terrible circumstances, then thrown back together as adults under equally appalling conditions. It's well made and brilliantly acted, but it is never clear what the overall message of the film is and offers no hope of redemption for its ultimately tragic hero.

Ghost In The Shell *** - An animé that pushes all the proper Japanimation buttons - cyborgs, violence, hi-tech futurescapes. The animation is, occasionally, stunning, but the plot, which draws obvious parallels with The Matrix, is too confusing and lacking in heart to be truly memorable.