Director

Writer - Sergio G. Sánchez

Starring - Belen Rueda, Fernando Cayo, Roger Princep, Mabel Rivera, Montserrat Carulla

Language – Spanish

Runtime - 105 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Horror, Drama

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

Usually when a famous and well respected director, in this case Pan’s Labyrinth creator Guillermo Del Toro, attaches their name to another film under the title “presents” it will draw fans but ultimately disappoint. The Orphanage has broken that trend, at least for now, as it’s a creepy, skin-crawling and genuinely effective little horror film that should have you grabbing for the nearest thing to hide behind.

A woman moves her family into a house where she used to stay as an orphan and she decides to open it up again. Before long her son starts to communicate with some invisible new friends.

It’s not really apparent from the beginning that The Orphanage is going to be the scary ride it soon becomes. It starts off fairly slowly, concentrating very much on the story and the origins of things to come. It sets up things very well for the scares to come, using various techniques to lull us into a false sense of security. But at the same time everything has a creepy air about it, not least of all is the Shining-esque empty house with seemingly endless hallways and huge rooms. The aforementioned Kubrick masterpiece showed us that a huge and empty building can be terrifying in and of itself and The Orphanage has that same thing going for it.

Things soon take a turn for the scarier, and this isn’t really giving anything away since it happens fairly early on, when the main character’s son disappears at a party without a trace of who might have took him and where he might have gone. This, also, in and of itself is a creepy thing to watch. The disappearance of a person without a trace is an interesting plot device and it is sure to hold the viewers interest until the conclusion. Added to that the fact that you actually care about these characters and what happens to them, the ordeal they go through makes you feel for them.

What makes The Orphanage so effective is the carefully and precisely done moments of horror and big jump scares. I would need at least three hands to count the amount of times I jumped throughout the movie, in particular one in which I can safely say everyone in the cinema jumped out of their skin all at the same time, and for any horror film to get that reaction from me that many times I commend it thoroughly.

The film uses various different, effective techniques to create the jump scares and general horror tension. Most notably is the use of music, when and how it is employed. Usually in a horror film the music will either build up and up and culminate right when something jumps out at you or it will culminate then there will be a moment or two of silence and then something will jump out at you. The Orphanage builds the music for an extended period of time, culminates as you would expect and then nothing would come of it. This happens more towards the first part of the movie, the music becomes more and more few and far between as the movie goes on, and is used to great effect. This could possibly frustrate some viewers who are used to, want and expect the regular kind of jumps scares but it’s part of the reason it works so well. It plays on audience expectation, does things differently and then proceeds to make you jump regardless.

To accompany the horror element of the film there is also a great sense of humanity to it all. This is fairly unusual in horror films, especially nowadays, as we are used to seeing everything be in a film as an excuse to have the horror element. Here we have both; arguably the humanistic side actually takes president more than the horror does. But it doesn’t once ruin the movie, as it actually adds an extra layer than most, including myself, weren’t expecting to get from the film. This element helps the audience care for the characters and to actually give a damn what becomes of them.

I can’t quite say there was anything majorly wrong about the film, except, perhaps, that it’s a tad too long and the scares aren’t quite as frequent for any die hard horror film. Luckily I am not one of those devoted horror nuts who needs gore and/or terrifying moments for every minute of a film’s runtime. Therefore even though it was noticeable that it wasn’t scary at every moment it didn’t really bother me as it might some.

It’s wonderful to see a horror film that prays on fears of a more phsychological nature and that gets under your skin as opposed to the plethora of gory films we have had as of late. It’s effectiveness can surely be attributed to the skilfully done moments of skin crawling horror and huge jump scares inserted at exactly the right moments. This is most likely going to be wearing the crown of best horror of 2008 and I will be surprised if that’s proven otherwise.

Director

Writer - Joel and Ethan Coen

Starring - Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, Kelly McDonald

Language – English

Runtime - 122 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Crime, Drama, Thriller

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

As one of many long-standing fans of the Coen brothers it’s a bit of an obvious statement to make that I was looking forward to No Country For Old Men. Everyone who has seen it has been saying how good it is, that it should win all sorts of awards in various different areas. And although, for me anyway, it isn’t quite as good as I’ve heard it is still none the less a stellar piece of American filmmaking.

The film is about Llewelyn Moss (Brolin), a man who stumbles upon a drug-deal gone wrong and two million dollars in cash. Hot on his trail is Anton Chigurh (Bardem), a relentless psychopath who’s hell bent on retrieving the money and killing anyone who gets in his way. Trying to find Chigurh is the county sheriff (Jones) who is having little luck in doing so.

The Coen brothers have long since established themselves as two of the world’s greatest filmmakers, certainly America’s and this is another fine piece of work from the twosome. For the first time both brothers share a directing credit instead of their usual “take-turns at it” mentality. Perhaps they wanted to try something new, perhaps they realised they had something so good on their hands that they wanted to equally share the glory (of which they surely will receive) but who knows? Whatever the reason what the both of them have come up with is one of the best films of 2007, a chilling portrayal of life and crime to rival, in some ways, a lot of their other work. I can’t quite go as far as to say they have topped their masterpiece Fargo, or that I like it more than The Big Lebowski; but those are at tough levels to beat.

The casting choices of this film are just perfect. We have Josh Brolin, on a roll after turns in such recent films as Planet Terror and American Gangster, and Tommy Lee Jones in a performance that rivals his similar one as a cowboy in Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. But who everyone is going to be focusing on and who will no doubt be the centre of discussion after viewings of the film is Javier Bardem as the psychopathic killer Chigurh. The way he plays the character, his cold stare, emotionless face, intimidating dialogue and relentless nature is sure to have him stored in the memory of many-a-moviegoer, me most certainly included, for months to come. He is without a doubt one of the most memorable villains of the last fifteen years or so and I doubt he will be beaten any time soon.

Aside from the stellar lead cast we also have a host of supporting actors who all fill their roles admirably. Kelly McDonald plays the naïve and slightly dim-witted wife of Llewelyn, who factors in and out of the film here and then but later on becomes a bigger part, that’s all I’m going to say. We also have Woody Harrelsen, who works surprisingly well, Garret Dillahunt (seen in 2007’s best film The Assassination of Jesse James) and Stephen Root whose character’s name seems to be left out. All of these plus a plethora of other very recognisable faces are scattered here and there throughout various points in the film which always adds to the quality of a film as opposed to trying to have too many main characters on-screen for any unnecessary amount of time.

Having not read the source novel of the film I can’t quite say whether or not it sticks closely to it. But from what I have heard it does exactly that, some people even going as far to say it is one of the most faithful adaptations of a novel in cinema history. It’s the first time in the Coen brother’s careers that they have opted to adapt from another source rather than create the film completely from scratch. And as much as I love the stories they are able to create it was nice to see them try their hand at something new and for them to a put a fresh and different stamp on their style of filmmaking.

While the film is completely different from any of the Coen brother’s previous work it is still very much a Coen brother’s film. Laced throughout the film is their trademark wit and black humour, along with their skill of showing violence without glorifying it and of course at least one or two extremely memorable characters. For any big fans of the brothers’ work there is also a few homages here and there; such as the satchel of money (ala Fargo).

What is, perhaps, the most significant thing about this film is the scoring, or lack thereof. With the exception of the end credits, and a couple of moments of ambient tones, there is no musical score whatsoever. Although I have always loved the music that usually occupies the Coen’s work I welcomed this rare treat of having a film devoid of any music. This technique needs to be utilized by many more directors in the years to come. As a result of this the movie has a huge dramatic impact, delivering almost unbearable moments of tension that have you on the edge of your seat. It also gives the actors and dialogue the chance to be the main focus of the film, allowing the viewer to actually hear completely what is happening. The Coen’s recognise this music-less technique as being extremely effective and make the best and full use of it.

Apart from Javier Bardem the other thing that will factor in most people’s discussions about the film is the ending. Although I won’t give too much away some of the following may be considered as a spoiler by some so be cautious as you read on.  There will be two sides to the audience; you will either hate the ending or think it’s perfect. I can’t quite say I’m on either side but if I was forced to decide I would opt to say I really liked it. It’s one of the most unconventional endings I’ve seen in a long time, to be so abrupt and completely skip over a major event is a bold move on the Coen brother’s part and for their sheer brashness I can admire them. It’s normal for someone to immediately think, “Is that it?” Most people will walk away maintaining that disappointment while those who choose to ponder it more will realize its greatness.

What may surprise a lot of people about the film is that the violence that takes place isn’t all that graphic. Apart from a few bloody moments (which aren’t all that bloody compared to some films I could mention) most of the violent acts happen off-screen or while the viewers attention is held somewhere else. Personally I think it gives the film a sort of classiness it otherwise probably would not have had.

No Country for Old Men certainly isn’t my favourite Coen brother’s film (that would be The Big Lebowski) nor do I think it’s their best (that would be Fargo) but it is still worthy of the Coen brother’s label a lot of film fans hold in such high regard. The attention to detail and moments of jarring tension are just a couple of things that add to the overall quality of the film. A lot of people may have a problem with where we arrive by film’s end but trust me; mull it over for a few days and I guarantee you will recognise just how well judged the film is.

Director

Writer - John August

Starring - Ryan Reynolds, Hope Lange, Melissa McCarthy, Elle Fanning

Language – English

Runtime - 100 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Mystery, Thriller, Drama

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

So peculiar yet strangely engaging is John August’s directorial debut The Nines that it surely leaves each individual viewer perplexed in their own way but ultimately satisfied that they gave this rarity a chance.

To explain the plot of this film would be an exercise in futility without giving away everything that happens but I will at least try to give some sort of synopsis. The film is split into three parts; one about a troubled actor, one about a television writer/director and one about a videogame designer (all played by Ryan Reynolds) and the film unfolds by the three stories intertwining with each other in mysterious ways.

Cult cinema is a sub-genre (of sorts) I am a huge fan of. Donne Darko is one of my favourite movies of all time and there are countless other films I just love simply for their weirdness. The Nines is not a film I would immediately say I loved but upon further viewings and dissections I could come to that opinion. If you found the aforementioned Donnie Darko to your taste then you will probably find something to enjoy in this film. It is a brain-fizzing triple-whammy journey into the meaning of life, personal identity and the state of the world as we know it today. And although the film may be a bit too ambitious in its ideas and maybe it doesn’t fully convince the audience of what it’s attempting to say but you have to admire it for its attempt at doing so. So many films nowadays are formulaic, boring schlock that have no merit but to shut off your brain for a couple of hours. At least The Nines tries to be something different, tries to accomplish something most wouldn’t and I for one give it credit just for that.

As strange and confusing as the film is I have to admit I was in tune with it. Although, for the most part, I had no idea what the hell was going, within the context of the film and in losing myself within it I was sort on the same wavelength. Now I don’t claim to be someone who can understand what most are left confused by but there was just something about this film that had me firmly in its perplexing grip.

I can’t go too much into depth with what actually happens in the film and my thoughts about specific things as that would enter the uncharted spoiler territory. But what I will say is the way the film works in three different sections I thought at first was a tad pointless but by the end it would make even less sense if it were done in any other way. As we are slowly given clues as to what it’s all about, the film’s structure strangely works in its own peculiar little way. There is no doubt a plethora of things that I have missed upon first viewing that I would more than want to notice on a second.

Ryan Reynolds is an actor I like most of the time. He has made some stupid role choices in the past (ala The Amityville Horror remake) but most of the time he is a solid, quite underrated actor. I was surprised and yet happy to see him take on a role (actually three) like this as it proves he has versatility and a nose for unique projects. I can’t quite say he is fantastic here but he was certainly more than adequate. I think the same goes for the rest of the cast; perhaps not perfect but good enough.

This is writer John August’s (writer of such films as Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) debut film as a director and for a first timer this is impressive stuff. It would perhaps be a bit odd for an experienced director to make this film but in a weird way it makes sense for a debut director to do so. And despite August’s brave ambition’s being not entirely convincing I admire them none the less.

But in the end I can’t quite recommend The Nines, at least not to a general audience. Personally I had a fun and thought-provoking time with it but any general movie goer who just happens to stumble upon it will no doubt be left confused and annoyed. Whether you are the former or the latter you will have to find out for yourself.

Director

Writer - Daniele Luchetti

Starring - Elio Germano, Riccardo Scarmarcio, Angela Finocchiaro, Massimo Popolizio, Alba Rohrwacher

Language – Italian

Runtime - 105 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Comedy, Drama

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

With the many American and British films we get in cinemas nowadays it’s nice to be reminded that other countries make great films too. An example of this is My Brother Is An Only Child, a strange mix of comedy and drama in just about equal measure resulting in a decisively refreshing and thoroughly satisfying experience.

The film tells the story of two brothers growing up in a communist family in Italy in the 1960’s and 70’s.

Similarly to the highly regarded, by your reviewer, Phillip Seymour Hoffman/Laura Linney film
The Savages, the reason this film works as well as it does is it’s perfect blend of drama and comedy. The latter takes the front seat when it comes down to it but when studied in a more general way there is a pretty equal measure of the two. It’s not the kind of comedy you normally associate with a film branded as just that but more the kind that’s “funny because it’s true”. The lead character, played brilliantly by Elio Germano, injects the light (and sometimes crude) comedic touches to the everyday situations the film showcases and the other actors are clearly playing off of him. That’s not saying that Germano is the only talent to behold here, it’s just he is clearly the lead and everyone else is there pretty much to serve his character’s purpose within the film. The type of everyday comedy that his character and just the film in general provides means that most people can find something to find funny in the film. Even though international audience members can’t relate to the time or indeed the place that the film is set in, it still has something there for all to relate to, or at least have a good chuckle with.

Besides the enthrallingly cheeky and full of life performance by Germano there is a host of excellent performances to support him. From his determined and almost single-minded brother to his rightfully complaining mother. All the characters and performances feel grounded in the real world as we watch them deal with everyday situations and even the more extravagant ones that crop up throughout the course of their lives. The film is endearing when necessary but can, at any moment, quickly change gears into something far more serious. The film gets its mix of emotions and genres completely on the spot and as a result it feels well put together and very satisfying.

The film starts off as a definite comedy, playing on real life situations and turning them into moments to chuckle at. We see Germano’s character as a younger ten year old boy, bouncing through the scenes full of radical ideas and dreams of what he wants to be. He almost purposefully defies his family’s values and their beliefs, almost acting as a rebel towards his family and his brother in particular. During an amusing scene where his brother attempts to “get those fascist ideas out of his head” he proceeds to dunk his head into a vat of water. This acts as the film’s transition of his character from a younger boy to a man. This is just one example of lots of interesting ways the film chooses to go about showing certain things that would otherwise be done in a fairly generic way.

As the runtime of the film goes on it starts to slowly morph into a more serious drama. Although there are slight comedic touches still here and there to keep the film from being depressing it still, none the less, becomes a drama as opposed to the comedy it started out as. There is a backdrop storyline of politics to the film and up until the switch to the more serious tone that’s how it remained. But the politics come more into play as the film goes and although I preferred the comedic style of the first half of the film I still appreciated the fact that politics had to come into play at some point and the way the film makes the transition is very skilfully timed. By film’s end the political aspect takes firmly hold of the reins and it’s hard to explain but it just felt right and correct.

The public film community needs a big reminder that countries other than America and the UK make movies. My Brother Is An Only Child is a fine example of European cinema that should be appreciated more by the masses. Funny, enjoyable, involving and well made are all words that apply to this film. It’s not only a movie for film buffs but a film for everyone.

Director

Writer - Wong Kar Wai

Starring - Norah Jones, Jude Law, Natalie Portman, David Strathairn, Rachel Weisz

Language – English

Runtime - 110 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 12A

Genre - Drama, Romance

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

Wong Kar Wai, the man behind such visually told wonders such as In The Mood for Love and 2046, has attempted his first English language film, in an American setting with western actors. The result is My Blueberry Nights, a visually beautiful but very poorly functioning and quite pointless cinematic disappointment.

A young woman (Jones) takes a soul-searching journey across America to resolve her questions about love while encountering a series of offbeat characters, including a café owner (Law), a gambler (Portman) and an alcoholic (Strathairn), along the way.

In the mentioned In The Mood For Love and especially with 2046, Wong Kar Wai managed to tell a beautiful and engaging love story (continued through both films), overcoming certain plot issues by having gorgeous visuals and poetic and involving dialogue. With My Blueberry Nights he has delivered his very first attempt at an English language film and I was looking forward to see if his magic worked in anything other than an Asian language. As it turns out, in my opinion anyway, whatever he does in his native tongue it just doesn’t translate well at all into English. It’s probably not his fault, you can’t blame him for trying new things but I think now he just has to accept that he needs to stick to the language he knows.

It’s no surprise that the biggest strength of My Blueberry Nights is the visuals. The film is incredible to look at, with so many contrasting colours really catching both eyes at almost all times and for the most part taking over the attention of the audience. Everything else in the film I felt was just there to accompany the stunning visual palette of the film, as opposed to the cinematography being the backdrop to things like the dialogue and the story.

Speaking of story, the film doesn’t really have one and there in lies one of it’s biggest problems. Even though it has a basic outline of a plot nothing really happens in the film. It starts off with some, again, wonderful looking scenes but scenes that seem meaningless none the less. From there it sets off on the road to nowhere and by film’s end we are right back exactly where we started off. If the film had ended with a big revelation or change of tone for example I maybe would have been a bit more impressed but the way it turned out was just the icing on the cake of making the film seem utterly pointless.

As far as cast and the acting I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand Norah Jones is great as the broken-hearted young leading lady, a character we can empathize and sympathise with, whatever has gone wrong in her life, no matter how small the issue. Natalie Portman as the charming, daring gambler is both great fun to watch and pretty pointless as a character. But bringing the acting up to a more positive level is the addition of David Strathairn, someone I wouldn’t associate with wanting to work with this director or in this type of film. Anything, and I mean anything, that he makes an appearance in he is a or in most cases the highlight of the film and here is no different. Although his character isn’t in it for very long he still is in it enough for me to be thoroughly impressed by his unusual role.

Weighing down the acting is the inclusion of Rachel Weisz and Jude Law. Weisz, although putting everything she can into the role, extremely overacts here. Just because you are crying, shouting and generally drawing a high amount of attention to yourself doesn’t make your performance good. Some may see it as fantastic whereas I found it to be unnecessarily over the top. Law, although charming in his usual Jude Law kind of way, gives a horrible attempt at a Mancunian accent and his character just isn’t all that believable. Fortunately Strathairn saves the acting side of things but it was a close call indeed.

The other major problem with the film is the unrealistic dialogue. The poetic, flowing nature of Wai’s dialogue is now confirmed to only work in his native language. For some strange reason the dialogue, in English, sounds forced and fake.

So even though I didn’t hate My Blueberry Nights by any means, the film looks absolutely gorgeous and some of the characters and acting are very impressive, but there’s just too much wrong with it for me to speak generally positively about it. Every scene seems quite forced, most don’t fit as well as they should together and the dialogue is unrealistic. Mr Wai, please, next time, just leave the translator at home.

Director

Writer - Bruce A. Evans, Raynold Gideon

Starring - Kevin Costner, William Hurt, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, Marg Helgenberger

Language – English

Runtime - 120 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 18

Genre - Crime, Drama, Thriller

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

It’s nice to see a film based around a serial killer having an original way of doing things. Taking what is usually the twist ending to a film and giving us knowledge of it from the get-go. It is almost a shame that Mr. Brooks is released during a time of the year riddled with the quality of cinema-2007 and not at a time where quality is needed. As a result it won’t be in my top of the year list but it certainly won’t be in the bottom one.

Kevin Costner plays the title character of Mr. Brooks, a successful and extremely well off business man with a wife and daughter. At night though he tries to fight an inner addiction he has to kill people. But because of his meticulous and clever nature Mr. Brooks has gone unpunished for his crimes.

The force behind his getting away with the murders is his alter ego Marshall, played by William Hurt. The scenes involving Costner and Hurt exchanging plans and witty banter is the film’s strong suit and it would have been better off if the whole film just ran with that idea instead of trying to be something it clearly isn’t. Although we can see Costner and Hurt talking to each other (though Hurt is just in his head) the other characters in the film are just watching him think. In other films that have the alter ego thing employed within that is usually the terribly clichéd twist to it all. It was refreshing to see a film which realises how boring that twist has become and gives us the knowledge of the alter ego in the first scene of the film. Or it may be in other films that when someone is talking to himself the rest of the characters will physically see him talking to himself, thus making the character seem crazy. The way the film deals with the idea of an alter ego is very clever, reflecting the personality of both the personalities, so to speak.

On the surface the idea of a serial killer film may seem a bit boring if the film was to just be about that. And the filmmakers also think that it may be like that so they decided to throw in a few side plots. Once you delve into the scenes of meticulous killing you realise that this is (partly) where the quality of the film lies. Any side plots are extremely non-important when not linked to the primary direction of where the film is going. There’s Brooks’ daughter who has a secret and also there’s a cop trying to track down both Brooks’ and another killer. When concentrating on the latter side plot I feel is where the film’s big weaknesses are. Although thinly linked to the main plot for the most part scenes of her trying to settle her divorce or catch other criminals just seemed completely needless to me. It may have been an excuse to recuperate some of Moore’s dignity after Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle or maybe the filmmakers really did think it was worth having such a side plot in the film. But who knows, right?

There is one side plot, however, that upon getting further into the film becomes part of the main one. It involves Dane Cook (and this isn’t really giving anything away since it is very early on that it happens) blackmailing Mr. Brooks’ because he witnessed him killing a young couple. Although quite miscast and subsequently he doesn’t work as well as someone else could have, Cook isn’t as bad as he usually is. His performance here shows promise that he could be a legitimate, serious actor instead of continuing his streak of unfunny comedic roles.

The idea of this film and the way it at first tries to pull it off comes off as an art house or independent one. But once we get passed the darkly lit opening scenes and come across the flashiness, glamorised look and the big names and faces we realise that this is strictly a Hollywood film. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing but just different than it initially comes across.

I really liked the fact that most of the film is quite dark, both in nature and quite literally. A lot of it takes place at night, in the rain with dark street corners and the inside of Mr. Brooks’ car occupying most of the screen time. It gives the film a great overall feel, one that comes across as being genuinely effective instead of just being a false front.

There were one or two (or more) quite unnecessary scenes or parts of scenes. Some will linger too long while others will not last long enough. But the one that comes to mind is towards the end of the movie. Not giving anything away let’s just say the makers, for some odd reason, decided that they needed an action sequence to make things more exciting. It was blatantly and, in fact, annoyingly out of place and even though it only lasts for about two minutes it did retract from the movie as a whole. Rarely does that happen but it has here. I can’t wrap my head around why they felt the need to add in such a scene when it was already working fine without it.

The performances in the film from all are good enough. Nothing overly exceptional but a particularly addictive performance (if you’ve seen it you’ll know exactly what I mean) from Hurt. The dialogue between him and Costner, like I said, is the film’s definite strongest point although a little more of it wouldn’t have done the film any harm at all.

Despite all of it’s weaknesses Mr. Brooks is still a film I had a lot of fun with and I am willing to forgive all of it’s wrong doings next time round in loo of seeing the interaction between Costner and Hurt again. I can’t quite fathom the hate that people have for Costner as an actor, never mind having that opinion myself. I wouldn’t exactly call Mr. Brooks an Oscar-worthy film (except maybe for a supporting actor nomination for Hurt) but who’s to say the Academy knows anything? The subject matter of the film should be repulsing but as it turns out Mr. Brooks makes it look like it would be a lot of fun.

Director

Writer - Jean Cosmos, Thomas Gilou

Starring - Gérard Depardieu, Nathalie Baye, Mathieu Amalric, Samy Seghir, Medy Kerouani, Mohamed Fellag

Language – French

Runtime - 105 minutes approx.

Age Rating – PG

Genre - Comedy, Drama

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

Similar to the film My Brother Is An Only Child, which I loved, Michou d’Auber aims to combine comedy and drama into one package. Where the mentioned film did it perfectly this has a quite uneven balance of the two, resulting in a sometimes funny and charming but an often confusing experience.

Set in France during the struggle for Algerian independence, Messaoud’s mother is terminally ill and his father, who works long hours at a factory, can’t look after him and his brother, Abdel, anymore so he puts them into foster care. Abdel is taken to work on a farm but Messaoud is taken to live with a childless woman, who hides Messaoud’s Arab origins from her ex-army husband. Re-named Michel/Michou, the young boy has to deal with living with these new people and away from his parents and older brother.

Taking Michou d’Auber for what it, at first, appears to be and what it’s trying to accomplish from the viewer is something which I had to do. Otherwise I would be confused right off the bat as far as what the film was supposed to be. At first it’s a light comedy, what I was explicitly expecting, and for the first hour or so it delivered what it promises to. Taking humour from everyday situations and with the added appeal of a funny and loveable young protagonist. Everything is set up very well, the story compelling enough and serious underneath but with a layer of light comedy on top to keep it from being too serious. As the film goes on, however, it takes some big left turns into extremely serious territories with scenes that were, quite frankly, completely out of place. It was literally like they had switched one of the reels with a different movie at these points and then switched it back when the according scene ended. I felt confusion and annoyance at a few points because of the quick and un-called for shift of gears in the latter half of the film.

Samy Saghir, who plays the young Messaoud, was just terrific here. For an actor as young as he is he did a fantastic job as the lead, completely outdoing all of the older actors in every scene with him. He is charismatic, charming, loveable, funny and just a great actor to watch. I am sure he will get many more roles in the next few years after this and I will look forward to following his career.

He is supported very well by people like Gérard Depardieu, as the hulking, overbearing adoptive father, and Nathalie Baye, as the understanding and very likeable adoptive mother. After his recent fantastic performance in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Mathieu Amalric makes an appearance as Messeoud’s sympathetic teacher and admirer of his stepmother. As far as I can tell as an international audience member the entire supporting cast did their jobs well, laying the ground for young Saghir to walk on.

As much as I hated the sudden shifts in tone from comedy to drama when it was funny it was really funny. Similar to My Brother Is An Only Child, this draws comedy from everyday situations and the likeable nature of our main character. Like I have mentioned Messaoud is such a great character to just hang out with and he provides many comedy moments to have you chuckling as the minutes fly by.

So Michou d’Auber may not be all of what it could have been in terms of quality, as the tone is misjudged at times and when the film turns deadly serious it doesn’t really work as well as it should have but having said that it’s not a bad film either. The performances are all great, with a decisively fantastic one from the young Samy Saghir. When the film revels in it’s aimed at comedy it works fantastically, giving the audience more than a few chuckles. The good things in life is something that cinema rarely explores or even acknowledges and happily Michou d’Auber does both.

Director

Writer - Tony Gilroy

Starring - George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack

Language – English

Runtime - 120 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Drama, Thriller

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

George Clooney is an actor that has been swallowed up by his popularity amongst the general public of being good looking. As a result of this we tend to forget what a talent he really is. His latest film Michael Clayton is just a reminder that this guy is an actor as well as a movie star.

Clooney plays the title character of Michael Clayton, an in-house “fixer” for one of the largest corporate law firms in the world. After a mental breakdown of one of the firm’s important attorney’s (Wilkinson), Michael faces the most difficult challenge of his career and his life.

We have been seeing an increase in this type of film on the big-screen over the past couple of years. Films like Syriana (also starring Clooney) and the recent Breach have attempted to showcase political corruption in the most exciting way possible. The former I feel was one of the most contrived and convoluted films to hit cinemas in a long time and the latter was an enjoyable but ultimately underwhelming affair. And with such films as Lions For Lambs and Rendition on their way soon I am sensing a certain point will come where overflow will occur. Michael Clayton however is a worthy, and surprisingly unique, addition into what is becoming a tired genre.

The film takes us deep into a pit of deception and corruption, managing to maintain a perfect balance of a smart, involving story and entertainment. It isn’t what you would generally call “entertaining”, at least not in the popcorn “fun” fashion. But rather an entertaining involvement in a story that, if it was handled in a different and wrong way, would otherwise be bland. There is something from the advertising of the film that made it seem in a way superficial. Almost like the whole thing was just a backdrop to an attempt to be nominated for Oscars, simply because of the subject matter. Luckily though the film manages to be sincere and honest enough for it to genuinely deserve said Oscars instead of just begging to be.

Writer of the Bourne franchise Tony Gilroy jumps ship to being a director (but still the writer) with Michael Clayton being is debut. It has to be said that for a first time film not only is it impressive that he could pull something as difficult as this off but the fact that he has pulled it off with ease. If you didn’t know beforehand you would swear this guy had been directing all his life and this was an attempt at a film in his twilight years (a not-so-subtle reference to Sydney Lumet). All of the tension and connectivity of the Bourne films is brought with Gilroy here, minus the action. And I am so glad they opted to leave any flashy action out of Michael Clayton and replace it with scenes of equal or better tension, of which there are plenty.

Despite the A-List status that Mr Clooney has I still am of the opinion that he is one hell of an actor. He has proven that he can balance the superstar reputation (with the Ocean’s franchise for example) with smaller, meatier roles such as Syriana and now this. His performance here is a sure fire consideration for the Oscars early next year, apart from the quality of it, the general kind of role demands that sort of attention.

It is rare to have a film with such a strong lead performance as well as multiple stellar supporting ones. Tilda Swinton is excellent in a role very unflattering to her as just a female in general. We see her without make-up, sweating and struggling to fulfil a business role that she has made for herself within the film. Along with her we have the ever brilliant Tom Wilkinson, seen in the film shouting the odds after having a mental breakdown (almost an outcry for a Best Supporting Oscar nomination). Throw in some blend-into-the-background performances (which is a compliment to all applicable) and you have one of most well rounded casts of the year.

Despite it’s fairly wide release this is not what you would call a “mainstream” film, in the classic sense of the word. It is a deeply in-depth study with lots of names and incidents being thrown about between characters. If you don’t keep your wits about you you will no doubt be a bit lost. Although that’s not to say the it is inexplicable or overly complicated but it is just a film that demands your strict attention.

Where Clooney is definitely the film’s biggest strong suit he is not the only ingredient that makes it work as well as it does. A complimenting mix of a smart script, taut and focused directing and an involving story all work together to make for one of the most admirable, classily pulled off movies I have seen in a while.

This is another film that realises that not every bad guy is simply just bad and not every good guy is a saint. It realises, and confidently shows, that there are shades of murky grey in the world and that not everything is just “fine”. It brings everyone involved down to the bear essentials, stripping all sense of movie-star status away to provide a believable and well executed thriller that will no doubt be talked about for months to come.

Director

Writer -  Tae-Yong Kim, Kyu-Dong Min

Starring - Min-sun Kim, Yeh-jin Park, Young-jin Lee

Language – Korean

Runtime - 98 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Drama, Romance, War

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

Memento Mori or “Remember the Dead” is a film I approached with a bit of caution. Having seen the little amount of Asian-horror that I have (and what I have seen being not all that wowed with) I was definitely sceptical about this one. But what apprehensions I at first had soon went away as I started to become almost completely immersed in this film.

The film takes place in an all girl’s high school in Korea, the film tackles not only the horror aspects of the genre of film but also issues such as love, friendship and suicide, and how the latter causes a stir within the group of the gossip- spreading high school students. After a some-what confusing opening and first 15 minutes which includes numerous seemingly unordered flashbacks and various overlapping voice-overs we get thrust into this story of psychological drama and the exploration of a forbidden love between two of the schoolgirls (through the medium of a diary found by one of the other girls).

The film primarily is a psychological drama rather than the horror film that Tartan Asia has deemed fit to call it. Its horror elements make much less of an appearance than promised. But what makes that a relief rather than a disappointment is what the film is about and does tackle is very interesting and unique in just about every way. Considering the film contains an almost all female cast, a school-girl age female cast this is obviously aimed at a younger audience. But in a way that may make the film all the more interesting for a potential older viewer. For a couple of reasons and those reasons being that it gives them a chance to view some of the things that inevitably happened to them when they were that age and the fact that the age rating that the film has been given and it’s content in general is of a more adult nature.

Like I said the film isn’t a full blown, ghost-story horror film as promised. But what it in fact is still a horror but a more subtle and more psychologically effective horror than a full-on ‘jumps and scares’ feature. The film takes the ‘back-road’ of horror if you will, playing more on your emotions and getting you involved with the characters on a personal level, even if they are just gossiping school-girls, which in turn makes you care about them if something were to happen. Not only does Memento Mori have a few jumpy moments, to satisfy any true horror fans who may have stumbled upon it, it showcases some of the personal and apparent horrors that everyone goes through at some time in their (school) lives; teasing, alienation and the feeling of being unwanted. This can be just as scary as any amount of ghosts and demons and Memento Mori does this in great and well-done measure.

At the time directors Tae-yong Kim and Kyu-Dong Min were newcomers both to directing and writing. And for their first attempt at a film, each giving each other a hand no doubt as they worked on the film together in all aspects, this is impressive stuff indeed. Strangely since Memento Mori’s release back in 1999 they have only did one film each (although not together this time). This is strange to me as like I said a great amount of talent is shown here and I think if they put their minds to do it they could come up with a potential masterpeice (which this sadly isn’t).

The film has a very strange and surreal sense of innocence and child-like elements even within very chaotic or adult scenes. This adds to the film’s creepiness and effectiveness very well and ultimately makes the film better. The whole film is more visually pleasing than it is narratively coherent. At times you will be lost as to what is going on and feel as though you are not having a good, worthwhile time with this film (and in a way this is where the film’s flaw is). But trust me, just ride it out until about half way through when things certainly start to become more clearer and you can begin to enjoy what you have taken time out to watch.

I recommend this film not on the basis that it will scare you but more on the basis that it will affect you. It leaves you with a queasy sense of enjoyment that I am sure you will want to feel again upon repeat viewings.

Director

Writer - Eileen Chang (story), James Schamus (screenplay)

Starring - Tony Leung, Wei Tang, Joan Chen

Language – Mandarin, Shanghainese, Japanese

Runtime - 160 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 18

Genre - Drama, Romance, War

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

It is amazing what director Ang Lee is able to get away with in some of his films. Both in what takes place on-screen and in their subject matter. He tackled a very raw and almost taboo subject of homosexuality very gracefully but still at times graphically with Brokeback Mountain. In his latest film Lust, Caution he has conjured up some of the most sexually graphic scenes in recent cinema history that seem to add little to what is otherwise a thoroughly engaging and extremely well made film.

Set in occupied Shanghai during Word War II, newcomer Wei Tang plays a young woman who gets swept up in a dangerous game of emotion and intrigue with a powerful politician (Leung).

The decision to cast a newcomer as the leading lady in Lust, Caution was a stroke of genius in my books. First-timer Wei Tang is nothing short of mesmerizing as the young woman gaining the trust of the dangerous Mr Yee played brilliantly, as always, by Tony Leung. Unless you did your research before watching this film you would swear blind that Tang has a plethora of acting experience when in fact this is her first acting role. Her performance is not only high up on the list of best newcomer performances of 2007 but just in the general performance category, she really is that good. I have absolutely no doubt we will see more of Miss Tang in the very near future and I welcome her with open arms.

Tony Leung may have been obvious choice for the role he plays here and in a respect it was almost inevitable. But I say if you’re good at something then stick to it and Leung certainly is good at playing this kind of role. There is something special that only he can bring to the table and he just seems to be able to bring it in every performance he gives. Anyone who has had any experience of watching Leung, particularly in Wong Kar Wai’s 2046, you will know that he isn’t afraid to bare all for a role. He certainly is “In the Mood for Love” in this film, a few times a little too much.

What will be, and already has been, on everybody’s lips is the graphic sex scenes in the film. Given the nature of the film they should work as part of it but as it turns out the opposite effect has occurred. The graphic nature of those particular scenes adds little to the film overall and instead they stick out like a sore thumb. Other than the fact that the film wouldn’t be as much of a hot topic as it is I can’t see the film being any worse, most definitely better, off than if those scenes had been dialled down or perhaps even removed altogether. Some may argue, and I think the director included, would say that the graphic nature is necessary but personally I don’t see it that way.

Apart from those mentioned scenes I have little other complaint with Lust, Caution. The most regarding thing about it is the cinematography and just how beautiful the film is to look at. It’s something we’ve come to expect from an Ang Lee film, shown in Brokeback Mountain and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon among others, and this film is no different. It is one of those rare cases where most, if not all, of the film is stunning to look at and you could virtually pause it at any moment and you would get a stunning frame of cinema to feast your eyes on.

The film attempts to have an equal measure of things on the surface to enjoy and to have emotion and power underneath for anyone wanting and willing to dig a little deeper. I have heard from various other people that the latter is lacking from the film but I for one didn’t find that at all. I thought the film gave a very balanced sense of almost everything in the film, making you both admire it from afar and engage with it emotionally. For a film to have both of those effects on me is rare and so far that I applaud it.

Perhaps what it most admirable about Lust, Caution is the way in which it takes you on such a personal journey in such an involving fashion. Almost all of the 160 minutes of the films runtime had me concentrating on every little detail, except of course from the graphic sex scenes pulling me out of my engagement somewhat. There was a lingering chance that the long-ish runtime may hinder any enjoyment the viewer may get from this love story but Lee handles it just the right way for that not to happen.

This may just be the most sexually explicit film of the past while and I am certain it will remain that way for a good few months. But don’t let the thought of an uncomfortable few scenes put you off an experience such as this. It’s well worth the almost three hour runtime as it takes you on an extremely intimate, personal and ultimately rewarding journey of deceit, political intrigue and dangerous relationships.