Reviews

`The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love & be loved in return': so begins `Moulin Rouge' as penniless Parisien writer & hopeless romantic Christian (McGregor) types & reads out the story as it at the same time unfolds before us. `My writing was interrupted' (he types & reads, & I paraphrase) `when an unconcious Argentinian fell through the roof' (cue said precipitation) `and a dwarf dressed as a nun ran into the room' (which he did).

Thus the scene is set for an audacious, dazzling, deconstructed & reconstructed, exhilarating romp of a film: a romantic tragedy, a musical that is at the same time old & new, as much an homage to times past as it is a herald of the 21st century.

It turns out that the 2 intruders (Koman as the narcoleptic Argentinian & Leguizamo as the painter Toulouse-Lautrec) were rehearsing a play called `Spectacular Spectacular' (itself a good description of the film, 1 of several play-within-a-play self-references), which Christian is promptly drafted in to rewrite. The play is to be shown at a can-can cabaret theatre, the `Moulin Rouge', where Christian meets & falls in love with the star turn, lady of dubious virtue & struggling wannabe Satine (Kidman). She's a ‘Material Girl' who apparently will do anything for money & for the furtherance of her career, & who is attempting to seduce a rich Duke (Roxburgh) to that end. Christian attempts to turn her with nothing to offer but his undying love & a beautiful singing voice. Can he save the girl & win her heart from the cold evil Duke & his money? Will love save the day? The outcome isn't hard to guess – not least because it's announced in the opening scene – but then it isn't meant to be; this is not your average run-of-the-mill movie.

Visually this is absolutely stunning – the sets & costumes are impossibly colourful, lavish & detailed, the choreography inspired. The cinematography textbook has been thrown out here; the camera seems to have a life of it's own, panning & zooming manically, making a mockery of normal concepts of time & space, & giving us many post-modern sight gags along the way.

The cast is superb: McGregor to my mind is one of the finest actors to emerge out of Britain in recent years, & Kidman fully justifies her star billing. Broadbent, Roxburgh, Leguizamo & Koman give excellent support with really strong performances, & there's a great little cameo from Kylie Minogue as an ‘Absinthe Fairy'. There are moments too of great theatrical power, chief of which to my mind (along with the climax) is the moment when Christian accidentally gives the game away to the Duke about his Hamletesque play-within-a-play; a really powerful scene. The film exudes an intoxicating energy from the opening scene to the stunning denouement, & is in turns exciting, uplifting, inspiring, energising, clever, funny, surreal, & profoundly moving.

The music itself is superb, & ranges from turn of the century vaudeville to Fat Boy Slim, Christina Aguilera & the queens of hip-hop, stopping along the way for opera, Rodgers & Hammerstein, Bollywood, The Beatles, T Rex, Bowie, Madonna, Nirvana, U2 & Beck – among many many others; the original music also is excellent. This is a music lover's paradise! Surpassing even the variety & quantity of the music is how it is used: often completely disparate types of music are meshed together seamlessly in a way that is clever, witty, highly original & simply exhilarating. For instance: a can-can type number sung by the Moulin Rouge cast alternates with the audience singing back lines from Nirvana's `Smells Like Teen Spirit': `here we are now, entertain us' etc.; Christian eventually wins over Satine in a conversation come musical duel comprised almost entirely of lines from pop songs – brilliantly imaginative & witty. The viewer is constantly surprised with the ever-changing musical landscape & at a time when so many films are extremely predictable for this alone `Moulin Rouge' deserves high praise.

The quality of the music is also outstanding, not in the least due to the vocal performances of the stars themselves. Kidman holds a tune extremely well & combines beautifully with McGregor - who is simply magnificent. His is a voice of such control, range, power, tone & expression that it is the equal of his considerable acting talent. His rendition of Elton John's `Your Song' is one of the most beautiful songs I have heard in a long time. Jim Broadbent, playing the theatre owner, adds his stentorian baritone, while Koman growls his way magnificently through a version of The Police's `Roxanne' – in duet with McGregor & a tango - that simply has to be heard to be believed.

`Moulin Rouge' is a truly modern musical; Luhrman has taken hold of an old & cliched genre, injected it knowingly with 21st Century irony, imbued it with great energy, imagination & talent; & has produced a post-modern masterpiece, one of the most audacious & original films seen in a very long time - & one for which he deserves every success. After all, to quote Christian & Satine (& Paul McCartney), `Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs – and what's wrong with that, I'd like to know?', & surely ‘making love not war' has never been more appropriate than it is now. Love it or loath it - & you're sure to do one or the other – for any lover of film this is compulsory viewing.

Me? I've fallen in love. RATING: 10

Corn farmer Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) is working in his field when he hears a mysterious voice saying `If you build it he will come'. Naturally he thinks he's probably losing it but soon afterwards he has a vision of a floodlit baseball field where the corn should be. Ray is haunted by the spectre of his late father (from whom he inherited the farm), & is afraid that at 36 he is becoming just like like him, a man who he only remembers as being old before his time, who `never did one spontaneous thing in all the time I knew him'. Motivated by this fear & also by his having grown up in the 60's with it's embracing of free & spontaneous living, he decides to go ahead, plow down some corn & build the field.

Ray decides that the ‘he' refers to a famous baseball player named ‘Shoeless' Joe Jackson, who was part of a team who accepted money to lose the 1919 ‘World' Series. Although he took the money it was very clear from the quality & manner of his play that he was not playing to lose, but, along with most of the team, he was banned for life anyway. Ray felt the field was to somehow give him a 2nd chance to take up the game he loved & was perhaps unfairly prevented from playing – which is even more weird than building the field as Jackson died in 1951!

Seasons go by & nothing happens, apart from from Ray & his wife (Amy Madigan) developing financial difficulties - caused mainly by the cost of building the field & the loss of revenue from the corn that the field replaced. Eventually ‘Shoeless' Joe, or at least his ghost, (Ray Liotta) does find his way onto the field, along with the rest of his team, & they are happily knocking the ball about. ‘The Voice' however hasn't finished with Ray & he feels directed to go to Boston to meet seminal 1960's author & civil rights activist Terence Mann (James Earl Jones), & take him to a baseball game – so off he goes.

Meanwhile the farm is in danger of repossession & Ray is forced into making a decision…

I think it's important to point out that this is NOT a film about baseball, despite appearances, & despite the game receiving it's fair share of passionate eulogising. This should come as a relief to us Brits, & to most non-Americans, as baseball - & the quasi-religious passion it seems to generate in the States - makes about as much sense to most of us as the English game of cricket does to the average American. Instead baseball is used as a metaphor to highlight the film's major themes, & used to brilliant effect.

Now, I like to think I'm not a particularly sentimental type of guy; however, I've now seen ‘Field of Dreams' 3 times, & every time I found it to be the most powerfully, gut-wrenchingly moving film I have ever experienced. It's done in a completely non-sentimental & non-cliched way - yet there are scenes & situations here that if you aren't at least touched by then, to paraphrase Bette Davis, you probably need to ‘put your VCR where your heart should be'. I'm not going to spoil the ending by giving away too much detail, but Costner beautifully delivers a line there that I think ranks alongside Rutger Hauer's `Time to die' in ‘Blade Runner' as probably the most moving in cinema history – made all the more so because of it's simplicity.

It's this simplicity that I think is one of the film's strengths; everything is beautifully understated & by this director Phil Alden Robinson allows the power of the story to create it's own impact. The dialogue is as you would expect from ordinary people talking in ordinary ways (albeit in an extraordinary context); the settings are banal; & the acting – particularly Costner – is beautifully understated to match. The cinematography is terrific & somehow manages to transform these very ordinary settings into magical places – places `where dreams come true' - & running throughout the film is a simple but hauntingly beautiful musical theme which complements the magical atmosphere perfectly.

The screenplay too is superb – clever, politically astute, deeply moving & at times very funny. The scene where Ray 1st meets Terence Mann & tries to get him to come to a baseball game with him is one of the film's highpoints & is extremely funny & witty – two Hollywood heavyweights in top form slugging it out brilliantly. All the acting is first rate: Jones is as mesmerising as ever, Liotta is perfect as ‘Shoeless' Joe, Madigan is ideal as the starry-eyed supportive wife, even Gaby Hoffman is terrific as their very young daughter, & there's an absolutely magical cameo by Burt Lancaster - but if ever anyone should doubt the star quality of Kevin Costner those doubts should be dispelled by his performance here. He is utterly convincing as an ordinary but open-minded guy dealing with heavy issues, & his performance is laid back & charming but at the same time charged with powerful emotional intensity.

One of the things that most struck me about this film is the perfect symmetry of it's structure: the story unfolds at just the right pace, & is rounded off in a climax which takes us right back to the film's beginning, tying up loose ends & brilliantly forcing us to view the story in a quite different light. The movie's major themes are echoed in a myriad of little touches - this is a directorial tour-de-force.

It's the film's themes which really provide it's power – in a context of contrasting the idealism of the ‘60's with ‘80's cynicism & selfishness, it's all about having a 2nd chance at life, about being able to go back & correct past mistakes – particularly in relation to parents & family - about recreating the past, about being able to achieve long-held but unrealised dreams. By extension, given that this is impossible, the simple but profound message of this movie must be: sort your life out, take hold of your dream, even if it means going out on a limb & taking huge risks - & do it now ‘cos it's the only chance you've got! Magical, powerful, magnificent:

MY VOTE: 10

‘Final Destination' was disappointing. I expected a clever, intelligent splatterfest along the lines of ‘Scream' but this is a poor imitation. The initial idea is good – a bunch of students cheating death by plane crash by receiving a premonition, then death catching up with them, but it fails to live up to it's promise.

This film tries hard to be SOMETHING – but whatever it is it just doesn't happen. For instance, one of the students is in the bathroom; spooky music starts up; he's sitting on the loo (ouch); a tap underneath comes loose by itself & water drips out; he gets up from the loo (phew); he sees a shadow in the mirror; he picks up a razor & cuts himself on the neck; the water moves purposefully towards his bare feet; NO, he's put down the razor & walks away just before the water touches his feet; he plugs in a radio (water, electricity – ouch); again he moves just before the water reaches him; etc., etc. Is this supposed to be funny, knowingly clever, scary, all three? I don't know, but for me it was just dull.

This sort of voyeuristically sadistic ‘who's going to get it next & how' game, although basically in very bad taste, can be very funny: for instance in ‘Scream'. The difference is that ‘Scream' is clever enough to make it obvious that the characters being bumped off in increasingly messy ways were parodies of themselves & not meant to be taken seriously; here however it seems we're supposed to believe that they are real. In expecting us to take sadistic delight in guessing who gets it next & in what particularly grisly manner I think makes a movie like this just plain nasty, & childishly so.

At the risk of getting a touch of the Mary Whitehouses (God forbid) I think it is exactly this sort of movie which contributes to making society, (particularly American society & with it the rest of the Western world), numb to pain, suffering & violence in a way that immunises us from the real thing: so that the war in the Gulf, the Kosovan crisis, become just another TV show - & we forget that there are real people out there suffering & dying horribly, or maybe we just don't care.

OK – end of sermon! I said we're supposed to believe the characters are real – ‘supposed' because they are badly realised, & mostly caricatures: either shallow & nasty, stupid or plain dull. It's possible we're meant to think that they are in fact parodies of themselves but if this is the case it's so badly done it just doesn't come across at all. In fact I doubt if that much thought has gone into it. There are a few genuine shocks & funny moments, mostly based around sudden & unexpected deaths, (although in hindsight I think I found it funny because I wanted it to be so), but overall this left me flat. After the 1st sticky death I lost interest, I didn't give a ‘monkeys' about the characters, the story was thin & the direction mediocre. The best part of the whole thing was a brief cameo by Tony ‘Candyman' Todd as a creepy mortician.

This is doubly disappointing for me as director James Wong along with co-writer Glen Morgan were responsible for some of the very best of the early ‘X-Files' as well as ‘Space: Above & Beyond' & are capable of much better than this.

My verdict: best avoided – unless you're a schoolkid, which I suspect is the target audience: 'it's not big, & it's not clever'.

RATING: 3/10

Stunning, magnificent, overwhelming: ‘Gladiator' is simply one of the best films ever made – go see it! End of review.

What – still need convincing? Oh, OK then: English director Ridley Scott – already responsible for such masterpieces as ‘Blade Runner', ‘Alien' & ‘Thelma & Louise' - has done it again. In a year that has already produced many great films, (e.g. ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley', ‘American Beauty', ‘Galaxy Quest'), this in my opinion is the best film of the year; not only that but one of the best of all time – it's that good!

Recreating the ‘swords & sandals' genre, in the great tradition of Cecil B. DeMille, ‘Spartacus' & ‘Ben Hur', (which gets more than a passing nod in one of the many stunning set pieces), this like a lot of great movies has a plot that is simple but involving – a tale of wrongs done & attempted revenge, the heroic good guy battling against the odds to avenge himself on the evil ruler. In keeping it simple Scott is able to focus on what this film is all about – an action-packed epic, visually stunning & with outstanding performances from an outstanding cast.

From the outset you know this is going to be something special. A Roman legion is in a dark, wet forest (actually in Surrey) preparing for a final battle to quell the last of the resistance of Germanic tribes to the advance of the mighty empire. The resulting battle is wonderfully atmospheric (the ‘hooting' of the barbarians as they prepare to attack is particularly eerie) & it's recreation of the Roman war machine in full cry is awesome to behold. This is filmed on an enormous scale – the sets are breathtaking. Whereas in the past films such as this have had to rely solely on large real sets & ‘a cast of thousands', Scott has added 21st-Century computer technology & shown us what really can be done with it. As a result the sheer HUGENESS of this movie is awe-inspiring. This is probably as perfect a recreation of ancient Rome as is currently possible, & the sets ooze historical accuracy, no doubt helped by being based on a true story.

Conversely, the action sequences are handled superbly & with close-ups & cuts to interactions between the fighters you also feel you're right in there in the thick of it. Scott gets this balance just right, & the result is a film with some of the most stunning action sequences you will ever see, & lots of them.

This is one of those movies where everything seems ‘right' – Scott has once again achieved that rare feat of touching perfection. This is despite the slight inconvenience of Oliver Reed dying during filming & having to be partly replaced by technical wizardry, resulting in a partial rewrite! The cast are all excellent: Reed himself puts in one his best performances as a gladiator manager, & Richard Harris as the ailing Caesar, Joaquin Phoenix as his wonderfully depraved successor, & Connie Nielsen as his sister are all superb. A particularly inspired piece of casting, as a Senator, was Derek Jacobi – whose most famous role, & one of TV's great performances, was in the title role of the BBC's groundbreaking ‘I, Claudius'.

The most praise of all however has to be reserved for the film's star, Russell Crowe, who plays the deposed General Maximus. I realise that I'm not exactly impartial here as Crowe, like me, hails from little old New Zealand - but he is simply magnificent. He eats up the screen with his every appearance, & can be at once tender, terrifying, grief-stricken & commanding. In my opinion he deserves an Oscar. Anyone who's seen him before – particularly in the excellent & controversial Oz film ‘Romper Stomper' - will already know what he's capable of, but he's here added an extra dimension to his already wide range of skills in that he is obviously a natural as an action hero. If he isn't already, I think he is set to become Hollywood's no. 1 action man, leaping into the void created by the advancing years of Schwarzeneggar, Stallone & Willis. And unlike Arnie & Sly, Crowe can also act!

This is a near-perfect cinematic masterpiece: moving, visually stunning, superbly directed, with a great star turn & terrific support, & some of the best action sequences ever seen on film. If you only see one film this year, this has to be it!

Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Marc Caro, perhaps better known for 'Delicatessen' & ('sans' Caro) 'Alien: Resurrection', have here created a mini-masterpiece, a film that is not only visually stunning but is also deeply involving, touching, macabre, & probably the most wonderfully inventive & imaginative film I've ever seen.

If ever a dream was made real & filmed, then cross-bred with cinematic conventions such as plot & characterisation I think this film would come very close to the end product. This film starts in a child's dream, has a central theme of dreams, & looks like a dream. It is shot in gritty 'ultrareal' locations - crime-ridden, rat-infested, poverty-stricken docks & their surrounding hovels - yet every scene conveys an unreal, dreamlike quality that completely belies it's setting: much like a dream on screen. The characters are weird & wonderful, a lot of them looking as if they come from a circus freak show (which many do). It could be described as surreal, but in it's context I don't think it is: it obeys the internal 'logic' of a dream come nightmare where anything & everything is possible.

This film is hard to classify but I think it belongs in the 'cyber-punk' sci-fi genre - characterised by a world of advanced technology but also one of decay, hardship & anarchy. However, unlike most films of that ilk ('Blade Runner' is the best example), this film rather than being set in the future seems to have gone back in time to the Victorian era. The lifestyles, clothing & poverty of the inhabitants of the docks is very Dickensian, & the advanced technology looks more like weird & wonderful contraptions that could have come straight out of a Jules Verne book. So perhaps this is the so far sole example of the 'French Victorian Cyber-Punk Sci-Fi' genre!

There is a host of weird, wonderful & freakish characters here: on a rig in the harbour behind a mine-field live the failed human experiments of a now absent mad inventor's efforts to create his own family outside of the more traditional methods. Head of the house is a monster of a man named Krank who has aged prematurely due to his inability to dream; there are ½ a dozen midget clones who suffer from somnambulism (here translated as 'sleeping sickness'); the woman who was meant to be the wife is even smaller; & 'Uncle Irvine' is a migraine-ridden disembodied brain that is still able to see, hear & speak.

On the shore there are religious cultists named Cyclopes, who upon joining are fitted with an artificially enhanced eye & ears; evil conjoined twins (who I'm sure were influenced by Cora & Clarice from Mervyn Peake's 'Gormenghast' books); a drunken flea-trainer; a simple-minded strongman named One; his very young omnivorous adopted brother Denree; & a gang of child thieves led by a young girl named Miette - among others.

The Cyclopes capture children under 5 who are then taken to Krank's rig where they are hooked up to machines along with Krank so he can attempt to experience their dreams. Not surprisingly - except to Krank & his 'family' - the dreams are always nightmares, Krank's quest remains unfulfilled & his premature ageing continues.

When One's little brother Denree is taken by the Cyclopes he, along with Miette, sets out to find & rescue him.

If this sounds weird & confusing that's probably because it is! The plot is somewhat convoluted & hard to follow, & the freakishness of a lot of the characters I'm sure many people will find off-putting. On the other hand this is definitely one of those movies which benefits from repeated viewings: it has such richness, depths & attention to detail that you will almost certainly notice something different or view it in a different light every time you watch it.

The sumptuous cinematography is one of the outstanding features of this gem of a film - visually this is stunning: every scene looks like a painting; dark & moody but at the same time vividly colourful.

However, what I most love about this film is it's wonderfully imaginative inventiveness. There is so much to admire & enjoy here, & I don't want to spoil things by recounting too many, but there are delightful ideas & tricks here that I doubt I will see anywhere else. Here are a few examples:

A 'bird's-eye' viewpoint is a common thing in film; here Jeunet & Caro give us a 'flea's-eye' view: at several points in the film the action is viewed as if from a flea as it leaps from post to post, hitches a ride on a passing dog then settles in someone's hair. Wonderfully inventive, & also great SFX.

There are some great tricks with perspective to do with the fact that the Cyclopes can swap their eyes with each other, enabling them to see themselves from another's viewpoint.

My favourite character(s), the 'Octopus twins' as they are known, are wonderful - 1 being with 2 heads, 3 legs & 4 arms all over the place - & have to be seen to be appreciated - especially the rather unique way they have of smoking a cigarette!

In what has become one of my all-time favourite movie sequences, a protracted chain of events is set off by a teardrop flying from a child's eye & culminates with a huge icebreaker ship smashing the dock - wonderful stuff.

One final note on the dilemna you always have with foreign-language films of dubbed vs. subtitles. Having seen both I still don't know which I prefer. You lose a lot of the character's personalities when their voices are done by someone other than the actor - for instance the child who did the English voiceover for Miette was awful, whereas the French actress (Judith Vittet) I thought was superb - & should have a great future. It's also disconcerting when the actors' mouths & their words are out of synch. On the other hand having to read subtitles means you aren't able to see as much of the film itself, which in a film of this visual style & detail is a big disadvantage. Maybe I should just learn French & watch the original language version - this film is so good it's almost worth doing just for that reason!

There is so much to this movie I found it hard to describe, & even as I was writing it all sounded a bit like a load of French arty-farty weirdness. It IS weird, but also wonderful, & if you can get past that or (like me) even enjoy it & the complicated plot you will find a film that is unique, rich, rewarding, refreshing & hugely entertaining. I personally rate this is one of my all-time favourites - highly recommended.

Very rarely has ‘art imitated life imitating art imitating life' as well as in my ‘film of the month' of April 2000 ‘Galaxy Quest', a very funny space adventure, & a wicked but affectionate ‘Star Trek' satire.

Apparently director Dean Parisot's all-time favourite movie is ‘The Three Amigos'; ‘Galaxy Quest' is basically the same story translated to space.

Phasers are set on ‘laugh' as Tim Allen (the voice of ‘Buzz Lightyear'), a bimboed-up Sigourney Weaver, England's Alan Rickman (‘Die Hard', ‘Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves') hamming it up to the max, scene-stealing Tony Shalhoub, Sam Rockwell & Daryl Mitchell play actors of a ‘Trek'-like TV series that was axed 18 years before & who now have to content themselves with fan convention appearances & tacky store openings.

Thinking they are being taken to a gig by organisers who are just taking their roles very seriously, they end up on an alien spaceship in the middle of a war with a very nasty species of warlike aliens. The aliens have been monitoring Earth TV & have taken the heroics of the ‘Galaxy Quest' TV show as fact. With their civilisation under threat, in desperation they have turned to the great Commander Taggert & his crew to once again save the day. Unfortunately they don't know this yet, then the jokes fly as thick & fast as a photon torpedo through butter as a bunch of has-been actors have to try to be the real space heroes they've for so long pretended to be…

It might sound pretentious & cliched, but this really is a film that works equally well on several levels: it's an extremely funny comedy, it's a brilliant send-up of ‘Star Trek', but it's also well-done & affectionate enough in it's satire to actually work as a straight example of the very genre it's lampooning.

You don't have to even know ‘Trek' exists to enjoy this, but if like me you're a bit of a ‘Trekkie' but with a sense of humour, you'll love it. The in-jokes are spot-on: Weaver's character's only role on the ship being just to repeat what the computer says; the actor whose one role was as an expendable crewmen on an away mission who becomes terrified of dying when on a ‘real' away mission, etc. etc. Die-hard ‘Trekkers' get a particularly hard time - but it turns out that even the worst of the geeks have their uses…

This film is a joy from start to finish: it's clever, exciting, has great special effects, is hilariously funny & even quite moving in places. My verdict: go see it!

Directed by Aussie Alex Proyas (‘The Crow') & with an all-star & very British cast including Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connolly, Ian Richardson & Mr. ‘Rocky Horror' himself, the great Richard O'Brien, ‘Dark City' is a moody, spectacular & visually stunning ‘cyber-punk' sci-fi thriller.

It reminds me of a very good dance track put together by a top DJ using loads of samples from many older & diverse tracks. Although borrowing inspiration from & copying the work of others the DJ, using his skill & creativity, messes around with then mixes the individual samples together, adds his own touches, & shapes it all into something that exceeds the sum of it's parts & takes on an entirely new identity of it's own.

So it is with this film: borrowing/sharing ideas from (for instance) the original ‘Star Trek' TV series, Michael Moorcock's ‘The Dancers at the End of Time' books, films such as ‘Blade Runner' & ‘The City of Lost Children', & more recent films ‘The Truman Show' & ‘The Matrix'; ‘Dark City' has very little that I haven't seen before in some way or other, but it manages to mesh it's disparate strands into an end product that is fresh, original & highly entertaining.

The eponymous dark city, unbeknown to it's population, is ruled over by mysterious cadaverous beings known only as ‘The Strangers'. These beings have the power to reshape matter at will with the help of great machines underneath the city, a process they call ‘tuning'. Every day at the same time they put everyone in the city to sleep in order to ‘retune' their city environment & reprogram their memories, with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Schreber (Sutherland).

Occasionally a city inhabitant wakes up while he is being ‘reprogrammed' & realises the awful truth, usually leading to madness &/or death. John Murdoch (Sewell) however is different - not only does he escape when he awakes but he somehow himself gains the ability to ‘tune'. In their determination to capture him the Strangers not only chase him themselves but also frame him for a series of vicious murders. Meanwhile Murdoch is desperately trying to find ‘Shell Beach' - a place of which everyone knows but for which they can never quite remember the directions. He vividly remembers spending his childhood there & feels that if he can find it he can escape to freedom.

Plotwise there isn't an awful lot else to it – will the Strangers &/or the police find Murdoch - & if so can he fight them off – or will he find his mythical Shell Beach & escape? Is there a way to defeat the Strangers? And exactly what is the ‘dark city' anyway?

As good as all this is, where this film really excels is stylistically & visually: in those regards this is one of the most amazing films that I have ever seen – the designs, the sets, the costumes, the special effects & the film's overall look & feel are simply stunning. There are images here that are I think some of the most striking in cinema history.

I enjoyed this film immensely – for sheer visual impact & atmosphere it's hard to beat, & the Strangers are some of the most flesh-crawlingly creepy villains I've ever seen. Although I found the plot to be somewhat inconsistent, there's enough to maintain interest, & there's a great surprise or 2 towards the end.

Overall ‘Dark City' is a very rich & rewarding experience, & one that I can thoroughly recommend.

‘Lake Placid': an uncomplicated, undemanding ‘creature-feature' which sets out to do nothing but entertain - & there's nothing wrong with that!

Directed by Steve Miner (‘Halloween H20', ‘Friday the 13th' parts 2 & 3) & starring Bill Pullman & Bridget Fonda, this is basically an update of ‘Jaws': for big shark, read big crocodile; for ocean, read big lake.

In comparison to such a classic movie anything similar is bound to suffer, (just look at Jaws 2 & 3!), & I think ‘Lake Placid' does. It lacks Jaws' tense ‘us versus the monster' claustrophobia, there's not much of a background story, & the characters are shallow. That's not to say it's a bad movie, because it's not – certainly not if you like a big monster, a few shocks & a few laughs – which I do. To be fair, it doesn't set out to copy ‘Jaws': this movie goes for laughs rather than for scary tension, & also differs in that it has very good special effects – which, lets face it, in ‘Jaws' were pretty ropey!

The usual Hollywood cliches are there – city girl vs. hicktown sheriffs vs. kooky scientist, & even a mad old lady (Betty White from ‘The Golden Girls'). They all fight like mad to start off with, but you just know they're mostly going to be best buddies by the end. I particularly liked the mad old lady – she steals every scene she's in, & has some of the best & funniest lines in the whole film, most of which are unprintable! Bridget Fonda's character has some great lines as well – for instance when meeting Bill Pullman's country sheriff for the first time, who is being somewhat patronising to her, she says: "Do you think you could be a little more condescending please, because I'm REALLY slow." (I think she was being a little sarcastic).

This film is largely predictable, lightweight, unoriginal, standard Hollywood fare – but funny, well made, well acted, with a big scary monster & some real ‘Oh my God, my heart's stopped' shockers. Nothing new, but good fun!

For those who like tense psychological dramas I can thoroughly recommend this film, for my money one of the best films of the year.

Directed by Brit. Anthony Minghella ('The English Patient', 'Truly, Madly, Deeply'), & based on the book by Patricia Highsmith (who also wrote ‘Strangers on a Train', which became a Hitchcock classic), it has a great cast: Matt Damon in the title role, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow & Cate Blanchett.

Tom Ripley is a clever nobody with a ‘talent' for mimicry & deceit. He manages to con a rich industrialist into sending him to sunny Italy to find his son Dickie (Jude Law), who's busy living it up on Daddy's inheritance, & bring him back to America.

Rich carefree playboy Dickie is everything shy awkward Ripley is not; Ripley not only wants to be LIKE Dickie, he wants to BE Dickie. The way he goes about trying to achieve this is gripping from start to finish, & I won't give the plot away by going into any more detail!

Suffice to say that along with the terrific acting, beautiful cinematography & a great jazz score, there are some of the most nailbitingly suspenseful moments in any film I can remember since Hitchcock at his best - & coming from me that's high praise indeed!

What I liked most about the film is it's ambiguity – is Ripley diabolically evil, or is he just mixed up? How much of what he does is coldly premeditated, & how much is a ‘crime of passion'? Even though he is a thoroughly nasty piece of work, you somehow find yourself identifying with & even rooting for him, & to me this is the film's triumph. Either that or I just have a few too many ‘dark cellars' of my own!

Weird & Deep – if that's what you like in films you'll enjoy this one; if not, you might as well stop reading now!

From 1st-time director Spike Jonze, whose work up until now has been as a director of pop videos, & co-produced by R.E.M.'s Michael Stipes, this is a film which is highly original & hard to classify.

Craig (John Cusack) is a puppeteer with a habit of living out his fantasies with puppets made to look like people in his life. Unhappily married to frumpy Lotte (Cameron Diaz as you've never seen her before), he is desperately & unsuccessfully trying to have an office affair with sassy hard-nosed Maxine (Catherine Keener).

While looking for a dropped file at work he stumbles across a womb-like tunnel that turns out to be a portal into the mind of John Malkovich (who plays himself). This enables him to experience everything Malkovich does for 15 minutes before being dumped beside the New Jersey Turnpike. When Lotte tries it, she decides she's really a man trapped in a woman's body (or something) & also takes a shine to Maxine. Maxine fancies Lotte too – but only when Lotte is being John Malkovich! Meanwhile Craig discovers he is able to control Malkovich from inside the way he does his puppets, & when Malkovich himself gets involved things really start to get strange…

This is definitely an ideas movie – designed to make you think as much as to entertain. We thought it was largely about Identity; how we define who we are through others - lovers, spouses, children, celebrities – even to the extent of vicariously living our lives through them; & about how we can mercilessly manipulate the people in our lives to meet our own needs. These are however only theories!

Despite being somewhat hard to follow & a bit silly in places, I enjoyed this film – it's intelligent, thought provoking & actually very funny. But it is weird!