Reviews

First the good. It is good that digitalisation, CGI & straight to DVD is making low budget film making more possible. This inevitably means more films, some of poor quality. The writing & general production values of this film are not at all bad. There has been a plethora of poor WW2 films on the market lately. This is not one of them. This is more war drama than war action film & any prospective viewer should bear this in mind.

The film is informative about the strains, stresses & foibles of the young men sent to bomb Germany. Others have commented on the unlikelihood of a joint RAF/US daylight bombing raid. Night war action seldom excites on film. So perhaps we can afford the film maker some poetic licence. The main air action sequence is pretty good.

It is also good that young white South Africans should cast about for what to be proud of in their recent history, just like Germany's postwar generation has had to do. Both generations live under the shadow of twin evils - Nazism & Apartheid. Innumerable German films have dealt with the German opposition to Nazism. Now we have young white South Africans recounting the tale of young white South Africans fighting Nazism in WW2. The decision to use the SS rather than regular Wehrmacht underlines how evil Nazism was.

One could be cynical and say the anti-Nazi heroics of a few can hardly make up for the decades of injustice under Apartheid which followed victory in 1945. But that is not the point. We are talking about post-Nazi & post-Apartheid generations who bear no responsibility for the previous evils of their countries. It is good that a story like the one portrayed in this film can be seized upon by young South Africans, white & black, to show they have a common story of opposing racism & oppression - but in different times & different places.

Now the bad. The South African actors used in the film struggle with the British accent. The portrayal of the SS is too clichéd but does add a dramatic tension which is otherwise rather lacking. The British soldiers appear rather too spic & span for troops who have been fighting their way across France since D-Day.

Whether or not Goldthwait was influenced by Lindsay Anderson's 1968 film 'If', these two satires bear a striking resemblance.

Firstly, both are anti-Establishment. In the case of 'If', anti-British Establishment of public school, upper class officer caste, and Church of England as Conservative Party at Prayer (the CoE has changed a lot since 1968!). In the case of 'God Bless America', anti-Media Establishment which makes money by dumbing down & anti a wide scattering of Conservative America, including racists, homophobes, anti-Semites & the Religious Right. Trash Culture is the main target but this is slippery customer to pin down which is why the 'exploited retard' is gunned down at the end. Apparently, any desire for TV fame is fair game for Goldthwait.

Secondly, the main protagonists appear to be normal people who are driven to murder & mayhem by a profound sense of disgust at the values which are accepted as good by the majority. Cruelty in 'If' is encapsulated by the famous flogging scene & institutionalised bullying allowed by public school teachers as a way of controlling pupils. In 'God Bless America' we have media owners encouraging audience bullying of a retarded contestant. The protagonist, rightly, says this is on the same level as cruelties witnessed in the Coliseum. Heavy hints of American & Roman Empires in moral decline.

Thirdly, both films have surreal elements, probably to suggest that the violence & gore are a fantasy & nothing else.

Fourthly, both films end with a shoot out between the protagonists and the forces of Conservatism & Reaction. The violent end of 'If' seems a little out of place against the cloistered setting of an English public school & the only handle Anderson was able to use was the school's Cadet Corps which gave weapons training to its pupils. Goldthwait has no problem using America's love affair with the gun throughout 'God Bless America' & even uses one murder scene to throw in a quip about gun control politics. The gun dealer scene is very good indeed.

Fifthly, each film is a morality tale explaining Liberal dislikes of Conservative values, especially where these produce cruelty & injustice. Both are uneven in the writing. Anderson had a much narrower target in the British Establishment. Goldthwait has to take into account the wider complicity of the Great American Public in trash culture and, accordingly, a lot of ordinary people get wasted.

The idea of liberals using the gun to exact revenge is the thing that most jars with each film. Violence is the hallmark of the Right, antipathy to violence, that of the Left. Cinematically, shoot outs have much to recommend them. They end the films with a big emotional punctuation mark. Could better writing have produced better satires without the violence? Violence will attract more of the audience that Goldthwait is satirising but I doubt most of them would get it. Liberals like myself may be left feeling a little dissatisfied that he has to use banality in order to critique banality.

Action or words? At the end of the day, this is a matter of personal taste. There is a lot of fine writing in 'God Bless America'. For me, the best line in the film is, "Why have a civilisation any more if we are no longer interested in being civilised?" Films like this need to be made & fine writing alone is unlikely to sustain audience attention. However, it is a great pity that in order to critique the Right, the Left must indulge in the same narrative as the Right. Kindly people dishing out death doesn't really work.

Two and a half hours well spent – if you know the history of the French Wars of Religion. If not and you think the DVD cover promises a battlefest then you may be disappointed. The one major battle scene is short and adequate but war – or how to end it - remains the background theme to this film and occupies little of the screenplay. The film is more about politics than war.

As such, it is pretty faithful to the events and characters involved. Charles IX was only 23 when he died but appears older. The protagonist Henry of Navarre, one of the few French kings regarded as 'good', had a reputation for lechery and the opening scene shows our hero embarking on his lascivious path at a very young age. It also establishes his persona as a down-to-earth lover of peasants enjoying the bucolic life in his small kingdom in SW France.

Standing between Henry and the French throne we have the last two Valois kings Charles IX and Henri III – childless, weak and dominated by their mother Catherine de Medici who is depicted unsympathetically as scheming and unscrupulous. History dealt Catherine a bad hand. She gave her husband Henri II 10 children in 12 years. He then got himself killed in a joust and left her to run a country where religious civil war was about to break out.

Secure in her island fortress on the other side of the Channel, the childless Elizabeth I of England has been credited with preserving religious peace over the same period. Catherine's position was weaker. Effectively the ruler of France for 30 years, she desperately bought time for her sons to grow up. To complicate matters further, we have the powerful Catholic Guise family with their own ambitions for the French throne and the fact that Henry of Navarre is a Protestant in a land where the majority are still Catholic.

Grappling with the French Wars of Religion is difficult enough for any history student. Making a film about this topic demands a careful balance between detail and entertainment. The screenplay includes all the main characters and events and will mainly appeal to those with some background knowledge. More battles would not have explained the story.

To sum up, we have one battle, four political assassinations, a lot of rampant sex between the hero and various women, one dramatic escape, the famous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of Protestants and the good King Henri IV dispensing religious toleration and material well-being to his subjects. To do all this in only 150 minutes is a remarkable achievement.

Inevitably, this film will be compared with the award-winning 'La Reine Margot' (1994). The Margot of 'Henri 4' is a much less sympathetic character. This film tells a different story and covers a longer time span. Of the two films, I think I prefer this one.

Umberto Bossi, leader of the Northern League (Lega Nord) and minister in Berlusconi's coalition Government has a bit part in this film (I failed to spot him). The film was sponsored by the Italian Cultural Ministry. Nothing wrong with taxpayers' money subsidising cultural projects beyond the reach of commercial reward. I applaud how French local government sponsors recordings of obscure but delectable baroque operas. Unfortunately 'Barbarossa' is more soap opera than great cultural project.

This is a pity because it tells an important story. The film works best when it concentrates on the known history. Rutger Hauer makes a very good Barbarossa – the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick 1st who oversaw the canonisation of his predecessor Charlemagne as part of his bid to recreate a Universal Empire. This warrior king is supported by his feisty second wife Beatrice (who bore him 12 children) and his cousin Henry the Lion who finally abandons him before his famous defeat at Legnano. There is some attention to historical detail – his standard, Charlemagne's crown, the outbreak of plague in Rome, the destruction of Milan, Henry's refusal to help before Legnano.

Opposing Barbarossa's imperial ambitions we have the film's hero, one Alberto da Giussano, a mythical figure in the mould of Robin Hood and William Tell. Alberto is also an icon of the Lega Nord. He inspires the Lombard League of rival Northern cities to unite against Barbarossa with such cunning devices as - an unbreakable bundle of sticks!! The writers weave an unconvincing story around Alberto. There is a distracting romance with a 'seer-witch' whose sister is pursued by arch-villain and imperial-supporting Milanese 'traitor' F. Murray Abraham. The sub-plot of what happens to these fictitious characters does nothing for the film at all. It simply dumbs down and spoils the film's central theme, pace and dynamic. Alberto is one-dimensional and has little to recommend him. There is much plain silliness, cliché and banality.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in mixing fact and fiction in a feature film. Interweaving the lives of the mythical Alberto and the real Barbarossa is a useful device which personalises the political struggle. It is a pity that the quality of the very good opening scene is not sustained. The film degenerates into a flabby unfocused meander through some 20 years of history. Hildegard of Bingen prophesying Barbarossa's watery death is an unnecessary distraction which has nothing to do with the film's theme. It should be possible to make a much better 'pro- Lombardy' film than this one. Frederick bearing off the Magi Relics from Milan Cathedral to Germany (where they still reside) added insult to injury after he destroyed Milan. But this is omitted. Script and direction needed to be much tighter.

The battle scenes are mediocre when compared with recent medieval films. The portrayal of the climactic Battle of Legnano is inaccurate. A central role is assigned to scythe-wielding peasants in carts who wreak destruction among the imperial cavalry. The one Carroccio (cart) bearing the standard and crucifix of the rebels has been multiplied and transformed into a division of 12th Century tanks! This is a laughable end to a disappointing film. The battle was, in fact, decided by the late arrival of the Brescian cavalry.

Why these North Italian cities opposed Frederick is never clearly explained. We witness some tax-avoiding sword-smiths butcher imperial officers who catch them smuggling. A written demand from Frederick to Milan is ground underfoot with no explanation. Alberto and friends spend a lot of time crying 'Freedom!' Rivalries between and within cities are alluded to but the F. Murray Abraham character is left to shoulder the burden of the pro-imperial cause. This is shown simply as cowardly and self-serving.

All history is partial and I have no quarrel with an Italian film singing the virtues of the Lombard League. North Italian cities have made a great contribution to Western Civilisation. They were but one player in the forces arrayed against Barbarossa. These included Pope Alexander III, the Norman king of Sicily and innumerable German princes who had already drained power and wealth from the office of emperor which was fast becoming elective. None of these appear as protagonists in this film. This complex political struggle lasted centuries and sowed the seeds of future German and Italian disunity.

In this respect, at least, the film renders good service in highlighting an important piece of history. This long-lasting disunity eventually produced two manic nationalisms, wars of unification and unstable modern unities which quickly degenerated into the Fascism/Nazism whose shadow still hangs over us. So the obscure story told here is an important component of European history which raises the perennial issue of Centralism versus Localism.

Bossi and his Lega Nord wish to rally rich Northerners against corrupt Romans and Mafia-ridden Southerners. They would, no doubt, like to remind us that Barbarossa was able to establish a tight control over Central Italy and a marriage alliance with the Norman South. It seems that only sturdy Northerners can be trusted to maintain freedom from corruption, indolence and outside interference! Having defeated the great Barbarossa, the Lombard League's modern descendants must unite to prevent their hard-earned cash being syphoned off to an unworthy South. So the film's message serves modern identity politics. Nothing wrong with that. All politics is identity politics.

Another historical interpretation would argue that Barbarossa ceded very little to the cities after his Legnano defeat, that his 40-year struggle to build a power base in Germany, Burgundy and Italy left him feeling secure and wealthy enough to embark on the fatal Third Crusade. The premature deaths of Frederick and his son conspired to prevent Germany from developing into a united hereditary monarchy with all the consequences this entailed. The relations between the North Italian cities and their subsequent rulers remained tense because cities produce great wealth which rulers want to get their hands on. Clearly, these tensions remain!

For anyone with an interest in history, this is a film well worth watching. Anachronisms slip in - John 'signing' Magna Carta; the Great Charter itself symbolising a kind of protean democracy; what appears to be a Jacobean table adorning John's tent – to name a few. Yet the film is true to the period and events it portrays and is worthier than most medieval epics in recreating the atmosphere of the time. It outshines Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood' and bears comparison with 'Kingdom of Heaven'. Most viewers will find it less entertaining than either, if only because the scale is much smaller. The writers have made an effort to do justice to the events and characters portrayed.

The film is very instructive in recreating this short siege of Rochester Castle by King John in late 1215. Autumnal mists, watery Medway landscape, mud balanced with medieval technical ingenuity. The whole business of siege is handled very effectively - water and food supply, siege engines, retreat to the keep as the outer bailey is taken, undermining by fire. The battle scenes leave little to the imagination as steel slices through flesh and bone. Probably the bloodiest and rawest depiction of medieval warfare I have seen on film. The script is pretty faithful to the written records which survive.

The depiction of John is the best I have seen on film – probably his first film appearance as a mature king not in the context of Robin Hood. Paul Giamatti is given a good script and carries off the role with panache. It was good to hear him at the end of the film justifying his cruelty with an impassioned speech about anointed kings and his absolute right to expect loyalty from his subjects. A nice little story about his father punishing a servant for a crime John had committed.

As a child, John had seen his mother and 3 older brothers conspire to overthrow his father, resulting in the long imprisonment of his mother. Against all the odds John had outlived his brothers to become king. Possessing ability and cunning, surviving quarrels with both barons and Church; all this gives John a hinterland deserving a script as good as this. 'Bad', impolitic, lecherous, loser against Phillip 'Augustus' of France he may have been, but John was not the one-dimensional villain the Robin Hood stories have bequeathed us, no mere spawn of the 'Devil's Brood'. Unfortunately, the film does add to the 'Bad' King John myth with a blatant untruth. D'Aubigny (Brian Cox) survived the siege to become a loyal servant of John's infant son, Henry III.

It is amusing to see John instructing his chroniclers to omit details of siege events when they are going against him. Amusing because historians have expended much ink debating whether or not John's priestly chroniclers were biased and did him an historical injustice.

Going any deeper into the politics of the period would have presented problems. Stephen Langton, both Archbishop of Canterbury and Arch-inspirer of the Charter, is portrayed sympathetically as John's nemesis. The Pope's recent support for John and the stronger hand this gives him against the rebels is explained. Charles Dance, Brian Cox, and Derek Jacobi all bring convincing gravitas to their well-written roles.

It is difficult to put words into the mouth of an historical John (as opposed to a mythic 'Robin Hood' John) which are both accurate and understandable to a modern audience. We like democracy and hate absolute rulers. John was a feudal overlord rather than an absolute ruler and his relationship to his barons was as much personal as God-given. This long-dead medieval mind-set is hard to grasp and has nothing to do with modern notions of democracy. Magna Carta is rightly seen as a stepping-stone on that long path, but the events we see here were essentially quarrels among the feudal elite and about Church/State boundaries. Quarrelling was endemic to feudalism and any king needed to be 'robust'. Any further descent into historical explanation would undermine the drama. Some viewers may think it already does. As a balance, the minor characters are entertaining and provide some comic relief.

The fictitious romance between the warrior-monk James Purefoy and the lady of the castle will be a plus for some and a minus for others, according to taste. For me it spoiled the film's ending (aimed at the American market perhaps?). A case can be made for it as a device to relieve the dramatic tension of bloody siege and impending doom.

James Purefoy's Knight Templar is an interesting extenuation of the Orlando Bloom character in 'Kingdom of Heaven' and Russell Crow's Robin Hood. Sickened by crusading slaughter in the name of God, all three characters feed into our contemporary existential angst about confrontation with Jihadism.

Pity about the film's title which conjures up images of battleships rather than knights.

Communists come in all types, from harmless to ruthless: armchair theorist, industrial and peasant organiser, fighter against the class enemy, assassin. This film deals with the last two varieties and accords them some moral scruples. The Manouchian Group decline to blow up a brothel containing German soldiers and French girls; their poet-leader Missak Manouchian initially refuses the path of violence because his 'ethics' forbid him. Nazi-Vichy propaganda famously denied them any scruples by calling them an 'Army of Crime'.

It may be that the film sanitises and romanticises both their violence and their contribution: using the attractive Virginie Ledoyen to play the role of Manouchian's wife certainly increases one's sympathy for the main protagonist. 'Flame and Citron' (2008) and 'Max Manus' (2008) deal with similar material and clearly do not romanticise violent resistance to the Nazis. Both these films leave one wondering if the anti-German actions depicted were truly worthwhile or simply futile and counterproductive.

Army of Crime's aim is to rehabilitate these foreign Jews and Communists so they may join home-grown heroes in the Pantheon of The French Resistance. In that respect it hopes to accomplish what 'Paths of Glory' (2006) and 'A Love To Hide' (2005) successfully achieve for French Muslims and homosexuals. It is no wonder that it bombed at the box office, not that it is a bad film, but because its subject matter is so difficult and obscure and morally ambiguous for modern audiences facing 'terrorism' in a new guise.

The film is good at explaining the motives of the (mainly) young men who decide to shoot and bomb occupying Germans. Jewish families rounded up by Vichy police for the Germans, Republican fighters from the Spanish Civil War, anti-fascist refugees from Hungary and Romania combine to produce individuals with an axe to grind. They have seen Fascism up close and find it brutal and nasty. Their vendetta is personal. The assassinations and bombings are depicted well, in particular the shortage of weapons and lack of expertise in their use.

Less well depicted is the issue of German reprisals for such 'terrorism'. The film refers to imprisoned Communists being shot in retaliation but no mention is made of the many non-Communists – 'innocent civilians' - who paid the ultimate price for 'Communist terrorism'. Most early resistance groups disapproved of terrorism, seeing it as futile, dangerous and leading nowhere. Hitler's attack on Russia in June 1941 saw Stalin ordering the French Communist Party to organise an immediate 'Second Front' in order to take the pressure off the Russians.

On 21st August 1941 the Communist Pierre Georges assassinated a German soldier at a Paris Metro station. Other killings soon followed. The Germans shot 50 randomly selected hostages in October. A vicious cycle of attack and reprisal had begun. The Vichy police had largely wiped out the Communist underground by the summer of 1942 and the film shows them dealing efficiently with Manouchian a year later. Active resistance was always a minority affair and informing was widespread.

By 1943-4 Germany was losing the war and opinion was turning against Petain and in favour of more violent resistance. The Jewish deportations had begun and the film shows this as a prime motive in the Manouchian Affair. Manouchian refers to the Armenian genocide which killed his parents to explain his own empathy for his Jewish Communist comrades.

Asking an off-duty German soldier for a light and then shooting him at point blank range may seem rather brutal. So was Vichy torture. So was the Allied bombing of women and children. So were the Nazi deportations to the death camps. The only important question is, 'Did these attacks on Germans do any good?' When asked about the impact of the French Resistance on German war production, Albert Speer famously replied, 'What French Resistance?' Vichy continued to send labourers, food and materials to Germany and to pay for the occupation. Quantifying the contribution of the French Resistance to Allied victory remains problematic and this film provides no answer.

What the film does do is remind us how important the idea of Resistance was in forging post-war French identity. French Communists and their contribution were frozen out of the story as Gaullists and ex-Vichyists joined to create the Fourth French Republic which soon joined the anti-Communist NATO alliance. Anti-Nazi Germans, Spaniards, foreign Jews and Communists who fought alongside 'indigenous' Frenchmen in the 'Resistance' were largely excluded from this new national myth –making. This is what the film aims to redress.

As well as settling personal scores with the Nazis, the Manouchian Group were fighting for a Communist future. Throughout the Cold War period the Communist Red Orchestra in Germany (the subject of 2 little-known films) and the Manouchian Group in France were seen as Stalin's agents. Little sympathy in the West.

History was also being manipulated on the other side of Europe. How appropriate that the Polish film 'Katyn' should be released at the same time as 'Army of Crime.'! 15 months before ordering French Communists to wage war on occupying Germans, Stalin had decided to wipe out the Polish upper-class intelligentsia who did not fit in with his idea of a Communist future. Until 1989 Communist orthodoxy demanded that the 20,000 murdered Polish officers were victims of the Germans, not the Soviets.

I wonder if Karl Marx ever envisaged that 'Das Kapital' might be used to deliver a bomb to a bookshop ? Communism is a great idea. Like all great ideas it can bring out the best and worst in people. However, viewed from my own comfortable life lived through the best half of the 20th Century, I find it difficult to judge these young men who fought a ruthless foe. Within the first 6 months of the occupation, the Germans had beaten up the prefect Jean Moulin and shot Jacques Bonsergent for simply raising his fist against them. Moral ambiguities make this a difficult, murky, subject for a film.

It would be a pity to see this film ghettoised as gay cinema. It is undoubtedly the best film I saw in 2009 and shows what fine work can result from a painstaking commitment to historical detail on the one hand and a concern with plot, character and dramatic tension on the other. No explicit sex scenes and no unnecessary gratuitous violence. A triumph of intelligence and sensitivity.

Portraying occupied Vichy France has proved notoriously contentious and difficult since 1945. This is one of the the fairest films I have seen so far. In particular, it highlights the moral ambiguities and mixed motives involved for any French person engaging with the Germans in daily life. Whether French administrator, businessman, policeman or friend of Jews, the Occupation offered both moral dilemmas and also opportunities to make a fast buck. Stealing the property of deported Jews and black market profiteering appear here as central themes as does the idea of dealing with the enemy for more noble purposes.

The Fourth French Republic was compelled to construct itself on shaky foundations inherited from this murky world: deciding who was collaborator and who resister became part of a foundation myth which was flawed from the start. 'A Self-Made Hero' (1996) deals with some of the ambiguities involved for Frenchmen compelled to reinvent themselves after the Liberation. Mitterand was never able to shake off his Vichy connections.

'A Love to Hide' highlights this central ambiguity extremely well. We are left pondering the most interesting but least appealing character, Jacques, the petty criminal younger brother, as anti-hero. In a fit of jealous pique he unintentionally brings destruction on the central character Jean, treats with the enemy to enrich himself at the expense of Jews and yet marries and protects a Jewess with whom he is infatuated and kills a cruel exploiter of Jews. Villainy is a very grey condition. Nothing is black and white: a Jewess seeking revenge for the death of her parents feels sullied by her attempt.

The Jacques character in many ways represents the Common Man with no interest in politics but with every interest in fostering his own needs. In this respect he reflects the plight of millions of French people during the Occupation who were not pro-German but sullied themselves in their dealings with the new Power which ruled their land.

The film's central theme of homosexuality reminds us that the Great French Revolution decriminalised 'sodomy' in 1791 as part of its general attack on the power of Catholic Church. Vichy recriminalised it in 1942, a ban that was only lifted in 1982. The film makes reference to the Vichy dislike of Jews and gays whom they held responsible for a French moral decline which led to the 1940 debacle.

The film graphically portrays the Nazi persecution of gays, pink triangles, sterilisations etc. It is not fair to suggest that 'Bent' should hold a monopoly of scenes showing pink triangles breaking rocks or that this film is in some way derivative. I saw 'Bent' on stage with Ian McKellan in 1979 and it made a powerful impression which did not really transfer to the film. 'A Love to Hide' is undoubtedly the better of the two films because its tapestry is so rich and the gay experience is woven so competently into the fabric of everyday life. 'Bent' will always be seen as a piece of gay propaganda and will probably remain 'ghettoised' as such: necessary for its time but also necessarily limited.

All of this historical accuracy would count for little if character and plot did not work together to create a compelling and believable drama. They work magnificently. The dramatic tension produced by the central 'menage a quatre' is skilfully crafted. The characters react to each other in an entirely believable way and the story unfolds in a manner which suggests fact rather than fiction. As with many French films, the use of a narrator adds a touch of authenticity.

Two unrequited lovers must settle for less than the real thing and all four characters have to shift their concept of love to a higher, almost platonic, level so that the greater good prevails. Corrupt policemen and SS-men, gay German officers, Vichy spies, collaborators with good/bad motives, petit-bourgeois Petainist mentalities, sibling rivalry, parental imperfections as well as the sheer hypocrisy of gays living in the closet are key elements which are handled with intelligence and sensitivity. Life is shown in all its complexity but this enhances the drama rather than overwhelms it. Potentially difficult material is handled with a lightness of touch. The story is well told.

The film goes some way in highlighting the 40-year wrong inflicted by the French state on the French gay community and in this respect it achieves what 'Days of Glory' achieves for French Muslims. Two groups of outsiders seeking identity, integration and acceptance within broader French society – and with each other. Now there's the stuff of future drama!

I only saw this film because of a friend. I'm glad I did. Having read much classic sci-fi as a youngster(Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Vance, Dick etc.), I've had 40 years to become rather disenchanted with the whole genre. Shoot-em up, CGI schlock becomes rather tedious. Well-made schlock is still schlock. I blame George Lucas – Hollywood has been following his successfully banal formula ever since. Intelligent parodies or comedies like Ice Pirates and Red Dwarf gave some relief but sci-fi films became increasingly shallow, tiresome and predictable. District 9 has restored my faith.

Classic sci-fi always held up a mirror to the human condition, projecting our deepest fears and fantasies into fantastical worlds of the imagination. But always grounded in human culture and history. Inevitably and inescapably. District 9 is a satire in the classic tradition, like 'Starship Troopers' (book and film), and I congratulate its intelligence.

District 9 should not really work at all because it plays all too obviously on contemporary issues such as racism, apartheid and dislike of immigrants and stereotypes such as brutal South African police, Nigerian criminal gangs and evil arms corporations who are completely without scruple. Yet the film works very well indeed, mainly because the writing is so good, the underlying black humour (characteristic of many Japanese films but too subtle for many Westerners) is so apposite and the acting of the lead character Van De Merwe is Oscar-winning.

The shoot-em up CGI is, arguably, part of the parody on which the film rests. It pokes fun at what our popular culture has come to expect. It entertains but does so in an implicitly self-critical way. One feels regret for the violence, a major achievement in a film containing a fair amount of violence.

I suppose the spiritual forebears of District 9 would include Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and the 1985 film 'Enemy Mine'. Developing human empathy for aliens has a long and honourable history – easy when they are cute like E.T. but only made possible with the less attractive aliens of this film by giving them human personas. Anthropomorphism still rules OK! They may look revolting but under the skin, sorry carapace, they are just like us. Sci-fi has always had a problem in this area because we cannot imagine values, thinking and language beyond the human. Star Trek delegated the job to Spock and his mind meld technique. Vulcans can but humans cannot. The necessary cop-out, as in this film, is to make the aliens human under the skin. Hell, they even pay for sex with our women!

This is my only criticism of an otherwise excellent film which does illuminate aspects of the human condition at this moment in time. It should resonate with European audiences fending off Africans coming up from the South, South African audiences beset by Zimbabweans descending from the North, Americans facing imminent hispanicisation and many other cultures 'under threat' by 'tides' of 'illegals'. There is an amazing parallel between the aliens being evicted from their garbage dump existence and the recent action carried out by the French police near Calais.

District 9 does raise uncomfortable questions for our 'Human Rights Age'. Is our 'humane' response to the alien-human tide escaping poverty and oppression really as humane as we would like to believe? MNU is a state within a state - are multinationals too powerful for politicians to control? Does war generate more profit than peace? Hard questions. No easy answers.

This is a film about humans, not aliens. They simply act as a foil to our deepest anxieties and prejudices. The film could provide valuable source material for future historians of our time. Just like the film 'The Shape of Things to Come' (1936) highlighted the widespread fear of mass bombing by poison gas against which it was thought there was no defence. It's easy to forget that all British civilians were issued with gas masks before World War 2. Never used but a real factor in understanding the mentality of the time.

District 9 provides us with a useful mirror to view our own anxieties generated by the globalising age we live in. Few of us really want to look into this mirror. Sci-fi as the conscience of the world. Welcome rain after a long drought. Great stuff!

Tarantino's Holocaust film is to be welcomed. It is intelligent, entertaining, witty, stylish and, above all, well-written. I felt as though I had just watched a European film and not just because most of it is in subtitles.

The film raises several interesting issues:

1. Adorno posed the question, "Can there be culture after Auschwitz?" The answer is clearly 'Yes'. For some Holocaust survivors with 'survivor guilt' the answer to this question was an emphatic 'No': they killed themselves. But theirs is a different narrative to ours sitting in our comfortable cinema seats. Time moves on and the generation with first-hand Holocaust experience is dying out. In fact, during the last 60 years their perspective has remained largely incomprehensible to the rest of us. The Holocaust has become part of the warp and weft of Western civilisation and pops up all over the place. It has become integral to our culture as well as our history. It is a subject for cultural projects, just like baroque composers raiding ancient history for their operas. Making art out of human suffering is, it appears, part of the human condition. Sensuous music is written about the Passion of Christ.

2. Demonising the Nazis may be emotionally satisfying but has never made much sense in terms of understanding their history. The Christoph Waltz SS character dominates this film: attractive, multilingual, cultivated, urbane, efficient, well-mannered – but still capable of strangling a female traitor with his bare hands. He deserves an Oscar. This sympathetic portrayal of individual SS men is nothing new: witness the Muntze character in 'Black Book' (2006). Likewise, Branagh's Heydrich in 'Conspiracy' (2001) is no beast. The Romans thought themselves civilised. So did the Southern planter aristocracy. So did the owners of British country houses built on the profits of the Slave Trade. Intelligence, culture and refinement can go hand in hand with brutality. The multi-lingual talents of Daniel Bruhl are used for the same effect.

3. Tarantino refers to the success of the Nazi film industry. High art could flourish under the Nazis, which is why so many intellectuals and artists continued to work under the Nazis in both Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe. 'The Triumph of the Will' won gold medals in Venice and Paris.

For all their sentimental peddling of folkish, 'back to the soil' nostalgia to the masses, the Nazi elite were really into high culture. Essentially lower-middle class social climbers, they organised galas around theatre, film, opera and classical music where they could rub shoulders with Germany's old elite whom they intended to absorb and supplant. Brutality went hand in hand with culture. Living in the confiscated villas of wealthy Berlin Jews, stealing works of art from all over Europe, the Nazi elite were, quite literally, on the make socially and on the take materially! Tarantino's film conveys a flavour of this Nazi beau monde in which the SS were a new chivalric order, a knightly class based on blood purity, loyalty and self-sacrifice.

4. The 'Basterds' are the thugs of the film rather than the Nazis and are responsible for most of the gory violence. The idea of scalping dead Nazis was a brilliant leitmotif. Famously Hitler thought there was no difference between his project of extermination and settlement in Eastern Europe and what was still going on in the American West at the time of his birth. Indians scalping Whites who were wiping them out. Jews scalping Nazis who were wiping them out. Makes perfect sense!

However, here we have an American director engaged in self-parody. Hitler thought of Americans as decadent mongrels emasculated by a Jewish-Negro culture. The Brad Pitt character is a parody of this concept: monosyllabic, monolingual and almost one-dimensional. Not really as appealing as the Waltz character. Yet these dumb (unsophisticated) Americans did win the war and the Pitt character prevails to inscribe (literally) his own (sophisticated?) brand of justice at the end.

5. Post-1945 history and culture are littered with references to Nazis in hiding and others who raked over their Nazi past. UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele, West German President Lubke, The Odessa File, The Quiller Memorandum - fact and fiction, the list is endless. As late as the 1970's many people believed that Hitler had faked his death and was living in South America. George Steiner even wrote a novella about his capture. The world was full of closet Nazis and their collaborators!

Tarantino's other brilliant leitmotif is carving swastikas into the foreheads of Nazis he allows to live. Historically such branding was used for social ostracism and many would agree that too many Nazis escaped their past too easily.

6. Ultimate vengeance is wreaked on the Nazis by a young Jewish female and her Black lover. This is both banal and emotionally satisfying. The film has recruited women, Blacks and Germans into the anti-Nazi camp as well as Jews and Allies. Nazis in occupied Paris were appalled by the number of Blacks they saw. The fact that Hitler did not die in the summer of 1944 does not exclude the possibility that he could have: 'Valkyrie' (2009) explains this. Tarantino dispatches Hitler and his cronies with his own contrived fiery holocaust. This is emotionally satisfying and a clever play on the Nazi concept of Twilight of the Gods as well as a reference to the millions of Jews turned into ash.

History and the cultural representations of history are fast becoming an indistinguishable melange. This was always the case in literature and film is accelerating the process. I fear a growing number of people are unable to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Yet another reason to support the teaching of history in our schools.

I expected to be a little disappointed by this film but, to the contrary, I was greatly impressed by its dramatic impact and its deft handling of some pretty complex material. Balancing entertainment and enlightenment is always tricky and this film succeeds in both essentials. It is an honourable addition to the filmography of Resistance to Nazism which now includes Georg Elser, Sophie Scholl, Defiance, Rosentrasse, Amen, Edelweiss Pirates, Escape from Sobibor, and Swing Kids. These very different films tell important stories.

I have been a Stauffenberg fan since my teens and have taught the July Bomb Plot to adolescents for nearly 40 years. So I followed the ups and downs of the Cruise enterprise with some interest. Ownership of the story belongs neither to the Stauffenberg family, nor to the German people but to us all. It is clear that an American film star's attempt to make a feature film out of this Plot-which-could-have-changed-History has ruffled a lot of feathers.

Some Germans appear indignant that it has been left to a bunch of foreigners to make the first blockbuster about Stauffenberg. The Stauffenberg family worry that Cruise does not portray their Claus as they remember him. I may grumble that the actors who played Keitel and Witzleben were too short or that the film's depiction of Fromm demanding a Hitler salute from the stump of Stauffenberg's right arm was a piece of cheap theatricality. It would have been nice if they could have got Bruno Ganz to play the same Hitler as he did in 'Downfall'. Goring was poorly portrayed in both films.

However, all this misses the real point. Does the Cruise film sacrifice historical authenticity to the demands of box-office entertainment? I would say not. If anything, it errs in the other direction. Action scenes are kept to a minimum. There are several long, slow scenes. The story of ex-politicians and retired generals conspiring to overthrow the Nazi state is by its nature a very complex one to show on screen. However, it had to be tackled for the film to make sense. Beck, Goerdeler, Witzleben et al are shown but their characters and roles are not fully explained. This is to be regretted but I think that endeavouring to portray all the key plotters would have spoiled the film's pace and dynamic.

The film succeeds in all the key essentials. The technical details of the bombs used to try and kill Hitler and the reasons their failure are fully explained; the prevarications of Olbricht and Fromm, the role of Fellgiebel in closing down communications, the moral dilemma posed by treason in wartime, and, above all, the sheer magnitude of mounting a coup against a totalitarian state are all fully explored. The film shows the organisational successes of the plotters and stresses Hitler's survival as the main reason for the coup's failure. Otto Remer's talk with Goebbels and Hitler brings the coup to an end and the type of death meted out to the protagonists is accurately, if not comprehensively, depicted.

Of course, one could make this film in many different ways. A shot of Hitler staggering out of wreckage with his clothes in tatters or one of him showing Mussolini how Providence had delivered him from certain death would both make good cinema. However, the decision not to show Hitler escaping was the correct one as it would have undermined the dramatic narrative of the plotters putting their plans into motion.

Hitler does not dominate this film but there is a nice reference to his strict non-smoking vegetarianism. Someday History will have to make up its mind whether or not these were real virtues or merely the banal excesses of an obsessive, mean-spirited, petty bourgeois autodidact.

The decision to place Stauffenberg at the centre of the drama was correct even though this over-emphasises his role in the wider Plot. Cruise shows cultural sensitivity in his portrayal of a German hero. Stauffenberg's moral detestation of Nazism is well-documented and Cruise provides a sympathetic and convincing portrait of the man.

Critics have cast Stauffenberg as a convinced Anti-Semite, aghast at the murder of Jews but not at their exclusion from German society. As an upper-class Catholic, he would not have been immune to the religious Anti-Semitism propagated by his Church for 2000 years. Nazi Anti-Semitism was different and not to his taste. Most heroes have flaws. Horatio Nelson's strong support for Black Slavery and the Slave Trade has almost been written out of History. Both these gentlemen lived in cultures deeply ingrained with racist attitudes.

Likewise, the nationalist-conservative mind-set of the conspirators has long been criticised. Their desire for Germany to return to its 1914 borders with all that implied for the Poles is clearly documented.

Clearly, these plotters may have been fallen angels but they were the only angels to hand. Their force was the only one available to overthrow the Third Reich.

The decision to use written German throughout the film was a brave one, as was the avoidance of stereotypical German accents by British actors. Cruise makes little effort to disguise his American accent but this does not detract from his performance. These language decisions clearly help to make the audience more sympathetic to the main protagonists.

Well done, Tom Cruise! You have made an important event accessible to a wider audience. The failure of this plot would cost many lives as the war dragged on needlessly to its inevitable and sordid conclusion. This fact was not lost on my mother-in-law who watched the film with me. Her youngest brother Freddy was a British tank man killed in April 1945 at the age of 19. Success for Stauffenberg offered life to millions.

I welcome any feature film which brings History to life. 'Alatriste' presents us with a series of historical tableaux taken from Velazquez and other artists. King Philip IV, his chief minister Olivares, the poet Quevedo, the Surrender of Breda and the Battle of Rocroi are faithfully recreated from their paintings. However, accurate recreations of the past do not always produce a great film. This expensive and lavish work is not mediocre but lacks a dynamic story-line.

Many Spanish reviewers believe that it was a mistake to compress 5 novels into one film. I agree. The film is strangely episodic and a little shallow in its depiction of both its characters and the large canvass of history over which it ranges.

'Alatriste' can be translated as 'the gloomy one', a name presumably chosen by the author to reinforce the idea of a 'Golden Age' Spain already showing signs of decline. The tenor of the film is unremittingly gloomy with rather too little Spanish sunshine.

Spanning the period 1622 to 1643, we are shown a decadent empire already conscious of its own decline. Towards the end of the period Olivares declares, "The honour and reputation of Spain are lost. All is misfortune." The poet Quevedo opines, "We are now a country of beggars who were once the centre of the universe." Is this historically accurate? Were leading Spaniards of this period so acutely prescient that their new-found wealth and power might be slipping from their grasp? Was Golden Age Spain such a self-consciously dark and anxious place? Or is this retrospective anachronism?

The film certainly presents a critical view of the period. It is scathing about the Inquisition and its power – several characters become its victims. Leading figures such as the King, Olivares, Secretary Alquezar, Chief Inquisitor Bocanegra are all depicted as intriguers. Alatriste serves their nefarious goals - including an attempt to assassinate the Prince of Wales and a scam to divert gold from paying soldiers to building palaces.

The Alatriste character is a Common Man acting as a foil to the system he serves. Dour, uncommunicative, no deep thinker, he ventures few opinions about the world he inhabits. Two decades of loyal service eventually lead him to a verdict on his sovereign, "There are kings and kings and this one should govern." He becomes increasingly aware that he does not serve the best of masters. He is also dismisses the idea that things could be better for ordinary people under different rulers.

Alatriste shows his own independence and sense of honour in this murky world by failing to complete his role as hired assassin and by purposely appearing before Olivares in worn boots. Alatriste is loyal to the Spain he serves but he does not always obey orders.

It is Alatriste's decency and honour which makes him a hero. Decent acts include adopting the son of a fallen comrade and visiting and kissing the syphilitic love of his life as she nears death. He does not kill all those he beats in duels. Olivares calls him, "brave, discreet, trustworthy." Alatriste is deferent to his social superiors – secular and religious -throughout the film but over time he becomes less so, eventually shouting at Olivares. This (productive) outburst is a metaphor for the rebellions that have broken out by 1640. He is useful to those he serves but cannot hope to enter their ranks or sup at their table.

Class distinctions are underlined when an aristocratic comrade from the Flanders war rejects Alatriste's claim that they are 'brothers' –"Not even in combat are we equal. God did not want it so." Brotherhood in arms is not allowed to cross class barriers. Likewise, our low-born hero has the title 'Captain' only in honorary recognition of his fighting qualities. He has no rank. Alatriste's and Inigo's loves both reject them in favour of greater social status and material security.

Religion suffuses life. Catholic anti-Semitism is reflected in a vulgar reference to the size of Olivares' nose, an allusion to his 'tainted blood' as a descendant of converted Jews. The poet Quevedo calls him "a tyrant and descendant of Jews who are now sucking Spain dry." One soldier tells another,"You Portuguese are all half-Jews." Inigo is quite happy to say he has been killing heretics in Flanders. A wintry day in Madrid is 'as cold as a Lutheran.' Alatriste calls the 'black sun' of Flanders, "a heretic sun." Interestingly, several characters facing death disavow their belief in the Afterlife. Fear of the Inquisition kept such scepticism in check but it surely existed in the Catholic world.

The fighting qualities of the Spanish infantryman provide a straw of pride for modern Spaniards to clutch at. The Battle of Rocroi shows pike-fighting contemporaneous with battles of the English Civil War depicted in the film 'Cromwell'. The siege of Breda shows trench warfare and tunnelling to undermine enemy positions which is comparable to World War I fighting. The initial Spanish raid to spike the Dutch cannon is also very instructive. Soldiers are badly fed, clothed and paid. Booty incentivises. Stoic pride and bravery underpin Alatriste's world.

'Alatriste' is remarkably similar in structure to 'Goya's Ghosts' (2006) which is set in Spain two centuries later. Both films have a fictitious central character and story line set against real historical characters and events and over a similar time span. Both are lavish in their depiction of the past and both refer to the work of contemporary artists. Both damn the Inquisition as a monstrous instrument of tyranny. The Catholic Church was, surely, the world's first totalitarian organisation.

'Goya's Ghosts' is a better film simply because it is held together by a central narrative. Its characters are fully developed and it is far more focused on the historical tale that it tells. 'Alatriste' is disjointed and produces a rather flat emotional effect. It is less than the sum of its parts.

This film starts slowly but the two-hour experience is ultimately rewarding when one realises it is neither farce nor conventional comedy. It does not provoke belly laughs, there are no titillating sex scenes and action is kept to a minimum. It is an amusing drama in which the main protagonists pursue the serious business of living but with comedic results. 'Comedy is a serious business' is the underlying theme.

Moliere believes that tragedy is the only true theatre but his over-the-top declamations fail to impress and are in themselves comedic. That comedy can also illuminate the human condition is the lesson that the young Moliere learns in this fictional story.

The film has been called a French 'Shakespeare in Love'. There are parallels. The young writer is in search of a muse. He has money problems. Characters have to disguise their true identity. There is love - requited and unrequited. The unhappiness of an arranged marriage as new money wishes to acquire the social cache of a title. Art ultimately imitates life.

However, the two films are very different. 'Moliere' is a serious film which demands more of its audience. Probably most people will find it less entertaining. I found it more enlightening because it does explore the human condition through real characters whose life problems are portrayed as deadly serious. No cheap laughs here.

If I were to compare 'Moliere' with an English film it would be with 'The Clandestine Marriage'(1999). In plot, structure and tenor the two films bear a striking resemblance. Neither film is particularly funny. Each is a comedy of manners set in a country house. The amusement (a refined emotion, supposedly above the dull-witted hoi-polloi) lies in the fact that social convention has potentially trapped characters into a great unhappiness. Class and gender inequalities provide the social dynamic - Marx would approve! Both films have very few characters. Both rely on wit rather than clowning. Both present a past world which is utterly believable. Both have a slow and measured pace. Both end on a happy note after a good deal of individual sadness.

The film's historical authenticity underpins the social satire lying at the heart of Moliere plays. The bourgeois Jourdain seeks all the refinements of the noblesse - dancing, painting, swordsmanship, horsemanship, letters, manners etc., etc. (Echoed by the Timothy Spall character in 'The Clandestine Marriage').The Dorante character displays all the weaknesses of the noblesse - spendthrift idler with a distaste for any form of work - 'We acquire our fortunes from marriage, not from work.' He is a man who has the ear of the King but who is not above lowering himself in pursuit of fresh money to restore his depleted fortune. The fact that his son wants to go into business appalls him and he spends a few laboured minutes trying to deny that his own family were originally in trade. This is funny only if one understands the society in which it is set. Of course, the ancien regime expressly forbade certain elements of the noblesse from going into trade.

The theatre scenes and the internal decor of the Joudain country house are very authentic. It all feels very 17th Century. Even the sturdy unsprung coaches with their unglazed windows are spot on. Society has not yet reached the excessive refinements of the next century.

'Moliere' is sumptuously shot. The outdoor scenes are a feast for the eye. The music is very compelling, even if it is not of this period. The acting is superb and the dialogue convincing. One does not have to know about Moliere plays to realise that future characters and plots are being gestated within the fictitious story being told. Or, to put it the other way round, that the story-line is based on the later plays and characters of Moliere.

Romain Duris, Fabrice Luchini and Laura Morante all give fine performances as the main protagonists. No character is allowed to descend into farce or parody. The integrity of the drama is maintained from first to last. I expect marketing this film has caused some problems and probably has led to a miss-selling of the content which will disappoint some viewers. This is not a romp film and anyone expecting one will be disappointed. It is an art-house film with a serious message. 'The Tears of Moliere' would be a more apt title.

I enjoyed Pirates 1. It was an unpretentious swashbuckler which was a cut above the average. Pirates 2 and 3 have departed from this genre and attempted to create a Harry Potter-cum-Lord of the Rings fantasy epic which fails to satisfy. Plot, character and well-paced action have been sacrificed to special effects and mumbo-jumbo. The Jack Sparrow character, so well-crafted by J.Depp esq., gets lost in an over-elaborate and impenetrable story-line. The writers are guilty of extreme self-indulgence.

Aztec curse I can live with. Characters from Greek mythology, Land of the Dead, Davy Jones, The Flying Dutchman, etc., etc. have been cobbled together into an unbelievable supernatural mishmash. Pirates 3 was much too long and must leave a lot of children baffled and disappointed. I know of one who walked out before the end.

I was intrigued that Chinese pirates were to be included in this film and bitterly disappointed at the result. A more realistic inclusion of Chinese or Barbary pirates could have taken the film into (literally) uncharted waters of pirate fiction. A rich multicultural tapestry could have resulted. But the Chinese dimension added nothing at all to the film.

I suppose I wish that the writers had researched pirate history more thoroughly in order to produce a more realistically-based story-line. The over-complex screenplay severely damaged the entertainment value of the film. The moral must surely be, 'Don't change genres in mid-trilogy.'

Viewing this film in a French cinema left much of the audience in tears, including myself. Indigenes examines the contribution of Arab/African volunteers who fought for Free French forces in World War II. French Arab/Berber actors play the main characters. Much of the film is in Arabic with subtitles. The soldiers portrayed fought in the less well-known campaigns in Italy, the Rhone and Vosges-Alsace during 1943-1944.

Restoring French national honour and developing a post-war consciousness lie at the heart of this film. The importance of Free French forces in the Liberation of France after the military disaster of 1940 is an underlying theme. The action scenes are well-choreographed. During the large-scale assault in Italy the troops appear to be used as disposable meat to locate German positions which can then be pounded with French artillery. The last small-scale encounter in an Alsatian village is one of the best action scenes I have seen. The fear/courage equation which grips a man fighting for his life is shown very effectively.

But this is no simple war movie. War is merely the stage upon which more contemporary and pressing themes are examined –i.e. France's relationship to its 3½ million Muslim citizens and their relationship to La Patrie. Most scenes raise issues of identity. "What are we doing here?" is the sceptical question posed by one volunteer who has fought his way to a cold and wintry mountainous region leaving many dead comrades behind him.

The French officers and their Muslim volunteers both wish to believe in the national ideals of 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' But doubts continue to arise. "When I was young, our families were killed by the French. Why?" asks one character. "Pacification," replies his friend. The film portrays an endemic 'institutional racism' within the French authorities of that time – poor promotion prospects for Muslims, unequal rations, sandals on bare feet in the winter snow rather than regular army boots. More tellingly, army censorship of love letters from an Arab soldier to his French girlfriend.

Sergeant Martinez provides the only sympathetic face. He is a pied-noir who comes from European Christian colonist stock in North Africa. He supports the promotion of some of his soldiers whilst discouraging one intelligent and literate soldier (Saud) from his ambitions for an army career. The Martinez character shows the complexity of this whole colonial class. They were deeply insecure in their own identity regarding both metropolitan Frenchmen and their Arab/Berber compatriots. Martinez favours and then physically assaults his Arab batman Said, enraged by Said's revelation that he knows that Martinez' mother was also Arab. Colonialism had schizophrenic effects on many of its children. Having wished Martinez dead, Said later dies trying to save the man with whom he has had a very on/off relationship. Racial and class divisions go deep and make human bonding difficult.

In contrast, the relationship between ordinary French citizens and their Muslim liberators is portrayed as warm and generous. One girl offers herself to Saud and they part company on the understanding that their relationship is permanent. He explains that such a relationship would be socially unacceptable in his homeland. Racial mixing was always frowned upon more in the colonies than in the mother country – fear of the colonisers themselves being colonised! The film ends with a visit to a war cemetery in Alsace and shows the graves of Muslim soldiers who 'mort pour la France.' We are informed that the French government froze the war pensions of these soldiers in the 1950's when the colonies became independent. This film helped to prod President Chirac into righting this wrong.

In its portrayal of officers in jeeps making patriotic speeches and Arab volunteers foot-slogging through difficult country, the film underlines a divide which continues to exist within French society. Official France offers well-meaning platitudes but continued to freeze war pensions. The French state perpetuates an anti-religious version of secularism which was born out of the great Schism of the French Revolution. The divisions of the 1790's continue to divide French society – Republican/Monarchist, Left/Right, Secular/Religious and now non-Muslim/Muslim. Descendants of those soldiers who lie dead in that Alsatian cemetery 'mort pour la France' are denied the hijab in state schools. The same anti-religious spirit which framed the Ferry educational laws of 1879 is alive and well and is still trying to forge a new secular French identity out of the ashes of the Revolution. The search continues for a new non-religious superglue which will bind all Frenchmen, heart, mind and soul.

Paradoxically, in the USA (the main target of Jihadist terrorism), American Muslims should have no problem in forging a new American identity for themselves in a pro-religious, all-inclusive version of secularism which grew out of American history. France's secularism is as exclusive and narrow as her 'enarquist politocracy' and poses problems for Muslim integration.

Indigenes highlights the simple fact that we all have multiple identities. On the one hand it can be seen as a sensible and worthy attempt to integrate Muslims into official French history. On the other hand it raises uncomfortable issues about integration and identity within contemporary France. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are only words. How French people live together under them is a complex and compelling matter.

The film successfully raises this issue. It shows one thread of French history in World War 2. There are many other threads – Jews, German occupiers, collaborators, Resistance, slave labourers etc. Acknowledging the reality of these different histories and empathising with the characters involved is, in my opinion, the only real way forward in creating a present and future identity which we can all feel part of. History remains the most important subject to study. Fanaticism, ill-will and violence arise out of ignoring it. A deep and thorough study of our multiple histories can only unite humans and light our way forward. This film is a major contribution towards lighting that path.

This is an art-house film disguised as a comic action-flick. Its trailer belies the film's serious subject matter. Stylistically it is wonderful. It should become a cult classic.

'V' offers an insight into fascism – how it uses fear to get power and keep power. There are clear parallels with Nazi Germany. For fear of Communism, substitute fear of terrorism, gays and 'godlessness'. For Antisemitism, substitute Islamophobia. For the Reichstag Fire, substitute 'deadly virus' – but in this case, the 'Nazis' really do 'set fire to the Reichstag'. For Dachau, substitute Larkwood detention centre where 'worthless human material' is subjected to scientific experiment. For Hitler/Goebbels/Himmler, substitute an all-powerful 'High Chancellor' (John Hurt) supported by censored TV and biometric surveillance systems and Fingermen enforcing nightly curfews. For 1937 Exhibition of Degenerate Art, substitute the private and illegal collection (including a banned Koran) of the Stephen Fry character. For Gleichschaltung, substitute Reclamation. For collusion between Nazis and big business, substitute a drug company tsar who makes millions out of its antidote to the deadly virus. For Night of the Long Knives Nazi back-stabbing, substitute the betrayal of the High Chancellor. This film could become a teaching aid to understanding Nazi Germany!!

'V' is the heroic individual who challenges this totalitarian nightmare. Using the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot was a brilliant iconic device on which to hang the 'cloak of resistance'.

Critics have questioned this use of Guy Fawkes as an icon of resistance to tyranny, pointing out that he wanted Catholic theocracy, not freedom. This misses the point. Fawkes targeted a Protestant elite which he saw as an oppressive tyranny ruling over a benighted island. He was not an indiscriminate bomber, but was engaged in an act of tyrannicide recently endorsed by the Jesuits.

It is a cultural challenge for British people to accept GF as an icon for heroic resistance to tyranny. The British have been burning GF in effigy every year for the last four centuries. Our Catholic-fearing culture has cast him as the archetypal villain. Bonfire Night is the only genuinely popular national festival that we have. British children used to stuff old clothes with newspaper, purchase a cheap Guy Fawkes mask for a face and beg 'penny for the guy' in the street in order to get fireworks money for Bonfire Night. They now engage in Trick or Treat (Globalisation = Americanisation).

The 'V' character targets buildings, not ordinary people. His bombings are a rallying call for Londoners to rise up and overthrow the dictatorship. Watching the Houses of Parliament blow up at the end of the film was for me a very moving and cathartic experience as well as a theatrical masterpiece. It was as symbolic as the Fall of the Bastille. The Legislative House has lost control of the Executive and pays a just price! The people have risen and overthrown tyranny! Rejoice!

V is really into tyrannicide rather than terrorism: his personal vendetta is directed at the leading perpetrators who have scarred his life. He is very much in the tradition of Georg Elser and the July Plotters who almost killed Hitler. Were they heroes or traitors, freedom-fighters or terrorists? Does V's aim justify his means? The audience is forced to confront these serious matters. Viewers may feel uncomfortable about terrorism and bombings in our terror-ridden times - underlined by the film's delayed release following the 7/7 carnage. The use of an underground train to deliver the final blow was an unfortunate coincidence which the filmmakers could not have predicted. It will resonate badly with many Londoners.

Both the 'V' and Natalie Portman characters are played wonderfully and an intelligent script gives them the opportunity to develop both character and storyline. Their relationship is carefully crafted. He is the teacher, she the non-political citizen who is sucked into his subversive enterprise. The awful effect of fascism on individuals is illustrated by several story lines and flashbacks, skilfully and poignantly told. What happens to the Stephen Fry character when he bucks the system is unnervingly accurate! The dialogue explores both the motivation for violent political action and also its corrupting potential. It gets quite deep in parts, with quotes from Shakespeare.

Orwell wrote '1984' in 1948, not as a future prediction but as a critique of Stalinist Russia. This film is a political fantasy and does not seriously aim to project present 2005 trends up to the year 2020. It alludes to the Nazi era and fascistic tendencies in any modern society. The idea of a resurgent, 'fascistic' Christianity casting Muslims and gays into the abyss does not reflect the realities of modern-day Britain, merely the dreams of a few British fascists. Paradoxically, at this moment in time, it applies more to the USA which the film portrays as 'godless'. Fundamentalism, homophobia, racism and Islamophobia are more in evidence in that society – witness the recent Congressional paranoia over a Dubai-based firm acquiring US ports, resistance to gay marriage and abortion and the continuing 'freedom' to be racist!

ETA has finally ended its terror campaign against the Spanish state. ETA's rationale for its terrorism disappeared long ago - 'Up, Up, with Franco! Up, Up, like Carrero Blanco!' Did it ever have a rationale, even in the darkest days of fascism? ETA targeted leaders and functionaries of the Spanish state, rather like Guy Fawkes and 'V' and Stauffenberg's bomb. Is violent political resistance ever justified? The film answers this moral dilemma with a resounding 'yes'. This is an uncomfortable message in our terror-embattled democracy. The film does not endorse indiscriminate terrorism but it does endorse tyrannicide.

This is a well-crafted film which is both profound and entertaining. It is full of historical allusions. Remember, remember, this is a political fantasy film which is grounded in historical realities. 'V for Vendetta' enlightens in an entertaining way. I've seen it twice. It was even better the second time around.