Reviews

It's a fairly safe bet that you're going to have a successful career when Vincent Price agrees to narrate your first short film. So it was for Tim Burton with his twisted, Gothic tale of young Vincent Malloy, a 7 year old wishing to be Vincent Price (and who could blame him?!). Sadly, this short is overlooked when it comes to studying Burton's oeuvre, mainly because it was only to be found on special edition discs of Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas up until a few years ago. Now, widely available on YouTube the short has enjoyed a revival and small cult following amongst Price and Burton fans.

Focusing on the macabre humour that would become one of Burton's trademarks, the character of Vincent appears for all intents and purposes, to be an incarnation of a younger Burton. From his enforced isolation inside his own home to his love of Edgar Allen Poe and The House of Wax, the short packs every allusion to Burton's childhood in Californian suburbia that it can in a six minute and twenty-five second run. Entertaining and witty, this is a great example of Burton's early attempts at stop-motion animation. It's also a great accompaniment to Nightmare Before Christmas as the growth in Burton's talent is obvious. Watch it one and all and let's hope Burton reverts to what he's good at!

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2011 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

Given the recent hype of Stephenie Meyer's 'Twilight' series, 'Let the Right One In' provides a more realistic vision of vampirism as it still exists today. The two main characters are both endearing yet unsettling in their own ways. Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) a bullied twelve year old boy and Eli (Lina Leandersson) a twelve year old (albeit, she's been twelve for a long time) who must drink blood to live, are joined together in what seems to be a journey to save each other from their alternate worlds.

The film is startlingly blunt in its depiction of murder, particularly when Eli's father (Per Ragnar) ventures out in the night to murder young boys in order to draw blood and bring it back to Eli. The act of hanging the victim from a tree upside down and slitting the throat to tap blood alludes to ancient vampiric lore whilst the scene is set in physical contrast against a background of pure white snow. Although the actual slitting of the throat is mostly guarded from view, the sound is an art in itself as it allows for the viewers imagination to conjure an image for themselves.

Unlike 'Nosferatu' or 'Dracula', this portrayal of a vampire who does not wish to go out and kill of her own accord, unless she has to, is a challenge for the viewer. The fact that she appears as a child but is evidently much older also allows for empathy with her plight. Leandersson plays the part naturally, and effortlessly oozes an aura of suffering balanced with the knowledge that she possesses great power. Oskar is also intriguing, as he strikes a solitary figure throughout the film until he begins to fall in love with Eli. His constant torment arising from the bullying he receives almost daily is quenched by his encounters with Eli, this most peculiar of girls.

The film has a number of outstanding scenes which are notable, especially for the cinematography. When Eli's father is about to be discovered and arrested for murder, in desperation he disfigures himself with acid that was about to be used in the process of killing a victim. Eli later visits him in hospital and there we see the results of his attempts to kill himself. The scene is shot beautifully and perfectly encompasses the father's last few moments of desperation and pain as Eli draws his blood and allows him to drop the seven floors from his hospital window to the snow-covered ground. The audience witnesses his death from his daughter's perspective. For Eli this is yet another reminder of how alone she is in a world where fear of the sun, food and the need to be invited into a room are all isolating factors in her existence.

One of the final scenes is, in my opinion, the most impressive. In order to torture Oskar for retaliating against a bully, the young boy is held underwater for three minutes by the older brother of one of the bullies. As he is submerged the viewer is taken underwater with Oskar and there we hear the sound of shattering glass accompanied by the vicious decapitation of one of the bullies and the murder of the perpetrator holding Oskar beneath the water. Eli rescues Oskar as she had promised him she would and the film is brought to a close with Oskar trainbound and Eli hidden in his suitcase.

Overall, the film is well-made, a characteristic that may seem simple but appears to have been overlooked by some contemporary film-makers of the Hollywood bourgeosie. 'Let the Right One In' is a refreshing take on the vampire film. It is comforting to find a story that can portray the traditional vampiric lore through a contemporary setting, whilst remaining eerie and seemingly untouched by the Hollywood treatment of vampirism. Thus, it is advisable to see the film before Hollywood attempts a remake!

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2009 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

Every review I've seen of this film seems overly eager to mention the fact that you will enjoy it if you arrive at the cinema prepared for the fact that it is a retelling of the post-Watergate interviews. This is no lie however, Frost/Nixon is something more than a dramatic remake of the battle between one Sir David Frost and disgraced former US President, Richard Nixon. The film leaves an indelible mark, a feeling of indescribable angst that Sheen's determined Frost cannot and will not draw the most widely desired apology from a man so corrupt and ignorant to his own nation and the trauma he instigated. It is not necessary to have an informed background on Watergate or Nixon's legacy (as I have discovered that many people seem clueless to him aside from affixing the suffix 'gate' to him) but it is necessary to view this film with an open mind. Anyone with an informed opinion on Nixon may feel a certain revelation after watching this. If anything, it enhances the sense that Frost is not the only one facing the biggest challenge of his career.

The film divides the four segmented interviews with profiles of Frost and Nixon individually. This allows for the viewer to digest the reactions of the President to Frost's initial weak attempts at interrogation and offers room for speculation into Frost's approach to Watergate. Sheen's portrayal of Frost is both engaging and disheartening. The latter is not for any faults by Sheen but rather a relaxed disposition with the real David Frost that makes viewing a little irritating, especially during the first interview segment.

Frank Langella, star of TV's Dracula certainly rises to the challenge proposed by Nixon's dictatorial-like stance. Langella defies any myth that Nixon's character cannot be portrayed truthfully most clearly during the Watergate interview. It is here that we see the former President's weakness through a facade of strength that is broken through by Frost's straightforward approach. The films most notable moment for me occurs when Frost drops his notes after he is challenged by Nixon to interview him sans script. Here Sheen does not steal the limelight but cleverly allows the focus to stay upon his fellow protagonist and highlights the weariness and hints at a possible self-loathing within the former President. The utterly disgraceful motto, made famous by Richard Millhouse Nixon is repeated by Langella in as cold and inhuman a fashion as his real-life predecessor: "I'm saying if the President does it, it's not illegal" – referring to his part in the Watergate cover-up and the US attacks on Vietnam and Cambodia jointly.

Overall, Frost/Nixon provides a chance for the audience to review Nixon's hold in the United States – a point of particular poignancy when no US network will agree to broadcast Frost's tapes or give him financial backing in the process. It is a film notable for it's representation and lack of bias. Perhaps more importantly, it allows Langella the chance to shine like few of his previous roles have ever done.

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2009 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

Every once in a while, a film emerges from the depths of a studio that is so original, groundbreakingly brilliant and skillfully made that it breaks all previously held conceptions about movie-making. Terminator Salvation is not any of these things. It is not groundbreakingly brilliant or likely to make a mind-blowing impact on the viewer. What it does do is provide a plausible and entertaining sequel to Terminator 2 (I refuse to believe that Terminator 3 exists – what were they thinking?)

The basic plot of Salvation surrounds the character of murderer, Marcus Wright. A meeting with Dr. Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter) before his execution results in Wright donating his body for medical research. Unknowingly, he has donated his corpse to Cyberdene Systems who are responsible for the creation of the Skynet system. Skynet, perceiving humans as a threat to its own existence, sets out to eradicate humanity in an overly clichéd event named Judgement Day. Wright awakens in the year 2018 to discover that he is a cyborg with human organs, thus John Connor (Bale) must decide whether Wright is his enemy or part of the solution to stopping Skynets plans.

Salvation struggles at times to offer a fully coherent storyline and attempts to cover this by exhibiting somewhat deafening sound effects. Aside from this, the plot grows quite rapidly and at times is remarkably clever. The fourth instalment notably does very little to deepen the character of John Connor, rather it makes way for the talents of Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright. While the film lacks a certain finesse in parts, Worthington's acting manages to retain a certain glory, especially when he realises he has been tricked by Dr Kogan (Bonham Carter).

I found Christian Bale unsavoury, an unusual contribution from a normally ingenious actor. After his predicted success in The Dark Knight, Bale has created an expectation and calibre for his successive movies. In Salvation, he does not so much dissappoint as he does lack an expected on-screen presence.

Overall, Terminator Salvation is a plausible and well-conceived sequel to the first two Terminator films. There is a feeling at the end of the film that the franchise is being milked to the very nth degree as John Connor's final transmission to the Human Resistance states that the war is not over. Who knows, perhaps the next instalment will further the impact made by Salvation. In my opinion, the ending of the current release could have been tweaked to bring the franchise to a conclusion rather than leave the door to a possibly disastrous follow-up widely ajar!

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2009 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

When I was invited to a preview screening of The Help, I was unsure of what to expect. This may be easier to understand when one takes into consideration that Walt Disney Studios are responsible for the distribution of a film that is targeted at the older woman, the single hardest demographic to coax into cinema screens presently. Having read the book, (read review here) I knew the director had a lot to prove. As a fan I was wary yet excited at the evolution of this great book and the reception it's had worldwide. It is an unfortunate truth that Hollywood rarely makes the most of the projects it gets it's hands on, in terms of quality at least thus, the concern for an international bestseller making its way into the lap of Disney is an obvious worry.

However, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is a well-constructed piece that remains loyal to Stockett's text and demonstrates the fear, discrimination and seething hatred that seems to have been so apparent during the 1960′s of KKK riddled Jackson, Mississippi in a clear and poignant way. In contrast to other reviewers critiques, I did not find the film overly sentimental or sappy by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, Tate Taylor is to be credited for the realism he has managed to instill in the direction and in the screenplay, which he adopted from Stockett's text. For me, there were several outstanding performances, especially Octavia Spencer as outspoken Minny Jackson, the maid who rises above her many unfortunate choices in employer.

Bryce Dallas Howard is perfection as the evil, scheming Hilly Holbrook and Emma Stone as the well meaning Skeeter Phelan is wonderful to watch. Viola Davis is also excellent and brings to Aibileen's character the dignity and honour that Stockett communicates in the book. As to be expected in a film dealing with racism and segregation, there is much drama and disturbance but, unlike similar genres of film such as Mississippi Burning, there are many comedic moments that create equilibrium. Sissy Spacek makes a long awaited return to the screen in a hilarious and fitting performance as Hilly's dotty mother, providing the right balance of light- heartedness to an otherwise serious and very real subject matter.

Scenes to watch out for are Minny's famous pie scene from the book (readers will know exactly what I mean!), the 'camodes rather than the coats' scene and the glitzy reception scene which mirrors the false identity of all of Skeeter's white associates. Overall, the film is one of the best of 2011 so far and hopefully will serve to further the book's reputation. Well worth seeing I give it an 8/10.

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2011 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

Perhaps one of the most admirable feats in life is to show how far one has come through hard work and change. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it, "unless you try to do something beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow." Director, George Miller, is an example of such, as he went on to direct The Witches of Eastwick merely two years after the last installment of the Mad Max movies, a trilogy that was his own creation and quite frankly, one of the most inane contributions to cinema in the last 30 years. Adapted from the novel by John Updike, The Witches of Eastwick concerns a female trio who have been abandoned by their husbands and upon meeting Daryl Van Horne, a mysterious newcomer in their sleepy town of Eastwick, they discover they have magical abilities. Van Horne is quite clearly an incarnation of Satan from the outset, seeking to corrupt the women and ultimately control/destroy the world once he gets some action from the hypnotic trio of course.

The film is well paced, particularly at the beginning. Nicholson, although a stereotype for this kind of role, is a perfect fit as Van Horne and the scene where he appears snoring his head off in the back row of Jane's music recital (played by a rather young Susan Sarandon),encapsulates the tone for the entire film. The chemistry between the actors is, in no small way, responsible for the mischievous and entertaining air throughout. Pfeiffer, Cher and Sarandon are quite believable as a group of friends who get together to eat, drink and commiserate about the men in their lives and subsequently, as a coven who attempt to overthrow the power of Satan in typical 80′s comedic fashion. If we're going to be really critical here, the film falls down somewhat in its portrayal of the trio as strong, independent women as they are nothing of the sort until the very end of the film. The only impetus for the women to go the extra mile and indulge in their wiccan powers, is through the introduction of an all-powerful male figure who uses up each woman and causes them explicit (but hilarious!) pain. Van Horne's power is ultimately subverted as he is conjured up by the women themselves and as the women discover, he can be made to disappear by them also.

Let's not get too caught up in technicalities with this film, it doesn't try to be something it isn't although it varies considerably from Updike's novel. The last section of the film has been widely criticised for spiraling into ridiculousness, a criticism that is quite valid as it lends a monotonous tone to the ending in comparison to the light-hearted, magical atmosphere of the earlier parts. Overdone and overbaked at the end, it's an unfortunate notion that not even Nicholson's comic talents are able to save the climax from losing its momentum. Despite this, the film is very watchable owing to the high standards of acting turned in all round, in particular by Nicholson and Veronica Cartwright (playing a Christian wife of Eastwick's newspaper editor in a scene-stealing supporting role). Overall, an entertaining romp that knows how to churn out the laughs. 7/10.

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2011 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

My lateness in watching Black Swan is due to two things; a) a tendency to stay away from anything that garners so much hype and b) an uncertainty about Darren Aronofsky's direction in previous work. This turns out to be a film that everyone should see once without a doubt, if only to see the excellent case study of the doppelgänger.

While Portman is commendable, it is easy to see how the film could anger those in the dancing profession. With so much media attention paid to the fact that Portman trained for several months to perform the dancing segments, the film is still very much an actresses movie as opposed to a dancer's one. This is inevitably Aronofsky's goal as Portman's character Nina, a perfectionist and ballet obsessed young woman, is ultimately performing her way through life right from the beginning.

Without ruining it for anyone who has yet to see it, the basic story surrounds Nina living with her mother (Barbara Hershey) in New York where she is attempting to become the Swan Queen in a new production of Swan Lake. The role is problematic as Nina only knows how to embody the innocent character of the White Swan. To become the Queen she must also embrace the sensuality and danger of the Black Swan, a point that her dance instructor Thomas (Vincent Cassel) fervently points out. Whilst practicing routines at home, it becomes evident that Nina is dangerously unbalanced mentally as she appears trapped between a dream that her mother once had (and gave up when she became pregnant with Nina) and her own insecurities, including a disposition towards self-harm. Interestingly, the scenes involving Nina's mother reveal a lot about how the two have lived together, especially since the viewer is given no background information on the characters. The mother's demonstrative and combatant attitude provides a rocky foundation for Nina and her desire to see her daughter accomplish what was not to be for her, only adds to Nina's self-destruction.

Portman plays the self-conscious but talented dancer very well and her performance is echoed by strong supporting actors. Vincent Cassel provides an excellently creepy performance as the dance instructor whilst Mila Kunis' Lily is a perfect foil for Nina's perfectionist qualities. Also featuring in the film, albeit briefly, is Winona Ryder as Beth MacIntyre. Ryder's understated appearance as Beth, or the Dying Swan, (the former principal dancer in Thomas' ballet whom Nina is replacing), is remarkable for its effect upon the story. Although she is not largely present in most scenes, her descent from popularity begins to mirror Nina's loneliness and descent into madness, quite early on. Thus, Beth functions as a forewarning of Nina's peril and ultimate mental unraveling.

A friend pointed out the significance of mirrors in Black Swan and without watching for them, it is noticeable how there is a mirror of some description in almost every scene. This attention to detail is one of the fabulous things about Aronofsky and is present in all his work and in this film, it is what keeps the theme of the doppelgänger present throughout. Nina's distrust of everyone around her is shown through reflections of evil imagery and characters, which relays the fragmented state of her mind. Towards the end of the film she constantly sees reflections of herself as the Black Swan, a twisted and disturbed version of herself that is beginning to emerge from her innocent exterior.

Throughout the film, Thomas tells Nina that in order to portray the Black Swan she must lose herself in the role rather than be so structured and concerned with perfection. Consequently, Nina does lose herself in the role and in her first and only full performance of the ballet on stage, her transformation into the Black Swan becomes a form of self-immolation. Anyone who is aware of the myth of the Black Swan will see where the film is going as soon as it starts, but it is definitely worth the watch. Overall, there are some subtle surprises that keep it interesting and some unsettling moments that are very well captured. Definitely makes an impression. Black Swan gets a thumbs up!

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2011 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

As a rule, I have many reservations about films concerning Britain's Royal Family. Such films are rarely controversial and usually lean towards the royalist side of things (shocking, I know!). The King's Speech does not necessarily differ in this latter regard, but it does excel on many other levels. Notably, this is one of Colin Firth's finest performances to date as the stammer afflicted, reluctant royal. In light of the popularity Firth was accorded post Pride & Prejudice (BBC, 1995), this role is sure to confirm his place in the league of contemporary talented British actors.

The storyline focuses specifically on the King and his inner conflict, which makes for a clear and concise historical vehicle. This may sound slightly monotonous to some but the good- natured humour interspersed between scenes of raw tension and panic provides an equilibrium the film would otherwise lack. Performance-wise, everyone seems to have done their homework; Helena Bonham Carter appears to have mastered the mannerisms of the late Queen Mother (this is amusingly apparent in a scene where the Royals visit the King's speech therapist at home and Her Maj relays the proper terms of Royal address: 'mam' as in 'ham' not ma-am' as in 'pa-alm'). Similarly, Geoffrey Rush turns in a masterful performance as Lionel Logue, the Australian speech therapist who takes on the King's troubling affliction with profound empathy. Rush turns in a powerful performance overall, especially when a scene has a requisite for undermining the public obsession with royalty and the monarchy's, sometimes absurd, hold over the nation.

The cinematography is beautiful in parts and London itself, is portrayed strikingly well. The grime and everyday dust and filth that is so integral to London's history as an industrial city, is well captured. This is especially so when the Queen is driven down Harley Street in a taxi and gazes out at the commoners going about their daily grind as she watches from her safe, clean taxi cab. Throughout the film, Bonham Carter's performance reminds the viewer of the Royal Family's distance from the public and indeed, their distance form each other emotionally.

When Lionel Logue states that his clients must come to him, the Queen issues a reminder that he will become the enemy if he is unobliging to help her husband by their own terms, thus, ensuring that 'the help' know their place, just as the Royals must know theirs. Cold and detached to others, the Queen is strikingly different when with her King. Bonham Carter's performance is entirely redolent of the late Queen mother's wish for this film to have been made after her death, as the experience was too painful for her.

With regard to painful experiences for the monarchy, the inclusion of Wallis Simpson in the film, however brief, is certainly fulfilling fodder for history buffs. The abdication and controversy that followed it are mentioned with just enough detail to keep the viewer interested, and the story cleverly reflects the added struggle that the abdication results in for Bertie.

Like all films, there are flaws and as with all films, these flaws sometimes require a second viewing to be fully discovered. The only major flaw I have uncovered is that historically, while the film keeps to the truth overall, some purists will question the suggestion that Bertie's father, King George V was intent on having his children fear him. This is only briefly mentioned but as with all films dealing with historical fact, it may be a facet that is subjected to criticism.

The build up to the King's momentous broadcast concerning Hitler's intent to start a war with Britain and the Allies, is tense, despite the knowledge that good auld Bertie will inevitably make it through. In one particular scene, the King's daughter, future Queen Elizabeth II asks her father what Hitler is saying during a rousing political rally. Bertie replies with steadfast timing that he doesn't know what Hitler is saying but 'he seems to be saying it rather well'.

Rush and Firth work well together throughout the film but in the final scene both are outstanding. As the King is coaxed into making his speech flow, Logue provides witty improvisations for encouragement, resulting in Bertie being distracted from his stammer and focusing on how the words which, previously he couldn't say are becoming gradually easier and more accessible to him.

The most impressive feat about The King's Speech is that the film does not attempt to tamper with the fact that Logue did not concoct some miraculous cure for Bertie's stammer. Rather, it exemplifies nicely, the attempts of one man to look beyond himself and his family's expectations, in order for him to become his own person and subsequently, a better King. Humorous and well shot, The King's Speech will be up for many more viewings, and hopefully accolades.

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2011 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

"They swim. The mark of Satan is upon them. They must hang" – Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder General.

Witchfinder General has all the basics of an excellent horror film; a low budget (under £100,000), allowing for more focus invested in the acting skills of what is a commendable cast; Vincent Price and Ian Ogilvy in tow; an excellent choice of biopic in the real-life Witchfinder General, Matthew Hopkins, and a perfectionist of a director in Michael Reeves. However, the film disappoints on many levels, which is perhaps unsurprising given its troubled production.

Set in 17th century England, Reeves documents the civil war with enough brief detail for the film's purpose, with Cromwell only mentioned twice throughout. Opening with the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft, WG appears to be living up to its infamous reputation as one of the most gruesome horror films of its time. The tiresome horse riding scenes in conjunction with what can only be described as mild violence in the torture sequences, soon puts an end to any hope the viewer has of excess gore and horror. Similarly, the soundtrack is at times truly awful, allowing the viewer to anticipate danger in too frank a manner for any genuine fear to be felt.

Reeves may have been a perfectionist (he infamously mistreated Vincent Price as the actor was not his choice to play Hopkins) but he was also young and clearly inexperienced where this film is concerned. The jump cuts are so unintentionally jarring at times that some scenes of serious drama become almost comical. The continuity is regularly disrupted as a result of this, leading to an irritating viewing experience. It's a pity that had Reeves had a bigger budget that would have allowed him to shoot in black and white, much could be forgiven, especially the dreadful red paint used as blood in many scenes.

All is not lost for Witchfinder General however, as Price, Robert Russell and Ian Ogilvy save the dwindling moments by adding atmospheric tension and menace to the proceedings. The production problems are obvious, especially as it becomes apparent that Price was slightly out of sorts in certain scenes (Reeves' communication with his actors being notoriously bad, it's surprising that Price manages to convey the character with such consistency).

Despite the setbacks, Price is memorable as Hopkins, one of his more serious and non-campy roles. Robert Russell as Hopkins' accomplice, John Stearne, is truly impressive and conveys the brutality and maliciousness of the pair exceedingly well. Ian Ogilvy's portrayal of Richard Marshall, the young Roundhead, is somewhat unremarkable until the famous final scene where both he and his wife Sarah appear to lose all sanity. Richard slowly murders Hopkins to avenge the execution of Sarah's uncle, in what is quite a believable moment of insanity. When Hopkins is put out of his misery by an officer who shoots him, the short lived tension explodes in quite a chilling exhibition of madness by Richard where he exclaims, "You took him from me!" This scene would appear more fluid had Richard expressed some form of madness earlier in the film when he decided to destroy Hopkins. Instead the best is definitely kept 'til last with the viewer awaiting something more from what is a good horror film, if a little languid at times.

The execution scenes towards the end of the film are quite well done, and build tension quite steadily. Perhaps this could have been emphasized more in certain scenes, such as where a woman accused of being a witch is burned at the stake as her husband watches tearfully. As the stake is lowered on to the flames, the messy jump cuts reveal exactly what the director was clearly intending to hide. The movement back and forth between the fire and the bereaved husband's face, highlights that there is indeed nothing attached to the burning stake, thus the illusion of the woman burning slowly to death is less tangible than when she is beaten and tied to the stake initially.

Overall, the film is enjoyable but seems to have fallen prey to time and money restraints as well as bearing an altogether too cocky director at the helm. Wicker Man would beat it any day. It is one of Vincent Price's finer moments however and remained a performance he was truly proud of. All things considered, I'd give it 7/10.

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2010 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

One minute and forty seconds flat. That's the time it took US outlaw John Dillinger to rob a bank. It's also the length of time it would take a viewer to realise how truly poor this film is in its portrayal of one of the biggest gangsters who ever lived. Directed by Michael Mann – Thief (1981), Manhunter (1986), The Last of The Mohicans (1996) Heat (1995) – one would expect a certain savvy in terms of production skills but the end product is one of the most underwhelming to be seen on screen in recent years.

The film opens, with Dillinger (Depp) disguised as a prisoner and being lead by his partner John 'Red' Hamilton to a penitentiary. The two enter the building only to engage in a violent breakout of the rest of the prisoners who form Dillinger's gang. This opening sequence is functional in portraying Dillinger's abilities as a criminal but it fails to provide any form of background for the character. This is a notable flaw seen throughout the film, hence Dillinger and many of the other characters appear somewhat two-dimensional. At the same time as Dillinger's breakout, Melvin Purvis (Bale) and his team of FBI agents manage to run down Pretty Boy Floyd. This results in Purvis being upgraded to lead in the hunt for Dillinger. The film marks another disappointing turnout from Bale (after Terminator Salvation). It would appear that the success of The Dark Knight may have stunted Bale's growth and development into what has been overly hyped as a phenomenal on screen presence. Instead he seems to be relying more and more upon his deep vocals to perform much of his work for him. As Purvis he is just about competent, enabling the audience to despise him and become more endeared to Dillinger. It could be argued that this is more directly due to Depp and his portrayal of Dillinger's charismatic presence.

Aside from Depp, Marion Cotillard provides an entertaining turn as Billie Frechette, the check- in girl to whom Dillinger becomes devoted. One amusing sequence that occurs when the two meet at a dance centres around the couple being watched closely. Dillinger is aware that everyone present knows who he is whilst Billie feels she is being inspected for her Native- American heritage. Thus, they become the perfect outsider couple with just a touch of cliché surrounding them.

The storyline bumps along, lacking a certain finesse that can be found in other Michael Mann films. For example, when Purvis finds what he believes to be Dillinger's hotel room,bursting in on an ordinary looking couple, there is a fragmented delay between the instance when Purvis makes his apologies, leaves and then discovers one half of the couple is a wanted member of Dillinger's gang. The failure to eliminate Dillinger in this sequence results in Purvis demanding to be equipped with professionals who can hunt criminals dead or alive.

Another memorable scene occurs towards the end of the film. Dillinger's trademark is one of invincibility, a status that is seen when he strolls through the 'Dillinger Squad', the unit of Purvis' police force that is hunting him. Here he freely views all the information that has been gathered on him and his gang whilst the officers within the room fail to recognise him. Depp carries the scene with enough charisma to portray a frighteningly accurate representation of Dillinger's arrogance. Similarly when Dillinger's girlfriend Billie is captured before his eyes and he can do nothing to save her, the viewer is introduced to the vulnerable side of the outlaw.

Cotillard's performance as Billie mirrors that of Depp. The interrogation and abuse she suffers at the hands of Purvis' men is harrowing to watch and although the gangsters fate is inevitable, there are moments where it seems as though he may slip through the radar yet again. This of course is not the case and sadly Michael Mann chose to depict Dillinger's death in a similarly bland manner to the rest of the film.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in Public Enemies is the sheer romanticisation in the director's portrayal of one of the bloodiest men in history and his gang members. Michael Mann has not brought his viewers the tour de force that the trailers promise, instead Public Enemies is a watered-down love story that fails to resonate. One would think it was not necessary to highlight that Dillinger was not a thoroughly lovable rogue yet, this is how he appears and the atrocities he carries out are not emphasised enough. On leaving the cinema, there was an undeniable confusion and an aura of disappointment. The film is at times, attempting to be a more violent, modern-day Bonnie & Clyde and it fails on both counts. Overall, had Depp and Cotillard not provided such entertaining profiles, Michael Mann may have had a disaster on his hands.

The end titles of the film inform us of the aftermath for Purvis and Billie and this method of storytelling itself is quite frustrating. Not only is the viewer not given any background on the main characters (aside from Billie) but the end of the characters lives is told through a mere sentence on the screen. There are enough books written on Dillinger for select research on specific characters if they spectating public would prefer this. Perhaps Mann would be more suited to this method of storytelling if he no longer finds it necessary to depict his characters through motion pictures.

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2010 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása).

"That Paris exists and anyone could choose to live anywhere else in the world will always be a mystery to me "

Such a sentiment has never been more true than when expressed in Woody Allen's latest offering. The quality of his more recent films has notably declined from his output of the 70′s, but Allen has returned with a wonderful, funny story and solid characters. Owen Wilson is Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter seeking a new career as a literary writer. Tagging along to Paris with his snobby fiancée and her parents, he discovers a decadent and romantic world he has always wanted to be a part of – literally.

Although transporting characters to a previous time is a difficult and often perilous move, the film proves that nearly any idea can materialise nicely in the hands of a talented and knowledgeable director. Similarly, to carry off the trick plot line with ease strong character actors are a must and Allen has managed to secure the cream of the minuscule, modern Hollywood crop. Wilson is well cast and convincing as the bumbling, naive Gil and works well against his haughty fiancée Inez, played by Rachel McAdams. Other star turns include Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein and Marion Cotillard as Adriana, a beautiful ingénue who captures Gil's heart. Corey Stoll is remarkable as the deadpan, yet brilliant Hemingway, and Carla Bruni also pops up in an amusing cameo. Other supporting characters to watch out for are Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston as Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald and a surprising performance from Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali.

Cinematography is key in this film and is one truly spectacular element. The scenes are lit in a semi-gloom that is redolent of 1920′s Parisian postcards and artwork. The makeup and wardrobe styling adds a strong feeling of thought and care given to recreation of an extraordinary time and era. Anyone who can succeed in making Paris appear more beautiful than it is in reality has achieved something quite special. Overall, Woody has made a film that it's difficult to fault and that is quite simply the only criticism I have of it!

All Rights Reserved © Copyright 2011 Michelle Lacey (Michelle Ní Láitheása). www.madameaddams.wordpress.com

"One should always aim at being interesting rather than exact" – Voltaire. Never has a truer word been spoken and this film would have saved itself by paying heed. The basic plot concerns an overly intelligent and smugly sophisticated 15 year old Oscar Grubman (Aaron Stanford) and an infatuation with his much older stepmother, Eve (Sigourney Weaver). No prizes for guessing which 1967 Mike Nichols film this is styled on.

One drunken night, Oscar bumps into Eve's best friend, Diane (Bebe Neuwirth), a similarly older lady. Diane seizes her opportunity and seduces Oscar like the classic cougar that she is through the guise of wearing a scarf and perfume that remind Oscar of his stepmother. Now, it should be duly noted that if you're a 15 year old guy with a fetish for the older woman, then said older woman could not take any better form than that of Diane when played by Ms Neuwirth. However, the overall plot is not a challenge and distinctly lacks any sense that it might actually be going somewhere until the last ten minutes. Importantly, the last ten minutes turn out to be just as disappointing as the rest of this film.The only pillars of strength for 'Tadpole' are the performances turned in by Bebe Neuwirth and John Ritter. Their time on screen manages to break the monotony of what is otherwise a drab and disengaged motion picture. It says a considerable amount about a film when an actress of Sigourney Weaver's caliber fails to resonate or lift the tone, as even she appears bored at times.

The characters seem wholly underdeveloped and the interesting ones appear to drop off the face of the earth almost as quickly as they were shoved onto it. Eve, as Oscar's stepmother could have been an interesting version of the love interest but her limited time on screen leaves a vague and insipid impression of the character. Oscar is an acceptable protagonist, but given that the film deals with a rich topic for storytelling, he is also somewhat disappointing for a male lead with what could have been an excellent show and tell of the Oedipus Complex. The fact that Aaron Stanford is evidently older than his character's 15 years has not gone amiss with either the scriptwriter or the director as the supporting cast constantly reminds the viewer that he is indeed older than he seems, in more ways than one.

As John Ritter puts it during the dinner sequence, incidentally the best scene in the film, "it's all very The Graduate." Indeed it is, minus the finesse. Crammed with embarrassingly clichéd musical dream sequences, that would quite frankly make Rodgers and Hammerstein seem like a welcome addition to any film collection, we have before us a disastrous attempt to make a Graduate-esque teenage crush appear facetious. Winnick has failed to provide an attention grabbing look at Oscar's dilemma, instead eliciting the comical whimsy of the protagonist's daydreams to the point of exaggerated (and plain bad) slapstick. Overall, 'Tadpole' suggests that it could have, should have and would have been better had Winnick been prepared to put some oomph into the production. It's a shame to see actors of Weaver's, Ritter's and Neuwirth's ability being wasted on shoddy production values and lazy attention to pulldown's and video field capacity. The result is a half-baked comedy that is watchable (tenacity spanning) but at times lacking in passion. Very disappointing ultimately.

I always pitied Joseph L. Mankiewicz for his attempts to make this film one of the greatest ever made and never actually getting full control of the project in the first place. Twentieth Century Fox was one of the reasons for the poor quality of the film that is available now. The problematic production costs, Taylor's fragile health and the Burton scandal are also to blame for the negative light that the film has bathed in for so long.

Originally, Mankiewicz had planned to make two films - "Caesar & Cleopatra" - and - "Antony & Cleopatra" - each, three hours in duration. At the last minute Twentieth Century Fox announced that Mankiewicz had to make one complete film involving all characters. The reason for this was that audiences would not be drawn in the same numbers if "Antony & Cleopatra" was released the following year and Taylor & Burton had not still been together. As a result of this Mankiewicz had to cut out more than two hours of footage that had already been filmed, leaving the film at 4 hours and 7minutes, which is it's current duration. This again was cut back to allow the film to be screened twice a day, so the film was originally around 3 hours long. The two hours of footage have never been found and it remains a sad omen to the film that Rex Harrison, Richard Burton and Roddy Mac Dowell have all died without seeing the complete finished film.

When one casts aside all the drama that overshadows the film, it unfortunately doesn't add up to industry standards, or my own personally. There are some credible scenes, which may only be believable as they encounter Antony and Cleopatra during their romance, at the same time as Burton and Taylor were creating their own. Harrison and Burton do rise above the rest in most scenes; particularly Caesar's defeated speech to Antony and the Senate. Burton's, Marc Antony is as Mankiewicz wanted him. A weak, little boy inside who strives to do all that Caesar could not…and fails subsequently. Burton surpasses Mac Dowell in this film I always felt, especially when Antony confronts Cleopatra in her bedchamber about her constant flaunting of the memory of Caesar. In conveying the weakness and hopelessness he feels in himself at that moment, Burton is flawless.

Taylor fluctuates in her performance. At times it is believable that she is the ruler of all of Egypt. The queen who wishes to bring out the warrior in Antony. The child who needs protection and guidance from her mentor and father figure, Caesar. The mother who wants her son to be proclaimed as the true King of Egypt. The strong ruler who will defy Octavian at any cost. At other times, she appears depressed and seemingly hassled by having to play the part when there is so much going on elsewhere. In fact the true story of Cleopatra is completely overshadowed by the false 'facts', and the feeling that the film is going nowhere. Overall, Taylor does seem to be drifting in and out of a sea of consciousness and barbiturates whilst trying desperately to give a good performance. It is impossible to ignore all the drama off the set as it sears through during the film. In one of the final scenes after Antony has been taken away and Octavian demands that the queen should surrender herself to him, Taylor's state of mind is ambiguous. It could be that she is so immersed in thoughts of Antony's death, or it could be that she no longer cares about the part. Taylor has refused to discuss the film for years and probably never will, therefore leaving it in the hands of a confused audience.

As far as entertainment goes, "Cleopatra" does not rank too highly. I think that the film is a sad documentation of the sidelines to what was supposed to be one of the greatest epics ever made. In a way it is timeless because there has never been a film with so much publicised baggage attached to it. It is by no means perfect, Taylor herself threw up upon seeing the premiere in 1963, and it is widely believed to be the film that killed Joseph L. Mankiewicz. It is far better than some other films that have been made since and deserves a place in cinema history for Mankiewicz's brave attempts at filming a movie with no stable script and managing to sign some of the world's most famous stars to make it on this basis. It is quite impressive visually, and would have been even more so had the continuity not been so poor - a repercussion of cutting out the two hours of film.

Although it rarely appears in compendiums of great films, "Cleopatra" is a wonderful film. It's uniqueness and sad undertones make it interesting viewing, even if it is to get a glimpse of the Taylor-Burton affair in full swing.

This is arguably the best Taylor-Burton collaboration from the history of their extensive joint movie careers. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is a profound and rip-roaringly precise examination of the human psyche. Although Taylor won the Oscar (deservedly), Burton is once again under-appreciated by the industry and some critics alike. In scenes such as George's soliloquy in the garden, Burton manages to portray an intelligent, deeply intellectual man who is oppressed and misunderstood completely, or perhaps understood too well by his overbearing wife. Burton actually uses his facial expressions and physical gestures rather than his trademark booming voice for effect in this film. This works splendidly, particularly when he is framed in between Sandy Dennis and George Segal. The idea was to focus attention on Burton's eyes without using a close up and it does work perfectly. A rather sad and nostalgic effect is achieved through the two younger characters facing him who have their entire lives before them, whilst George has struggled through his own mere existence. The resentment felt by George is so clear in Burton's eyes as they sparkle with tears and become dull with a feeling of complete uselessness for the character.

As in other films, Burton does use his voice, only a little less frequently. His ability to change tone, volume and characteristic, vocally, are second to none. This is particularly evident in the scene where George destroys Martha's facade about their son. By using the malevolence of tone, fluctuating volume and harsh realism that Burton familiarised himself with through much of his early cinema, George ultimately deconstructs Martha's lies in the most devastating way he can. Burton conveys the absolute core of George, a broken man who has little use for his life, as though it really were himself.

Taylor's performance is also outstanding. Whenever she gives a good performance, (which is more often than she is credited for) people are usually shocked. Perhaps this is because of her colourful personal life and the public need to chisel through it before her performance can actually be criticised. There is not a scene in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" where she is not memorable. From her exclamation of "What a dump!" - alluding to the Bette Davis' film "Beyond the Forest" - to her excruciatingly brilliant deliverance of the final speech about her son, Taylor is truly on top form. In the former scene she carries out the infamous chicken eating sequence and speaks to George in a fashion that resembles some form of perceived 'normality', yet for it's time it is the most unnatural behaviour of a stereotypical 1960's American couple.While Edward Albee is to be thanked for this, Burton & Taylor only compliment his work. The dialogue in the chicken-eating sequence is portrayed as though this tension and hatred of each other is the norm for the couple.

Martha: "We've got guests." George: "Got what?" Martha: "Guests. Guests!" George: "Guests?" Martha: "Yeah, guests. People! We've got guests coming over."

Martha's soliloquy about their son is one of the best delivered speeches in the film. The trembling voice, the tattered appearance - so unusual in a Taylor film - and the exhausted expression combined, make it a superb deliverance. Burton's satirical interruptions with passages from the Last Rites in Latin are also brilliant and add to the drama. Sandy Dennis and George Segal are excellently cast also, especially Dennis. Segal notably won that year for Best Actor, beating Burton oddly enough. Dennis sparkles with youth and naivete particularly in the last scene. Her innocence is perfect as she attempts to stop George from destroying Martha when he tells her about the death of their son. Dennis also won in 1966 for Best Supporting Actress for the film, deserving nothing less.

"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is possibly one of the most trying films to watch at times as it is terribly depressing and heavy, yet vividly relatable and tangible. Many have said that Burton finally found the serious role that he searched for all his life in his final film "1984", but this film is my personal favourite of his. It is another factor which makes the film depressing, that Richard Jenkins was once again robbed of the recognition he so richly deserved from one of the few great roles of his career.

As far as sequels go, this one was excellent. Lacking the enthusiasm of its predecessor perhaps, but with the same stellar cast and added greats such as Joan Cusack as the evil, money-obsessed nanny. In this follow-up, audiences are graciously privileged to see the blossoming Christina Ricci take her place as one of the better American actresses of latter years playing Wednesday, the gloomy daughter of Morticia and Gomez. Anjelica Huston provides the eerie beauty and creepy allure of Morticia, wife and mother of the Addams clan. In one of his last movies before his untimely death, Raul Julia gives one of his personal best performances as the cigar-smoking patriarch of the clan. Together, Julia and Huston are magical, timeless and perfect in their portrayal of the passionate, gruesome twosome. Huston is comparably as entertaining in 'The Witches', yet in more recent films, I feel she has become slightly stereotyped in her roles. One of her better performances occurred in 'The Royal Tenenbaums' along with Gene Hackman, where she showed some of the same lustrous enthusiasm for the role, as she did in 'Addams Family Values'. Christopher Lloyd of 'Back to the Future' fame stars as Gomez's brother Fester. 'It means to rot.'! Fester is the unfortunate romantic fool and prey to the children's new nanny, due to his infamous amounts of cash. Lloyd as always is loyal to the fans and never fails to make one laugh, as the rascalish younger brother. Entreating the children to adventures with cyanide and arsenic in the first movie, he remains a loving uncle, always willing to light a light-bulb in his mouth for Pugsley's entertainment! Jimmy Workman, I have noted is hardly ever credited for his very believable performance as the son of the Addams', Pugsley. As a young boy, constantly the play-thing in his sister's world of "Let's play 'God'", letting Wednesday electrocute him, assisting his sister in dropping their new sibling off the roof and generally carrying knives and other sorts of dangerous implements, all for the fun! 'Addams Family Values' is good, clean(ish) fun for all the family, but unlike its predecessor, it might be more enjoyable to the kids.

Perhaps one of the more entertaining Shakespearean adaptations to make the screen during the 60′s, Zefferelli is a master at using exquisite set design to compliment his films. The Taming of the Shrew is no exception in this regard, and it is the attention to detail that gets the production out of the many potholes it falls into. Adapted from Shakespeare's play, the story focuses on the brutish and obnoxious Petruchio (Burton) who arrives in Padua to find a wealthy wife. Signor Baptista, an elderly gentleman from Padua wearily attempts to find a husband for his eldest daughter Katherina (Taylor), a self-willed shrew. Petruchio, determined to make Katherina his wife embarks on humorous escapades to woo her and loosen her independent ways.

The film is naturally light-hearted due to Zefferelli's fusion of mild slapstick with the original Shakespeare narrative. This particular comedic tone makes the film problematic and there are moments where the lead actors appear uncertain of their next move or utterance. For example there is the dreadful song, which Burton is required to sing, 'Where is the life that late I lead', dreadful in composition and in performance. Considering Burton was renowned for his voice, the fact that the song still comes across as cringe worthy despite his panache in deliverance, is a testament to the poor musical composition. It is also surprisingthat Zefferelli decided to keep the song in the film as it is distracting and an uncomfortable moment. Burton's dialogue has also been dubbed over in ADR in some parts and to the trained eye, this is very noticeable and equally disruptive.

The film does give Richard Burton a chance that he was rarely given in his under-appreciated career. A chance to act with excellent dialogue, story and supporting actors. Particularly in the oh-so-hilariously named scene 'Kate on a Hot Tin Roof' (a nod to Taylor's 1956 portrayal of Maggie in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof). The scene sees Petruchio chase his bride to be across the roof of her fathers house and fall through into an abandoned barn. Although it is highly contrived and at times plainly clear to see that Taylor is fearlessly tip-toeing across the 'roof' with a safety net mere inches below her, the scene is saved by Burton's outstanding talent and Taylor's ability to use that shrill, irritating voice to good effect.

The Taming of the Shrew also allowed for Elizabeth Taylor to give one of the best performances of her career – when she wants to. (Many myself included, consider her role as Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to be her best.)

The controversial final sequence of The Taming of The Shrew sees Taylor shine as she speaks of the stupidity of women to wage a war of independence against their husbands when they should in fact, 'kneel for peace'. Granted, Shakespeare wasn't exactly known for his liberating views on women in society, but Taylor delivers a performance that is as believable as it is entertaining, particularly as the audience knows she would sooner have danced on Shaky's grave than adhere to his strict admonitions about marriage!Regardless of the comical contrasts that are immediately obvious between Taylor and her character, she shows the amateurs how it's done in this scene.

Despite the films discrepancies with ADR timing and musicality, there are many excellent scenes. The dialogue is naturally innovative as one would expect from Monsieur Shakespeare. The Taming of the Shrew remained a film that Burton and Taylor were always proud of, so much so that they put $1,000,000 of their own money into the production (a fact that they both seemed overly keen to mention in the 'Making of' featurette). Not a film that will change anyone's life but well worth watching for entertainment value and a must for Taylor-Burton fans.