Reviews

Facebook. We all use it, most of us love it, so it was a matter of time before someone made a movie out of it. Hailed to be on par with the invention of the telephone, Mark Zuckerberg's gargantuan internet phenomena has infected the world with a brand-spanking new form of communication. 500 million people worldwide have found themselves lost in a realm of friend requests, statuses, tagging, news feeds and all sorts of innovative little tid-bits. Bit of fun right? Well, I think we can afford to be a bit more profound. Facebook isn't just an exercise in escapist entertainment, it's trivialised the process of communication in its entirety, figure-heading an explosive online movement fixed on harmonising global liaison. Who'd have thought that such an immense, world-changing concept could have come from one geek messing around in his little university dorm. It's a remarkable story that ached for an effective big screen adaptation. Was this ache throbbing in vain? Definitely not.

But be aware folks, this isn't just a flat-out glorification of Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg). Aaron Sorkin's witty script paints a genuine portrait of the cyber-magnate, revealing his stark flaws as he battles a potentially crippling law suit. Jesse Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg, in a role which grew to be more complex and multi-faceted than first thought. Being a relative newcomer and, in my opinion, emerging star, all eyes were on this young actor. Does he have the ability to hold such a biopic? Can he conjure the ultimate technological hero, or even anti hero? These were questions I had to ask beforehand, and God, did I feel stupid as I walked out. Eisenberg perfectly captures the essence of flawed genius, delivering Sorkin's portrayal of Zuckerberg with ruthless efficiency. Rather than shoving Zuckerberg's genius down our throats, the script leaves his likability wide open. On one end, he's obnoxious, irreverent, socially awkward and incredibly controlling. Whilst on the other, he's a misunderstood, brilliant aficionado, driven by mere passion, uninterested in monetary needs. Personally, I fell in love with Eisenberg's interpretation of Sorkin's script, he was mesmerisingly dry, punchy, and deeply absorbing. He's produced a character that will grow to become one of cinema's great flawed protagonists.

In terms of plot, The Social Network pulls the Facebook creation story out by the roots and examines each twine with cracking detail. It drags us back to a time before the site's global explosion, a world where Zuckerberg is only known by his blogging alias, 'Zukonit' and his cyber creation is in the mere faetal stage, being classed as a 'book of faces' or 'The Facebook'. This was only 6 or 7 years ago but it seems millennia has gone by! This little fallacy symbolises the extraordinary rapidity of the spread of Facebook's infection across the world, making this picture eagerly fascinating. Every day, all of us are drawn to check our Facebooks, we meet new people and it's become a custom to ask if they're on Facebook, "Don't worry, I'll Facebook you", "You have that Facebook app?", "Can't believe you just fraped me", are but just a few sentences drummed into the status quo. This site has become an impenetrable feature of our society and witnessing its fruition from the very beginning captivates beyond all recognition.

So with Aaron Sorkin's sharp script and Jesse Eisenberg's impressive performance, all the film needed was some solid direction, of the likes David Fincher was happy to oblige. Fincher truly is a strong director, helming such pictures as Zodiac (2007), Fight Club (1999), Seven (1995) and, just recently, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008). Like Ron Howard, he doesn't overstate with his work, he possesses the maturity and discipline to direct a film that allows the story and characters to develop freely as the screenplay initially intended. He's the liberal middle-man rendering a script through the camera in a smooth, majestic manner. As much as I'd hate to use the word 'standard' here, Fincher's camera-work is standard in method yet far beyond standard in quality, it fits the script like a glove.

So, without further ado, let's knuckle down and discuss the Academy Awards. All of sudden we've drifted into awards season, the most exciting time of the cinematic year where the pains inflicted by the tripe blurted onto the summer screen are eased by a parade of fresh, top quality cinema. A new wave of technical scrutiny will hit viewers like a ton of bricks and The Social Network is one hell of an opener to this stimulating advent. To revert back to Eisenberg, he's sent ripples around cinema's critical forum, and rightfully so. He's pulled off a career-changing performance, emblematic of his blossoming into the great actor he'll very soon become. We'll expect to see him floating around the 'Best Leading Actor' category across the award ceremonies, but a win seems unlikely. As for Sorkin's expertly written script, it should expect top contention for 'Best Adapted Screenplay', and I can see a few supporting actors attracting recognition. The striking Achilles Heel for the film's promotion has been the inclusion of pop prince, Justin Timberlake in the cast. In the world of REAL cinema, his name falls under taboo. But, he's actually pretty bearable this time around, playing the super slick founder of 'Napster', Sean Parker. So try not to let that ghastly name impair your excitement!

If you're worried that The Social Network is just a lousy pop carnation programmed to juice the money out of the Facebook loving public, you couldn't be more wrong. David Fincher's picture is a magnetic analysis of troubled genius, personified by an exceptional Eisenberg performance. What a dose of post-summer refreshment!

As the opening credits ran and I saw a mystical, fairy-tale like image of snow falling upon a desolate house in the woods, I knew I was in store for another unorthodox, bizarrely affecting film from the Coen Brothers. They dip into the ocean of satire in Burn After Reading, tease us with jet black comedy in Fargo and dazzle us with baseless fantasy in Hudsucker Proxy. These eclectic film-makers compile scripts smashing convention, showing us that life's drawbacks can be funny, celebrating dark comedy in triumphant fashion. 'A Serious Man' couldn't encapsulate this more as we're given a fly on the wall view of Larry Gopnik's (Michael Stuhlbarg) pious life implode before his eyes.

'A Serious Man' projects a cold, surreal world. Filled to the brim with plastic stock types isolating Larry in a fit of relentless mockery. This is, of course, the butt of the comedy. Gopnik's extraordinary procession of short-comings is hilarious as we watch his world plunge into a whirlwind of ill-fate. Throughout, we laugh at his constant encounters with a host of unhelpful, unsympathetic figures all differing in character. Larry has the pleasure of anti-Semitic neighbours, a socially exempt brother and a host of vacuous, unaccommodating Rabbis. Battling the effects of a failed marriage and a bitch-faced wife, Gopnik comes across Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), a character that steals the show with his ironic, lampooning nature. Sy hijacks Larry's wife, forcing him out of his house and destroying his domestic life yet he still greets him with a calm grin, smothered with a sympathetic countenance, assuring erroneously with his droning voice that "Everything is going to be fiiiiiine". Sy is the Coens' emblem of deep mockery, a coarse foreshadow of the film's omniscient undertones of irony. Stuhlbarg's bumbling depiction of Larry Gopnik serves as the epicentre of a corrupting, artificial world choked with a plethora of uproarious characters.

In typical Coens fashion, the film leaves us at the edge of our seats. As the credits suddenly start to roll, we're left wondering, betrayed by the incorrect thought that we knew where the film was going. The story is easing and simplistic throughout. Yet, the Coens' sudden end inspires a galaxy of thought, slapping the audience with a revelation that this picture is much more than a bit of black comedy, unveiling its daring complexity and impossible depth. Popular opinion dictates 'A Serious Man' to be an allegorical rework of the bible's Story of Job, but other more liberal critics rightfully suggest that this picture is a mere artistic flourish that should inspire many modes of interpretation. It's astonishing how the Coens continue to consistently produce such mysterious, intellectually endearing works of cinema.

Starless in its cast, 'A Serious Man' is a ground-breaking piece of cinema. The Coens dish out a thought-provoking, marvellously profound film that stretches the boundaries of comedy. Not since Barton Fink, have the Coens delivered such a mentally indulgent experience.

Simply Stunning. 9/10

Paranormal Activity follows a young couple, as they become tormented by an evil spirit. The instant allure of this film is, of course, the 'super original' pseudo-documentary format otherwise famed in 'The Blair With Project' (1999) and 'Cloverfield' (2008). While I can agree that this approach to horror is a nice break from the usual gore-fests we're terrorised by in modern horror, 'Paranormal Activity' still feels ragged and radically uninspired. 'Cloverfield' offered a stagnantly boring yet realistic point of view in the event of a monster attacking New York (which we know is a tired scenario). 'Paranormal Activity' is doing the same, getting a concept as old as death itself and filming it with a crappy camera. That's OK with me; I admire the film's moments of frightening intensity and tense entrapment yet for most of the 86 minute running time, I was left bored by the predictable story and shallow script.

The desperate state of modern horror doesn't translate financially; 'Paranormal Activity' cost a measly $15,000 to produce while it enjoys profits exceeding $100,000,000 since release. This astonishing financial success is backed up by an ample plethora of positive critical acclaim, yet that doesn't leave me convinced. Nor could I ever imagine that this would really be a horror of true quality measuring up to the classics. So in that respect, the film met my expectation.

The quality of the film was largely two-fold. On one end, there's the psychological ferociousness and suspense of the night scenes yet on the other end, we got a bold disparity of archetypal characters and lame script-writing. The man of the couple, Micah (Micah Sloat), is more of a terrifying microcosm of Christian Bale, Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise than a striking male protagonist. His goofy, alpha-male persona was an annoying distraction – even more so than his wife, Katie (Katie Featherston), who's plainer than Leona Lewis in a coma. The script was disappointing, unoriginal drivel, increasing the film's pivotal reliance on the somewhat dynamic format most obviously displayed in the night scenes. These moments had a great atmospheric nature; creating unbearable tension, entrapping the audience in a state of suspended inescapability. These snippets impressed me, showcasing a multitude of psychological horror that the genre has been starved of in recent years. As you can probably notice from my contrasting words, the quality of 'Paranormal Activity' is about as temperamental as a bipolar woman on her period.

While the pseudo-documentary format pioneers the moments of heightened terror, it simultaneously shoves the film down the road of mediocrity. Such a style demands short running times, which left the film feeling bare and undeveloped whilst the solitary camera use felt restricting at times, almost leaving too much emphasis on what we don't see rather than what we do. Of course, this restriction creates the suspense, but I felt there were missed opportunities for more climactic shocks that doesn't really come until the very end. I was left wanting more at the conclusion of the film, the immense night scenes wetted my appetite but I wasn't given the opportunity to take a bite. The film teases you with an intriguing point of view and dangles various semi-scares for the audience yet it doesn't deliver beyond that. That is where this horror slumps.

The independent, perhaps revolutionary transcendence of 'Paranormal Activity' is something to embrace – horror being a dying genre, I respect attempts to refresh it. But, this attempt is futile and lagging. Its junctures of great quality only frustrated me as it shot itself in the foot with lame casting and script-writing. I can't help but wonder how the $15,000 budget was spent...

6/10

Literary Legend, Oscar Wilde has always been known for his boundless wit – to see the beloved playwright's only novel be adapted to the screen should be a pleasure right? Haha, Nope not by a long shot! 'Dorian Gray' follows the story of a young English bureaucrat whose blind pursuit of hedonism lands him into a world of supernatural trouble. Visually, the film was stunning - the audience were frequently dazzled by a myriad of immaculate cinematography showcasing the artificial mess that was 19th Century London. That was the good thing, now let's get onto the bad. After the first 25 minutes, the film ran out of steam, it transformed into a lengthy, predictable chore. Furthermore, the film boasts some sort of philosophical edge that is bound to make the ears of some budding pseudo-sophistos to flare up. Once you get past the obvious moral, the film is painfully shallow, made evident by the faltering characterisation in a script that had horrible pacing issues. At times, the film slid over to something you'd find in an old, perverted Italian film rather than a British Costume Drama. But anyway, 'Dorian Gray' was a bore-fest – I thought of calling it Sweeney Todd's more mature older brother but I really wouldn't want to place it in such a high-flying gene-pool...

• Tarantino is possibly the greatest cult director to ever live -

Originality and Passion is something that is relatively scarce in the contemporary film industry, many directors now simply produce films for the whopping pay check after release (Michael Bay, Jason Friedberg...). Yet, Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is a gleaming example that there is still raw passion and bundles of originality nestled in the undercurrents of cinema. Tarantino's films most definitely have an acquired taste, his style is marred with obscure film references, heavy dialogue, dark comedy and you'd usually expect his characters to go into a burst of pointless chit-chat about pop culture. This is what his cinema is and he sticks to his guns, he's not tempted by the majority audience to cash in on. The beauty of Inglourious Basterds is that he sticks to his style, but he puts it into a totally different use to produce a wacky piece of cinema of the like that I've never seen before or never will!

Inglourious Basterds is split into five chapters that all have a distinct tone and direction. It involves two bloody stories of revenge and redemption coming together in a simply outrageous fashion. Melanie Laurent plays Shoshana Dreyfus, a vengeful cinema owner who witnessed her family get massacred by Nazi Colonel, Hans 'Jew Hunter' Landa (Christophe Waltz). Whilst, Brad Pitt plays Lt Aldo Raine as he leads a battalion of hate-filled American Jews on a rampage to kill Nazis. Both stories unite in a simply epic conclusion.

Once again, Tarantino gathers an admirable cast that fit the script. Waltz pulled off a great performance that should expect Academy recognition, Pitt was very good as the simple American lieutenant and Laurent was perfect as Shoshana. I could only complain about Eli Roth, but I don't want to waste my time explaining why as the reasons should be obvious!

Like a typical Tarantino film, there are flourishes of Morricone music, brilliant yet perhaps superfluous dialogue and plenty of violence. The film doesn't take itself seriously, it's just great fun and miles away from your normal war film. Tarantino treats sensitive issues like Nazism like anything else, producing a multitude of violence never seen before in his films.

Inglourious Basterds is a black comedy, we find ourselves laughing when in fact we should be shocked and disgusted. Yet, this doesn't suggest the story is lousy, it's actually brilliant. It's ironic and surprisingly gripping, all thanks to a script that I would describe as spectacular. The writing is subtle and at times, hilarious.

Tarantino's films have always been quite comical, yet this is his first all-out black comedy. The farcical story structure encapsulates a great atmosphere of stupidity, so much so that you can't help but laugh out loud at the end.

The film is most certainly an acquired taste, some may find the heavy scenes of dialogue as excessive or some may see Tarantino's attempts at black humour as immature and juvenile. Opinions were always going to be polarised as they were at Cannes. But I can tell you one thing, Inglourious Basterds sees Tarantino back on blistering form and I can't wait for his next project.

"Tarantino's hilarious film is an epic celebration of cinema"

"Laurent and Waltz shine in the best film of the summer"

"Wildly Original. A crazy, twisted, bloody war film that certainly has its dramatic moments exemplified by Tarantino's exhilarating music choice"

"Awesome, Dazzling, Beautiful. Inglourious Basterds fails to disappoint"

"Entertainment of the highest calibre"

"Has everything you'd expect from a Tarantino film. An experience for both film buffs and the ordinary film goer"

"I can guarantee, no-one has seen anything like this before..."

I've never had so much fun in the cinema.

9/10

Tim Burton's 'Edward Scissorhands' is a beautifully constructed modern fairy-tale detailing the life of an unfinished humanoid named Edward. His inventor died before he could complete Edward so he is left with a frightening set of razor sharp blades for hands. Edward remains isolated in the darkness of his inventor's hilltop mansion until a kind Avon lady comes to him and offers to let him stay in her house within a sickly prim, proper and perfect suburban neighbourhood where your every move is judged by the unforgiving inhabitants. Unexpectedly, Edward finds a love interest yet his naive inability to distinguish between right and wrong leads to him slowly being denounced by the neighbourhood.

Johnny Depp is simply an astonishing actor. His character of Edward is heart-warming and extremely lovable. With very little dialogue to work with, Depp's body language is perfect, embodying Edward as shy but very benevolent. He carries the film in a performance that would withstand his position as one of the most versatile actors in the history of cinema. Perhaps he could have got an Oscar nomination for his performance.

Burton has never been one of the most conventional film-makers and 'Edward Scissorhands' is no exception. Elfman's haunting track is brilliant over the almost clichéd fairy tale shots of the great mansion on the hill. This film is almost like Burton's homage to all fairy-tales or rather a telling of his very own.

Such a film will always be open for any interpretation in terms of meaning. It could be a satire about the crushing effects of judgmental American suburbia or some see Edward as a metaphor for Jesus. However outlandish you want to go with your interpretation of the film, 'Edward Scissorhands' is a great mystical film that is surprisingly poignant.

8/10

Salo follows a group of fascist libertines rounding up a group of good-looking boys and girls to put through sexual, mental and physical torture. As a fan of daring films, I felt it extremely necessary to see such a film being a fan of A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. Salo pushes the boundaries of shock and disturbia and makes any other 'violent' and 'explicit' films seems like excerpts of Barney the dinosaur. The explicitness is constant and increasingly worse as the film progresses.

Surprisingly, the film made me feel queasy. However, interpreting this film is impossibly hard. On one hand, you could see it as a pointless orgy of cordless sexuality or you could see it as a representation of how power corrupts the human mind. As far as I'm concerned, I could have given this film a 1 or a 10, yet the film is so unique it is almost impossible to decipher an accurate rating. So by default, I gave it a middle rating of 5.

Yet, Salo is a film all film fans should see. Its bold, daring and beautifully directed. Very interesting but impossible to interpret.

5/10

Network is about a retiring, troubled yet deranged news reporter (Peter Finch) becoming sick with the artificiality of showbiz and at the same time losing his sanity. Yet his trusted colleagues at his network don't see this as an area of concern, but rather a business opportunity. The producers exploit this reporter's state of mind to give him his own show in which he furiously preaches the flaws of society, promoting his viewers to shout of their window, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not guna take it!'. However, the show's ratings start to falter and the network need to find some way of bringing down the show, no matter how extreme...

Network reveals a shocking reality that the television business (or rather the media overall) is evil, partial and false. The peek of satire in the film is Faye Dunaway's character, Diana Christensen. She claims to be inept at everything except her work, she is engrossed in the falseness of the media which influences her own life in which she compares affairs with Vronsky and Anna in 'Anna Karenina' and sees mundane situations as a script.

Finch's performance as Howard Beale was powerful and boundlessly brilliant. He acts as the messenger of truth in the film, a beacon of light in this dark abyss of lies and hypocrisy. His character is worn down by the difficulties of life driving him to derangement and shocking insanity. Finch deserved his Oscar without a doubt.

Network is a bold satire of the false nature of the media whilst acting as a truly enlightening experience that is hugely ahead of its time.

8.5/10

"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti"

What more could encapsulate the psychotic nature of this charged thriller?

Silence of the Lambs follows Clarice Starling's FBI investigation into a string of sadistic murders by a killer known as 'Buffalo Bill'. A break-through in the case can only be found through the interrogation of the brilliant yet outlandishly insane confined psychologist, Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter. Hannibal will only provide the information in exchange for Clarice to tell him about her own personal life which acts as the fantastic foundation for the title of this lucrative masterpiece.

The story was structured and shot perfectly. The film was constantly charged with suspense and tension, littered with thought-provoking dialogue oozing with intrigue. The performances were just awe-inspiring as the academy acknowledge. Anthony Hopkins was simply chilling as the twisted, genius that is Hannibal Lecter. Chills also arise through Ted Levine's frightening invention of the character of Buffalo Bill. Levine should have notched up a nomination for a best supporting actor at the Oscars due to the performance's flawless ability to chill and disturb. Also, Foster can not be forgotten as she played the multi-faceted character of Clarice Starling. Foster conjures an awesome balance of emotion to flawlessly invent the character of Clarice.

Overall, Silence of the Lambs is engaging, disturbing, chilling and holds it's ground as one of the greatest thrillers of all time.

...I apologise for the sarcasm.

Meet The Spartans is quite possibly the worst film I have seen. I'd say it's slightly worse than epic movie; Date Movie is a colossal masterpiece in comparison to this inconceivably horrendous film.

I'd explain the story, but there isn't one and I refuse to try and acknowledge one. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer should be arrested, re-arrested and solitarily confined in a minute hole situated in a remote village near Papa New Guinea. They must be stopped.

Meet The Spartans is an unfunny,goof of a spoof and its allowance to be released in cinemas would shock even electricity. A flower would curl watching this film.

Crap. 0/10

With Michael Bay managing to disgust many eyes with the atrocity of 'Transformers', he continues to offend the world of cinema with this futile remake of an already OK horror series. It follows the story of a masked murderer killing off a group of clichéd, stoner teenagers.

The deaths are unimaginative, predictable and laughable. It is obvious that this film was manufactured for an obtuse audience, there is a dose of explicit sex, drug taking and ragged jokes; the screenplay was horrific with such lines as "you have such great nipple placement"!

This film embodies a deteriorated genre. Modern horror is mostly a barrage of gore mixed with pseudo-tension programmed to cause jumps to the audience. Unfortunately, psychological horror (in films such as 'The Shining', 'The exorcist' and other old horror films) has become a thing of the past. For me, Michael Bay must be stopped. He's producing further remakes of Nightmare on Elm Street and Alfred Hitchcock's 'The Birds'.

Despite the obvious low quality of this film, it's topped the US box office and so Bay is getting what he wanted, money for garbage. I regret spending £6.70 on this shallow mess of a film and I am slowly realising that the hour and a half I lost will never be redeemed.

1/10

John Patrick Shanley's Pulitzer prize winning play has been given a shift onto the screen. Interestingly, Shanley chose to write the screenplay and direct the film which allows for a raw and unchanged account of Shanley's compelling storyline. The story of doubt is very simple, a priest (Father Flynn, Phillip Seymour Hoffman) at a 1960s American parish school is accused of molesting a pupil by the principal nun(Sister Aloysius Beauvier, Meryl Streep). Throughout most of the film, the story is remarkably open-ended, there is no dramatic irony here, there is no indication on who is right here (except perhaps the ending). Aloysius is acting on impulse, perhaps even a God given impulse, that Flynn is abusing a child. Yet on the other side, Flynn seems to be a very respectable, decent and benevolent priest and just wants to do good.

We are torn between the harsh yet observant character of Aloysius and the loving yet strangely ominous character of Father Flynn. This film is all about doubt, there is never a certain moment in the film, we are constantly trying to guess what is truly going on, who is right, what side to go on. This constant aura of uncertainty can also be a symbol included by Shanley of the moral dilemma in religion. Flynn argues that the aim of Christianity is to love and that is what he is doing yet Aloysius is stating that God wants us to always seek wrong-doing. Of course, both are right yet the film still suggests that one is wrong In a way, Doubt questions the moral fabric of Christianity as a whole whilst telling a story of true uncertainty that requires the highest amount of audience participation I have ever seen in a movie.

Meryl Streep pulled off yet another magnificent performance as Sister Aloysius. Such a role had the potential to fall flat on its face as a clichéd, bitch-faced nun yet Streep put something different into the character that was very interesting. It will be very close in terms of the best actress academy award, it looks as if it will be a two-horse race between Streep and Winslet. Hoffman was also great to watch as Father Flynn whilst Amy Adams was surprisingly good in her role as Sister James, she could be a dark horse in the best supporting actress academy award category.

Doubt is morally complex yet devilishly simple, short yet explosive, and exceptionally acted.

9/10

Gay Rights has slowly become a thing of the past in modern society as diversity stretches to the deepest crevices of any ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Liberality is something that we take for granted indeed, yet society wasn't always liberal nor was it easy to gain it's liberality. People had to fightfor it, fight the government and most importantly fight for their reputation. Milk highlights the inspirational life of the first openly gay US government official, Harvey Milk and the struggle of homosexual acceptance in San Francisco and elsewhere in the USA.

Harvey Milk was a simple man, claiming that he had turned 40 and hadn't done anything worthy. Yet after he and his boyfriend move to San Francisco, he suddenly becomes embroiled in a heart-felt battle to fight for Gay rights through mass protests and publicity stunts. Milk slowly gathers a huge following and eventually achieves title of the first openly gay government official.

The carrier of this film is of course, Sean Penn. His performance was flawless, charming and completely magnanimous to the real persona of Harvey Milk. His mannerisms and body language have an outrageous similarity to Harvey Milk and Penn is by no means a camp man. Such in depth character study is extraordinary. Everything about Penn's performance was perfect, it wasn't overplayed and wasn't underplayed, just sheer perfection. In fact, I think Penn truly deserves the Oscar but I think Rourke's comeback performance in The Wrestler will get the Oscar, despite Rourke deserving it, I would prefer it to go to Penn.

Van Sant's flamboyant direction was also wildly enjoyable, I loved his blend of real documentary footage with the non-linearity of the story telling. It was also an interesting choice for the ending of the story to be told in not only the beginning of the film but also in the promoting of the film. The producers did this because Milk's fate isn't the point of the film; the point of the film is to capture the inspiration in this story of one man overcoming a nation of prejudice, hate and discrimination.

Milk illustrates the power of the gay rights movement in San Francisco whilst questioning our collective views of gays as victimised humans that are humans nonetheless.

Milk is emotionally raw, visually magnificent and awesomely performed, 9/10

Slumdog Millionaire examines the life of Jamal Malik whose troubled background ranges from struggling to live in a Mumbai slum as a child to narrowly escaping murdering organ sellers. The basis lies in Jamal's stint as a contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. He is one day away receiving the question worth the grand prize of 20 million rupees, yet Jamal's slumdog background rouses suspicion about how he is really getting these questions correct. A violent interrogation ensues in which Jamal explains how it was so that he answered all the questions correctly. From this, the film switches back and forth to Jamal's past which links masterfully to the questions asked. The editing was stunning; the story slowly reveals that Jamal isn't cheating, he is just experiencing some amazing luck! Stupid it may seem but this abstract concept is an expression of fate and destiny; yet this isn't a simple rags to riches story we have seen before.

Boyle examines the cold, brutal, corrupt life that is lived in the slums that I can't help but link to City of God. We slowly learn about the somewhat dysfunctional yet beautiful brotherly relationship between Jamal and Salim which leads to a poignant conclusion. Boyle uses a bona fide directing style, oozing with eccentricity, encapsulating the horror of the slums and utilising some truly memorable shots. The film was stunning on the eye, a magnum opus of directorial achievement.

Not only was the brutality envisaged stunningly, the compassionate romance between Jamal and Latika was a great inclusion. Although the film could have held its own without it, it added some well-needed happiness to an otherwise grave and morbid mood the film has.

The non-linearity and flamboyancy of this picture has won it a dream-like critical acclaim dominating award ceremonies across the cinematic world. At first I didn't agree yet after watching this inspirational film, I can see what the appeal is. The film was entertaining, it plays with your emotions, makes you cry with sadness and happiness. Slumdog Millionaire is truly sensational yet I don't see it being film of the year.

The Oscars has given it an astonishing 10 nominations. I feel it deserves, best director, best editing, best sound editing and best cinematography. Gasp you may say by the fact that i don't think it deserves best picture. Well to be honest, best picture is going to be very close this year. Benjamin Button I can see being film of the year. But we shall see.

As for Dev Patel, I'm not going to praise him highly for his performance despite it being faultless. His role wasn't a complex one yet he played it to the best that it could have been played. He doesn't deserve his BAFTA nomination and rightfully didn't get an Oscar nomination. Other powerhouse performances (Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke) this year easily overshadow his performance. Freida Pinto was fine as Latika and the actor portraying Salim was excellent. All in all, the cast didn't have one poor performance which is required in such a film. A lack of intensity could have destroyed this film.

Slumdog Millionaire is poignant, shocking and ultimately astonishing. It explores the slums of Mumbai whilst building an inspirational story of fate, love and determination. Boyle has really pulled one out the bag this year.

Oscars will be close this year.

8.5/10

Lindsay Anderson's 'If...' is a lightly visceral, fantastically enjoyable insight into the dehumanising state that the English private school was around the 60s. The film features the premiere of the acting career of Malcolm McDowell who would later star in Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'A Clockwork Orange'.

The film is about three rebels spurring on a revolution against the teachers.

Anderson's film is such a well-rounded film, it covers the deep psychology these students go through. It references the idea of temptation, totalitarianism, rebellion and cruelty. But is this cruelty justified?, will this huge amount of discipline be beneficial to the students on the long run? This is what this film is about and the light hearted head-teacher is the mediator of this perplexing issue. He tries to understand these rebels but he is so far off.

Primal instincts are another major issue in this film. The boys are deprived from female warmth and attention to almost insanity. This is epitomised in the fascinating scene where Travis (McDowell) first has a sexual encounter with a woman in a coffee shop. They square off like tigers as Travis releases his innate sexual tension. Yet this isn't real, this scene is fantasy and it makes me wonder to what extent this is a fantasy, and this is for the audience to understand.

Anderson's direction was marvellous, the cinematography was fanatical. The ending was amazingly surreal and left me reeling. There was also the great irony at the end in that, the general preaching the importance of discipline in the promotion of peace, then a all out war breaks out! If... is a stunning insight into the issues of power and discipline in the education system and makes me wonder whether the old education system is better than todays. Anderson doesn't seem to think it is!

8.5/10

A very good achievement

The Vietnam war genre has become proliferated throughout the cinematic world. The repertoire of Vietnam films is vast. Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon. Yet Apocalypse Now is not only the best Vietnam film, it is the best war film I have ever seen and ranks as one of the most mesmerising films ever created.

Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's superb novella: 'Heart of Darkness'; Coppola's adaptation is both reasonably faithful and demandingly original. In a way, this is a reinvented and rethought version of Conrad's book. Coppola is subtle with his particular references to the book.

Coppola's daring direction and chilling music makes this film an experience to say the least. You experience the horrors of the Vietnam War as the alpha-male group of soldiers trudge up this river famously described as a snake uncoiled in Conrad's novella. Apocalpse Now is also one of my favourite beginnings of a film. The chilling blend of REM and the jungle's exploding in flames was the best possible way to open the film.

I would love to say what exactly this film is about in a deeper manner but its just too difficult. It raises issues about the morals of the war, the treatment of soldiers and the government's view of the soldiers.

Apocalypse Now is an astonishing war film. It has the depth and maximised style to rank as one of the greatest films ever made.

I preferred this to Godfather.

10/10

Most would think that W. by Oliver Stone is simply a funny and entertaining way to say goodbye to George Bush's reign as president. In other words, most people would think that W. would just be a 2 hour satire of George Bush. Yet Stone has done something remarkable with this seemingly irreverent film concept.

W. tracks Bush's days in Yale, how he tried to fight fr his fathers acceptance and furthermore, how he became president. These scenes intertwine and swap over with scenes of Bush actually in office and talking to the likes of Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney about the invasion of Iraq. These scenes especially i found absolutely compelling. Despite the fact that I cant assure that this is actually how it happened, it seems so feasible.

Stone also managed to squeeze some of the classic 'bushisms' into the film simply because it would be customary! Yet despite this, i see W. as sympathetic towards Bush. I felt empathy for Bush, hes perhaps not as talented as his other siblings and all he wants is to make his father proud of him. How could he do this? Become president! There's a very powerful scene near the end of the film where Bush is having a conference; these conferences are usually the centre of Bush comedy yet not in this case. In some ways, the scene is agonising as we see Bush thrown questions that he can't answer. Yet this scene is oddly powerful as we see this bumbling man struggling to answer these questions as he looks over at Cheney and Rice. Bush is like a lost child with a great intentions, this is where the sympathy comes from.

As for Brolin's performance, it was tremendous. He was made to look very similar to Bush and his voice was close to perfect! I would expect a best actor academy award nomination, but there are still some great films to come so anything can happen.

W. is an artistic film with quirky music choices. I could go even far as to call W. passionate film-making.

Concluding, this isn't the 2 hour Bushism fest people may have been expecting, this is a serious political drama with some comedy.

8.5/10

Lsst year saw the Coens reach a new height of success with their multiple Oscar winning, gritty, tense and relentless masterpiece: No Country For old Men. This year they've gone for a more light hearted and comical addition to their film archive with Burn After Reading.

To put it simply, its about some supposedly confidential CIA data that ends up in the hands of some low brow gym workers that want to sell it back to a CIA analyst. The story slowly unravels and the genius of the Coen's screenplay unfolds.

The cast is simply fantastic. Brad Pitt, George Clooney, John Malkovich, Frances Mcdormand and Tilda Swinton. Whats unusual about this cast is that they all have a relatively equal role in the film rather than one actor given a leading role to push for an Oscar (like Brolin in W.). Its a film of supporting actors that pull off exceptional performances. In terms of Oscars, I could see Malkovich's portrayal of the clinically insane CIA analyst Osbourne Cox receiving a nomination and possibly Pitt's performance as the dim-witted Chad getting some notice. But all in all a group of convincing and hilarious performances. I could see the Coen's get a nomination for their script but I doubt the academy will give them the award twice in a row unfortunately but a nomination alone is enough to value its merit.

The Coen's comedy is very dry and whats so clever about it is that the humour comes from very topical and trivial situations rather than the cheap comedy you get in spoofs etc. This is clever comedy. For example, Osbourne's over-swearing is oddly hilarious but all the Coen's are doing is presenting a natural reaction. It seems as if they haven't gone out of their way to include the comedy in the script, the comedy speaks for itself in the characters.

Now lets take a step back from the specifics of the film. To put it bluntly, this film is a series of mishaps, follies and misunderstanding between a bunch of incongruous characters. Much like Shakespeare's 'Much ado about nothing', this film is about nothing, being made a big deal.

I may be jumping the gun here, but I do see this as modern Shakespeare. The nature and unusualness of the story seems to match the quality of Shakespeare's 'Much ado about nothing' and possibly some of his other poems. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a complex drama but the irony of the story just cries Shakespeare to me. Also, the governmental satire seems to hint Kubrick's Dr Strangelove which is also a film of mishaps met with stupidity.

The Coen's have devised a very smart piece of comedy. I see this as the 'Much ado about nothing' and 'Dr Strangelove' of our time, met with the usual high standards of direction and cinematography with the Coen's Apologies if the reference to Shakespeare appears pretentious as I don't want to present this as a pretentious film. Its a fun, crazy and dryly hilarious.

Absolutely excellent film 8.4/10

A Streetcar named Desire is a thorough and faithful adaptation of Tennessee Williams' play. Despite 1951 being the height of cinematic censorship, this film escapes achieving all of the effects the original play wanted to achieve.

The performances were bold and excellent. Marlon Brando will always be considered as one of the greatest actors of all time. He plays the primitive brute, Stanley Kowalski. His performance was amazing to watch; hes cold, clumsy yet has an odd emotional side that occasionally seeps out. There is no doubt Brando deserved an Oscar for the performance and this should be considered as one of his greatest performances next to Godfather. Vivien Leigh also pulled off a stunning performance as the nervy and unstable Blanche DuBois. Her Oscar was very well deserved.

Elia Kazan implemented some cunning direction in the film. The lighting was also greatly-executed. It was always very shadowy and dark, much like the decaying streets of New Orleans.

A Streetcar named Desire achieves on all levels; its whimsical, tense, chilling and questioning whilst having 2 of the greatest performances ever achieved.

Sheer Quality 8.2/10