blackburnj-1 Reviews

True Grit (2010)

Subtle, moving storytelling

[9/10 · 11 February 2011]

[5 Stars] The Coens have many sides. Take the last four years to demonstrate this. They won a slew of Oscars for No Country for Old Men, a bleak, brilliant, brutal Neo-Western, with darkness in its soul. Then, they went utterly wacky with the bizarre, out-of-control hilarity of Burn After Reading. After that, they kept the absurdity and brought back some darkness, for the strange, existential, black comedy A Serious Man. There is no connecting line between these films, but now they appear to have gone around in a circle to the western with True Grit, though this time it is a very old-fashioned western.

There has been some discussion about whether or not this is a remake of the 1969, John Wayne film, or a new adaptation of the original novel. I am fortunate, perhaps, in having neither seen the original adaptation or having read the book, so I came to this with fresh eyes. The result was to see the true side of the Coens, and the only side which matters: these two are utterly superlative storytellers.

The film follows Mattie Ross, a fourteen-year old girl who is determined to see justice done on Tom Chaney, the man who shot her father. She is outwardly quite cold, cuttingly intelligent, moral and hard as nails. For the role, the Coen's found a very capable young actress in the form of Oscar-nominated Hailee Steinfeld. The nature of her character makes her performance somewhat restrained, but it is subtle and steely. She is utterly believable in every moment.

Mattie forms an unlikely alliance with Rooster Cogburn, a drunk US Marshall with a personal history more colourful than Tony Curtis'. He, however, tries to have her taken home, whilst he goes in search of Chaney with a Texas Ranger on the outlaw's trail, LaBoeuf, but she chases them down and they go off on the hunt for their man. Cogburn and LeBeouf jostle with each other for Mattie's respect, both of them harsh and with their flaws. Cogburn is another triumph for Jeff Bridges (as if he needed one). Though it is very hard to understand all of what he is saying through his thick drawl, his face pierces through the darkness of the cinema and is enthralling. You can't help but be a little bit in awe of him.

Matt Damon, meanwhile, appears to have been somewhat overlooked by the Oscars for what is another excellent performance. His LaBoeuf is the more human of the two in appearance, but is the lesser of the two parts. Cogburn gets more time, more depth and detail, whilst LaBoeuf's travails mean that Damon has not got so much to work with, but he is brilliant with what he has.

The Coens let the film trickle along as they take their time, the stoicism of the central characters belying what is going on underneath. One gets the sense that every second has been meticulously constructed. It thrills when Mattie crosses a river, unnerves when a man in a bear-suit comes out of the snow, shocks when a knife is wielded without thought. Gun shots crack like thunder. Roger Deakins' cinematography takes the breath away. Carter Burwell's score complements every moment perfectly, All serves to keep the audience enthralled, but there seems to be an endless aimlessness about the film (which is kind of the point), but everyone should feel in safe hands. This is after all the Coens.

Sure enough, the last twenty minutes are a brilliant climax, bristling with shocks and excitement, where its deeply moving emotional core develops. The climactic riding sequence is spine-tinglingly beautiful and tugs at the heartstrings with barely a word being said. It is brutal but wonderful.

This may not be the masterpiece which No Country was, but it is a far subtler, more heartfelt piece. The effect on me has grown and grown since I left the cinema, its build-up leading to the most fantastic, if saddening, pay-off. It gave me tingles down my spine, beauty in my eyes, awe in my heart and a feeling of wonder in my seat. I urge you to go and see it.

The Fighter (I) (2010)

The high quality of the acting belies The Fighter's ordinariness

[6/10 · 9 February 2011]

[3 Stars] "The Fighter" arrived on these shores adorned with nominations and plaudits aplenty. Some went so far as to say that the film was "the best boxing film since Rocky", Esquire magazine having apparently missed "Raging Bull" altogether. It is a shame, therefore, that the actual film should be so thoroughly ordinary.

It is not a bad film at all. It is solid, pretty watchable, pretty interesting fare. The true story of Micky Ward's rise in boxing is one of those stories which sport throws up that seems born for Hollywood. But, Hollywood this is. The film is clichéd and predictable. It says very little but portrays a story of hard circumstances overcome in a manner which is more populist than the film's box office would suggest, the film's harder side counting against it there.

It is however nothing extraordinary. David O. Russell certainly brings an ounce of originality with the frenetic style of the film – fast moving cameras, numerous cuts, characters jabbering over each other on and off screen – but none of this makes the film more gripping or appears to serve any real purpose. It jogs along following the expected path – solid, good, occasionally funny, and unremarkable. The victories do not seem to matter as much as they should. The trials and lows of the film are not very affecting. Nothing stands out.

That is with the exception of the acting, which is fantastic. Christian Bale has received all of the nominations for his bold and flashy performance as Micky Ward's crack-addict brother, Dicky Ecklund, and rightly so. After the disappointment of his dull turn in "Public Enemies", this is Bale back on form. However, as he acknowledged when accepting his Golden Globe, he wouldn't have got away with it without the sterling work from Mark Wahlberg, whose understated central turn is lead-acting at its best. He is always interesting, always gripping and gives the film its drive. He makes it watchable.

In the supporting roles, there is seemingly a great battle going on between Amy Adams and Melissa Leo for the supporting actress gongs this year, and rightly so. Adams continues to establish herself as an extremely versatile and effective young actress with a great future ahead of her. However, it is Leo who should triumph for her barnstorming performance of the battle-axe mother of the two brothers. She is absolutely brutal on screen and entertaining. Though her character as written is slightly monotonous, she manages to disguise this very adroitly.

However, the film leaves its audience impressed by the quality of the acting but unimpressed by the film as a whole. Frankly, there are better ways to spend seven or eight pounds. Get "Raging Bull" out on DVD, or organise a whip-round so that Esquire can watch "Raging Bull". As for "The Fighter", it shall dimly fade, but the performances will remain as fine examples of the actor's craft.

Black Swan (2010)

Mad, bad and extraordinary to watch

[9/10 · 25 January 2011]

Black Swan is beautiful, engrossing, crazy, over-the-top, on-the-money, unrelenting, unforgiving, incredible, insidious, ridiculous, brilliant, intoxicating, exhilarating, mad, bad, dangerous and stunning. Not to mention disturbing. And bonkers. It is a film which inspires many adjectives. It may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it is undeniably an incredible experience.

It is hard to know where to begin, because the film is so much. It is horror, ballet, psychological thriller, comedy, coming-of-age tale and family drama. Darren Aronofsky hasn't held anything back. This could have been a fairly straightforward character piece, probably starring a second-rate actress which would have garnered her a Best Actress nomination and been middle of the road and solid. But, Aronofsky has taken that and turned it up to eleven.

He is helped by the fact that Natalie Portman is much more than a second rate Actress. Here, she truly excels as Nina. Her character is charged with playing two separate roles, and, in a way, so is she, but Portman must bring the White and Black Nina's into one character in the end, recognisable in one moment.

This is not a story about a fall into darkness. This is a story about a duality. Nina's sweetness and innocence is unhealthy, particularly in her over-sheltered relationship with her mother, played brilliantly by Barbara Hershey. She is immature more than anything else and has to grow. Of course, this is not a coming-of-age tale through and through. It is about the insanity and pressure of young adulthood, the drive of ambition, the craving of perfection. Portman puts all of this across brilliantly, with great support from Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassell, and a very fine cameo-esque performance from Winona Ryder, who is strikingly convincing as a disturbed woman whose career hasn't gone to plan. I wonder why she got cast for that role though.

All of whom remain under the guise of Aronofsky. In this film though he starts it quietly with a girl dreaming and waking up in a quiet, beautiful, princess' bedroom, surrounded by pinks and whites, Aronofsky quickly begins the crescendo of noise, tension and madness which lasts and grows through the whole film. There is no respite. A lot has been made of the lesbian scene between Portman and Kunis. Frankly, at first it's a relief – seemingly a moment of quiet – but Aronofsky is not in the mood for titillation. He is in the mood to drive his audience mad.

The whole thing continues to build, knowingly over-the-top and funny with it. Nina's paranoia and hallucinations likewise grow, and, by the end, I had not got the foggiest of what was real and what was not. The ending was baffling, to the extent that it made "Inception" look simple. But, I came out and was thrilled and filled with energy. Those who are unsure should go, because even if you don't like it, it's an experience which is well worth having. Besides, the level of craft and acting here is exceptional, and there is entertainment and great fun to be had as well.

Four Stars out of Five

The King's Speech (2010)

What a film should be

[9/10 · 20 January 2011]

[5 Stars] If the basic aim of any film review is to tell the reader whether or not to go and spend their money on a film, let me fulfil that now: go and see this film, because it is almost the very definition of your money's worth. Director Tom Hooper has delivered a witty, engrossing, moving and thrilling film, driven by an excellent script from David Seidler and an exemplary cast, led by two terrific performances from Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.

The story of George VI, one of Britain's finest modern monarchs, and his struggle with his stammer has usually been a footnote in the history of the 20th century, swept aside by the tempest and tumult of the Second World War and the defeat of the Nazis. However, this film finds the deeply human story of the man who had been bullied by many crucial figures in his childhood and had developed a stammer, and found himself in the unwanted position of voice of a nation at the time of its greatest trial.

Firth is quite magnificent. Whilst Rush's Lionel Logue (the controversial speech therapist) has many of the best lines and is utterly charming, it is the power of Firth's subtle performance which makes the film so gripping. Far beyond the perfect representation of a stammerer that he delivers, one is with Firth's "Bertie" all the way, delighting in his charming story-telling with his children, and weeping with him as he discloses the surprising harshness of his childhood.

All of this builds and swells, never once dropping pace or losing the audience's interest. The final speech is utterly thrilling and spine-tingling, the perfect climax of a film which has made you laugh, cry and told a quite wonderful and inspiring story.

127 Hours (2010)

Gruelling and gripping

[8/10 · 15 January 2011]

[4 Stars] This is a film made with Boyle's characteristic energy and intensity. The brutal story of Aaron Ralston's struggle to survive when he got trapped in the middle of nowhere, with only a rock on his arm preventing his escape, is brought vividly to life, primarily through an inventive script which manages to make one man in a hole for five days and a bit utterly engrossing, as well as a spectacular central performance from James Franco who is utterly believable in every second of arrogance, strife and madness.

The scene where Ralston finally forces his way free through very drastic means is suitably gruelling and difficult to watch, but it is not gratuitous.

It is curious to know what you're getting out of this film. Boyle has described it as "a feel-good film". Though it has life-affirming and uplifting elements, it is too gruelling to be described as that. Ultimately, it is a testament to very great value of personal relationships, that are so easy to take for granted.

Not one of Boyle's very finest, but another excellent film which is well worth the money.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Magnificent entertainment delivers one of the best of the series

[8/10 · 15 July 2009]

It is somewhat amazing to think that this series is coming to an end. When it first started, eight years ago, it seemed to be a very dull transfer to screen but, under the guidance of some fine directors, the films have become highlights of a year's releases. With "Half-Blood Prince" we have the best of the films since Alfonso Cuaron's "Prisoner of Azkaban". Though some problems remain, this is a thoroughly entertaining, highly effective, visually arresting piece of work which can be enjoyed by young and old alike.

Director David Yates made his first Potter film last time round, with "Order of the Phoenix", which is the worst of the books. Here, he has the return of the stock writer of the series, Steve Kloves, and a tighter, more exciting book to work with. He is directing the final parts of the saga and you can feel that he is holding himself back before a final assault on a salivating audience but not enough to stop this from being a top quality piece of blockbuster entertainment and fine storytelling.

Yates understands the world he is working in and the audience (or should that be audiences) he is playing to, maintaining a balance throughout between the traditional darkness (now darker than before) and the lightness and wonder of J.K. Rowling's universe. He opens with a brutal scene of destruction, before following it with a brief spell-casting scene where the youthful wonder of Harry allows the audience to immerse themselves once more in the world of Potter. The film is long but it merits every minute of its running time and feels a lot shorter than some of the bloated early instalments (though plot is largely favoured over character here). Yates also has a visual style which is breathtaking. The design of the world is as complete and absorbing as ever and it is shot brilliantly, whilst the visual effects are staggering. Despite the huge computer-generated arsenal at his disposal, Yates's directorial style remains subtle and effective. He makes his audience laugh (the return of Kloves to writing duties after a one film break leading to a return of wit), scream and sit on the edge of their seats as he moves effortlessly from light comedy to grand set piece to an absorbing, dramatic moment.

As always, the cast of great British thesps excel. Michael Gambon is terrific as Dumbledore in his role's biggest film. Alan Rickman is his usual self, having enormous fun as Snape, though not as much fun as Helena Bonham Carter appears to be having as Bellatrix Lestrange. But the standout of the established actors is Jim Broadbent as Professor Slughorn who is a magnetic and charismatic presence. The younger actors have improved once more. For the lead three, these are their best performances yet, but they still haven't delivered really exceptional performances, though Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) is surprisingly strong in an expanded role, whilst Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood) and Jessie Cave (Lavender Brown) are really impressive.

However, the real strength of this film is its excellent story-telling. It never lets the pace drop and has some very gripping scenes. The grand set pieces are all carried off with aplomb. The final horcrux sequence is as gripping as it is in the book and brought to life with great visual verve. But, the bit after that (yes, that bit), isn't as gutting as it perhaps should be. Perhaps that's because the end of the book is so memorable that, those who know it's coming, pre-empt it, but it still feels a little undercooked. Then again, Yates has said that he's holding himself back, but he demonstrates here, with an excellent film, that he can deliver. Roll on the grand finale.

Gladiator (2000)

Breathtaking, entertaining and brilliant

[10/10 · 9 July 2009]

Ridley Scott was drawn to direct this project by a painting entitled "Thumbs down", which depicted a scene (seen a few times in the film) where a gladiator is sentenced to death by the emperor. It is a moment of pure theatre and that is part of the cinematic appeal of the idea of Rome – an idea which had for forty years or so been ignored. Scott's resulting vision was an epic which has been one of the most influential films of the decade.

The story is epic in scope, but powerful in its detail. Maximus, general of the armies of the north, is favoured by the Emperor to become the protector of Rome. The Emperor's son, Commodus, kills his father before this happens and condemns Maximus to death. Maximus escapes execution and flees to his home where he finds his wife and child murdered. He is caught by slave traders and becomes a popular gladiator intent on revenge. The work on the script should not be underestimated as this is an effective story of a man trying to avenge his family and, on some level, get home.

Maximus sees Russell Crowe in one of his finest performances. He brings charisma and magnetism to the screen which makes Maximus sympathetic and engaging for both genders: a proper, fully developed character and not just an action hero to be adored by teenage boys. Joaquin Phoenix was underrated as Commodus, bringing to bear insecurity and weakness with a terrifying edge, making him one of the greatest villains of recent years. Richard Harris's appearance is all too brief in this film but is memorable enough to be counted as his last great performance. Oliver Reed meets Crowe's performance stroke for stroke and is a great presence in this film (his performance became noted for being completed with the aid of CGI after his death toward the end of filming).

Scott, however, is the real star of this film, making a world as rich and detailed as the one he created in "Blade Runner" and delivering a terrific story masterfully. The film looks stunning and has a fine Hans Zimmer score. Once again, the computer effects were another step forward (the Coliseum was largely created by visual effects) and have not dated much in nearly ten years.

The film's influence cannot be denied (wheat is now a staple image of otherworldliness) and the decade that has followed has been stuffed with historical epics ("Troy", "Alexander", "300"), none of which have been as successful or as effective. Its claim to greatness however comes from its ability to satisfy those who had come for story and character and those who came for action and excitement. It is the ultimate blockbuster.

United 93 (2006)

Staggering and sensitive piece of work

[10/10 · 8 July 2009]

Paul Greengrass's bold dramatisation of the horrific events of September 11th 2001 was one of the biggest risks taken in cinema in the first few years of 21st century. The importance of the event was undeniable, but the emotions which it had naturally aroused in those personally involved in the story and the vast majority of the world's public made this subject incredibly delicate. However, with this film, Greengrass met the many challenges that came with it and established himself as one of the most talented and important filmmakers of the day.

The power of this film comes almost entirely from the genius of Greengrass and his script, his style and his execution of a brilliant and sensitive piece of film-making. The film is not a simple docudrama (it is so much more than that). It is a true to the events but takes the licence necessary to turn it in to a story with intelligent perception of what happened but an emotional heart which makes this very difficult subject as gripping and moving as it deserves and needs to be. Bravely, however, this film takes on the subject of the hijackers without reducing them to inhuman psychopaths but portrays them as misguided human beings. Before one of them gets on the doomed flight to carry out their terrible plan, he gets on the phone and simply says "I love you" – a touch of genuine class from Greengrass.

For Greengrass's sensitive handling of the story he is to be praised (he only proceeded with the film once he had gained the consent of all the families of United 93, who co-operated with his research), but his realisation of the story on screen is the real triumph. His (now much-imitated) hand-held style, which is exhilarating in the "Bourne" films, is brilliant here at bringing across the terror and chaos in the air – a style he contrasts with the scenes on the ground were the chaos is viewed through a far more stable and controlled eye. The sheer lack of order and control that occurred on the ground that day with the air-traffic controllers and the federal government is brought home brilliantly, with some of the crucial real life figures re-enacting what happened that day.

All of this would still have been rather pointless had it not been for the power of the story being told. The courage of the passengers is incredibly powerful and a testament to the human spirit which seemed so absent that day. The final part of the film in which the fight back happens is a stupendous bit of cinema. Moving and haunting it is an absolutely perfect ending to an absolutely brilliant bit of film which left me (and still leaves me) speechless, with chills running up and down my spine.

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

A chilling, brilliant and iconic piece of cinema

[10/10 · 8 July 2009]

Billy Wilder's haunting and masterful tale of possession and fallen glory remains one of the most iconic, entertaining and disturbing films ever produced. It's focus on the great lost generation of silent films stars and its unforgiving look at the cut throat and fickle world of Hollywood is chilling and, at its heart, are two magnificent performances from William Holden and, especially, Gloria Swanson as the reclusive, fallen star, Norma Desmond. It is a work of utter genius reflected by its oft quoted lines ("All right, Mr. DeMille. I'm ready for my close up.") and memorable visuals (the body floating in the swimming pool).

The story of the chance meeting of down on his luck writer, Joe Gillis, with the former silent movie star, Norma Desmond, is brilliantly written (the film was a deserving recipient of the Oscar for screenplay). Gillis is an unscrupulous and seemingly hopeless dreamer, out of money and out of time. Desmond is similarly hopeless, but tragically so. She is not the architect of her own despair, but has been abandoned by everyone and yet is determined that she is still desired and loved by the "millions of people who have never forgiven me for deserting the screen". She sits in a Kubla Khan as detailed and as haunting as Citizen Kane's, protected by her mysterious butler (an effective Erich von Stroheim, who later dismissed his part in the film as "that butler role").

The treatment of Desmond is distressing, and Gillis joins the fun, leading her on and taking her money, before he suddenly realises that he is trapped. Gillis is not as inhuman as he perhaps needs to be to follow the road he has started on and he is, thus, doomed. He cannot leave Desmond, who will undoubtedly kill herself in despair and is unable to write the script that may make him or be with the women he loves. The villain is Hollywood and its cut-throat and unforgiving nature which is brutal on its people and impossible for a man with the smallest slice of conscience.

This was a brave film for Wilder to make, not so much biting the hand that fed him but cooking it in butter and serving it to the dogs. However, he got away with it and no wonder why. Even the hardest man had to step back and acknowledge the brilliance of craft, the harshness of wit and power of storytelling in this film. It is brutal, dark and excellent in every way.

The Lion King (1994)

An absolute classic

[10/10 · 8 July 2009]

This was Disney's B-movie production. The studio was convinced that the following year's "Pocahontas" was going to rake in the cash and the praise. However, armed with a story lifted from "Hamlet" and some of the all-time great Disney songs, "The Lion King" became the last great film to come out of Disney's hand-drawn animations, and the last in a golden era which included "Aladdin" and "Beauty and the Beast". The young generation who grew up with this film have a level of affection for it that very few films have achieved. Their parents have a similar fondness for it. Now, some years on, that young generation can appreciate it as a family film once more with their children, but can also appreciate the superior level of craft which is in this film.

From the breathtaking opening, the power of the songs is immediately apparent. "The Circle of Life" with the sun breaking across the plain is striking and iconic, for parent and child alike. The energy of "I just can't wait to be king" is contrasted with the scheming moodiness of "Be Prepared". "Hakuna Matata" is still adored and is delightfully witty (it has the most intelligent fart joke ever) and "Can you feel the love tonight?" is up there with "Beauty and the Beast" in the pantheon of great Disney love songs.

The songs complement a story which is simple, effective and daring. Like many of the best Disney films, there is darkness here that the young viewer can deal with but gives the film added depth. The death of Mufasa can still bring the butchest teenager to tears. However, there is also a wealth of humour which ranges from intelligent and witty to absurd and hilarious ("What do you want me to do? Dress in drag and do the hula?"). Also, this is a proper story. The trials of Simba are thoroughly engaging and the world he finds himself in is richly populated by entertaining characters. The stand outs are the comic Timon and Pumbaa and Jeremy Irons's deliciously voiced villain, Scar ("I'm surrounded by idiots.").

The film is also a fine example of technical class. It looks stunning – one of Disney's most beautifully drawn films – has a fine score by Hans Zimmer to accompany the award winning songs and was a major step forward in CG effects – the thrilling stampede sequence being almost entirely created in computers.

This was a generation defining film, far superior and far more successful than "Pocahontas" (the VHS was the highest seller of all time). It was and is adored by millions. It has been somewhat forgotten, particularly after the advent of CG animation two years later with the magnificent "Toy Story". This film, however, deserves better as it is an undoubted classic to be enjoyed by young and old alike.

Duplicity (2009)

Lacking fun, chemistry and anything special

[5/10 · 6 April 2009]

The trailer for Tony Gilroy's latest film gives off the sense of a light, frothy, fun film, with two stars in the middle of it all, supposedly bristling with chemistry. Indeed, it seems to be aspiring to a film like "Charade", but it feels a bit like "Ocean's 11" meets "Michael Clayton", Gilroy's biggest direction credit to date, and that latter part serves to suck quite a bit of the fun out of the film.

Gilroy's work in "Michael Clayton" showed a filmmaker of intelligence and potential, even if he did get overly wrapped up in a messy plot. However, here the intelligence is shown off to an absurd extent, demonstrating cleverness for its own sake and no real drive toward a plot which is too long and out of control. Furthermore, Gilroy seems to have some obsession with the pharmaceutical industry, which is not the most thrilling of area (although here he manages to get a laugh out of "Is it a cream or a lotion?"). It also gives rise to interminable bits of dialogue which are dreadfully difficult to follow, and parts which are simply dull. As a result, the film is difficult to break into.

Another reason for the fact that this film never really gets going is that the star pair have little, if any, chemistry. Julia Roberts is perfectly alright playing Julia Roberts, but Clive Owen does not work as a romantic lead at all. He is a somewhat humourless actor, which is brilliant when he is doing gritty films like "Children of Men", but thoroughly disappointing here. It's a shame that this is so, because the rest of the cast are brilliant. Paul Giamatti is outstanding, and Tom Wilkinson is underused, in a cast of many recognisable faces if not names.

That's not to say that this is a bad film, merely average and rather stale. There is a sense that a good fun film got lost here. Someone with the suave charm of a Clooney, or even Daniel Craig, might have held the key, along with a lot of cutting and tighter direction from Gilroy. And, for this kind of film, a mixture with a little more of the "Ocean's 11" and a little less of the "Michael Clayton" would have gone down a treat.

Gran Torino (2008)

Eastwood delivers another cracker

[9/10 · 4 April 2009]

Clint Eastwood just gets more and more extraordinary. There's absolutely no stopping him. Almost eighty, Eastwood is still producing magnificent films as a director, but now has decided to retire from acting and remain firmly behind the camera. However, his final film performance is a fine one to go out on, coming as an echo of one of his most iconic film roles, "Dirty" Harry Callaghan.

In "Gran Torino", Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a widower and veteran of Korea who has nothing much left to live for. With his wife dead, Kowalski's terrible, selfish family are alienated from him and Kowalski is apparently bitter and stuck very firmly in the past. He constantly yearns for years gone by when his neighbourhood was not filled with Asians, who he names in numerous fruity terms. He is haunted by his years in service (when asked "What's it like to kill a man?", he replies "You don't want to know") and is utterly isolated. And, in his garage, his classic '72 Gran Torino, still in mint condition, is his pride and joy, barely touched since the day it was made, a symbol of Walt's stubborn reluctance to move on from the past.

With no-one left to care for except his dog, for a while this film could feel like a fairly simple buddy-movie, as Walt begins to bond with his young neighbour. However, seething underneath is the plot focussing on ethnic gangs in down town Detroit and an absolute tour-de-force from Eastwood. There is no question that this film is about Walt Kowalski, and Eastwood is the absolutely ideal man to play this role. And, he nails it. His performance is gripping and assured. At points, this film is played for a bit of comedy and Eastwood manages to control himself within this, never over doing it whilst he growls through some moments. Kowalski is not "Dirty Harry – OAP", but Eastwood does inject him with some Callaghan-esquire threat. The line "Get off my lawn", delivered in a gruff growl, sticks in the mind.

As a director, Eastwood continues to impress with this film. Away from the period detail of his previous project, "Changeling", Eastwood employs a far more subtle visual style, which becomes particularly apparent at the climax of the film. He also manages to control the film's changes of pace, and genre, masterfully, moving effortlessly from drama to comedy to thriller. The result is an absolutely gripping film.

It seems a little churlish to mention the few weaknesses, but, whilst this is a thumpingly-good film, at its heart is a relationship between Kowalski and the young neighbour, Thao, who is played by film Bee Vang. Going up against Eastwood is tough, but Vang struggles and, towards the end, this becomes a small distraction. But, it is churlish to pick on this when you are faced with such a tight and entertaining piece of film-making with a powerful message of redemption. This is yet another film to add to Eastwood's exceptional work of the last few years.

The idea that this is Eastwood's last performance is a sad one, not just because it marks the end of an iconic screen career but because, with this and "Million Dollar Baby" not so long ago, he appears to be doing some of his best acting work at the very end of his career. However, he has said that he's retired before and yet he has been tempted back. It might not be too much to hope that it happens again.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

A delight

[8/10 · 22 February 2009]

Woody Allen's latest film is a return to comedy, after recent wanders into darker territory. It cannot be said to be a crushing, comic examination of humanity's madness in matters of love, but it is a subtle, clever and highly entertaining piece of humorous cinema which hits the spot quite expertly.

The theme of the film, as it is with so many of Allen's films, is love and what the heart really wants. It is, however, incredibly light-hearted about it and swings through the brief running time with ease. Vicky, an engaged girl with safe and definite views on love, and her friend Cristina, who is much more given to passions, no matter how fleeting, have their worldviews challenged by their respective relationships with local artist, Juan Antonio, who embodies the passion that Cristina likes and the Catalan philosophy and lifestyle which Vicky adores.

The story is quietly involving, as the characters are entertaining, well defined and beautifully played. Rebecca Hall continues to impress with a really beautifully executed performance here, which is as wonderfully understated as the rest of the film. Scarlett Johansson delivers a performance which draws on the talent which she has shown before now, but still doesn't quite live up to the promise that she gave us in "Lost in Translation". Javier Bardem is, once again, magnificent to watch as he oozes charm through the course of the film. And who could forget Penelope Cruz, whose controlled madness is fuelled into the ideal form of Juan Antonio's insane former wife Maria Elena? The actors have got a good script to work with here, as Woody Allen delivers a piece of writing which is delightfully restrained, constantly amusing and, at points, devilishly funny. There are numerous lines and moments which could be quoted, but that would spoil them.

As a result of all this expert craftsmanship, Allen leaves his audience with a little gem of a film, which is thoroughly enjoyable from start to finish. It may not be a masterpiece, but it is a wonderful way to pass an hour and a half.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Groundbreaking, but it doesn't realise its promise

[7/10 · 21 February 2009]

The potential of David Fincher going into the mainstream is seemingly enormous. He is a director of brilliant vision and superb talent. With "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", the story of a man who ages backwards, he has the chance to explore the full extent of his talents, both as a visual filmmaker and a storyteller. It was an exciting proposition, but, for some reason, he only manages to pull out a solid piece of work, which, whilst being visually impressive and technically astounding, is somewhat lost in its own pretensions.

The film's strengths are many in number, though light in weight. The most notable of these are the groundbreaking visual effects and make up which allow Brad Pitt, and to a lesser extent Cate Blanchett, to roll the years back and forward. This is a "Gollum" moment: another brilliant and unexpected leap forward in visual effects technology.

No matter how they may have been altered, the cast are also excellent. Brad Pitt delivers a very effective performance and is utterly believable all the way through the film. Cate Blanchett is as good as ever, whilst Julia Ormond is given a thankless task as Blanchett's daughter but she carries it off well, and there is also a lovely little performance by Tilda Swinton. Taraji P. Henson, however, steals the film as Button's mother, and fully deserves her Oscar nomination.

David Fincher, himself, excels in his usually way, with his optimum style. Some sequences are breathtaking, such as Daisy dancing for Button which is wonderful to see. The film is utterly arresting as a visual experience. It looks beautiful from start to finish and is magnificently shot by Claudio Miranda.

However, for a film which is 166 minutes long it does depressingly little with its time. The central motif of Button ageing backwards feels like it should be doing or saying something, but it isn't and, as the condition is never explained in the story or by a theme, it jars somewhat. There are only hints of ideas in this film. There is an anti-war (anti-Bush) theme which floats in occasionally, but is ultimately too short-lived, but there is nothing else which is really going on. Everything seems to be half-baked – enough to envelop the viewer, though not to grip.

The film is a sentimental tale and is not an unpleasant way to spend almost three hours. It is at times an astonishing thing to see on screen, but it is not a magnificent thing. It promised so much, but it is a disappointment. It lacks a deal of sophistication and depth which the film perhaps deserves. A masterpiece was hoped for, but all we have is a solid, if groundbreaking, piece of film.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

Well acted, but hollow and derivative

[6/10 · 20 February 2009]

Sam Mendes's first two films ("American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition") are two of the great American movies of the last ten years or so. The films, which examine, with great flair, the hollowness of the American Dream (though the latter has this in the background), have a new companion piece in the form of "Revolutionary Road". However, although Mendes is on familiar territory here, he doesn't manage to get anywhere close to the power of those films.

The film's story is familiar. 1950s suburban Americana turns into a living hell for a young bohemian couple. In short, it is something like an extended episode of "Mad Men". However, the driving idea behind the film is that this couple is trying to escape from their hell, rediscover the romance of their lives and flee to Paris. It is no coincidence then that Mendes has decided to reunite Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet for the first time since they played the star crossed lovers in Titanic who embodied romance and the American dream.

The thing is that the casting is the most interesting thing in the film and that wears off rather quickly. The same old tired clichés are rolled out. The yearning neighbourly lust, the affair with the secretary and so on have all been seen before and nothing new is added. A few years back, Todd Haynes provided a far more effective and interesting piece in the form of "Far From Heaven" which examined the great prejudices and falsehoods that the fifties had wrapped up in them.

There are plus points. Winslet is fantastic, and should have been nominated for this rather than for "The Reader". DiCaprio is not as good as he has been, but Michael Shannon delivers a fantastic turn in the rather stereotypical role of the crazy man who sees past the charade. It is also stylishly shot (yet more excellent work from cameraman Roger Deakins) and looks very good.

However, it simply lacks a crucial element. It is very difficult to care for these characters. They always remain distant. Perhaps that is intended, but if so it is an error, because as the story unfurls in a predictable manner it becomes harder and harder to engage with them.

The Reader (2008)

Solidly made but overrated and disappointing

[6/10 · 8 February 2009]

The novel upon which "The Reader" is based is a highly acclaimed and much loved piece, particularly in Germany. It deals with German national guilt about Nazism and it is a book which, by all accounts, is a clear, well-defined and gripping piece that has something to say and says it well. This makes it all the more surprising that the film adaptation is so confused.

It is not just a confused piece, but a disappointing one as well, particularly as it is solidly made. It is very well shot and beautifully scored and there isn't, technically, much wrong with it. It is also pretty well acted, though this is not one of Kate Winselt's finer performances and the Oscars have nominated her for the wrong film (when compared with far more interesting performance in "Revolutionary Road"). There is a particularly strong turn from Bruno Ganz, as a Law professor.

However, the film simply doesn't amount to anything. You never really care for the characters as you have no time to connect with them before they begin to have a wail of a time. The plot meanders, ponderously, through many years and becomes increasingly dull. And, through it all, you're never sure that the film knows what it wants to be.

Is it a Holocaust drama? Not entirely. Is it about German war guilt? Not entirely. Is it about the triumph over illiteracy? Quite probably, as most of the film appears to be about this. There are elements of all of these, but as the two hours of well-put-together, decently-acted drama plays out, the film, as a whole, doesn't really develop. It is as solid as you would like it to be, but thoroughly, thoroughly disappointing.

3 Stars out of 5

Doubt (I) (2008)

Superb Acting + Brilliant Writing = Great Film

[9/10 · 1 February 2009]

The prospect of screen legends Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman together in a film, along with the increasingly impressive Amy Adams, is an extremely appetizing one. Added to that, the film in question is an adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize winning play and, to the joy of film geeks, is being brought to life by composers, photographers and other filmmakers who are at the top of their game.

So much expectation has been built up, and with great expectations comes an even greater possibility of disappointment. However, we are in very safe hands here and, from very early on, this film proves to be a gripping and interesting piece, superbly brought to life by, not one, not two, not even three, but four brilliant performances.

The film is set in 1964, around a Catholic school. The Catholic community is still reeling from the death of JFK the year before and is at the dawn of a new age. This is the time of Vatican 2 and change is in the air. In the school, Father Flynn (Hoffman) is open to the winds of change and aware of the world outside of his church and school. Meanwhile, the principal, Sister Aloysius (Streep), is deeply conservative in her thoughts and methods. In between them both, is the suggestible innocent, Sister James (Adams). James momentarily suspects that Flynn has done something to a boy and Aloysius adopts a position of absolutely certainty in the truth of the accusation, leading the principal and Father to enter into a battle of wits and gender.

The great joy of this film is that one can sit back, relax and enjoy the superb acting at any time. Streep's role could so easily have become a stern, uncompromising old bag, but she manages to give Sister Aloysius a tremendous amount of depth. The nun does not enter into making these accusations without a sense of duty and care. Why she is sometimes difficult to understand is because she is of a different time.

Streep's sparring with Hoffman is delightful to watch, as Hoffman manages to inject Father Flynn with appropriate ambiguity. One wants to trust him from the start but often feels that the trust may be misplaced. Hoffman delicately constructs his performance, ensuring that one is always gripped by his presence.

Meanwhile, in two key supporting roles, Amy Adams and Viola Davis (as the mother of the boy in the alleged case) are outstanding. Adams's portrayal of the well-meaning innocent who doesn't know what to think, or who to believe, demonstrates the kind of depth which her career has hinted at but has not, hitherto, delivered. Viola Davis, meanwhile, delivers a bold performance as the petrified African-American who is only interested in ensuring her son's and her own survival as she is faced by the obstacles of prejudice and an abusive husband.

The film's greatest obstacle is that, as it is adapted from a very wordy play, it is susceptible to being quite stagey. At times, it does indeed fall into this trap, but the combined weight of Howard Shore's subtle score, Roger Deakins and Matt Turve's careful cinematography (the use of Dutch angles being particularly impressive) and John Patrick Shanley's engrossing writing is enough to save it from being an un-cinematic adaptation.

As the film draws toward its conclusion, there are moments which are spine-tingling. It is a powerful film and an intelligent one. Whilst it may not be perfect, it is more than worth going to see if only for the magnificent acting. It is rare that a cast of this quality is seen performing material which is so good, and it is an opportunity which must not be missed.

4 Stars out of 5

Valkyrie (2008)

Not a bad film, but a disappointment

[7/10 · 26 January 2009]

It is no secret to anyone with a passing knowledge of 20th century history that Hitler did not die on the 20th July 1944, and so the suspense of Bryan Singer's new thriller about the assassination plot which failed on that date seems to be irreversibly compromised.

It is strange therefore to report that there is some tension through the film, even though the ending is never in doubt. However, it is still a failure. There is a feeling with this film, much like Ed Zwick's "Defiance", that it should be better than it is – that this story merits a better film than the one it has ended up with.

That is not to say that this is a bad film. The quality of the film-making is excellent throughout and there is little to complain about. It looks good, sounds good and is generally well put together. A lot has been made of the lack of continuity with the accents but, despite the fact there are occasional slips into German twangs from some, there is no distraction in the diversity and it is far less irritating than the thick accents which have become the norm in many films.

The acting is very good. A number of liberties have been taken with the characters to make them heroic (von Stauffenberg, for instance, was in fact a raging anti-Semite), but there are still interesting figures here. Cruise's von Stauffenberg quickly becomes a fairly dull, generic hero (the fault of the writing and not the acting), but the outstanding supporting cast, which includes Ken Branagh, Tom Wilkinson, Terence Stamp, Christian Berkel and Thomas Kretschmann, always make the film watchable. There is a particularly impressive performance from Bill Nighy, whose General Olbricht is probably the most interesting character in the film.

But the film never rises above the realms of simple, solid entertainment. It is by no means a dull two hours. In fact, the time flies by, but this never becomes truly thrilling. Perhaps it would have been better to have created more interest in the peripheral characters rather than the dull von Stauffenberg. One feels that there would have been more tension if you cared a bit more about the characters.

3 Stars out of 5

Frost/Nixon (2008)

An electric adaptation of a brilliant play

[9/10 · 25 January 2009]

Richard Nixon is a compelling figure. However, reduced to a two-dimensional demon by popular culture and perhaps best known to a new generation as a character from "Futurama", Nixon "The man" has been somewhat lost. One character in "Frost/Nixon" asks "How can you possibly feel sympathy for Richard Nixon?" In this film, set against the backdrop of his post-Watergate disgrace and his first post-Presidential interview, with British chat show host and journalist David Frost, Nixon is quietly but completely made into a sympathetic figure.

This is only half of the tale however. This film, adapted from Peter Morgan's electric stage play, is as much about the smaller figure of Frost, now a grandfather of modern British television and only recently retired from political interviewing. The Frost shown here (Morgan taking advantage of the interviewer's relative anonymity and using a bit of artistic licence) is struggling to shake off his chat show host background and risks everything for the interview of the century. No-one wants him and he seems doomed to fail.

It is a story of two men of ambition in a boxing duel: Nixon desperate to get back to the East coast and into public life once more and Frost equally determined to be successful and prove everyone wrong. As the contest slowly unfolds, the film becomes more gripping, interesting and electric to experience. At the heart of this success are the brilliant writing, subtle direction and outstanding acting.

Morgan's script is a masterpiece. The play came out in the same year as "The Queen", for which he received an Oscar nomination, but this was the superior piece and he transfers it to the screenplay format with panache. It is a brilliant portrait of two men locked in a quiet battle where their opponent is not necessarily an enemy, but only one of them can win, at the ultimate cost of the other. It cannot be as fluid a piece of storytelling as it is on stage and the attempt to frame the story with a documentary style series of interviews jars a little, but this is more than made up for by the quality of what is contained within and the careful direction of Ron Howard.

Howard has incredible respect for the play but realises that this is cinema and makes it fit the medium. The power of television, and the close up, becomes more apparent here as every flinch and twitch is caught on screen. Still, although this is a talky film (and a bit of a slow starter), there is a lot of motion. The camera flows through the world and circles around the characters capturing the film beautifully and giving it a necessary dynamism. Not that this is required to keep the audience's attention, as they are quickly sucked in by the quality of the performances.

Whilst the supporting cast includes wonderful little turns by the underestimated Kevin Bacon, Toby Jones and Oliver Platt, and another impressive performance by the increasingly good Sam Rockwell, they are thoroughly outshone by the superb leads. It is unfair on Michael Sheen that his co-star alone is attracting nominations like moths to a flame as he is brilliant. Having got the mannerisms of Frost down, he constructs a performance of subtlety, control and power. He is matched by Langella who's Nixon is a triumph. He is painted as the liar and fool he deserves to be, but also as a determined man, frustrated by his flaws. Langella is great at realising this. The voice is memorable and rings in the ears long after the film has ended, whilst the physicality of his "tricky Dicky" is carefully managed for maximum effect: sometimes big and imposing, sometimes smaller and more world-weary.

They reach their high point in an electric last forty-five minutes, including the (rightly) praised fictional phone call, where it is impossible to tear your eyes away from the screen. The power of television and the close-up (and good cinema) is proved, the dust settles and the aftermath is left and, when the red mist clears, even the most hard-bitten, liberal hippie might find a surprise. You might feel a great deal of sympathy for Richard Nixon.

4 Stars out of 5

Milk (I) (2008)

Brilliantly acted and superbly well made

[9/10 · 21 January 2009]

As the world stands and watches the first African American US President take his first steps in the world's most powerful job, it is easy to dream, if only for a moment, that all civil rights struggles have been resolved. Alas, it is not so and, of the many which are still ongoing, one which still causes great controversy, across the democratic world, but especially in the States, is that of homosexuality. Whilst the images and words of MLK are carved onto the world's memory, the actions of people such as Harvey Milk are less well known.

Gus Van Sant's exceptional biopic tells the story of Milk, opening up a new generation, or maybe even generations, to the story of a courageous and important man. With a brilliant script by Dustin Lance Black, the film starts with the end, using documentary footage of the day when Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone were shot dead and goes back to tell the story of Milk's rise to power and extraordinary struggle against the prejudice which was sweeping across America.

At the heart of this film is Sean Penn who delivers one of the most tremendous screen performances for many years. He not only becomes his character on screen, but changes him very subtly through the film's eight year time-span. It is a gripping piece of acting, ably supported by an outstanding cast. James Franco is something of a revelation as Milk's lover Scott, whilst Emile Hirsch is impressive once again as the reluctant activist Cleve Jones. All of the supporting cast, though, must bow to the brilliant Josh Brolin who is incredible as city supervisor Dan White and very nearly steals the film.

All of them are framed beautifully in the world of the seventies which Van Sant conjures up with the help of his excellent craftsmen. The world is complete and superbly shot by Harris Savides whose use of reflection throughout the film is constantly inventive (one shot of a whistle is quite extraordinary). As a piece of film-making this is exceptional and always good to watch.

The pace is slow at points, but this is an important story, deserving of a cinematic realisation. It is a moving and engrossing film, with supreme actors and filmmakers working at the top of their game. It amounts to a brilliant piece of storytelling and, particularly when that story is as significant as this one, that makes for great cinema.

4 Stars out of 5

The Wrestler (2008)

Rourke, Tomei and Aronofsky have crafted a must-see.

[9/10 · 18 January 2009]

Good acting requires good actors. Great acting requires great characters. A brief glance at any of cinemas greatest performances shows you that the quality of the character fuels the quality of the performance. Travis Bickle, Daniel Plainview, Lester Burnham and many others were all brilliantly brought to life, but there was something about them which was inherently attractive or intriguing which gripped the audience.

So it is with Randy "The Ram" Robinson, the beating heart of Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler". This character is a brilliant piece of writing (hats off to the film's scribe, Robert D. Siegel). The first half hour is dedicated to his persona, "The Ram"; a quiet and much loved man backstage who becomes a loud and showy beast in the ring. But, when the wrestling subsides, we discover Randy Robinson (aka Randy Ramsinski), a charming but lonely man who treats himself pretty badly and finds himself to be "an old broken down piece of meat".

All sides of the eponymous character are brilliantly brought to life by Mickey Rourke, who creates a man who is sympathetic and engaging. He is also deeply flawed, as he craves and seeks a life outside of the ring but can only find happiness inside of it. Rourke's performance will make you love Randy, support him, cheer him on, but above all, come the end, you will be pleading with him, like all of the other characters around him, to stop.

The towering presence in the middle of the film is ably supported by Marisa Tomei. Tomei, as the stripper "Cassidy", who has the closest relationship with Randy of anyone in the whole film, is at her very best here. With this film being Rourke's "comeback", she could have ended up being ignored, but she more than holds her own and doesn't quite let Rourke run off with the film.

Another "comeback", of sorts, is from Darren Aronofsky. The failure of "The Fountain" will be all but forgotten after this solid piece of work which slowly builds up the tension and emotion and becomes a really gripping and enthralling film. He doesn't shy away from the violence and pain of the wrestling (yes it's fixed, but the people really do get hurt) but at no point do you feel that you're being asked to enjoy it, but the film's best moments are the quieter ones.

The end is a spine-tingling, ambiguous, final blast which will leave you thrilled. The melancholy of the final moments is a result of the fine craftsmanship of Siegel, Aronofsky, Tomei and Rourke. This is a film driven by character and emotion and, although you may feel that you've seen this story before at points, this is more than a simple drama. This is a brilliant, surprising, gripping and beautifully executed story.

Defiance (I) (2008)

Not as good as it should be

[6/10 · 11 January 2009]

Edward Zwick is one of the good guys, as it were. His films have often been really brilliant and under-appreciated works. Of late, he has been on top form, producing the excellent "Blood Diamond" and the exceptional "The Last Samurai". At the heart of both of these were interesting ideas, gripping stories and enthralling characters.

With "Defiance", Zwick seems to have struck gold. He has found an extraordinary story about the Bielski brothers who, during the Holocaust, not only managed to evade capture by the S.S. but established a community for fugitive Jews in the woods of Belorussia.

It is a great and inspiring tale, and yet Zwick manages to make a bit of a dud film out of it. This is made stranger still when you consider that he has three excellent central performances and a fine supporting cast who all prove to be very watchable, on top of a story which sounds like an absolute cracker. Appearances, of course, can be deceptive.

To deal with the positives, this is a very well performed piece. Daniel Craig may be the lead but, despite another fine turn from Craig, this is Liev Schreiber's film. The latter's character is the more interesting of the two – a brooding and angry man who struggles to control himself. Craig's character struggles to control others, but disappoints later on as he goes from being an interesting man through most of the film into a fairly dull hero by the end. There is also an impressive performance from Jamie Bell who has matured into a fine actor and manages to make the most of his screen time here.

So, why doesn't it quite work? Despite doing a perfectly solid job in most areas, Zwick has fallen in love with his story a bit too much. The film simply lacks a bit of thrust. There are moments of interest but a lot of the over two hours of film is people sitting around in woods. This extraordinary piece of history needed more honing to become the superb piece of film that it could have been. There simply isn't anything of the brothers before the war and their characters lack some emotional depth. It is an example of film which never quite lives up to its potential.

This is perfectly solid and has many positives, but strangely for an Ed Zwick film, the entertainment factor is quite low here. A great story this is, but it just doesn't quite make the sort of film that it perhaps should.

3 Stars out of 5

I've Loved You So Long (2008)

Finely crafted and well acted piece

[8/10 · 10 January 2009]

"I've Loved You So Long" is one of those, increasingly rare, films which moves slowly and carefully, but is utterly involving from the first. It does not worry about its audience getting bored and has the courage not to rush through its story. In return for this, the audience is treated to an excellently made and moving character piece about love, loss and family which never falls into sentiment.

At the heart of the film are two great performances. Kristen Scott Thomas, acting in her second language, delivers a turn which is subtle, enigmatic but not completely indecipherable. The interest that her character creates is fully paid off. She also performs well with Elsa Zylberstein who, like Scott Thomas, delivers a deft performance but with a lot less material to work with. Her character, Léa, is a little underexplored, but Zylberstein more than makes up for this.

The two of them manage to hold their audience's attention, as Philippe Claudel unfolds his story with care. Scott Thomas's Juliette arrives at the beginning of the film, having been away for reasons unknown. Claudel keeps us guessing as to exactly why she has been absent, whilst building a detailed portrait of a wounded woman trying to rebuild her shattered life and trying to conquer seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

The master stroke is the central character of Juliette, who remains fairly ambiguous throughout. One is called at once to dislike those who judge her, but at the same time one is unsure as to whether you should like her. Whilst she will not go down as a classic character, it is a fine example of screen writing and acting.

Whilst the slow pace may not be to everyone's taste, those who enjoy finely crafted and well performed pieces of film will find much to like here. Scott Thomas's performance is certainly worth the admission fee, whilst the film lives up to it.

4 Stars out of 5

Man on Wire (2008)

An excellent documentary and a wonderful film

[9/10 · 10 January 2009]

Extraordinary though it seems, in 1974, a Frenchman walked on a tightrope between the two towers of the World Trade Center. This film proudly announces on its poster that this stunt was the "artistic crime of the century". Upon a moment's reflection, it becomes clear that this probably was a crime. But was it artistic? Surely not.

The man, who was, for forty-five minutes, an extra speck on the Manhattan skyline, is Philippe Petit. He is the extraordinary driving force not only of the story but also of this documentary. He has huge, childlike charisma which almost immediately engages. He tells, still with youthful wonder, how, as a seventeen year-old, he saw an artist's sketch of the towers in the National Geographic before they had been built. As he looked he drew a line between the tops of the building, ripped the page from the magazine and ran out of the dentist's waiting room where he was. It was the birth of a dream and is a wonderful thing to see.

Later on, as he describes how he evaded capture by one of the guards in the towers, the night before his attempt, he plays a game of hide and seek with the camera. It is then that Petit is revealed as someone who is not just a childish dreamer, but is in many ways still a child, even after all of these years. Towards the end, he seems to be almost psychopathic as he recalls the adulation which followed his success, and yet he always remains charming and his story is utterly gripping.

The film is at its best when it looks into the psychology of this man who dared to do what most would never even dream of being possible. This comes to the fore when director James Marsh uses archive footage and photographs of Petit's other exploits, at Notre Dame in Paris and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. There is something magical about the endeavours that he undertook, and Marsh frames it wonderfully.

A lot of the film is dedicated to reconstructions of the actual attempt which are stylishly done and keep the tension going. The motley crew that Petit assembles are an interesting, if very strange, bunch and they tell their part of the story with the same enthusiasm and charm which fills the film.

But, ultimately, this film is all about the moment when Petit stepped out onto a high wire. There is no footage, only photographs, and yet James Marsh manages to make those moments the most cinematic and magical of the entire film. Petit's stunt was driven by a strange egotism. It was selfish; a man following his heart and saying to hell with the consequences, no matter who gets caught in the crossfire. But, this film can leave you in no doubt that this was a beautiful thing to have happened. It was a wonderful work of art and this is a brilliant film.

4 Stars out of 5

Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)

Not an easy watch, but an important and excellent film

[9/10 · 9 January 2009]

Too few have heard of Dilawar. Those who have will probably never forget him. Alex Gibney certainly will not. His latest film starts and ends with this poor innocent taxi driver who, in 2002, was taken to the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan. Five days later, he was dead.

Dilawar's death was the spark which ultimately led to the international awareness of what the Bush administration was doing to its detainees in the war on terror. Gibney's film, however, decides to look up the tree, not down, to discover who was really responsible for these unpleasant developments.

Gibney's film is bolstered by frank and interesting interviews with some of the troops on the ground. Their remorse is clear, as is their disgust. And disgust is the right word. This is, by no means, an easy watch. The use of the appalling footage which has been generated by the recent conflicts is necessary because, if anyone is in any doubt about how morally reprehensible these tactics are, this film will make it abundantly clear.

However, this film's real strength is the structure of its attack on the tactics that are employed. Gibney demonstrates that the tactics used are hopelessly inadequate and never yield effective information. There is a cutting and brilliant comparison with the old techniques and the new where an interviewee, a former FBI interrogator, uses his old tools of interrogation – words – and you can feel yourself being persuaded.

This is not just a polemic. It is a human story and a powerful and well-constructed argument. It should be essential viewing as what has happened at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib should never be forgotten. This is excellent, important film-making.

4 Stars out of 5