Film Reviews by Tim from London

This film tells parallel stories of the man who played Superman and the slump in his his career - and a private detective hired to investigate his apparent suicide. The first story is by far the stronger with - and I never thought I would say this - a strong performance by Ben Afflect who portrays Georges Reeves as having an all-American boyish charm with an underlying sadness. The Adrian Brody story felt slightly over-egged - with too many plot twists and dead ends - almost as if it was trying too hard to be Chinatown. But there are some really wonderful moments in this film - especially when Reeves' agent laments the end of the classic age of Hollywood and studio system which produced stars such as Reeves - and the rise of the 'mumbling actors'. If you liked Chinatown and LA Confidential you will like this - although to be fair it is not in the same class as these films - but far better than the Black Dahlia released earlier this year.

Featuring a titanic performance from Daniel Day Lewis as a ruthless and dark Califonria oil tycoon in the early twentieth century - this is a relentlessly intense film. The first 15 minutes give you a taste of what the film is about - remarkably played out without any dialouge as Daniel Plainview (Day Lewis) works a mine shaft on his own, suffering injury, before striking oil deep in the heat of New Mexico. The film covers the first three decades of the twentieth century, as Plainview becomes a ruthless tycoon whose ememies are man and God. And in the film's final section, Plainview takes his revenge on both. As well as the Day Lewis performance - what is also deeply impressive about the film is the electronic score which literally fills the screen with dread and foreboding. An intense and brutal cinematic experience.

Brilliant and highly original film about a man with 'locked in syndrome', which is a rare condition in which a person is aware and awake, but cannot move or communicate due to complete paralysis of nearly all voluntary muscles in the body. Don't expect a dull amd overly worthy Hollywood-like portrayal of disability ala Awakenings or A Beautiful Mind. This is told completely from the person's point of view. Mathieu Amalric brilliantly portrays a man who is flawed (he cheated on his wife and continues to reject her), loving, vain and sometimes suicidal and often humurous (especially making fun of his disability) - ie not just a 'disabled person' but a fully rounded human being. This is achieved through voiceovers, flashbacks and fantasy sequences. There is also a great supporting cast featuring many of the leading actors from French cinema. Although some scenes drag a little and the jerky camera movements are overused - this is a brilliant and very unique film.

This film is a mess. The narrative is totally incomprehensible. I had to watch some parts twice - and I'm still not entiely sure what happenned. It was also hard to understand what was being said at times - partly because the film was based on a James Ellroy book and has kept true to his slang style of writing but also because of the inept acting. Infact there were some real dud performances all round - especially from Hillary Swank and Scarlett Johansson who were flat seemed totally miscast. I like the films of Brian de Palmer when he has big set peices to carry off - eg Carlitos Way and Scarface - and he does a pretty good job in this film when the two police officers are caught in a shot out and the body is discovered. Unfortunately the rest of the film fails to match this and is more Bonfire of the Vanities than Carlito's Way.

I know this film is highly regarded - huge triumph at Cannes, greatest ever football film, etc - but I just didn't get it. I sort of understood the idea of Zidane framed in widescreen created this brooding loner who hardly touches the ball but when he does he creates magic - and the camera work was great (with cuts to TV screens watching the match to remind you this is an arthouse film). But for me it was all too much for ninety minutes. On my Sky Sports TV channel I can already opt to watch football matches using 'playercam' which focuses on a single player during matches. OK - it's more likely to be Robbie Savage than Zidane but what's the difference?

I know this is supposed to be one of Rohmer's masterpeice's but I much prefer his later works. It's hard to enjoy some of his films where all the character's are not likeable and going through middle class existential crises. In this film the lead character is particularly unattractive - partly because I couldn't see the point of his need to control his emotions to touch Claire's knee but mostly because his lerching after young girls was thoroughly disturbing. Perhaps reflects the time it was made?

I know this film is highly aclaimed but I found it really hard work. It is basically a documetary observing the life and rituals inside the Grande Chartreuse. As the title suggests the film is very silent - with no music (apart from the monks chanting) and few words - in fact the first spoken words come no less than twenty five minutes into the film. The camera keeps a respectful distance throughout and observes long scenes of prayer and worship - and there are some wonderful shots of the surrounding scenery. But at two and a half hours I found this film really heavy going.

I was very disappointed with this (very long and plodding)film about a young gifted boy who breaks all ties with his family to venture into Alaska. This is not however a journey to 'find himself' - as this 23 year old is completelly self-aware and able to pass on his knowledge and wisdom to all the grown ups he meets on his way. As you can probably tell, I felt that the film fell into the trap of idealising the boy and his motives. Yes, we are shown some of the consequences of his actions on his parents - but we are firmly told that they are bad people who probably deserved it. This is not helped by a tedious voice over - full of cliches dressed up as art. The film clearly saw Christopher as being 'a symbol of countless young people' - I thought it presented a very good argument in favour of national service!

The first half of this film made me very angry indeed - but for all the right reasons. Michael Moore wisely stayed off screen and powerfully illustrated the disaterous state of the American healthcare system by letting the families involved tell their story - and showed some truely heartbreaking cases e.g. where denials of treatment led to deaths. For me this was campaigning documentary film-making at its very best. The second half of the film I found deeply problematic. Michael Moore portrays England, France and Canada as utopias of health care but fails even to even consider their problems. He also turns campaigning journalist and in a tacky scene that could have been made by the tv show Watchdog, takes some of the victims to Guantanamo Bay to ask for the same medical treatment that the prisoners are getting. There is also plenty of 'cod political analysis' about why Americans hate the French and Cuba - which is basically because they are getting what the American's aren't! You have to admire the power of his film making - but this is not a thoughtful nor deeply analytical film.

Up until the last twenty minutes this is a gentle and lightly engaging Fench comedy. It tells the story of a lonely and unlikeable man (Daniel Auteuil) who, for a bet, tries to find a best friend that he can introduce to his friends. OK - it is not in the same league as the great French comedies like 'le dinner de cons' but it does have some OK moments - especailly the scenes between the two leads who are both (as always) very good. The big problem is the ending - which is dreadful. It features the French version of 'Who wants to be a millionaire' and I bet you can guess the ending already!

A great script and some wonderful lines. It is cetainly worth watching for the Alastair Campbell character alone. The big weakness is that unfortunately he is overused and consequently the other characters feel underdeveloped and one dimentional. The jokes fly think and fast - sometimes they hit but occasionally they miss (the line about driving a person to assisted euthanasia for instance was poorly judged in light of the Dr David Kelly affair).

What on earth has happenned to Michael Mann? From the heights of Manhunter, Heat and the Insider - he now seems unable to make even a half decent film. Although this is not as bad as Ali or Collateral, it is seriously underwhelming. Yes - it looks great at times, the suits are sharp and the film has the feel of many of the great gangster films of the 30s. But it has nothing to say - and the two leads look completely uninterested. I think Christopher Biggins would have made a more menacing gangster than Johnny Depp - and he has no chemistry whatsoever with Marion Cotillard. If you want a proper gangster film get the original with James Cagney or White Heat - then see how it should be done.

A better than average football film - which admittedly isn't saying much - about a goup of young lads 'freestyling' their way across North and South America. As in most road films the characters develop with their journey and by the end there is a genuine sense of warmth between them. The style is like a documentary and the 'performances' feel very real at times (except for the frequent group hugs). I would have liked to have seen longer scenes with more scenes and character develoment - rather than the prolonged scenes of city views and football freestying - which made the film seem at times like a Nike advert. In fact this reinforced the obvious sadness behind the film - that these guys are are clearly very skillful freestylers but not good enough as footballers.

I thought the first half of the film was quite promising - it looked as if the film was building up to make some interesting observations about total surveillance and voyeurism. Unfortunately this was directed by Tony Scott - not the most subtle of directors (e.g. child drops doll into the water just before the bomb blast) - and so the second half gets bogged down in a silly time travel story which makes no sense and has been done better elsewhere (eg. Terminator). Not a bad film - and long as you leave your brain at home.

I agree with the first reviewer that this is not up there with classic Scorsese - such as Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver or King of Comedy. It's probably not quite as good as his 'second rate' films like Casino and Last Temptation of Christ - but it's not far off (and certainly better than the Aviator and Bringing out the Dead). I thought it was an enjoyable thriller with some great scenes - but what was missing for me was strong central performances (in the mould of De Niro or Pesci). Still pretty good though.