Alien

Going in to Alien I was fully prepared for one of the greatest thriller/horror films ever, and it did not disappoint. Despite being a little bit slow starting, when it gets going it is an edge of the seat, fast-paced film with twists and turns where you never thought they’d be. There will be spoilers in this review, so be advised to stop reading if you haven’t seen it and want to.

The film follows the crew of a ship that are being stalked by an alien bent on killing all of them. It follows the pattern for many other horror films at the time, but given it was released in 1979, if anything it sets the pattern for other horror films. Considering how old it is, the visual effects are wonderful and the design of the alien is fantastic. Also, the cast is full of actors who go on to bigger and better things, largely as a result of this film. The success of this film can be measured in terms of the franchise around it. There is a vast range of comic books, novels, video games and sequels and prequels to the film. With three sequels and three prequels, Alien is one of the all-time great horror movies.

Sigourney Weaver, who becomes the focal point for the sequel films, is the famous Officer Ripley, who manages to escape the ship, blow it up, and then fight the alien one last time. She contributes an awful lot to the success of the films, and does a very good job in this role. Also making an appearance are Tom Skerritt (from MASH and Top Gun), John Hurt (from The Elephant Man, and Ollivander in Harry Potter), Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings films), and Yaphet Kotto (the main villain from Live and Let Die). None of the actors particularly excel in the film, but they all add to the dynamic of the early scenes/

One of the main things that Alien is famed for is that it is more realistic than other films. This may seem like an odd statement, I mean, an alien attacking a commercial spaceship isn’t particularly realistic. However, before filming started the director, Ridley Scott, wrote the all the characters a backstory to help them prepare for their roles. Also, the cast didn't all get on which each other, and this translates into the film. Therefore, when the characters get annoyed with one another it looks so real mainly because it is. This is good and I like to think that instead of the happy, jokey image of a film set the actors were on edge with each other. Another thing is that during the chestbuster scene (if you have seen it then you will know) the actors knew what was going to happen but they didn't know how. That means that their shock and surprise when blood spurts out is genuine. To make them unaware of this is such a brilliant idea, and the sense of realism around the film has to be another prominent factor in its success.

One of the most difficult things to do in filmmaking is to build genuine tension in the audience and when I was watching Alien I was genuinely tense. There is something about the way that you rarely see the Alien and the idea of its presence is scarier than actually seeing it. The first very tense scene is when John Hurt’s face is encapsulated by the Alien. It is difficult to know what to expect, and when I first saw Alien I didn't know what the plot was at all. This scene is a horrible one, and the ‘egg’ that has attached itself to his face is fantastically designed. However, it is the design of the alien that makes the film so tense. It is easy to design a monster with big teeth and claws that could kill you as soon as you could blink, but the idea of having a mouth which houses another mouth is fantastic, and makes the alien much more imposing. Also, rather like some films these days which introduce the villain straight away, Alien leaves it a good while before showing you the alien. The use of ‘other measures’ of showing the threat posed by the alien is brilliant as well. Instead of seeing a fast-moving alien stalking Dallas in the ventilation shaft, all you see is a dotted line moving closer and closer to him.

The best thing about Alien though is the plots within the plots. One of the crew members is revealed to be an android which wanted to bring the alien back to study it. However the crew discover this and ‘kill’ him. Normally you’d have a film about an alien and what not, but here you have a film with sub-plots. It was a twist that I didn't see coming and that is what Alien does so well. It surprises you just past the point where you think everything is okay again. At the end of the film for example I thought the alien would probably be in the escape pod with her, but this wasn't revealed for so long that I had dismissed the idea and therefore wasn't expecting it to happen when it eventually did.

The legacy of Alien will live on for a while, and having seen the film it is easy to understand why. From the timeless tagline ‘In Space No One Can Hear You Scream’ to the incredible graphics and the genuinely tense storyline, Alien is a film that sets the standard for many horror films to come. It is a thrilling film, and is definitely one to watch.

The Social Network

**May contain spoilers**

It was recently announced that one billion people are on Facebook. That's one seventh of the population of the world! That's a ridiculous number when you consider that Facebook was pretty much born out of a girl breaking up with her geeky boyfriend. The Social Network tells the story of how Mark Zuckerberg developed Facebook.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I remember when it came out being a bit skeptical about it, but that was because I didn't realise what it was really about. However, having watched the trailer I decided that I might actually enjoy it, and I did.

The beginning of the film is very easy to relate to. We've all been in that moment when someone breaks up with you and you think about doing something stupid. Some of us have even gone through with that stupid think. For Mark Zuckerberg it involved blogging about his ex and writing a website allowing everyone to compare how attractive every girl at Harvard is. Impressive as this is, it gets him hauled up in front of a disciplinary board. Here we begin to see the interesting elements of Mark's character. I wasn't sure if he was actually understanding that what he did was wrong. He's a very socially awkward guy who feels he deserves credit for highlighting the security issues with Harvard's security. Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark brilliantly throughout the film. In response to various events he doesn't display a rational reaction and Eisenberg pulls this off fantastically.

The whole film revolves around two separate lawsuits which have been filed against Mark after Facebook became such a success. One of the cases involves the Winklevoss twins who approach Mark to design a dating website exclusively for Harvard alumni. Instead, he decides to design a similar website, called 'Thefacebook'. The other lawsuit involves his former best friend, Eduardo Saverin who provided most of the financial support for Thefacebook in its early stages.

The majority of the film documents Facebook's unprecedented rise in popularity and the anger of the twins and their business partner when they find out that Zuckerberg 'stole' their idea. When Sean Parker gets involved the story becomes more easy to review. Justin Timberlake plays the character that is written brilliantly. Eduardo has several reservations about Sean's involvement, and Timberlake plays up to these. He comes across as cocky, arrogant and despite this, very impressive. When Eduardo is forced out of the company Sean becomes thoroughly unlikeable. However this is not how it happened in real life. The real Sean Parker doesn't have a problem with Timberlake's portrayal of him, but disapproves of how Eduardo is removed. Sean Parker and Eduardo Saverin are still friends to this day.

The story is written very well by the scriptwriters, and it works fantastically on screen. The relationships between Mark and Eduardo, Mark and Sean, and Eduardo and Sean develop brilliantly as the film goes on, and you find yourself (or maybe just me) emotionally connecting to both Mark and Eduardo.

The main criticism I have of the film is that at various points I found myself wondering how all of the story was actually relevant to the court cases that were happening. The segments of story were linked back eventually, but I often thought that much of what was going on would have been deemed unnecessary in a court case. Never mind though, such is the need to have a good film. If you cut out the unnecessary bits then there would be a very short film without any of the emotional attachment to the characters.

The last scene made me smile quite a lot. Even after all the success of Facebook and the wealth and fame that it has brought to Mark, he still goes back and checks the profile of the girl who dumped him in the first scene. He adds her as a friend and then refreshes the page every so often to see if she had accepted. This is a nice demonstration that, no matter how big you get, and how successful you are, you'll always remember the cause of that success, and the girl who broke your heart.

The Social Network is a good film, but it seems like it is one of those films that should have been made a couple of years in the future. Nevertheless, I would definitely recommend it to anyone who uses Facebook (so about a billion of you then), and it confirms the old idea that the next Bill Gates (or the next Mark Zuckerberg) could be sitting in this room, so to speak.

Pearl Harbor

An awful lot of people really don’t like Pearl Harbor. I didn't really understand why until I saw the film. It’s awful. I went in expecting a historical drama with a couple of American heroes who tragically die and which left me drained but with an appreciation for those involved. Instead I found myself watching a romantic film where two best friends are divided over one young nurse. It just so happens that they are in Pearl Harbor. The film is about three hours long, but very little of that is actually depicting the Japanese attack.

There are so many criticisms of this film that I don’t think it would be possible to cover them here. Instead of producing a historical film with a romance in the middle of it, Michael Bay manages to create a romantic film with a couple of planes in it. It is so typically Michael Bay that it becomes cheesy and then what should be a serious film becomes a bit of a joke. And the historical inaccuracies in the film are unbelievable. They are too numerous to even go into here, but believe me, who ever researched that project should have been fired immediately. At times you forget that you are watching a film about the reason why America got involved in World War Two and seem to find yourself watching a film about a group of soldiers who are all in love with a group of nurses. At one point there was a line “I think World War Two just started”, and this is shockingly poor.

And it’s not even like the acting is good but the film is let down by the direction. Ben Afleck takes the lead role in this film as Rafe McCawley but is so unbelievable that the story around him, his girlfriend and his best friend becomes beyond incredulous. I don’t want to get into an in-depth character analysis but the idea of bringing in a back-story to the childhoods of the two soldiers is a poor attempt to engage the audience in the characters. I quite like Ben Afleck generally, but in Pearl Harbor it is almost like he has turned up to an exam having revised the night before. I mean no Michael Bay actor is going to win an Academy Award, but Ben Afleck does not engage with the audience at all. No part of me was rooting for him or the other soldiers at any point, and instead I found myself watching with mild disinterest as their lives unfolded and some planes attacked them.

Kate Beckinsale is well cast in Pearl Harbor and fits the part she is trying to play almost perfectly. It is a shame then that the character she does play is as transparent as both of the men she falls in love with. Obviously when one man goes missing in action it is natural to try and move on, but by anyone’s standards, the best friend might be a line too far. It is also a shame that the character she plays requires next to no acting effort to complete. I was very disappointed with her role in this film, and once again, I thought the film detracted too much from the conflict and became more about the group of nurses and their relationships. I don’t even want to talk about Josh Hartnett as the other soldier in this love triangle, because he too is so unbelievable that it is painful. Come the end of the film (which couldn't come fast enough) I don’t care what happens to the characters and instead find myself tolerating the frankly boring scenes just before the credits.

The only good thing about this film is Cuba Gooding Jr. who plays one of the staff on one of the ships and becomes so angered by the Japanese attack that he climbs atop a turret and shoots down a plane. Much in the same way that the best bits of The Rock have Sean Connery in them, the more redeeming scenes of Pearl Harbor (and there are very few) have Cuba Gooding in them.

Michael Bay is obviously aiming for a cinematic epic to rival some of the greatest war films out there, with his own special touch added in. However, he misses the mark so spectacularly that the film pales into insignificance. ‘Pearl Harbor’ is a misleading title as well, because there is a good hour either side of the attack which is unrelated to what you expect from the title of the film. Personally, I think Michael Bay gets the overall tone of the film completely wrong. One major criticism of Titanic is that it puts a romance into a serious historical event, but with Pearl Harbor the romance becomes the centrepiece, whereas in Titanic, much more of a focus is on the sinking ship.

There are more critical reviews of Pearl Harbor out there, and there is no doubt that it deserves most of the criticism. If someone offers to watch Pearl Harbor with you, say no. Avoid it at all costs. It is Michael Bay’s worst film. If you are expecting a historical depiction of Pearl Harbor you will be disappointed, and if you are expecting a romance story you will be disappointed too. Pearl Harbor is drawn out, long and in my opinion sets the benchmark for what a bad film should be judged by.

Fahrenheit 9/11

As I sit down to write this next review I realise just how many documentaries I watched. To you, the reader, these will be coming half a week apart, but for me the last four posts were all the films I watched in two days! It may shock you to learn that I don’t write these off the cuff on Saturday and Wednesday mornings, but I store them up. On occasion I will write a special review and promote that to the front of the queue as it were.

Anyway, this post is about Fahrenheit 9/11, which is another Michael Moore documentary. This deals with Bush administration, the terrorist attacks of September 11^th 2001 and the war in Iraq. In true Michael Moore style this one is as controversial as his other stuff. He pulls together an awful lot of evidence and highlights a number of links between the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, the bin Laden family and other prominent members of the government at the time which raises a fair few eyebrows in the light of the September 11^th attacks. However, this is not just another example of the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. The case that he makes is very convincing, and this film has the privilege of being the highest grossing documentary of all time.

Michael Moore starts with the very controversial way that George Bush entered office. Now I was too young (just a mere 8 years old) to really remember the firestorm that seemed to erupt, but I do remember wanting Al Gore to win the election. Moore suggests that Bush’s family connections (having a relative as the Governor of Florida and as a high ranking member of Fox News) helped him win the election. This is controversial in itself, but what follows after is on another level. He then talks above the 9/11 attacks and indicates that the US government, the Bush family, the Saudi Arabian government, the bin Laden family, and the Taliban are intricately inter-related, and have been for nearly 30 years. He questions why none of the bin Laden family were interrogated after 9/11, and basically argues that Bush’s actions post-9/11 were for the good of him and his family’s investments, rather than for the good of the country. He then talks about the Iraq war and investigates the effects it has had on the families of those who have fought in it. In an emotional scene he interviews the mother of a boy killed who then goes to the White House, and what follows is very moving.

There is no doubt that what he is saying makes sense, but in true Michael Moore style, the way he says it carries more sway than what he is actually saying. Yes, he draws together a fair few lines of very questionable evidence about Bush and his administration, and makes a few controversial, yet rational claims. The one that sticks in my mind is something along the lines of ‘America is paying you millions to be President, but your business dealings with Saudi Arabia is paying your family billions, what are you more concerned about?’ Obviously it is not exactly like that, but the point is there.

It is a triumph of the power of freedom of speech and production that this film was released. Obviously it would have reflected worse on the government if the film was censored, but some of the things Moore implies (and that is why it is so good) are very shocking. The main criticism I have of him in general, but particularly with regard to this film, is that he presents a load of evidence, implies something outrageous but doesn't actually point the finger, and then goes off on a segment about his implication. He is also immensely one sided. He says nothing of any reasons why anyone would want to terrorise America and attack their economy, and completely avoids the plane that (allegedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_Pentagon], but that’s a whole different issue) hit the Pentagon. However, there is no denying the success of the film, and it is a masterful documentary which can appeal to everyone.

However, the film was very controversial when it was released, as its release came less than 5 months before the 2004 US election in which Bush was running for re-election. In his own unique style, Moore didn't directly support the Democratic candidate, but has never hidden his negative opinions about Bush, and is quoted as saying that he hoped his film would influence the election:“this may be the first time a film has had this kind of impact” (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-24-fahrenheit-cover_x.htm). This is quite underhand, but the only thing that the film really achieved in this respect was to make those who were not going to vote for Bush even less likely to do so.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a fantastic documentary and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. However, I think while Michael Moore is obviously very successful as a one-sided propagandist, his arguments need to be a bit more objective and his delivery needs to be a bit more firm in the claims that he makes. Other than that, I suggest you try and find Fahrenheit 9/11 very soon, because it is an important film in the current climate, and the claims Moore makes have strong implications for where the world is today.

Super Size Me

Super Size Me is a very interesting film. It seems I watched an awful lot of documentaries recently, and Super Size Me is one that investigates the effects of continual eating of junk food. Morgan Spurlock attempts to eat McDonald’s food for every meal of every day over a 30-day period. The movie documents the effects this has on his body and mental state.

The film is set against the backdrop of an increasingly overweight society. This is a relatively uncontroversial issue. There is no denying that overweight and obesity is a growing problem in many countries, and yet many people continue to eat junk food. Spurlock introduces the case of two obese teenagers who sued McDonalds, blaming their food for their obesity. The case was thrown out of court however, as it was argued there was no proof that the food had been solely responsible for their unhealthy outcomes and that people should be aware of the risks.

Morgan Spurlock presents some interesting cases and features during his journey through this mission. These are all quite controversial, and all are very thought provoking. There is one feature in which he visits a school and shows children various pictures, asking them to identify who is in the picture. Now obviously some of the results will have been edited to give them more of an impact, but children being unable to identify a picture of Jesus Christ, one even mistaking him for George Bush, but being easily able to identify Ronald McDonald is a problem.

Spurlock’s documentary is obvious an extreme example of how junk food can impact on your health. Eating McDonalds for three meals a day by anyone’s standards is too far, but this documentary shows the serious effects that even an unhealthy diet can have. The physical effects that the ‘McDiet’ has on Spurlock’s body are quite worrying. His health deteriorates quite significantly in a month and he gains a lot of weight and loses a lot of muscle. Most seriously though is the addictive attributes that he displays. He becomes depressed, lethargic and experiences headaches, and it is the consumption of McDonalds that relieves these effects. While it is an extreme experiment, it is not one that shows slight effects. It has a genuine impact on the audience. I was shocked at some of the effects on Spurlock’s body and mind and thought that the message of the film was massively applicable to society today.

The only problem with Super Size Me is that the major message of the film is lost behind the air of comedy behind the film. I'm not saying that it's laugh out loud funny, but there are some amusing moments in the film and this clouds the seriousness of the effects of the McDiet on Spurlock. The best example of this is when he is sick after eating his first supersized meal, but throughout the film there are slightly sinister, but slightly amusing images of Ronald McDonald from various protestor groups. Another problem is that he takes the ‘experiment’ to an extreme. Instead of living his normal life and eating a lot of McDonalds, he goes from presumably quite an active life to a very inactive life combined with intense food intake. Many critics consider Super Size Me to be a distortion of basic scientific methods which singles out McDonalds and doesn't actually tell the audience anything. This is true to a certain extent: I mean it is obvious that eating McDonalds every day for a month is bad for your health. He also has refused to publish his food log, which has raised a number of issues in terms of the critics acceptance of his documentary. That people will find problems is an inevitable outcome of any documentary.

I really enjoyed Super Size Me though. Although it had the slight effect of making me quite peckish, it has impacted on my perceptions of junk food. This will probably be quite temporary though. It might be the relevance of this film to my degree which drew me to it, but either way, I think that watching it can only have a positive effect on you. It makes you much more aware of the dangers of not watching what you are eating. However, the singling out of McDonalds is quite bad. I’d imagine the owners of Burger King loved this film. Burger King (and Wendy’s etc) are mentioned, but the film definitely focuses on the one establishment. One has to be in a certain mood for a documentary, and Super Size Me is a good choice when that mood hits. Unlike most of Michael Moore’s productions it is relatively uncontroversial, and is much more enjoyable because it is more light-hearted.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Before I was drafted into watching Salmon Fishing in the Yemen I didn't have a clue about it. I wasn't sure if it was based on a book, based on a true story or even what type of film it was. I just saw that Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt were in it and decided to give it a go. As it turns out it is a romance film about a sheikh who, as the title suggests, wants to start salmon fishing in his home country of, you guessed it, Yemen.

Ewan McGregor is a civil servant who is enthusiastic about fishing. He is approached by Emily Blunt on behalf of the sheikh in an attempt to construct a method of transporting salmon to the Yemen in order so the sheikh and the local community can catch them. Despite Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) being married, and Harriet (Emily Blunt) having a boyfriend fighting overseas, the two of them start to bond over the seemingly impossible nature of their project. Combined with Kristen Scott Thomas as the divisive Patricia Maxwell, one of the Prime Minister’s advisors, the cast is very strong.

Ewan McGregor, in my eyes, does very well. He is an actor with such a fantastic range of performances. Here he starts off as an irritable man whose domestic life is almost as unhappy as his occupation. When he is first approached about the project he laughs it into incredulity, but soon finds himself seconded to the project. Naturally, as time goes by he becomes more and more devoted to the project, eventually delighting in its success. McGregor plays a character who transforms throughout the film, and the man we are presented with at the end of the movie is very different from the man who we are introduced to. Although his chemistry with Harriet is perhaps a little bit too scripted, and a little bit too predictable, the audience is genuinely upset when it doesn't go to plan for them. This is even more impressive given that at the start of the film, I wasn't particularly taken with his character and found myself even disliking him.

Ewan McGregor’s connection with Emily Blunt is perhaps a little awkward, but that might be the mature of the characters the two of them play. They are both radically different, but Emily Blunt doesn't excel in this role. She is good, but as with so many female roles in romantic movies, she does not complete the film. However, she does manage the range of emotions when he boyfriend is reported missing very well. For much of the early part of the film she comes across as a curt business woman, but these scenes allow some of her acting ability to shine through. The blossoming of her relationship with Alfred is apparent by the time her boyfriend returns, and by this point the audience is firmly aware of the awkwardness of this encounter. There are a few problems with her character though. Ultimately, she knew the soldier for three weeks before he was called up, and she seems to be irrationally upset when he goes missing. This is a minor plot flaw though.

Neither of the main characters have any depth to them though. There is no background to them, not complexity to their characters and very little fault to either of their personalities. The same can be said for the sheikh  for whom ‘eccentric’ doesn't quite cover it. The man who plays him is undoubtedly very suited for the role, and has the appearance of a man who commands respect, but his goal of bringing salmon to Yemen is ultimately ridiculous. This is the comedic point of the film, yes, but the audience just cannot believe in it. The comedy element of the film could have been managed much better. It could have been a genuinely funny film rather than a film which has moments intended to be funny.

Kristen Scott-Thomas has an impressive CV, but her performance in Salmon Fishing in the Yemen will not be one to add to the list. This film was released in a time when political satire is quite popular (when is it ever not popular). Programs such as The Thick of It and films such as In the Loop set the benchmark for political satire, and I think that Kristen Scott-Thomas is trying to play Peter Capaldi’s famed character, but adding a female slant to it. She really suffers in the light of these comparisons, and if I were to pick one bad part about the film, her character would be it. The scenes where her and the Prime Minister are talking over some form of instant messaging device ruin the film for me. These parts can easily be gotten rid of. At the risk of sounding pretentious, the political part of this film could have been done so much better by the film-makers.

Overall, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is probably one to miss. It isn't a bad film by any means, and I personally found it quite enjoyable, but it is the sort of film you don’t want to waste your money on. Don’t buy the DVD because you will probably only watch it once. It is a very easy-going film, and it doesn't take much to get into, but it has the potential to be much more than it is.

The Rock

When deciding which film to watch with my girlfriend and my flatmate one night it was revealed that I had never seen The Rock, which was shocking to all involved. Not only had I never seen it, but I had never even heard of it. Apparently it was a fantastic film which was proclaimed as ‘Michael Bay’s best film’ by one flatmate. It’s about a group of soldiers who take a number of hostages on Alcatraz, with the goal of doing something sinister. The FBI sends in the marines to recapture ‘the rock’ but the only man who can help out is the only man who has ever broken out.

The whole film is very typical of Michael Bay. There is a comic air to the film, with an explosives budget that could solve the problems of a few small countries. It is undoubtedly a very cheesy film, but it is very enjoyable all the same. Nicholas Cage stars as the young agent who naturally finds himself thrust in the middle of a crisis. Sean Connery also appears as the criminal roped in to helping the FBI, John Mason. In addition, Ed Harris appears as the leader of the rogue band of soldiers. There is nothing incredible about this film, except maybe the scene with the tram. The dialogue is beyond shocking, but not atypical of Michael Bay, and there are some lines which you cannot help but cringe at.

Nicholas Cage is one of those actors that everyone seems to rave about. I haven’t seen that many Nicholas Cage films, and I suspect that The Rock is not the best film to start with. I found his character supremely annoying in this film, and couldn't work out whether Agent Goodspeed is meant to be portrayed in this way. I thought that his acting left quite a lot to be desired in this film, but then it occurred to me that most of the acclaim for this film probably rests on the fact that it is a bit silly and probably isn't meant to be taken quite so seriously.

I love Sean Connery, and he has starred in some of my favourite films ever. In The Rock he plays the former British agent imprisoned in Alcatraz and does so brilliantly. I get the feeling that alongside General Hummel, Mason is the only character that is meant to be taken a little more seriously. Then again, maybe not. Either way, I really liked his character here and he is the only one who seems to have any real complexity. He is keen to build up a relationship with his daughter, who he has never met because of his long imprisonment. The image of Sean Connery in this film before he is made-over is very imposing, and the scenes with Connery’s character in are among the most entertaining of the film.

I have only seen two films that Ed Harris has been in, and in both he plays quite an intimidating character. In A Beautiful Mind he is the hallucination of the FBI agent that continually haunts John Nash’s life. In The Rock he is the leader of the rogue soldiers who take hostages on Alcatraz. He is very imposing and has a strong presence on the screen. The scene in which he and Sean Connery face off is quite enthralling, and I found myself mildly entertained by the politics among the soldiers towards the end of the film.

As with all Michael Bay films, you don’t have to be paying too much attention to get what’s going on. You don’t have to be paying too much attention either. The action is very entertaining, and although now comes across as immensely clichéd, at the time it was probably less so. Once you watch the entire film, the ending is brilliant and I found myself to be genuinely tense about what was going to happen. Naturally it was quite obvious that in the end the good guys would win and the bad guys would be defeated. Given that it is a Michael Bay film, the bad guys would probably be defeated in a theatrical (and largely expensive) manner, and the film does not disappoint.

The Rock is an entertaining action film which does not require much focus to enjoy. It is one to watch with a few friends, and will definitely make you laugh a number of times. It is so enjoyable that it almost doesn’t matter that it is cringing, cheesy and very silly. It is not essential that you go out and watch it though, and you’re life is not completely empty if you do not see it.

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore is famed for his controversial documentaries about political issues in America. He has released a number of immensely successful films which raise public awareness about a number of topics, such as the health industry, gun laws and the Iraqi War. Bowling for Columbine was released in 2002 and is one on Michael Moore’s most famous films. It explores the gun laws in America and how these may have contributed, alongside other factors, to the shootings in a number of American schools. This film continues to be relevant as the issue of American gun laws seems to pop up every now and then in tragic circumstances.

A number of high profile individuals feature in this film, such as Matt Stone (South Park), Charlton Heston, and Marilyn Manson. Moore’s interviews with these individuals shed a genuinely interesting light on what may be the cause of particularly high gun crime rates in America.

For those of the audience (such as myself) who have very little knowledge about the American issues around gun crime, Bowling for Columbine is a fascinating eye-opener. There are some very surprising scenes in the film, such as when he opens a new bank account with a bank in Michigan and subsequently receives a free gun for doing so. To me, a Brit who is aware of the extreme restrictions on firearm possession in this country, this is astounding.

It is quite difficult to review a documentary film like this, but Michael Moore is fiercely critical throughout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) who have been known to hold rallies in cities shortly after they have a gun incident. However, despite some incredibly clever filming, editing and interviewing, Michael Moore’s main problem for me is that he presents the ‘freak shows’ to the audience. He often presents some very extreme opinions of gun law, and at one point interviews the brother of one of the shooters at Columbine. Now without a doubt this man comes across as a bit of a lunatic, but the majority of the film comes across as very one sided. He presents the individuals who argue in favour of firearm possession as lunatics and presents many people who argue against firearm possession as straightforward ‘average’ Americans. Anyone who does argue for firearm possession is discredited in the way they are presented by Moore, and I don’t think this is particularly fair on them.

There are a number of criticisms about the features Michael Moore presents in this documentary. For example the employees at the bank which give over a gun because of a bank account opening claim that Michael Moore misled them during the filming of this feature. It is argued that he convinced the employees to hand over a gun on film the on the morning after he opened the account. In reality, it is claimed that it would take much longer for a gun to be delivered. When he interviews Charlton Heston at the end of the film, he appears to lead Heston into making a number of controversial statements and then presents him with a picture of a little girl who was killed in a gun-related incident. He makes Heston look incredibly bad, but has been accused of ambushing Charlton Heston is a very crude way. His interview with Matt Stone, the creator of South Park, led to him being presented as an animated idiot in Team America: World Police, because of an animated segment which bears a resemblance to South Park.

Gun law is obviously a very emotive issue for so many people in America, and the film is spot on in presenting all the bad things about the situations around American gun law. There are undoubtedly some shocking statistics about the rates of gun-based crime in America, and Michael Moore is incredibly convincing in the way he presents his arguments. Bowling for Columbine is a well-designed film which presents information in a very clever order. For example, early on there is a clip of Chris Rock on control of ammunition which is very funny. It is the sort of film that is sadly relevant once every so often, and if you get the opportunity to watch it then you shouldn't miss it. Personally, I find Michael Moore’s delivery very annoying, but the content of the film is very compelling.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a legendary film about a man who enters a psychiatric hospital in an attempt to avoid serving a prison sentence. However, while he is in the hospital he becomes more and more part of the daily life, befriending some of the patients. When he attempts to escape, his plans do not go entirely perfectly and he is retained in the hospital until the end of the film. It is an inspirational film which cannot be missed.

When it was first released it was very successful, winning five Academy Awards. Today it is still considered to be one of the ‘great movies’ and I find myself liking it more and more with each time I watch it. It has interesting dynamics between the patients in the hospital, all of who seem to be generally fine, but are more scared of the nurse in the hospital than they are of becoming functional again. There are appearances from Danny de Vito (as Martini), Christopher Lylod (Doc from Back to the Future, as Taber) and Brad Dourif (Grima Wormtongue, as Billy Bibbit). The plot of the film is based on the book of the same name, and is absolutely fantastic. Despite the fact that he is a criminal, the audience (or maybe just me) is firmly on the side of the protagonist McMurphy. He becomes a powerful friend to many of the patients who all seem to revere his confidence and his prominence as a character in the hospital.

McMurphy is played supremely well by Jack Nicholson. This was one of Nicholson’s first major films and cements his status as one of the greatest actors of the day. He has a strange and wonderful ability play the insane character impeccably well. Obviously in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest his character is not insane, but in the moments that he needs to be in order to convince the authorities of his illness, he does so very well. A little too well for me, suggesting that there might be some criminally insane element to his personality. However, that is just me speculating. His interaction with the other patients is delightful. His bond with the Chief is the central relationship in the film, but I really love his relationship with Billy. When he is about to escape he stays behind until morning to do Billy a favour, which eventually costs him his freedom. This demonstrates how much McMurphy has come to value the patients of the hospital who are for all intents and purposes his friends.

Nurse Ratched is a subtle, yet despicable antagonist in this film. In 2003 she was voted as the fifth greatest villain of movie history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Heroes_%26_Villains) and so this immediately sparked my interest when she was placed above classic villains such as Michael Corleone, Amon Goth, the Shark from Jaws, The Terminator and Jack Torrance from The Shining, just to name a few. It says a lot about her character that she makes the villains list so highly, but McMurphy does not feature on the heroes list. It is to the eternal credit of Louise Fletcher that she manages to portray Nurse Ratched so utterly hatefully. The thing is she is not as much of a terrifying villain as Tony Montana or Darth Vader, but she is viciously horrible to the patients in a very subtle way. Her utter power over everything in the ward, from the medicines to the cigarettes, from the daily routine to her control of the patients through humiliation. For example, her treatment of Billy at the end of the film leads directly to his suicide. When McMurphy suggests they watch the World Series she is confident enough to allow a vote, knowing it will not be passed. Louise Fletcher is absolutely phenomenal in this film and the sinister and fearful atmosphere that she creates has become a bit of a stereotype for the hardline nurse.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a masterful film, and this is reflects in the awards that it won. It has a handful of BAFTAs and Golden Globes, but my focus, as usual, will be on Academy Awards. It was nominated for 9 awards, and won 5 of them. It is such a good adaptation from the book that it won Best Adapted Screenplay. Both Nicholson and Fletcher won the award for Best Actor and Actress, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was completely deserved as both actor and actress are unbelievable in their roles. It also won Best Director and Best Picture. For me, this reflects how much of an amazing film it is. It is one of three films to win the ‘Big Five’ awards of Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay and the other two to do so are incredible in their own right. The legacy of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest should be one of incredible film-making, as well as being an exceptional film.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough. It is inspirational and engaging, and the audience cannot help but become involved with what they are watching. I think it is the kind of film that everyone should see, just because of the legacy that it has and because it more than lives up to the reputation it has as one of the best films ever made. That may be too much for the film, but I think it is deserved, so I urge you to watch it. 

A Beautiful Mind

Now regular readers will know that I am not Russell Crowe’s biggest fan. If I’m honest I can’t stand the guy. In the vast majority of roles that I've seen him in he is wooden and bland, and I don’t like him as a person. However, A Beautiful Mind is the exception to this. This is the Academy Award winning film about the life of John Nash and his struggle with schizophrenia.

John Nash starts off as a student of mathematics at Princeton and immediately the audience sees that he is a very dedicated and hard-working individual. He is striving immensely hard for an ‘original idea’ in order to revolutionise his field. His room-mate is his polar opposite, but they get along very well despite him not getting on well with other people. During his teaching of a class at Princeton he meets a student in the typical manner – she is the one who challenges the teacher. After he finishes at Princeton he becomes a codebreaker and is subsequently sought by the secret services to break a Russian code about a bomb that is planning to be dropped on America. He has since married Alicia, the student in his class, and they have a son. However all is not what it seems, and she begins to get suspicious of his behaviour, calling in a psychiatrist to help him. He is subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia and we wee how his life is dramatically affected by this. His room-mate at Princeton, his room-mate’s niece and the secret services agent are all revealed to be hallucinations, and Nash’s life begins to fall apart. After an incredibly long struggle with his illness Nash is awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to modern business and economics, and this is a heartwarming conclusion as he dedicates his achievement to his wife who is ‘his reason’.

Now, much as it pains me to say this, Russell Crowe is absolutely incredible in A Beautiful Mind. A few posts back I compared Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean to Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man and Robert de Niro in Awakenings. Well now Russell Crowe can be added to that list. He is spectacular at getting the little parts of the character right. His gait and the manner in which he walks so consistently throughout the film is brilliant, and his speech and accent, which I have criticised Crowe for before, is almost nailed on throughout the movie. Despite being a thoroughly unlikable character, the audience immediately takes to John Nash as the underdog of life, and Russell Crowe brings a strong sense of engagement and emotion to the role. The emotions that Nash experiences when he is first committed is conveyed beautifully by Crowe, and even better is his emotion at the end. I watched  A Beautiful Mind recently with my Mum and she was saying how tragically sad it is at the end, and I agree. I can only praise Russell Crowe for his acting in this film, and am genuinely surprised that he missed out on the Academy Award for Best Actor. Having said that, I haven’t seen Training Day, so I can’t possibly comment.

Jennifer Connelly plays John’s wife, Alicia Nash, and she does a very good job. By no means can it be easy to play the wife of a schizophrenic man, and Connelly does fantastically well to convey the emotion, frustration and difficulty that this illness brings to the lives of everyone affected by it. Now the film embellishes the finer details of John and Alicia’s marriage a bit. In reality they divorce during the stages of John’s illness, but John lived in her house after his was discharged. They re-married in 2001, but the film doesn't mention any of this. I think that whether or they were married doesn't matter though. To me, them not being married is incidental as she still devotes a substantial amount of her time to taking care of him. I wouldn't have tipped her for an Academy Award based on A Beautiful Mind, but I am not going to begrudge her it. She puts in a very good performance in a very tricky role.

The other supporting actors are fairly incidental, and like the other films with actors that steal the show, Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany sort of fade into the background. Their roles in the film aren't especially exceptional, and while none of them put in a staggeringly bad performance, they are massively overshadowed by the fantastic character that Russell Crowe creates. I cannot think of a single aspect of his character that I don’t like. From his dedication to his work, through his dismay at losing, his joking about hallucinations, his determination to ignore the hallucinations and his mannerisms when he reaches old age and is accepted and lauded by everyone I find his character so charmingly lovable that I am always rooting for him. It might be my background in psychology or the fact that this type of film is my absolute favourite, but I really like the character.

John Nash is undoubtedly a genius, and undoubtedly not enough people are aware of his influence. A Beautiful Mind is the opportunity to find out about someone you might not have heard about. If you have heard about him then it is an emotional and enjoyable journey through the struggles of a man whose difficulties many of us cannot begin to comprehend. I rate this film so highly, and consider it to be one of the best winners of the Best Picture award. There is no-one that I wouldn’t recommend it to, and would encourage everyone to watch it. I myself watched it again yesterday, and already I want to see it again.