last movie you watched

While I can see why its been nominated for best cinematography at the upcoming Academy Awards I've tried a couple of time to watch "Tree Of Life" and I'm having difficulty getting in to it. Watched both "The Descendants" and "The Iron Lady" today. While "The Descendants" is a 'better' movie I thought Meryl Streep has done a terrific job as Thatcher. Hope she picks up the Oscar. It's been a bit of a movie weekend, watched "Flaming Star" on Saturday and also "The Help".

I enjoyed The Tree of Life tremendously, and would haste to call it a certain masterpiece -- it's one of my favourite films of the past year, and one of the year's best, IMO. The cinematography here is truly terrific, as is Terrence Malick's direction, for which he is also Oscar nominated -- along with the film, itself. Brad Pitt has been overlooked, however; not that his nod for Moneyball isn't wholly deserving, because he was excellent there. But I thought he would have been double-nominated this year, because he finds new depths as an actor in The Tree of Life, and does so in a difficult role. Jessica Chastain was also superb, as was the child actors and, of course, Sean Penn, who is always reliable.

I also enjoyed The Descendants, and like Pitt, believe that Clooney found new depths as an actor here, and gave one of the best performances of his career. It's a most subtle performance of considerable depth. And the entire cast was also terrific, IMO -- again, it's one of the year's best films and deserves every plaudit and nod that it's being afforded. The Iron Lady was an interesting film, and Streep was superb here -- as was Alexandra Roach, who plays the very young Margaret Thatcher. Jim Broadbent added a great deal of comic relief, and was a welcome presence; although the plotting is rather thinly sketched at times, and plays more like a series of vignettes. Which, I guess it is . . . But it's an endearing movie, and treats Thatcher well. I think that Meryl will win the Oscar on sunday, although Olivia Colman, who played Carol Thatcher, gave (IMO) the year's best performance by an actress in Tyrannosaur. But she has been overlooked by both AMPAS and BAFTA.

I haven't seen The Help, and don't think I'll be-able to see it before sunday -- it does look quite good and has found much success. The past week, or so, I've seen Carnage, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D, A Dangerous Method, An American in Paris and Anchors Aweigh at the cinema.

I enjoyed Carnage very much, and always look forward to a Roman Polanski film. It's a chamber piece, that sometimes feels as though there's nowhere for it to go, but is salvaged by a witty script and splendid acting. Kate Winlset is a joy to watch here, as is Christoph Waltz. Whilst John C. Reilly gives one of his best performances since Chicago. The Phantom Menace remains, IMO, the best of the Star Wars prequels, and although it's not a great movie, it has some fine moments and terrific effects that still impress -- but the 3D is almost non-existent. It's one of the most pointless - and worst - excercises in 3D I've ever seen.

A Dangerous Method is dangerously close to being truly excellent, but falls a little short. But it's a fascinating film, bolstered by strong performances and gorgeous cinematography -- I don't think there's been a better looking film the past year. This is David Cronenberg's third film with Viggo Mortensen who, in playing Sigmund Freud, has much more dialogue than in any film of his I can recall. He is wonderful, however; and brings a quiet, refined and understated performance. Michael Fassbender is equally good as Carl Jung -- and has truly come to the fore as an acting force the past 12 months; but Shame has also been overlooked by AMPAS and BAFTA. Kiera Knightly has a most difficult role here as Sabina Spielrein, and it's a part that any number of actresses would have trouble with. But she is excellent, IMO -- recalling Tony Musante's manic performance in The Detective, as she juts her chin, recoils, squirms and stammers under scrutiny when being treated with Jung's "talking method." Then, totally reigning it in. She's a most talented actress.

An American in Paris and Anchors Aweigh speak for themselves -- both classics and two of the great musicals of the genre's golden era. An American in Paris is (IMO) among the greatest screen musicals ever, and is an absolute masterpiece -- and although Anchors Aweigh isn't quite on the same level, it's excellent, and boasts fine performances by Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra in a film pivotal to their careers in Hollywood.

watched the latest offering from Hammer,"The Woman In Black" a fine quality made film

Wow greystoke, thanks for your wonderful post!
I really enjoyed "Tree Of Life", watching it in the movie theatre. Unfortunately in front of us was a group of people who decided to make comments and talk for almost the first half of the film. Then they fortunately decided to leave the cinema.
The last movie I really tried to watch was "Nader And Simin - A Separation" but I fell asleep twice, simply because I was tired. Pretty hard stuff though.

watched the latest offering from Hammer,"The Woman In Black" a fine quality made film

I very much liked The Woman in Black. It had a true sense of dread and danger, and in the midst of it, Daniel Radcliffe was wonderful, IMO. The haunted house was superbly rendered, and the overall tone and feel of the movie was just right, although the final moments could have been stronger. Of it's type, it's one of the best in a decade, or more . . . I'd like to see Radcliffe work with Hammer again.

Wow greystoke, thanks for your wonderful post!
I really enjoyed "Tree Of Life", watching it in the movie theatre. Unfortunately in front of us was a group of people who decided to make comments and talk for almost the first half of the film. Then they fortunately decided to leave the cinema.
The last movie I really tried to watch was "Nader And Simin - A Separation" but I fell asleep twice, simply because I was tired. Pretty hard stuff though.

Some people at the cinema can be such a pest. If you liked The Tree of Life, you may enjoy Melancholia. An apocalyptic fable of life in the face of the inevitable, which plays well next to Malick's film. I believe Kirsten Dunst to have given the performance of her career here, and was sure that she would find an Oscar nod. It's flawed, and not as cohesive as it could have been been, but is incredible movie-making and challenging cinema.

Today, I'm seeing Take Me Out to the Ball Game. The Glasgow Film Festival are celebrating Gene Kelly with a series of his films which are being shown daily all week -- this one is a gem of a picture.

A shame Streep didn't sign at Berlinale.....stood there waiting 6 hrs

Went to the cinema last week to watch The Artist and all I can say is WOW!Not a second is wasted in this brilliant film.Simple story,great photography,fantastic score and great acting from all involved including the dog! but it's all about Jean Dujardin you just can't take your eyes off him for a second it's full of joy,sadness,pathos,love,bitterness,pride,pity and hope.Deserves all the awards it has gained and more.

norrie

Went to the cinema last week to watch The Artist and all I can say is WOW!Not a second is wasted in this brilliant film.Simple story,great photography,fantastic score and great acting from all involved including the dog! but it's all about Jean Dujardin you just can't take your eyes off him for a second it's full of joy,sadness,pathos,love,bitterness,pride,pity and hope.Deserves all the awards it has gained and more.

norrie

The Artist is a marvellous film -- I've seen it twice now, and would say that's it's not only one of my favourite films of 2011, but one of the best. And 2011 was a rather strong year, IMO . . . It wholly deserves all of the plaudits, nominations and awards that has come its way. A true gem, with Jean Dujardin simply wonderful in the lead, and Bernice Bejo quite delicious as his co-star. And it's a wonderful looking film, too -- contemporary, yet authentic to the period.

Today, I saw Safe House. Not a great film, and although by-the-numbers, was fairly good, if hardly riveting or memorable. Denzel Washington's presence certainly elevates a story that finds elements of Assault on Precinct 13 and The Gauntlet, with a master/pupil relationship between Washington and Ryan Reynolds that is akin Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling. Some of the stunt work was quite good, and the film is well shot -- great location-filming helped considerably.

Last week, I saw Take Me Out to the Ball Game -- as mentioned a few posts above. A true gem of a film, and an original musical that wasn't adapted from a stage play. This Arthur Freed production is sometimes left in the lurch when the collaborations between Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra are discussed (Anchors Aweigh and On the Town being the other two), but it's a joyous affair, with wonderful performances and very good musical numbers. I very much like Esther Williams here, and although she does swim a few lengths, her charm away from the type of film she was known for was terribly under-used at times.

I also saw On the Town last week -- perhaps the apex of Kelly and Sinatra's collective talents in the musical genre, and if not the best film Kelly made, this remains one of the great musicals. Much has been said about the use of location shooting in New York, which was certainly groundbreaking, but not an absolute first -- but it's the style, talent and chemistry of all involved that made this picture. Ann Miller is a treat here -- her Prehistoric Man routine may well be the film's highlight. Betty Garrett is just charming and Vera-Ellen's lively turn is really terrific, and the source of the film's best laughs. Kelly's choreography is marvellous throughout, and the dance numbers sparkle with creativity, wit and great humour. Whilst, added comic relief - as with Ball Game - comes largely from Sinatra, who is pursued relentlessly by Garrett.

The last of five movies starring Gene Kelly that I saw at the cinema last week, was Brigadoon -- which is oft mocked, but is very good in many respects and a bit of a gem. It's not near Kelly or Minnelli's best, but there's some fabulous songs here and fun dance sequences. And Cyd Charisse is most captivating, even if her singing voice is dubbed -- but The Heather on the Hill is just beautiful. And, like On the Town, it's a self-aware piece of film-making, and one can see in both Kelly, and the film's routines, a nod and a wink to the audience.

I saw the orginal Batman movies ob Blu ray, oh boy those films looked awesome!!!

I have recently seen on DVD rentals, the following:
The Thing (2011) - Not what I expected. I thought it would be a butcher of the original movie. To my surprise, it was not. A real suprise. Enjoyed it. 4 out of 5 stars.
In Time (2011) - I enjoyed this one. 4 out of 5 stars.
Dream House - It was okay. 3 out of 5 stars.
The Rum Diary - terrible. 1 out of 5 stars. Waste of time.
The Shelter - long and slow at times. For some reason, I am glad to have seen it. Neat ending. 3 out of 5 stars.

I have, been to the cinema a fair bit recently, partly to ust "get out" for a couple of hours when family issues start taking over!

I saw Hunky Dory last week, which I think is having a relatively limited release. It's a very old-fashioned movie about a school putting on a musical production of the Tempest in hot summer of 1976 and with the music of Bowie etc. Minnie Driver stars as the inspiring teacher, and the film tells the story of the various youngster's personal lives intermingled with scenes of rehearsals etc.

It's a predictable piece of film making, to be fair, and has been compare to Glee - a rather unfair comparison as this film was in production long before Glee started. It's also rather unfair as Glee is somewhat sentimental and manipulative, whereas this isn't in the main. What's more, the young performers aren't all professional-sounding singers, which is refreshing and makes the whole thing more believable.

Yes, it's all be done before - and it's been done better - but there is something rather charming about the whole enterprise. The young leads are uniformly excellent and it's really nice to see Driver back on screen after what seems like a long absence (or have I just missed her). She is always very affable, and I like the quirkyness she brings to a film. There are cliches and some rather obvious twists in the plot, but in the main it's a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours - which is probably my main criticism. Some prudent editing would have given the film a bit more pace, which is something it lacks in a number of places. 10 or 15 minutes off the running time would have aided the film a great deal, I think.

Overall, however, if you fancy a film which is an easy watch and a cross between a Rooney/Garland kids-put-on-a-show film and Dead Poets Society, then you are likely to have a good time. Sadly the film is likely to lose audiences because of its rather unnecessary 15 rating. Quite why the writer found it so necessary to litter the film with four-letter words is anybody's guess. I don't find it offensive and swear like a trooper myself sometimes, but cutting out some of the swearing would have cut the rating to 12 and opened it up to a wider audience.

No direction home, a film with and about Bob Dylan. Very informative if you want to learn more about showbizz.

I have, been to the cinema a fair bit recently, partly to ust "get out" for a couple of hours when family issues start taking over!

I saw Hunky Dory last week, which I think is having a relatively limited release. It's a very old-fashioned movie about a school putting on a musical production of the Tempest in hot summer of 1976 and with the music of Bowie etc. Minnie Driver stars as the inspiring teacher, and the film tells the story of the various youngster's personal lives intermingled with scenes of rehearsals etc.

It's a predictable piece of film making, to be fair, and has been compare to Glee - a rather unfair comparison as this film was in production long before Glee started. It's also rather unfair as Glee is somewhat sentimental and manipulative, whereas this isn't in the main. What's more, the young performers aren't all professional-sounding singers, which is refreshing and makes the whole thing more believable.

Yes, it's all be done before - and it's been done better - but there is something rather charming about the whole enterprise. The young leads are uniformly excellent and it's really nice to see Driver back on screen after what seems like a long absence (or have I just missed her). She is always very affable, and I like the quirkyness she brings to a film. There are cliches and some rather obvious twists in the plot, but in the main it's a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours - which is probably my main criticism. Some prudent editing would have given the film a bit more pace, which is something it lacks in a number of places. 10 or 15 minutes off the running time would have aided the film a great deal, I think.

Overall, however, if you fancy a film which is an easy watch and a cross between a Rooney/Garland kids-put-on-a-show film and Dead Poets Society, then you are likely to have a good time. Sadly the film is likely to lose audiences because of its rather unnecessary 15 rating. Quite why the writer found it so necessary to litter the film with four-letter words is anybody's guess. I don't find it offensive and swear like a trooper myself sometimes, but cutting out some of the swearing would have cut the rating to 12 and opened it up to a wider audience.

I haven't seen Hunky Dory yet, but do think it looks quite good and find Minnie Driver to be appealing when on form -- the story does appear to be familiar, but that's not always a drawback.

Over the past few weeks on my regular visits to the cinema, I've seen Chronicle, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, John Carter (twice), Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (for the second time), The Crow and Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace.

Chronicle was very good -- especially when one considers both the budget and how familiar the "lost footage" sub-genre has become. But with regards to the former, the effects were tremendous; and the latter, I found the overall approach to be clever and well played-out, with only occassional lapses into familiarity territory through convenient camera-placement. And the story was quite good -- a group of boys who stumble upon something deep in the ground, the effects of being near such bestowing them with amazing powers of the body and mind that make them superhero-like. I remember you mentioning seeing it, and have to say that I enjoyed the premise and found much to like and admire in the film. Parts of the plotting were sketchy, but the story is played out cautiously and the result is a keen addition to a genre that so often plays by the numbers.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a joy of a film -- a real gem, boasting wonderful location footage and charming performances across the board. John Madden handles the story quite superbly, for in lesser hands the entire premise could have wallowed into uneasy footing and found cliche and saccharine before quirky, heartfelt story-telling that rings true at almost every possible turn. The basic premise, of a hotel for the elderly that's based in India, is straight forward enough, but the events that take place both in, and around the hotel, are played out with great humour and genuine emotion. Highly recommended.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was quite abysmal -- actually worse than the woeful first film, with a dull story, bland photography and poor acting next to some good effects in the creation of the rider, himself. Moving the story to Europe was another misstep, as the Ghost Rider character always seemed to feel like more of a western-type figure or biker akin to a demonic Hell's Angel. There's no feeling for place or characters here, and in the process, Nic Cage continues bemuse with another inane performance.

I've always been a fan of the John Carter strories, and although there have been many films over the years that have riffed on Edgar Rice Burroughs' books, this is the first true John Carter film to reach the big screen. And I enjoyed it tremendously -- finding the story, A Princess of Mars, well adapted to the screen, being allowed time to play out without being too rushed and finding good performances all-round. The special effects were astounding to my eyes, and although the landscape of Mars/Barsoom is a dusty one (scenes in New York look terrific), the photorealism of the Tharks, white apes and cities of Helium and Zodanga are quite incredible. The 3D is also very good - in some ways among the best to date - whilst likeable performances from Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins help considerably, not to mention Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkis. Facets of the story are familiar, and that's because Burroughs' books have been so heavily plundered by everything from Flash Gordon to Star Wars, Stargate and Avatar -- but as a stand-alone film, John Carter was a treat that I would gladly see a third time. And probably will . . .

My second viewing of Journey 2: The Mysterious Island wasn't a let-down -- my thoughts and feelings about the film are the same as when I mentioned seeing this film at first, which was a few weeks ago. I am fond of the story on which the film is very loosely based, and found the film to be great example of genuine escapism that's made with both its heart in the right place and good intentions in relation to younger viewers. Especially with regards to how the source novel and other pieces of classic literature are referenced throughout.

The Crow, starring Brandon Lee, is a long-time favourite of mine, and it was great to see this gothic semi-classic back on the big screen. And it has endured well almost 20 years since its first release and the untimely death of the film's star; whose potential to be something really special just shines in this film. In some ways, the age of the film does show, but it's heavily stylised, much like Tim Burton with Batman or Warren Beatty with regards to some of the darker aspects of Dick Tracy -- but The Crow, visually, is totally bleak, with rain-soaked streets and darkness abound in the costumes, sets and cinematography. Lee's charisma shines, however, and the story carries just the right amount of emotional depth and empathy for a revenge film.

The Phantom Menace (which I may have mentioned on a previous post) was good to see in cinemas, although it's far from being on a par with the original Star Wars films -- especially A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. But it's fairly good and, IMO, the best of the prequels, despite some missteps and an uneven tone that plagued this film, and episodes two and three. Liam Neeson brought some gravitas to the proceedings as Qui-Gon Jinn, and Ewan MacGregor was fairly good as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi, and really shone in the battle with Ray Parks' Darth Maul -- the best character of the prequels, but an underused one whose fight with the Jedi was underscored by a daft coup de gras, built to create tension, but flubbed in the process. Natalie Portman played her role as Queen Amidala as well as anyone could have asked; and I could say the same of young Jake Lloyd, who played the young Anakin as well as any child actor could have. The 3D, however, was non-existent -- the worst example of 3D I have seen to date.

"Let me ask you something? Do you believe his story?"

12 jurors sit around a table, one man, Henry Fonda's Juror #8, not ready to life sentence an 18 year old votes "Not Guilty" only to open the forum to debate and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members.

"Let me ask you something? Do you believe his story?"

12 jurors sit around a table, one man, Henry Fonda's Juror #8, not ready to life sentence an 18 year old votes "Not Guilty" only to open the forum to debate and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members.

That's a truly great movie -- a classic in every respect.

I have, been to the cinema a fair bit recently, partly to ust "get out" for a couple of hours when family issues start taking over!

I saw Hunky Dory last week, which I think is having a relatively limited release. It's a very old-fashioned movie about a school putting on a musical production of the Tempest in hot summer of 1976 and with the music of Bowie etc. Minnie Driver stars as the inspiring teacher, and the film tells the story of the various youngster's personal lives intermingled with scenes of rehearsals etc.

It's a predictable piece of film making, to be fair, and has been compare to Glee - a rather unfair comparison as this film was in production long before Glee started. It's also rather unfair as Glee is somewhat sentimental and manipulative, whereas this isn't in the main. What's more, the young performers aren't all professional-sounding singers, which is refreshing and makes the whole thing more believable.

Yes, it's all be done before - and it's been done better - but there is something rather charming about the whole enterprise. The young leads are uniformly excellent and it's really nice to see Driver back on screen after what seems like a long absence (or have I just missed her). She is always very affable, and I like the quirkyness she brings to a film. There are cliches and some rather obvious twists in the plot, but in the main it's a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours - which is probably my main criticism. Some prudent editing would have given the film a bit more pace, which is something it lacks in a number of places. 10 or 15 minutes off the running time would have aided the film a great deal, I think.

Overall, however, if you fancy a film which is an easy watch and a cross between a Rooney/Garland kids-put-on-a-show film and Dead Poets Society, then you are likely to have a good time. Sadly the film is likely to lose audiences because of its rather unnecessary 15 rating. Quite why the writer found it so necessary to litter the film with four-letter words is anybody's guess. I don't find it offensive and swear like a trooper myself sometimes, but cutting out some of the swearing would have cut the rating to 12 and opened it up to a wider audience.

I haven't seen Hunky Dory yet, but do think it looks quite good and find Minnie Driver to be appealing when on form -- the story does appear to be familiar, but that's not always a drawback.

Over the past few weeks on my regular visits to the cinema, I've seen Chronicle, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, John Carter (twice), Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (for the second time), The Crow and Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace.

Chronicle was very good -- especially when one considers both the budget and how familiar the "lost footage" sub-genre has become. But with regards to the former, the effects were tremendous; and the latter, I found the overall approach to be clever and well played-out, with only occassional lapses into familiarity territory through convenient camera-placement. And the story was quite good -- a group of boys who stumble upon something deep in the ground, the effects of being near such bestowing them with amazing powers of the body and mind that make them superhero-like. I remember you mentioning seeing it, and have to say that I enjoyed the premise and found much to like and admire in the film. Parts of the plotting were sketchy, but the story is played out cautiously and the result is a keen addition to a genre that so often plays by the numbers.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a joy of a film -- a real gem, boasting wonderful location footage and charming performances across the board. John Madden handles the story quite superbly, for in lesser hands the entire premise could have wallowed into uneasy footing and found cliche and saccharine before quirky, heartfelt story-telling that rings true at almost every possible turn. The basic premise, of a hotel for the elderly that's based in India, is straight forward enough, but the events that take place both in, and around the hotel, are played out with great humour and genuine emotion. Highly recommended.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was quite abysmal -- actually worse than the woeful first film, with a dull story, bland photography and poor acting next to some good effects in the creation of the rider, himself. Moving the story to Europe was another misstep, as the Ghost Rider character always seemed to feel like more of a western-type figure or biker akin to a demonic Hell's Angel. There's no feeling for place or characters here, and in the process, Nic Cage continues bemuse with another inane performance.

I've always been a fan of the John Carter strories, and although there have been many films over the years that have riffed on Edgar Rice Burroughs' books, this is the first true John Carter film to reach the big screen. And I enjoyed it tremendously -- finding the story, A Princess of Mars, well adapted to the screen, being allowed time to play out without being too rushed and finding good performances all-round. The special effects were astounding to my eyes, and although the landscape of Mars/Barsoom is a dusty one (scenes in New York look terrific), the photorealism of the Tharks, white apes and cities of Helium and Zodanga are quite incredible. The 3D is also very good - in some ways among the best to date - whilst likeable performances from Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins help considerably, not to mention Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkis. Facets of the story are familiar, and that's because Burroughs' books have been so heavily plundered by everything from Flash Gordon to Star Wars, Stargate and Avatar -- but as a stand-alone film, John Carter was a treat that I would gladly see a third time. And probably will . . .

My second viewing of Journey 2: The Mysterious Island wasn't a let-down -- my thoughts and feelings about the film are the same as when I mentioned seeing this film at first, which was a few weeks ago. I am fond of the story on which the film is very loosely based, and found the film to be great example of genuine escapism that's made with both its heart in the right place and good intentions in relation to younger viewers. Especially with regards to how the source novel and other pieces of classic literature are referenced throughout.

The Crow, starring Brandon Lee, is a long-time favourite of mine, and it was great to see this gothic semi-classic back on the big screen. And it has endured well almost 20 years since its first release and the untimely death of the film's star; whose potential to be something really special just shines in this film. In some ways, the age of the film does show, but it's heavily stylised, much like Tim Burton with Batman or Warren Beatty with regards to some of the darker aspects of Dick Tracy -- but The Crow, visually, is totally bleak, with rain-soaked streets and darkness abound in the costumes, sets and cinematography. Lee's charisma shines, however, and the story carries just the right amount of emotional depth and empathy for a revenge film.

The Phantom Menace (which I may have mentioned on a previous post) was good to see in cinemas, although it's far from being on a par with the original Star Wars films -- especially A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. But it's fairly good and, IMO, the best of the prequels, despite some missteps and an uneven tone that plagued this film, and episodes two and three. Liam Neeson brought some gravitas to the proceedings as Qui-Gon Jinn, and Ewan MacGregor was fairly good as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi, and really shone in the battle with Ray Parks' Darth Maul -- the best character of the prequels, but an underused one whose fight with the Jedi was underscored by a daft coup de gras, built to create tension, but flubbed in the process. Natalie Portman played her role as Queen Amidala as well as anyone could have asked; and I could say the same of young Jake Lloyd, who played the young Anakin as well as any child actor could have. The 3D, however, was non-existent -- the worst example of 3D I have seen to date.

Yes, I found Chronicle a joy and it just goes to show what great results can happen with decent material, directors and actors even within the teen film genre - and how that genre can be enjoyed by people of all ages when at its best. Alex Russell, one of the youngsters in the film, was also in a superlative teen movie called Wasted On The Young, which is also well worth a watch.

However, spurred on by the wonders of Chronicle, I found myself in the cinema watching another teen movie this week, which was described as a cross between Skins and the Inbetweeners. I have no idea why I was there, to be honest, but if Chronicle was teen cinema at its best, then Project X was the genre at its worst. Like Chronicle, it was shot supposedly by the participants on a camcorder, but it was some of the most puerile nonsense I have yet to watch. There was little laughter from the younger members of audience either, so my assumption is that this will bomb - as it rightfully should!

"Let me ask you something? Do you believe his story?"

12 jurors sit around a table, one man, Henry Fonda's Juror #8, not ready to life sentence an 18 year old votes "Not Guilty" only to open the forum to debate and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members.

It was good, wasn't it ?

And I wonder, in the real world, how many accused have been condemned to death, or life in prison, because their jury didn't have a Henry Fonda-type of juror on it.

"Let me ask you something? Do you believe his story?"
12 jurors sit around a table, one man, Henry Fonda's Juror #8, not ready to life sentence an 18 year old votes "Not Guilty" only to open the forum to debate and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members.

It was good, wasn't it ?

It certainly was and not even one weak performance. Don't see many films made with such a awesome cast! Maybe make a good topic?

Check out photo and can you name the actor and his juror# not in photo?

And I wonder, in the real world, how many accused have been condemned to death, or life in prison, because their jury didn't have a Henry Fonda-type of juror on it.

It's unfortunate some jurors have a closed mind and already decided to convict the defendant before the trail starts just like in 12 Angry Men. Also some jurors’ don’t understand legal terms or the judges’ instructions regarding their duty and go along with others instead of asking for clarification.

Without a doubt we need more type of jurors like Fonda...

"Let me ask you something? Do you believe his story?"
12 jurors sit around a table, one man, Henry Fonda's Juror #8, not ready to life sentence an 18 year old votes "Not Guilty" only to open the forum to debate and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members.

It was good, wasn't it ?

It certainly was and not even one weak performance. Don't see many films made with such a awesome cast! Maybe make a good topic?

Check out photo and can you name the actor and his juror# not in photo?

And I wonder, in the real world, how many accused have been condemned to death, or life in prison, because their jury didn't have a Henry Fonda-type of juror on it.

It's unfortunate some jurors have a closed mind and already decided to convict the defendant before the trail starts just like in 12 Angry Men. Also some jurors’ don’t understand legal terms or the judges’ instructions regarding their duty and go along with others instead of asking for clarification.

Without a doubt we need more type of jurors like Fonda...

Lee J. Cobb's juror No. 3 is missing from the above image -- the rest of the jury looking on in this still, as juror No. 3 says that he would "pull the switch" himself . . .

"Let me ask you something? Do you believe his story?"
12 jurors sit around a table, one man, Henry Fonda's Juror #8, not ready to life sentence an 18 year old votes "Not Guilty" only to open the forum to debate and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members.

It was good, wasn't it ?

It certainly was and not even one weak performance. Don't see many films made with such a awesome cast! Maybe make a good topic?

Check out photo and can you name the actor and his juror# not in photo?

Lee J. Cobb's juror No. 3 is missing from the above image -- the rest of the jury looking on in this still, as juror No. 3 says that he would "pull the switch" himself . . .

Correct on both accounts.

I needed an easy watch tonight and finally got around to seeing Hugo which has just come out on dvd. i didn't get to see it at the cinema, and have to say it was really quite a delight once it got going. The opening twenty minutes or so were a little self-indulgent I think (elaborate shots for the sake of elaborate shots), but on the whole a very pleasant couple of hours. Despite studying silent film, I'm not hugely knowledgable (in comparison) about Melies, as most of my work starts around 1912 when he was just finishing making his movies. But it is great to see films starting to celebrate silent cinema, and virtually all of Melies surviving work is restored and available on DVD. Most of it is pretty mad, it has to be said, and some of it is pretty daring. A recently found piece of work by him from 1896 is thought to be the first film featuring full frontal male nudity, while The Eclipse of the Sun and Moon has been described by film academic Christine Cornea as containing what is possible the first gay sex scene - the face of both the sun and the moon certainly appear to be male, it has to be said, and there are somewhat orgasmic faces made as one passes behind the other! On the whole, though, Melies work can be difficult to sit through - these are mostly primitive works, made before the grammar of film as we know it today was in place - but the effects for the period are remarkable and Melies was one of the true pioneers of both the sci-fi and horror genres, so it's nice to see a homage to him in a modern film such as this.

I enjoyed Hugo tremendously. It's a visual and emotional treat -- especially for lovers of cinema. The child actors were superb here, as was Ben Kingsley, who looked very much like Melies.

The past few weeks, I've seen John Carter (twice), The Hunger Games, The Pirates in an Adventure with Scientists, Casablanca and I'm sure a few others that escape me just now.

I thought John Carter was very, very good -- true to the source material, of which I'm fond, but familiar in many respects because of what films have been influenced by Edgar Rice Burroughs' tales of Mars. The story and plotting worked in abundance for me, and if slightly convoluted, a plot requiring one's attention in a film of this sort is surely commendable. Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins were ideally cast in the lead roles of Carter and Deja Thoris; both of whom handled the action scenes and physicality of the roles with gusto. Whilst the special effects and CGI was of the highest standard -- both with regards to the creatures and inhabitants of Barsoom (Mars), the arid landscapes, flying machines and the cities of Zodanga and Helium. Most impressive is Tars Tarkas and his tribe of Tharks -- voiced brilliantly by Willem Dafoe. And the interaction between human actors, real landscapes and CGI is completely seamless and entirely believable. If I have a few gripes it would be, despite its length, the passage of time isn't greatly defined, whilst a few resolutions are achieved a bit hastily. I should also mention the film's score, which is also very good.

I was disappointed and underwhelmed by The Hunger Games, though. This was surely one of the most contrived films I've seen in some time -- with plot devices and rule changes made to accommodate, almost freely, the better interests of the main character. As a social commentary, there's a certain point about the haves and have nots, but subtle it isn't. Whilst the notion of a "hunger games" played like a reality show for the masses, but with real lives at stake, says and does nothing that The Running Man and Battle Royale didn't say, or do, better. Especially with the employment of pointless mentor-like characters whose purpose remained ill-defined throughout. The plot, to take two teens from each sector (area, state . . . ) of an oppressed underbelly of society, feed them up, train them and let them fight to the death. But with no immediacy, little in the way of tension and no blood-letting, the film becomes an exercise in the banal.

The Pirates, in an Adventure with Scientists is a true gem of a film. A zany plot about the Pirate Captain (voiced brilliantly by Hugh Grant) trying to win the pirate of the year competition finds him teaming up with Charles Darwin and crossing paths with a feisty Queen Victoria. And here, next to some witty in-jokes, great references and a superb mix of stop-motion and CGI an immersive and endearing adventure ensues over the high seas, to the pirates' retreat and through London via one of the most creative on-screen maps ever used to chart a character's journey. Highly recommended.

Casablanca may be my all-time favourite film. I've seen it on the big screen around half-a-dozen times, and relish to opportunity to do so when it's back on re-release or being afforded a special screening.

I haven't been to the cinema for a while now for various reasons, but wouldn't normally find myself at big budget movies anyway.

I did hire The Awakening tonight on Film Flex however, and was rather impressed by what was a nice old fashioned English ghost story. I believe it was criticised for its "twist" being obvious, but have to say that I personally didn't see it coming - but that may just have been my slightly zombified state this evening! Beautifully filmed, though, and the school setting was attractive and the cast performed extremely well, especially Rebecca Hall as a 1920s Yvette Fielding!

"Ivanhoe" (1952)

"Dark Star" (1974) - unfortunately I didn't manage to find a decent copy yet

"Paranormal Activity" (2007)


Each one a class of its own.

At the cinema: it was great to see Titanic on the big screen again, although the 3D - as with The Phantom Menace - was practically non-existent. But such a well crafted epic doesn't need the gimmick of 3D because it holds up well some 15 years after its first release -- great special effects and two wonderful lead performances from Kate Winslet and Leonard DiCaprio still stand out. Although the gimmick of 3D combined with the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic certainly helped to secure strong box office for a re-release.

Cabin in the Woods has been touted as a revolutionary horror movie, with plot turns best kept untold to those who haven't seen the film. For me, it wasn't wholly successful, being too heavy-handed and lacking in tension and real thrills as a concept looms to large over the narrative. Recommended to horror fans, of which I am certainly one; but it missed the mark, I.M.O.

The Avengers lived up to expectations, bringing together a host of Marvel's finest and tying together plot threads from Iron Man and Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America. The action and comedy is well measured and kudos must go to Joss Whedon's accomplished job of directing such a huge venture. The special effects and C.G.I. is second to none throughout and that's matched by terrific performances from all of the major players, especially Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man and Mark Ruffalo as the best Bruce Banner/Hulk since Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno -- Lou provides the Hulk's voice here, in fact. And this character steals the show, I.M.O., doing what one expects of the Hulk -- smash stuff! Highly recommended. And I can't wait for the next round of Marvel's films, not least of all The Amazing Spider-Man.