dominicpearson

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. This film is in the IMDb top 250? How on earth did that happen?

I wont even dignify a breakdown of the story. All you need to know is that the main character dies. From his own stupidity. From his own stubourness. And I felt absolutely nothing for him. Worse than that, I was happy that the arrogant, selfish little prick got exactly what he deserved. Inside I laughed a little and I am sure that is not what the director was going for.

He put his family through hell for nothing other than selfishness. There is an attempt to blame this/justify it on his parents behaviour - hey Sherlock, parents are not perfect. And yours seemed pretty good, they provided for you, gave you a good home and brought you up to the extent that you had the whole world in the palm of your hand. But you threw it away because you were a grade A douche.

What makes me really angry and confused is that this piece of crap is so unlikeable and the choices he made so stupid but Penn has crafted a film that would have you believe he is a hero. There is no objectivity in this at all - he was a brave young soul for doing what he did. Honest, please believe me.

I could continue spitting vitriol but there are plenty of other reviews that do that so much better. All I will say is that if you are ever inclined to watch this pile of trash run away very, very quickly.

I have now had the opportunity of watching An Education on two occasions. It is a very well made coming of age story but what sets it apart from other such films, for me, was the depth to the story.

I have come to expect finely crafted characters from Nick Hornby as a fan of both his books and his films. At the heart of this film is, of course, the relationship between 16 year old Jenny and 30-something David. Of these, David as the protagonist is the more interesting case study - he is morally questionable and acts improperly but does this make him a horrible person?

The manner in which he goes about his life, both personal and business, is immoral. I found the way in which he gets to Jenny very predatory and manipulative, particularly how he manages to play the parents. He did not seem to care that she was so young and had a bright future ahead of her, he took advantage of the situation because he wanted to. This is paralleled in his business life - he manipulates and charms in order to take advantage for his own good.

I am sure we have all come across people like this in life, people who exude charm and seemingly have it all. But whereas the film could have got to the big reveal and we are left feeling sympathy only for Jenny, there is skill used here to show that, despite it appearing that he had it all, David was in fact an unhappy person. He seemed to genuinely care for Jenny going so far as suggesting she was "the one". You get the impression that he was serious about her and things could have developed further but for his wife/children. Ultimately, however, he was a coward as many cheaters are ("I will leave my wife/husband for you, honest"!!) Therein lies the great thing about David's characterisation - we are taken in by his charms and protestations as much as Jenny when really we should be writing him off as a serial philanderer lacking in any scruples or morals (which if you were to look objectively he would be!). That we have any sympathy for him at all is great film making.

Looking at the character of Jenny, we have someone who is still young, has led what appears to be a sheltered life with pushy parents and because of this is very naive. Alongside this is a great deal of confidence in her intelligence and personality which presents as a blossoming maturity. This potent mixture leads her into the relationship with David. She is the perfect target for his manipulation - young, clever and eyes wide open to the world he wants to show her; the world she tells herself she craves (but does she?!). She allows herself to be swept up in the romanticism of it all, a young persons mistake and one many have made before maturity flowers entirely. She is neither child nor adult and this line between the two is very fine and the story walks this perfectly, stepping over into both but never falling firmly in one camp for this is exactly what being a teenager is like.

The characters would not live without strong central performances and these are evident here. I like Carey Mulligan a lot (Wall Street aside) and cannot wait to see Shame. Her performance is pitch perfect, making the transition from schoolgirl to worldly woman and back again seamlessly. Peter Sarsgaard plays David with the aforementioned charm and is, again, spot on.

Some criticise this film due to the age gap between David and Jenny (he is NOT a pedophile). This is not something that should discredit the film; it happened so needs to be shown on the screen. Yes it is creepy, yes it is (in my mind) wrong for someone so much older to be able to manipulate someone so much younger BUT this was a different time with different social attitudes. For me the film would not work if the age gap was not in place; had Jenny thrown away her life over someone, say, 5 or 10 years older than her I do not think I would have been able to empathise with her in the way that I do. It drives the story as far as I am concerned and enables the character development that is so central to the film.

Having said that, one thing that sticks in my throat a little is the ease with which the parents allowed the relationship to develop. I reconcile this, however, with the fact that David's character is the type who can charm and manipulate whoever he wants.

This is not going to be everyones cup of tea. It does drag a little in the middle section of the film and some of the characters are throwaway but as an example of how a good, adult British film dealing with complex themes that opens itself up to interpretation goes, this is highly recommended.

I am not going to attempt to provide a full review of this classic film. To do so would be futile as the chances are if you are reading this you will have a) seen the film already or b) as a fan of film/TV be so familiar with the key scenes and themes (as I was) that I cannot add anything that you do not already know.

My thoughts will be limited to what I liked and the issues I have that stop this scoring higher.

The positives for me were how good the film looks for something made in 1968. Yes, there are a few scenes that are clearly influenced by 60's fashion but the past and future sets on the whole have a timeless quality. The use of music and the ballerina like atmosphere were things of beauty and proof that Kubrick really was a genius (Eyes Wide Shut aside). I think the best praise for these scenes is that they influenced a generation of makers of sci fi and fans of such (Star Wars being the obvious one but my personal favourite is the influence over Red Dwarf!!). They are iconic and deserve to be as for the time this was something mind boggling.

The lack of dialogue is a little disconcerting at first but as the film develops it becomes apparent that this helps the film. It creates an atmosphere within which the stunning set pieces can stand out and which allows Kubricks direction to shine. Actions speak louder than words, as evinced in the closing act where, at least from a human point of view, there is little to no spoken word.

For me the film falls down on two points. The first is the run time. It is just too long to keep the concentration, especially when there are large gaps where not a great deal is happening. All the beautiful shots in the world will not make up for the fact that a full 15 minutes has gone since something that drove the story along happened. Secondly, and my main gripe, is that at times this film seems to be more about showing off than it is about telling a story. I want to be entertained felt that too much time was being taken to show how great the technology was and how clever the directors/producers/set designers were. A prime example is the second section where the chap is heading for the moon. We have two dance sequences and numerous scenes of zero gravity and "look how futuristic this all is". As viewers we accept it is the future and do not need it shoving down our throats. Establish it, show us a little bit of how they live and move on.

I am certain that having taken 33 years of my life to watch this film it will be something I revisit in the future. Maybe my thoughts will change but I doubt it - this is a very impressively made film with some great moments and a very solid and entertaining third act but sadly it falls short of classic status due to being overblown and far too clever for its own good.

If ever there has been a film that is all about one man, this is it. Colin Firth gives a performance that tears strips off of The Kings Speech and for which I feel he has not been given nearly as much credit.

A starting point: This is not a cheerful film, so do not expect a happy ending!

My first thoughts about the substance of the film, its direction, production and performances, are with the use of colour. As George goes through his day there are flashes of brightness that break through the dull colourings of the rest of the film. These reflect those moments in the day where George is connecting with humanity and with the world, where the pits of his depression are forgotten if only for a moment. And once these fleeting moments are over the colour drains back to the subdued tones that reflect the characters inner pain and turmoil. I loved this; it takes you on the journey with George and adds a degree of empathy that would otherwise be missing. This is not someone who is mad at the world, he can still recognise beauty exists.

Secondly, the performance of Colin Firth is exceptional. His expressions and delivery make it impossible not to feel sympathy for George. There is never any pity and this is important as it shows the strength of the character and his convictions. The path he has chosen is one that he feels he has no option but to follow. There are no tears, no tantrums and no drama. It is (I imagine but hope never to know) as feeling like that should be/is.

Thirdly is the writing. I think minimalistic would be the right description. There are no lengthy dialouges, no explanations as to why he is doing what he is doing and no heartfelt albeit cryptic farewells. We know and understand from his actions and the flashbacks we are shown why he has ended up here, there is no over egging. This goes back to the way Firth uses his expressions to tell a thousand words. There are few others who would have been able to fit the part so well.

Having said that there were issues. I was not impressed by the supporting cast. I am sure Nicholas Hoult has a long career ahead of him but I just didn't like him in this. I could not understand his characters motivations and whether he was being genuine/creepy/manipulative. There seemed to be a lack of emotion in the performance, not helped by having to acquire an American accent. Likewise, Julianne Moore (who I have always enjoyed watching) was below par in her performance as well. The chemistry was not there and, again, her English accent was less than impressive.

On the whole, however, this is a film that will move you. It is beautiful with a tour de force central performance. Without giving too much away, there is positivity here as well. Redemption can come in many forms, sometimes when you least expect it. Which makes the final scene even more crushing.

But still an example of their skills as directors and story tellers. It is well worth watching but will not be everyones cup of tea. This film is not as accessible as, say, Burn After Reading or Big Lebowski but neither is it as off the wall strange as Barton Fink and Fargo.

What we have here is a very personal film with clear autobiographical tendencies. The film is well written, well directed and well acted. It just lacks a certain something at its heart.

The film centres around Larry Gopnik and the unravelling of his life. He considers himself to be the titular Serious Man, works hard and follows his faith as best he can. Unfortunately for him those around him seem destined to bring him down; there is the wife who wants to leave him (and who ultimately expects him to pay for her new mans funeral!), there is the pot head son and snooty daughter. There is bribery, blackmail and all kinds of temptation thrown across Larry's path all flooding in at the same difficult time in his life. Think American Beauty but without the midlife crisis coming out.

This life is turned upside down and develops as a tragi-comedy of sorts. The film is very funny in places but you cant help but feel for Larry as everything falls to pieces. At the same time, however, you get the feeling that if he developed a bit of a backbone these events wouldn't keep on happening. The Cohen Brothers have, therefore, developed a very realistic and flawed character that you feel for but ultimately you can stand back and laugh at (rather than with) as his hardships are his own doing.

I have watched this film twice in order to make my mind up about it. What I like is the performance of Michael Stuhlbarg. I have no recollection of seeing him in anything else so was able to immerse myself entirely in his performance. The subtlety with which he pulls of the character is a testament. The performance can only work if the actor is able to convey the feelings of frustration and anger and the requirement that these be bottled up. You know that the rage is bubbling inside but it is not evident outwardly in any way. Suck it up, move one and take the next punch. And Stuhlbard does this with aplomb. The central performance could easily have left you feeling no sympathy for the character, only anger at his inability to sort himself out. That you do not shows that the actor has earned his pay cheque.

The film is directed and shot as well as you would expect from a Cohen Brothers film. It is a much more lean film than, say, No Country and this is to its benefit. There is none of the meandering shots and slow pacing that (for me) hindered No Country. Having said that, it is not the most amazing looking of films but it is not that type of production.

The supporting cast are, unfortunately, forgettable. This and the lack of knowledge about everything Jewishness (which is at the heart of the film) dampened my appreciation of the film which had been built up with the performance of Stuhlbard. Sadly, as well, I was not impressed with the now standard Cohen ending of cutting half way through a scene with no conclusion. They have used this 3 times in as many films and it is getting boring now. Guys - you are legendary directors, use a new trick.

They will be judged on the basis of their classics, of which there are many, but this will sit towards the back of their collection for most. It feels, ultimately, that it is a vanity piece. Something very personal to the brothers, so much so that they probably care not for mine or anyone elses opinions on it!

It is no easy task reviewing a film of this nature. For one, the story is already known and is a very, very real one. This gives those intending to watch it the knowledge that for the best part of an hour and a half it is going to be a bloke stuck with a big rock on his arm. For another it is a single set, single actor set up for the vast majority and in the wrong hands could be a total nightmare. These are inhibitions that the film is going to have to overcome even before it has been viewed.

It was with this in mind that I made the decision to watch 127 Hours after having it for a good couple of months. Upon initial viewing I found little of interest in the film and my fears seemed to have been well placed. It was as I have said above - bloke stuck with a big rock on his arm. But I have found that it is one of those rare breed of films that plays on your mind and grows in your affections over time.

So what is good about it. The performance that Boyle has managed to get from James Franco is testament to his skill as a director and Franco's as an actor.

Franco has impressed me with his performances of late. Milk, Howl (dreadful film, great performance) and Pineapple Express are all splendid and he was very much the right person for the job here. The character he plays is, to me at least, pretty unlikeable. He was selfish, arrogant and careless. Yet through sharing in his unthinkable experience a sense of empathy is developed; the regrets of his life are played out leading to a degree of realisation and repentance. Whether this will change his attitude in the future is another matter entirely but there is hope for him that he will learn from his mistakes and become a better person. At its heart, therefore, its a tale of redemption and are we not all seeking this?! The nuances of the personality are all conveyed by an actor in his prime tasked with an extremely difficult proposition - one set, limited mobility, no other actors around. Franco deserves plaudits for this performance and this aspect alone is worth the majority of my grading.

As always, Danny Boyle's direction was spot on. The difficulties of such a film were met head on and the story develops at a solid pace. The photography is impressive, the locations kind of do the hard work but it looks lovely on film. The soon to be famous last scene in the crevice is very realistic and not something for the weak stomached! It is an impressive translation of the story.

So why only 7 out of 10? Well to be honest Id probably give it 7.5 but IMDb is a silly so I cant. It wasn't quite perfect. As I said, it was only after viewing that the story really started to hit me. I may watch it again to see if this delayed development translates into increased enjoyment but this is unlikely. It is not the type of film that has repeated viewing qualities. It will never be considered a classic but what it is is a solid film, impressively acted and skillfully directed. When history looks back on Boyle's portfolio of work I would say this would rank well behind Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, 28 Days Later and Slumdog all of which are 8-10 star films. For this reason I have judged it as I have!

In thinking about a review of Clerks I have found it a real struggle to put into words objectively why this film is so great. It is only now, after 15 minutes of trying, that I realise it cannot be done.

From an objective point of view this is not one of the greatest films ever made. I wouldn't even consider it Kevin Smiths finest work and I think sometimes that people overplay the importance and influence the film had in the industry in general. The humour is, at times, crude and offensive and there are serious flaws in the way in which the film was made.

In spite of (and maybe even because of) this I will say that I bloody love this film. When I first watched it it had such an influence on me in both the films I watch and the humour I use. I recall watching this film in the late 1990's and laughing myself silly. I knew at the time that this was my type of film and that I would, from that day on, be a devout Kevin Smith fan.

It was the first film I watched where the dialogue represented the conversations I had with friends. The humour replicated that of my peer groups - a potent mixture of sarcasm, quick one liners and outright gross out humour with a little surrealism thrown in as well. It captures and connects to a particular moment in the life of the writer, director and audience and will be a film that fans will want to come back to time and time again; it speaks volumes to each and every person that makes that connection with it.

There were no inhibitions in respect of the film Smith made, either. It was done on his terms and it provides a very genuine end product.

For these reasons I can look beyond the obvious flaws in production, direction and editing. I can look beyond the sometimes over crude language and the at times dreadful acting. And I can do this because I am 100% subjective and proud of it.

I am happy that there are large sections of society who will not get the film, who will bemoan it for its offensiveness. To them I say yes. You are right. It is offensive, thats where the humour comes from. BUT scratch the surface a little deeper (as with all Kevin Smith films) and you will find a whole level of depth that isn't at first apparent.

My happiness comes from knowing that I fall within a (relatively) elite group of 30 something film lovers who related to this film as teenagers, fell in love with the humour and understood it on the level that it was meant to be understood.

To anyone who wants to hate the film, great. Go for it. Your choice entirely and (objectively speaking) I can see why that would be the case. But if you are of a certain age, have a certain outlook on life and a certain appreciation of humour then this is a must see film for you.

...but as many others have no doubt pointed out, this is not a mockumentary. This is real life. The humour that is found in this film just goes to show how spot on Spinal Tap got it! For the sake of clarity, I am not a big metal fan. My brother is and plenty of friends growing up were but I always found it too strenuous on my poor neck. It is not, therefore, necessary for you to be a fan of the music to appreciate the qualities in this documentary.

The film follows the antics of the titular band, Anvil. They were a big deal for a short amount of time in the early 1980's and it is clear that their influence is wide ranging. The documentary starts with their would-be-peers citing the importance of their album, Metal on Metal. For all intents and purposes, therefore, it would seem like they should have made it.

But they didn't. For whatever reasons. The film does not delve too deeply into this question other than to blame poor record company representation and management. I am guessing that it was the poor choices of the band themselves that led to their decline but this is not discussed.

We pick up with the band shortly before they record their thirteenth album and conduct a tour of Europe. It is here that the Spinal Tap moments ring true - it is a truly calamitous expedition arranged by someone they barely knew. The recording of the album is just as riddled with problems but these moments of comedic relief are really just backdrops to the true heart of the film, this being the characters of Lips and Robb Reiner and the impact their dream chasing has had on them.

Lips is a true character, one that could not have been written. He is folly to rock star clichés but beneath that he is a genuinely likable and positive character. He has lived most of his adult life with the knowledge that his band could have been so much more but he is not filled with regret, he is trying his hardest to make the most of the limited opportunities he and the band have left. The parting shot where he says he is thankful for the 15 minutes the band had and the fact that he has had a career out of it speaks volumes.

His nature shines through when, after the European tour, he has nothing but positive words for the exceptionally bad manager who organised everything. He looks at the experience as just that - an experience; a holiday from his normal life and therein lies the beauty of this character. It is this positivity that has kept the dream alive and it is this that sparks my admiration in him.

Reiner has the same outlook but is less focused on because, it would seem, he is more grounded in reality. He does this knowing that the likelihood is there will be no pot of gold.

The film moves further away from the Spinal Tap comparison by looking at the impact the band have on the families of Lips and Reiner. It adds another dimension to the film that stops it from falling into complete farce. The impact of their chasing the dream is having a very real financial and emotional strain on their family members and, at some point, they will have to throw the towel in.

All this means you are rooting for the band. When they are offered the chance to play in Japan you think the circle may, finally, be completed. The journey they then go on to get to this show and the tension built is a prime example of great film making.

There are issues I have with the film, however. The lack of consideration of the actual reasons for their failure, for example. Do they deserve to be in the position they are in? Is it their own fault or are they genuinely a casualty of the industry? Also whilst the director does a fantastic job it is over apparent that he has a vested interest in the band. Clearly a fan but as it transpires a friend as well. Whilst this gives him unprecedented access to them it also means there is a degree of rose tinted glasses.

Other than these reasons (and the lack of exploding drummers!) this is a very enjoyable and uplifting piece of work. If you fail to get behind the band and find a degree of empathy for the predicament (not to mention respect for their perseverance) there is something wrong with you! As always, a half mark would be useful but IMDb being IMDb I have to go one way or the other. I'll go with 8 but really its a 7.5.

Let me start by saying that I am not Will Ferrells biggest fan. I have enjoyed many of his films but, like Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey before him, it always feels like he is playing the same character over and over. The problem that I have with him is that this particular character was perfected in Anchorman - if he ever plays a better role than Ron Burgundy I will be (pleasantly) surprised.

Lets not beat around the bush. This is Ferrells film. He wrote and starred and it is clear that it plays to his strengths as a comedian. There is not a scene he is in where he isn't perfect. He will not be winning any best actor awards for these types of performance and rightly so but for the roles he plays, his performance as Ron Burgundy is second to none.

This film is so, so funny. From start to finish the humour comes thick and fast. There are some really off the wall moments (the gang fight springs instantly to mind) and some stupidly childish moments (Sex Panther anyone?!) and these sit along some great one liners (the teleprompter scene to which the subject refers and the reaction of Ron to it are priceless) and set pieces. There is no way that I can even start to bookmark the comedy in the film. It is a potent mixture that comes together effectively to create a wild ride that ensures you are never bored. It is as far from high brow as you can get but at the same time sufficiently above dick and fart jokes as to let it stand out from the crowd.

Ferrell is supported by a stellar cast, a who's who of film comedians in the 2000's. Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell (who has limited focus but steals the scenes he is in) are the most obvious but Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughan and Luke Wilson pop up to add to the fun. They are clearly enjoying themselves and their performances bar none are brilliant.

I cannot give high enough praise to Anchorman. It is never going to win Oscars but as a pure, balls out, hilarious film you are going to struggle to find anything better. The highest praise that I can give is that I have now watched Anchorman at least 5 times now and am not even close to tiring of it.

I am a huge, huge fan of Kevin Smith's View Askew films. I love the dialogue, the stories, the filthy humour and the intelligence that lies not too far below the surface so I was really looking forward to watching this film.

Kevin Smith is clearly an intelligent man. He is funny, has charisma and clearly knows how to hold an audience. He knows his target audience and plays up to them perfectly. You could see him as a stand up if he wasn't doing what he does (and doing it so well).

When this is at its best the dialogue and answers are conversational, informative, intelligent and incredibly funny. When he is discussing the homophobic claims thrown at his films he puts an intelligent, reasoned argument forward. And then throws in a dick joke. When he is talking about how he meets his wife is really sweet. Then he talks about his dick. The Dogma story (where he protests his own film) is hilarious. Im sure he throws a dick joke in as well.

It is this contrast that I love in his films and its great to see that this is genuinely part of his personality. It makes you appreciate his films on a whole other level.

The only thing that ruins this for me is the stupid bloody students asking "Do you want to get high dude", or screaming "woohoo", or "yous guys are my boyfriends favourite, we'll buy you drinks". From all the colleges he went to I am sure that there were more interesting exerts that could have been used.

On the whole, though, this is a very honest and open look inside the mind of a brilliant film maker. We get to hear stories of the politics and bullplop in Hollywood and it is great to see that someone that has found success in the system is still so down to earth.

I don't think this is, as some others have said, a film that people unfamiliar with his films will "get". It is certainly not for you if you dislike his films. The crudeness is there, the vulgarness is there and the humour is as puerile as possible. And it is fabulous! The line between toilet humour and genuine intelligence is fine but subtle.

Just a shame about those bloody American students!!

Having now read the book twice and seen the film three times I thought it about time to put my thoughts down in black and white. The short of it is that I loved this film; just when you think you have it sussed out it throws another curve ball at you.

I don't intend to spend much time considering the plot or the well known themes and questions it throws up (the blending into society, the facelessness of individuality, the materialism and commercialism of modern life etc etc) as these have been covered splendidly in the FAQ section and I could not do them any further justice.

My personal, humble opinion it is all in his head; the ending of the book "This Is Not An Exit" seemed to me to suggest that his fantasy's were a way out of the mundaity and blandness of his existence. Having said that each time I watch the film or reconsider the book I am left with that grey area that at least some of it may have been very real and then wondering which parts may and may not have been!!

I watched the film having read the book first (as I am sure many others will have done). What struck me was the skill with which the very dense, at times difficult to read dialogue had been condensed into a screenplay that very strongly retained the overriding themes of the book. The style of the film captured perfectly the scenery created by the extremely (overly?) descriptive prose in the book and at no time did it feel rushed. At no time did I think that more should have been included; the choices made when preparing the screenplay (i.e. what to include and what to leave out) were spot on and the focus on Bateman himself with less concentration on the peripheral characters in his life worked perfectly (these were, in fact, the parts of the book that felt contrived and out of place so I was happy with the choices for this reason as well).

It amused me sincerely that the film was adapted and directed by a female. After all the furore by silly feminist women who clearly did not understand the satire in the book and who chose to concentrate on the graphic depiction of violence against women it must be great for Brett Easton Ellis to be able to say "F*** you" to them. This film and the book before it are not about gratuitous violence. The story is about greed, about jealously, about psychosis, about a person lost in a myriad of similarity where you cannot break out even if you try and even if those attempts are bloody, violent and evil. There are so many layers to the story that to dismiss it as a one dimensional attempt to shock is doing it a massive disservice. And I think (hope) that anyone watching the film will realise this.

Onto the performances. Christian Bale is, as ever, superb. I am a massive fan of his (apart from Terminator - is it not enough that you're Batman!!) and always look forward to watching his films. He is at his very best here. Batemans facade is slowly slipping as his private world of madness seeps into his personal world and Bale pulls this off with the subtlest of changes in his facial expressions and demeanour. The two telephone conversations (first to his lawyer, second to his secretary) towards the end of the film show the full extent of his psychosis and the fact that his mask has well and truly slipped. The realisation that he has got away with it (and more importantly will continue to get away with it) and his pulling himself back together at the end of the film are all, again, acted perfectly. Contrast the character at the start of the film with that at the end, consider the "journey" he has been on and everything in between and then think about how another, less skilled actor could have killed this film. Without Bale this film would not have worked. He IS Patrick Bateman and that is the skill and talent that I so greatly admire.

The supporting cast are fine if not a little bland. Reese Witherspoon is wasted and Batemans colleagues are given very little screen time but therein, I suppose, lies the point. This is a film about an egotistical, maniacal loner who has no love for humanity in any way, shape or form. It seems only right that the relationships he so clearly has no yearning for are not fleshed out any further. Still, it would have been nice to have had a little more depth and a further half hour or so would have done the world of good and probably pushed this into the higher regions of scoring.

As it is this is a really, really enjoyable film that works on so many levels. You will enjoy it as a stand alone film given the performances, writing and direction but those who want to think about it further and make their own judgement on the questions will have plenty to keep them busy.

Highly recommended.

I recall watching Kidulthood and coming away from it with no real like/dislike for it. It was an enjoyable film which attempted to hold a mirror up to youth culture in London. Some criticised it for being over sensationalised and not a true reflection but I have no first hand experience so couldn't comment.

It was, therefore, not high on my list of priorities to watch Adulthood. The thought of spending more time with the characters did not fill me with any feelings of joy. However I was very happily surprised at what a well crafted, produced and presented film this is.

The story picks up 6 years after Kidulthood. Sam has been released from prison and is almost instantly attacked. A threat is made against him and his family and he has to take action to find the source and put a stop to it.

The first point to note is that there is no need for you to have seen Kidulthood. Clearly you will enjoy the film on a different level if you have seen it as what develops are a number of scenes which focus on the impact Sams attitude and actions in the first film have had on the people around him.

The story develops at a perfect pace. We get to see more depth to the characters and understand the pain that they have suffered and continue to suffer.

Sams brother, for example, is on the same track as his brother was and this is down to the "legacy" of being related. Jay has turned into a petty thief and drug dealer and seems destined to crash and burn. We see how it has affected Sams mother, his ex and all (well, nearly all) of the central characters from the first film. The ripples of this one incident are clearly being felt this long after the event, ripples that will continue indefinitely.

At the heart of the film are two outstanding performances. The first, from Noel Clark (who also wrote and directed) is slow burning, poignant and extremely powerful. His experiences and the impact of the killing develop in the form of flashbacks, very little is actually said but we learn enough to know that if ever anyone regretted their actions it is Sam. The final scenes with Jay are heart wrenching, as is the one where Lexi is trying to comfort him in her flat.

Noel Clark plays the part brilliantly. He fully deserves all of the plaudits and recognition he received. Here is a character who I really did not care for in the first film. After watching Adulthood, however, I feel for him. I don't like him - you don't forget what his character did or that he is not a good person but you do empathise with him and the situation he finds himself in. It had to be a performance that balanced the regretfulness and showed the distance he had come but with the knowledge of his previous life and that strong elements of this remained. It could have been all brooding and moody or all anger and fury but the skillful performance found a perfect middle ground.

Second is Scarlett Johnsons performance. Her role is central to the plot and she is given time to really develop the character. The scene where she is leaving the message on Sams phone is heartbreaking. Knowing that she and Sam have similar issues and experiences gives us hope that there may be a happy ending for both of them. She is a damaged person trying to come to terms with the rape. She is struggling but sees in Sam redemption, someone who understands her sufferings and someone who can (possibly) help her.

Again, the focus could have been purely on the damage caused but the performance given shows the humanistic elements of the character. The hardness which slowly breaks down when she finds someone she can be vulnerable with. Like I said before, it is heartbreaking.

The supporting cast are, also, perfect. The final scene between Sam and Jay is brilliantly shot (apart from the Matrix moment halfway through!) and brilliantly acted. Again, you can see the very real pain Jay is suffering; pain that cuts to his very core.

All this is not to say the film isn't without flaw. I found the whole set up of the dealers extremely convoluted and unlikely. I also found myself getting agitated at the slang being used. I accept that this is the language used but some of the characters slipped in and out of it too easily.

Small concerns, however, in a film that shows that you can have a simple but strong story, some superb young actors and still have a great film without the need for big bucks or Hollywood. Congratulations Mickey The Idiot, the Doctor would be proud! 8.5/10

It was not till my second viewing of this "documentary" that I discovered that it had been made for Channel 5. This should tell you everything you need - it is cheap, tacky and sensationalised.

The central figure, Dominic Noonan, is a nasty person. A really nasty person. The kind of person that should stay behind bars, the kind of person that should not be allowed to procreate. Throughout the film I could find no discerning characteristics in him. The film maker seemed intent on only showing/talking about the negative aspects (and doing so in a glorified manner). I suspect it is because this thug has no positive qualities at all.

But thats by the by, this is a documentary of sorts so what it shows is the real life thug and the life he leads. Right? Wrong. What we end up with is an extremely biased documentary that only skims the surface of what this moron and his low life scum family are really like. What we get is a piece of work very heavily weighted towards the superficial elements of the Noonans, their background, their extended families, the dreams and aspirations of the younger generation.

The deeper questions are never covered (although I will say that the scene where the brother is asked about any murders he may have committed is quite chilling) and we end up with a fluffy tale about a grown man hanging around with young boys.

The portrayal of this idiot as a gangster is untruthful. Sure, he may be in reality but for the purposes of this documentary we see nothing that can be attributed to a gangster lifestyle in any meaning of the phrase. What we are shown is a nasty, uneducated and extremely unlikeable person who lives off the fear he and his family have created in their own little bubble of a world for years.

In conclusion, therefore, the main problem with this film is not the central character/theme. It is not the lack of brain cells in his extended family. It is the fact that the film maker has focused on pallying up to his subjects and in doing so has lost any objectivity. It is as if he has spent a few weeks with some friends and recorded them playing up to him and the camera. For this reason alone I cannot consider this a true documentary, rather a puff piece made by someone who seems overly enamoured with his subject and the perceived life he leads.

I find it very difficult to review films like A Mighty Heart. The reason being it is a true story; how can you critique something that has happened, something that is so personal to the characters, something that shocked and disturbed the world in the manner it did. The difficulty is producing a balanced, objective view of the final product and I fear that I may not succeed.

There is little need in going into the "plot". Everyone knows the tragedy of the story. What is more important, with a film like this, is that the performances and direction of the film in general need to be considered.

This is Jolies film. Clearly the focus is on her portrayal of Marieanne; it should be - the book is written by Marieanne as a memoir of the event so it is only right that the focus should be on her struggles. The supporting cast play their parts adequately although I have to admit that on the whole they are forgettable. They pale into insignificance with the level of performance given by Jolie. She is marvellous and when you research the background to the film more you realise that she was spot on with her portrayal.

The Marianne had to be strong in the face of adversity. She had to maintain, outwardly at least, a cool and concentrated facade. Inside she was clearly being eaten away at but her strength and belief was the lynch pin of the investigation. Had she given up the search would have ground to a halt. Ultimately the search was in vain but Marianne remains defiant and strong till the end.

And Jolie performed this brilliantly. I felt, at times, like she was far too cold. How can she be showing so little emotion? But as the film develops and cracks start to show it is clear that the performance is spot on. She cares so much that she chooses to bury those feelings, to be a rock publicly. The first TV interview is a case in point - she delivers a well rehearsed statement, an almost passionless presentation. The presenters comment on this afterwards, it almost feels like they are condemning her. But which are you more likely to recall - the over emotional wife begging for her husbands release or the brave, strong wife refusing to give in to the terror.

Back to Jolie. The eyes say it all. And those times that she is alone and lets her defences down. I thought the portrayal was spot on and the final breakdown upon hearing the awful news shows exactly what she was bottling up. It was real, it was believable and it was passionately played.

So why only 7 out of 10? Well, as regards the rest of the film it just did not do it for me. The supporting cast were so far in the background that they seemed to be redundant. The pace was far too slow for me. I just did not feel engrossed enough in the overall product to rate it any higher. I know this seems silly given it is a real life story, hence my opening gambit. I just didn't feel engrossed enough, I guess.

My main bug bearer, however, is that the version I watched had no automatic subtitles for the parts spoken in whichever dialect they were spoken in. Now I have seen people say that this is not an issue, that it is not intrical to the overall theme of the film but I found I lost concentration as I had no idea what was going on! If I have to watch a whole film with the subtitles on just so I can follow the small parts where English is not used I feel cheated. They should have had the subtitles on screen.

As ever, I would like to be able to use .5 markings on IMDb but to no avail! Whilst I have rated this 6 it is going to be closer to a 6.5 if I am honest. Not the type of 6.5 to rate it as a 7 though (see the problem?) I like this film. I do. It gripped me and pulled me in. I like the premise (although I agree it is nothing too original). I am a fan of vampire films/stories in general. So why not a higher score?? Well, let me begin...

The first 40 minutes was great. The set up drew me in, the slow reveal of the vampires wrenched up the tension and the unfolding panic and destruction was dealt with brilliantly.

The overhead shot of the town being over run with its contrast between white, white snow and blood red, er, blood was a beautiful but harrowing scene. The look of terror and realisation on the face of the townsfolk as this was going on was also well caught.

But then the film turns. Its set up is lost in an hour of nothingness. OK, I get it - they are striving to survive. I get that they have to be quiet. So why do they, one by one, randomly start running about trying to take on the vampires??? There is not a great deal of logic other than to eek out the tension and action a little bit more. 20 minutes could easily have been shaved off the film. A lot of the middle portion was redundant and repetitious.

Another problem I had was Josh Hartnett. I do not think I have seen a film of his yet that I have thought "wow, what a great actor". He is wooden throughout this film and I have no empathy for him at all. I think this is, in part, down to the lack of backstory but he is just not believable as an actor. If I were looking for like to like characters in similar films I would compare him to Cillian Murphys character in 28 Days Later. The only difference is Cillian Murphy played the character with real depth. You felt he understood the predicament, the threat to the lives of those he was protecting. I got none of that with Josh Hartnett. Still, better than 40 Days and 40 Nights (dreadful film!!).

The supporting cast really had no stories at all. We did not get to know them or care about them. They were there only as fodder for the vampires. Great, but when they are central to the dilemma the main character faces at the end of the film you want to feel some empathy for the choice he has to make.

Which brings me to the conclusion. I really don't get why, after beating the head vampire, the others would just run away. It makes no sense. He was just one relatively new and weak vamp against a whole gang. They could have ripped him to pieces and found the rest quite easily.

So lets conclude.

The Good - Brilliantly shot and for the first half tensely directed and performed vampire flick with a difference. Plenty of blood and gore which always helps a horror film and I like the make up jobs on the vamps.

The Bad - Josh Hartnett. And a second act that dragged far too long. Add to that an ending that did not really make much sense and you have disappointments running throughout the film There are much better vampire films out there. This is an average attempt but if you can look past the wooden performances and dragging plot its worth a watch!

As a man there is nothing worse than being dragged to the cinema to see some generic, identikit, thought free rom com. I have seen a few in my time, the worst being The Holiday (the relationship I was in came to an end a few days later, enough said!) So it was with great trepidation that I went to see this film with the young lady I was dating at the time.

Not another boy meets girl, boy gets girl, girl breaks boys heart, boy gets back together with girl and they all live happily ever after story. Please not another one of those. It isn't. This is a film with a twist - that twist being that this is not the happy ever after relationship we are so used to seeing. This is one of the other relationships; those that make us feel like they are forever after but, in reality, are steps on the road to where we have to get.

The story itself is very simple. Tom is the sort of guy that falls head over heels in love very easily. Summer is the sort of girl that can have any man she wants but is guarded and has commitment issues. Their coming together is gradual and the sequential nature of the film allows the relationship to be developed much more naturally. It felt like a much more organic process, as it is most of the time in real life. It gave the story a great element of realism, in my humble opinion.

As the story develops it becomes ever more apparent that this is not the idealistic relationship that Tom considers it to be. The little flaws in character that we all have show themselves through the course of the 500 days and we, before Tom, realise that Summer is never going to be the great love he perceives her to be.

The nature of the film lets us know in advance that they are going to split up and when that time comes the contrast in how the main characters deal with it puts up a mirror to their clashing personalities and the very reasons why they could not be together.

The film moves on and we see how their lives pan out. She meets and marries someone in what seems to be super quick time. He wallows in self pity (thats what Morrisey will do to you) but rediscovers his passions in life. The ending is a little too sugary for my liking but the point remains that these two characters met, fell for each other, realised it was not going to work and parted. They each took something positive away from the relationship even if it took Tom a long time (the bulk of the 500 days!) to discover this.

So there we go. Not a romance at all. Rather an all too uncommon look at those relationships that shape us; those people that mean so much at the time but who ultimately are not meant to be in our lives forever but whose impact will stay.

Incidentally the relationship I was in when I watched this for the first time did not last. Whereas I blame The Holiday for the former, I do not blame 500 Days for the latter. Indeed, it speaks volumes to me and was a rather snug fit for where my own life was at the time.

The film falls short on a couple of points. As mentioned, I found Zooey Deschanel a little wooden at times. I know the character was void of emotion (not entirely but to an extent) but even her happy face seemed strained. The supporting cast, whilst doing their jobs perfectly, were instantly forgettable but I think that is because Joseph Gordon-Levitt played such a strong Tom. The ending was a little sugary sweet and my concern was that Tom, having learned his lessons and having got his life back on track, would make the same mistake again.

But so would I. Autumn was smoking!!

Teen angst comedy dramas are not exactly hard to come across but finding one that stands out from the crowd is a difficult job! Adventureland nearly hits the heady heights of (500 Days of) Summer, Napoleon Dynamite and Juno but doesn't quite make it.

As you'll no doubt be aware the action takes place in the late 1980's in the eponymous adventure park. James (Jesse Eisenberg) has graduated college and soon discovers his father cannot afford to put him through grad school so, for the first time in his life, he needs to get a job. This means going to the one place he can get a job. We're soon introduced to the normal band of cool kids, quirky adults, geeks and freaks and so the story starts! I've read some comments on here that the characters are unlikeable. I do not agree with that at all. In fact the only unlikeable character in my opinion was Ryan Renolds character and that is only because he was taking advantage of his position with the young girls.

The story has the normal ups and downs, will they/wont they, yes they will but not without adversity and the eventual breakdown/reconcilliation but it is the performances and characters behind the normal template that impressed me.

I can see how a lot of people compare Jesse Eisenberg to Michael Cera; both have a certain amount of awkward charm but the character of James seems to be much more well rounded and worldly. His nervousness is backed by a confidence, although I know how contradictory this sounds! I quite liked him and the assured way he conducted himself, although I can see why he is more of a games person rather than a rides person!

I have not watched the Twilight films (and do not intend to) so this was the first I have seen of Kristen Stewart. The loss of her characters mother and the replacement step mother loom large over Em's life and she is looking to rebel and escape all at the same time. Stewarts portrayal of someone clearly in pain and who is crying out for help but looking in all the wrong places was very believable and genuinely moving in parts. That she has already made the mistakes when James walks into her life and cannot stop herself continuing these is even more heartbreaking. I can see why people would not empathise with her or like the character she is playing - her actions are those of a bitch but scratch the surface and there is a decent and caring person there.

What I particularly like about the main characters is that their flaws are clear to see. James' jealousy gets the better of him and he purposefully aims to sabotage Em's character towards the end of the film. Em herself is, at times, selfish and childish and is knowingly sleeping with a married man. But these are the flaws of the young and, in broader terms, humans in general. The film does not back away from these and is all the stronger for them.

The supporting cast all play their parts well. The comedic value offered by Frigo and the park owners is a nice balance to some of the more emotionally charged scenes. I laughed so hard at when James finally got revenge on Frigo! They made the film a well rounded, well scripted and well acted one.

The other thing worth mentioning is the soundtrack and cinematography. They capture the time period perfectly and you can escape back to the 1980's (if you really want to!) Having said all of this there is still something missing. We have seen it done before and better. It is for this reason alone that I have not marked it higher.

To conclude, then, if you are a fan of the zany, slightly left field, coming of age rom com akin to those named above this is a must watch for you. For everyone else this a well written film with nicely rounded characters and a familiar story and worth a watch.

I'll start by saying that I am a massive fan of Judd Apatow and Adam Sandler, both the goofy stuff and the more serious stuff (Punch Drunk Love rates as one of my all time favourite films). I was, therefore, going into this with quite high expectations.

I had read reviews and comments complaining that this was not a funny film. To those people who are looking for a Superbad or Happy Gilmore you should be aware - at no point is this film pitched as a riotous comedy. It is a film about comedians, about the eponymous funny people but their characters (away from the stage characters they adopt) are flawed, selfish and for the most part not particularly likable or funny. It is their story and it is more a dissection of their follies than it is a comedy. There are plenty of moments of light relief but it is more a drama so please do not expect too much.

With that out of the way I have to agree with a lot of reviews that I have read in that the first half of the film is pitched and executed very well but after the pivotal half way point it degenerates into something much less interesting.

Adam Sandlers character (George Simmons) is not a nice person. You are not asked to like him or care for him. In fact I felt that he had no redeeming characteristics at all. He lives alone and seems to have alienated everyone in his life and he is happy with that choice.

He receives news that he has a terminal illness and this makes him re-evaluate his life and, more importantly, his lack of relationships or redeeming qualities. As part of this journey he meets Ira (Rogen) who becomes an assistant and (to an extent) a friend. Simmons is encouraged to open up about his illness, to mend bridges with family and friends and to take stock of how he found himself surrounded by loneliness. To this end Rogens character plays an important part and you begin to feel a warmth for George- he is flawed, yes. He has let the fame, the money and the girls go to his head but he is making up for it. The scene with his ex brought a tear to my eye and I was left thinking good, now where can we take this character.

At this point, for me at least, Sandlers performance is up there with those in Punch Drunk Love and Reign Over Me. To take an instantly unlikeable and self involved character and inject some humility and humanity into him is a difficult task and one that he does admirably. His performance provides a building block for the second half of the film but unfortunately the opportunity to develop the character (and those around him) is passed over for a disappointing story involving his ex and her husband.

There are some nice moments in this second half and it acts as a perfect setting to show that in reality his redemption was as self indulgent as the rest of his life. I believe this to be the intention of Apatow and admire him for showing the shallowness of Simmons "redemption" - here is a character who is, was and will always be fundamentally unlikeable. There is a potential for change but for all appearances he does not want to change. He likes the misery and the loneliness and will in all likelihood die miserable and lonely! The sub plots are a useful catalyst for driving the film forward but, to a large extent, redundant. Ira's love story wasn't really needed although it does mean that the lovely Aubrey Plaza gets some screen time which is fine with me! These could have been replaced with greater development of the relationship between Simmons and Ira. When the inevitable break up came I really did not care for either of them.

Jason Schwartzman is as watchable as ever. Jonah Hill, however, is instantly forgettable. Eric Bana plays his part well and was surprisingly funny! To sum up, therefore, there are some very strong points to this movie. Sandler gives half a great performance, it has some genuinely touching and funny moments and is a nice little exposition of the difference between a comedians personality and character (the sad clown??). These are let down by a lacklustre second half and a slightly disappointing supporting cast. It is well worth watching but do so with an open mind and taking account of all the points raised in this and other reviews!!

I would give this a 6.5 but IMDb.com wont let me so I have to go one way or the other!

Being a huge fan of 28 Days Later and knowing the impact that this has had on UK cinema I was looking forward to 28 Weeks Later but with an air of concern. Surely the follow up cannot be as iconic and hard hitting as the original? When I found out that it had little involvement by Danny Boyle I was even more wary.

How wrong I was. What we have here is a fast paced, stylish, brutal in places but never boring sequel. It cannot live up to the impact of Days but it doesn't disappoint.

The premise is simple: It is 28 Weeks after the outbreak of the Rage virus. Britain is completely empty and the infected have starved to death. In come the US Army to oversee the re-population of the country starting with a small section of London. We are told that 15,000 people have been repatriated already.

The opening scenes of the film take off almost directly where the last finished, albeit with a different set of survivors. Robert Carlyle's character is faced with a decision the impact of which resonates through the entire film and provides a platform for the film to strike its own identity from Days. In my opinion, this decision is a rational one and as tough as it must be for the character it makes perfect sense - why throw yourself into inevitable death when there is a chance of escape, regardless of who you are trying to save!! The film moves on pretty fast paced from here.

The characters are brought together in London, we find out that the wife/mother is not dead and, indeed, whilst being infected may hold a cure to the virus. Likewise her children may also carry the same genetic code that could save the world. From here it is only a matter of time before the virus re-awakens and it does so in shocking circumstances.

Robert Carlyles transformation into an infected shocked me. The shock and the gore served a purpose, however, and drove the film forward. His infection is different to those seen in Days, it is as if he has retained a degree of his humanity and this mixed with the Rage virus makes him even more dangerous. His poor, poor wife - what a way to go!! Up to this point I cannot fault the film.

It starts to lose marks when the focus of the story turns onto the escape of the children. I just felt there was something lacking here. I fully understood and accepted the actions that the army had to take and felt the dilemma that those shooters faced. The firebombing was unexpected (and a beautifully shot scene) but I cannot see how the children could have escaped in 4 minutes or how the fire did not reach the one street that Robert Carlyle's infected was standing on.

I felt that the rest of the film was an exercise of style over substance, that there was too much of an effort to recapture the iconic scenery of Days (I for one still get scared whenever I travel through an underground section of the motorway and Im 31!!). After setting up the story so strongly in the opening half it fell by the wayside to some extent. Thats not to say that the thrill of the chase was not enjoyable, just that the focus seemed to be too much on the children escaping the army rather than escaping the infected.

Which brings me to my main problem wit the film: I can believe that Doyle would turn his back because what he was being asked to do was tantamount to murder. The helicopter pilot, however, is another issue. I do not see there being any reason for him to break protocol, to enter into an act of desertion and to risk taking people who have been in direct contact with the infected outside of the quarantine area.

But these are the small gripes of an over pedantic film lover who has to try and find some fault!! Overall this is a very decent sequel but does not fall into that rarest of categories of sequels better than the original. It keeps you watching and is brilliantly shot but at the end of the 2 hours I was left feeling a little flat. I would recommend it to fans of the first film but would also suggest not going in with overly high expectations.

I, like lots of others, am captivated by the idea of hitting Vegas and winning big at the tables. We would love to be able to beat the house but live with the knowledge that the decks are deeply stacked against us. Which is why I loved the premise of this film - a team of MIT students with the intelligence and guts to do so take on the casinos and win. Well, kind of.

The first point for anyone watching this who has any knowledge of the book/true story that the film is based on - creative licence has been used quite liberally. Not that this is a bad thing - without it we would have been denied Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburnes performances which are, as ever, very assured if not their best.

The story develops a little too quickly for my liking but I am aware of the time constraints a film like this suffers from. My main issue is that there just did not seem to be sufficient character depth, especially for the supporting cast. Kate Bosworths love interest almost gave us a back story but all we learnt was that her father played blackjack, lost a huge hand and is now "gone". The other team members are so transparent as to be see through. You don't care for them, shown when the other big money player (I don't recall his name!) is booted from the team. You have no empathy for him and the feelings of jealousy he is having. The story continues without a second thought.

With a little more effort from the writers I think an extra dimension could have been given to the film, particularly with Bens relationship with his teammates. Its a shame as the friendship he has with his "geek" friends seems genuine and you feel for them as he begins becoming distant from them.

I understand the reasons the film was written like this - the relationship between Ben and Kevin Spacey's character is the crux of the film and, more specifically, how easily and quickly Ben becomes corrupted. And it is this corruption that proves the second fault in the film - we go from seeing a well rounded, likable character fully focused on the job he is doing fall from grace in the space of a couple of scenes and find redemption in a few more. It all happens too quickly and without any real conviction that this is in his character to switch so violently against character in such a short space of time.

He gets everything he wants and does not seem to pay for his arrogance and mistakes much less learn from them. Indeed, he seemed proud of his story, (which includes dishonesty, double crossing, promiscuity and all the excesses of a life in Vegas as a high stakes gambler) I would question whether an establishment such as Harvard would really want to give such a prestigious scholarship to someone of such questionable character?! The other main problem I have with the film is that the ending is a little too Hollywood - he walks away unscathed and with the "life experience" he needs, the security guard gets his pension and Kevin Spacey is the only one who is punished. Lets remember that Ben was keeping the money in his roof and breaking the same tax laws as his mentor! But for these faults, however, there is a gripping thriller/drama that is well worth checking out. I always enjoy Kevin Spacey. His ability to control his menace throughout before unleashing his true, nasty personality in two or three quietly gripping scenes was a particular highlight. Here is a person who gains the full, unquestioned trust of his pupils, uses them and spits them out when they are no longer of use to him. He is manipulation personified.

Laurence Fishburne is also very believable as the old school Vegas security struggling to come to terms with the future and, indeed, his past. The scenes where he is "interogating" the card counters is reminiscent of Christopher Walken in True Romance - he exudes very confident malice, a softly spoken tough guy that you will not want to cross again.

The score of the film is perfect as well. It complements the story perfectly. The picture itself is shot very stylistically, which is something you expect from a film of this nature. I can recommend this film for someone with a spare couple of hours to fill - sit back, relax and enjoy the ride! 6.5/10

I watched this film for the first time about a year ago and rated it 8/10 then. Having re-watched it today I have felt the need to knock another point off.

I really enjoyed this film. I love the premise of having an entire film shot predominantly in a single location in real time. In a lot of ways it is more of a play than a film and this gives it a unique twist (although I am aware of plenty of other films that adopt the same technique).

The positives points of the film are: Character development - We get to know the characters at the same time and to the same depth as those in the room, no more, no less. We are given limited knowledge about them, their backgrounds, their prejudices and are encouraged to judge them in similar vain to how they are judging the defendant on the limited information they have about him. Very clever and the mix of personalities from the shy, retiring to the clearly angry and racist rings true of the likely cross section of personalities that would be found in a real jury room.

The message of the story - I think it rings true today just as much as it did in the 1950's. Trial by jury is a flawed concept and people can be easily manipulated by fellow jurors and lawyers alike. I particularly like how juror 12 flits between guilty and not guilty and how they are all too eager to make a snap judgement without thinking in the first instance. This is a common problem - these people are not lawyers, they do not think like lawyers and will always struggle to set aside their personal feelings and prejudices to look at the facts in the cold, hard light of day taking account of the reasonable doubt issue. The manner in which this film uses its limited set/time frame to achieve the very real feeling of manipulation is impressive to say the least.

The acting - All of the actors play their parts perfectly. You find yourself wanting to know more about them but realise the premise is that you are in the same shoes as the others. To be given such thinly created (in the best sense possible) characters and still want to know more about them (where did the racist undertones come from, what happened between juror 3 and his son, why is juror 8 so eager to prove the reasonable doubt?) is impressive, especially in such an ensemble piece.

So where does it lose points? Simply put I don't like the way that the "innocence" is proved. It flys in the face of the proper court process and is just a little unbelievable and all too conveniently pieced together (do you really think they would be paying such close attention to a witnesses nose??). I understand the need to create the reasonable doubt but feel that it was done too easily with each juror falling into place far too quickly. I was also disappointed that juror 3 gave up his convictions. It would have been a much greater triumph, in my eyes, if it had been a hung jury. I agreed with juror 3 and empathised with the choice he had to make and felt that the "honorable" juror 8 bullied his opinions on everyone else.

The point of the jury is to consider the evidence put before them and to make a judgement on that basis. They should not bring in numerous assumptions (and that is what they did) which colour the evidence they have been given. Doing so will always create sufficient doubt to acquit the defendant. There is too much danger in doing so and I do not believe that in a room of 12 strong characters no one would raise such an objection.

Or I may be missing the point entirely! Maybe the manipulation by juror 8 is the whole point....

In conclusion, therefore, I can see why it is a classic but am at slight pains to understand its high position in the top 250 given the nature of the perceived flaws. Having said this I suggest that if you enjoy thought provoking, well scripted and acted drama this film is a must see.

I sat down to watch this film expecting a taught thriller, hoping for characters who I could empathise with as they struggled to overcome whatever nasty circumstances their captors had planned for them.

What I ended up doing was wasting an hour and a half of my life watching a badly acted, badly scripted and badly directed film that has very little going for it.

I have rated this as 3 on the basis on the early scene where the first of our victims gets it. Very much a grab you by the throat moment but after that, total piffle.

The ending is incomprehensible. In fact the whole plot is. It has no grounding in logic or common sense. Just because someone is willing to take their own life after being put through hell does not mean that they are going to want to blow themselves up for the sake of their country. How can they be deemed "patriotic" for wanting to take the easy way out? Ridiculous.

That it sets itself up for a blatant sequel is a real kick in the crotch also.

In conclusion, therefore, avoid at all costs unless you really do not have anything else to be doing on an evening (like me!!)