These will be films which I loved, and still do, but which seem to be forgotten by most people – the type of films that sit in the DVD wall of a minority, sparingly loaned out and shared with close friends. But films none the less, which deserve true recognition. Some are reasonably current, others slightly older, but each and every one, in my view, a modern classic.

Gone Baby Gone opens like a documentary, on the sweeping yet claustrophobic streets of a Boston neighbourhood known as Dorchester. Throwing us into calm and surprisingly visceral realisms, sophomore director Ben Affleck leaves no misconceptions about his intention to ground the film in an urbanised pragmatism one comes to expect from low budget independent affairs. The two hours that follow, are not only a consummately empathetic depiction of dark human drama, but also the blossoming of a true talent in Ben Affleck.

As a concept, Gone Baby Gone sounds rather familiar. It tells of Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Private Investigator who, with his partner Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan), is hired to “augment” the police in the case of a missing child – Amanda McCready. Well versed in the Boston underworld, Kenzie and Gennaro delve deeper and deeper into this seedy environment, with every passing minute losing hope that Amanda may well be forever gone.

In terms of context, Gone Baby Gone fills the criteria for a film which many actors would flock to in an attempt to either win an Oscar or launch their directorial career. At a cursory glance, this could be the sort of film easily dismissed or ignored. But upon deeper inspection, one will notice a cast peppered with thespians at the top of their game, and a Dennis Lehane novel as the source material; a writer who has an aptitude for writing human emotion and complexity with incomprehensible accuracy. Ben Affleck’s talent as a director comes with his understanding of these points, and choosing to surrender his ego to Lehane and the cast. One particular example of this comes when Kenzie takes Detectives Remy Bressant (Ed Harris) and Nick Poole (John Ashton) to meet Helene McCready (Amy Ryan), the mother of Amanda. Much in the way Quentin Tarantino uses dialogue, and Clint Eastwood uses controlled emotion, to make their most memorable scenes pop. Affleck takes the framework of Lehane novel and filters it through a series of static medium shots. The scene evolves organically, developing subtly through the interaction of the characters, leaving the audience with a real sense of frustration, as the apathy of Helene reaches another shocking level whilst those around her reach a fever pitch of fear for young Amanda. This is also a prime opportunity for Amy Ryan and Titus Welliver as Lionel McCready to shine; both being extremely underrated actors.

When Gone Baby Gone veers away from our expectations, doubts are placed in the way we contextualise these ‘types’ of films. By following the source material, Affleck (whether intentionally or accidentally) draws our attention to all the wrong things, and when the story suddenly whip pans in a different direction we feel a real sense of excitement and shock which is very rare in modern cinema. The excitement could be based upon a sense of smug self congratulations, but there is no doubt upon a second viewing that all the clues are in front of us, we just fail to connect the dots. So when Amanda goes missing, and our attention is diverted elsewhere, we are not emotionally prepared for what follows. As Kenzie enters the home of Leon Trett (Mark Margolis) and finds what he does, our disgust and revulsion is equal to, if not in excess of Kenzie, and the lingering flashes of his reaction say more to us than any glorified close up could. The entire scene evokes memories of David Fincher’s Se7en, in the way that everything feels exaggerated and distended – overly sordid, if you will. This sentiment is echoed throughout, with each character’s personality being very much a visual representation. But the result of this is a raw and intense reaction to the story and the characters in a way we never expected.

It is the finale of Gone Baby Gone which slightly deflates the lasting effects of the film. Elements of predictability and over simplification make a slight dent on moments which really challenge our notions of ‘right’. But Affleck pulls things back for his final shot, which lingers on two key characters watching TV. Distant yet deeply connected, one not knowing how to react with the other, but firm in the knowledge that the decision they made, not matter how flawed, was the right one for them. Their relationship is unrequited in intensity, as one has no knowledge of the other’s importance in their life. The words mentioned of this day from a previous scene ring in our ears, and we are left to make a final judgement. It is a lingering and emotive moment, amplified greatly by a beautiful and haunting piece of music.

Gone Baby Gone is truly an attack on the moral code we hold as a people. Whether pro Mosaic Law (eye for an eye) or a true disciple of forgiveness, what Affleck achieves here is a cinematic experience that hits the heart and mind – resonating deeply. With other inept or egotistical directors, it is easy to see how a film such as this would be garbled, making ethical decisions for us. But it is with this version of Gone Baby Gone that we are not simply presented with a dilemma, but physically forced into an expressive reaction. Some may argue that Affleck is not the ‘director’ of this film, but rather a ‘vessel’ for its creation. There may be truth to this, but it is not fair to the director, he shows a skill and understanding which is evident in many celebrated filmmakers – not to mention, room to grow. No one can take away the fact the Affleck had the foresight to make this film exactly as it should have been; by making it about real people with real choices, setting it in a world which appears a million miles away from our own, but one that we recognise and can see ourselves being a victim of. So when you sit and watch Gone Baby Gone, you will know why the film starts like a documentary, on the sweeping yet claustrophobic streets of a Boston neighbourhood known as Dorchester.

Matt King (George Clooney) is a man with a lot on his plate. Sole custodian of the proverbial family gold mine, all eyes are on Matt as the deadline approaches to sell off a massive plot of Hawaiian land. To make matters worse, one month ago his wife was in a boating accident, leaving her in a coma ever since. Life before the accident was rocky and unfulfilling, but now Matt has to become the father he never knew how to be, the husband he always should have been, and the man his father always intended.

For someone who cut their teeth making soft core Playboy shows, Alexander Payne has come a long way fast. It may have taken 26 years to get to this point, but with a filmography of only five feature length films, Payne has become one of America’s best kept secrets. Somewhere between David O. Russell and Wes Anderson.  If you don’t know who the man is, it just means you don’t watch film credits properly. No doubt you will have seen one of the following – Election, About Schmidt, or Sideways. Payne is a very unique talent in that he does not pursue flashy visuals, arty composition or narrative time warping, but somehow manages to give his film a very unique signature.

Never one to spray his scent over every frame, Payne fine-tunes his characters and gives them an atmosphere that is funny and fractured and absorbing. His characters are often broken men in the second half of their years, shaken up by muted life altering events, they are walking paradoxes who become more real to us than we’d care to admit. Warren Schmidt of About Schmidt inhabits a slightly dreamlike yet oddly chaotic world, whilst Miles from Sideways lives in a reality rich with smell, taste and colour, but somehow manages to see past it all at the grey mundane lull of a midlife crisis. Matt King’s world is a mixture of the two. Colourful yet distant, chaotic yet dull, Matt surrounds himself in normality, yet fails to see the immense madness around him. Part of Alexander Payne’s talent as director is not in how he chooses to frame a shot, but rather it is in how he chooses to use dialogue.

Ironically, at a time when a certain silent film (The Artist) is at the top of everyone’s ‘must see’ list; The Descendants is a film which can easily rival it in brilliance, mainly due to the film’s dialogue. There are varying degrees of beauty in how Payne tells the story – based on Kaui Hart Hemmings’ novel. Without wanting to give too much away, some of the film’s best moments come when the characters are being completely insensitive or angry.

Very rarely does a film have numerous ‘brilliant’ scenes, but The Descendants is easily one of those rarities – with each ‘favourite’ scene being swiftly and rapidly replaced by another. One particular moment which manages to encapsulate the entire tone of the film is when King finds out a secret which his wife has kept hidden. Payne seizes the opportunity to play through a kaleidoscope of emotions that range from the ludicrous and comical to the downright depressing. He does what many directors fear to do, and that is he lets his characters say and do mean things without actually meaning them. As an audience, we come to understand the King family dynamic so implicitly that to hear Alexandra King (Shailene Woodley) call her young sister Scottie (Amara Miller) a twat, is akin to hearing them say ‘’I love you’’.

Despite the opening monologue of King pooh-poohing Hawaii as just another place, location plays a key role in the film’s charm. Beautifully captured by director of photography Phedon Papamichael, Oahu beams as if it were a hot young actress. Hawaii is a very captivating and bewitching place, so it would have been easy for Papamichael to create postcard images or BBC documentary landscapes, but the true key to Hawaii’s beauty is in its humble and pure aesthetic. There is no need for dramatic sunsets, high contrast and increased exposure, because simply framing the image correctly will bring out all there is to be had in this magical land – and that’s exactly what Papamichael does. The Descendants is not all plain sailing, there are one or two moments when the graceful and effortless wonder begin to sink. It’s in these moments that Payne’s lack of willingness to change pace create a lag. But these are very few and far between.

Much in the way that peers such as Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson have a knack for picking a concrete cast, Payne’s choice of Clooney, Woodley and Miller as the main cast is faultless. Magnetic and loveable, each of the three main leads take a bite of the script and savour every moment. Woodley’s sass and vulnerability make her a perfect substitute ‘wife’ for Clooney’s Matt; after after all Mrs King spends a large chunk of the movie in a coma. Miller is reminiscent of Little Miss Sunshine’s Olive, with her abstract behaviour and puppy-fat charisma.

Then there is the pepper haired mega star himself. Clooney spends parts of the film as a cross between his turn as Ryan Bingham (Up In The Air) Lyn Cassidy (Men Who Stare at Goats) and Chris Kelvin (Solaris). But there are moments, genuine moments, when Clooney outdoes himself – stepping away from all he has done before, to craft something original. It’s probably safe to say that the one-tone, Brad Pitt-esque Clooney of Ocean’s-period is long gone. He has flirted with evolving for a while now, and it’s his role as Matt King that really shows the potential of something new. One shining moment for Clooney comes near the film’s final scene; watch it and just try not to be moved. Truly inspiring. The rest of the cast each provide wonderful additions to the film’s power and chemistry and, as controversial as it sounds, Nick Krause’s turn as Sid is potentially one of the best supporting roles in recent years. His contribution to the film could be the difference between an Oscar nom and an Oscar win.

For a director who is partial to taking ambiguous moral dilemmas and playing them for laughs, Payne shows his evolution with The Descendants. What could easily become a maelstrom of clichés and cathartic indulgences becomes something very pure and heartfelt. It is touching without being touchy, and honest without being sickening. It is now your new favourite Alexander Payne film… and this time you know who he is.

Music: [from metacritic]

Critics pick the best albums of 2011

Added in last update (Jan. 2): Cleveland Plain Dealer, NOW Magazine

Below is our updated running tally of the albums most frequently mentioned by individual music publications in their year-end Top Ten lists. Although most of the lists come from publications whose reviews are included on this site, we have also included a few extra lists from prominent music stores, websites, and publications not normally found on Metacritic. Note that if a source ranks more than the standard 10 albums, we will not include titles ranked 11th or worse. In case of a tie for first or second, each album will receive the full points for that position. Our points system works as follows:
•3 points for each 1st place ranking
•2 points for each 2nd place ranking
•1 point for being ranked 3rd – 10th, or for being included on an unranked list

1 Let England Shake by PJ Harvey

2 Bon Iver by Bon Iver

3 21 by Adele

4 Watch the Throne by Jay-Z and Kanye West

5 whokill by tUnE-yArDs

6 House of Balloons by The Weeknd

7 Strange Mercy by St. Vincent

8 Take Care by Drake

9 Helplessness Blues by Fleet Foxes

10 Black Up by Shabazz Palaces

11 David Comes to Life by Fucked Up

12 James Blake by James Blake

13 Smoke Ring for My Halo by Kurt Vile

14 Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming by M83

15 Skying by The Horrors

16 undun by The Roots

17 Kaputt by Destroyer

18 The Whole Love by Wilco

19 Father, Son, Holy Ghost by Girls

20 Bad As Me by Tom Waits

21 The English Riviera by Metronomy

22 Burst Apart by The Antlers

23 Wild Flag by Wild Flag

24 Metals by Feist

25 The King of Limbs by Radiohead

26 Days by Real Estate

27 Glass Swords by Rustie

28 The King Is Dead by The Decemberists

29 Nostalgia, Ultra. by Frank Ocean

30 So Beautiful or So What by Paul Simon

I love the fact that Metacritic does these compiled lists, so you hopefully get the individual biases of all the individual publications and critics filtered out somewhat, and you get a picture of the artists that got the most aclaim from the most number of critics. The result is hard to argue with, although there are some surprises. For me, I would have included Foo Fighters and Elbow, instead of some of the hip-hop artists, but that’s just me.

For movies, the list looks like this:

Critics pick the best movies of 2011

Added in last update (12/31): Baltimore Sun, Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald, The Playlist, Reelviews, Reverse Shot, Salt Lake Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Time (Pols)

Below is our updated running tally of the films most frequently mentioned by individual critics on their year-end Top Ten lists. Note that if a critic ranks more than the standard 10 films, we will not include films ranked 11th or worse. In case of a tie for first or second, each film will receive the full points for that position. Our points system works as follows:
•3 points for each 1st place ranking
•2 points for each 2nd place ranking
•1 point for being ranked 3rd – 10th, or for being included on an unranked list

1 The Tree of Life

2 The Artist

3 Drive

4 The Descendants

5 Hugo

6 Melancholia

7 A Separation

8 Certified Copy

9 Take Shelter

10 Moneyball

11 Margaret

12 Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

13 Martha Marcy May Marlene

14 Shame

15 Beginners

16 Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

17 Bridesmaids

18 The Skin I Live In

19 Meek’s Cutoff

20 We Need to Talk About Kevin

21 Mysteries of Lisbon

22 Poetry

23 A Dangerous Method

24 Weekend

25 The Interrupters

26 The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

27 Midnight in Paris

28 War Horse

29 Rise of the Planet of the Apes

30 Of Gods and Men

31 The Future

32 Margin Call

On this list I was a bit surprised that “Dragon Tattoo” wasn’t higher, but I know some critics were not big fans of it. I was also surprised because there were a number of movies on this list I had never heard of, but will now make it a point to see if I can.

Here’s the TV list:

Critics pick the best TV shows of 2011

Added in last update (Jan. 2): Cleveland Plain Dealer

Below is our updated running tally of the TV shows most frequently mentioned by individual critics in their year-end Top Ten lists. Note that if a critic ranks more than the standard 10 shows, we will not include titles ranked 11th or worse. In case of a tie for first or second, each show will receive the full points for that position. Our points system works as follows:
•3 points for each 1st place ranking
•2 points for each 2nd place ranking
•1 point for being ranked 3rd – 10th, or for being included on an unranked list

1 Breaking Bad (AMC)

2 Homeland (Showtime)

3 Downton Abbey (PBS)

4 Parks and Recreation (NBC)

5 Game of Thrones (HBO)

6 Louie (FX)

7 Justified (FX)

8 The Good Wife (CBS)

9 Modern Family (ABC)

10 Community (NBC)

11 Friday Night Lights (DirecTV/NBC)

12 American Horror Story (FX)

13 Boardwalk Empire (HBO)

14 Enlightened (HBO)

15 The Walking Dead (AMC)

16 Revenge (ABC)

17 Awkward. (MTV)

18 The Big Bang Theory (CBS)

19 Happy Endings (ABC)

20 The Middle (ABC)

Of these I was most surprised by The Middle, which I’ve never really watched because it seemed, well, dull, and Awkward, which I have watched, but seemed just ok. I’m glad that Happy Endings got included, because I think that’s one of the best comedies in recent years. I love a lot of the others in the top ten, although I’ve never seen Game of Thrones because I don’t take HBO anymore, and I haven’t watched much of The Good Wife, but I’ve heard good things. I like Louie, but I’m a little surprised it’s ranked as high as it is because, to me, it’s a bit uneven. I haven’t seen Boardwalk Empire or Enlightened, but I’m surprised we don’t see Dexter on this list.

Let me know your thoughts on these lists and other top things from 2011.

I unfortunately was so ridiculously busy this year that I didn’t see that many movies, listen to that much music or do much at all except work. However in the spirit of new beginnings I’m hoping this year will be quite different. In that spirit I’m going to list my top anticipated films of the new year.

Feel free to call me an idiot for my picks. Or just add in your own.

#5 Django Unchained

Tarantino has been working on his western for over a decade. I suspect it’ll be like Inglorious Basterds and bear little resemblance to rumors of what the plot will be. (In Basterds the main characters somehow became somewhat minor characters) The cast is fantastic and is a bit of a mashup between the classic Spaghetti Westerns and Blacksploitation films. The title is based on an old influential western that I saw. (It definitely did not live up to the hype) It was supposed to have stared Will Smith but for various reasons now stars Jamie Foxx. I’ve never been a big Foxx fan, although he is talented. We’ll see how it goes. Foxx plays an escaped slave and Tarantino does his usual reinvention of older actors to fill the rest of the roles.  It’s an all star cast including Basterd’s Waltz along with DiCaprio and Kurt Russell. And Don Johnson is supposed to be playing the evil slave master.

Say what you will about the excesses of Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds. I still enjoyed both although I hope he plays this one a little more straight. (More like Reservoir Dogs or Jackie Brown)

#4 The Hobbit

The big concern is whether Jackson can play up the tone of The Hobbit correctly. It is light hearted and fun. Much more of a children’s book than the dark and heavy Lord of the Rings. In some ways the flaws in his original trilogy have become more obvious with time. And the special effects much more dated. Clearly Jackson is pushing the technology on this new film. To me, at least, the art direction seems spot on – especially for the dwarves. But there are some legitimate worries.

I’m going to rematch the original trilogy soon to see if it truly has aged as poorly as some have suggested. It’s been an awfully long time since I last watched it. Still, I’m truly excited that this film is coming and hope for the best. It’s a great year when this is the fourth most anticipated film of the year.

#3 Skyfall

I’ve already written a lot about Bond. But man I’m excited about this one. It seems like it has people who truly care about the character and have spent a long time crafting the story and script. It’s supposed to bring forward Bond as the suave character. And it’s rumored to have the reinvention of Blofield and his (or her) cat. The plot is about attempting to recover a fallen spy satellite with events from M’s past potentially unraveling MI-6. Honestly, I can’t wait.

#2 Prometheus

Ridley Scott has had a few misses. (Robin Hood or 1492 anyone?) But even many of his failures are interesting and enjoyable. (Kingdom of Heaven or Matchstick Men) Here he may be returning to the film that started it all for him: Alien. However he’s denied that this is a prequel. Exactly what it’s relationship to Alien isn’t quite sure. It sure looks like it’s the spaceship that Ripley found the alien egg on. It has a very similar art design.

It’s been a very long time since Scott did science fiction but when he did do it he created two of the all time masterpieces of the genre: Alien and Blade Runner. If ever there was a film fans absolutely want to be great this is it. What people fear is that despite a director with undeniable talent and an amazing cast of actors that it’ll all fall flat.

#1 The Dark Knight Rises

I don’t care what any of the haters say. I’ve liked every film Nolan has done and have loved the last few he’s done. Yes I know the controversy over how he stages and edits action scenes. Old school editors hate him and think he confuses the audience. I agree it’s not the classic style but who cares? I feel involved in his film whereas Michael Bay leaves me nauseated.

But what I truly love about this upcoming film is wondering just what he’s going to do with it. Even in his initial Batman film he truly rethought things. But with the Joker he gave us something new yet complex. His films are deeper than your typical summer blockbuster – even if they aren’t quite as deep as some fans like to pretend. But hey, neither was the Matrix. With this one we know he’s playing on the minor character of Bane who broke Batman’s back and nearly ended his career in the comics. The previews make it seem like Nolan may have anticipated a lot of this summer’s occupy Wall Street movement. Honestly though no one knows what he is going to do. And that’s half the anticipation.

In my view, the LotR trilogy was fantastic in nearly every way. The films were great because Peter Jackson and his crew just nailed the always-difficult task of being “properly” faithful to a source text–especially when that text is widely known and beloved by generations and generations of crazed fans. What do I mean by “properly faithful” here? I mean that Jackson’s Trilogy was faithful to the novels in all of the right ways–the ways that no fan could forgive him for had he screwed them up, and departed from the novels in ways that actually seemed to enhance the stories, instead of merely being “cuts” that couldn’t fit into the film.

My experience–and that of most folks I know who loved the books and then saw the films–felt that the human actors not only looked right, but looked right next to each other–Boromir looked good next to Aragorn, who looked good next to Frodo, who looked good next to Gandalf, and so on. Additionally, the CGI characters and quasi-faceless characters–I’m thinking mostly of the standard orcs and Uruk-hai, as well as the Ring Wraiths–were perfect matches. This was all wonderful. But it was just one part of “getting it right.”

Importantly, the Trilogy got the right “feel” of the journey and locations–the grandeur of the cities, the horror of Sauron’s eye, the temptation of the Ring, the despair of Frodo, the fear in Gondor’s soldiers, and on and on and on. In short, the films just perfectly captured “the essence” of the books.

Before seeing the trailer for the first installment of The Hobbit, my fear was that the filmmakers would treat it as if it was “another installment” in the same series of books. To some degree, this makes sense–The Hobbit is in fact a prequel.

But here’s the thing:

As anyone who has read all of the novels knows, The Hobbit is NOT the same as The Lord of the Rings. It’s lighter. It’s funnier. It’s aw-shucksier. It’s cuter. It’s much, much faster.

[This actually goes to another of my concerns--splitting it into two movies. There just isn't even close to as much story here as there is in the LotR--either in depth, breadth, or sheer pages of source material, yet it's getting nearly the same screen-time treatment. Like Bilbo would say, I worry that we're going to end up with butter spread too thinly over toast.]

The point is, The Hobbit is simply a fun tale of adventure–not an epic saga of war and fate.

Why does this matter? Because again–what made the Trilogy films so great was how marvelously Jackson captured the novels’ tone and feeling. If Jackson follows the same dedication to the source material as he did with the Trilogy, then we should end up with a film that bears only character- and mythos-based resemblance to The Lord of the Rings.

As I watched the trailer for The Hobbit yesterday, I saw darkness, foreboding music, imminent doom, grave concern on the furrowed brows of everyone, and more generally, “Really Serious Conversations.”

I wanted to see a trailer for The Hobbit. Instead I saw a trailer The Lord of the Rings Part 4.

As you all know the new Bond film, Skyfall, is in production at the moment. I loved the first Craig film – a reasonably faithful adaptation of Casino Royal. It had several of my favorite action set pieces in a Bond film. It took a franchise that had become stale decades earlier and made it compelling. Many compared it to the Bourne films which clearly were an influence. However what made Royal so great was what it did differently from Bourne. It was more a revisioning of the classic aspects of Connery’s Bond from the 60′s as well as many aspects of Ian Flemming’s own life and failings as a spy during and immediately after WWII.

The sequel was a grave disappointment to many people, myself included. I must confess that I liked it far better upon a second viewing in my home theatre system. (See the Kulturblog discussion here) The action was aping Bourne far more than before but was so frenetic that one couldn’t follow what was going on. The witty dialog of Royal was gone. There were many scenes which were best described as “cockamamie” — perhaps better suited for Roger Moore than Craig. (For example the overly flammable hotel in the desert)

I was worried that the franchise would experience a rapid fall off from a good start. Much as what happened with Peirce Brosnan’s Bond. Ironically also given a great start by the same director: Martin Campbell. A director who seems able to only do his best work with Bond as Green Lantern and most of his other films attest. (Although I have to confess I did like the first Zoro as a guilty pleasure)

An interview with Craig linked to on Twitter and a few other places has made me rethink Quantum of Solace though.

Q: It seems that the script is sometimes an after-thought on huge productions.

A: ‘Yes and you swear that you’ll never get involved with s*** like that, and it happens. On “Quantum”, we were f*****. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, “Never again”, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes — and a writer I am not.’

Q: You had to rewrite scenes yourself?

A: ‘Me and the director [Marc Forster] were the ones allowed to do it. The rules were that you couldn’t employ anyone as a writer, but the actor and director could work on scenes together. We were stuffed. We got away with it, but only just. It was never meant to be as much of a sequel as it was, but it ended up being a sequel, starting where the last one finished.’

This actually explains a lot. The part of Quantum that was most disappointing was how poor the banter was – especially the seduction of the female intelligence agent in Bolivia. (Strawberry Fields – their attempt to engage in witty misogyny of character the way Ian Flemming used to do. You might remember the character from Goldfinger whose name surprisingly got by the height of Hollywood censorship: Pussy Galore)   In fact all the dialog was very stilted compared to the previous film. However if it was all written on the fly by Craig and the director, Marc Forester, then that moves the film from being a disappointing to a fascinating failure.

I’ve not seen everything Forester has done but he’s definitely done some great films. (I loved Finding Neverland) I still don’t think that justifies the way the action pieces were filmed or edited. And it definitely doesn’t excuse that horrible boat chase. However apparently the original story was a stand alone. It was made a strong sequel to Royal on the fly. I actually think that part worked great as did the ending.

Fortunately both Craig and Sam Mendes have been working long and carefully on the next film. They apparently both love the same aspects of the Bond mythos.

Q: Did you have anything to do with getting Sam Mendes on board as director?

A: ‘I did, yes, I did. He’s English, he’s Cambridge-educated, he’s smart. He’s lived with Bond all his life, he grew up with Bond the way I did. We grew up at exactly the same time, and I said to him, “We have to do this together, we have exactly the same reference points, we both like the same Bond movies and we both like the same bits in the same Bond movies we like.” We sat down and we just rabbited for hours about “Live and Let Die” or “From Russia with Love”, and talked about little scenes that we knew from them. That’s how we started talking about it. That’s what we tried to instill in the script. He’s been working his arse off to tie all these things together so they make sense – in a Bond way.’

I’m not quite sure what to make of referring to Live and Let Die. It is admittedly by far the best of the Moore films. But it’s still not great and is embarrassingly racist in some ways. It’s also the beginning of what I call the camping self-referential Bond.  From Russian with Love though is unarguably one of the best of the Bond films (other than an embarrassing girl on girl gypsy fight clearly there for titillation)

Mendes can be a fantastic director. He does tend to have a strong cynical view about life that is off putting to me. I find he’s his best when there are moments of hope and beauty in his films behind the cynicism. (Best illustrated in both Road to Perdition and American Beauty) He’s at his worse (IMO) when he doesn’t have that as in Jarhead or Revolutionary Road.

How will he handle Bond? I think a lot of us want to know. There’s a lot in Road to Perdition that suggests he’ll do great. I’ve read other interviews that suggests the suave and charming Bond will be emphasized more in this film. Also a certain level of cynicism is necessary for Bond. That’s what Moore lacked and what Craig brought well. So I think he’ll do great.

The big question is whether the second unit team will be more tamed so we don’t end up with the problems of Quantum of Solace. (As I said, not a bad film and arguably still better than the vast majority of Bond “episodes.” But very disappointing compared with what we expected.)

A caveat: I am francophile.  I acknowledge this conflict of interests here because I want to put it to one side in order to gush unashamedly about ‘The Artist’.

Perhaps the least surprising thing about Christmas this year is the success of ‘The Artist’.  It has already won the ‘New York Film Critics Circle Award’ for Best Film and is a good bet for a nod at this years Oscars.  In fact, after seeing it the other night, I will be surprised if it is not nominated in categories across the board.  It is, without doubt, wonderful.

In the era of 3D, a silent film could easily been seen as merely a gimmick or maybe even as a sermon from our esoteric European cousins on the art of film-making.  It is possibly both of these but not necessarily because it intends to be; and therein lies its genius.  In fact what makes this quite brilliant is the way Hazanavicius seems to deliberately employ hackneyed cinematic techniques just in order to revitalize them.  Even Valentin’s dog is charming and fun (and I hate dogs).

Uncontrollable smiles will spread across the faces of viewers as George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) breezes his way through scene after scene of joyful film-making.  There are too many memorable moments which could be spoiled by an over-eager reviewer but Hazanavicius skillfully captures, with brief but carefully crafted scenes, the intimacy of a blossoming relationship and the strangeness of reconciliation.

It unsurprising that sound becomes an essential feature of how this film forges its emotional content.  At times, certain sound effects are intentionally ‘dubbed’ to ensure that viewers are immersed in the era and the director is remarkably consistent; it is so successful that when you hear a song with actual lyrics for the first time after approximately an hour (and there is only one in the film) it is jarring.

My only criticism is that slowly the film loses some of its pace as it gradually descends into a lull with the protagonist.  Although this is certainly intentional, it tries too hard to plumb the emotional depths of this failing Artist and consequently some of the scenes feel a little protracted.

Yet, amidst all this fun, there are also (perhaps) moments of something more serious.  It is possible that in the final minutes of the film Hazanavicius poses questions about the hegemony of American cinema or about the cultural prejudice in Anglophone societies, but those moments move so quickly, and are so surprising, that very little is made of them.  Having said that, they are pointed enough to continue to reverberate with the viewer after the film has finished.

The Artist is tender, affectionate and, more than anything, joyous.

Over the weekend I was reading John Scalzi’s blog. (He wrote Old Man’s War among many other excellent books) Scalzi is largely responding to that Wired article last week about how movies get falling into lava all wrong. (They always make the viscosity the same as water whereas lava is viscous enough that you wouldn’t sink in) One of the examples used was Gollum from the end of Lord of the Rings. Scalzi thinks this is silly, saying:

In a film with spiders of physically impossible size, talking trees, ugly warriors birthed out of mud and a disembodied malevolence causing a ring to corrupt the mind of anyone who wears it (and also turn them invisible), we’re going to complain that the lava is not viscous enough?

Now I know a lot of people are in Scalzi’s camp on this. I disagree though.

To me I’m open to a movie making a handful of violations from the world around us. So I can accept magic, so long as the author doesn’t take an “anything goes” attitude. The more exceptions from the world around us the harder it is for me to suspend disbelief.

With Lord of the Rings I note that Jackson’s art department tried to make everything accurate down to the chain mail used by extras in the film. They wanted an immersive reality. We accept that there is magic and so accept large spiders, walking trees and so forth. But the point is that the rest of the world is supposed to be our world. When swords hit each other it is supposed to be like swords hitting each other here. When someone rides a horse it is supposed to be like riding a horse here. Individuals may have amazing abilities we don’t have – but the people who do this are supposed to be magical creatures like elves and not regular humans.

Of course I’m not saying you ought get angry because the people doing the CGIed ending messed up with the viscosity of lava. (Clearly they were copying the ending of Terminator 2 and just didn’t bother checking) As errors go this is a minor one and it doesn’t bother me that much. However the principle of the matter is that it’s an error and can’t be defended on the basis that the movie has a giant malevolent eye as the primary villain. It can simply be defended on the basis that most people don’t know the viscosity of lava and it’s a minor point that doesn’t pull people out of the movie. (As opposed to say the common problem of CGI fights where people disobey the laws of physics sufficiently that even non-physicists think something is wrong)

Now I know that I’m pickier on these points than most people. It bugs me in action movies when every single object appears bullet proof, when regularly bullet proof jackets stop rifles as well as pistols, when cars do jumps that you couldn’t drive away from and so forth. It’s ridiculous.

I love it when movie plot lines end up being similar to what would really happen. (Last week’s Mythbusters actually showed the way Lethal Weapon’s toilet bomb was survived was completely plausible — I love that!)  But I know the vast majorities of directors and writers don’t care whether anything is plausible in their films. It’s just that while I can excuse a few items the more there are the more it bugs me. And when someone does point out the flaw it’s really hard for me not to notice anymore. (Kind of like when someone notes there a boom-mic in a shot or some film crew got accidentally filmed — less of an issue now since these are normally removed digitally)

What about you? Do highly implausible or impossible things bring you out of a movie? How much disbelief can you suspend?

Well we are now in Christmas movie season. No I don’t mean those horrible cheap “feel good” seasonal movies all over Lifetime, ABC Family or the like that hearken back to the golden days of the 70′s. Rather I mean the big blockbusters targeting everyone. We’re already well into the season with the latest Twilight film being #1 for something like three weeks running. There’s Muppet fever and even Martin Scorsese is in the act.

What have you seen? What did you hate? What are you most looking forward to? After a fairly disappointing summer will the winter films do better?

I have to confess my wife loved Breaking Dawn. She thought it was the best of the series. However most people I’ve talked to thought it was the worst. I’m not a Twilight fan so I have no opinions. Plus I lucked out this year and my wife went to see it opening night as part of a girls night out evening. So I haven’t seen it. (I managed to avoid seeing the last one too)

The Muppets is something I’m intrigued by even if Frank Oz has lambasted it – primarily because of fart jokes and a rich Kermit the frog. However inexplicably my kids had puppets. They refuse to watch any of the muppet films or shows. So no luck on this one.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was a fantastic mini-series back in 1979 starting Alec Guiness. It’s based on a John le Carre novel about trying to find a mole in British intelligence. I suspect most of the current generation grew up after the cold war. So much of this will be a bit of a mystery. Say what you will of the cold war but it made for some great spy thrillers. Things really haven’t been the same for Hollywood since.

The new version apparently has a killer performance by Gary Oldman who inexplicably has never won an academy award. Personally I doubt they can recreate a film as good as the classic BBC miniseries which was made during the era in which it takes place. It’s a very subdued story so I’m curious about how the transition to a Hollywood movie works. I have to admit that while I’m suspicious about the remake I’m looking forward to seeing it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a followup to Guy Ritchie’s popular reimaging of the Holmes mythos. I thought he did a great job myself sticking to the characters while emphasizing different attributes. Admittedly towards the end it became a bit overblown. (Although not as bad as the horrible Spielberg produced Young Sherlock Holmes from the 80′s) This sequel reportedly follows Holmes as he tracks Moriarty across Europe. We’ll see how it turns out. I’m hoping they try to stick to the stories somewhat. I have to admit this is the film I’m most looking forward to. Perhaps even more than the return of the excellent BBC series that puts Holmes in the modern world.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I have to admit I’ll probably not see this one although there is a lot of buzz. I’ve not read the books and somehow Fincher hasn’t interested me much of late.

Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. I really don’t like Tom Cruise but this is the first live action film by Brian Bird who did The Incredibles. Arguably the best of all the Pixar films. Not to mention Iron Giant as well. The last MI film by J.J. Abrams was great – the best of the bunch. However few saw it due to a backlash against Cruise’s various antics. I really want this one to be good.

The Adventures of Tintin. I’ve been hearing lukewarm stuff about this one. Too much action and not enough character building. Still it’s done by Spielberg and Jackson and is doing big business in Europe. I loved the books as a kid. But I bet I end up seeing this one on DVD.

War Horse. This is reportedly Spielberg trying to recapture his anti-war vibe that he had so good in Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. It’s not getting a lot of buzz and I have to admit I’m not excited. It’s based upon a Tony award winning play starting life sized puppets. However as intriguing as that sounds I suspect the movie will play it straight only with Spielberg doing his traditional “pull at the heart strings” direction.

The Iron Lady. It’s already controversial with some saying it’s a hit piece of Margaret Thatcher. However I’ll give Meryl Streep credit. She disappears into the role. Streep says it’s more sympathetic to Thatcher than is getting reported. On the other hand the director’s previous effort was Mamma Mia which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

Any I miss?  Thoughts?  I’ll probably be seeing most of my Christmas movies after Christmas day. (I’m just too busy before) But if I had to pick two to see it’ll probably be Sherlock Holmes and Mission Impossible.

Fish Tank is an uneven but unflinching study of an Essex council estate.  The first 15 minutes capture brilliantly the stark and often brutal world, especially for young women, of densely populated government housing on the outskirts of London.  Further, the film has a special salience for me because the area is not 15 minutes from where I currently live.

The narrative is simple enough and in some ways quite hackneyed.  Mia (Katie Jarvis) is a 15 year old girl who seems quite alone despite being surrounded by family.  A frustrating sense of claustrophobia drives Mia outward; either toward the streets, where she roams for large segments of the film, or to an abandoned flat, where she practices her dancing.  Arnold uses  these comparable but divergent trajectories well but there are times when they seem over-extended.  The relationship between Mia and her mother’s new boyfriend becomes the central feature of the story as their attraction moves inexorably toward something rather unsettling.

The intersection between anger, violence and sex are always present and there are times when the tension is palpable.  In particular Katie Jarvis translates these emotions brilliantly and although partially redemptive, the narrative leaves many of the problems which motivate her character unresolved.  Despite its simplicity, Fish Tank is at times an emotionally demanding and, ultimately, a thought-provoking British film.