In the future, a wheelchair bound marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) reveals how his brother, who was a scientist, was killed. It is because of this death and the fact that they share the same DNA that Jake is asked by his military employers to operate his brother's avatar, a virtual body that is controlled by a person's mind. Jake is sent by a group of scientists, including the reluctant Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), to investigate the island of Pandora, which holds valuable minerals that need to be researched. Yet in regaining the use of his legs through the alien-like body of the avatar, Jake is careless and becomes separated from the rest of the science team. Stranded, he is rescued from wild monsters by a native girl, Neytiri (voiced by Zoe Saldana), who resembles the same avatar employed by Jake and the scientists. Hesitantly, she introduces Jake's avatar to the rest of her tribe. They are initially hostile to Jake's avatar but he convinces them not to kill him, and he comes to understand their customs more thoroughly.

Director James Cameron has always been a filmmaker interested in spectacle. His most famous feature film Titanic, was made over a decade ago and was praised more for its technical accomplishments, rather than its scripting accomplishments. Avatar, which has accumulated significant levels of hype over its lengthy production, because of its apparent specialisation in 3D technology, is likely to follow suit. As with Titanic, this is a visually magnificent production, with a budget soaring into hundreds of millions. The 3D visuals as a whole are outstanding. The rich variety of locations, from cliff faces to thick green forests, mountain ranges and military bases, are lavishly beautiful and command to be seen on the silver screen. The lighting, in particular a forest lit with neon lights, is simply beautiful, as too is the smooth animation of the avatars themselves. Cameron's strength as a director has always lain with visuals effects and the technology. It is a quality he demonstrates most thoroughly with this film. However, despite the spectacle, some might be disappointed with the 3D technology itself. Unlike other pictures such as A Christmas Carol, Avatar opts for more subtle refinements to the visuals, like occasional glimpses of added depth to the picture, rather than launching objects and gesture towards the audience. Avatar is slightly more immediate and sharper than a standard 2D picture, but its 3D technology might not be quite as obvious and satisfying as some might have been expecting.

For all of its aesthetic qualities, Avatar is highly marred by a script that is highly formulaic, recycled and severely lacking in intellect or depth. This is yet another big budget action film with a narrative devoid of interesting or sympathetic characters. Sam Worthington has a fairly unremarkable and unchallenging role as Jake, who simply doesn't have enough to do in the film. He is completely outdone by the avatar that he voices, who features in all the action scenes. Michelle Rodriguez has again found herself cast as the typical hardened girl, while Giovanni Ribisi and Stephen Lang both have painfully obvious roles as the films typical baddies. At least Zoe Saldana has some emotion in voicing Neytiri but these are not so much fully fleshed out characters as caricatures and archetypes that only develop in the most formulaic way. The film's dialogue, written by Cameron, ranges from merely serviceable to outright poor and no matter how much the sweeping music score would like to arouse emotion in the audience, it is difficult to care about these characters. More frustrating is how rapidly the film becomes predictable because of the number of elements recycled from other films. Once Jake is taken in by the natives it is highly obvious as to what will happen and who he will rally against. Slow motion jumps for cover, exploding spaceships, last second death requests and a forbidden romance, are just some of the clichés that are used throughout a very insubstantial script. Any ethics or moral ambiguities that could have been derived from the obvious allusions to Native Americans and Colonialism are diminished because of the cartoon division between purely good and simply evil. Given that it has been over a decade since Cameron's last big budget feature film, a lot more was expected from the narrative and the array of talent here deserved far better.

In spite of its failings, Avatar will attract and impress computer game enthusiasts who will see the film purely for its outstanding visuals and the action which unravels on the grandest scale. For those that are expecting something far more intelligent and substantial, this will seem like a formulaic and predictable action movie, given the various problems with the script, the over length and the largely wasted cast. The 3D visuals and cinematic quality alone are not enough to justify the hefty price of admission expected by cinemas these days.

9 was originally a short film directed by Shane Acker, in which the main characters did not speak. Acker's feature film, which was produced by Tim Burton, expands on his original work and is set in an alternate universe, presumably after the First World War. Before he died, a scientist developed tiny mechanical androids that were created in representing parts of his personality and each was given a number. 9 (Elijah Wood) awakens one day to find a powerful glowing talisman and he is chased by a giant spider-like robot. 9 is saved by fellow android 2, but his rescuer is then captured by the beast. 9 is taken in by a number of other androids who are also tagged with numbers, including 1 (Christopher Plummer), a cranky, elderly android, dressed like a bishop. Against the wishes of 1, 9 with the help of 5 (John C. Reilly), ventures across the battlefields to rescue 2 but in doing so, he unleashes something more dangerous.

In a year of outstanding animated pictures, from Pixar's touching adventure Up to the hilarity of Mary and Max, a film like 9 really fails to standout. This is not an original or exciting film but rather a highly generic action adventure, light on story, characterisation and development. At a mere 79 minutes the film never has a chance to really develop itself into anything substantial. Yet at the same time, given the lack of intensity and originality with the action, the brevity of the film is actually rather welcoming. One aspect in which the film does excel though is in its visuals and art design. The desolate wastelands are wonderfully detailed with debris and rubble to echo both past and current warfare. The giant spider robots too are a hideously fierce opponent and quite an awesome sight, adding to the grand spectacle. They would probably be far too scary for younger viewers though as this is a much darker film than a lot of other animated pictures in both its aesthetics and its tone.

Given the talent in the voice cast, from Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly and Christopher Plummer, it is a shame that the film's script is so lacking in both originality and depth. The story amounts to little more than a very standard adventure film that is unconcerned about exploring or developing its characters in a particularly thoughtful way. The voice actors are largely wasted because of the stilted and generic dialogue that thoroughly limits our interest and emotional attachment to them. 1 is perhaps the most interesting character because of his cruelty and his antagonism towards technology. The rest of the characters though are utterly bland and any form of character development is both formulaic and predictable. The world too that Acker has visually defined becomes a fairly hollow one, with little insights. The most interesting aspect of the world, the allusions to the First World War, are limited to flashbacks with glimpses of mustard gas and the battle between man and machines. The killer robots are a relatively obvious metaphor for the introduction of armoured tanks in warfare. As with the rest of the film though, these elements are of the simplest form, never reaching any intellectual or emotional depths. Only the sight of a cathedral burning up in flames as it reflects in the eyes of 1 is a particularly memorable image.

9 is a film that fails to be memorable or particularly enjoyable because amidst so many cleverer and inventive animated pictures, this feels incredibly lazy and generic with its storytelling and narrative. It fails to make us feel or care and becomes a brief and ultimately passive experience. With more effort towards the screenplay and more attention paid to the back-story and character arches, this could have been a reasonable film. Currently though, it is extremely difficult to recommend this for anything other than its terrific visuals and art direction.

In 2006, a couple named Micah (Micah Sloat) and Katie (Katie Featherston) are living in a house together that they suspect might be haunted. In order to prove the paranormal existence, Micah insists on filming the house regularly with a hand-held camera, hoping to profit from whatever they might find. Katie soon reveals to both Micah and a psychic that she visioned a ghost when she was much younger in her old home, suggesting that the spirit has followed her into this new house. As the activity of the haunting becomes more obvious with each day, Katie's behaviour also becomes stranger, taking a toll on her relationship with Micah.

Paranormal Activity is the first film by director Oren Peli and it is based on his very experience of having his own home haunted. Shot entirely on a hand-held camera, this film was made on a minuscule budget of just fifteen thousand dollars and was heavily promoted on social networking groups, such as Facebook, before being distributed by Paramount Pictures. The film has been labeled by some websites as one of 'the scariest movies of all time' and a trailer was developed supposedly showing the audiences fearful reactions in the USA. Despite these endorsements, Peli's film should more aptly be called one of the most overblown films of the year and quite possibly one of the dullest horror films in recent memory. Although it is not as nauseating as some other films, the persistence to shoot the film entirely on a hand-held camera, similar to The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, is firstly contrived. Micah insists on filming even in the broad daylight of the morning, while Katie herself sometimes takes over as Micah is just looking at research on his computer, such as a sound wave he recorded. To force the camera into each scene consistently, weakens the immersive qualities of what is already a flawed sub-genre. It is beyond difficult for a film to immerse its audience so strongly into the belief that they are watching a series of home movies and to make them forget that they are in a cinema.

Aesthetics aside, the film is also marred by the same flaws of so many horror films, mostly notably its lack of attention to the depth of characterisation and character development. No matter how attractive younger audience members may find them, both Micah and Katie are increasingly unlikeable throughout the film. Micah is particularly annoying, coming off as an immature brute, most notably when he films his girlfriend asking her for a striptease or waving his middle finger to the camera. There is nothing particularly interesting about either of these two boneheads as they are devoid of largely any back-story. They are also not aided by a script where the dialogue extends little beyond the 'oh my god' and 'what was that?' variant. Their constant whining and sniveling grows extremely tiresome after a while and it is hard to care about what happens to them. The only character development – if any – can be derived from Katie as she grows tired of the camera in her face and starts to decline as she is taken over by this force. It could hardly be called in-depth or original and still fails initiate our sympathy for her.

What will disappoint many pure horror fans though is just how derivative a lot of the film actually is. Not only is the film visually very dull because of the limited lighting, but the nature of the story, in being contained to just a few levels of the house, limits the number of ways that the narrative can really develop. Director Peril, who also wrote the screenplay, relies on all the clichés of yesteryear, with creaking doors closing by themselves, chandeliers shaking and unseen footsteps tapping on the floorboards. The unsubtly of this, and the fact that we have seen it so many times before, makes these moments largely ineffective. Audiences are more likely to derive more fearsome sounds from the fall of armrests in the cinema or the footsteps of people walking out through boredom while they are left to watch this mess. The repetition of filming Micah's bedroom at night, with the camera setup by itself on a tripod, is particularly tiresome too, as apart from an admittedly brief jolt at the very end of the film, barely anything eventuates. A noise is heard and then a character wakes up to ask 'what was that?' It is difficult to take many of the films supposedly dramatic moments seriously, such as footprints appearing or an Ouija board setting itself on fire, because of their sheer ludicrousness. In one scene a doctor who was invited to investigate the house walks in and then immediately says that he has to leave because the presence of evil is too strong. Maybe he just felt the great danger his career was in with this abomination and got out while he could: lucky him. It is the lack of drama, climaxes and scares in so many of the films scenes that will baffle some and just frustrate others.

The only scary thing to be taken from this laughably bad horror film is that it could be the future of Hollywood cinema. The minimal budget and maximum profit from soaring ahead of established franchises like Saw, has meant that a sequel has already been confirmed for release next year. It will be interesting to see how audiences respond to a sequel following such a thoroughly dull and unimaginative affair. Suspend your disbelief once more and hope the only way from here is up. Paranormal Activity is a real disappointment.

Antichrist is divided into four chapters, a prologue and epilogue. During the prologue a nameless couple, who are billed as He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), are having sex, leaving their baby son unattended. The baby climbs out of its cot, reaches a window and then falls to its death. Both of the parents grieve heavily for their son but it is She who is most affected, slipping deeper into depression. He, who is a therapist, disregards her doctor and the medication given to her. Instead He decides to take her to a cabin in the woodlands, a place called Eden, where She was last with their child, trying to finish her writing. He attempts to treat her himself with a number of psychological exercises, but there is something terribly ominous brewing inside Eden.

The first chapter to Lars Von Trier's Antichrist entitled 'Grief' remains compelling because of its authenticity and gritty sense of realism. The aesthetic qualities of the film and Gainsbourg's performance craft scenes of emotion that are utterly believable. Named Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival, Gainsbourg displays her grief and her anger with a real sense of heart. Of the two characters in the film she has the much grander role. The muted colours in these scenes, along with the dim grey lighting and Von Trier's erratic handheld camerawork, further contribute to a reflection of her isolation and her heartache. It is a rather personal film for Von Trier as he is believed to have written the script as a means of therapy for his own depression.

The aesthetics throughout the film are equally as impressive during the Eden sequences. The film was primarily shot in Germany and there are some visually haunting moments that both unique and beautiful. A scene where She's voice over is heard over the top of a painting-like representation of the woods, as her ghostly figure appears in the background, is just an incredible sight to behold. Von Trier has stated that a lot of his inspiration for the film has been derived from the horror genre and he aptly controls the tension through the authenticity of the woodlands, the use of near silence and the slow tracking movements of the actors. The continuation of the handheld camera in the forest creates a sense of a detached body from the actors, almost as though someone is watching and stalking them. In one moment a wide shot films He walking through the forest. The camera pans quickly to the left of the screen and then centres back on him, almost gesturing him to move towards the rustling leaf and discover something very disturbing. Aesthetically, this is an intense and powerfully constructed film.

However, as with Dancer in the Dark, the film's narrative becomes increasingly contrived over its duration, to the point where it defies all logic. That a therapist would treat his own partner, disregard her medication and take her to a place as isolating as Eden – regardless of what it means to her past – is a contrivance that audiences will have to decide on themselves. It is also when Von Trier unleashes the films fury and condemnation for these characters and the landscape that the narrative self-destructs. All of the emotion that was captured in those quiet, painful scenes is lost to moments of sheer absurdity. When He does find that rustling leaf he discovers a brutally wounded fox that stares at him, opens its mouth and then says to him in a demonic voice 'chaos reigns'. The ghastly animal imagery throughout the film such as this and also deer with a dead foetus still attached to it, contributes to an increasingly unpleasant narrative that detaches itself from the realism and the personal grief felt by the two central characters.

The detachment is felt most significantly in the last two chapters of the film, which contain some of the most sickening and repelling acts of violence and sexual aggression in recent years of cinema. These moments are almost unwatchable and detract from the emotion and the conflict felt by She because of how absurd it is and because of just how awful it is to witness. The film attempts to attribute her behaviour to being possessed by nature, which is said to be a satanic form. Yet whether anyone will actually find that credible, in justifying such contempt for humanity and human suffering, is extremely unlikely. It is through these two chapters and beyond that the film is also increasingly uncertain about what it is saying in regards to women themselves. Von Trier does not think that his film is misogynistic and does not claim to be one either. His poor relations with his actresses over his career and the way a woman is physically and emotionally destroyed in this film, inspired by the execution of women in the sixteenth century, makes it difficult not to see his disregard and lack of respect for them. Von Trier has claimed in interviews that this is a representation of a woman's conflict with herself, and though this might be true, he offers his character here, just like in Dancer in the Dark, no outlet or redemption. He condemns them and sentences the, leaving his film as increasingly nasty and unsympathetic towards grief and anxiety.

Antichrist is aesthetically and emotionally an interesting and intense film for its first two chapters. Yet because of Von Trier's persistence for publicity and attention through horrid acts of violence, this is a film that remains wildly distracted, unfocused and wholly unlikable. The self-proclaimed 'best film director in the world' is not interested in finding resolution for these characters through any form of character development. It is because of this that he weakens his supposed exploration of inner conflict in favour of his own needs to shock, manipulate and outrage his audience. As a nasty exercise in gratuitous sex and violence, this is a film to be avoided.

The Informant! is based on the true story of Mark Whitacre and adapted from the book written by Kurt Eichenwald. Matt Damon is cast as Whitacre, a biologist who was placed in the business aspect of ADM (Archer Daniels Midland), a corporation that focused on products such as grains and corn. Due to the loss of finances in the company there is a suspected mole that may have developed a virus affecting production. The FBI is contacted by the company to investigate the matter. Mark, who reluctantly communicates with them over the case, is encouraged by his wife to explain the misgivings of ADM itself. He becomes a mole against his own company and is wired up to uncover and record a price fixing scandal that ADM has been organising with its competitors. Mark servers as a spy for over two years, but it is revealed that he has not been entirely honest with his wife or the FBI.

The trailer for Steven Soderbergh's film, rather misleadingly reveals many of The Informants funniest moments, portraying it as an all-out comedy and a complete spoof of spy films. It is neither of these. Instead it feels more like a corporate film, peppered lightly with humorous touches throughout. The weakest elements belong to the opening quarter, dealing with the business aspect of ADM. Rather shakily the exposition towards the functioning of the company is revealed, but a lot of this is likely to be lost on those who are not familiar with this form of corporate talk. The way that these details are rushed leaves them neither particularly interesting nor satisfying.

Fortunately, the film improves over its duration, most noticeably when it focuses more on the rather odd character of Mark. His funniest moments are undoubtedly those from the trailer where he seems to enjoy playing the role of the spy, like something from all the spy movies he must have seen. He seems to be wrapped in the fantasy of the situation. He shows off his recording gadget to a friend, describing himself as 0014 because he is 'twice as smart as 007.' Entering into the building he states he has breached the building by talking into his long overcoat and greets everyone by their name and their position as a means of informing the listening FBI. These scenes are very clever with their deadpan humour, resisting the urge to fall into a sense of caricature so as to not disrupte the authenticity of the business aspects of the film.

Mark's voice over throughout the film is also an interesting access point to this man even if it is not always consistent. At times he comes off as distracted when random thoughts emerge in his head as someone is talking to him. These thoughts portray him as sometimes observant but at other moments purely rambling. More intelligently, his voice over is used to project his fears about the security of his family, revealing the values he holds for his job in having assured support for his family. His sheer naivety in believing he will keep his exact same job, despite ratting out on the company, is one of the real comic touches of the film. As too is the last third of the film, where it becomes increasingly clear about just how deceptive Mark has been to not only the FBI but his own family as well. There are a number of very funny twists and turns in the plot for both the characters and the audience. By the end Mark comes off as an incredibly deceptive, attention-seeking and a downright sneaky character, more than anything he initially appeared to be. Damon is very competent here, quite funny at times and convincing with his rather hilarious naivety. He is almost parodying himself with his now famous role as the super spy in the Bourne films.

This is not an outstanding film as it is never as funny or brilliant as one would like it to be. There are too many confusing moments in the first half and too much corporate talk for it to be satisfying. Yet it is still worth seeing for when it eventually reveals the true colours of its terribly flawed protagonist. The surprises and the humour generated from just how deceptive Mark is eventually make this quite an edgy and somewhat enjoyable film about corporate fraud.

This adaptation of Maurice Sendak's children's book expands on the story of Max (Max Records), a naughty and imaginative boy who escapes the punishment of his mother (Catherine Keener) by journeying to a fantasy land. In this version Max's parents are separated and he does not get along with his sister. One night when his mother's boyfriend is over for dinner Max causes a huge ruckus and ends up biting his mother on the shoulder. He runs out into the darkness of the neighbourhood and transports himself by boat to an imaginary island. Surviving the rough seas, he eventually meets a number of giant furry creatures. They are initially very hostile towards him but he quickly convinces them that he is a king with magical powers and they are awed by his presence. The friendliest to Max is Carol (James Gandolfini) but Max soon learns that Carol and the other creatures have their own disrupted relationships.

The opening frames to Spike Jonze's Where The Wild Things Are suggest a much darker and almost grittier tone than one might initially expect for this adaptation. The rapid tracking shots of Max screaming wildly as he chases his pet with a fork in his mouth is indicative of the harsh realism consistently displayed throughout a number of the house scenes early in the film. Even throughout his most fantastical films, like Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, Jonze has crafted a sense of humanity and this film is no different. While one can respect Jonze for the level of maturity that he brings to much of the new material though, this is still an adaptation of a children's picture book. The dark tone that he sets for these early scenes could be slightly overwhelming for much smaller children.

The expansion of the original story has meant that many new details and insights to both Max and the monsters have been included. The film notes that Max's parents have been separated and briefly touches on his uneven relationship with his sister. The monsters themselves are all personalised as well, with their own habits and flaws, some of which echo Max's own traits. Carol regularly smashes things when he gets angry, while a goat-like creature named Alexander complains that he is regularly ignored by everyone. There are a number of unresolved relationships throughout the film, leaving the middle section rather loose, including an ambiguous conflict Carol has with two owls and his relationship with one of the other monsters. Despite many of these new elements and the expanded characterisation, the film amounts to largely the same message as Sendak's book: that there are more problems to be found in running away and a realisation of belonging. Though some will argue that the film upholds the essence of the story, Sendak's book said as much in the very simplest form. The drawings of his book are simple yet immediate enough to spark the imagination for young readers to immerse themselves, like Max, into the world, instead of having it entirely visualised for them. Perhaps this is what has allowed the book to endure over the years. The phrase 'a picture is worth a thousand words' has rarely felt so fitting.

Regardless of its shortcoming, the film benefits from a stellar cast of actors and voice talent who bring these characters to life. Max Records is particularly natural as the young boy and the emotion he shows at the beginning of the film is utterly convincing. James Gandolfini – a talented actor – is also strong really embodying this massive furry creature – who shifts thoroughly in emotions from sheer anger to warmth for this child. The monsters were made from costumes as opposed to pure CGI meaning that all the actors voicing the creatures had to wear these mammoth suits. It is a unique and rather nostalgic idea given so many of the visual effects bound films today and also because many of the costumes have been aptly modelled towards the drawings in Sendak's story. The film, which was mostly shot in Australia, is also particularly beautiful through the photography of the woodlands and the beaches.

Where The Wild Things Are has a number of strong qualities, particularly in its aesthetics and its costume design, but one has to question precisely who this film was aimed at and what was to be achieved through its visualisation. Though it expands thoroughly upon the characters of the story and achieves a darker tone, it seems as though the overall message of the original story is being repeated, no matter how seriously Jonze would like the audience to invest in these creatures and their social problems. Many may have longed to have Sendak's world visualised for them, but perhaps the original intent of the picture book should have been felt in leaving this world to the imagination of its young readers.

An English sports writer named Joe Warr (Clive Owen) lives with his second wife Katy (Laura Fraser) and their young son Artie (Nicholas McAnulty) in a house in the bushland of South Australia. Tragically for the family, Katy is quickly discovered to have cancer and she passes away. Jim, with the love and support of the rest of his family, has to take responsibility himself as a parent. He opts for a much freer outlet for Artie though, believing in fewer rules, only bigger ones. His plan is of course a failure, leaving the house in a complete mess and his son without much discipline. As well as balancing his home and work life, Joe has to deal with the arrival of his other son Harry (George Mackay) from his first marriage. He manages at least to find an ally in Laura, another single parent (Emma Booth).

Though the initial outline may sound grim, The Boys Are Back is an extremely beautiful film that becomes almost relaxing to sit through and enjoy. Said to be inspired by a true story, it was shot on location by director Scott Hicks in both South Australia and England. The capture of the ocean waters, or the breeze drifting over a field, remains inspired. The photography of the Australian landscape has rarely looked better. It is the beauty of the landscape, in conjunction with the more endearing moments of a man reconnecting with his son, which makes the film engaging and mostly easy to watch. Though it may not have the emotional core that it was aiming for, there is no doubt that the majority of the film is still sweet and heartfelt.

While there have been numerous other films about single fathers, The Boys Are Back only hints at predictability and then quickly retracts from expected plot points. One may quickly assume that the siblings of different ages will not like each other and may fight. Yet they actually find a great deal of comfort in each other and rarely collide. Similarly, when Joe meets Laura, his relationship with her is questioned, but he never engages romantically with her. It is because of this lack of expected conflict and the routines of the day to day household that not a lot happens in the film dramatically. There are some darker scenes towards the end but they still relatively mild. Perhaps the film's most daring moment is when Joe allows his son to sit on the bonnet of his car while driving along a beach but even a scene like this is handled with a more romantic quality rather than sheer intensity.

Much of the film's likeability is derived from a surprising performance from Clive Owen. It is a real pleasure to see such a major Hollywood star in a rather minor film like this. He was also one of the produces on the picture too. He convinces here with the warmth and the affection that he shows to both of his sons and the heartache with the loss of Katy. He may not have the arrogance that one might expect from a man who does not want to provide rules for his children. Yet it would have been rather formulaic in characterising him as a hotshot sportswriter, whose arrogance is lost to the affection of his son. Instead, Owens occasional touches of humour and his affectionate persona make him difficult to dislike, despite his irresponsibility. It is refreshing to see Owen undertake a role that does not portray him as the man on the run. Rather ironically, he is the man who is forced to stay behind and not leave his problems. In time a great actor could start to emerge from this star. His co-stars are also very good. Nicholas McAnulty is very natural and aided by strong dialogue in the script, while George Mackay is suitably distant and quiet as Harry.

The Boys Are Back is quite a beautiful film to watch and relatively safe entertainment. It is extremely likeable because of the heart it posses in displaying the more poignant moments between adults and their children. Owen has attempted a more challenging role and with reasonable success he brings warmth and compassion to this picture. In a strong year for Australian films, this is not a particularly dramatic or eventful film, but an enjoyable and fairly entertaining one.

Set during a zombie raging apocalypse that has taken over America, a dopey teenage boy (Jesse Eisenberg) who wields a shotgun, describes the various rules to us that he has set out to survive the infestation. With such concrete guidelines for survival his meeting with a gun slinging psychopath (Woody Harrelson) with an appetite for Twinkies, is initially a hostile one. Refusing to exchange names they call each other by their destination. The kid is Columbus and the gunslinger is Tallahassee. They band together on the road and also find a pair of girls who are sisters. The oldest is Wichita (Emma Stone), who Columbus develops a crush on, and the other is named Little Rock (Abigail Breslin from Little Miss Sunshine).

Zombieland, directed by Ruben Fleischer, is not unlike Shaun of the Dead in that it parodies the clichés of the zombie genre to the point where it could be called and all out comedy rather than a horror movie. With a running time of barely ninety minutes the plot is not dissimilar to a series of sketches. The film immediately dumps the audience into the zombie apocalypse without any explanation for its occurrence and never seeks to develop any exposition for the outbreak. Similarly, much of the back-story for Eisenberg's character is told fairly lazily through his voice-over and a flashback detailing to us about how he used to be a video game addict and how he has always held a desire to have a girlfriend. This is not a film you would expect to have a great deal of character development beyond the most basic archetypal patterns and it correctly uploads these assumptions. All four of the main characters exist merely for the purpose of the gore and the laughs. To this extent, Zombieland is a reasonable success.

Somewhat surprisingly though, the film works better as a comedy than it does as an exercise in gore and zombie slaughter. There are a number of disgusting, grotesque and gruesome deaths but thankfully the film resides in its humour more than the action. The action sequences are not particularly exciting or intense and there are almost no scares to speak of. Their infrequency and brevity is thankful. How those who just want to see pure ultra violence and zombie dismemberment will respond to this is questionable. Though a lot of the humour is extremely silly, bordering on idiotic, there is no doubt that it is funny, even if it is for its own sense of oddity. A lot of the humour is provided through the contrast between the extremely geeky Columbus – a very different part to what he played in The Squid and the Whale - and the ultra serious Tallahassee who parodies his own tough persona and in one scene his appreciation for smoking pot. These actors seem to be having a lot of fun in their parts.

These self-references are not just limited to the actors themselves though but the entirety of American culture itself. One of the first rules Columbus tells us is about cardio and how the fatties were the first to perish in the zombie attacks and we see one of them run down and devoured by a flesh eating zombie in the opening stages. Likewise, when Tallahassee finds a car loaded with guns he screams, "Thank God for rednecks" and starts firing shots up in the air. Certainly the film's funniest scene though, which really ignites the second half of the picture with a number of other film references, is a cameo from a famous Hollywood actor as himself dressed as a zombie. It is a moment you want to see for yourself without it being spoilt. Despite these pop culture references and the certainty of the laughs, you may feel as though your IQ has dropped significantly after watching this film. It is funny but the humour couldn't really be regarded as deep satire. Certainly it does not have the same satirical strength as the first half of Shaun of the Dead, which was particularly fresh and original in the way that it juxtaposed the lethargy and laziness of British life with a zombie apocalypse.

Although this very silly, sometimes violent mixture of horror and comedy is largely forgettable, there is still fun to be had through the frequent laughs and the actors who seem to be greatly enjoying themselves. It may not add anything particularly new to a well-worn genre, but at least it is aware of its own silliness and does not take itself the least bit seriously, which is more than can be said for the last few George Romero zombie films.

A quick update on the reviews for some new stuff I've posted

I went to see Twilight: New Moon last Thursday evening. You can check out the review here for that if you're interested (not)

Then there's the Modern Warfare 2 for the PC Version. Be sure to leave a thumbs up or a thumbs down if you like! Very good game, a great package all up.

Finally, there's the new film by the Cohen Brothers (No Country For Old Men), A Serious Man. Really funny, dark comedy that people should go and see if they haven't yet

I've posted this update not long after the last one just because there has been a lot of hype around these three texts and people might be interested to get an opinion on it.

Cheers,

- BL

During the 1960s in Minnesota a Jewish man named Larry (Michael Stuhlbarg) is going through a rough patch. As a school mathematics teacher he is being pursued, and possibly bribed, by a Korean student to have his failing grade changed. At home, his own children, including his pot smoking son and self-absorbed daughter, have little regard for anyone but themselves. His brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is also causing problems by living off the families couch. Worst of all Larry's wife Judith (Sari Lennick) wants a divorce as she has openly admitted that she would like to marry their extremely condescending neighbour Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). Larry seems unable to come to terms with any of this chaos even after consulting a number of rabbis about his dwindling faith.

Directed by Joel and Ethan Cohen, A Serious Man has one of the strangest openings to a film you are likely to see this year. It begins with a prologue set in a nineteenth century village where the characters including, a husband, his wife and a neighbour who was thought to be dead but could be a ghost, speak entirely in Yiddish. Although this seems extremely odd, what occurs in this episode can be interpreted as like a curse for the continuous amount of bad luck faced by Larry in the present. To further reinforce this notion, Larry is told during the film that traditions are passed down through generations. It is an opening that will certainly generate a great deal of debate amongst viewers. After this episode though, A Serious Man, using biographical elements from the Cohen brothers themselves (they are both Jewish, born in Minnesota), is not unlike Burn After Reading. This is another comedy hilariously depicting a group of extremely shallow, oddball characters whose everyday lives are turned upside down through increasingly bizarre and exaggerated situations.

The Cohen's derive a lot of humour from the sheer oddity of scenes and their ability to hold our attention through long silences or random stories, before reaching a punch line that echoes the themes of the film. At one point in the film Larry visits a much talked about rabbi. The rabbi's secretary stares at Larry without saying anything. She walks into the rabbi's long, drawn room, exchanges some inaudible words and then walks out to tell Larry in a raspy voice: "he's busy". It is revealed afterwards that the rabbi was listening to Jefferson Airplane instead of letting Larry see him, reiterating his lack of control in the way people treat him and ignore his needs. In another scene, a lengthy anecdote is told about an ancient inscription that was found by a dentist, while inspecting someone's teeth. The story itself is of course pointless and inconclusive but it upholds the essence of the film that Larry, outside of the cIassroom, is a man without any answers. Nothing is really meant to make sense to him or be conclusive. It is rather fitting that he scribes the mathematical formula of uncertainty on a blackboard. Even if the film does not have a thorough arc of character development through its uncertainty of life and a dark and somewhat abrupt ending, this is still a very clever, witty and original film that should be at least nominated for the Best Screenplay Oscar.

Many laughs in this film are also captured purely from the gazes of the minor characters with their bizarre expressions and mannerisms. The Cohen brothers either have an exceptional choice in small time actors or more likely they have precision control over the way that the actors are to perform a scene. All of the actors in this film have been really sharply directed to consistently provide excellent comic timing. Interestingly, unlike Burn After Reading, A Serious Man is more subjectively focused towards a single character in Larry, whose life becomes so dysfunctional and chaotic that it is difficult not to feel something for him. He is extremely spineless in being unable to stand-up to anyone but because everything falls apart he warrants our sympathy and perhaps even our pity. Looking eerily like Joaquin Phoenix at times, Michael Stuhlbarg is wonderfully expressive as Larry, with his face shifting from gloom to sheer disbelief as his life falls apart. Fred Melamed also stands out as the extremely calm but wholly condescending Sy Ableman. It is testimony to the excellence of the Cohen brother's script that all of the performances collectively embody so much humour.

Although without any major actors and a brief running time this may seem like a small Cohen brothers film, there is certainly no shortage of skill or effort in both the screenplay and the performances of the talented cast. A Serious Man may even warrant several viewing to thoroughly understand the complexities of some of the religious undertones. This is a hilarious, refreshing but perhaps also damning look at life in the suburbs of America, not to be missed.

The second film in the Twilight series begins with Bella Swan (Kirsten Stewart) having a dream about herself growing old. From her eighteenth birthday, this is the start of one of her fears that she will age, while her love Edward (Robert Pattinson) will stay the same and not be as attracted to her. At a gathering on her birthday, Bella cuts her finger accidentally and is nearly attacked by one of the Cullens, only to be saved by Edward, leaving a gash on her am. The thought that she could be harmed again and other reasons, leaves Edward to announce that he and his family are leaving and that he does not want Bella. Distressed, Bella finds comfort in her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) who offers to help her fix up a motorbike after she becomes an adrenaline junkie. Yet with the arrival of wolves in the area it is clear that Jacob is hiding something.

The first Twilight film was a solid entry into the franchise, a dark and highly atmospheric love story, handsomely crafted by director Catherine Hardwicke who carried a real interest in teen behaviour. This pitiful sequel retains none of the qualities of the first film and could be one of the most disappointing pictures of the year. Taking over from Hardwicke is director Chris Weitz who was previously made About a Boy and started the unfinished trilogy of The Golden Compass. The narrative in Weitz's film is primarily at fault here. Whereas the original Twilight was enjoyable for the way it compressed much of the tedium of the novel, this film is not only painfully slow but it is also uneventful and compressed to the point where it becomes nonsensical. It only takes just one brief ride on a motorcycle for Bella to turn into an adrenaline junkie and the exposition directed towards her reckless behaviour is minimal. Prior to performing anything daring like riding or cliff jumping Bella is met by apparition of Edward who warns her not to do it. It would make more sense if he came to her in near death performing the act, not before it.

Bella's motivations are as convoluted as Edwards though. His depart in particular is problematic for the narrative. Not only is his eventual explanation for leaving highly contrived but in his absence the romantic substance of the film is evaporated, leaving very little for Bella to do. Pattinson has the most minimal role, only appearing at the beginning and the end in person, and occasionally as an apparition. Although it may be true the novel, fans are still likely to be disappointed by the actors absence. Stewart is still a very beautiful young actress and although she looks tired in this film at times, she does her best with some very poor writing. It is to her credit at least that she is one of the better performers in the cast. The excessively soppy dialogue though is still is difficult to take and the allusions to Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" are particularly lazy and obvious.

The first film achieved a great sense of dread and uncertainty because of the mystery of the vampires and the stunning photography of the woodlands. Structurally, it was also punctured by an exciting final third and a highly visceral climax. New Moon is not only lacking in romance but the action is also scarce and dramatically flat. The few brawls in the film are almost all entirely in super slow-motion lessening their impact. The main threat in this film is supposed to be the werewolves and the secret that Jacob is hiding. Yet given everyone who wanted to see this film has probably watched the trailer at least twice there is no surprise as to what he is hiding. He is a thoroughly uninteresting character, devoid of any of the romantic sensibilities that were apparent in Twilight. What is most frustrating about his presence in the film is the blatant attempts at trying to create sexual tension with Bella by having him shirtless for almost the entire film. It is the sort of thing Matthew Mcconaughey might have made a career out of, but here it is not only repetitive but bordering on embarrassing, as it blatantly attempts to win the heart of female audience members. The scenes where Jacob wipes the blood off Bella's forehead with his shirt or stands outside her window half dressed, were met with laughter from the audience. Mostly likely this was unintentional, perhaps signaling that audiences are not fooled by the sheer phoniness of the sexual tension in this film. Where the first film was endearing and sweet in its romance, here it is just superfluous.

At 130 minutes, New Moon is longer than its predecessor but also inferior in almost every aspect. The romance is absent and the action is disappointingly flat. Why Hardwicke was not brought back as a director who created such a vivid and fresh atmosphere is incomprehensible. Weitz has done a pretty poor job with this film and rather unsurprisingly, he is being replaced by director David Slade (Hard Candy) for Eclipse next year. It is a shame that those who wish to see if the next instalment is an improvement will have to sit through what is an extremely tedious and dull experience.

A Christmas Carol is a retelling of the cIassic story by Charles Dickens, focussing on Ebenezer Scrooge, a grumpy old man who has stopped believing in Christmas because of his bitterness to the world. He is entirely unsympathetic to the poor and needy, especially his own workers, such as Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldmen) who is trying to feed his family, including his crippled son Tiny Tim. Scrooge is also neglectful to his own family, such as his nephew Fred (Colin Firth). Yet on Christmas Eve, Scrooge returns home and is met by the ghost of his former business partner Marley. He is warned that three spirits will soon come to him and that very evening they do. The first is the Ghost of Christmas Past, the second the Ghost of Christmas Present and the third the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Each ghost serves to show Scrooge where his life went wrong and what will come if he does not change his ways.

The screening I attended for A Christmas Carol in 3D was initially not a happy one. Despite being Hoyt's discount day, the price to see this film in 3D was twenty dollars. I was also told to keep my glasses because the cinema was going to also start charging for the glasses in the future. How often entire families are going to see films in 3D with these outrageous prices is highly doubtful. Furthermore, the screening, which did not include any previews, was late to start by twenty-five minutes. In spite of these misgivings, A Christmas Carol (3D) is a surprisingly uplifting and faithful adaptation, gloriously shot with motion capture technology. The 3D visuals in this film are just a delight to witness and become a part of. They are so rich and vividly immediate in bursting off the screening that you could almost reach out and touch the snowflakes as they fall towards you. Sweeping shots across snowbound London and close-ups of outstretched hands that come towards you have been deliberately placed to show off the sheer depth and range of the visual aesthetics. It is such a shame that these 3D films are so expensive because it is a delightful and beautiful experience to be immersed into.

Yet this is not just a visual treat as director Robert Zemeckis and Disney have opted to remain true to the essence of the dark themes of Dickens' story. Questions of poverty and the working cIass of London have not been glossed over, as much of the dialogue of the original tale has been kept intact, allowing Scrooge to be characterised as a man who has lost faith in the world and sees no reason for celebration because of the poverty and the overcrowding in the city. When he is told that the poor cannot go to the prisons and union workhouses and would rather die, he responds by saying: "they had better do it quickly and decrease the surplus population". The maturity of dialogue such as this is surprising for a Disney Christmas film, but a welcome addition all the same. At times though, the film seems almost too dark, specifically with the design of some of the supernatural elements. The wait for Marley's ghost is a slow, intense one, but his appearance is even scarier, particularly when he has to realign his own jaw. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come – who looks exactly like the shadow of the Grim Reaper – and has control of a possessed horse and carriage, is also a very scary inclusion. This film might not be entirely suitable for very small children.

In contrast with these supernatural elements though, there are a number of poignant scenes that are surprisingly touching. The most emotional of these being when Scrooge overlooks his younger self and sees the time he met his first love at a dance, and also the decline of the crippled boy, Tiny Tim. These somber scenes ensure that the final moments, when Scrooge attitude changes, are rewarding with their warmth and humour. It is up until these last scenes in the film that Jim Carrey, who plays eight characters in the film, including the three ghosts, could almost be called restrained as Scrooge. His trademark wacky mannerisms are kept to a minimum, with more attention applied to his harsh creaking voice and more subtle movements. The amount of time spent capturing the slight gestures of Scrooge would have been painstaking. After the disastrously predictable Yes Man, this is a performance that Carrey can be really proud of.

To say that the last decent Christmas film was Bad Santa back in 2003 is an indication of the lack of quality in these pictures in recent year. Fortunately, A Christmas Carol (3D), though very dark at times, is a wonderful tribute to Dickens' story, visualising the cIassic tale with artistic flair and sustaining the narrative with smart writing too. Hopefully cinemas like Hoyts, who are the real Scrooges at the moment, will come to their senses though and realise that this breathtaking technology will never last with such absurd prices. It would a real shame if films, as visually magnificent as this, were never viewed in 3D because they were too expensive for families to afford.

Well I'm not really familiar with this "tagging" fiasco. I guess some people felt the same about "Jazz" when it first started too!!

Here are some fun facts about me.

1. I am looking for a fresh start to my life in 2010.

2. I considered putting a picture of Everett Hitch - Viggo Mortensen's character from the movie Appaloosa - as my display picture on Facebook (See below), purely for his facial hair.

3. I have finished the campaign for MW2 and I am enjoying the MP, trying to get my hours up so I can start a review!

4. I am looking to read some new books over the holidays including Lord of the Flies and Fight Club.

5. I am putting more effort into Xmas this year. I bought one of my friends the novel "No Country For Old Men" and also a University teddy bear lol

6. My football team finished last in the NRL this year but I have a good feeling we're going to finish in the top 8 next season

7. I might be seeing A Christmas Carol tomorrow in 3D. Watch out for a review of it.

8. I am trying to educate people about the connections between Captain Price and Carl from the movie Up!

9. I became a fan of the boogey man on Facebook and regularly make boogey man-like noises to people.

10. I am meant to be seeing the movie Genova on Thursday with one of my friends! Can't wait!!

Three People I'd like to tag!!

1. Pvtdonut54

2. t3hrubikscube

3. G013M

EDIT: Might take this time to also give an update for some of the reviews etc on the Blog:

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Prime Mover

An Essay on Film itself! (Blockbusters vs. Cl@ssical Cinema)

Looking For Eric

The Box

Whip It.

In modern day London, a travelling circus called The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus invites people to enter a mirror whereby they are transported into their inner dream lives. The Imaginarium is made up of the guru Parnassus himself (Christopher Plummer), his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) and a young man named Anton (Andrew Garfield). Parnassus is regularly taunted by a Lucifer-like character who calls himself Mr. Nick (Tom Waits) and it is revealed that Parnassus has made a wager with him. As the company is struggling to find an audience, they discover a man named Tony (Heath Ledger) who is being hanged under a bridge. They rescue him and for saving his life Tony helps the company find an audience.

The last film of Heath Ledger's career is dedicated to him as a film made by his friends. Yet as with a number of Terry Gilliam's films, this is a visually extravagant title, undermined with a poorly told narrative and illogical plotting. On the whole, it is more likely to be remembered for its daring casting approach of using three other actors – Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp – to play Tony, given that Ledger died before the film could be completed. Certainly, the film opens promisingly enough. The contrast of the Victorian-like architecture and the Imaginarian wagon is juxatoposed against the thumping bass sounds of a London nightclub, allowing for a clever hook. The audience is forced to think twice about where this film is actually set and thus the Imaginarium is viewed as an anachronism. Unfortunately, for much of its duration the film doesn't seem to have an idea of where it is heading, leaving us to wonder just what is going on. A flashback to when Parnassus met Mr Nick results in a truly bizarre conversation about the way storytelling makes the world continue, while the eventual revelation about the wager that Pernassus has made with him, never has a sense of emotion or urgency. Similarly, Anton and Valentina's relationship – one of the more recognisable elements of the film, is never really developed despite the obvious implications that he likes her and becomes jealous when she is around other men. There are a lot of ideas in this film, but it feels extremely unclear and incoherent about what Gilliam is trying to say.

Though thematically it is a failure, the film is still an exciting visual experience due to some really magical sets, costumes and art direction. The imagined world behind the mirror is a real sight to behold on the big screen. A moment where a giant head of a bobby officer bursts from the ground echoes the Trojan from Monty Python, while the emergence of a massive snake from a river with the face of Mr. Nick is strange but also extremely amazing to watch. Though as beautiful as these moments are, it is somewhat difficult to visualise a number of these scenes as an insight into a person's own mind or their desires though, if this is what was intended. Again, it is just not quite clear what was meant to be happening in the film.

Those that were amazed by Ledger's iconic performance in The Dark Knight and are expecting something of the same magnitude are likely to be disappointed as the script has not characterised Ledger's role as thoroughly as it could have. Tony never comes across as someone particularly interesting or as someone we really come to know. Out of the other three actors playing Tony, Depp has the briefest part, so short it almost borders on being a cameo. Regardless, it must be questioned whether someone like Depp, with such natural charisma, could have brought something more magical to this strange role if he had been the star of the film himself. Colin Farrell has perhaps the edgiest transformation of Tony but this only occurs right at the very end of the film. Tom Waits is a real surprise however, excellent as Mr. Nick with an extremely fitting raspy voice for his character, while Lily Cole is mesmerizingly beautiful as Valentina.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is certainly not as awful as Gilliam's Tideland. It is quite an ambitious film, which outside of its own narrative, holds a sentimental value for the memory of Ledger. While you can certainly appreciate the efforts of his colleagues to complete this film for him, the rest of the film is still undermined by lousy storytelling and too many unanswered questions. The visuals and sets are elaborate but it's not quite enough to recommend a rather intriguing but wholly unremarkable film.

In the outback of Dubbo, a young man named Thomas (Michael Dorman), working for a truck depot, is trying to get his hours up so that he can acquire his own semi-trailer. Thomas grieves when his father is killed in a machinery accident and he is watched over by his boss Phil (William McInnes). Yet Thomas' heartache is put to rest when he meets Melissa (Emily Barclay) who is working at a gas station. They are almost immediately attracted to each other and start a relationship. Melissa's mother warns her about men and she soon finds herself pregnant with Thomas' child. Melissa and Thomas decide to get married and they live in a caravan together. In order to buy his own semi-trailer though, Thomas borrows money from the local crims, as opposed to the bank. To pay off the loan he is forced to work thoroughly day and night along tiring road trips, regularly leaving his pregnant wife behind.

Director David Caesar who previously made Dirty Deeds admits that he enjoys overlapping genres. Although it contains autobiographical elements from Caesar's own experiences as a young truckie, Prime Mover is essentially a genre film: a very uneven mix of young romance slight comedy and a crime story. The film has a striking resemblance to the Australian film Two Hands, which starred Heath Ledger as a young man who owed money to a gangster, while also balancing a romance with a young girl that he meets. It is because of the familiarity of this setup that Prime Mover just doesn't seem to have anything new to say. There are very few insights into the world of truckies that weren't already known.

The film's formulaic narrative also suffers because of the sketchy characters as well. It is difficult to find Thomas a likeable hero given his ill-treatment of his young pregnant wife, constantly telling her that he has a new plan. The script makes him come off as a boob rather than someone who is tenacious and always refusing to give up. Due to his underwritten character Thomas is also far less interesting and we are never really immersed into his suffering as he digs himself deeper and deeper into debt. Barclay fairs slightly better with her character and there are some emotional moments particularly with the relationship to her baby. Oddly, there are times when the relationship between Thomas and Melissa feels strangely compressed. The very first time that Thomas takes the girl for a drive at night and returns her home, she states to her mother "you don't even know him." It is as though she is already defending him like she was in a serious relationship. There are some other talented actors who offer very slight performances too. In a small part, William McInnes is rather assertive as a father-like figure, but Ben Mendelsohn from Beautiful Kate is very forgettable and bland as the baddie and Gyton Grantley from Underbelly, complete with a handlebar moustache, is utterly wasted too.

Although Cesar claims that his use of animation and fantastical elements throughout the film is meant to provide insight into an inner life of the characters, one has to question whether he was watching the same film. The animation is so scarcely used throughout Prime Mover that it acts as more of a gimmick rather than anything truly thought provoking. In one moment as Thomas and Melissa are making out, the camera zooms deep into her chest to reveal her heart as a high powered engine. Or as Thomas slips into a pill popping insomnia he envisions Phil climbing onto the side of his truck like a gremlin. At other times he sees Saint Christopher – the patron saint of travellers - giving him advice. It would be a stretch to call it deeply insightful. An almost identical concept was used more effectively throughout Sarah Watt's film Look Both Ways, which also starred William McInnes. Brief moments of entire animation were used to visualise a woman's fear of death in everyday life and to reflect her anxiety. This film is just not as sophisticated as that.

Without interesting, sympathetic and fully developed characters it is extremely difficult to be moved or engaged by this sloppy mixture of crime and romance. Barclay is certainly an asset to the film though and if it had focused on her pain of being abandoned, rather than stooping into a tired formula, there might have been something emotionally driving and rewarding about the narrative. Prime Mover is certainly not the worst Australian film of the year but it is a highly forgettable one.

The Hi-Concept aesthetic privileges affect over intellectual engagement. Discuss.

(I had to remove the footnotes so I could post this).

A film of intellectual engagement allows an audience to not only be immersed in the intensity and rhythm of a new experience or situation in a film, but it also provides the opportunity for a viewer to reflect on the way that these moments can be read and interpreted in different ways. It is the ability of an intellectual text to be read and reread by future generations though that ensures that they are timeless and irreplaceable. Although Hi-Concept cinema allows us to engage in a sense of velocity and tempo, this affect is often derived from stories and experiences of such repetitive and similar structures, narratives and character archetypes that they are easily replaceable by films of improved visual aesthetics. The development of characters in these films retains such a minimal level of complexion and reading that these archetypes merely function as a means of conveying the narrative itself and reaching the film's climatic goal. Steven Spielberg's horror film Jaws (1975) remains masterful in its appreciation of tension and suspense. Yet its development of the main protagonist Brody remains highly conventional and archetypal in keeping with Spielberg's other films and his fixation of the failure of the father and the need to rediscover his abilities as a parent. In contrast, Alfred Hitchcock's suspense thriller Psycho (1960) privileges affects of tension, while also visualising a highly unconventional character arch for its protagonist Marion Crane that allows the film to read and interpreted through Platonic readings, such as the death of the object. Thus it is through its aesthetic affects as well as its subtext that allows Psycho to remain an example of timeless and irreplaceable Cla$sic Hollywood cinema. It is necessary to contrast a film that purely appreciates velocity, with one of intellectual engagement, in order to show the simplicity of the formers narrative and the way that its characters and structure can be substituted by films of similar archetypes and improved visual effects.

Hi-Concept cinema regularly uses the formal features of montage, specifically the spatial areas of characters as they collide, to increase the film's sense of velocity and urgency as the character's move towards their ultimate goal. American cinema in particular has been criticised by Sergi Eisenstein for not using Griffith's montage to create any new meaning between the parallels. Eisenstein felt that montage had developed beyond the standard Griffith technique of parallel sequences used to increase the tension and tempo to entertain audiences.[1] Rather, Eisenstein believed that the montage exists in the theme of conflict and represents a clash of two images to create a third, unseen entity: the films subtext.[2] As the ideas of the montage are continued throughout a film, a sense of entirety for the films themes and an emotional response is created. The five levels of montage that are used to elicit this emotional cord for the audience are described by Eisenstein as being: metric, rhythmic, tonal, overtonal and intellectual.[3] Spielberg does not use the cinematic montage to intellectually reflect on Brody's psychology as a failed parent. Rather, the character of Brody represents a continuation of the archetype of failed father, used consistently throughout Spielberg's films. Todd Mcgowan believes that Spielberg's films not only create an image of the father as he becomes a protective force, but they also visualise the redemptive qualities of the failed parent too. He suggests that in showing the father as an initial failure, his paternal powers are gradually increased as he overcomes the obstacles throughout the film and surges towards his redemptive goal. [4] It is this conflict between failure and success as a parent throughout Jaws that privileges an affect of urgency and tension for the plot, in moving toward the narratives climax and goal for Brody to restore order to the community, instead of offering any form of intellectual engagement.

The second attack on the beach in Jaws is pivotal in seeing how the Hi-Concept aesthetic features are used to increase the tension of the picture in visualising Brody's external responses and actions to protect his children. The fast cutting, as people block Brody's vision while he watches the water, along with the eventual close up of his face in distress, reflects his external needs to watch and patrol the beach in case the shark strikes. The formal features of the montage in this scene do not serve to create a third entity of any particularly intellect. There is no reflection on what it means to be a parent or a guardian of this town. Rather, these aesthetics are used to immerse the audience into the Brody's increasing urgency and his dread in anticipating the attack, demonstrating how the film favours affect rather than intellectual engagement. The lack of objectivity towards the shark further increases this sense of momentum and urgency in the film. The shark is never viewed in its natural life form, as a animal merely relying on its own natural instincts of hunting to survive. Rather, Mcgowan refers to the shark as an 'impossible object' as we do not know where it is going to strike within the spatial integrity of the water [5] and the film's aesthetics reflect this. The use of a point of view shot places us into the shark's hunting gaze, which along with John William's brooding score, increases the rhythm and tempo of the film. As this perspective repeated, we constantly associate it with the carnage and thus we cannot view the animal objectively, but rather as a faceless monster, whose spatial integrity in the ocean cannot be contained, and cannot be viewed merely as creature hunting for the sake of its own survival. Thus, our limited perspective of the shark, juxtaposed with the rapid cutting on the beach, privileges an affect of urgency and dread for Brody as the father figure, rather than creating a third entity of any intellectual engagement, like how these situations affect him psychologically or the thought that the shark is merely an animal struggling with its own sense of survival.

Even in the absence of the shark, Jaws persists in maintaining its sense of urgency and dramatic tension rather than being intellectually engaging. In continuing Eisenstein's efforts to criticise films for only using montage for the intent of rhythm and tempo, contemporary screenwriters have stressed the importance of ensuring that there are breaks between the action sequences, giving the audience breaks from the action of a film. Script adviser Raymond G. Frensham believes that it is important in the balancing of the pacing of a film that moments of conflict and climax are interspersed with moments of reflection and pauses. A script with no variation is more likely to become dull and lose the interest of the audience.[6] Given that the commuters of the town and the shark itself share the spatial integrity of the ocean, the thought that the shark is still somewhere in that space, even though it is unseen to the spectator creates and maintains an affect of tension and dread. One scene that reflects this is when Brody and his wife are at home, looking over a shark book, while their sons are sitting in a boat on the water. The use of the long and medium shots captures the gaze of the parents as they watch their children and the physical distance from where they stand from one another, suggesting that they might not be able to reach their kids in time if the shark attacks. By capturing the entirety of the spatial area of the water through the long shot, the tension and urgency of the film is sustained as we know that this area, possessed and dominated by the shark, is currently overlapping with the children's own sense of space. Brody's reaction to desperately telling the children to get out of the boat, pertains to his archetype of the failed parents and his pure external actions in attempting to assert his role as the successful father, rather than reflecting on what this means to him in an intellectually engaging manner. In visualising Brody's external actions of trying to protect his children, the affect of urgency is increased as we fear that Brody will not be able to stop the shark's attacks and that the narrative will not reach its overall goal of seeing order restored to the community. Thus, even in the absence of the shark, Jaws still persists in maintaining its dramatic tension and privileges an affect of fear over a thorough sense of intellectual engagement.

Throughout Psycho the death of the protagonist Marion Crane provides the film with a unique end to a character arc that privileges an affect of shock on the audience and also with an intellectual discussion about the death of the object. Frensham describes the protagonist throughout a film as being the character whose point of view the audience experiences the story through, who will be onscreen most of the time and whose goals and motivations will drive the plot of the film.[7] Marion's murder in the shower scene, at merely forty-four minutes into the film, subverts all of these conventions, making it entirely unforeseeable and affectively shocking. The aesthetics throughout this scene are also integral to sustaining the tension. Robert Kolker highlights how in this scene Hitchcock cuts 180 degrees and then cuts again with a high shot. The high angle shot above Marion is meant to convey an affect of danger to the audience and raise the tension of the scene. [8] The tracking shot that floats towards the shower curtain and then moves into a medium shot to reveal "Mothers" face drenched in the shadows is also highly immediate and shocking to behold. The composure of the slow movements from high to medium shot are juxtaposed against the involvement of Bernard Hermann's piercing musical score and the rapid cutting as 'Mother' begins stabbing Marion. Kolker describes it as being constructed like a 'series of slashes' [9] and that it is also both a 'visual frenzy' and a 'collision of images'.[10] The overlapping nature of the images as described by Kolker and the overall lack of composure in this sequence, compared to the stillness of the rest of the film, is what makes it affecting and shocking for the audience. The final shot of Marion's eye, as she lies on the ground, is also significant as it removes the audience from her perspective entirely and confirms that she is dead and will not return in the film, further privileging the feeling of shock as the audience's hopes for the apparent protagonist of the film are crushed.

Intellectually, Psycho's shower scene cannot be viewed in isolation, but as an integral component of the film's thematic montage, reflecting the death of the object. The death of the object is based on Plato's theory of the replication of the real, whereby people would only see the shadow of something: an imperfect copy of a perfect object.[11] Pivotally, it is the relationship between the shower scene and the film's climax, revealing Norman as "Mother" that intellectually engages with this reading. Together these scenes are not just aesthetically affecting in their shocking nature but rather they serve to intellectually enhance the entirety of the film, specifically our thoughts as to why "Mother" murdered Marion. One could suggest that by dressing up as his mother and impersonating her voice, Norman has rejected all notions of the real and embraced the imaginary. According to Freud, everyone has a consciousness or what is called an "internalised Other", that listens to and judges our desires. In psychosis however, one believes that the Other is to be real and listening to these thoughts and desires. [12] Norman Bates epitomises this case of psychosis by believing that his mother is speaking to him and that she has grown jealous of Marion: "Go on, go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with my food or my son!" [13] From these words, supposedly spoken by "Mother" we can view that Marion is like an imperfect shadow version of Norman's mother and that she is an attempt to recuperate the real and eventually replace "Mother". This idea of capturing, reproducing and holding to the Platonic form is initially conveyed when Norman makes a comparison between Marion and a bird stating: "You eat like a bird".[14] He says this in a room that is aligned with stuff birds, as though he has tried to keep them alive and failed. In being alive it is Marion who reminds Norman of the reality about the death of his mother. With the absence of Marion's body there is no access to this reality. Thus it remains imperative in Norman's mind to protect his mother by killing this imperfect version of her. Ultimately, as a result of the relationship between the climax and the murder in the shower scene, we have a greater understanding of the motives for Norman and the psychological state of his mind because of the films accessibility to intellectual discussion and engagement.

Hi-Concept cinema, through generic and conventional character archetypes, frequently serves to only visualise the external actions of the main characters, rather than their internal psychological thoughts about situations, as a means of creating tension and urgency throughout a film and maintaining the rhythm and tempo of the picture. The character of Brody, particular in relation to the Spielberg films that have followed Jaws, is an archetype for Spielberg's fixation with the search for the father. Brody's main goal is to protect his family and restore order to the community by killing the shark. This is an external goal as the audience can read it through the aesthetics that serve to visualise Brody's urgency and through his actions of killing the shark in the films climax. There is no sense of intellectual engagement with this goal or any need for it to be read in a psychological way. Brody does not reflect on what it means to be a father nor does his character undergo any significant character development. Instead, the aesthetics of filmmaking, such as the rapid cutting and the music score, demonstrate immerse us into Brody's emotions, rather than his thoughts, to make us feel the same affects of dread and urgency, rather than any intellectual engagement. In neglecting the chance for intellectual debate, Hi-Concept films overtime become increasingly generic and derivative in their character arches and in their overall narratives. Constantly improving special effects ensure that the aesthetics of these films are persistently replacing outdated methods of affect and immersion into these situations. Yet examples of Cla$sic Hollywood cinema like Psycho remain timeless and irreplaceable. While the film's aesthetics still maintain tension and shock, it is the depth of the film's narrative in allowing a character's psychology to be intellectually read and analysed in Platonic terms which ensures that the film will continue to be viewed and appreciated academically for generations to come.

Bibliography

Eistenstein, Sergei. Film Form: Essays in Film Theory. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969.

Frensham, Raymond G. Teach Yourself Screenwriting. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1996.

Katz, Ephraim. The Film Encyclopedia. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998.

Kolker, Robert. "The Man Who Knew More Than Too Much." In Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho: A Casebook, by Robert Kolker, 246. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2001. http://opac.library.usyd.edu.au/search~S1?/Xplato+book+7&searchscope=1&SORT=D/Xplato+book+7&searchscope=1&SORT=D&SUBKEY=plato%20book%207/1,3,3,B/l856~b3517678&FF=Xplato+book+7&searchscope=1&SORT=D&3,3,,1,0 (accessed September 21, 2009).

McGowan, Todd. The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007.

Psycho. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Performed by Anthony Perkins. 1960.

Samuels, Robert. "Psychoanalytical approaches. Epilogue: Psycho and the horror of the bi-textual unconscious." In Alfred Hichcock's Psycho: A Casebook, by Robert Kolker, 150. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Jaws. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Performed by Roy Scheider. 1975.

Looking for Eric begins when a man named Eric Bishop (Steve Evets) is hospitalised after a car crash. Eric's life is in a mess as he is struggling physically and mentally. As a postman he has failed to deliver any mail and he is struggling to share a home with his son and stepson. Both teens are extremely lazy, regularly inviting their freeloading friends to stay in the house and dump their stolen goods. Eric's life is further complicated through his relationship to his first ex-wife. She sees Eric so that he can mind their older daughter's grandchild. Eric's friends, who also work at the post office and are mad soccer fans, try to help him by performing an exercise whereby they look through the eyes of someone famous they admire to see themselves. Eric chooses Manchester United Forward, Eric Cantona and soon he imagines Cantona regularly giving him advice on life.

Ken Loach has always been interested in the working cla$s of Britain and this film, though peppered with humour at times, covers similar territory about the hardships of ordinary day life. Due to both divorces, Eric Bishop is a man that has been disconnected from his family and we immediately feel his confusion. One of his son's is white and the other is Black English. The latter must therefore belong to his second wife, who we never see in the film. Adding to this is, Eric must also look after his granddaughter, regularly brought to him by his first wife. While some of these details are rather unclear and convoluted at first, it seems to be a deliberate affect to immerse us into the same stress and disorientation that Eric must feel with the branches of his family. Eric's relationship with his first wife is really the core of the film and it is handled with a great sense of maturity. A number of flashbacks are used to show how Eric met his wife at a dance competition and their enthusiasm and attraction to one another provides a sad contrast to their current lives of misery, reflecting how the weight of time and age presses on a person's shoulders.

Eric is wholly embodied by actor Steve Evets, who previously worked on television, with shows such as Heartbeat. As a very scrawny and slight man, Eric appears physically and emotionally weak, allowing other characters in the film, particularly his sons, to undermine his authority. It's a really believable performance of internal and external. In only a smart part, Eric Cantona as himself is solid as well, though actual fans of soccer might appreciate his legacy somewhat more. Refreshingly, the film does not opt to be bogged down in psychological pretentions about the appearance of Eric Cantona. His appearances are often very humorous and perhaps it shouldn't viewed as a fault of Bishop's mind but rather a means of releasing his frustrations in drawing from what his idol would do in these situations. All of the other actors are equally as effective, though sometimes the film's heavy accents are not always clear and audible. Subtitle would have been a particular preference.

Although similarities to Sweet Sixteen can be drawn, it is surprising how much the last quarter of the film also resembles the Australian film, The Combination. Just as George Basha's character in that film had to defend his kid brother from a drug dealer, Eric must protect his son from a gangster nicknamed The Prophet. Regardless, these scenes involving the gangster are vividly handled by Loach for an utter sense of realism and an emotional impact. The shock of these scenes is perhaps a result of how funny a lot of the rest of the film is. A lot of humour is derived from Eric's friends in particular, who are incompetent, but at the same time good willed. As they sit around a pub discussing how to deal with the gangster, one of Eric's friends walks in and presents to the table a self-help guide on how to deal with psychopaths. The climax of the film too, while absolutely absurd, is a very unexpected but hilarious surprise.

Looking for Eric is another small film about working cla$s Britain and the way that ordinary people struggle with everyday life as much as the more extraordinary moments too. The contrast between humour and drama is a powerful technique throughout the film, reflecting the ups and downs of life, making us feel for Eric when something positive happens to him, only to be setback once more. Performed with truth from the entirety of its cast, this is quite a touching little story, particularly for those that felt that Sweet Sixteen was too nihilistic.

In 1976 a mother named Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) lives with her son Walter and her husband Arthur (James Marsden). One night a box is placed on the doorstep of their home and the following morning they cut open the box to reveal a button device that must be opened with a key. By the late afternoon, a man with terrible scarring on his face comes to their door and presents Norma with an offer. This man is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he announces that if they push the button someone in the world that the family does not know will die and they will receive a million dollars in cash. If they don't press it, nothing will happen and the offer will move on to someone else. Norma and Arthur are not allowed to tell anyone including their son about this deal. The incentive for the family to push the button is heightened by their financial difficulties. Arthur, who is currently working for NASA, fails to be accepted into a new job he applies for and Norma, who is a teacher, learns that her faculty funding is being cut.

One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.

If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a cla$s and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.

What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of the pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.

Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.

In the suburbs of Bodeen, Texas, a teenage misfit named Bliss (Ellen Page) is forced into beauty pageants by her controlling and conservative mother (Marcia Gay Harden). Bliss is low on confidence and has to work in a depressing diner called the Oink Joint, where she is surrounded by rude and selfish customers. When buying shoes one day, Bliss picks up a pamphlet advertising a women's roller skating derby. Bliss and her best friend Pash (Alia Shawkat) secretly attend the derby and Bliss is fortunate enough to catch the eye of a young rocker named Oliver (Landon Pigg) and to also be invited to attend the roller derby team tryouts herself. Although she has not used skates since she was small, Bliss has a great mixture of footwork and speed and is accepted into the team, the Hurl Scouts. She is joined by other misfits and extremely tough girls such as Smashley Simpson (Drew Barrymore) and Rosa Sparks (Rap singer Eve). The team is yet to win a game in its history and is regularly overshadowed and taunted by its fierce rivals.

The directional debut of Drew Barry is a very formulaic sports film, but it is elevated greatly by a lovely performance by Ellen Page, who brings a real sense of endearment to the screen. With her drooping body language and tiny frame, Page's character convincingly displays a look of vulnerability and innocence. Small touches, like the cracks in her nerdy glasses and her twisted feet as she stands, add to the believability of her character. She is very obviously an outcast and the way she is pushed around by people including her own mother, warrants our sympathy for her. Although she is again playing a teenager, Page is very far from her role in Juno here. It is as though all of that ultra confidence and sassy attitude has been drained from her. Though Bliss' rise to top form in the ring is certainly predictable, seeing her effortlessly skating in circles, high-fiving spectators and overcoming her insecurities, makes the film a real pleasure to watch.

Though the film is quietly funny at times, sports lovers will also be delighted with the competency in which the roller derby sequences are handled. Although this not exactly Million Dollar Baby, the fierce hits, cheap shots and bloody noses ensure that this should not be mistaken for a kid's sports film either. This is an extremely brutal, tough and surprisingly violent game at times. The action in all of the matches throughout is very exciting and Barrymore has done a solid job of capturing the brutality of the sport and the hits from these extremely fierce and brave women.

The film is not without its mistakes though. Some moments, such as a food fight, would seem more fitting in a Disney movie and until an exciting climax; the film feels slightly over-extended in its third act. The relationship too between Bliss and Oliver has been criticised for being seemingly uninteresting. Rather cleverly though, the abrupt end to their relationship actually does serve to reinforce the film with a simple but edgy message. This is not a story about winning people over to one's cause. Rather, it is a film about living in the moment and enjoying what feels right you at the time. Although by the end Bliss' mother still does not approve of the sport and states that it won't last, this does not matter. Bliss is not out to satisfy her parents but to do something that feels fitting for her own persona. She has found something that determines herself as a tough and tenacious fighter and in the final frames she is able to literally stand above the Oink Joint.

Drew Barrymore has made fun and entertaining picture that is buoyed almost entirely by a sympathetic performance from a very special young actress. Without Page, the film would probably collapse under its own predictability. Yet it is Ellen Page's sense of vulnerability and her innocence that ensures that we want to see her character succeed on this journey and when she does it really leaves the audience in a spin. It's a very sweet film.