Some films are so skillfully made and iconic that they almost immediately become templates for how to do a certain aspect of cinema well. If you want to know how to tell a story without dialogue you watch the following scenes in Vertigo, if you want to know how to use sex scenes to explore character development you might watch something like A History of Violence, if you want to see a masterclass in editing then JFK would be a mandatory port of call. Sadly for Public Enemies, Michael Mann's film chronicling the infamous American bank robber John Dillinger, rather than being an example for excellence the only thing it is useful for is pointing out to budding filmmakers how not to do things.

For a start, the most immediately apparant shortcoming is that it boasts some of the worst sound design seen in a major American release this decade. Whenever the oscars come around the sound categories (mixing and editing) are not really understood by a lot of people, but from now on if ever the need arises to point out what sound mixing is, this is it. At times the music overpowers the dialogue making it barely audible, other times the background balance will stay the same then suddenly the voices will become much more loud in the mix, it's so bad it can vary in the space of a sentence where it goes from barely audible to far too loud. It's so bad that it almost seems like there's a problem with the cinema showing the film's speakers, but after the nightmare that was Miami Vice on this front and the fact that this is something that has been complained about in other reviews, it's just what Mann does.

Aside from sounding like it was mixed in Michael Mann's shed, considering this is a film with an alleged $80m budget, when the big shootouts come they look alarmingly cheap. The style is all over the place, on occasion out of the blue it goes in to full blown documentary-style camerawork, at other times rapid movement sweeps in and only makes you aware you're watching a film, it's so shoddy and uneven in the visual storytelling. The actors are constantly groped in close ups which usually brings out more of a performance but that leads onto the next major problem and that is the acting.

Over the last 20 years Johnny Depp has carved out a career for himself which has given him the reputation of being one of the most unusual, inspired, interesting and charismatic leading men in world cinema but Mann has extracted a performance from Depp which actively goes against everything that makes him the actor he is with the appeal that he has. It's bland, it's mannered on occasion and it's only his screen presence which holds it together. Christian Bale gives a sufficiently vapid turn but he, Depp and Marion Cotillard all falter because the bedrock of any film, the script, pulls the rug out from underneath them.

The characterisation in this film is laughably two-dimensional and as such none of the actors have anything to really get their teeth into. Bale's character is a badge with a gun, nothing more, Cotillard's moll is barely even sketched and Dillinger is drawn incredibly superficially and as such it makes it a glorification rather than an exploration. That alone would be enough to impact on all their turns, but Depp and Cotillard have it twice as bad because their romantic relationship is so risibly written. Cotillard on occasion acts like Penelope Cruz did early in her Hollywood career, but here it's not because Marion is having trouble with her English, it's because the dialogue is so wooden and clunky it would be impossible for any actress to deliver the lines well, let alone in a second language. Even Depp is given lines that wouldn't even make the first draft of the average porn film (reaching its nadir in suggesting he and his Prince Albert join a naked Cotillard in the bathtub) and this is the basis of a relationship the filmmakers actively try to take into emotional areas, which is a contradiction they never solve as the attempted powerful scenes fall flat because of everything that has preceeded them.

Mann has created a film that, aside from the prospect of the cast (but not the actual way they're used), has nothing to offer. It's overlong (Collateral is the only one of his last 6 films he's brought in under 130 mins), the action sequences are sub par and drag, the script is poor, which makes the acting suffer, and on top of that aesthetically (both visually and sonically) it's a bust. It's almost impressive the non-performances he gets from a cast that are clearly talented and just how superficial the whole thing is in every single imaginable way. A shining light for future filmmakers on how not to make a big budget commercial film, Mann's career continues to be an insulting shadow of its former self.

This is one of those films that if it didn't star Gael Garcia Bernal then there is absolutely no chance it would ever have made it into British multiplexes. That is not to say that it has got some decent distribution is an inherently bad thing, all too often very commercial foreign language fare (like this) gets overlooked as for some the prospect of watching a film with subtitles necessitates an intellectual subject matter. Not so, and sometimes nice little films like this find their way through.

Rudo y Cursi is a reunion of Bernal and Diego Luna from one of Mexico's most famous exports of the last decade, Alfonso Cuaron's Y tu mama tambien, and this film is directed by the co-writer of that film: Cuaron's brother Carlos. It follows two half-brothers who are spotted by a wandering football talent scout (who narrates the film) and plucked from obscurity and start playing for different professional teams.

There aren't too many surprises along the way, this is very familiar stuff with more than a few cliches, but the charm of both actors carry them through and the film with them. As a piece of filmmaking it is extremely solid, impressively so. Never anything too showy, it doesn't show the actors doing too much on the pitch the way Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas did in last year's Linha de Passe and the family dramas at the centre of this are much more lightweight than in that film but if anything it works much better because of it.

There are some nice supporting turns, Guillermo Francella as the scout-come-agent is very amusing and steals the show and Bernal's music video is utterly hilarious. So a very simple little film which does exactly what it says on the tin, for football fans, fans of the people involved, or just if you fancy seeing Bernal's rear end on multiple occasions, then it's worth checking out.

Doris Dörrie's latest film simultaneously wears its heart on its sleeve whilst pulling a few tricks out of it and as such it's probably advisable to know as little about it as possible before seeing it. The initial set up is that a woman is told that her husband is critically ill, but decides not to tell him, instead getting him to leave their country home and go and visit their children and grandchildren while they still can.

Hannelore Elsner plays the wife and does so with a beautifully restrained, subtle performance, which is more than matched by Elmar Wepper's turn in a role which is very difficult and delicate to balance. There are more standout performances in the ensemble, with Nadja Uhl (who is a/ following what should have been her break-out in Twin Sisters by seemingly carving out a niche for herself in snapping up small roles in internationally distributed films and b/ increasingly resembling Daniela Hantuchova the older she gets) playing the lesbian lover of one of the children who seems to be the only one who actively gives a damn about our couple, and especially Irizuki Aya who has a lot of focus once the story goes in another direction and has such a lovely presence.

Many films are recalled in the kind of story that is being told, there's a bit of Tokyo Story here, some hints of Ikiru there, and a touch of Lost in Translation thrown in for good measure. While on occasion some of the metaphors may be a bit obvious and oversimplified (the blossoms representing impermanence and a recurring theme of the Mayfly indicating making the most of a short time), where Cherry Blossoms hits most frequently and successfully though is the use of emotionally arresting imagery.

The way the film is presented is rather impressive, there is frequent use of hand-held camera yet the cinematography and editing in general are so smooth that there are none of the off-putting drawbacks the technique can create. There is the odd moment in linking montages where the editing jumps ahead of itself and it does seem at odds with the rest of the storytelling, but it only happens on a handful of occasions and never gets in the way of the drama. The score is lovely but if anything a tad underused, although that the film is so lyrical throughout without overplaying the sentiment through adding on too much music shows just how much emotion is on display here and also how well it is being examined.

While the film does tend to lose its way a little in the middle and lacks a bit of focus, the overt operatic nature of the feelings on show brings an emotional gravitas to the film which is enchanting. There are several interesting performances, aesthetically it's a pleasing film and on numerous occasions it is extremely moving. Dorrie goes straight for the heart and will capture far more than elude her with this lovely, strange, sweet little film.

After a brief flirtation with American independent cinema a few years ago with Factotum, Bent Hamer returns to his roots with his first Norwegian film since 2003's Kitchen Stories. Like that film, O'Horten was submitted by Norway to be its submission in the foreign language category at the oscars, and like that film it was unable to garner a nomination.

We follow train "engineer" (i.e. driver) Odd Horten who is on the verge of retirement. He lives alone, has a mother in a nursing home and doesn't appear to have many friends. The film is a gentle exploration of this reserved character and the situations he finds himself in immediately prior to and after his retirement. The problem with all of this is that the narrative is extremely spotty. It's very much little moments and escapades but they could almost be put in any order and don't flow or gel together to create any kind of crescendo or to augment the characterisation shown.

It's billed as a comedy, but it's more mildly amusing in occasional places rather than consistently laugh-out-loud funny (and not overtly comedic and silly in tone the way Kitchen Stories was). The acting's fine, they utterly waste Henny Moan in a glorified cameo, but it's all about Bård Owe and he gives a very solid, watchable performance. Sadly the film is all about the character of Horten who Owe is playing and on top of the narrative not helping issues, his character is barely explored. This results in having an underdrawn, passive character being put in situations which don't reflect back on him or bring out his own character (the way say Norah Jones' Elizabeth has everyone and everything do in My Blueberry Nights) so it makes it extremely difficult to find any emotional or intellectual attachment.

This all proves a bit too much for the film as while it seems harmless enough and boasts some decent performances from the cast, it's just too lightweight, aimless and wandering to successfully hit on any level (comedic or dramatic) and as a result drags terribly and becomes increasingly tedious despite the all too intermittent chuckles. Couldn't recommend checking it out.

Sunshine Cleaning is one of those little independent films that gets made, finds its way into Sundance then spends a year or so on the festival circuit before finally being released 12-18 months later. Starring Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, it follows two sisters who start to move into the lucrative crime scene cleanup "racket" in a bid to raise lots of money quickly. In this respect it is what Dr. Mark Kermode would label a "high concept film", in that it can be pitched in one sentence.

The result is a very nice little film, but it is not without flaws. Lots of subplots get dropped suddenly (Adams' affair with her married high-school sweetheart and equally Blunt's relationship with the daughter of someone they "cleaned up" after) and there are numerous loose ends in general that aren't tied up by the end. It is amusing in places, but very rarely laugh-out-loud funny and simultaneously too light to fully hit as a drama.

Where the film does work though is the acting, Adams has more to do the longer it goes and she gives a lovely little turn. Blunt is funny when she needs to be and Alan Arkin, Steve Zahn, Clifton Collins Jr. and perennial comedic add-on Mary Lynn Rajskub all do nicely with underwritten roles. Another plus is the direction, it's unfussy, gets the job done and is absolutely in service of telling this story the best way possible as it bears very little resemblance to Christine Jeffs' previous film Slyvia.

So a low-key film which is certainly diverting, not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but then again it doesn't try to be. Unfocused to be sure with some things being too neat (for example a subplot about their dead mother) and others as mentioned are too sloppy, but worth seeing for anyone who's a fan of either of the two main actresses, or gentle American independent cinema in general.

Last Chance Harvey is one of those films that is able to use the vagaries of the awards season to its advantage. The Gloden Globes are one of the most prestigious awards but are voted for by less than 100 people, so quite often a very small film can get nominations without having to shell out millions on an advertising campaign. That was the case with this film, which picked up nominations in the Comedy/Musical category for both leads, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson.

The story follows jingle-writer Harvey Shine (Hoffman) coming over to London to see his daughter get married. When he arrives his darling daughter informs him she'd rather have her stepfather give her away and he is in the knowledge that he has to get back to America immediately after the wedding otherwise he'll lose his job. On the other side we see Thompson's spinster, Kate, who works at the airport having people (including Harvey) rudely ignore her questionnaire. She also has a delusional mother (played by Dame Eileen Atkins) won't stop calling her and interefering.

The acting from both is first rate, for the first couple of acts it's the Dustin Hoffman show, but by the end Thompson has stolen in and more than matched him. The biggest problems in this film stem from the writing, there are a few staple rom-com cliches which cheapen it all a touch, coupled with the odd moment of needless coincidence and a useless subplot with Atkins. Also, strangely (considering everyone in the film acts well and it's been recognised for that aspect), the casting is rather questionable - Hoffman is old enough to be Thompson's father and Thompson hangs out/goes on blind dates with people old enough to be her children. She looks great for her age but equally she looks nothing other than a woman in her late 40s and it is distracting at times, both for Kate's work and social life and at times her growing relationship with Harvey. This probably all stems from the casting of Hoffman, he's way too old for the part and they have to cast around him.

It's a minor quibble though, this is a lovely little film with some touching performances and very heartfelt moments. The score is very simple, but effective and the editing is a stand out on the technical side too, moving things along briskly without feeling rushed. It's occasionally amusing but despite looking like a romantic comedy and having some elements which would point that way, all of the main storylines are done for dramatic effect and as such that's the overriding balance of the tone, even though they keep it light for the most part. Wide target of a film, more than worth checking out.

Historically the French are the one group of filmmakers who have revered Alfred Hitchcock the most, and as such it is no coincidence that almost every French film that fits the thriller/pot-boiler/tense drama mould has the word "Hitchcockian" used to describe it. In Mark of an Angel (which is based on real events) there are moments that recall the master's handiwork, but the apprentice, director Safy Nebbou, has not quite yet learnt how and when to use the tricks.

The story begins following Elsa, played by the divine Catherine Frot. She has a son, is in the process of divorcing and works as an assistant at the local pharmacy. One night she picks up her boy from a birthday party and sees a little girl, whom she is captivated by. Elsa then pumps her son for information about the girl, Lola, and eventually goes to the school she attends and follows Lola's mother (played by Sandrine Bonnaire) drive them home. After that she engineers a "coincidental" meeting and the obsession takes hold.

Frot and Bonnaire are two of France's finest, and most underseen actresses internationally, so having them paired together guarantess a level of quality. Frot is superb as the unhinged "depressive" woman who fixates so intently on this girl, and Bonnaire gets better and better the longer it goes as the role demands more and more. In a way it's similar territory to I've Loved You So Long, but here there are two finer actresses giving a pair of superior, more restrained and natural performances, so it is a cut above the norm in that regard.

This is not to say Nebbou's film is without flaws, for example there is one tense scene which is revealed to be a dream sequence and from then on out Nebbou cannot escape the confusion created as they never show another dream but it just makes the later moments lose their tension because it's expected that someone will jump out of their slumber at any moment. There are also some fridge logic-plot holes that The Dark Knight would be proud of and even when the characters question how something happened there's still no answer for it, it's not the greatest piece of cinematic writing.

So a stylish film (with one set piece at the ballet that catches the eye in particular), which is impeccably acted, but tries a little too hard to manipulate the audience and comes unstuck in the process. It's a case of the screenwriters trying to do too many things as with the ill-advised dream sequence they put in, they did so for the subtext of one character having to reveal themselves, but it is simultaneously too obvious thematically and also too clunky in terms of the style of the storytelling. Coupled with that, Nebbou's direction is unable to smooth out the kinks so what remains is an interesting, more than worthwhile and certainly good film, just one that could have been quite a bit better than it ended up being.

Viewed from this side of the Atlantic, Ben Stiller's career is a rather strange one. One minute he's a writer/director/actor, then The Cable Guy bombs, he stars in There's Something About Mary, follows it up a couple of years later with Meet the Parents and then proceeds to make a lot of duds, but has enough hits to remain in demand. Night at the Museum was phenomenally successful from a purely business standpoint and as such a sequel was a no-brainer.

Here Stiller reprises his role as Larry Daley, who since the first film has stopped being a security guard at the Museum of Natural History (where the exhibits come to life after dark due to an Egyptian tablet) and become a successful inventor/entrepeneur. Visiting the museum he discovers all his old "friends" are being packed off to the archives in the Smithsonian and there's nothing he can do to stop it. He then gets drawn into saving his friends when the tablet gets taken with them, thus bringing the world's largest museum to life.

Stiller is fine, the film opens with a series of cameos (Ricky Gervais, Jonah Hill) which fall utterly flat and it takes far too long to execute the plot set up. When Amy Adams arrives playing Amelia Earhart it is a breath of fresh air, but still not particularly amusing. The person who provides the most entertainment is easily Hank Azaria who absolutely comes to play doing his best Boris Karloff impression for the suitably maniacal baddie. The supporting cast are sorely underused, in particular the hilarious Alain Chabat who has a nothing role as Napoleon and is obviously just picking up the pay-cheque. This is nobody's idea of an actors' film though.

It's all very watchable, the special effects are first rate and once it gets going the film does move along. The problem is it's not consistently funny enough and the love story is utterly limp as amazingly (considering the tightness of Adams' trousers) Stiller is unable to generate any kind of chemistry between them. In films like this a certain amount of good will is almost demanded and it is fine for what it is, but the end in particular is a complete cop out. A decent way to shut off your brain for an hour or two, but nothing revelatory here.

Following on from The Da Vinci Code, in Angels and Demons Ron Howard brings another adaptation of a Dan Brown novel to the screen, starring Tom Hanks reprising his role as symbologist Robert Langdon. Here he is brought over by the Vatican because the Pope has died, they're about to elect a new one and they are receiving threats from "The Illuminati" after some anti-matter has been stolen and could be used as a weapon.

The previous film was one of the most pretentious in recent memory, taking such a risible subject matter and treating it with grave seriousness, and brought about a marriage of an incredibly condescending tone (pointing everything out to the audience) and utterly transparent screenwriting techniques. This is more of the same, but a bit less. The main twist in the film is transparent but it's not consistently so, it does condescend and make sure the viewer only has to use 1% of their IQ but it's not quite as full of its own self importance as the previous entry.

Hanks does a solid job, but all Ayelet Zurer as his sidekick has to do is repeat every foreign sounding thing he says in English. This is emblematic of the film, one person will say something, then someone else will either clarify what that is for the people with no brains or ask to have it explained to them. That it is usually an Italian-speaking character continually spelling out the simplified English version is quite hilarious. One of the funniest moments was having someone from the Vatican, who just used the word "erudite" naturally in a sentence, not be able to figure out the English for "formidable".

The casting director has done a very good job though, Nikolaj Lie Kaas is a familiar face for fans of Danish cinema and Thure Lindhart pops up, minus the red hair he sported in Flame and Citron. In Ewan McGregor, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Stellan Skarsgard you're always going to have more than solid support, with McGregor the pick of the bunch. What this film has that The Da Vinci Code lacked is a sense of ridiculousness which is fun rather than eye-rolling and it must be down to them hiring David Koepp to rewrite the embarrassing Akiva Goldsman's screenplay (the man wrote Batman and Robin and Lost in Space then won an oscar ). So while this is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination, it's watchably bad and as such should not necessarily be avoided at all costs. Just don't watch it alone and have a giggle all the way through though.

...what with the French Open I've got way behind on this and I have a big batch to slap my way through as well as 3 new films in the cinema to talk about ... and I'm getting up at 8.30am to go and watch the tennis again at the Priory Club in Edgbaston (went on monday, going tomorrow, may do an entry on it if I can be arsed) so I'll keep this as brief as.

Right then, I saw Samson and Delilah when it was on sky because Hedy Lamarr in the lead role (Delilah, not Samson ) intrigued me. Very little to do with the actual bible story, but was watchable nonetheless. Costumes probably looked a bit too "new" but director Cecil B. DeMille (for whom the tag "legendary" is if anything an understatement) could do this sort of thing in his sleep. My brother is into war films and he's even moved into renting foreign ones from lovefilm and threw a very obscure Russian one my way, The Star. Very well made film about a recon team working to sabotage and gain information from behind enemy lines. A romantic subplot is very weak and tacked on, but the nuts and bolts of the story and the way its told is extremely compelling. Beyond obscure, but well worth unearthing.

To show just how random my viewing is (I am probably the only person on earth who has gone from watching Tarkovsky to the remake of My Sassy Girl ) after that I caught 27 Dresses when it was on its run on Sky Premiere. This surprised me by not being bad, I don't care for Katharine Heigl (don't watch Grey's Anatomy, not a fan of Knocked Up), but she wasn't too annoying here. Obvious set up, but some genuinely amusing moments thrown in quite frequently. Judy Greer absolutely stole the show as the best friend taking a nothing role with dodgy lines and making it the best part of the film. After that I saw The Home Song Stories, which was very reminiscent in tone to Romulus, My Father which was also an ode to miserablism. Joan Chen is good for the most part, but the story occasionally veers into over the top territory and gets a bit obvious. More than decent but not quite as good as it could have been.

Now, The Fall certainly had "love/hate" written all over it, being directed by Tarsem Singh. He's a director (he made The Cell with Jennifer Lopez) for whom something as unimportant and measly as plot is never going to get in the way of his visuals and it's the same here. It has early-Hollywood stuntman Lee Pace telling a little girl tall tales in order to elicit morphine from her, as such the fantasy storyline/elements have very little depth to them. It does drag to begin with in the non-fantasy sections, but strangely by the end the part about the "telling" is more interesting than the "story". It's okay, with one incredibly acted scene, but it's all over the place and as deep as a puddle.

Two more and I'm on to the cinema entries, super. I watched Reign Over Me because it was on and I was bored and I liked Mike Binder's previous effort The Upside of Anger a great deal. This film just proves Adam Sandler can't hack it as a dramatic actor (the only things I liked about Punch Drunk Love were Phil Hoffman, Emily Watson and the kiss). Don Cheadle pwns him every which way til sunday for the entirity of the runtime and you know a film's in trouble when Saffron Burrows gives the second best performance. Shamelessly manipulative, borderline exploitative, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't moving. Lastly the best film of the lot: Alexis Zorbas. A divine performance by Anthony Quinn as the eponymous character, he's note perfect, a decent turn by Alan Bates and some interesting supporting turns from Lila Kedrova (deserved the oscar) and Irene Papas (underused). Very good film, but I will never, ever forgive Mihalis Kakogiannis for what he did to Papas's character.