Sometimes the best way to tell a serious story is to make fun of it. I remember reading that Stanley Kubrick tried to write Dr. Strangelove as a drama but couldn't make it work, but when he decided to make it a comedy it suited the story much more. This I think is one of those situations, I would not like to have seen this as a portentous treatise on American foreign policy in the 1980s, in fact I can think of few things less appealing.

So it's supposed to be fun and it turns out it is. Some cracking one liners, it's a little bit silly in tone but then it works that way. Hanks is very comfortable in the role but he doesn't dominate the screen - that's not a criticism, the film works better with the cast of characters. Julia Roberts is fine, Amy Adams wasted, but the show belongs to Philip Seymour Hoffman - he doesn't just steal it, he wraps it up in a rug, walks outside and around the corner into an alley, dumps it in a skip, sets fire to it, then pisses on it. He owns the film every which way til sunday.

The film isn't perfect, it feels a little light and the end seems tied together very quickly, this could comfortably have been a good 15 minutes longer and explored more of the aftermath rather than the getting there. It's a comedy, it works as that. It has a wider message and gets that across but not in the best of ways, it feels secondary and almost unneccessary when it actually is the whole point of the film so that's not exactly a great job from the people behind the camera on balance of tone and message. Still, it's fun, The Hoff is an absolute riot and worth the price of admission alone and it has more about it than the average hollywood comedy.

Another one with absolutely no prospect of a release in the UK.  - All I knew about this film is that it is South Korea's submission for the foreign language category at the oscars and that Jeon Do-yeon won best actress for it at Cannes. I'd recommend not knowing much more than that really and just let the story take you (as knowing the "plot outline" would impact on the opening half an hour and give it a different tone with the sense of anticipation for what's going to happen).

So I won't really go beyond the opening quarter in terms of plot specifics. Jeon plays a widow who is moving with her son to her husband's hometown. She sets up a piano school and attempts to fit in with the community. It's a small town so everyone knows everything she's doing. There is a local mechanic she meets on her first day (the brilliant Song Kang-ho, who I'm sure it used to be law that he had to be in the best Korean film of the year... ) who is obviously interested in her and tries to help her whenever he can.

What happens after the set up is the plot goes somewhere hinted at before and it becomes an acting tour-de-force. In that way the performance in general is like Toni Collette's bravura turn in Japanese Story, except rather than the change happening with half an hour to go, it happens half an hour in. Jeon (who I've actually seen before in the very sweet The Harmonium in My Memory, which she was lovely in) never looks like she's acting, even in very emotional scenes where it's easy to be seen to be going "over the top". It's such a genuine performance that even when you can sense the hand of the filmmakers or question the character you never doubt that she's actually going through it, she's exceptional.

The film though is far from flawless. It's overlong by a good 20 minutes, the director gives absolutely no sense of time whatsoever (you can't tell if the story is happening over weeks, months or years) and there are big characterisation problems. This suffers from Babel-syndrome in that certain plot points are dependent on the stupidity of the character to work, also later on the changes in character are almost immediate. BANG! She's changed her whole outlook on existence and then BANG! she goes another way.

There are some really interesting themes in this film vis-a-vis religion and redemption and forgiveness and salvation and how that fits in with different people on opposite sides of the same situation but it's not fleshed out enough as the character, like the film is so absolute and quick to change. This sadly, like many films of its kind (like the druggie films and the others that deal with the specific situation in this one), is at the end of the day a performance piece. There's not much outside of Jeon, good actors and sub-plots are wasted, the script skates over things yet the film is overlong, it raises interesting points occasionally but then does not attempt to bring it together and is quite predictable at times too. Worth it for the Jeon alone, nobody who'll get an oscar nomination in lead actress this year will touch her, but I wouldn't expect a tremendous amount outside of her.

Why is it all the interesting films never get a release date or if they do it's years later?  I've read both of Ethan Hawke's novels and enjoyed them both, but The Hottest State was the one I really connected with. The film is not the same, there are differences and some of the most memorable/my favourite scenes and elements are excised to facilitate a smoother narrative and more palatable running time but I didn't mind at all apart from it adding the contrivance of how they meet. Small thing though, no big deal.

It's the story of a young guy (played by Mark Webber, doing his best impression of Hawke) and a girl (played by Catalina Sandino Moreno who could well be the most natural actress in the world under the age of 30) who meet, get together and drift apart. What Hawke is writing about/showing is an area pretty much every guy (or person) doesn't want to remember : heartbreak, being in love with someone and trying everything you can not to let go in the face of someone who doesn't want you any more. Most of the time it's sweet but at others it's a damn hard watch and is extremely unsettling as it pulls no punches whatsoever and keeps it incredibly realistic.

They make a nice couple, the story is completely told through his eyes, Catalina's charm and presence and character are all informed by Webber's performance and character. There are a couple of sub-plots to this, namely Webber's relationship with his father (played by Hawke) who he hasn't seen since he was 8 years old and also the relationship with his brutally honest mother (the delightful Laura Linney, on form again here) who tells him everything he needs to hear but is incapable of taking on board, along with an ex-girlfriend in Michelle Williams who does what she can with a role that didn't survive much from the novel.

The film though is only as good as them as a couple and they're very nice together. If you don't buy them together you won't care when they're not and the whole second half of the film will be very tedious so this is one of those Steven Soderbergh with Solaris type deals where if you don't like the first 10-15 minutes then stop watching because this relies heavily on the audience investing love and care towards the characters.

I found it a very moving, brave film (this isn't a subject people want to be reminded of, just how crap love can be and how truly painful and embarrassing and undignified heartbreak is) which is infinitely more interesting, real and human than anything else I've seen that's new this year. The saddest part of The Hottest State is there are no immediate plans to release it in this country even though the film's been in the can for a year and a half. I had to resort to watching this online (despite the quality being perfect) as it doesn't look as if it's coming out, and in a week where the multiplex consists of Alvin and the Chipmonks and St. Trinian's that's infinitely more depressing than anything depicted in this wonderfully earnest little film.

Alexander Siddig is becoming quite an interesting actor. After 7 years stuck on Star Trek (not a bad gig for an actor in their late 20s/early 30s) it seems as soon as he hit 40 he really matured professionally. I liked both his performances in 2005 in Kingdom of Heaven and Syriana if not the films themselves. Tonight I was desperate to find something that wasn't dance or phone-in based with the final of a certain programme on and I came across Un homme perdu on More4. Even more interestingly (that's such a subjective word, lmao, it was interesting to me so I'll roll with it) the film was only released theatrically in France 3 months ago so I did wonder why it was on.

This film really reminded me of Paris, Texas for some reason, maybe in describing it you'll see why. SIddig starts the film almost mute. He's travelling around and after having a Benicio Del Toro/Scarlett Johansson moment around the back of the toilets on the Jordanian border with a woman he shared a car with he is busted by the border police. This is because a Frenchman (Melvil Poupard, who I've only seen once but enjoyed) was taking snaps of them and aroused attention.

Siddig's character is a mystery. The opening shot of the film is him running through war-torn Beiruit in the mid-80s and we see him older, greyer, more worn and weary over a decade later. Poupaud is a photographer who coldly snaps everything he sees and he becomes intrigued by Siddig, offering him a lift into town, sharing a hotel with him and going out with him. Poupaud is after booze and birds and uses women to try to find a way into Siddig's past which he cannot (or will not or doesn't want to) remember.

The film is beautifully shot with a lovely modern score (lots of reverby guitars) and is a very nice watch. I don't think it goes to the places Paris, Texas did because the answer to what's been haunting Siddig is neither as poignant or interesting or moving as Travis's in that film and the journey in getting there is stymied by Poupaud's erotic encounters which don't form much of a background for him or serve a great deal of interest. Really, the characterisation of both is not that great and benefits from both actors taking what's there and running with it.

Siddig excels with this starring role, he has an inherent vulnerability and warmth to his performance which Poupaud matches nicely with his determination, hedonism and coldness (the situation at the end where he's still taking pictures after what he's done has you praying for his soul)- they make quite a pair and make the film. It's interesting for the most part, doesn't really go anywhere special at the end, but it's so nice aesthetically and so well acted it's really quite a good film. Nice to see another talented female director in Danielle Arbid make something inherently more artful and interesting than one usually finds being buried under the carpet after a short release. If this is on tv again then do yourself a favour and check it out. If it ever makes its way to a big screen I'd definitely make the effort to see it again in the medium it was intended to be seen in.

About 6 weeks ago I heard Mark Kermode on Radio 5 (a self-confessed William Friedkin fanboy) bemoaning the distribution problems of this film (sitting on the shelf for 18 months then being released in one cinema in London with zero advertising) and as it's now completely apparant it's not getting a release anywhere near me (even my arts cinema has showing times up til early March and doesn't have it) I decided to check it out online.

The basic set up of the film is Ashley Judd is a lonely barmaid who lives in a dingy motel and one night her colleague brings a guy (Michael Shannon) around. The friend goes to a party and Judd invites Shannon to stay. She's literally lost her son and he struggles to keep his paranoid thoughts under wraps. What results is what can best be described as a psychological thriller in the motel room for the rest of the film.

Ashley Judd is the reason to see this film. Until the last 10-20 minutes (more on that later) she is wonderfully natural. There are moments of genuine emotion and vulnerability. Shannon is good and provides a restrained foil for her to play off but it's her show. The trouble is there is a very forced, frenzied finale where Friedkin completely fails to show any restraint whatsoever (even though the third act is very nicely shot). The actors go far too over the top and sadly it gets embarrassing for all those involved by the end. I don't blame the actors (they're just doing what they're told), but it totally wrecks what had been up until about halfway through an extremely well acted, interesting film.

What remains though is a very well acted, not very interesting film by the end. It's such a disappointment what this film degenerates into. Not very clever, not very insightful, not very compelling, you're just watching "it" unfold, or more accurately completely unravel when it should be being wound up. You sit there seeing the filmmakers try to ratchet up the tension but in doing so they only succeed in dismantling the thing by stripping everything interesting about it. Paranoid rants alienate the audience from character and plot and just ensure you're watching where the screenwriter is tiredly taking it rather than where the story (but that there were one) naturally goes.

The script is an actor's paradise but an audience's silent fart in an elevator - it creeps up on you unawares and just leaves you desperate to get out and rid yourself of it. Judd ensures this film will always retain an inherent value because she's so good for so much of it but outside of her there's not a tremendous amount that this film has to offer.

Sometimes a film is more than the sum of its parts. You have good acting, good writing, good direction and the whole thing is just fantastic. This one involves a lot of people that I am a really big fan of and I do think they're all good but somehow this one just misses. Last time I felt something like this was Mystic River.

Philip Seymour Hoffman (who I also refer to as "Big Phil", "The Hoff" and "Viscount Hoffman" ) and Ethan Hawke are two of my absolute faves and both are very good in different ways. Hawke has his vulnerable unreliability down to a tee and The Hoff broods like a bastard. Good stuff. First half of the film it's Hawke, second half Big Phil comes into his own. Marisa Tomei, well she was good in an underwritten role but even though I'd been told "she's just naked" it did still shock me with her doing a whole scene with Hawke wearing just her knickers and stilletos. Albert Finney was a bit of a disappointment, I always expect big things from him but while he was good he was the only one who failed to meet my expectations.

The film is about two brothers who botch an attempted robbery at their parents' jewellery store - Viscount Hoffman and Hawke are the brothers, Tomei is Big Phil's wife (who is having an affair with Ethan - don't worry, that's all in the first 15 minutes... ) and Finney their Dad. It is then about the aftermath and build up to the robbery. Lumet cuts all over the place from varying perspectives and time spots - for the most part it works, but it doesn't add a tremendous amount to the character arcs or dramatic effect by doing so. I guess it just gives him a better way to start the thing and drip feed you information. Thing is though, once you accustom yourself to the screenwriting tricks (making you expect one thing then revealing another) it's less successful (kind of like The Da Vinci Code but to nowhere near that degree) and does grow a little tiresome by the end.

I suppose one of the problems is all the characters are bad from the get go and there's little or nothing to redeem any of them (that's probably another reason for the structure to not make that immediately apparant). There isn't much pace to the film (the cutting does disrupt the flow, it's not always seamless) and don't expect a fully tied up ending (I'm not too bothered about that, just some people are so I thought I'd mention it).

It's a good film with very good performances (well, the leads) but I think a lot of the fuss in America was that this was Sidney Lumet's "return to form" and if this had someone else's name on the front it wouldn't have got *quite* the critical reception it did. This isn't a film I would say is one of the best of the year (even though I do think certain areas excel) but it's a good yarn with first rate acting that is always watchable even if it's a tad choppy and drags a bit at times.

Ah Bob Dylan, never been particularly fussed by you. Mainly because you can't sing but moreso because I couldn't be bothered. Never saw the attraction. Now I've seen the film about him which I've been calling "I'm Not Male" because one of the 6 people cast to play Dylan is Cate Blanchett and she's been getting some serious talk of an oscar.

The film is a mess. A glorious mess maybe, but undoubtedly a mess. What this is from writer/director Todd Haynes is Catch-22 filmmaking - there the point of the book was that war is boring and pointless and repetetive and contradictary so the book was written in that way just to ram the sodding point home all the time... . Haynes takes the same approach here, Dylan was impenetrable and random and contrary as a character so he makes his film in the same way to emphasise the point. The trouble is all that does is ensure you have a film that is like its subject and it doesn't necessarily lend itself to a good film as all you have is a random, contrary, impenetrable film which is all gimmick.

Haynes shoots Blanchett's "Jude" (none of the characters are called Bob or Dylan) as if out of 8½, which is interesting for a while but when he brings in The Beatles pratting about like something out of A Hard Day's Night the tone is completely lost (and cutting between documentary, western, etc. in the other segments is never a happy balance). That's the main problem with the film, the balancing act in tone required to pull this off is like a tight rope walk ... at 30,000 feet between moving planes. One has to admire Haynes' ambition if not his inability to successfully pull it off.

Blanchett is the best Dylan, but not an entirely successful one. Much like her turn as Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator there are both moments of extreme honesty and authenticity coupled with moments where all you are doing is watch Cate Blanchett "act". The latter should never be there, but it does frequently pop up (more when she opens her mouth than when she is left to be) - this is an inherent downfall to the stunt casting. The whole movie is encapsulated in her performance, you are getting a sense of Dylan but are painfully aware that you are watching an attempt to give a sense rather than naturally getting lost in it.

So then why is she the best Dylan if she's not entirely successful? Because Haynes has cast a multitude of the least interesting actors working today (Ben Wishaw, Christian Bale, Richard Gere, etc.) to play the other Dylans and all that remains is the fact that Blanchett is better at acting than any of the guys. This is not news, so she's almost naturally the best of the Dylans because of the casting.

But unlike the upcoming awards season of back-slapping and self-congratulation will have us believe, Blanchett's is not the best performance in the film and no matter how many Best Supporting Actress of the year awards she wins, she's not even the best supporting actress in her film. That would be Charlotte Gainsbourg. She plays the wife of Heath Ledger's Dylan and she gives the most (and only) truthful performance in the film. She is utterly convincing, completely the character, natural, subtle, everything that an excellent performance should be. Like most excellent performances though, she will be overlooked when it comes to handing out praise and prize at the end of the year as it's not flashy enough to be noticed over the gimmick that is Blanchett and stand out being genuine in a film which is almost entirely gimmick.

This isn't the first unusual biopic this year, the Ian Curtis biopic Control was told basically as if a hyper-stylised kitchen sink drama. That worked much better and was just a really good film - you didn't *need* to be a fan of the subject to enjoy and appreciate it. Sadly, I cannot say the same for I'm Not There. If you aren't a fan of Dylan there's very little this film has to offer other than mild intrigue. The direction kills what little drama or pathos created in the segments by the gimmicky approach and cutting between them so much. It adds to the Dylan-ness of it all but subtracts from the experience of actually watching it, just like reading Catch-22. As a result I have no idea who would want to see this film and could only recommend it to someone who is already interested, so that renders it moot. They say it's good if you really like or really hate a film, if you touch the extremes and I'm sure Haynes tried to do that in this film. I didn't love it, equally I didn't hate it - I'm right where it is the worst place to be as a viewer : in a haze of apathy. It's alright, I can see what they were trying to do, I can see why that works in one way, I can see why it doesn't work in another way and I don't care at all beyond that.

Well, it's on tv every day this week and I saw the trailer basically every single time I went to the cinema for two months at the back end of last year so I was bored enough tonight to check it out.

Started off as I find a lot of these kind of films do, it gets to the half hour mark and they've only just executed the set up of the plot (Winslet and Diaz swapping houses) and there really haven't been that many laughs for a supposed rom-com, so it's disappointing but picks up once the plot kicks in.

At the beginning I thought Winslet was just going to own everyone in sight. She was much better than Diaz, who I thought took a really long time (basically until after Jude shows up) to get her stuff together. By the end Cameron was doing well, but it was a slow start. This is one of those kind of films that's not really dramatic enough to be a great drama, not romantic enough to be a great romance and not funny enough to be a great comedy. It's amusing and ensures a good time is had and I suppose that's the only requirement this kind of film has, but it wasn't anything tremendous.

Even managed to make Jack Black passable, which for me is a real feat as I'm not a fan of his at all. I really liked the scene in the video store where he's singing movie-scores at her. It's a nice little film, the screenplay's nothing to write home about, multiple plots and characterisations are really pretty obvious (the parallels with Winslet & Black, the "mystery" about the women calling Jude and what the situation is when Diaz uncovers it, Cammy's inability to cry and where that's going to go, etc.). Thing is though, this isn't one of those films where that really matters, because it's more about how those characters are going to act in those situations. In that respect it's almost like Enchanted (Amy Adams is never far from my thoughts... ) in a strange way in that you know exactly what's going to happen but that's not the point.

In the end, Winslet probably does own everyone in sight. She adds a level to the performance which just goes above and beyond what was required. Great piece of casting because you could just slap in someone less talented and get a "decent" performance, but she adds a level of class to the film which was if not entirely unexpected, then pleasantly surprising. Worth seeing I feel as it's a very broad target but if you hate chick-flicks and want a gag-a-minute this isn't the film for you.

... doesn't *entirely* accurately sum up my feelings on Elizabeth : The Golden Age, but I just love taking the mick out of the Jesse James film title and it's not too far off. After seeing a film like this the sole emotion that remains is confusion. Why did they make the film? Did it have to be now? Couldn't they wait 10 more years for the actors to get to the right age? Had they not seen the Helen Mirren TV version?

It's a decent film anyway, Blanchett only has a couple of scenes where she goes over the top (the argument with the Spanish Ambassador and the "Braveheart" speech at the end) but for the most part she's very good. Luscious techs (especially Costumes, Art Direction, etc.) make it a beautiful film but the script and general decisions of the filmmakers make it a rather hollow one.

What you have is one of the most interesting British historical figures and I don't even mind that they made so much stuff up even though the reality is just as (if not more) compelling, but they make the centre of this film her relationship with Sir Walter Raleigh (played with cocky gusto by Clive Owen, who seems detremined to have as much fun as he can even if it means the audience has less of it themselves) which is just so cheesily drawn at times and frankly, not that interesting. The writing, especially the characterisation is pretty flaccid, seeming willing only to skim over obvious potential feelings rather than fully fleshing them out. The decision vis-a-vis Mary Queen of Scots is so melodramatically done and speeded over it betrays the real drama and is a recurring theme in the problems this film has.

That said though, it is a good watch for the most part. Aside from the last half an hour, while it's not as intersting as it could be, the ridiculously high production values and Blanchett's anchor of a performance ensure an intrinsic interest is retained. Even with the operatic approach (seemingly any semblance of restraint Kapur showed 10 years ago has been cast aside with triumphant apathy) and boderline camp it's got something about it. The trouble is, what it is isn't enough to be what they wanted.

This type of film is oscar-begging of the highest order, though. You can almost visualise the pitch "We'll get Cate back, do the more interesting period, first class techs and have the battle to finish it off!" - sounds marvellous, but when you're aiming for a prestige piece, you can't just have the sheen, there has to be depth. That comes in the writing and this is where it dies because they took a very interesting character and period and turned it into a bland love triangle "against the backdrop" (there's an oscar phrase if ever I heard one...) of a powder-keg moment in British history. It's a beautiful exercise, but rather a pointless one, even if it's not a bad way to spend a couple of hours.

Well, the only reason I watched this is because I've always been a fan of Christina Ricci and I didn't find much of worth here outside of her performance. Samuel L. Jackson was fine, there were a couple of his usual Sam Jackson moments, but mainly he was the character. Justin Timberlake, this is the first time I've seen him act, he's not without talent but he wasn't anything particularly special.

The direction was nothing to write home about, a lot of the problems stemmed from the script. It was predictable, intellectual counterfeit money (really some victims of abuse go on to become promiscuous? Tell me something I don't know... ) and far too simplistically neat. Some very ill-thought out symbolism (she wears a chain around her waist at the end? What did you have a team of Jack Russell Terriors working on that one for all of 90 seconds before you came up with that idea? ), generally decent to strong acting trying to elevate the material and the storytelling but not really succeeding.

La Ricci looks terrible in this film and I'm almost certain it was a conscious choice. She's painfully thin and when she lifts her arms you can see her ribcage, it's unhealthy. I cringe to think some guys will think she's "hot" in this, I think back 5 years to something like Prozac Nation where she was just *gorgeous*. If she hadn't already proved herself as an actress time after time I'd think she'd been to the Christian Bale school of "weight loss/gain = acting". Difference between her and Bale the physical appearance is secondary rather than the primary point. She is very believable throughout (as is Jackson as well) in a demanding role. Shame the dramatic structure is such a hack-job and the filmmaking lets her and them down. It *just* about merits being average for me because of Christina, for anyone else I couldn't recommend it as it's far too trashy and hackneyed.

It seems the only question here is "Do you like Brenda Blethyn?" - if you do this harmless enough Australian comedy will retain at least some value and if not you're almost guaranteed to dislike it. I've always been in the camp of the former, I like Brenda and always have be it in straight drama like Secrets and Lies or in her comedic roles.

Here she's an ageing stand-up comedienne aiming for a final shot at stardom whilst her son is busy fooling around with the local blonde and his life is coming undone. I'm sure there's about an hour's worth of a good film in here, shame the thing lasts for another 45 minutes. Basically the first 45 is pretty good, it's consistently funny and the set up is nice seeing the lad's relationship with his mother and his blossoming relationship with said blonde. However it comes undone with a messy period of over half an hour where the tensions between Blethyn and blonde become the central theme and it gets rather embarrassing for all involved. However a good 15 minutes towards the end injects much needed life into the film with the climax, but then it's ruined again with a sappy, happy coda tacked on the end.

What this film should have been is something like the very nice French film The Singer with Cécile de France & Gérard Depardieu. What that film did was focus on the ageing performer and examine his relationship with someone of a younger generation (who represents what he's trying to recapture, his youth). This one though does not have Blethyn at the heart of the film, rather it's the boy and his balancing act with his monster of a mother and his hot new blonde. The other problem this has that the Depardieu film doesn't is the drama in the French one is much more natural and believable, in this it's all guilt trips, manipulation and a weak willed child (who's barely a man) at the heart of it and it's mainly done for laughs rather than the comedy coming out of the situation. It also doesn't cop out at the end the way Clubland does.

I liked about half of it, it is consistently funny, but not always in the right way (sometimes you're laughing at it rather than with it) and its point gets muddled with the direction and at times clumsy writing (no matter how good some of the one-liners are). So it's basically the Blethyn test, she is excellent in it, does everything you'd expect of her in the role and remains the main reason to check this film out.

p.s. I've been catching up on Pushing Daisies (Congrats on those Golden Globes noms guys!!!) and Episode 8 where Anna Friel and Kristin Cheoweth break into the sweet shop dispels the myth perpetuated in Hollywood romantic films that one man cannot love two women. Going from Chuck in full burglar gear on the bed to Olive in hysterics visiting the Piemaker in prison ... adoration doesn't even begin to cover it .

Finally a film to talk about. I missed Once when it was at the cinemas because it died after a week at my multiplex but I was able to see it in perfect quality online (I only tend to do that when something's been and gone or isn't coming out here for months). Having seen the trailer, I thought I'd like it but was a bit sceptical about the level of Damian Rice apeing. On the other hand, pretty much any romantic film with basically two people on screen for 90 minutes I tend to love (Before Sunrise, Before Sunrise 2 : Revenge of the Seine, In the Mood For Love, Conversations With Other Women, etc.) so I was expecting to enjoy it.

Firstly what I didn't like. The first couple of songs I wasn't into that much, especially after hearing everyone swoon over Falling Slowly which prompted the musical bitch in me to kick in. Secondly what has that man done to his Takamine? I wanted a Takamine for as long as I've played the guitar and finally got one in 2004 but this chucklehead looks as if he was short of firewood one cold Irish night and started hacking into it. Savagery, no excuse, ever, show some respect.

But as was predictable I was a sucker for the romance in there. Bit contrived in places but it's earnest enough to resonate. Really liked the last half hour or so when the complexities of the relationship(s) kick in and the music hits its heights (especially When Your Mind's Made Up). The end was probably the best bit, it didn't cop-out and go for something cheesy but made it both realistic and quite moving so I was very pleased they didn't throw it away at the end.

Acting was nice and natural, just the way I like it. Hansard has a very believable stare when he looks at her longingly but Markéta Irglová steals the show. Beautifully subtle performance, utterly believable, one of my favourite performances by an actress this year. In fact, despite being extremely disappointed with 2007 cinema-wise, this whole film is one of the few bright sparks. A lovely, genuine little film, not without flaws but with lots of songs and even more heart. I think most people would find this film an enjoyable and worthwhile way to spend 85 minutes, unless you dislike the style of music this would be recommended strongly to anyone.

p.s. The answer to the Christmas Radio Times thing was 3, I was being too optimistic it seems. A Fred & Ginger film, The Gay Divorcee which I've wanted to see for a while, a Max Ophüls film The Reckless Moment, which I heard Todd Haynes going on about a lot in his commentary for Far From Heaven, and The Hurricane, which I doubt I'll love but I've been interested in seeing Denzel in it for years.

That's actually three topics rather than one and I'll take them in reverse order because I spent most of the evening round at my Grandmother's for her 80th birthday ordering from officially the coldest (and slowest) Chinese restaurant this side of Hadrian's Wall.

The result of which is that I appear to have missed half of what I can only describe as "Gay Night" on Sky Movies Indie as they have a John Waters film (Pecker), which I've seen two or three times, mainly due to my unending love for La Ricci. Then/now there's Pedro Almodovar's latest (Volver), which was one of my favourite films of last year and one which my mother swears blind Cruz was better in than the juggernaught that was Helen Mirren in The Queen.  There is also a François (I seriously had to put his name into Google and then cut and paste to get the thing under the "c" ) Ozon one I saw at my Arts Cinema last year (Time to Leave) which I enjoyed for Poupaud's nicely subtle performance rather than the utter wasting of the talented Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi (who I only found out last week is the sister of Carla Bruni, who I know from Helena Bonham-Carter films and Emmanuelle Béart lingerie ads, but I prefer her singing in French to butchering English poetry ). Three good films but I can't be bothered to watch any of them again tonight.

Why? I'm too busy contemplating how the sole films between now and the new year are Youth Without Youth (which appears to be a 3 cinemas in London-job ), I'm Not There and The Kite Runner. I have my 4 "B-"s in February which I've been looking forward to for months (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, My Blueberry Nights, There Will Be Blood and Red Balloon ) but apparantly the bloodless savages  have bounced Binoche's Balloon to mid March, by which point my Arts Cinema should be closed for its £13.5m facelift. But no fear, Cineworld will obviously pick it up ...

So to counter that I am going to spend the evening spurning Gay Night for the perusal of this year's Christmas Radio Times. I'm betting 6 films I'll REALLY want to see, that sounds low but for me that's optimistic. We'll see.

the first thing I'm going to write here is going to have very little to do with films and everything to do with the stuff I said I'd only occasionally talk about Nothing pre-planned but all I've done is watch Pushing Daisies and Chelsea somehow not beat Valencia in the last 24 hours so nothing film-wise to talk about. Just to test to see how doing photos on here works, here's the 6 people I've seen the most of in the last day :

p.s. the Aunt on the right of the two should be Isabelle Huppert, there, I knew I could get something film-related in somehow.

Right, ok, that kind of worked, cut off my favourite character off screen on the right and implies I think a dog is a person but that's good to know how that works... I'm catching my brother up in our dreamteam, I've been ravaged by injuries but Terry, Lampard, Torres (what a finish!) and Gerrard helped me out last night, I'm only 50 or so points behind the git. Well done to Olympiacos last night (GO GO LUA LUA!!!), good stuff my Hellenic friends, I'm going to go back to Anna Friel and people who raise the dead for another episode...