Ratatouille
RELEASED: OCTOBER 2007
“Not everyone can be a great artist. But a great artist can come from anywhere.” Such is the message of Ratatouille, an absolute masterpiece and the best film of 2007 (so far, though I highly doubt anything will dethrone it). It’s a heart-warming and refreshingly optimistic statement that sums up the unique brilliance of Ratatouille, a film which firmly believes in the essential goodness of life, society and most of all people. It possesses the kind of cheering, sanguine perspective that has become all too rare in current cinema.

The man responsible is Brad Bird, writer/director of The Iron Giant and The Incredibles before this. Both are masterpieces in their own right, and both share Ratatouille’s confidently optimistic take on life. Ratatouille could be seen as a more conventional animated tale than Bird’s past work – it involves talking animals, an impossible dream and an uncomplicated romance. However, Ratatouille is ultimately an entirely different breed of animal. The rats talk to each other, but the humans can’t understand them – so though humans and rats interact and connect, they still remain essentially separate classes of animal. The story is centred around an impossible dream (that of a rat, Remy, wanting to become a gourmet chef) but the goal is so ridiculously improbable that you can’t help rooting for Remy, if only as some sort of reassurance that anyone really can do anything. And the romance, always in the background, is a breath of fresh air simply because it is so straightforward and uncomplicated.

Ratatouille is about great artistry. Not just in cooking, but in any art, whether it be food, music, theatre, or movies. As a filmmaker long dismissed and told his dream of directing was an impossible one, Bird (now an Oscar-winner) knows as well as anyone that any aspiration can become a reality. Sure, there may be obstacles, and you may have to give things up – things you love, or take for granted. But as long as you stay on the path which will make you happy, you’ll be okay in the end. For kids, it’s a good ideal for future life; for teenagers (such as myself), it’s incredibly reassuring. From the age of roughly 14 onwards, it is drilled into your head that you have to keep your aspirations realistic – to be happy in your job is a plus, you’re told, but a constant stream of money is more important. While this has truth to it, it’s a depressing and off-putting moral that could end up resigning one to a life of un-fulfilment. Bird appreciates the need for something to combat that realistic, cynical side which everyone has. He wants to be that something. And for me at least, he is that something.

On top of all this, there’s a hopeful message for adults as well: redemption, not to mention belated happiness, could always be just around the corner. This view is exemplified by Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole – magnificent), a stuffy critic whose perspective is transformed by a single bite of Remy’s food (a dish of ratatouille, naturally). Flashing back to his childhood, Ego has a moment of clarity and suddenly remembers why he loved food in the first place. His subsequent review, dictated to us in a touching voiceover, is neither scathing nor guarded – it is honest, unapologetic and rich with praise. Ego gazes out at Paris, once again hopeful, once again looking forward to the next day. If Ego’s eyes can be successfully opened, then there is hope. There is always hope.

Indeed, Bird proves there is hope too for cinema yet. Pixar’s output has been one of the few positive developments to recently come out of Hollywood, and Ratatouille is quite possibly their greatest film yet. It’s not just its themes that are rich – richness is everyone to be found, whether in the stunningly beautiful animation, the fabulous voice work, the electrifying set-pieces or all the lovely little details peppered throughout the story. Remy’s journey is eventful but judiciously paced, and investment is rewarded. If you invest yourself enough, you may even find yourself unable to stop thinking about Ratatouille. The conclusion is pleasing and one is undoubtedly left satisfied, yet there’s a lingering sense that you’ve just lost something, that you’ll never again experience the amazing, uplifting sensation that comes from seeing Ratatouille for the first time. The only thing to do, I suppose, is to see it again. And again. And again…

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Michael Clayton
RELEASED: OCTOBER 2007
Tony Gilroy, scripter of the Bourne trilogy, writes and directs this taut, engaging and multi-layered thriller. George Clooney is Michael Clayton,
a self-proclaimed “janitor” who cleans up any mess left by clients of a prominent law firm. As Michael gets progressively drawn into a massive cover-up and his life put in danger, he begins to question what, and who, he has been working for.

Though it can easily be labelled a thriller, Michael Clayton is not a thriller in the 21st century sense of the word. The pacing is slow and deliberate. Gilroy allows each moment room to breath, never rushing to get to the next scene. Where most thriller are obsessed with keeping things moving, there are chunks of Michael Clayton in which nothing much happens, plot-wise. Instead Gilroy examines his characters – he seems less interested in what is happening, and more interested in how they react to it. What we’re watching is more Chinatown than The Bourne Ultimatum.

Yet despite the occasionally glacial pace, Michael Clayton is rarely
boring (save for a slight lag in the middle section). It builds up in a satisfying, intriguing fashion to a tense conclusion, and Gilroy seems confident enough in the viewer’s interest not to resort to any flash-bang theatrics to liven up the proceedings. There is one murder (low-key, yet horrifying) and a single explosion (one forgets, after movies like Transformers and the Bond series, that a well-time explosion can still
have the power to surprise and shock). The story concludes with a brief, electrifying conversation between Clayton and semi-antagonist Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton). Gilroy then closes on a long close-up of Michael as he sits in a taxi, contemplating his new life. It’s an amazing shot, rich with emotion and subtext, and beautifully played by George Clooney.

Clooney is superb. He carries most of the film with his inexorable charisma and haggard, sympathetic portrayal. Even before he begins to question his work, Clayton is bored of it, and Clooney runs with this, somehow managing to make tiredness fascinating. Clooney is at his best
when he plays it low-key, making Clayton his ideal role and, under Gilroy, he delivers possibly the best performance of his career. He is well supported by Tilda Swinton, who rescues a contrived character with a sensitive, sinister performance. Tom Wilkinson, fabulous in practically anything (check him out his scene-stealing in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) is riveting in a tragic, expertly written supporting role
which overcomes cliché thanks in large part to Wilkinson’s emotional
(if sometimes obvious) take.

A fresh, fantastic movie which deserves to be seen by all.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Hallam Foe
RELEASED: SEPTEMBER 2007
It's most definately not for the faint hearted. Not because it's gory, bloody or scary, but merely because it is so bizarre. A boy, Hallam, loses his mother, leading him to outcast himself and live a life of stalking people he both knows and doesn't. The more unsavoury aspect of his spying obsession is the fixation on the intimacy of his father and step mother, the latter of which he not only detests, but suspects of murdering his mother. This however, doesn't stop him sleeping with her. This betrayal to his father (who remains none the wiser) spurs him to runaway to Glasgow, where he continues his stalking habits. Hallam encounters a woman that is the spitting image of his mother, making her is new prey; he follows her to her work, gets a job in the same work place and spies on her in her home. When he gets discovered, she accepts him into her life (she likes 'creepy' men) and they begin a sexual relationship. Eventually, his father finds him and after a big fiasco he realises his step-mother is not a murderer and forgives his father. Amongst these revelations, the relationship with his mother's look alike burns out and he becomes more settled in himself. Hallam Foe was one of the weirdest films i have seen in a long time, but I still enjoyed it nonetheless. It was wholly original, had have some laugh out loud moments, and the acting was highly skilled; I would therefore recommend it to anyone that is bored of Hollywood blockbusters and wants to see something a little bit 'out there'.

Nye
aneira@c-world.co.uk

The Bourne Ultimatum
RELEASED: AUGUST 2007
The last two Bourne films never did much for me. While I could certainly appreciate them for what they were – just one prolonged chase scene spanning a whole film – I never really understood their popularity. With
Ultimatum, however, I think the Bourne franchise has finally delivered an entirely satisfying film that delivered that elusive combination of intelligence and kick-ass action.

Essentially it’s the same formula as before: Bourne evades various police and assassins as he tries to recover his past, while his pursuers argue over whether or not they need to kill him. Joan Allen returns as Pamela Landy, aka ‘The Nice One’, and the excellent character actor David Strathairn replaces Brian Cox as ‘The Evil One’.

Matt Damon is fantastic as usual, communicating a huge amount through very few lines. His gun-touting pursuers are as two-dimensional as usual, but the action scenes are thrilling and expertly shot by director Paul Greengrass. There’s not much to it, sure, but there’s not a boring moment in sight and the resolution of Bourne’s personality crisis was fully satisfying. Great fun.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Knocked Up
RELEASED: AUGUST 2007
Judd Apatow is increasingly being billed as the saviour of US comedy, and in my opinion he is exactly that. After all, plenty of writer/directors could find the funny in the concept of 40 Year-Old Virgin, but few would bother to find the human side as well. They certainly wouldn’t manage it as well as Apatow, who co-wrote and directed the Steve Carell ‘vehicle’ in 2003. Knocked Up equally exemplifies Apatow’s talent for putting a fresh, relatable side on a seemingly overdone template. This time it’s an accidental pregnancy, as blond beauty Alison (Katherine Heigl) has a one night stand with lovable stoner Ben (Seth Rogen) and then is horrified to find herself with a bun in the oven. Nonetheless she decides to keep the baby, and takes a shot at a proper relationship with Ben. That’s largely it – there are no dramatic turns in the story, nor does another suitor come along to try and steal Alison away from Ben. It’s a simple tale told simplistically, and as such it’s hard to describe exactly why it’s so, so good.

First and foremost, it’s the script. Apatow contrasts the growing pains of Alison and Ben’s new relationship with the old and tired marriage of Alison’s sister (Leslie Mann, with Paul Rudd as her husband). Here Apatow presents a depressingly realistic couple who have long since grown tired of each other, and now spend all their time arguing or brooding in silence. Apatow often plays it for laughs, and it is funny, but in a very non-Hollywood way. Apatow proceeds to examine the effect Alison and Ben have on these two, but never provides a happy resolution. Indeed, while the conclusion of Alison and Ben’s story is hopeful, the problems are still present. In life things never get wrapped up in a neat little bow, and it’s clear that Apatow understands this.

The flawless ensemble doesn’t hurt either. Seth Rogen is superbly hilarious throughout, whether in his ignorant attempts at making Alison happy or in his interactions with his various stoner buddies (who provide comic relief whenever things get too serious). Katherine Heigl, always one of the more annoying cast members of Grey’s Anatomy, shows surprising comedic chops and keeps Alison an endearing, if flawed, character. Supporting players Mann and Rudd are the ultimate unhappy couple – even when they’re arguing it feels like they’re just going through the motions. And all of Ben’s stoner housemates – Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, Martin Starr – are so hilarious that they almost steal the film.

Ultimately, however, it’s Ben and Alison’s relationship that is most important. While a small leap of logic is required to ever buy the two as a couple (Heigl is just way more attractive than Rogen) by the end I was not only sold on the two as a couple, but I was rooting them on to succeed.

And that’s why Knocked Up is the best film of the year so far.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Born and Bred (Nacido y Criado)
RELEASED: AUGUST 2007
Nacido y Criado is an Argentinian film based on a man who crashes the car that contains both his wife and daughter. In a bid to escape his painful loss and guilt, he escapes to the mountains where he works in a desolate, cold climate amongst men who know nothing about his past; however the memories still haunt his sleep and daily thoughts. This section of the film appears to have little relevance to its eventual outcome, but goes to emphasise how running away from problems does by no means solve them. Eventually after repeated calls to his mother-in-law (in which he remains a silent caller), it transpires that his wife is still alive (she answers
the phone). It was merely the doctors evasive responses and his fear of the worst, when he was lying in the hospital, that made him discharge himself without full investigation. The film ends on an emotional climax as the partners reunite after years apart, however it is by no means a 'hollywood' ending as both their awkwardness is evident. I found it a very interesting film to watch, particularly as it used an Argentinian dialect that I am familiar with, and had very moving sequences. However, it did bemuse me somewhat, as it is never clarified as to whether or not the daughter has died and many of the scenes in the mountains felt slightly auxiliary. I began to get engrossed more towards the end of the film as it had rather an unsual layout. Although it wasn't always engaging for me, the acting was amazing throughout and i would recommend it if you want to have a different cinematic experience.

Nye
aneira@c-world.co.uk

Born and Bred (Nacido y Criado)
RELEASED: AUGUST 2007
Santiago has a successful interior design business. What’s more he has a charming wife, a lovely daughter and lives in a big stylish house in Buenos Aires. But his whole world falls apart after a car accident. All details about it are kept hazy, with only a breathless melody playing on a blank screen. Then Santiago re-emerges as a different man in the remote and rural northern Patagonia area. This new Santiago is beaten by negative emotions that occasionally manifest in violent rages and sobbing. He misses his family and tries to contact his mother, as he
imagines that his family are alive, but no one knows this for a fact. Everything is shrouded in secrecy.

At the very end, he knows his wife Josefina is waiting for him at home.
I like the fact that the film ends on a positive note.

Helen Zhu

HairSpray
RELEASED: JULY 2007
I expected Hairspray to be a cheesy teenage comedy full of clichés and predictable story lines. One of those films where you know exactly what’s going to happen yet still cringe, cry and laugh at all the right times.

It was all that, but so much better and with a completely different approach. The main story line is about Tracey, a teenage girl who has the biggest grin plastered on her face. That is the first sign that this is a fictional film because from the start you can see she is way too happy
to be a teenager. But seeing that grin on her face along with the cheesy first song ‘Good Morning Baltimore’ just makes you want to smile and sing along.

How Tracey fulfils her dream of dancing on “The Corny Collins Show” and brings about some overdue racial integration by helping her black friends, forms the plot of this movie.

She struggles with typical teenage issues such as one parent
supporting her, one parent not; the boy she likes is with the girl
who is envious of her ...

The soundtrack is made of fun-loving music including songs like ‘Welcome to the Sixties’ and ‘Timeless to Me’ performed excellently
by Christopher Walken and John Travolta.

Overall the film was a bundle of laughs with serious matters approached.
I was grinning the whole way through and came out of the cinema laughing. I would recommend the film to anyone who needs cheering
up or even if you just want to see a good film. I will definitely be buying the DVD !!!

Tazmin Miah

The Simpsons Movie
RELEASED: JULY 2007
A movie event quite literally eighteen years in the making, The Simpsons Movie has been a long time coming. Now that it has finally arrived, it ’s almost too late – the show itself, while still consistently funny, has lost the edge that made its earlier seasons so amazing. Still, I am part of a generation lucky enough to have grown up on this hilariously oddball universe, so I was extremely excited for The Simpsons Movie. Could it ever live up to my expectations?

In a word, no. The first twenty minutes are admittedly hilarious, a wonderfully inventive series of interconnecting sketches that had me in stitches. However, once the plot kicks in, everything slowly slides downhill. The problem is that The Simpsons has used and re-used literally ever storyline possible, and as such it would have been impossible for the movie to really bring something new to the table. But not even this excuse can forgive how lame and unimaginative some of these ideas are. The rest of the family losing faith in Homer after he makes yet another huge mistake – seen it. Springfield being encased in a dome – not so different from the episode where Burns blocks out the sun. And speaking of Burns, where the hell was he? Why on earth would you bother coming up with a new villain when you have such a fantastic evil character already at your fingertips? Nor is he alone – most of the supporting players have either a couple lines or no lines at all.

Most unforgivably, however, is that the film actually becomes boring. The jokes become dull and predictable, the final scenes drag and the resolution is uninteresting. I could have forgiven the dull storyline alone, if it had all been hilarious anyway, but it’s really not. All the best jokes are in the first half, and after that the whole thing fizzles out. Which is a real shame, because that first half really isn’t so bad.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
RELEASED: JULY 2007
The Harry Potter franchise has had its highs and lows (mostly lows), but with each movie it has slowly but surely been finding its feet. Prisoner of Azkaban was impressively dark and multi-layered, while Goblet of Fire had its flaws but worked well as a thrilling action spectacle. The latest offering, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, is refreshingly light on the action, instead stressing the emotional toll his adventures have taken on Harry Potter.

The film is directed by a veteran of British television, David Yates, and not only can I see what he was going for here, but I think he’s pulled it off really well. Goblet of Fire was sprawling, trying to fit everything in while also keeping up the pace and keeping things exciting. This has been the basic approach of all the Potter films so far – to cram in as much story as possible (to a reasonable extent) while keeping things interesting. OotP goes in the opposite direction. The focus is put squarely on Harry – it’s entirely his story. While this approach has its disadvantages (Ron and Hermione are sometimes reduced to little more than bystanders) it gives the film an emotional reality that past Potter films have lacked. It also makes up for the lack of a strong plot, which hampered the book and is still present here, but less so. The pressure is entirely on Radcliffe to carry the film, and he does so admirably, delivering a very satisfying performance, his best of the series so far. The script is based around Harry’s feelings of anger and isolation, and Radcliffe carries that off well with his nuanced portrayal.

Fans of Ron and Hermione may be disappointed. Don’t get me wrong, they’re in it plenty and get some fun piece of dialogue, but neither of them really has a story of their own. Mostly they just push Harry’s story forward. As such it’s kind of difficult to talk about their performances, but I did notice that Grint has settled into his role quite nicely – with more to do, he could really shine. Watson’s eyebrows were really irritating me (whenever there was a dramatic line they’d be jumping up and down like leapfrogs) but overall she did fine. Also notable is Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood – I was astonished but how endearing and loveable she instantly made this character. Luna’s a great addition and all her scenes are very funny.

As usual, the vast array of British talent was astounding. Notable among them was Gary Oldman, who steals every one of his scenes and has some great interchanges with Harry; Imelda Staunton, chewing the scenery as Dolores Umbridge; and of course Alan Rickman, who doesn’t get a whole lot to do but got me extremely excited for his bigger role in the next two films. Everyone else gets very little screen time – some more Brendan Gleeson or David Thewlis would have been welcome – although they all make the most of what they’ve got (Emma Thompson almost had me in tears when Trelawney was fired).

The early scenes are standouts. The film opens with a surprisingly scary Dementor attack, then jumps into a beautiful sequence where Harry and members of the Order fly across the Thames and past the Houses of Parliament. I would have liked more scenes at the headquarters of the Order, but from a pace standpoint I can understand the move to keep that bit somewhat brief. The scenes at the Ministry are fun (and that set is beautiful). The clever uses of London is also a nice touch.

There’s a lot of political stuff going on too. Dolores Umbridge’s reign of terror gets started oddly quickly, and nothing about it is subtle, but it’s entertaining and brings something new to the table. This holds true for the whole film, from Harry’s emotional journey to the Ministry taking control of Hogwarts – it ain’t subtle by any means, but it’s effective and allowed me to invest myself in the story much more so than with past Potter films.

As I said, it’s not perfect by any means. There’s definitely a rushed feeling, if not so much during the film as when you think about it afterwards. One aspect of the book which I could have done without, Gwarp, feels shoehorned in and unnecessary. The final battle feels boiled down and disappointingly brief (not the appearance of Voldemort, which is awesome, but the Dumbledore’s Army vs. Death Eaters bit that comes before) although what there is proves very cool. And the film seems to betray its earlier attempts at emotional complexity with a corny and simplistic final message.

But it’s fun, it gets in all the best stuff from the book, the performances are the best of the series so far and, oh yeah, it’s fun. Anyone expecting a masterpiece to come out of the Harry Potter franchise at this point clearly hasn’t been paying attention. What’s more important to me is that the films be consistently entertaining, and while OotP does aim for greater heights (with mixed success), it is nothing less than a satisfying ride, and I’m happy that Yates will be returning for the next film.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Spider-Man 3
RELEASED: MAY 2007
I’ve never been the biggest fan of the Spider-Man films. The first film struck me as entertaining but also overly simplistic and campy; its visual effects have also not aged very well. I like Spider-Man 2 better, but still couldn’t see why everyone loved it so much – aside from the action sequences, most of the film didn’t grab me. Well, in comparison to Spider-Man 3 I am now happy to proclaim the first two films of the series flat out masterpieces.

My mind is still boggling at exactly how the film could have ended up this bad. Is it the fault of the actors? Tobey Maguire gives his worst performance of the series, sure, but he’s never been more than a serviceable lead, and in this third instalment he has to express a huge array of emotions – Peter starts out happy, then becomes egotistic, and later turns evil, bursting into tears a grand total of three times along the way. Could any actor reasonably be expected to rise above material this bad? Kirsten Dunst gives her best performance so far, expressing Mary-Jane’s many weaknesses while still retaining a sense of inner strength. Sadly for Dunst she gets lumbered with a lot of singing and, in the film’s finale, even more screaming. James Franco as Harry starts out deliciously evil, but his character is screwed around with too much – I mean, amnesia? That’s just lame.

No, the stars aren’t to blame. Nor are the film’s supporting performers – Thomas Hayden Church (Sideways) lends the Sandman a subtle vulnerability, Topher Grace (That 70s Show) is engagingly villainous as Eddie Brock/ Venom (although he is extremely underused), J.K. Simmons is hilarious as Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson and Rosemary Harris manages to rise above her pathetically corny lines as Aunt May. Even Bryce Dallas Howard manages to impress, even though her Gwen Stacy character is little more than a pointless plot device designed to tear Peter and Mary-Jane apart.

The problem, it becomes evident, is scope. Where the last two Spider-Man films had just one villain, Spider-Man 3 has three (four if you count evil Peter). It's not that multiple villains can't be done successfully ö just look at Batman Begins, a flat out masterpiece ö but the filmmakers have to really commit to giving each villain equal attention. Spider-Man 3 utterly fails in this regard. Harry Osborn, having been built up for the last two instalments, is dismissed after twenty minutes in a disappointing manner. Sandman looks cool but the attempt at tying him into Spider-Manâs life (he was the one who actually killed Uncle Ben!) proves nothing less than pathetic. Finally Venom, who is awkwardly inserted into the film very late in the game, could have been really awesome but ends up underdeveloped; I swear it feels like heâs defeated ten minutes after heâs introduced, and by metal bars of all things.

The action sequences are all entertaining enough, but most other scenes are dreadfully dull. I found myself completely uninterested in Peter and Mary-Janeâs increasing alienation as a couple. Peter turning evil was equally dull, not to mention unintentionally hilarious. I was practically cringing with embarrassment on behalf of the film as Peter danced around Manhattan dressed all in black (and with a fringe ö since when have fringes been evil?). Maguire is awful in these scenes, about as convincingly evil as Bruce Campbell is convincingly French in his humorous cameo.

At 140 minutes, Spider-Man 3 is excessively long and nowhere near engaging enough to justify the length. Everything ultimately comes together in the filmâs action-packed finale, which could have made up for the filmâs lameness up to that point if it had been as good as, say, the train sequence in Spider-Man 2. Instead the resolution is dull, uninventive and rushed. It says a lot about Spider-Man 3 that its best scene ö the fight between Peter and Harry ö comes about fifteen minutes into the movie. Itâs all downhill from there. Which is a great shame, since Spider-Man 3 should have been entertaining and satisfying conclusion to one of the more artistically viable blockbuster franchises around these days.

Casino Royale
RELEASED: NOVEMBER 2006
t’s a new direction, a new blueprint and of course a new Bond in this, the 21st outing for Britain’s favourite ‘invincible’ spy. But while he may not be suffering a grisly doom any time soon, the Bond of Casino Royale takes more than his fair share of cuts and bruises – both physically and emotionally. Since Casino Royale is a prequel, it takes us back to Bond’s first proper mission, and we are (for the first time) privy to a darker, more downbeat Bond story. This Bond makes mistakes. He’s far too cocky and full of himself. And most important of all, he feels the sting of betrayal.

I can think of no more perfect an actor for taking on this younger, more vulnerable Bond than Daniel Craig. Craig’s performance explodes with visceral energy. He gives us a tough, sarcastic, egotistic but still infinitely charming hero who enters with all the style and allure of past-Bonds only to be torn to shreds, scene by scene, by the film’s villains. The more obvious baddie is Le Chiffre (played like a Blofeld for the 21st-century by Mads Mikkelsen), whose dastardly plots lead to an excruciating torture scene that will make even the most seasoned viewers squirm in their seats. But in the end, the real killer turns out to be love, in the form of Vesper Lynn (a fabulous Eva Green) who Bond falls for with tragic consequences.

Overall, Casino Royale isn’t actually so different from the Bond films we’ve grown accustomed to (with the possible exception of the ludicrous Die Another Day, which took the fantasy side of the franchise way too far); it still delivers pleasingly exotic locations, beautiful women, rollicking action scenes and good ol’ M trying in vain to keep Bond in check. However, it’s the willingness of the writers, actors and director to take themselves seriously for once that makes Casino Royale a notch above the entertaining but routine Pierce Brosnan outings. Daniel Craig has all the pedigree to be the best Bond ever. Here’s hoping he and the writers can maintain the high bar they’ve set for themselves with Casino Royale.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

300
RELEASED: MARCH 2006
Critically speaking, 300 is a terrible movie. The plot is basic at best, the characterisation is weak, the acting is mostly over-the-top, the dialogue is downright amateur, and the whole thing is riddled with clichés. Yet it seems churlish to attack 300 based on these criticisms. It has no need for a complicated plot, nor strong characters, nor realistic performances or dialogue. 300 knows exactly what it wants to be – a gory, no-holds-barred action extravaganza. And in that department, it is all kinds of successful.

The film follows 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler, overcoming weak material with a fantastic performance) as they make a stand against the sinister Persians invading their land. The Spartan warriors are outnumbered beyond comprehension and have no chance of victory, but nonetheless make their suicidal stand. It is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller (the genius who brought us Sin City and V For Vendetta) and sticks very close to its source material, apart from the adding of a sub-plot about Leonidas’ wife appealing to the Spartan senate to send her husband reinforcements. These scenes are clearly an attempt at injecting some girl power into a male-dominated ensemble, but they are dull in comparison to the battles and end up dragging the film down.

The battle scenes are where it’s really at, and mostly they are loads of fun. Director Zack Snyder doesn’t shy away from anything, delivering gallons of gore, endless death, plenty of mutilation and even some evil mutant
creatures just for kicks. If this is your kind of thing, you’ll love it. There are some downsides; slow-motion is used way too much, and the final scene where all the Spartans meet their doom pulls its punches and is too swift.

300 is ultimately very much a man’s movie. It’s testosterone-pumped, hyperactive, excessively gruesome stuff. Whether you’ll enjoy it depends entirely on whether that’s your kind of thing. It’s not strictly mine, but 300 had just enough respectable artistry behind it to justify a three-star score.

Joey Sims
joey@c-world.co.uk

Elipsis
RELEASED: OCTOBER 2006
Elipsis Elipsis is a Venezuelan thriller film directed by Eduardo Arias-Nath (a Venezuelan lawyer and filmmaker) about parallel fragmented stories linked by the relationship between an actor (Sebastian) and his friend (Galo) a fashion designer. Sebastian is very successful, everything is going well for him whilst Galo is completely frustrated with failures · but then things turn around and now it is Galo who becomes successful while ÎSebas' needs his help. Here is when their friendship is severely tested· how our lives can change in a blink of an eye whether we are prepared for it or not, and time does not stop there in the elipsis of life. When someone gets into trouble and does not know how to solve the problem, under such pressure he might make really bad decisions, and the film suggests what happens when we have to live through the mistakes. We see this reiterated in the movie's tagline ÎDos cosas son seguras, Naces · Mueres · lo dem‡s depende de ti', translated to English it means ÎTwo things are certain: You are born. You die. Whatever happens in between is up to you'.

Carlos Soto
carlos@c-world.co.uk