FILM: Moneyball (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Moneyball came onto Sky Movies a while back, I remembered it earning several Academy nominations so thought it was worth recording for a rainy day.

What's it all about?

It's 2002 and the Oakland Athletics baseball team is licking it's wounds following defeat to the rich New York Yankees in the play-offs and being raided for their best players over the close season. General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) realises that his team will never be able to compete with the richer teams financially, in terms of attracting and retaining star players. He recruits Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) from the Cleveland Indians to roll out a recruitment strategy based on average statistics and percentages rather than traditional scouting methods.

Should you watch it?
My knowledge of baseball is very limited (my choice of US sports is football), thankfully however this didn't limit my enjoyment of Moneyball (even if I did have to Google 'on-base percentage', but I got the gist of it). At its heart, the film is a real life underdog story revolving around Billy Beane's unshirking determination and belief in Peter Brand's methods, in the face of extreme consternation and criticism.

"There are rich teams, there are poor teams.
Then there's 50 feet of crap and then there is us"

Moneyball's script was co-written by Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and the result is a clever and witty narrative that delivers some amusing scenes, usually involving Jonah Hill's shy and uncomfortable Assistant GM Brand. Hill himself is a revelation (Academy nominated for Supporting Actor) in a straight role, playing against his norm yet still being responsible for most of the film's light hearted moments. It seems a shame he even considered starring in The Sitter after this performance. Brad Pitt is another who stands out with an admirable performance as the main character, embodying just the right amount of likeability, softly spoken confidence and self-belief, without crossing into meglomaniac territory, despite practically shutting down his scouting department. When considering the three leading names, Philip Seymour Hoffman seems to be underused as Coach Art Howe, mostly seen standing around in disbelief as his team is dismantled. I would have liked to have seen more of him, given what the man can really bring to a role.

A really enjoyable sports underdog story, and not just for baseball fans.

FILM: Men in Black 3 (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

I'm pretty sure I have only seen the original MiB film, somehow managing to avoid the universally panned sequel (39% RT) (either that or I've blocked it from memory). In any case, its Mrs Media Worm who loves the MiB franchise, in no small part due to Mr. Will Smith.

What's it all about?

Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) discover that Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement - Flight of the Conchords), imprisoned by K forty years previously, has escaped from a top security prison on the moon. Boris travels back in time to kill K before he can be captured. After K and everyone but J's memories of him disappear from the present, J travels back to 1969 and teams up with a younger K to stop Boris before he changes history.

Should you watch it?
Considering a third film in a franchise? Considered a time-travel plot to breathe some life into the story? This is exactly what MiB 3's writer, Etan Cohen, did and it largely works, taking Will Smith out of the present, dropping him into 1969 and adding either new characters or younger versions of characters from the previous two films. Trying to splice elements of time travel into a story always runs the risk of tying the narrative up in knots and although MiB 3 steered clear of these complications, I still found myself pondering the repercussions much afterwards. 

Due to the plot this instalment features considerably less Tommy Lee Jones than before, but fear not, the buddy movie concept is not lost as Josh Brolin accurately replicates, not just impersonates, Agent K some forty years earlier to butt heads with Smith's fast talking Agent J. Brolin's note perfect performance as a younger Jones is the highlight of the film, helping the plot  move forward in anticipation of the event that leads to K's even more dead pan and serious demeanour. What causes this actually turns out to be a surprisingly tender ending to the film, and one that deserves to finish the franchise.

"Oh no, this is the one where......"

Michael Stuhlbarg (gangster Arnold Rothstein from Boardwalk Empire) has an amusing, scene stealing turn as Griffin, the quirky alien capable of seeing all possible permutations of the future, all that was missing was a mention of Schrodinger's Cat.

All things considered, MiB 3 is a likeable return to the form for the franchise, but one that isn't truly funny or inventive enough to suggest that the franchise can go much further.

FILM: Margin Call (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Having never heard of this film before, I saw it advertised and liked the look of the ensemble cast and hoped the script could make the subject matter interesting enough.

What's it all about?

Set in the weeks prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, Margin Call takes place during a 36 hour period at an unnamed investment bank. Risk analyst Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) completes the work of his former boss (Stanley Tucci) and realises that the recent volatility in the market falls outside the data applied to the firms heavily leveraged investments, meaning that over the time the firm holds such investments, losses will be generated in excess of the firm's worth. Sullivan passes this news upwards through the management chain (Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Demi Moore) culminating in a middle of the night emergency board meeting with CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) to discuss the options to save the firm. 

Should you watch it?

If you have any interest in a smart and tense drama dealing with the financial crisis and featuring a first rate cast, then yes. First time director and writer J.C. Chandor delivers a gripping, tense film with Academy nominated screenplay, told largely over the hours of a single New York night.

The majority of the 'action' takes place in dimly lit offices, often lit solely by the banks of computer monitors flashing with the doomed data, with the neon skyline of New York as a backdrop through the office windows. It's a setting that reflects the severity of the situation, once aware of the issue no-one ever suggests calling it a night. The sense of importance is also highlighted by the manner in which the disaster-in-the-making is passed up through the chain, with each manager, head of department, or senior executive, only able to pass it on until the CEO choppers in at 3 AM to rule on the matter.

Justifiably, the banking industry has been criticised and penalised for the greed that led to the 2008 crisis but interestingly, despite the firm making a decision that will ultimately lead to the crisis, Chandor gives a voice to the industry to justify their greed and existence. Will Emerson (Bettany) argues that the bankers greed is only able to exist due to the demands of 'real people' to own things they cannot afford, while CEO Tuld (Irons) is considerably more blasé, stating that the downturn is simply part of the economic cycle and even that there will simply be more starving dogs than fat cats for a while. The narrative is balanced however, with Sam Rogers (Spacey) and several others voicing their discontent at the irresponsibility about to be shown by Tuld and Cohen (Baker), while scapegoat Sarah Robertson (Moore) goes down declaring that her warnings were not listened to.

'How many zeros?!'

A great cast, an interesting subject and great film making, Margin Call is a must for those wanting a film to test the old grey matter.

FILM: Jerry Maguire (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I was lent this by a friend at work. It had always been a film that for some reason I had never known much about despite knowing its popularity.

What's it all about?

A Tom Cruise vehicle, Jerry Maguire is a sports agent at a lucrative firm, who suffers a crisis of conscience over the money first, clients second approach of the firm and finds himself fired for it. Broke and having lost his client roster, Maguire persuades idealist assistant and single mother Dororthy (Renee Zellwegger) to join his new firm. While trying to succeed with one client, the loyal but strong willed and eccentric footballer Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.), Dorothy falls for Maguire's charms.

Should you watch it?
Sitting down to watch Jerry Maguire I didn't know what to expect. I was aware it dealt with a sports agency firm, but that was the extent of my knowledge. I didn't know it was part sports film, part comedy and part romance, and a pleasing combination of all three. Neither did I know that Gooding Jr. won a richly deserved Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance as Tidwell. Not short on referenceable lines or highlights owing to director Cameron Crowe's script, Gooding Jr. was the film's main highlight for me. His charismatic and boisterous character stole the majority of scenes he appeared in, be it dancing around his kitchen or tenderly showing his affection for his wife.

Crowe also encourages Cruise and Zellwegger to turn in excellent performances, Cruise's slightly unhinged and borderline OTT portrayal of Maguire being one of the best I have seen him give, teeth and shades and all. He also achieves a genuine tenderness in the scenes he shares with Dorothy's son.

Show you my WHAT?

The ending may have been a little too sugar coated, mainly in the sense of Tidwell's new contract value rather than Maguire and Dorothy's relationship, but all in all Jerry Maguire is an enjoyable feel good romantic drama that has stood the test of time so far and one that is definitely worth checking out if, like me, you haven't yet seen it. 

BOOK: The Sum of All Fears, Tom Clancy (6/10)

Why did I read it?
Another book, another Tom Clancy Jack Ryan story. Book number five of my odyssey through Clancy's Ryan series.

What's it all about?

A nuclear missile lies missing in the Syrian desert for decades until it is discovered by a farmer before ending up in the hands of Arab terrorists, angry that a landmark Holy Land peace deal between Jews, Muslims and Christians and brokered by the US is proving successful. The terrorists recruit East German nuclear experts, themselves angry that world socialism has collapsed, to help customise the warhead for use on American soil. With that emergency approaching, Jack Ryan, now CIA Deputy Director, has to deal with problems at home and a rapidly deteriorating relationship with the current US president and his advisers.

Should you read it?
TSOAF is the longest of Clancy's Jack Ryan books so far, and at over 1000 pages (paperback version) it was a chore to read in parts, and need not have been so. The main event of the book takes place about 600-700 pages in, and the story has been well and truly set by this point. From this point on the book became a real page-turner, as the tension between East and West increased alongside increasing DEFCON levels and Ryan tries to avert the global nuclear war his shellshocked president is leading the US towards.

Clancy being Clancy, couldn't not dedicate a vast number of pages to the details of the nuclear warhead's assembly and the side side story of the submarine USS Maine seemed totally superfluous. All in all it was no wonder the film adaptation was massively streamlined.

TSOAF is probably the most personal Jack Ryan story yet, even more so than Patriot Games, as National Security Advisor Elizabeth Elliott temporarily succeeds in undermining his marriage as well as his position. This storyline is ultimately easily solved but Clancy uses it to highlight the contempt Elliott has for Ryan, which has huge dangerous consequences at the vital moment. The trouble between Ryan and his wife also parallels the escalating strife between East and West, worsening through rash assumptions and easily solved through simple communication.

FILM: Chronicle (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

I wanted to watch this one from the first time I saw the trailer. It looked like an interesting superhero themed take on the found footage genre from a first time director.

What's it all about?

Filmed in the majority by one of their handheld cameras, three high school guys develop telekinetic superpowers after climbing into a hole in the ground created by some strange alien equipment. After the initial excitement over their abilities passes, each of the teenagers deals with their new responsibilities in different ways and bullied Andrew, who also has a difficult home life, begins to see his powers as a method of righting the wrongs in his life.

Should you watch it?

My viewing experience of Chronicle was incredibly mixed. In equal measures I enjoyed some parts and got bored of others. I loved the boys will be boys element of the groups discovery, using the powers for fun and stupidly testing the limits of their growing abilities. It seems exactly the sort of behaviour you would expect from teenage boys. As you would also expect, it isn't too long before someone goes too far when showing off and that person is Andrew (Dane DeHaan).

Bullied at school and with an abusive father and dying mother at home, you can certainly sympathise with Andrew's outlook on life and understand his temptation to allow his anger to exploit his powers. That said, his character (and partially that of his cousin Matt too) was the main reason for my annoyance with the film. I didn't like them, simple as. The pair were incredibly whiny, and their arguing and screaming at each other dragged the script down into soap opera territory.

Considering the budget, the special effects are pretty respectable and the story itself is an interesting journey, dealing with the loss of self-control and responsibility past the point of no return, culminating in the film's frantic finale.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane?

FILM: Battleship (4/10)

Why did I watch it?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I knew this film was going to sink but still, I came at it from an unbiased frame of mind. I don't mind the odd brainless action film from time to time.

What's it all about?

Supposedly inspired by the Hasbro game, think Independence Day meets Transformers with a nautical twist. Does that sound as bad as it does writing it? Aliens attack Earth, landing in the Pacific in the middle of a major training exercise involving American and Japanese navies. The aliens trap three battleships in an impenetrable force field along with three of their own fleet and it is up to troublesome maverick Weapons Officer Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) to lead the planet's defence.  

Should you watch it?

Let's get straight to it, Battleship is a bad bad film. Taylor Kitsch was greatly mocked for starring in this film and John Carter, two of 2012's lesser acclaimed releases but I don't think he can shoulder too much of the blame here. Battleship's faults lie almost solely at the feet of the writers, Jon and Erich Hoeber.

The script is riddled, absolutely riddled with stinking dialogue and the while obviously a certain amount of disbelief is required to even consider watching a film of Battleship's ilk, the plot has some laughable moments. I don't know which was worse, watching a previously decommissioned battleship being started up by a crew of geriatric veterans in no time at all, seeing said ship perform a handbrake turn at full speed by dropping anchor, the cringe-worthy references to The Art of War or seeing Rihanna try to act. Her speech about her father's alien prophecy is the stuff of nightmares. Thankfully for his sake, Liam Neeson's performance as the isolated Fleet Commander is limited.

Battleship....a floater

I was sceptical of how the film might incorporate anything resembling the Battleship game, but the night battle using educated pot-shots at grid references in the style of the board game actually worked reasonably well. The enemy, or more importantly, its odd passive-aggressive, your turn-our turn behaviour, is conveniently never explained.

I know the film is supposed to be action-led, fun and O.T.T. and visually director Peter Berg does nothing wrong but most of the action is pretty stationary and quite repetitive and there is only so much you can forgive a terrible script. Come back Michael Bay, we forgive you for Transformers!

TV: Girls (S2) (4/10)

Why did I watch it?

I quite enjoyed the first season of Lena Dunham's Girls, through its quirky adult humour and carefree attitude it was a breath of fresh air and season two followed hot on its heels in the UK.

What's it all about?

Following on from the events of its debut season, Girls returns to find the four twenty-somethings, Hannah, Marnie, Jessa and Shoshanna still dealing with unglamorous modern day adult life in the Big Apple. Hannah finally gets a book deal, Marnie loses her job, Jessa's honeymoon period ends and Shoshanna begins a relationship with Ray.

Should you watch it?

The season's tagline is 'Almost getting it kind of together', which must be the biggest in-joke in the TV industry. This season saw both all of the characters and the show itself fall apart spectacularly. Only in the final episode does the outlook of the main characters begin to show signs of improvement, but by then it is too late, the previous nine episodes charting the odd and downright bizarre unravelling of the girls' lives being too much to bear. Why is everyone and everything in Lena Dunham's imagination so cringe-worthy and weird? Is anyone normal in the state of New York? Parents, friends, employers, all complete stereotype eccentrics.

Coke fuelled night out (for book research) wearing a
yellow string vest and no bra?
Why not, its Girls.

Second time around I found several of the characters more annoying than amusing, none more so than Dunham's Hannah. Her whining, self-obsessed nature became unbelievably grating and frankly it's no wonder she finds herself abandoned in her time of need. This was a shame, as the final episodes reveal an underlying health problem of Hannah's has returned that genuinely made me sympathise with her during a few sombre scenes, but it was too late for me and my relationship with her character.

The narrative jumps around all over the place from episode to episode, and we spend more time with a few of the other characters, like Adam and Ray, usually resulting in most of the funnier moments. It would be unfair to say that the script became unfunny this time around, 'I may be deflowered but I am not devalued' or 'I'm a miracle. I'm a unicorn. I'm a needle in a haystack...and you are munching my hay', but with the oddities, annoying characters, gratuitous nudity, awkward sex and somewhat depressing nature, the season was nowhere near the success of the first. In fact, my wife declared that she wants nothing to do with any further seasons!

FILM: Terminator Salvation (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I recorded this about a year ago and the fact that I only just got around to watching it tells you everything about my expectations for it. In the right hands, The Terminator franchise is a brilliant story so I was willing to give the new chapter a go.

What's it all about?

Set in 2018, fifteen years after Judgement Day, in the midst of the war against machines referred to in previous Terminator instalments, Salvation follows Resistance fighter John Connor's (Christian Bale) attempts to save a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and free humans from Skynet. Sam Worthington stars as Death Row inmate Marcus Wright, put to death in 2003 before being brought back to life by Skynet in the present.

Should you watch it?

Due to its very nature, in making a film of the post nuclear war against machines between the Resistance and Skynet, director McG was already onto a hiding to nothing. James Cameron's films featured an occasional shot of the war but were always based around a single Terminator relentlessly pursuing its targets as part of an intelligent time travel plan. By focusing on the war, what made the previous films successful is lost. Connor and Reese fight against motorbike terminators, hunter-killer planes, aerobots and giant terminator robots, proving successful against them all. To say the tension is missing would be an understatement.

Easy

Bale does his deep Batman voice thing, less forgiving here, and in places the script suffers from cheese overload in places, none more so than Connor stealing (or a lazy tribute to) Arnie's seminal line, 'I'll be back'. This was almost too much to take. Yelchin is also given some equally cheesy lines that seem out of kilter with his character's previously strong willed and determined nature.

Visually, McG does deliver some decent looking action scenes but the film doesn't have the charm of the originals. Salvation is an overblown, sledgehammer approach to the series, and as a standalone action film it would be average but as an entry into the Terminator franchise it is a weak one and one that does not need repeating.

FILM: Oz the Great and Powerful (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

This film appeared at number six in my top ten most anticipated films of 2013, largely due to intrigue in the plot and it's relationship to the original.

What's it all about?

A prequel of sorts to the 1939 classic, Disney's Oz the Great and Powerful is set in 1905, and tells the story behind the arrival of carnival magician Oscar Diggs (James Franco) in Oz and serves as an origin story, shedding light on the relationships between the wizard and the three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Michelle Williams).

Should you watch it?
At heart Oz is a moral story of good and bad (the witches),  and good and great (Oz), though the journey of the characters  from one to the other are not always as complete (Oz) or credible as they could be (the wicked witch).

Starting with Oz himself, a 'magician' in Kansas, nothing wrong with that, he knows he is a fraud, but he is also an arrogant, womanising, unscrupulous shyster. By the end of the film, I'm not sure how many of those traits he has learnt the error of, despite upsetting most of Oz, before saving the day with a combination of earthly illusions and charm. James Franco's casting raised eyebrows, however I think he brought a degree of humility to the role that made Oz vaguely likeable. I am certain I could not have coped with Robert Downey Jr's (the producers first choice) style of arrogance in the role.

A flying monkey in a bellboy's outfit? Don't ask, it's Oz

Franco is supported by an accomplished cast of witches in Kunis, Weisz and Williams, and its Williams who wins hands down with her measured and gentle performance. Kunis is smouldering as always while Weisz seems to be trying too hard. Without giving anything away, I was disappointed in the transformation of one of the witches to the famous Wicked Witch of the West. The gravitas of the role seemed too much for the actress in question. Zach Braff adds value as Oz's beleaguered assistant in Kansas and the voice of a comedy sidekick flying monkey in Oz. The same can be said for Joey King, voicing China Girl with a sincerity that belies her years.

Director Sam Raimi delivers a vibrant, colourful landscape, similar to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, that looks sublime at times but sometimes the CGI was overpowering. The green screen certainly earned its pay-check. Raimi adds some neat references to the film's source, most notably the 4:3 sepia tone introduction in Kansas, which looks great in addition to the old fashioned style of shots.

Visually the film is impressive, if you can cope with the heavy CGI

Overall, considering my expectations I was slightly disappointed but there is just enough magic here, in Raimi's visuals and elements of the plot, to suggest the return to Oz was worthwhile. 

TV: The Wire (S2) (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
Continuing with my re-watch of the first two seasons before moving on to new territory with the rest of the show.

What's it all about?
For those not in the know, The Wire is set in Baltimore and each season focuses on a different area of life in the city. Season two sees the action move from West Baltimore's towers and low rises to it's port, where an international smuggling ring exploit the hardship of the local stevedores to smuggle girls, uncut drugs and electricals into Baltimore. What starts as a pissing contest between fellow Poles, Major Valchek and stevedore union chief Frank Sobotka, and the discovery of a body in the water near the port ends up as another detail for Lieutenant Daniels and gang.

Should you watch it?
Equally as brilliant as the first season once the pieces fall into place, the season's focus shifts up the drug chain from dealers to suppliers through the smugglers but as with most things in David Simon's Baltimore, everything is connected and it turns out that the smugglers (and by connection the union) supply Proposition Joe who cuts a deal with Stringer. This link ensures that the likes of Stringer, Avon, D'Angelo and Omar still feature, although less prominently than the first season, replaced with the characters of the stevedore union.

Central to the season is Frank Sobotka, excellently played by Chris Bauer, who finds himself torn between looking out for his union  and future generations of the traditionally local workforce and doing the right thing and setting the right example to his son and nephew. He is truly horrified at the discovery of thirteen dead girls inside a can on his dock but can't bring himself to break his connection to 'The Greek'.

Stan v Frank

What really struck me about the story's beginning was the initial infighting between jurisdictions and departments, led by Homicide Major Rawls, over the ownership of the thirteen Jane Does, something I can well believe after reading David Simon's book, Homicide - A Year on the Killing Streets. This kind of gritty, self serving, inhumane approach to homicides really cannot be found anywhere else but The Wire. Also, as with the first season, season two's ending is far from the fairytale ending to be expected in most films or TV shows. 

The penultimate episode, Bad Dreams, finishes with one of the best set of scenes I think I have ever seen on a TV screen. Played out over an fitting Greek song 'Efige Efige' (translated to 'He Left'), the montage displays the fortunes of Frank swinging 180 degrees through a series of events elsewhere at precisely the wrong time. A masterpiece.

FILM: Rear Window (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
I started 2013 having seen no Hitchcock films, Rear Window was number three and was one I was familiar with having seen both Disturbia and the references to it in The Simpsons.

What's it all about?
Remember The Simpsons episode where Bart breaks his leg and spends all his time cooped up alone, looking out of his window, until he becomes insistent he saw Ned Flanders murder his wife? That plot is a fully lifted tribute to Rear Window. Professional photographer James Stewart is wheelchair bound with a broken leg and passes his time casually watching out across the yard where he can see into the windows of all his neighbours. Things turn sinister when he notices the wife of one neighbour is missing and becomes certain the husband is guilty of murder. Grace Kelly stars as his girlfriend, at first uncomfortable with his 'peeping tom' habits.

Should you watch it?
In one word, absolutely. With a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Rear Window is often listed amongst Hitchcock's best films and the praise is just. Although I had seen the story played out in modern adaptations, Hitchcock's original felt fresh and superior. I shouldn't even be comparing Rear Window to Disturbia, despite enjoying that film, but by being immobile compared to just under house arrest, Stewart is all the more helpless later on in the film in comparison with Shia LaBeouf, resulting in far greater tension.

Straight from the opening credits, I felt that the set developed for the film was perfect, almost claustrophobic, allowing the camera to flow freely from window to window from Jeff's (Stewart) viewpoint as he keeps up on the lives of their occupants. 

Voyeurism is an addictive habit and one that everyone is guilty of to some degree. Jeff's visitors frown upon his behaviour initially but after becoming persuaded by the serious possibilities of what Jeff claims to have witnessed, they become equally obsessed. There is something about spying on someone who believes they are in a private environment that appeals to the seedy side of human nature and Hitchcock succeeds in reeling the audience in as they become voyeurs too through Jeff's eyes.

By the time Jeff and his budding detectives have put themselves in harms way, Hitchcock has taken the slow burning tension through the roof to great effect.

The view from Jeff's rear window

FILM: The Artist (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
How would you not want to? Lavished with awards throughout 2011, including Academy Awards for Best Picture, Actor and Director, somebody must have done something right.

What's it all about?
It's 1927 and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is at the height of popularity as a star of silent films when he meets Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), an aspiring actress. Two years later and Miller's popularity has rocketed while George's studio has ended production on silent films, making the switch to 'talkies', leaving George struggling to  cope with his fall from stardom.


Should you watch it?
I sat down to watch The Artist with a certain degree of apprehension, it was the first black and white or silent film I have ever really watched. Sadly these factors put off Mrs Media Worm so I watched it solo.

The Artist is like no other film I have seen (stating the obvious) before, in the same way I often lean towards black and white photography, I found the lack of colour enhanced the film's stylish presentation. After a short time I forgot I was watching a film with no dialogue, and enjoyably so.  Ludovic Bource's score sublimely supports the cast, with necessary dialogue provided by the occasional old fashioned dialogue intertitles.  

Best Actor & Best Dog - George & Jack

Before seeing the film, I'll be honest, I was sceptical of the film's hype, especially seeing actors unknown to a wide audience wining awards for Best Actor, but Jean Dujardin's performance as the proud, egocentric star George Valentin is as wonderful as I have seen lately. Dujardin seems built for silent film where expressions count for so much, ironic given the film's story. The contrast between his over-acted performances as the silent film actor and his toned down but still expression led performance as an actor in what is a silent film is subtle but fascinating. Berenice Bejo is just as rapturous as Peppy Miller and together the two are enchanting. Considering the film is French, I was surprised by the faces that popped up amongst the supporting cast, notably John Goodman, Malcom McDowell and James Cromwell. Credit must also go to Uggie the dog, probably now the most famous on screen canine since Snowy.

The stairs scene

Academy Award Best Director Michel Hazanavicius includes some stylish shots, my favourite being the shot of George and Peppy talking on the stairway of the Bradway Building while extras busily move around them on all levels at a seemingly faster speed.

The film's plot is actually a sombre, simple little romance story where very little actually happens but what does transpire does so leisurely, at an easy going pace, as befits the time.

FILM: Piranha 3D (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
Because sometimes you just need some low brow, tongue-in-cheek horror to brighten up your day.

What's it all about?
It's spring break at Lake Victoria and the small town has been invaded by the stereotypical masses of drunken frat-boys and bikini-clad college girls. Unfortunately for them, their lakeside debauchery coincides with the release of thousands of super aggressive prehistoric piranhas into the water from an underground lake, opened up after millions of years by an earthquake. Elisabeth Shue stars as the local sheriff and Jerry O'Connell plays a pornographer out filming on the lake, both caught up in the horror.  

Should you watch it?
As long as you can handle the deliberately gratuitous gore, boobs, more gore and more boobs (the things I go through for the purposes of a review!),  Piranha 3D is a hilarious and enjoyable B-movie horror. It is probably the goriest film I have ever seen, but whereas the likes of Hostel cross in to  'gorno' territory, director Alexandra Aja provides horror and violence of the comedy kind.

Aja sacrifices a few lone lake inhabitants over the first half of the action and moving underwater shots suggest that no-one is safe. However, once Sheriff Forrester (Shue) discovers the truth behind the random attacks, Aja releases the army of piranhas on the partying spring break masses in a ten minute scene that can only be described as total carnage, with a body count that makes Rambo look like Disney. Some of the deaths are so hilarious, they must be seen to be believed.

Elisabeth Shue is the film's hero, Ving Rhames barely appears and Christopher Lloyd adds to the general craziness with his small part, but it's O'Connell's crazed, coked up adult film director who is most memorable.

The piranha: eats bikini-clad spring breakers  

Although it owes a lot to Jaws and the original parody Piranha, Aja ensures that Piranha 3D is it's own beast (at one point the music does sound similar to John Williams' theme though!).