I was very surprised that I did not enjoy Daredevil more. It’s darker and more disturbing than many a super-hero flick and while this, for some, may be the appeal, it just didn’t do it for me. It’s also oddly constructed. We first meet the superhero as he collapses on the floor of a church. Why? Well, he’s half way through a battle with one of the villains – Bullseye (an Irish hitman capable of killing talkative old ladies on planes with nothing more than his finger and a peanut).

And so the film lurches backwards as we are told Matt Murdoch/DaredevilÂ’s story. He grew up with his father -a boxer – and singled out for the bully treatment when he was a kid. Blinded in a dockside accident by a hazardous chemical, DaredevilÂ’s face remains remarkably unmarked as he matures in the talented pro-bono lawyer played by Ben Affleck.

Once the Flashback sequence is over we return to our hero in mid-Organ scaling (as in church organ) battle. Who considered the middle of the narrative a sensible place for us to join? I guess it has worked before, but not here. In true super-hero style, our almost dead star rises and battles to the end. Of course, as in all such movies one wonders why the world hasnÂ’t worked out that Matt Murdoch and Daredevil are the same. They are Ben Affleck in red leather.

Ah, dear Ben. I appear to be in the minority who were not convinced by his portrayal of a super-hero. He was too “leading man in a romantic comedy” for me, despite the tight leather gear which didn’t seem to turn him into the sex-hunk that I thought it might – Chris O’Donnell looks better in tight leather in Batman and Robin. Colin Farrell tries hard to be brutish with sex-appeal and he almost pulls it off, especially considering the target on his forehead isn’t really that great to look at.

I really can’t be sure what made this film fail for me. Maybe it was too dark for a super-hero flick or maybe that the story was not compelling. Maybe it was the fact that at least one villain survived for a sequel in a far too obvious fashion. Daredevil may be a comic hero but he you don’t have a super-hero “thing” to latch on to (Superman flies, Spideman has a web and Batman has a utility belt). Daredevil’s other senses are enhanced. Big wow. Maybe it was the violence that felt too real and not comic-book enough or maybe it was that the supporting characters never really moved from being one-dimensional support.

I guess, in the end, I would have been disappointed if this crime-fighter had come to my rescue. IÂ’d have been happy with Batman, thrilled if it was Superman and delighted if Spiderman liberated me. If Ben turned up in red leather I just might have laughed.

On this day…

2006: Helsinki, February 2006
2004: South London Jazz
2003: New Host

Lost in La Mancha is superb. If you are, at all, interested in the process of making a film then you should go and see the unravelling of Terry Gilliam‘s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote.

From the start, the production is plagued by floods. Gilliam, being independent of spirt and – therefore – independent of Hollywood studio money battles on with Johnny Depp and Jean Rochefort in starring roles. Rochefort’s illness, however, brings a grinding halt to the proceedings.

Narrated by Jeff Bridges, Lost in La Mancha, had access to the whole production and, as such, we get a fascinating tale of movie making.

On this day…

2005: Hitch Hikers Guide Is Coming
2004: Naked Across Britain
2004: Shop ‘Til You Drop
2003: The Digital Music Debate

I walked out of the Odeon loving Eminem’s 8 Mile. On reflection, I still think this is a great movie. Who cares if it’s Saturday Night Fever or Karate Kid for a new generation? Does Eminem’s apparent turn around about all things gay worry me? Not at all. This is an excellent film. I do, however, have one question, where are all the guns?

I have never visited Detroit nor any of its downtown neighbourhoods. Fortunately, I’ve never been in the middle of any kind of big gang culture. But in this movie, there were two guns (three if you count the paint-ball). One is pulled on Jimmy (Eminem) and one is waved around by Cheddar Bob, who promptly shoots himself while those involved in the gang fight around him look on like they’d never seen a gun. If I were to believe the news media, this place would have been crawling with weapons and Jimmy would have probably pulled several on his attackers. A movie for nice liberal sensibilities? It just struck me as odd. Perhaps it’s real, but it seemed wrong.

That is, however, but a small gripe. Like yesterday’s film, The Good Girl, we have a central character with an apparently dead-end life but dreams of something better. This time, the lead is surrounded by people who believe in him although he doesn’t believe in himself. The final battle, where Jimmy – or Rabbit – proves himself to be great, is a freestyle rap event that is so far removed from anything in my life or frame of reference that I have no idea if it’s believable, amusing or insulting. Having said that, it is a great conclusion to the movie and had me hooked.

Surprisingly, Eminem’s music doesn’t dominate the movie. I was slightly disappointed there wasn’t more. We first hear his musical talents when he sings a lullaby to his sister. A repositioning of man whose music has been the centre of controversy for years? So, if we don’t get to hear much of his music, how does he stand up as an actor? Pretty well, I would have said. His baseball-cap (and hood) mask much of him revealing only a cool, moody, brooding man writing rap lyrics on scraps of paper to music pumped into his head through headphones. As the movies is apparently based on some of his own life, I suspect this wasn’t a great leap for him to play. He does pull it off with conviction and you can take the journey into Jimmy’s world and lose sight of Eminem. I’d be interested to see if he acts again and with the huge box office takings predicted, most will bet he will.

I have no idea if this in any way reflects real life in downtown Detroit. I have no clue if rap culture is, in any way, well served by this film but it is a great movie which I thoroughly recommend even if you are asked to believe that, when life hits rock bottom, you’ll win on the bingo.

On this day…

2004: Hubble Bubble
2004: London Buses

What has surprised me about Miguel Arteta’s The Good Girl, starring Jennifer Aniston, are the generally positive (if not glowing glowing) reviews for this film.

Admittedly this is not quite the Jennifer Aniston vehicle that you would expect from Hollywood right now. It’s no romantic comedy, rather a drama following Justine (Aniston), a woman in a dead-end job in a dead end town, who falls for Jake ‘Donnie Darko’ Gyllenhaal’s Holden Worther. Not much to it so far and certainly not enough reason for the praise.

So, to the plot. Problem one for our lead, Justine is married to a full time stoner (part time painter) played with conviction by John C. Reilly. Problem two, Holden seems to think he is Holden Caulfield, the central character in Catcher in The Rye. If I was to say he was “unhinged” I’d be playing it down. So, cue a crisis of conscience for her and a serious infatuation/breakdown for him.

While Aniston is good, she is not great. It seems much of the praise is due to the fact that she is playing against the Friends Rachel-type. She an actress for goodness sake, if she only has that one role she has no career. This role proves she can play against type and, I guess, that means she is an actress. Her narration is okay but somewhat draining to listen to. Gyllenhaal’s good but, given the characters are odd-balls not a million miles apart, he is not as engaging as he was in Donnie Darko.

I guess it hangs on the believability of the adulterous relationship and, for me, it was not that credible. Perhaps it hangs on the ability for Aniston and Reilly to be a couple at the end, but it’s not convincing. There were words unspoken which should have been spoken. Where are the sparks? Where was the fire and the passion between any of the characters?

Sadly, it lacked the ability to engage me for the one and three-quarter hours. Which meant I started to feel the cinema seat beneath me. At that point, I knew this wasn’t going to be added to my “greatest films” list. Which is a shame. Good. But not good enough.

On this day…

2004: British Government Since 1970

What a fantastic film! Michael MooreÂ’s Bowling for Columbine is as good a piece of film making as any I have seen for several years. It is also a documentary that means, I guess, that few people will go to see this. Well, you should.

ItÂ’s an investigative piece that looks at the United State of America’s love of guns –in all their forms. While it appears many Americans think it’s a constitutional right to protect their family with a shoot first mentally, Moore contends that this obsession with the freedom to bear arms results in unnecessary deaths (accidental and intentional). Contrasted with Canada – similar gun laws and ownership but considerably fewer deaths it seems Moore may have a point.

The statistics played out on the screen are not always given a context and some of his points rather laboured but Bowling For Columbine has some moments you’d think were fiction (the final K-Mart statement -– I wonÂ’t spoil it) yet are horribly real.

And yes, the clip that’s been doing the rounds of the film shows that has Moore getting a free gun when opening a bank account appears to be very real. Funny, it really does appear that these things really do “only happen in America”.

On this day…

2006: Starting Again

Having enjoyed the Chicago The Musical, I went to the cinema to see the long awaited film version. And what a cinematic treat it is, thoroughly deserving many of the great reviews it’s been having on the web.

There are some who feel this is better than the musical but I would disagree. It’s a superb film but, and there are always comments to be made, it sticks a little to closely to the stage version, not using the different medium to its full extent. That said, the music is still there and – while not pushing the genre’s boundaries like Moulin Rouge – it is some of the best music to have made it to film. The air is filled with the jazz sounds of 1920s Chicago, the perfect backdrop to the nightclub singers and the murders the perform.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is a superb Velma Kelly, Renée Zellweger perhaps not as sassy as the Roxie I have in my musical memory but she certainly plays the vulnerability card well and the surprise (to me at least) was Richard Gere who plays suave Billy Flynn brilliantly (and it definitely seems that he can sing and dance).

Some commentators have suggested that the directon is limited due to director Rob Marshall’s TV backgorund. I can’t say that it was noticeable to this viewer although perhaps my comments about the medium above are related. Chicago tells the tale in an elegant way; conveys the essence of 20s and moves along at a decent pace.

If there was one major disappointment it was the down playing of the Mary Sunshine role (in the musical it’s played by a man) and the omission of her song (A Little Bit of Good). Nevertheless, one to recommend.

On this day…

2006: Coffee To Get Me Going
2005: Links Of The Day
2005: Now We Know
2003: The Grand Old Duke

I mainly went to see Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets because I needed the ticket stub to qualify for Odeon Cinema’s two-for-one January offer so, perhaps, I am not the best person to be commenting on the second instalment of what, it seems, will be an annual event to rival Bond films on ITV and cold turkey sandwiches on Boxing Day.

Also I hadn’t seen the first one – although I had attempted to read the book. The Philosopher’s Stone was the first book in a very long time that I have not been able to finish reading. So, again, my perspective may be a little warped.

However, I was sad that I did not enjoy it more. Unlike The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers, this film seemed to drag endlessly. I felt there were parts that served no purpose in the film and didn’t add anything to your understanding of the characters or progress the tale. Why, for example, was the whole spider sequence in there? It may work very well in a book but it didn’t translate to the film and just kept me wishing for the end which, when it eventually arrived, was also something of disappointment. When we finally meet the bad-guy he stands around like a wet fish.

There are some redeeming special effects which I thought were, in the main, superb but sadly the whole experience made me realise that, above all, these really are movies for kids.

On this day…

2006: Resolution
2005: The Incredibles
2005: Shaun Of The Dead
2004: Honoured for HTML
2004: Unexpected Movie Gems
2004: 2003 In Summary
2003: Mirror Picture

Being New Year’s Eve I decided to hide away from some excessive partying and see Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in central London.

The second cinematic instalment starts more-or-less at the point we left of with Frodo dreaming of Gandalf’s fall. I began by thinking we were in for a decent length of re-worked footage from the first film but, of course, I was wrong.

If you haven’t seen the first film and haven’t read the books you will need to do one of them before seeing this film for no concession is made to explain the previous tale. Thus, we must accept that the Fellowship is now split into three and we have three stories.

Frodo and Sam’s tale gets darker as the film progresses as Frodo comes under the influence of the ring. They are joined by Gollum which is a superb character despite being a computer-generated image.

The second group of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas go in search of Merry and Pippin only to find themselves rushing to the aid of King Theoden of Rohan and featuring some amazing battles sequences. Merry and Pippin themselves find the company of the Ents whose role seems to have been played down in the film. The Ents are my favourite characters from the books and I had been waiting to see if they could be brought to life convincingly on the screen. Peter Jackson has done an amazing job on them and I was only saddened that they didn’t appear more.

There are, perhaps predictably, few surprises in this second film. There is little to discover in the central characters and, with perhaps the exception of Gollum, very little seems to be learnt about newer characters. However, it remains a stunning piece of cinema and one that I will certainly see again and again.

The Guardian has a summary of the main players. Other reviews can be found at Empire Online and Teletext.

On this day…

2005: Dress Code
2004: Amélie & The Italian Job
2003: Review of 2003: September and October
2003: Review of 2003: July and August
2003: Review of 2003: May and June
2002: Would Pepys Blog?
2002: Year in Review

I saw the new James Bond film today. Apparently, Bond is 40 – which means the formula has been around for a while. Die Another Day is as cheesy as many a Bond, yet it remains an entertaining cinema experience. I’m sure, however, that it won’t be voted a classic. It’s less secret-agent more agent-detective and the Bond-girls are now more MI5-partners (or more accurately NSA-partners). There are some fantastic scenes on the ice (using The Eden Project as a backdrop) and gadgets galore. If I had any complaints about the film it would be the quality of some of the effects which is, to say the least, not up to standard. [Official Site]

On this day…

2005: links for 2005-12-15
2003: Busy Busy Busy