3 days...

I'm excited about Wednesday. I really am. This was an early concept promo back when the release day was in May. Best one I've seen.

Me and Christian McKay

Working at a cinema, it's the films that only get a week's run that I tend to rush out and see. 'Taking Woodstock' a good example. A big name director was involved, with an unknown lead, but what looked like a charming story. 'Me and Orson Welles' is much the same, but rather than an unknown lead, it was always going to be about the unknown support. Had Christian McKay's portrayal of Orson Welles not been hailed by critics left and right, I probably would have stayed clear of this, the latest offering from Richard Linklater ('Dazed and Confused', 'School of Rock' and more impressively 'A Scanner Darkly'). I'm still not quite buying Zac Efron post-Disney, and Claire Danes hasn't made a decent movie since 'Romeo and Juliet'. So when all of the reviews pointed me in the direction of the unknown British actor, Christian McKay, there was a slight generation of interest. If nothing else, I would enjoy watching two American 'stars' being upstaged by someone in their first major role.

That pretty much sums up my feelings now that I've seen the film, too. Although I thoroughly enjoyed it overall (the production/costume design was most impressive, as was the screenplay), from the moment McKay appeared onscreen, the focus was on him and no one else. While fellow Brit Ben Chaplin contributes positively to a few scenes, it is all about McKay's interactions with Efron from start to finish. I really couldn't care less about any of Danes' involvement with our two charming leads as she was absolutely useless as the shared love interest.

Before settling in to watch 'Me and Orson Welles', I had already come to the conclusion that I would only be watching for McKay's performance and had almost resigned to the idea that his performance was all that I would enjoy. That's not strictly true, looking back. Although watching the film with that mentality certainly made it easier to look past Efron's Richard and Danes' ever-fickle Sonja, there were definitely some additional winning elements. Technically, it is superb. Linklater has again captured the sheen of the time with a perfect Hollywood gloss, and the relatively simple sets and beautifuly designed costumes (along with McKay) really bring this movie to life. Noticeably, while sparkling throughout, the sets are not as expansive as one would expect, nor do they need to be. Over half the film takes place in Welles' Mercury theatre, and the result is an ensemble cast that feels genuinely close knit. It almost feels as if Linklater has drawn on the directing styles of Welles himself, and transferred them into his own cast, his own film. He enables the viewer to immerse themselves in the theatre to personally endure the tireless preparation that goes into a Welles-directed Broadway show. By the time 'Caesar' opens, you feel like you have been there, rehearsing alongside Welles since day one. You are already familiar with the scenes and the characters, so to watch them deliver with such grace and fluidity makes the climax to 'Me and Orson Welles' all the more gratifying.

Will McKay be nominated for an Academy Award? Absolutely. He came out of nowhere and lit up the screen. From his tone to his mannerisms, Christian McKay is Orson Welles. He manages to capture the charm, the determination, the passion and the arrogance of Welles in his first scene and gives a truly breathtaking performance that will leave a smile on your face long afterwards. Whether or not he can compete against the likes of Christoph Waltz, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson (?) is debatable, but I'm sure a first-time actor like McKay would be over the moon just to be mentioned in the same breath.

A movie that overuses the term 'swell' in the first half, yes, but a wonderful little picture overall. A nice change of pace from the blockbusting 'Avatars' and 'Sherlock Holmes's' the holiday season has graced us with, I would absolutely recommend this to anyone who has ever acted on stage.

Rare Poster O' The Day PT 2, although I don't know how many days I can keep it up for.

Thanks to Emmy-Lou who writes about TV over HERE.

I love rare movie posters thanks to my friend Bert and my housemate Mikki...

Unearthed this badboy earlier this evening. Incredibly cool.

OSCARWATCH PT 1.

Right, so, as of today I've seen exactly 100 films that have been released in 2009. Do you really want a list? I think not. Anyway, 100 is enough to, I think, start to put together some relatively educated predictions. I was trying to hold off until I'd seen 'Avatar' and 'Where The Wild Things Are', but seeing as the National Board of Review (NBR) recently honoured the best in film this year, I figured that it is at this point that we can start to approach awards season a little more seriously. I'm a serious man, even if my predictions are up in the air at the moment. Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just trying to give you a bit of an education.

Yeah, you read that right. Banter.

Without further ado, the NBR major category winners:

Best Film: Up In The Air

The more I read about this film, the more I look forward to it. Content-wise, it's current and you just know it's going to be well written. Apparently the ending's a real belter too. I don't know if it's the best film of the year, but I will reserve judgement until I see it. Unfortunately, it will be one of the last BP nominees I see before the winners are announced!

Top Eleven Films (In alphabetical order):

An Education

(500) Days Of Summer

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Invictus

The Messenger

A Serious Man

Star Trek

Up

Up In The Air

Where The Wild Things Are

What an awesome list! Just goes to show what a strong year in film it's been. By the end of the month, I will have seen seven of these. Seven of which I would agree wholeheartedly with being on any 'Best Of 2009' list. I'm especially ecstatic that '(500) Days of Summer' is getting the credit it rightfully deserves, and would be over the moon if it managed to wangle a BP nod, but would settle for a Best Orignal Screenplay nomination. I don't really need to see the other four to know that they're brilliant so will respect this list as it is. I'm still hoping 'Avatar' ends up being criminally good and hops on the awards train late in the day.

Best Director: Clint Eastwood, Invictus

Yeah, I buy this. Mr. Eastwood is one of the best directors alive and I can't imagine a Mandela biopic starring Morgan Freeman being anything less than stunning. My personal preference would probably be either Kathryn Bigelow ('The Hurt Locker'), Spike Jonze ('Where The Wild Things Are'), or maybe even James Cameron (who knows!), but again I'll hold back until I've seen everything. After all, this is only Part One of what is sure to be a barrage of Oscar related posts. Part of the fun of making predictions is updating them!

Best Actor: Morgan Freeman, Invictus and George Clooney, Up In The Air (tie)

I have no trouble believing that Morgan Freeman gives the performance he was born to give in 'Invictus', and apparently The Clooney rocks it like he's never rocked it in 'Up In The Air', but I have a feeling that come February, I'm going to end up siding with Jeff Bridges ('Crazy Heart') and Viggo Mortensen ('The Road'). It's just such a wide open category this year, I'd be happy to see any of these guys win.

Best Actress: Carey Mulligan, An Education

Yes, yes, yes. I was blown away by her performance in the trailer. While 'Julie and Julia' was great on the acting front, Meryl's been nominated like 47 times so she won't win for a movie that would have been average had it not been for the Streep/Adams double punch (She'd want Carey to win anyway), and as good as I'm sure 'Precious' is, it can't be that hard for an obese, black girl to play an obese, black girl (just like it's not terribly difficult for Michael Stuhlbarg to play a Jew). Sorry, Gabby Sidibe, but I'm pretty sure a strong screenplay strengthened your performance somewhat, just like it strengthened performances from Mo'Nique (spare me) and Mariah Carey. So, Carey for the win. Mulligan that is, obviously.

Best Supporting Actor: Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

I love Woody. Please, do not get me wrong. However, there is nothing Woody Harrelson could ever do to outact Christoph Waltz. I'm stoked for 'The Messenger', I really am. Apparently Ben Foster is brilliant too, I really can't wait. Never the less, Christoph Waltz's performance in 'Inglourious Basterds' is probably the best performance by anyone in anything this year. He played a quad-lingual, Jew-murdering Nazi colonel that you couldn't help but love. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an audience we are not meant to gleefully chuckle everytime a character like that comes onscreen. Simply put, it's got to be Waltz over Woody every single time. There's talk of late surges from Stanley Tucci ('Julia and Julia' and/or 'The Lovely Bones) and Christian McKay ('Me and Orson Welles'), but as it stands I'm not backing anyone other than Waltz.

Best Supporting Actress: Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air

I'm going to go ahead and buy this too. As much as I despise the Twilight series, there's no denying Anna Kendrick is quite the talent. Early reviews declare that she upstages Clooney and blows Farmiga away, so I'm going to go ahead and believe the hype and pencil in Kendrick as a frontrunner. Mo'Nique can't stand a chance against this type of talent, surely.

Best Foreign Film: A Prophet

Well, yeah. It was either going to be this or 'The White Ribbon'. Will definitely try and see both before March.

Best Documentary: The Cove

Easy. I'm still bummed about 'Anvil: The Story of Anvil' though.

Best Animated Feature: Up

No brainer.

Best Ensemble Cast: It’s Complicated

Not so sure about this, even though it's not an Oscar category. Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin and Meryl are all fantastic, especially in lighthearted comedies, but are you seriously trying to tell me that they outclassed the casts of 'Nine' and 'An Education'? I think not.

Breakthrough Performance by an Actor: Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

If it was by a leading actor, then I totally agree. Overall though, I think that once again, it's gotta be Christoph Waltz. Tarantino plucked him out of the depths of German cinema and made him a star overnight, literally. He won 'Best Actor' at Cannes for a supporting role for crying out loud! Maybe I'm biased.

Breakthrough Performance by an Actress: Gabourey Sidibe, Precious

Okay, I'll give her this one. She'd better follow up with something else amazing, though!

Spotlight Award for Best Directorial Debut: Duncan Jones, Moon, Oren Moverman,The Messenger and Marc Webb, (500) Days of Summer (tie)

Yes, yes and yes again! Nice to see Duncan Jones winning something for 'Moon', and equally nice to see Marc Webb picking up some sort of gong for what was (personally) my favourite movie of the year (notice I didn't say 'best film').

Best Original Screenplay: Joel & Ethan Coen, A Serious Man

Twas all a bit Jew-y, but another excellent bit of writing from the Coens. Blew 'Burn After Reading' out of the water, that's for sure. I still think '(500) Days of Summer' should pip it to the post though, it was neither 'Fargo' or 'The Big Lebowski'.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, Up In The Air

Yep.

Special Filmmaking Achievement Award: Wes Anderson, The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Oh, sweet! There I was thinking 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' would get completely overlooked and here we have Wes Anderson picking up a special achievement award! There is some justice. Now, if we could only get the Academy voters to be bold and give it an adapted screenplay nod.

Top Ten Independent Films (In alphabetical order):

Amreeka

District 9

Goodbye Solo

Humpday

In The Loop

Julia

Me And Orson Welles

Moon

Sugar

Two Lovers

Another interesting list. More justified love for 'Moon', which is encouraging. It would really be something if it managed a few nominations for some major awards. 'District 9' and 'In The Loop' were both excellent as well, and I have a sneaky suspicion that the latter may end up getting a few more major nominations than you would expect for a expletive-filled Brit flick. 'District 9' will continue to be underrated, even though it was one of the more impressive and thought-provoking films to be released this year.

I will be seeing 'Me and Orson Welles' this week, if only for what I'm sure will be a knockout performance from Christian McKay, so will report back on that one in the near future. And, I have still not seen 'Two Lovers'! I missed it in the spring so will have to catch it on DVD, but from what I've seen and read, it to is deserved of making onto more than a few Top 10s.

Food for thought, I hope. In the next week I'll be watching and reviewing a few more heavyweights, so bear with me. 'Where The Wild Things Are' will be blogged on Friday, with 'Avatar' the following Thursday (or even Wednesday night if I can't hide my giddiness).

Stay tuned for 'The Box', and thanks for reading! It's nice to write a more informal blog for once.

I must apologise in advance to my friends and family that are female and under 30...

Seeing as New Moon-ania is sweeping the planet this week, I thought I'd go ahead and pitch in my five cents worth now rather than later. I'll be honest, I did want to see this film as I quite liked the first one. I thought 'Twilight' was well-directed, and it's message to a younger generation approaching 'that relationship age' was nothing short of respectable. While a large percentage of viewers will have been watching for reasons I don't need to go into, they will have found it hard to avoid the story itself which in the form of a novel has sold over 17 million copies to date. The strength of the relationships formed is something rarely found in modern storytelling, and I found myself identifying with the main characters instantly.

'New Moon' follows on where 'Twilight' left off, apparently. You wouldn't have guessed it from the opening few minutes. How long after the conclusion of 'Twilight' this takes place is never made clear. It is Bella's 18th birthday, yes, but what has taken place in the weeks/months leading up to this point is not known. You assume Bella and Edward have been playing Happy Couples, but for all we know they could have been fighting every day over petty, vampire-related stuff. The first film had made me genuinely interested in the bond between the two leads. Not knowing the status of their relationship, it's length, it's strength, when watching the first 20 minutes of 'New Moon' unfold, as a non-reader of the books is completely frustrating as I knew that early in the film Edward would leave Bella. I needed to know why, and what built up to Edward giving up on (and I quote directly) 'the only thing that makes me want to stay alive', or some such poorly delivered tosh. Alas, I am lead to understand that an isolated event involving Bella's 18th birthday party and fellow Cullen, Jasper, was the cause of Edward's over-dramatic angst. And that Bella is a total head case.

We all know those girls. The girls that will emotionally drain the blood (pun) from every situation they finds themselves in. The girls who selfishly abandon their social lives, negatively affecting everyone around them as if their high school heartbreak is the only thing wrong with the world. Girls who would be lucky to have a friend like Jacob Black, if only to throw all a boy's good intentions back in their face in favour of someone who is a) not right for them at all, and b) tells them that they love them (on their birthday), promises not to ever leave them and then prompty (you guessed it) leaves them. Woe is Bella as she sits by a window for three months, screaming bloody murder in her sleep. In the words of Vince Vaughn, 'Come on!'

I couldn't care less about Bella. She is the definition of naive, but then, look at the Twilight Saga's target audience (burn!). The way she arrogantly meanders around playing with guys' minds, lapping up their good graces and then acting ultimately out of naivety rather than rationalism is almost unrealistic in a film about vampires and werewolves. The remaining two leads however, are marginally more interesting, and end up feeling less like sex-symbols and more like stacked, exaggerated personalities of a post-modern, adolescent male.

Pattinson is okay as the controlling Edward, who has more sap than a Birch tree coursing through his veins, his pale-white veins. 17-year old Taylor Lautner provides the stronger performance as werewolf, native-american nice guy, Jacob in this second installment, but then, who are we kidding? We all know it's really Academy Award-winner Matt Damon wearing a crap ton of fake tan. Nice try with the pseudonym, Damon! Seriously, Lautner is the closest thing to genuine over all 131 minutes of 'New Moon'. Although it's hard to see past the worst screenplay of the year, I'm pretty sure that Lautner's character is the one to side with (Go Team Jacob!) and he will quick become the new R-Patz with the Twihards. Let's face it, he cut his hair and grew muscles while the beloved Edward settles for some slow-mo, hairy nips style screen time. Good luck in Harry Potter 7!

Wait, there's more. Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning are in this picture! I know! BAFTA-nominated star of 'The Queen', 'Frost/Nixon' and this year's 'The Damned United', Michael Sheen, who comes over as some sort of coked-up, bloodthirsty sex pervert in all of his scenes. Can he not act when he's not playing a figure of history? I was going to throw him in the mix as an Oscar/BAFTA tip after I saw 'The Damned United', but you can be damned sure that isn't happening now. You know those football players who are regarded as great but then on the odd week will have an 'absolute shocker'? Translate that into acting terms and that's Michael Sheen for you in 'New Moon'.

Dakota Fanning on the other hand was a nice treat. She's been off screen a bit lately, and after a promising start culminating in 'The Secret Life of Bees' and 'Coraline', she released DVD-fodder 'Push' and bombs again with 'New Moon' (with the critics, not at the box-office). Her performance is the best in the film, don't get me wrong. I just find myself wondering why such a talent is force-fed a tiny role in a critically poor film. Then I remember that for all she's accomplished, she's still only a 15-year old girl, and she probably loves the books as much as the thousands of maniacal, squeaky tweens that shuffled in and out of my cinema over the last week or so. Fair play, Dakota. Do what makes you happy.

My next beef is a beef I know has upset even the Twihardiest of Twihards. What's with the contact lenses? Hell, Michael Sheen looks like freaking Darth Maul, and the Cullens have returned with a distinctively more French-mustard tinge to them. Why? I'm sure it has something to do with marketing opportunities somewhere down the line (Halloween 2010, anyone?). I just found the unexplained and drastic change from the first film another niggly frustration as the the sequel wore on.

And boy, does it wear on. For a film aimed at 10-20 year old girls, this one sure is lengthy. Anyone who goes to the cinema on a regular basis knows that keeping the attention of girls in that age range is a near impossible task, and I challenge any girl who elects to see 'New Moon' multiple times to come forward and honestly admit there weren't points where they were either bored out of their Edward-loving minds or hanging their heads at the ever cringeworthy one liners ('I just can't imagine living in a world where you don't exist,' or 'I don't think I know how to live without you.' Take your pick. If a guy said that to you, you would laugh in his face).

Some of the werewolf bits were cool, but then Jacob was at least an alphamale which is more than we can say for Mr. Cullen. The birthday party scene was well shot, and the fight scenes in Italy looked pretty decent. Basically, all the selling points in the trailers looked good on the big screen. Regardless of that, the script was so excrable that it makes me fearful of how distressfully tween the book must be.

In closing, I would like to share someone else's view of how the message in the second chapter of 'The Twilight Saga' differs from the 'save yourself for true love' message of the first.

"All this movie does is makes teenage girls think that abusive relationships with older men are normal, healthy, and 'romantic.' The man is literally a parasite. He drinks blood for heaven's sake! Like a big, glittery mosquito."

Silence speaks volumes. How long until 'Where The Wild Things Are'?

A movie about a concert, without the concert.

It's good to know that Ang Lee is one director who isn't afraid of fresh challenges. Lest we forget, he followed the abysmal 'Hulk' with the brilliant 'Brokeback Mountain' and ended up winning his first Oscar. A director's first post-Oscar film is always going to be met with great expectation, and rightly so. 'Brokeback Mountain' was near perfect film-making, so you'd expect Lee to play to his strengths with the follow-up. 'Taking Woodstock' does just that, however the new territory that Lee explores (comedy) is a touch hit and miss.

Whether 'Taking Woodstock' is a comedy or a period piece is to be debated. Established comedy writer/actor Demitri Martin plays Elliot Tiber, the central character who wrote the book in 2007 on which the film is based, but the core of the film lies with the brilliant supporting cast which includes Imelda Staunton, Liev Schreiber and Emile Hirsch (not to mention Eugene 'American Pie' Levy). While all of their characters provide sporadic laughs throughout, the film resonates as a story of motivation and self-discovery rather than a hippie-comedy as implied by the trailers. That it is based on a book which is based on one man's account of a true story provides comic limitations from the get go, and in places the comedy really does feel like an afterthought.

What I appreciated about 'Woodstock' was the wonderful use of an ensemble cast, and the intertwining relationships within. There are definite shades of 'Brokeback' in that respect. Martin is impressive in his first lead role, and it is Elliot's selfless effort to help out his debt-stricken parents coupled with his own coming-of-age that makes this film memorable. What it isn't, however, is truly memorable. Even with a cross-dressing Liev Shreiber, a stoney, 'Nam-scarred Emile Hirsch and a wonderfully Jewish Imelda Staunton, 'Taking Woodstock' still lacks something that I can't quite put my finger on. My gut tells me that it's the total absence of live music. Yeah, I know it's not a concert film, but seeing as Lee only takes Elliot as far as the top of the hill, you can't help but feel slightly underwhelmed. Wouldn't you have loved to have been able to bump into Hendrix, Joplin, maybe Joe Cocker? Even if Lee thought the inclusion of musical icons would have been parodical, surely he could have thrown Joe Cocker into the mix!

Maybe I'm being over critical. The collective performances were enough to carry the film, even if the script was somewhat weak. Ironically, Ang Lee's choice of writer (James Schamus) is tragically that of 'Hulk' (as well as most other Lee films apart from 'Brokeback'), his last film in English. Why Lee persists with Schamus is beyond me. He is a talented film-maker no doubt, but screenwriting doesn't seem to be his strong point. Although Schamus is Oscar nominated (for shared writing duties), Lee only tends to get nominated for things when Schamus is not the lead screenwriter. Call it loyalty I guess.

One person who does make Schamus' average script seem better than it is is Imelda Staunton. The Oscar-nominated, British veteran owns every scene she's in, providing the biggest laughs as well as the most character depth. Her Eastern-european/New York accent is flawless and she is almost physically unrecognisable as Elliot's stubborn mother, Sonia. In any other Oscar year, she would probably have achieved a Best Supporting Actress nod for her role, but will most likely recieve a snub with 'Up In The Air' and 'Precious' offering a possible total of four BSA nominations.

Speaking of awards, this film probably won't win any. 'Brokeback' and 'Crouching Tiger' this ain't. While being a quirky, well-acted and beautifully depicted tribute to the greatest concert of all time, it just doesn't offer enough in terms of individual caliber. The soundtrack could have been mindblowing, but it isn't. There could have been live music, but there wasn't. Ang Lee makes it easy to appreciate the effort that went into the organisation of the Woodstock festival, but the lack of actual festival scenery left me unable to feel like a part of it.

Where are Jeff Goldblum and Dennis Quaid?

There are those autumn films that you spend the entire summer anticipating. Roland Emmerich's '2012' fell into that category for me. I have long been a fan of the way Centropolis destroy global landmarks, and after the prehistoric '1000BC' (his first film to take it's title from a year) I felt like I was owed some grand scale demolition. 'Independence Day' and 'The Day After Tomorrow' were both enjoyable, and the most obvious elements from both of those are on display for the majority of '2012's 158-minute running time. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily a good thing.

While the relationship between Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal was respectably believable in 'TDAT', the bonds that are formed and said goodbye to in Emmerich's lastest outing are 'Hollywood' at the best of times, with many of the exchanges representative of the tepid dialogue you would find in American daytime soap operas. President Danny Glover's relationship with daughter Thandie Newton is non-existent, and top White House scientist Chiwetel Ejiofor's final conversation with his cruise ship, lounge lizard daddy is verging on laughable. There is moderate chemistry between John Cusack and Amanda Peet, but in the true spirit of things there are kids and animals involved which always means pathetic Hallmark moments in the face of impending doom. In this case there are Cusack's estranged son and daughter, the family of a fat cat Russian billionaire and a little dog named Caesar. Following the literal collapse of California, I found myself willing the film on between grandiose special effects sequences.

That being what it is, the visual accomplishments are worth the price of admission to see this film. While I'm a sucker for a screenplay, I'm sure there are a lot of people who will ignore the points made above and thoroughly enjoy this film for what it is. With a movie like this, that's probably what you should be doing. I know I certainly defended '2012' before it's release, remarking that I was sure to enjoy it on the effects laden scenes alone. Admittedly, I did, but when at least 90 minutes of the film are weighed down with pithy, end-of-all-things sensitivity you tend to get a bit fidgety. Thankfully, we are blessed with a forest-dwelling, conspiracy theorist radio DJ played by Woody Harrelson (and what a 2009 it's been for him with 'The Messenger' still to be released in the UK).

Even when the film begins to climax, you can't help but laugh at the fact that the fate of a quarter of the entire remaining human race depends on John Cusack (little boy in tow, 'cause they made up, you see!) removing a tiny piece of machinery stuck in the engine cogs needed to close the back door of an 'ark' that is about five times the size of the Titanic. The logistics just don't add up. It's stupid, really. All this filmed through budget filter lenses that trick you at first into thinking you are viewing something of a higher definition, but after two and a half hours ends up feeling like a really long network premiere. Ironic, consdering that a '2012' miniseries follow up is already in the works (spare me).

Prepare to have your jaw dropped, but don't expect much else if you can help it.

Anyone who liked this film is sick in the head.

I've seen my fair shair of 'shocking' films in the past. Hell, I even owned 'Cannibal Holocaust' on VHS at one point. Big deal. Lars Von Trier's 'Antichrist' however, I can't quite figure out. Stars Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg ('The Science of Sleep') are both established and respected performers. So, why on earth have they risked their careers on such a pompous piece of European smut?

Somehow, this garbage got nominated for the Golden Palm at Cannes in 2009, which for me is comparitive to 'Freddie Got Fingered' being shortlisted for Best Picture. I can see it now, a gang of arty farty continental film critics somehow finding good in what I can only describe as artful torture porn.

Presumably, this is a social commentary focusing on post-natal depression and confused sexuality. I guess. What happens when you are post-natally depressed, probably a lesbian and all mixed up in Paganism and witchcraft? Well, apparently it means that you let your toddler plummet to their death while you screw Willem Dafoe (graphically), and then take him to the forest to screw some more, perhaps make him ejaculate blood while he's unconscious and snip off your clitoris with rusty scissors. Of course, all of this is shown by way of extreme close-ups and unneccesary slow motion. Give me a break.

'Antichrist' is such a mess that it's near impossible to follow. Between the graphic intercourse and sexual violence, there is apparently meant to be some sort of plot. I found though that rather than a tangable story, the film's focus was on the use of infantile shock tactics. Blood and penises not enough for you? Why not throw in a rotting fox knawing away at it's own flesh, pointlessly mouthing the words 'chaos reigns' to round off the second chapter? Everybody loves dying animals with their angry sex, don't they? If you asked Lars Von Trier himself just what the fudge this film is all about, what it means, what the point is, I don't think even he would be able to tell you. The film has its moments which are both visually impacting and genuinely (psychologically) scary, but if you can't indentify with the scene or the characters in it, these qualities go to waste.

This is a self indulgent, contrived and simply disgusting film that has no right recieving praise from anyone. Sorry our pitiful little brains don't work like yours, Lars Von Trier. Watch at your own peril, seriously.

Far more than just 'that Heath Ledger one', even though it is that.

Gilliam films are tough. They're certainly not the type of films to whack on after a long night of partying with your buddies. They're also not the type of films that appeal to a mass audience. Gilliam has long been the king of the indie-fantasy world, and reserves his most individual of storytelling styles for the intellectual and the open minded.

'The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus' has received easily double the attention that it would have had we not lost Heath Ledger last January. Now, let me tell you something about Heath Ledger. The man represented a generation of young actors. His talent was limitless and ever so expansive. In fact, I can't remember the last time I got so upset about a celebrity passing. 'The Dark Knight' aside, Heath shone in everything. His performance in 'Brokeback Mountain' was a revelation, while powerful roles in films like 'Ned Kelly' and 'Monster's Ball' also helped to shape his reputation as one of the finest actors in the game today.

The role of 'Tony' is a conflicted one, an amnesiac charity owner who is on the run from Russian loan sharks (it gets weirder). He is discovered by Dr Parnassus (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) and his kooky gang (Andrew Garfield, Lily Cole and Verne Troyer) hanging from a noose under a bridge and taken into their care. Considering it's Ledger's curtain call, I certainly did not anticipate him being introduced to the film at the end of a rope. Talk about uncomfortable. Thankfully, he's not dead and the film presses on.

While Parnassus believes Tony to be sent by the devil himself (played by the AWESOME Tom Waits) with whom he has been bartering for the last thousand years or so, it is not the case. Tony's introduction into Parnassus' world was just a simple case of 'wrong place, wrong time'. He is a deceptive and selfish character all things considered, though charming and witty. He is certainly good at making money for Parnassus, though the latter has never needed money to feed his gambling addiction.

The particular wager that the film is built around is a simple one. First to five souls. Parnassus has no choice but to take part as should he able to attain five souls before The Devil, he would be relinquished of his commitment to handing over his daughter (Lily Cole) on her 16th birthday (as agreed with The Devil in exchange for eternal youth!). Tony signs on as a contributor, and off we go!

Through the mirror is your imagination, whether it be light or dark (kinda like good trip, bad trip. Eh Gilliam?) Once inside, your soul goes to either Parnassus or The Devil. The choice is yours. Once a choice has been made, you return to the real world enlightened and purified, but soulless. It's all very strange to say the least, but compared to previous Gilliam outings, it's suprisingly easy to follow.

Presumably, all the scenes set in London were filmed first. Ledger is in all of them, and boy is he in all of them. Not only has he raised the bar once again, but this time through the most interesting use of accents. While it's never stated, I understand Tony to be of Australian origin living in London. From the sounds of things, he's been here a while. Ledger uses three notable accents over the course of the film. When he's emotionally vulnerable or threatened, he's Australian. When he's playing the tough guy who you apparently shouldn't mess with, he's from London (east end?). And when representing Parnassus during a live performance, he's defined and well-spoken, almost poetic. I can only hope that film-goers and critics alike will recognise this as a strength when breaking down Ledger's final performance. The use of accents is most definitely intentional and should not be written off as a fault.

When Tony isn't in London being brilliant, he is in the imaginarium being portrayed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. As far as I can tell, the changing faces symbolise the many faces of a character. First, it is shown through the drunken yob passing through the imaginarium (who was 'not himself' due to being inebriated), and later through the numerous faces of Tony's character as played by the actors listed above. In short, Ledger's incomplete performance is written into the story seamlessly, and his three successors have limited screentime so as not to detract from the fact Tony is Heath Ledger's role. Naturally, Depp has the least screentime (for obvious reasons) and Jude Law's dialogue is scarce, with Colin Farrell closing the film subtly.

There was a point towards the end of the film when I realised that I wouldn't be seeing Heath Ledger again, and it was a surreal moment. To end his career with two such overpowering performances is fitting. He should always be remembered for his dedication and precision. To have an impact on Hollywood is one thing, but to truly affect the last ten years of modern cinema is something to behold.