This is a much better film than it needed to be. By that I mean that in order to make a reasonably successful film, Ant & Dec could have just gone with a formulaic buddy-comedy, and people would have gone to see it just because it was Ant & Dec. (For those of you unfamiliar with the duo, in real life Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly are two cheeky-chappy entertainers. They used to star in teen soap Byker Grove, then they had some hit singles, and now they’re top “light entertainment” TV hosts.)

Instead, they chose a quirky script based on the real story of Ray Santilli, the man behind the alien autopsy footage that had the whole world abuzz in the 1990s. Supposedly, Santilli came across the US Army cameraman who filmed a real alien being dissected after the Roswell incident of 1947. But when he finally got the cash together to buy the footage, he found it was completely degraded. So he staged a reconstruction of the autopsy, and passed this off as the real thing.

In Alien Autopsy, Dec plays the gregarious Santilli, and Ant his cautious business partner Gary Shoefield. At first, they don’t deviate much from their expected types, but they grow into their characters and pretty soon their real-world personas are left behind. What makes the film so interesting is the intersection between truth and fiction: this is a film based on the true story of a hoax which itself is claimed to be based on true events. Aside from being a pretty decent comedy-drama, the film leaves you wondering which parts of it are true depictions of real events, which parts are embellishments for the sake of the film, and which parts are true representations of things that are claimed to be true, but in fact never happened.

It’s very clever, very entertaining, and well worth seeing.

Given my present aversion to the Hary Potter books, I wasn’t particularly interested in this film when it appeared. However, on the strength of several recommendations, Alex and I went to see it yesterday. First comment: they’re not kidding about the 12A rating. Alex has probably seen more (and more varied) movies than your average 4-year old, and so is not too easily shocked by cinematic peril, but this one was pushing it. The showdown with Voldemort at the end was really quite intense.

With this one, the series has hit a turning point: the comedy is gone. This is a serious film. For the first time, Harry and his friends have to deal with the world as grown-ups rather than as children caught up in some great adventure. In fact, three of the main techniques the previous films used to create comedic tension have been thoroughly excised:

• The Dursleys are gone–thank goodness. There is no funny opening sequence to generate artificial sympathy for poor downtrodden Harry, or to poke fun at the clueless Muggles. There are a few laughs later on, but they are kept to a bare minimum.
• There are no classroom sequences or midnight explorations of the school to create an aura of magic, and to emphasize just how different the wizarding world is. Hogwarts has become the background, rather than appearing as a character itself.
• The tensions and rivalries are now no longer between Gryffindor and Slytherin, or between the kids and the teachers: they are now between the main characters themselves. Harry, Ron, and Hermione argue and fight and hurt each other. In the end they are still all on the same side, but their relationships have taken a leap forward into adulthood.

I felt the acting was up a level, and I loved Brendan Gleeson as MadEye Moody. Special effects were very well executed, and I’d actually go as far as saying that the scene with the dragon is the best chase scene of any film I’ve watched this year. The only thing that let the film down was the revelation at the end, which unravels the purpose of the whole plot. Why do villains make things so difficult for themselves? If all they’d needed was a drop of his blood, surely they could have… Oh well.

The film’s greatest trick, however, was to rekindle my interest in the Harry Potter series. I’m not sure if I’ll go as far as reading book 6 (at least until number 7 is out, too, and I can finish them off in a single shot), but the next film is certainly something I’ll be looking forward to.

Delightful post-modern take on the 80’s buddy movie. Some of the jokes don’t come off as well as they could, but there is much more on ffer here than just a comedy/buddy/detective caper. The way it twists many of the genre stereotypes is excellent. It’s great to see Robert Downer Jr. back in action again, and Val Kilmer gets his best role since Thunderheart.

The “Others” are humans who possess supernatural abilities, such as seers, vampires, and shapeshifters. Each one must choose whether they are on the side of Dark, or Light. The forces of Light and Darkness called a truce many hundreds of years ago, because they found that they were completely evenly matched. Now, in modern-day Russia, agents of both sides (the Night Watch and Day Watch) enforce an uneasy peace.

The film follows Anton Gorodetsky, a seer whose talent first manifested itself when he tried to make a bargain with a sorceress to make his unfaithful wife return to him. Now, eleven years later, he works for the Night Watch (the side of Light) in tracking down newly emerging Others. On one mission he inadvertently kills a dark Other (against the rules), an event which precipitates a race to find the Chosen One, who will finally tip the balance between the sides, and herald the final battle.

Pretty standard stuff in terms of its mythology, but the film’s attraction lies in the way it is executed. The setting is plain and unglamorous, the heroes aren’t rugged and good-looking, and you relatively few supernatural occurrences are shown on screen. Unusual camera moves and a series of wide-ranging and seemingly disconnected plot elements create a sense of uncertainty right up until the end. It’s the first episode in a trilogy, and I’m looking forward to seeing how the rest of it turns out.

Small-town family man Tom Stall runs a diner. One day, a couple of criminals stop by to try and rob the place, but instead Tom kills them with brutal efficiency. The media turn him into a hero, but he doesn’t want the attention. A few days later, some more shady characters turn up, convinced that Tom is actually a gangster from Philadelphia called Joey Cusack, who disappeared twenty years ago…

This is a superb film. Don’t expect a flashy action movie, though: it’s a slow burner, with lots of time spent on the relationship between Tom and his wife and children, and how these few pivotal moments turn their lives upside down.

Serenity is the film that follows on from the short-lived much much-loved TV series Firefly, which was created by Joss Whedon–the guy behind Buffy. The TV series is a cross between a Western and a Space Opera. It follows the adventures of Captain Mal Reynolds and his crew on board the ship Serenity as they ply their trade–a little cargo hauling, a little thievery–among the outer planets. The series was cancelled after just 13 episodes, but it has gained a large cult audience on DVD, because it is a damn fine show with rich characters, a vivid setting, and Whedon’s characteristic sarcastic humour.

Fans of the series will want to know one thing: does Serenity work, or has it been spoiled by its transition to the big screen? The answer: it works. Whedon has had to make a few sacrifices to make it accessible to people who aren’t aware of the back story, but they’re forgiveable. The biggest is that early on, Mal is prepared to ditch Simon and River, because they have become too dangerous to keep around. This doesn’t square away with his firm insistence in the series that they are indisputably part of his crew–and from the series, we know that Mal is the very epitome of “a man of his word”.

But very quickly, the rough transition from TV to film is smoothed away, and the story is in full flow. River and Simon have been on the run from the Alliance since Simon helped her escape from the top secret institute that had been training and brainwashing her. The Alliance is now getting serious about getting her back, and they have sent a deadly Operative (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) to hunt her down and bring her back–or kill her–to safeguard the secrets she knows. Can Simon convince Mal to keep helping them? Can they find some way to escape this unstoppable force, or defuse the knowledge locked in River’s head?

Just as the series, Firefly is filled with action: daring rescue scenes, gunplay, and fistfights galore. The characters and dialogue are as rich as ever. The plot reveals a lot of answers about the Firefly universe, and although it would have been easy for Whedon to leave an obvious hook for a sequel, the ending is dramatic and rather final. It doesn’t kill off the possibility of more films, or a revival of the series, but the dynamic would be forever changed. In this sense, Serenity is much more than just a two-hour extended episode. It is a cap on the series, and a thing of its own.

The one thing I really can’t say about the film is how I think it will appeal to you if you haven’t watched Firefly. I suppose it would be a bit like watching the X-Files movie cold, without being aware of its history. Space Adventure. Woo-hoo. But would you think it was anything special? I’m not sure.

Part of Firefly’s appeal is that it was cancelled before it had a chance to get crap. Just like Farscape, it ended while its audience still wanted more. Serenity is a chance to dive back into that universe again, even if just for a few hours. And it doesn’t disappoint.

Young Mike Sullivan hides in the back of his father’s car one night, to find out what it is he really does. Knowing peripherally that his family ows its living to crime, what he sees forces full realization upon him: his father Michael (Tom Hanks) is a killer. Unfortunately, young Mike is now also a witness to what happened. Connor Rooney, son of the local boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), was the one who loosed the first shot, and he doesn’t trust Mike to keep his mouth shut.

What follows is a powerful tale of father-son relationships, loyalty, and revenge. It’s an astonishingly beautiful film, shot with exquisite care and attention to every last detail of its 1930s setting. But I thought that the sheer precision of its beauty made the characters seem distant. It was almost like a museum piece: meant to be admired, but not touched. I appreciated the emotion of the story, but I didn’t feel it as strongly as I felt I ought to have. But it that’s the film’s biggest flaw, it’s a relatively small failing.