'Project Nim' review:

You can't really write a review of James Marsh's documentary 'Project Nim' without mentioning 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'. Not only were both chimp-based movies released in the UK on the same day, but both overlap in terms of how they portray the life, from birth to adulthood, of one chimpanzee. And to quite disturbing effect.

Using the same mix of filmed interviews, dramatic re-enactments and archive material (amateur film, news coverage and still photography) that worked so well in Marsh's last film, the Academy Award winning 'Man on Wire', 'Project Nim' tells the story of Nim Chimpskey: a chimp abducted from his mother in the early 70s in order test whether language is unique to humans. However, despite being raised as a human child by a slightly mad New York family of "rich hippies", Nim was eventually discarded: given up for laboratory testing after the experiment concluded. Though eventually purchased from that facility by a wealthy animal sanctuary owner, Nim would spend the rest of his life in solitude within the confines of a concrete cage - his brief time in the media spotlight long since over.



The experiment itself comes across as a farce from beginning to end, with every scientist along the way growing personally attached to the chimp (treating him as a friend or infant human rather than an animal), perhaps all too eager to believe his repetition of various signs was proof of "language". But what's really striking are the questions it raises about the way chimps are kept by humans for entertainment and science (also a central theme of 'Rise'). As with his blockbuster counterparts, Nim's conditions in one animal sanctuary are like those of a prison, with the animals put to work in the yard whilst the humans patrol with cattle prods. One worker from the sanctuary says that there were "a couple of murders and two suicides" amongst the inmates and this bizarre similarity is matched by both films near identical portrayal of sterile medical research labs.

By the look of things, the experiment was hardly safe for the humans involved either, as we hear how the maturing Nim frequently attacked his handlers - biting a hole in the cheek of one woman and sinking his fangs dangerously close to the artery of another. At one point Nim kills a poodle whilst attempting to shut it up, whilst he also becomes obsessed with using household cats for the purposes of sexual gratification. Much like David Oyelowo's nasty, profit-obsessed businessman character in 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes', those behind the Nim experiment seem to have overlooked the safety of those involved in search of fame and profit.



The documentary mostly dismisses Herbert Terrace (the man behind the study) as little more than a publicity seeker and a slightly creepy user of impressionable young women. And, on the evidence provided, that may well be a fair assessment of his character. Yet Terrace's quite reasonable conclusion, that Nim did not in fact learn sign language but simply repeated gestures he learned would result in some form of gratification (food, contact, entertainment), is presented cynically by the film. It's as if Marsh is personally convinced, against science, that the chimp really did learn language. Contributors who speak about Nim more romantically, talking about holding "conversations" with the chimp and smoking pot with him, are given more favourable screen-time.

A perfect companion piece to 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes', 'Project Nim' serves to highlight the real life animal rights issues behind the fantasy, as well as showing how accurate some of that bigger film's settings really are. But even in isolation this is a worthwhile documentary. Incredibly heartfelt testimony of some of Nim's handlers ensures that it packs an emotional punch, whilst Marsh has lost none of the filmmaking tools which made his previous film so slick and entertaining.

'Project Nim' is on limited release in the UK now and is rated 'U' by the BBFC.

'Arrietty' review:

Studio Ghibli, the beloved Japanese animation house behind 'Spirited Away', 'Grave of the Fireflies' and 'Ponyo', have had two directors to thank for their artistic and commercial success. Isao Takahata and Hayao Miyazaki have, between them, accounted for twelve of the studio's sixteen theatrical features (thirteen of seventeen if you count the latter's 'Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind': pre-Ghibli but now considered part of the canon). In the last ten years, increasing concern that both men are in their seventies has seen the studio push younger talent into the spotlight, usually with a noticeable drop in quality.

Hiroyuki Morita's 'The Cat Returns' was a made-for-TV movie which ended up receiving a cinema release in order to cash in on the runaway international success of 'Spirited Away' back in 2002. It's a charming and watchable film but it doesn't hold a candle to 'Whisper of the Heart', the film of which it is a nominal sequel. That under-appreciated gem, written and storyboarded by Miyazaki, was another attempt to get young blood to take over in the mid-90s - but it came to nothing when promising director Yoshifumi Kondō died of an aneurysm at 47. The real nadir of this quest to replace Miyazaki was reached in 2006, when producer Toshio Suzuki convinced the great master's son Gorō to give up his career in landscaping to direct the awful 'Tales From Earthsea'. Yet long-serving animator Hiromasa Yonebayashi has provided a ray of hope, directing 'Arrietty': a delightfully pleasant and beautifully detailed adaptation of The Borrowers.



As you may have guessed from the film's source text, 'Arrietty' follows the adventures of a family of "borrowers" - folkloric little people who live between the walls and beneath the floorboards of houses, keeping just out of sight of "human beans". However 13 year-old Arrietty, the precocious and determined daughter of the family, gets seen by a sickly young boy named Shō and her parents decide it's best to uproot and find a new home. But not before the the maid of the house, the creepy and slightly mad Haru, discovers their presence and calls in the exterminators. Along the way Arrietty also contends with insects, birds and a mangy old cat.

Chief among the film's accomplishments is the great sense of scale Yonebayashi maintains, as borrowers interact with (to them) enormous everyday objects and animals. Scale is considered a notoriously difficult challenge within animation circles, there is consistently a sense of awe - most memorably when the girl enters the human kitchen for the first time (her hair rising with her spirit in the established Miyazaki tradition). The characters' use of mundane objects, such as earrings and sellotape, is also really fun to watch and terrifically inventive.



It isn't exactly at the hi-octane end of the Ghibli spectrum, being a slowly paced and gentle yarn rather than an epic in the mould of 'Princess Mononoke'. Though it nevertheless held my attention from its enchanting beginning to bittersweet conclusion, mostly thanks to some of the most elegant, neatly observed character animation in the history of the studio and some breathtaking backdrops. I suppose it's style over substance, though 'Earthsea' had neither so I'm loathe to be too critical. One crucial absentee here is veteran tunesmith Joe Hisaishi whose scores never fail to invoke a sense of grandeur and earnest emotion. French singer Cécile Corbel instead provides the film's music which is chintzy and all too fay.

'Arrietty' is a work of promise. Yet, as promising as the film is, the studio aren't quite out of the woods yet. Miyazaki played an active role in shaping the project, even co-writing the screenplay which is riddled with his DNA - from the goggles on the father's head to the resolve of the titular heroine. But Ghibli's youngest feature director, Yonebayashi has really given a measure of hope to fans that the animation institution can outlive the two old men. It's as pleasing on the eye as anything Studio Ghibli has made and the story, though slight, is as innocently joyful a way as you can spend 94 minutes at the movies.

'Arrietty' is out now in the UK, rated 'U' by the BBFC.

'Down Terrace' review:

"Never judge a book by its cover" goes the saying - and it's equally true of DVDs. The UK release of Ben Wheatley's Brighton set debut feature 'Down Terrace' has a ghastly front cover: an old geezer in a sharp suit looking like he wants to nut you, with the film's title styled as a Union Jack. There is an obligatory "best British gangster film in years" quote from BBC Radio Five and the dreadful, hooligan-bating tagline "it's about to kick off". Yet, as you might infer from the way I began this review, this is not a fair representation of the sort of film 'Down Terrace' is: a smart, well observed and subtle family drama with a dash of crime to up the ante.

'Down Terrace' is, at its core, the story of a tired minor crime boss, Bill, and his browbeaten, manchild son Karl - played to great effect by real-life father and son Robert and Robin Hill - a bickering, hate-filled pair who resemble a modern take on 'Steptoe and Son'. Karl has recently been released from prison to find that his girlfriend (Kerry Peacock) is pregnant, to the disgust of his father and the family's worn down matriarch Maggie (Julia Deakin). A crime plot, involving a series of murders, misunderstandings and a few twists, gets underway as Bill and Karl come to suspect a rat in their midst, but this is really about the twisted, abusive relationship between Karl and his parents.



If you have to liken it to another gangster movie, it belongs in the company of moody Australian ensemble drama 'Animal Kingdom' rather than 'Lock, Stock', for many reasons (some of which come with spoilers attached). Though, with its naturalistic performances and dry wit, 'Down Terrace' is a closer cousin to Mike Leigh than anything else. It's a low-key British kind of humour that wins the day, preoccupied with mundane concerns and peppered with gentle stray observations. For instance, at the height of the drama Bill tells Karl that - were it not for the recent murders - he could have finished painting the breakfast room by now. One pivotal blackly comic scene sees the 35 year old son screaming "mum!" at the top of his voice because he can't find something in his cluttered bedroom.

Despite the Brighton setting, Wheatley resists indulging in the now cliche iconography of the city, such as the Pavilion and Palace Pier. There is one reference to "trouble in Whitehawk" that will make natives chuckle and a scene on the Sussex Downs, but on the whole the fact that it's set in the area provides character and nuance without being tacky or fetishistic (unlike some bigger productions). The whole thing speaks of great discipline and the director makes the best of film's low production budget by focusing on the claustrophobic interior of the family home and a small group of authentic seeming actors.



For those enticed to the DVD by enthusiastic pull quotes about its Brit gangster movie credentials: there are a few scenes of brutal, bloody violence and several foul-mouthed conversations about the importance of "family". But 'Down Terrace' is much more concerned with character and relationships. It's sinister, damn funny and, as it reaches its climax, even a little moving.

'Down Terrace' was released in 2010 and is now available on DVD. Ben Wheatley's new film, 'Kill List', is in cinemas from September 2nd.

'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' review:

Coming as something of a big, pleasant surprise from left-field, 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' is one of the stand-out films of the year so far and looks set to become a sizable box office hit. In fact, if Fox run a smart enough campaign, it could even stand a chance at winning some Oscars next year - perhaps even managing that acting nomination for a motion captured performance that Andy Serkis (the film's real star) so craves. But what knocked me for six wasn't the phenomenal quality of the CGI apes rendered by WETA Digital, the ingenious use of San Francisco locations, or the emotional journey told almost entirely from the point of view of an animal (Serkis as chimp Caesar). It was rather the fact that the whole ridiculous "monkeys take over the world" concept had been handled in such a plausible, intelligent and entertaining way.

The original Charlton Heston 'Planet of the Apes' of 1968 saves the reveal - that the planet ruled by the chimps is our own futuristic Earth - until just before the end credits. It doesn't have to trouble itself with the irksome minutiae of how this simian revolution was possible. The implied cause was nuclear war, which killed off human civilization and gave birth to an ape-led society, but how this actually transpired is left up to individuals in the audience to imagine. The problem inherent in a "here's how it happened" prequel is that you have to make this event believable. You have to show it. This is an even bigger problem when the old "threat of nuclear war" angle is no longer considered relevant and the idea of "atomic mutation" as a cause for anything other than cancer is simply laughable. The solution for the 21st century? Animal experimentation accidentally gives apes increased intelligence and these smart animals wage revolution. But how can you pull that off on camera?



After seeing the trailer I had a basic cynical problem with the premise of 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'. I don't care how smart apes get - as long as we've got the guns and tanks they aren't going to take over the world. Yet British director Rupert Wyatt has made this idea work. Before the film is done we are invited to see a pitched battle between the San Francisco Police Department and a gang of organised chimps, gorillas and orangutans, and by the end you'll believe these animals could take the city apart brick by brick if they wanted to. The animals seem powerful, fast and agile - capable of feats usually saved for superhero characters - but none of it feels impossible so long as you accept the idea that the apes are now capable of reason and able to work together as a group.

It also helps that we aren't being sold 'Rise' as the big moment where apes take over the world, but as just the first big step on that journey, which means Wyatt doesn't yet have to show them besting the US Army or firing guns. This is basically a prison break out movie: escaped convicts versus the law. It isn't an epic tale of global conflict just yet (though the introduction of an airborne virus fills in the gaps about what happens next to some extent). An even bigger factor in why all this madness seems to make sense is that the first two thirds of the film are all about building up the character of Caesar and showing us his troubled relationship with humanity and his own crisis of identity. By the time the action really starts, we are already invested in the chimpanzee as a fully-formed character and no longer even see his actions as those of an animal.



More so than any other blockbuster of the year, 'Rise' is a dramatic story first and an action film second and this all comes courtesy of Serkis and WETA. It is a combination of a skilled character actor and tremendous animators that creates such a compelling and credible character in Caesar. A chimp adopted by James Franco's scientist after his mother is killed in the lab, he is the focus of the entire film and we follow him from newborn to energetic teenager, before he is brutalised and locked away. Caesar then (perhaps reluctantly) takes up the mantle of revolutionary leader to free apes from their human oppressors, grappling with moral and existential concerns along the way. What nuance the film has is in this journey, as key moments include subtle looks in the ape's eyes as we see his worldview change wordlessly.

By contrast the human characters could certainly be dismissed as shallow ciphers, with Tom Felton and Brian Cox playing snarling animal handlers, John Lithgow hamming it up as a confused, yet kindly, old man with Alzheimer's, and the ever-wooden Freida Pinto appearing as a smiling vet with few lines of dialogue and almost no narrative purpose beyond that of perfunctory love interest. As the live action star, James Franco is watchable but also lacking in depth, playing the committed scientist who goes to far trying to cure his father's brain illness before ultimately and inadvertently unleashing chimpgeddon on humanity. He is possibly supposed to be a conflicted, morally dubious genius in the mould of Jeff Goldblum's character in 'The Fly' or the original Dr. Frankenstein, but Franco always comes across as basically quite nice, the upshot being you never really question his motives or methods.



It's also true that compared to the theme rich original (which used its science fiction setting to explore then taboo subjects such as racism, the Vietnam War, potential nuclear holocaust and religious dogma) this prequel is pretty simple, with the basic moral being that we should treat animals better. Which is fair enough, but also not an idea that really challenges the audience (it'd be an odd person that objects to a "don't electrocute monkeys for fun" message). I suppose the revolutionary theme could be read more broadly as something about how an underclass will rise against an oppressive state, but oddly - for a film selling itself on the iconography of revolution - there is nothing revolutionary about its vaguely anti-science social agenda.

That said, 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' is as good a time as it's possible to have at the movies this time of year and (my great enjoyment of 'Captain America' and the final 'Harry Potter' notwithstanding) has to be viewed as the pick of the multiplex for summer 2011. From its emotional opening moments to the mesmeric doomsday scenario offered over the closing credits, Wyatt's prequel/remake is far better than it has any right to be.

'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' is out in the UK today and is rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'Cowboys and Aliens' Review + 'Submarine' DVD

'Iron Man' director John Favreau's genre mash-up 'Cowboys and Aliens' is out on the 17th in the UK and I've reviewed it already over on What Culture. The short version: I found it incredibly boring. It left me in little wonder that the big budgeted Harrison Ford/Daniel Craig movie failed to beat 'The Smurfs' to the top spot at the US box office on its opening weekend. Why did I find it so dull? Read the review.

I've also had another DVD review published in the pages of the Daily Telegraph last weekend, as I appraised Richard Ayoade's brilliant directorial debut 'Submarine' - which you can also read online now that Saturday's more tangible issue is lining hamster cages.

Also, check back in the next couple of days for my review of 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes', which comes out on Friday over here. I'll say already that it's really good and a probable Oscar contender: an intelligent and exciting film which will reignite enthusiasm for the franchise overnight. British director Rupert Wyatt and motion capture performance advocate Andy Serkis (the film's real star as Caesar the ape) have every reason to celebrate a fine piece of work.

'Super 8' review:

Directed by 'Lost' creator and 'Cloverfield' producer JJ Abrams, 'Super 8' is an affectionate homage to the films of Steven Spielberg. Though in this case "homage" seems like too generous a description of a film which is closer in spirit to a greatest hits mixtape and, with Spielberg acting as a producer to oversee his own canonisation, it must surely rank as one of the cinema's greatest acts of narcissism. Not only is every shot, every sound effect and every character archetype stolen wholesale from the Spielberg oeuvre, but Abrams also borrows all his themes and even major plot details - the result being a film that feels wholly derivative and more than a little redundant.

In stitching together 'Super 8', Abrams combines the town meeting scene from 'Jaws', the nocturnal tree-rustling eeriness of 'Jurassic Park' and the absent father business from 'Hook' and 'The Lost World', alongside huge chunks of 'E.T.' and 'Close Encounters'. Whilst the young cast seem modelled, almost like-for-like, on the kids from Richard Donner's Spielberg-produced 'The Goonies'. Aside from his overuse of distracting lens flares, the director's own dubious stamp is only really felt in the familiar brand of mystery, as he withholds information and establishes lots of (eventually meaningless) threads, with the requisite unsatisfying pay-off. In fact, without spoiling the film, all I can say is that the climax of Abrams' story is not only underwhelming, but also wholly baffling as we are asked not to care about all the death and destruction that has come before during a cloying, metaphor-heavy finale that tries desperately to be heart warming and truly fails.



Set in the 1980s for some reason (allowing for tired references to the Cold War and walkmans), the story itself revolves around the meek and kindly Joe (Joel Courtney), a young boy who spends his summer holidays making super 8mm films with his friends: the fat one, the explosives expert one, the nervous one etc. Joe's mother has recently died and his well-meaning, hard-working father (Kyle Chandler), the town's Deputy Sheriff, spends little time with him. This leads him to strike up a forbidden friendship with Alice (Elle Fanning), a rebellious, young teen who agrees to star in the boys' movie. However, things take a turn for the strange when the gang's filmmaking places them at the scene of a spectacular train crash - with the film's big action set-piece out of the way after the first half hour.

Soon the army are on the scene to wage stock military conspiracy against the town and the boys are warned by a kindly old teacher not to tell anyone about what they have seen for their own safety. However, unexplained things start happening in town and, after the Sheriff goes missing, Joe's dad mounts his own investigation into the oddness (which proves ultimately irrelevant). Like the Amblin Entertainment produced family movies of the 1980s, such as 'Gremlins' and the aforementioned 'The Goonies', 'Super 8' pushes hard at the boundaries of its age-rating, with some bloody kills and a bit of swearing as Abrams refuses to patronise the potential young audience members who've been upgraded from 'Mr. Popper's Penguins'.



Yet whist the film definitely counts as something of an upgrade for the oft-abused family crowd, the film's only other audience is the nascent 1980s nostalgia demographic who are being played as cynically as they are ever likely to be. The "spot the Spielberg" nature of the movie will be a lot of fun for this portion of the crowd, but you have to wonder if it wouldn't be a better use of time to re-watch the superior Spielberg originals themselves and give this hollow imitation a miss. Compelling performances from the young cast aside (Fanning and Courtney are brilliant), 'Super 8' is a strange contradiction: seen by some as a beacon of hope amidst the comic book adaptations, sequels and remakes, the summer's only original property lacks a single original idea.

'Super 8' is out now in the UK and is rated '12A' the the BBFC.

'Sarah's Key' review:

A shrewd example of counter-programming, French holocaust movie 'Sarah's Key' has been unleashed on a UK box office with little else to offer a mature audience. Right now most multiplexes are screening the last entry in the 'Harry Potter' series, the third 'Transformers' movie and the more recent releases of 'Cars 2', 'Mr. Popper's Penguins' and 'Captain America'. It's a time of year when Hollywood, as far away from either end of award season as it's possible to be, caters only for teenagers and families, with the elderly ignored most of all. Yet, based on an acclaimed novel, set during the Second World War and starring Kristen Scott-Thomas, 'Sarah's Key' is seemingly purpose built for those with no interest in wizards, penguins and superheroes.

Scott-Thomas plays Julia, an American investigative journalist living in present day Paris who is researching a story on Vel' d'Hiv Roundup - a shameful event in French history which saw over 13,000 Parisian Jews arrested by local police and eventually condemned to Nazi concentration camps - when she discovers her new apartment in the Marais once belonged the family of a 10 year-old Jewish girl named Sarah (Mélusine Mayance) of whom there are no records. Her family perished in the camps, but Sarah seems to have disappeared soon after her transfer to the camp at Beaune-la-Rolande. As Julia tries to uncover the past, chasing leads around the globe and talking to distant relatives, we are also shown flashbacks of Sarah's traumatic young life and of a particularly tragic event which relates to the titular key.



It's all admirable enough, with the worthy intention of reminding the French people of this horrendous episode and keeping the memory of those killed alive, yet it's a tale that is blandly told. The film lacks anything like flair for the cinematic, with the 2009 sections of the film especially boring as Julia contends with the guilt of owning Sarah's apartment, and the whole thing feels like an overlong TV movie. The scenes which see Julia working at her magazine office are full of clumsy expository lessons in history, whilst the actors playing her young colleagues don't convince as journalists - reduced as they are to representing the ignorance of youth and those of us who need educating by the film.

In the end the tear-jerking, emotional element of the film (and it certainly has one) has much more to do with history than filmmaking as we are forced to imagine some of the pain people really went through in living memory - with children ripped from the arms of mothers, shrieking their goodbyes amidst a cacophony of wailing. The fate of Sarah's young brother is also hard to stomach. But none of this has an ounce to do with Gilles Paquet-Brenner's tepid direction or Scott-Thomas' earnest, mournful portrayal of Julia. English-speaking sections are especially poor with cliche dialogue ("my whole life has been a lie!") and little-known actors out of their depth, as the producers desperately try to ensure the film has a marketing future outside of France (it's got one of those cheeky trailers that pretends it isn't a foreign language film).



Aforementioned middle-class elderly audiences, so neglected by the summer blockbuster scene, will find the earnest, historically-conscious 'Sarah's Key' a welcome and emotionally affecting trip to the pictures. And that's a good thing, make no mistake. But those less allergic to frivolous fun will understand that there is much more interesting and even (in some cases) intellectually nourishing fare at the multiplex right now for anyone prepared to use their imagination. I'd never usually direct people from the arthouse and into the Odeon, but it's summer and, like it or not, that's where it's happening.

'Sarah's Key' is out now in the UK and rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'Mr. Popper's Penguins' review:

Promising a return to Jim Carey's rubber-faced and anarchic persona that it never quite delivers, 'Mr. Popper's Penguins' is a rote, inoffensive family comedy in which the title character (a slick-haired, shark of a businessman) learns all about the importance of love and family via six adorable penguins. The animals unexpectedly arrive at a swanky New York apartment as Popper's inheritance following the death of his father, an explorer, whose lifelong absence has given the character considerable daddy issues. The knock-on effect of which accounts for the character's failed marriage (to Carla Gugino) and relationship with his teenage kids, who he rarely has time for.

It's a tale familiar to anyone who's ever been patronised by Spielberg's 'Hook' or Carey's own 'Liar Liar', in which wealthy Hollywood types castigate working fathers for not attending enough baseball games/dance recitals, whilst espousing the eternal virtue of the nuclear family (Carey and Gugino must reconcile in the kids' movie tradition of 'The Parent Trap'). It goes without saying that along the way Carey must decide not to cheat a nice elderly lady (Angela Lansbury) out of her property, at the expense of earning a partnership at his firm, thus becoming a better man.



As with other recent live-action human/CGI animal buddy movies, such as 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' and 'Hop', a lot of the humour here revolves around fecal matter, with 'Mean Girls' director Mark Waters never missing an opportunity to show CGI bird poop streaming out of his CGI marine birds - to the audible delight of the child audience. Otherwise it's a succession of pratfalls amidst convoluted animal mayhem as the birds flood Popper's apartment, cause chaos at an arts benefit and stage a last-gasp zoo breakout in the name of madcap wackiness.

With this goofy premise in mind it seems odd that Carey himself, the gurning, limb-waving loon of 'The Mask' and 'Ace Ventura', gives such a restrained performance. There are isolated bits of daft, exaggerated comic business, but otherwise the actor seems to be continuing his decade long apology for having once been a comedian as he invests a lot of heartfelt sincerity into Popper's dramatic arc at the expense of laughs. Worse still, some of his better comic moments, such as his Jimmy Stewart impression, seem destined to go over the heads of the young audience altogether.



There is some fun to be had watching a supporting cast that includes Jeffrey Tambor, Phillip Baker Hall and Clark Gregg, even if they are underused and ill-served by the material, whilst British actress Ophelia Lovibond is a cute and mildly amusing presence as Popper's alliteration abusing assistant Pippi (a person whose primary purpose pertains to proliferating pronounced p-words). Though the intention is doubtless for the unimaginatively nicknamed penguins themselves to be the stars of the show: the squawking Loudy, flatulent Stinky, clumsy Nimrod, "adorable" Lovey, overzealous Bitey and flight-obsessed Captain. However, their cute appeal relies heavily on a retelling of the popular myth of the animals as dedicated monogamists and attentive parents, a la 'March of the Penguins'. And, even if you ignore the politics at play, animals that come into your house, crap everywhere and keep you up all night face a hard time being considered cute in my estimations.

Ultimately the flavourless, odorless, cinematic beige that is 'Mr. Popper's Penguins' feels like a Christmas movie released a few months early - possibly with eyes on a festive DVD release which could prove considerably more lucrative than this tepid theatrical outing. It's admittedly slightly more tasteful and watchable than the other animal movies of the last few years, but it's unlikely to inspire a resurgence of mid-90s-style Carey-mania.

'Mr. Popper's Penguins' is out today in the UK and rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

'The Referees' review:

Just up on What Culture, my review of French football documentary 'The Referees' which is out on limited release tomorrow in the UK. If you can catch it I'd recommend it, though it's not without its faults - mainly the fact there just isn't enough confrontation between players and referees in it. But it's a decent look at a side of the sport we don't usually see.

Blu-Ray reviews: 'Limitless' and 'Super'

Today I've got Blu-Ray reviews of two of the week's releases up on What Culture. 'Limitless' (trailer above) is a pretty solid sci-fi/thriller starring 'The Hangover' star Bradley Cooper, whilst 'Super' is a charmless misses opportunity of a black comedy/superhero movie which stars "funnyman" Rainn Wilson (of US 'The Office' fame) and Ellen Page of 'Juno' fame.

Check them out!

'Captain America: The First Avenger' review:

'Captain America: The First Avenger' is out now in the UK, so I thought I'd remind y'all about my review from last week over on What Culture.

I saw the film again yesterday, partly because it's the best blockbuster I've seen in years, but also so I could catch a glimpse of the teaser for next year's Joss Wheadon directed 'The Avengers' after the credits (not attached to the press version I first saw).

Joe Johnston's film was great a second time and I'm really glad the film held up to an additional viewing. A few things I didn't mention in my review which I'll take up space with here: Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) reminded me, not only of Werner Herzog, but of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' villain Judge Doom. The whole thing actually made me think of episodes of Spielberg's TV series 'Amazing Stories'.

Anyway, go see the movie if you have even a passing interest in superhero fare.

'Beginners' review:

From 'Thumbsucker' director Mike Mills, 'Beginners' is a thoughtful, loosely autobiographical film about a thirty-something artist, Oliver (Ewan McGregor), whose father has recently died of cancer a few short years after coming out as gay in his mid-seventies - in a sense, beginning life too late. It's set a few months after Hal (Christopher Plummer) has died and sees his son struggling to move on with life, forming an unhealthy attachment to his late father's dog and with unbearable sadness effecting his work and friendships.

There are frequent backflashes as Oliver thinks back on growing up with his equally unfulfilled mother and his father's life as a closet homosexual, with events put into historical and social context in a way which is less gimmicky than it might sound. Meanwhile Oliver embarks on a new beginning of his own, falling for Anna, a French actress played by an especially winsome Melanie Laurent. It's an ambitious film - as much about the human condition and the history of sadness as it is about love - which mostly lives up to its promise.



'Beginners' is a tearjerker without feeling manipulative and it's life-affirming without being sickly. A large part of its success rests with Christopher Plummer, whose performance as Hal is especially heartbreaking, with the old man facing death when he is at his most vital. His insatiable appetite for new experiences is particularly bittersweet and Mills' reflection on his own father's life as a closet homosexual in the 1950s shows great insight and empathy. Oliver's mother (Mary Page Keller), also deceased, isn't neglected as a character either, with time given to her end of a compromised marriage and relationship with Oliver as a boy.

For his part, McGregor gives an understated and sensitive performance which is easily his best in years, even sporting a decent American accent. Laurent, who appeared on Hollywood's radar after starring in Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' two years ago, is also a presence, showing great range. All of the characters are well drawn and sympathetic - with each of them coming to terms with misfortune and tragedy without self-pity. As romantic leads, McGregor and Laurent enjoy great chemistry and their scenes together are a charming, even if the film is at its best when Plummer is on-screen.



Where it falls down slightly is in its sporadic attempts to be cute and quirky. The drawings Oliver does at work, hired to design a rock band's album cover, and scenes of post-modern graffiti, feel like something from a Fox Searchlight comedy. The superficiality of these moments doesn't quite mesh with the perfectly observed emotional honesty of the rest of the movie. It's also gloomily lit, with even daylight scenes taking place in semi-darkness - a decision no doubt intended to mirror Oliver's less-than-sunny disposition, but which becomes wearisome from an aesthetic standpoint.

Yet with its old-timey soundtrack and existentialist concerns, at its best 'Beginners' feels like vintage Woody Allen, without all the one-liners and with added cause to weep openly. Intelligent, insightful and deeply moving, it's one of the films of the year.

'Beginners' is out now in the UK where it is rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Captain America: The First Avenger' review:

My review of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' just went up on What Culture. So check that out.

Also, I have written a DVD review for The Daily Telegraph arts section tomorrow. I reviewed 'The Lincoln Lawyer' which is apparently DVD of the Week. I've got a few more gigs with them coming up too, which is certainly a pleasure.

Something that isn't to do with 'Cars'!

I've just reviewed the insanely stupid video game 'Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon' over on What Culture, so check that out if you're sick to death of all my 'Cars' related updates. It's a bit like if 'Starship Troopers' had been directed by Ed Wood.

'Cars 2' review:

Pixar is a studio known for taking risks and taking audiences to places they don't expect to go - making movies about rats cooking food, retired old men in flying houses and silent robots with a passion for 'Hello, Dolly!'. So whilst the studio's new found love of sequels may seem disappointingly in-step with the competition, you'd have to concede that the decision to make a sequel to 2006 film 'Cars' is consistent with the Pixar tradition. After all, who honestly expected a sequel for the studio's least celebrated film? Certainly there is a sizable population of young kids (boys in particular) who have helped to make 'Cars' the most lucrative source of merchandising revenue for the studio, but there is a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm surrounding the release 'Cars 2' when compared to 'Up', 'Wall-E' or last year's 'Toy Story 3'.

The original film saw brash race car Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) stranded in the backwater town of Radiator Springs where he befriended a rusty, well-meaning tow-truck, Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), and learned valuable lessons in humility, ultimately becoming a better racer and winning the coveted Piston Cup. It was a personal film for director John Lasseter, who was indulging his own sincere, lifelong love of motor racing as well as taking a good-natured and nostalgic look at a dying way of life out on Route 66. The sequel is, by contrast, a more sprawling, action-packed and seemingly less personal movie. A globe-trotting spy thriller in which Lightning McQueen is a supporting player. All of which sounds better in theory than it ends up being in practice.



'Cars 2' sees Mater accompany McQueen around the world (through Italy, France, Japan and England) whilst the flashy speedster participates in the "World Grand Prix". And it's the comedy best friend character who now takes centre stage after being mistaken for an undercover American spy by sleek British intelligence agents Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). Now equipped with gadgets and gizmos, he soon finds himself embroiled in a series of high-octane, life or death encounters, whilst his small town ignorance sees him clash with every culture he comes into contact with. What follows is a 60s spy film pastiche, full of races, chases and fish out of water comedy, set in a world solely comprised of cute motoring puns.

For a studio as famously disciplined in terms of storytelling as Pixar, the film feels quite loose and ramshackle - a series of hopefully exciting or funny moments rather than a compelling narrative. Some things work (John Turturro is fun as boastful Italian F1 car Francesco Bernoulli) but mostly it's the same earnest inter-car relationship drama as the first film (Mater and McQueen fall out, whilst it's the tow-truck's turn to find love) with a lot more broad, misfiring comedy - this time revolving around car-ified versions of national stereotypes. It's pretty tiresome (or should that be tyresome) stuff made depressing because of who is making it. 'Cars' was in fairness an OK film that suffered from the fact that it was below the exceptionally high standards set by Pixar. 'Cars 2' is genuinely just bad.



It begins promisingly enough, with some imaginative new character designs and innovative character animation (particularly of the boats and submarines). The new spy plot element creates an atmosphere of intrigue and excitement and the world of 'Cars' becomes fresh and more fun than it has previously been, especially as Finn McMissile fights off an army of villainous henchman during his escape from an exploding oil rig. Yet as soon as Mater becomes the focus of the story all the tension, excitement and humour evaporates. Finn McMissile is a funny character because he is played completely straight, whereas Mater is supposed to be funny but he's just obvious and annoying. The message of 'Cars 2' is that Mater should be allowed to "be himself", which I'm happy with so long as it does it somewhere else.

It struck me whilst watching 'Cars 2' that it's perhaps much more skewed towards young children than we're used to from the guys who broadened the appeal of the art form with 'Toy Story' all those years ago. This isn't a bad thing in of itself and it's possible that the spectacle of Mater wetting himself (leaking oil) might be as hilarious as intended if I was eight again. I'd most certainly have wanted to own every single toy, especially now that the cars have that other love of young boys - weapons. But as an adult it's got nothing to offer aside from the always-breathtaking animation of the artists at Pixar, who again do an amazing job: the film's reflections, lighting and character animation are impressive and the character designs are much more appealing than the actual characters.



It gives me no pleasure to write a review like this for a Pixar movie. It feels a lot like I'm punching a faithful friend in the face. A friend who, on every other occasion, has stood for not just the best of animated filmmaking but, in many ways, for the best of filmmaking period. Pixar puts in so much effort and invests so much loving care into every one of its creations, and the richly detailed, densely populated world of 'Cars 2' is far from being an exception. I saw a lot of amazing concept art for the film when visiting Pixar last month and it feels somehow churlish to run the movie down in the face of so much talent, especially as director John Lasseter has done more for animation than anyone else on the planet in the last twenty years (including spearheading excellent recent animated output at a resurgent Disney Animation Studios). But with all that said, 'Cars 2' is Pixar's first bad movie and I'd be lying to myself if I wrote otherwise.

'Cars 2' is released in the UK on Friday and has been rated 'U' by the BBFC.

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two' review:

Having reviewed the overall excellent 'Deathly Hallows: Part One' last year, there isn't a lot I can write about this final part of the Harry Potter saga without repeating myself. Save for some take it or leave it 3D, it's just as good if not a bit better than that penultimate episode - certainly in terms of action and excitement, with most of the build-up now out of the way. The young actors remain vastly improved under David Yates' direction, as does the whole look and tone of the film which is dark and scary. Scenes of magic and fantasy are again made a thousand times more awe-inspiring by the fact that Yates keeps everything else so grounded - even mundane. Whilst the heroes are now free from the constraints and routines of Hogwarts school, and its campy thespian teachers, allowing them to become more active participants in the unfolding narrative as opposed to awestruck passengers.

In fact, everything seems to fit so well together now that I am even beginning to credit Warner Brothers with some sort of unlikely overall plan behind the series' game of directorial musical chairs. Unlike 'Star Wars' or 'Indiana Jones', the films have grown with their audience and, for those the same approximate age as the heroes, it seems entirely appropriate in retrospect that the brightly coloured, John Williams-scored whimsy of the opening Christopher Columbus episodes has developed into this more macabre and downbeat conclusion. As the stakes have been raised, and the supporting characters have started dying at an exponential rate, so the films have become more complex and interesting.



I don't want to oversell it: this is by no means a perfect movie and I'm still no convert to the "franchise" overall. Some plot developments still don't make a lot of sense and most of the side-quests are resolved in ways which are anti-climactic (notably when Potter's "suicide mission" return to Hogwarts turns out to be a cake walk). Yet it's become impossible to deny that these films have, if only in the final stretch, become way above average summer family movies, at least competent on every level and in some respects approaching exceptional. For instance, Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe is now an intelligent and immensely capable talent, with a deliciously offbeat, quirky sensibility that Hollywood will hopefully make room for (though I suspect otherwise).

Even the gurning Rupert Grint and the perennially huffy Emily Watson are now pretty decent co-stars and it is genuinely moving when their series-spanning romantic sub-plot finally reaches its resolution (with those around me moved to happy tears). The engaging Tom Felton is underused as minor series antagonist Draco Malfoy, but is as interesting and intense as ever when he is on screen, whilst Alan Rickman as Snape, for so long a scenery chewing caricature just "having fun with the role", is a real dramatic force in this installment, with a moving flashback sequence which serves as a rewarding payoff for those (like myself) who never bothered read the books. And speaking of Snape, this film picks up where the last film left off when it comes to potentially frightening young children.



The last installment began with a weeping schoolteacher being tortured and murdered in front of a watching audience of evil wizards - some of whom were members of the school community and parents of Harry's classmates. A few scenes later, Watson's Hermoine was erasing herself from her parents' memory so as to keep them out of trouble. Pretty heavy stuff, though in this respect 'Deathly Hallows: Part Two' arguably ups the ante. One scene in particular sees a wounded character slowly bitten to death by a huge snake, which has a surprisingly visceral impact as we watch the scene unfold from behind frosted glass. And this is what is so good about Yates' Harry Potter films: not that they are dark for darkness's own sake or that they have moved away from a kiddie demographic, but because he realises what most filmmakers don't.

Children are OK with being scared. In fact they seek it out - trying to watch what they aren't supposed to and frightening each other with increasingly depraved stories under the blankets. Children want to go to school the next day and talk about these darker, scarier moments with their friends. I'm not saying that the scare-factor of 'Deathly Hallows: Part Two' won't be too much for some children - and parents will have to be the judge of that, with it rightly given a '12A' certificate - but I'd suspect a lot of 7 or 8 year-olds would find this film thrilling because it doesn't talk down to them. Because it doesn't deny the existence of death and because it actually allows its villain, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, to be as evil as everybody has spent the previous seven films saying he is.



That said, the film isn't without its quieter moments and even bits of comic relief, with the likes of Maggie Smith given some fairly chortlesome lines. It's genuinely heartening to witness the coming-of-age heroics of the until now faintly pathetic Neville Longbottom (a much improved Matthew Lewis), perhaps Hogwarts' most unlikely champion. Most of the movie is set during an epic battle which brings together great stone golems, haunting wraiths and armies of homicidal mercenaries as one huge set-piece follows another. But whereas these sorts of sections have been a source of great disinterest in earlier installments, Yates has done so well to engage our interest with the protagonists that we genuinely feel invested in what is taking place amid the explosions.

By now the battle lines have been clearly drawn between those of you that love Harry Potter and those of you that wouldn't turn your head to see this latest installment if Warner Brothers projected it onto your bedroom wall. However dismissing 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two' out of hand could mean you miss one of the year's most accomplished summer movies. This is the second part of what is easily the best live-action family film since the first 'Pirates of the Caribbean' almost a decade ago. Even the sentimental and completely superfluous last five minutes can be forgiven as people of the right age (which sadly doesn't include this ageing cynic) will be bidding a bond farewell to characters who've been with them for as long as they can remember. Even for the rest of us this marks the end of an ambitious decade-long cinematic experiment the likes of which we may never see again.

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and will be on general release from July 15th.

'Norwegian Wood' Blu-ray review

Today the Japanese Murakami novel adaptation 'Norwegian Wood' was released in the UK on Blu-ray. It's a lovely release from Soda Pictures which I've reviewed over on the site formerly known as Obsessed with Film. You can read that review here.

I re-watched the film, having seen it last year in Venice, and liked it rather more this time around - so I contradicted my earlier festival review quite a lot. I also re-read that original review, written on a phone sometime late at night on the Lido by a tired and confused man, and found that it was barely coherent drivel. So hopefully I've done the film more justice this second time around!

Obsessed with Film is in the process of re-branding itself this month as What Culture.

'Larry Crowne' review:

Way back in 1996, Tom Hanks wrote and directed 'That Thing You Do!', a fun, colourful and breezy homage to the mid-60s rock and roll scene which charted the rise and fall of a fictional one-hit-wonder group. It wasn't a huge commercial success, with Hanks only taking a small part and casting a host of relatively unknown actors in the lead roles, but it was stylish and evoked the feeling of that era superbly - at least as it exists in our romanticised, collective imagination. Hanks also co-wrote some of the film's punchy musical numbers, with the project feeling like a genuine labour of love and the work of a film star taking time out to do something smaller and more personal. As if to confirm this suspicion, Hanks' production company, Playtone, is named after the fictional record label in that movie.

As should be obvious, 'That Thing You Do!' is a movie for which I maintain a deep affection fifteen years down the line. So much so that nothing could prepare me for the Academy Award winner's second feature as director: the goodwill-sappingly abysmal 'Larry Crowne'. Co-written with Nia 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' Vardalos, 'Larry Crowne' is a "feel-good" movie about well-meaning, middle aged Larry (Hanks) who - in a contrivance of the plot - loses his low-wage supermarket job when his employers discover his lack of a college education. Without a job, the goofy-yet-loveable Larry decides to enrol in college where he meets, and falls in love with, inspirational teacher Mercedes Tainot, played by Julia Roberts (alongside whom Hanks starred in 'Charlie Wilson's War').



I take no pleasure in criticising this already maligned film, both out of affection for its star and because it is so "nice": smiley, wide-eyed and unfailingly good-natured. Yet there is really no defence for 'Larry Crowne' that I can think of. At its core is a deeply patronising everyman story trying to imbue us with post-recession hope by showing a guileless hero's effortless 'Forrest Gump' style ascent from joblessness to gainful employment. Immediately after losing his income Larry starts attending his local college (how is pays for this is unaddressed). As soon as he realises his car is too expensive to run, he decides to buy a scooter and, as luck would have it, finds his next door neighbour (Cedric the Entertainer) has one knocking around. He then trades in his flat-screen television for it in a calculated move which echoes the 1980s advice of Norman Tebbit ("get off your sofa and find a job" is the clear message here). And, literally, as soon as he pulls up to college on said scooter, he attracts the attention of a wholesome gang of young, beautiful scooter friends who love him immediately and devote all their time to re-arranging his furniture, his wardrobe and his love-life.

The film trundles along in this fashion with Larry quickly becoming a star student, finding another part-time job (again, effortlessly) and having a whole bunch of fun times with his gang of super-awesome friends! Getting sacked was the best thing that ever happened to this guy. I can see the probable logic behind this depiction of being laid-off and it goes something like "people don't want to see something depressing about unemployment right now - the people need hope". But not only does this betray a condescending view of the public, the crisis and resolution depicted in Larry Crowne is too far removed from reality to function on this level. It offers nothing but a bland fantasy of inevitable success and faith in the American dream (crucially Larry is never shown to be given charity, though the source of this former "U-Mart" employee's relative affluence is never revealed).



The film's gags are pretty weak too, with the audience expected to chuckle as Hanks drives a scooter into a yard sale, knocking things over, or when he puts on a funny hat. It further suffers from the charmlessness of Hanks' co-star Julia Roberts who does her best to look unimpressed by Larry's antics, and her students' good humour, throughout the movie, echoing her frosty, lustless turn in 'Notting Hill'. Save the occasional flash of that trademark smile, Roberts comes across as a bit of a downer and the sub-plot involving the break-up of her marriage is heavy-handed and unsympathetic. Some of the oddball supporting characters are rather more winning, such as the scooter gang's leader played by Wilmer Valderrama and George Takei's economics professor, but they are the cinematic equivalent of the orchestra on the Titanic.

The most surprising thing about 'Larry Crowne' though, considering the pedigree of those involved, is that bits of it seem so amateurish. For example, one particularly frivolous shot had me baffled: during a conversation between Larry and a friend in a diner, Hanks cuts to a hitherto unseen third party who delivers one line before disappearing from view again for the remainder of the film. Who is this mysterious man and why is he introduced to us in full close-up, delivering a line that suggests he is a familiar character and a long-time friend of the protagonist? This is unlikely given the amount of preparation and thought that goes into making a film, but it feels as though this shot choice was arrived at randomly. On this showing, 'Larry Crowne' is not the work of a director with any particular vision.



As the film bumbles into its final twenty minutes it becomes a simple box-ticking exercise in which any and all loose ends are tied up whether the story needs it or not. The dumb oaf who fires Larry at the beginning is shown to have become a pizza delivery man, whilst Roberts' under-subscribed college class gains popularity for some reason seemingly unconnected to shown events and her porn-loving ex-husband must, of course, also get his comeuppance. Here Hanks acts like some sort of omnipotent moraliser punishing the wicked and rewarding the noble in a world without troublesome nuance. In 'Larry Crowne' a wholesome, good and friendly man is rewarded for being wholesome, good and friendly in a wholesome, good and friendly land. In the immortal words of Bill Hicks: "go back to bed America".

'Larry Crowne' is out now in the UK and has been rated a '12A' by the BBFC.

Better days:

'Bridesmaids' review:

"It's coming out like hot lava" screams a character in blockbuster comedy 'Bridesmaids' as they unleash a torrent of diarrhea into the sink of a plush public bathroom. It's a line, and indeed a scenario, that wouldn't be out of place in any other Judd Apatow produced comedy, where it might just as plausibly have been shouted by Seth Rogen. Here however, the difference - and the selling point - is that this line is shouted by a woman, Megan played by Melissa McCarthy.

Co-written by and starring Kristen Wiig, 'Bridesmaids' is about Annie, a woman in her thirties who is watching her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) get engaged and wondering how life has passed her by. Her car is rusty, her cake shop closed down in the recession and she lives with a couple of creepy room mates (one of whom is played by Matt Lucas). Worse still, the elegant, high-society Helen (Rose Byrne) seems set on supplanting her as Lillian's maid of honour.



'Bridesmaids' is a rare comedy that gives women permission to be funny, to pull ugly faces and to fart in public. Unlike the majority of comedies which relegate female characters to disapproving shrews and the perennial, sighing babysitters of giant man-children, this is a film in which the few male characters play it relatively straight whilst a female ensemble carries all the crass, sweary jokes. In this way it both subverts and conforms to the lucrative Apatow comedy model.

It's hard to recall another film comedy in which women take centre stage (perhaps the Tina Fey penned 'Mean Girls'?) and 'Bridesmaids' should definitively put to bed the myth that women aren't funny, with a first half hour as solidly amusing as that of any comedy made in the last decade. Yet sadly the rate of laughs is not sustained beyond the opening minutes and for most of the two hour running time 'Bridesmaids' seems to forget that it's a comedy, getting bogged down in Annie's inevitable fall-out with her friends and with her mild-mannered love interest (Chris O'Dowd).



It's also disappointing that some of the laughs are so uninspired, desperate and lazy, for instance when Wiig plays drunk and cringingly mimics Hitler, asking an air steward if he's German. Or when we are asked to laugh as an overweight person runs towards some food. The more manic and exaggerated the film gets in pursuit of easy laughs, the less funny it becomes. These moments are made more disheartening by the early promise offered by a laid-back and naturalistic lunch scene in which Wiig and the ever-excellent Rudolph effortlessly convince as best friends, showing that Wiig as a writer and a performer can offer so much more.

'Bridesmaids' is far better than its only real summer comedy competition, 'The Hangover: Part II', and must therefore be considered the year's best out-and-out comedy. At times it certainly lives up to that billing on merit, but mostly the fact this is what currently passes for above average just highlights the dearth of quality comedy films being made right now. But at least the long overdue emergence of this film, and its subsequent commercial and critical success, should ensure women are allowed to keep on being funny on film. David Brent once said "women are as filthy as men", but it's taken until now for Hollywood to make a feature of it.

'Bridesmaids' is out now in the UK and has been rated '15' by the BBFC.

'The Tree of Life' review:

With only his fifth feature film in just over thirty years as a director, elusive American auteur Terrence Malick continues his fixation with now familiar motifs: images of white picket fences, long grass and sunlight flickering through the trees accompanied by softly spoken classically American narrators pondering existential themes. Discussions of God, nature and morality rendered poetic and lyrical in movies which liberate this visual medium from dialogue and even go some way towards rejecting conventional narrative form.

'The Tree of Life' stars Brad Pitt as an authoritarian father - a middle American salesman in the 1950s - and the bulk of the film follows his interactions with wife Jessica Chastain and three sons, one of whom is played by a haggard-looking Sean Penn in infrequent glimpses into the future. It's a series of moments and a prevailing mood rather than a complex, three-act story: a father and son tale which sets its characters in the context of a vast universe, pre-historic life and the end of time itself. A slow and deliberately paced "nothing happens" movie in which literally everything happens. There are even dinosaurs.



Yet for all the breathtaking cinematography and fine performances (especially from Pitt), 'The Tree of Life' is undermined in its scope and grandeur by the existence of the less literal and more abstract '2001', and also by the Charlie Kaufman written 'Adaptation', in which a pretentious screenwriter seems to pre-empt the film (suggesting a movie which shows the creation of all life from small organisms to human beings for the purposes of parody). It's ripe with "meaning" and each whispered piece of narration is clearly supposed to be incredibly deep. Yet the philosophical aspect of 'The Tree of Life' is disappointingly simplistic.

As ever, Malick's depiction of female characters leaves a lot to be desired. In his films - with the possible exception of 'Badlands' - women are made of fine porcelain and (presumably because of the womb) are depicted as pure parts of nature to be negotiated and understood by male characters. I'm sure Malick means this as a positive - praising mothers upon a pedestal in the Catholic tradition - however it is deeply patronising and this inherent female closeness to nature and, by proximity, God prevents Chastain's character from being any more than a romantisied cipher. By contrast the father and his sons are allowed to show more emotional range and are given permission to change and grow over the course of the narrative.



'The Tree of Life' offers a simplistic and idealistic version of nature and of our place within it, where spirituality is unchallenged from its dominant Hollywood position where it stands for "depth" and "truth". In this way Malick has made a movie which supports the dominant ideology almost wholeheartedly, however ambitious it might be in scale. It's a seductive tapestry and, in a few instances, it is genuinely heartfelt, yet something is missing. The anti-war sentiment of 'The Thin Red Line' and its critique of capitalism ("the whole thing's about property") or the nihilistic, satirical edge of 'Badlands', seem like they come from a very distant place from 'The Tree of Life', which unambiguously advocates an intelligent design view of life on our planet. Religion has always formed a large part of the sub-text, and even the text, of Malick movies - but never to the same extent as this passionate hymn.

That is not to say that 'The Tree of Life' is not one of the best films of the year so far. The simple fact that it is in any way comparable to something as seminal as '2001', and that the director has constructed something so intimate yet epic, is enough to cement its place as one of the year's best films and a likely Oscar contender for next February. In terms of imagery and sound design it is almost peerless and the use of digital effects is wondrous and inspiring.

'The Tree of Life' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and released in the UK on July 8th.