The Greatest Trick

I don’t know where Simon finds the time to spend writing such long reviews, but this one won’t be quite as exhaustive as his Munich review (which I do, of course, recommend you read!). I certainly don’t have a detailed knowledge of Maori culture to go with this film, but I did enjoy it. I hope that qualifies me enough!

In the same way as the first Star Wars trilogy is not actually about Luke but about his father (a fact confirmed by the making of Episodes I, II and III), Whale Rider is not actually about Paikea, the girl of the title. For me it is more about her grandfather (whose Maori name I won’t even bother trying to write here): leader of a deadbeat tribe stuck in the middle of nowhere with nowhere to go and nothing to achieve. And why has this group become like this? Because their leader has spent his whole life avoiding leading by looking for the next leader. Ironic, but not uncommon. And it has sent everyone around him into a disappointment-fuelled stupor. Neither of his sons were good enough for his purposes, and when his grand-daughter Paikea’s twin brother dies at birth (along with the mother), he rejects her outright and coldly urges his son to try again with another woman, for the sake of the tribe’s leadership. As Paikea (played so maturely by Keisha Castle-Hughes) grows up, she and her grandfather develop a very strong but barely-expressed-in-words bond, which is sorely tested as he rallies the local boys into a tribal leadership school of which she cannot become a member due to her gender. Tradition and relationships are questioned, and the origins on which Paikea’s tribe have based their culture is brought into danger as each character explores their destiny.

The slightly disappointing thing about this movie is that we can basically work out the end from the first few lines of narration. I was concerned by that at the start, but as with most dramas, it is not the resolution that holds the interest but the journey. And each character’s journey is distinct and fascinating, which is good to know in a film which some may find hard to access, simply due to the cultural differences (Maori singing, for example, sounds distinctly atonal in my opinion, listening to it with my Western ears). Of course I can’t go into lots of detail about where the characters get to, but rest assured that there aren’t many who are not profoundly altered by the events of the film. One of my favourites is Paikea’s uncle Rawiri, who we first see as a glutton, layabout and pothead. Thankfully this is not the man we get to know as the film progresses.

Thematically, the main thing I noticed was the recurrence of absent fathers. I found it very interesting to note that in this culture where women are encouraged to stay in the home, look after that and not get involved in men’s business, there was a surprising lack of ‘business’ being done by the men. In fact, the crucial business of raising families and being fathers was being ignored and left to the women - and the leaders of the tribe wonder why there are no men ready to take the next generation forward? That sounds like an indictment of women as child-raisers and/or a propagation of the idea that single mothers can never do as good a job as two parents or a single father, which is clearly not my intention. I do believe, however, that God intended children to be raised by a mother and a father, that that is the way families work best, and that if boys are to become real men they need an example of that to follow, and the best one must be their father. Thankfully, when fathers aren’t up to the job we have an even better example to look towards: that of Father God.

I enjoyed this film a lot; there is nothing to put the Christian viewer off here in terms of content, but the final act of the movie does become highly symbolic, and you may find yourself (as Heidi did) asking what kind of a film you have ended up watching. My advice is, just go with it.

I have come to the conclusion that the notion of “objective journalism” is an oxymoron (like military solution). Therefore, I am not even going to attempt to keep politics out of a review discussing a film dealing with an issue as emotive and divisive as the Middle East, so before I address the content of Steven Spielberg’s Munich directly, I think it best if I lay my cards on the table as to where I stand on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Please bear with me, as what I have to say does have a great deal of bearing on my perspective on this difficult but brilliant film.

Let me dispel a few myths for those among you who get your information from the BBC or The Guardian. First, Israel has never belonged to the Palestinians, neither has there ever been an autonomous nation called Palestine. The whole notion that Israel stole their land is an historical fabrication. The origins of the name “Palestine” go back to 132AD when the Emperor Hadrian attacked Jerusalem. He so hated Israel that he had the name Judea wiped off the map and renamed it Palestine (after Israel’s ancient enemies the Philistines) to aggravate the Jews.

Second, the reality is the Palestinians do have a land. In 1947 when the UN created Trans-Jordan, four fifths of the land was given to the Jordanians, and one fifth was given to Israel (which once again came into existence after almost two thousand years of occupation by various other empires and nations). Ninety percent of Jordanians are Palestinian, speak the same language; they have the same religion, huge amounts of land, and are swimming in oil, so this made perfect sense. However, the Palestinians rejected this offer of a two state solution and immediately declared war on Israel. The Israelis won and later won again when they defended themselves against Palestinian aggression during the Six Day War in 1967.

Since then, the Israeli’s have been quite happy to allow Palestinian settlers in their lands, only to have their olive branches continually met with guns. The ludicrous campaign for a Palestinian state within Israel is akin to Muslim settlers in Great Britain demanding that Wales become an Islamic republic. In spite of this, Israel has given land, but to date has had no peace.

Today, there is no reason the Palestinians couldn’t live happily, wealthily and peacefully in Jordan. However, because they make such great poster-children for suffering the Jordanian and Palestinian authorities have not allowed this. Instead, they greatly persecute their own people so the West thinks they are poor refugees. Furthermore, they are highly corrupt. Let me give just three examples.

First, when Yasser Arafat died, his death was kept a secret from the world at large for several days. Why? It’s well known that millions of dollars in relief for his people that he had obtained over the years went straight into his pockets. Therefore, once he died, his close associates promptly tore his home apart looking for the money before they could announce his death.

Second, if you look at the Palestinian media, they quite literally brainwash their children into believing it is noble to become a suicide bomber, killing as many Jews and Christians as possible. I for one am seething with anger by the way this repugnant ideology keep getting reclassified as “freedom fighting” by the left-wing elite of the British press.

Thirdly, a website I frequent recently conducted a poll asking for Palestinians to say if they favoured a two state solution to the crisis. Several responded with details of alleged Israeli atrocities, but not one would actually say they recognised the right of Israel to exist. However, eventually, a very brave Palestinian Christian wrote in and said the reason no Palestinian will say Israel has a right to exist is that they fear reprisals. It is not unknown for Palestinians who convert to Christianity or acknowledge the State of Israel to be dragged into the streets and publicly disembowelled. That’s something you won’t ever hear about on the BBC or in The Guardian, but its well documented by other sections of the press and people like Canon Andrew White, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s envoy in the Middle East, whom I have spoken to on a number of occasions.

It’s this persecution of the Palestinians by their own leaders that for me is at the heart of the issue. Having been to Israel, I have seen firsthand how most Palestinians get on perfectly well with the Jews, and simply want to live their lives in peace. However, they are constantly let down by corrupt, immoral, fanatical religious and political leaders who are themselves supporters and puppets of terrorist organisations. It is they who are ultimately responsible for the mess the Palestinians are in.

It’s worth noting at this point that I do not support or agree with everything the government of Israel do either. They have made some very stupid decisions, particularly in some of their tit for tat retaliations when reacting to terrorism. However, just because they make mistakes doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to exist as a sovereign nation. That’s like saying the USA should not exist because they went to war with Iraq. Furthermore, for all their mistakes, they are not the ones deliberately targeting civilians and blowing them up. One can question the morality of whether they should carry out their targeted reprisals against known terrorists, but I for one abhor the hypocrisy of the West when they condemn such action, knowing full well they have carried out similar reprisals for the likes of 9/11 by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, there is an even greater issue here, and that is the spiritual side of the conflict. The Bible is clear that this cannot and will not be resolved by human means. We do not fight against flesh and blood, but spiritual forces, and right now the spiritual battle over the Middle East, particularly with Hamas winning the Palestinian election and Iran’s attempt to obtain nuclear weapons, has reached a new level of intensity. Christians are commanded by the Bible to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and they need to do so now with greater fervour than ever.

Having got that off my chest, I will now turn my attention to Munich (this is a film review website after all), and hopefully the context of my previous writing will become clear. Its interesting how this film has been attacked by almost every side. Right-wing Zionists say the film amounts to “appeasement” by giving the Palestinians a “moral equivalency” and showing their objectives as being the same as Israel’s; namely to have their own home. Similarly, George Jonas, the author who wrote Vengeance, the book on which the film is based, is apparently dissatisfied with the picture, claming it paints the terrorists actions as “neutral”. On the other hand, Palestinians have denounced the film as Zionist propaganda and a distortion of history, particularly as it omits a key historical event which I will make reference to later. These criticisms of it being too pro-Israeli were recently reiterated on the BBC’s Newsnight Review by their usual snobby guests (any film slated on Newsnight Review automatically goes to the top of my “must see” list).

In Hollywood, it’s been virtually ignored by audiences and awards ceremonies, and has received decidedly mixed reviews. Due to its controversial subject matter, I doubt very much it will pick up any Oscars which is a crying shame as it is a far more deserving best picture winner than, say, Brokeback Mountain. On the other hand, Steven Spielberg has nothing to prove to critics or audiences and nothing to lose by making this film; unquestionably his bravest, darkest, most despairing and provocative to date.

The opening scenes show a quick summary of the terrible events that unfolded at the 1972 Munich Olympics. After being helped into the Olympic village by other competitors, a group of Palestinian terrorists called Black September captured the Israeli athletes and held them hostage. As the police tried to negotiate their release, events eerily began to resemble the Holocaust in miniature, with teams from other nations continuing to train and ignoring what was taking place only a few feet away (for a more in depth look at these events, I highly recommend checking out Kevin MacDonald’s superb Oscar winning documentary One Day in September).

Ultimately, the German security forces bungled a rescue and all the hostages were killed. This led to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir initiating operation “Wrath of God”, revenge killings of which the precise details of which are not known as the files are still classified top secret by Mossad. However, an assassin claiming to have worked for Mossad told George Jonas his story, which formed the basis of his book Vengeance. As I mentioned earlier, it’s this story on which the film Munich is based.

Therefore, to accuse Spielberg of being historically inaccurate is unfair for two reasons. First, because Munich claims to be “inspired by real events” as opposed to “based on a true story”. Second, because as I said before, objectivity on this issue is virtually impossible and there is no way to get all sides to agree this is the correct version of history. It is to Spielberg’s great credit that he has tried to be even handed in a manner not seen in political thrillers since The Battle of Algiers, but nevertheless this is a story that first and foremost has Israel’s interests at heart, and is all the better for it.

The film’s main narrative centres around Israeli agent Avner (Eric Bana) who has to leave his family to go undercover and assassinate Palestinian targets whom it is alleged had a hand in planning Munich. Assisting him in this deadly mission are go-between Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), and four team-mates; Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), a bomb expert, Hans (Hanns Zischler), a forger, Steve (Daniel Craig), a trigger man and Carl (Ciaran Hands) who destroys the evidence afterwards. They travel under false names and passports, and discover the whereabouts of many of their targets through a shadowy Frenchman named Louis (Mathieu Amalric).

As the story unfolds, Avner eventually meets Louis “Papa” (Michael Lonsdale – the baddie from Moonraker), who has been selling information for years. He fought in the French resistance but is now disillusioned, and it becomes apparent that he could easily sell the team out.

Much of the excitement of the film comes from the suspenseful mechanics of the assassinations. Plastic bombs are planted and booby traps are baited which lead to many memorable scenes, for instance one involving a phone and a little Palestinian girl. There is even some witty gallows humour to be enjoyed amid the bloody carnage.

All the performances are outstanding, but I must single out Eric Bana for special praise. His gradual journey from patriotism to despair is one of the most emotionally devastating I have seen in some time. Once again Spielberg’s preoccupation with family disintegration is given a new and monumentally upsetting twist, and Bana pulls it off brilliantly. Elsewhere, each of Avner’s team have interesting and different character arcs as their missions begin to take their toll, and they all lend terrific support (especially Ciaran Hands).

Steven Spielberg yet again proves he is the most versatile and brilliant director in the world. Munich has the look and feel of the great thrillers of the 1970s (such as The French Connection and The Conversation) but its urgent political agenda makes the movie unique in its own right. Spielberg’s usual team are all present and correct; the muted colours of Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography brilliantly capture the action, Production Designer Rick Carter gives the film a tremendously authentic look, Michael Kahn’s editing is as skilful and pacy as ever (despite the 160 minute running time), and John Williams’ pulsing tense music compliments the drama perfectly.

In depicting eye-for-an-eye justice, Spielberg never allows you to forget the atrocities of Munich, but at the same time suggests the perpetrators should have been brought to trial instead of assassinated. Such criticism of Mossad’s Wrath of God operation is in my view entirely justified. Leaving aside the issue of whether they could prove the targets were guilty, trying to kill with bombs is an immensely tricky business as innocents frequently end up caught in the blast. Furthermore, the inevitable moral and spiritual consequences of such assassinations are distressingly depicted, particularly in one moment of personal revenge that will without a doubt go down as the harshest, coldest sequence ever seen in a Steven Spielberg film. Ultimately, this is a story about the futility of human vengeance, and the final bone-chilling shot underscores this point with a powerful visual reminder of where such actions can ultimately lead.

Yet, for all this, Munich is in no way pro-appeasement or anti-Israeli. If Spielberg had really wanted to make a case against Israel, he would have included the incident where Mossad accidentally killed an innocent waiter in Norway they had mistaken for the mastermind behind the Munich terrorism. This brought international embarrassment to the Israeli government at the time, and subsequently operation Wrath of God was shut down. However as I have already mentioned, this film is “inspired by real events”, not a “based on a true story”.

Although Munich is emphatically about people not political parties, it’s impossible not to think of characters as symbolic of their entire race. For example, one superb but highly improbable scene where Avner meets his opposite number in the PLO has been strongly criticised by right-wing Zionists as giving “moral equivalency” to the Palestinian cause, as though theirs and Israel’s quest to find a peaceful homeland are two sides of the same coin. As I pointed out earlier, Israel has never belonged to Palestinians, so at first glance such criticism appears justified. However, taken in light of the way the Palestinian people are treated by their own leaders in their refusal to re-settle in Jordan (as I expounded on earlier) this longing for a home becomes an understandable point of view. They are simply looking in the wrong place.

It’s only fair to warn you that this is an unremittingly dark, violent and bloody film, with some bad language, sex scenes and nudity. All of these elements are, in my view, completely justified. For example, towards the end, Avner making love to his wife is intercut with a flashback to the Munich massacre; an audacious, astoundingly cold yet stunningly powerful sequence designed to underscore how Anver’s actions have cost him his soul. This may prove too much for some constitutions. However, if like me you prefer films of this nature at full strength, with no compromises or easy answers but plenty of food for thought, such aesthetic concerns will not be an issue.

In final analysis, Munich is a compelling and utterly unforgettable prayer for peace that I recommend in the strongest possible terms. I urge you to find a cinema and go and see it as soon as possible, because given how misunderstood this film has been by all sides, I do not think it will be on for long. A crying shame, but I applaud Steven Spielberg for his bravery in making his best film since Schindler’s List.

Simon Dillon, January 2006.

The reason Brokeback Mountain has escaped being pigeon-holed as “gay cinema” is it deals with universal themes such as wasted lives, living a lie, and so forth. As such, the only major difference between this and an adulterous love story is that it’s about two men. The film has had widespread critical acclaim, and now looks a dead cert to win best picture at this years Oscars.

From a purely artistic standpoint, Brokeback Mountain is a very good, if somewhat overrated piece of work. It is well directed by Ang Lee (whose extremely impressive back catalogue includes The Ice Storm and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon), and contains first-rate performances from the entire cast. It is probably a tad slow and ponderous for some audiences, but is nevertheless compelling and appropriately melancholy.

In 1963, out of work cowboys Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhall) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) are paired up for the summer and sent to Brokeback Mountain. Their instant friendship gets complicated when the relationship becomes sexual. After the summer, the men reluctantly go their separate ways, eventually finding wives (Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway) and having children. But they are still haunted by what happened that summer, and periodically reconnect during visits and getaways, as the decades roll by.

Despite what some idiotic right-wing pressure groups and critics in America say, Brokeback Mountain will not turn straight people into gay people. However, the film could result in wives becoming paranoid about their husbands going on fishing trips and the like with their male friends! More seriously, this film attempts to normalise homosexuality by implicitly encouraging people to do what feels good, without regard for the eternal consequences of their actions. I do not object to the portrayal of homosexuality in cinema per se, but the message of Brokeback Mountain is not what the Bible would call noble, lovely or true.

Over the years, a politically correct saying regarding homosexuality has emerged amongst Christians, one I’ve even been guilty of using myself in the past. It goes something like this: “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” It has been so widely used, that many mistakenly believe it to be scriptural. By the way, such Christians will invariably go on to say, true to cliché, how they have loads of gay friends, and admire many gay artists, singers, etc. And again, I must include myself among them. For example, the Pet Shop Boys are one of my favourite pop groups. That doesn’t mean I condone Neil Tennant’s lifestyle, but I digress – back to the point at issue.

Although the “hate the sin, but love the sinner” saying sounds nice, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. Its unspoken subtext is “if you hate the sin, keep it to yourself, but tell the sinner you love them.” That’s comparable to standing at the side of a busy motorway and yelling to someone in the path of a speeding vehicle that you love them. Surely the logical thing to do if you really love them is to warn them to get out of the way?

A better saying would be “hate the sin, love the sinner, but warn them to stop sinning.” I am therefore using this review to break ranks with some of my more timid brethren, and to utterly and unrepentantly condemn the homosexual lifestyle. It is better to risk offence, tell the truth and have a homosexual eventually realise you were right, than to stand before God on the Day of Judgement alongside your homosexual friend and for them to ask why you never warned them this would happen. I personally believe God will hold all Christians accountable for such sins of omission.

So how should Christians go about doing that? Do we stand in protest rallies demanding films like Brokeback Mountain be banned? I don’t think so. Such misguided zealousness would only increases publicity and antagonises gay and lesbian groups (who ironically for organisations that promote tolerance are surprisingly intolerant of anyone differing with their views).

Also, homosexuals must not be shunned or marginalised by Christians, as that is genuine homophobia. It is important to recognise that it is not wrong to be tempted by homosexual feelings, as we are all tempted in one way or another. Those who feel they are born gay, or who have developed homosexual feelings require our compassion and understanding, especially as I personally believe they struggle under tremendous demonic affliction and deception. It is vital to have good friendships with them and out of that relationship warn them of the ultimate consequences of their actions.

This has been quite a severe review, but I make no apology for that. This website is entitled “Movies for Christians” and I am not one to shy away from controversy. I think it’s worth adding the obvious point that despite its cinematic merits, I do not recommend Brokeback Mountain.

Simon Dillon, January 2006.

Match Point reminded me very much of Anthony Minghella’s stunning film The Talented Mr Ripley. Although Match Point isn’t as dark or deep, there is something very Tom Ripley-esque about former tennis pro Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), who opportunistically marries Chloe Hewitt (Emily Mortimer), daughter of a wealthy businessman. He is then drawn into an affair with his brother-in-law’s femme fatale girlfriend, Nola (Scarlet Johansson). Forced into increasingly drastic measures to keep the affair secret, Chris begins to consider leaving his wife, but is reluctant as he realises how accustomed he has become to his new rich lifestyle. Events then take a dark turn when Nola threatens to expose the affair.

So is it worth seeing? There’s good news, bad news and worse news.

The good news is Match Point is a superb return to form for Woody Allen. Abandoning his beloved New York, he uses London locations to excellent effect. His direction is assured and clever (one scene contains a visual homage to The Godfather so subtle you’d have to be a real cineaste to spot it). The performances are also superb (particularly from Scarlet Johansson, as good here as she was in Lost in Translation). Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton also provide good support, and various stars of British television turn up in amusing but fairly pointless cameo roles.

The bad news is those who prefer the “earlier, funny ones” (Sleeper, Annie Hall et al), will be disappointed, as this has very few belly laughs and is more a romantic drama with film noir overtones.

The worse news is that from a Christian perspective, Match Point represents a new low for Woody Allen. When in the past he has tackled moral/spiritual issues (Hannah and her Sisters for instance), although he has come down on the wrong side of the argument, he has at least tried to grapple with big questions about life, the universe and everything. Here there is no such grappling, and from the first scene everything in life is attributed to random chance. One particular scene has a character saying how his father lost both legs but found Jesus, to which another character replies that it was a poor exchange. Such offensive moments underline the central message of Match Point; with lots of hard work and luck, you can get away with adultery and murder. Make no mistake, I am a huge admirer of Woody Allen, but cannot endorse such an immoral message.

Simon Dillon, January 2006.

“Most” (Czech for The Bridge) is a superb picture that was nominated for best short film at the 2003 Oscars. Tragically, as is often the case with short films, it seems to have vanished following its initial run at film festivals and the like.

Although at first it appears to be a simple but touching story exploring the relationship between a father and his son, the film develops into something much more profound. The father/son scenes are intercut with the journey of a troubled drug-addicted girl who ends up aboard a train headed for disaster.

On this same day, the father, who is a railway bridge operator, takes his son to work with him. A series of unfortunate circumstances leave the son trapped on the railway line as the train with the girl on approaches. The father is faced with a terrible decision: should he save his son and leave the bridge raised, or lower it and save the passengers on the crowded train?

Most is a wonderful film; superbly acted, brilliantly directed, and immensely moving. In its trim 33 minutes, it manages to pack an emotional punch that would be extraordinary for a feature film, let alone a short. With beautiful simplicity, it speaks volumes about sacrifice, redemption and on an allegorical level, of God and his love for mankind. One scene at the very end even hints at the resurrection.

Should screenwriter and director William Zabka and Bobby Garabedian ever turn their hands to feature films, I shall await the outcome with great interest. In the meantime, I strongly urge you to track down a copy of this film. It can be purchased at www.mostthemovie.com.

Simon Dillon, January 2006.

The 8 Women of the title are all murder suspects. Marcel has been discovered stabbed in his bed in his country mansion (which is, of course, inescapable due to snow), and his sister, wife, sister-in-law, mother-in-law, housekeeper, maid and 2 daughters spend the next few hours solving the murder. And of course, revealing dark secrets about themselves that create an increasingly murky picture of their motives. And breaking into altered versions of French pop songs. You know, just to while away the time.

Actually, that’s one of the problems with this movie. Too much time is whiled away. The first hour is hilarious; the cream of France’s female acting talent (Catherine Deneuve, Fanny Ardant, Emmanuelle Beart, Isabelle Huppert, Virginie Ledoyen among others) send themselves up marvellously in a deliberately creaky-plotted murder farce. Huppert in particular is astonishing to watch as the fast-talking, bitter and jealous sister Augustine, and Beart’s turn as the new maid is also good value for her questions and answers laced with double entendre in the accurately-translated sense of the phrase. But then, sadly, the humour turns to, well, sex. That is, there is only a little sexual activity on screen (and nothing overly explicit), but each character’s secrets revolve around sex in some way (which I consider to be a poor view of women, if that is the only type of secret you can assign to them), and many less pleasant than you might want to hear about. You then begin to realise that there’s still one major 20 minute scene still to come (you know, the one where everything about the murder is revealed) and you start to long for it. Shame really, because the movie has plenty of other qualities too.

Each woman is dressed in a particular colour, referring neatly to Cluedo; one daughter in chic pink, Marcel’s sister in slutty red, the hired help in black and white of course etc. It’s a fun little element of a fairly throwaway film, but it helps you know who is who too! The songs are a most unexpected addition when they first appear, and most of them are fun as well, but with a ‘faintly pointless’ warning attached (except for the first one; that’s superb). Oh, and it’s quite clear that Deneuve is the only one who can actually carry a tune! And I know I mentioned it earlier, but it’s unbelievable that director Francois Ozon managed to get all these actresses on the same set at the same time for enough time to shoot the film! I’m sure there will be some readers who haven’t heard of a single one of them, but in the French film world this cast was a major coup. It’s just a shame that these women weren’t given a comedy / mystery / musical of higher calibre to star in.

I should write a lot more about this but I’m not going to, partly because it’s late and partly because I’ve got things to do that should be regarded as more worth my time. Finding Neverland is the mostly true story of the inspiration for J M Barrie’s Peter Pan. Barrie (Johnny Depp, always superb), a struggling playwright working in turn-of-the-century London, trapped in a loveless marriage with a woman more obsessed with furthering her social standing than having anything to do with her husband, meets a family of four boys and their widowed mother, played by Kate Winslet. The Llewellyn-Davies family, with its energy and child-focussed nature, inspires Barrie to write his next play, and he engages them in friendship at considerable personal cost. He takes the boys on trips through their imagination to the Wild West and pirate ships, and encourages them to explore their creative sides, even though the loss of their father is forcing some of them to grow up and become disenchanted with life too soon. As he observes them, plays with them, laughs and cries with them and particularly with Peter, played by Freddie Highmore, he writes his masterpiece.

A more personal movie about a celebrity is hard to find. This is exactly what Barrie was in his society, but he as portrayed by Depp is totally out of his depth in that kind of environment, and totally at home playing make-believe with 4 boisterous boys. We often see the movie shift into full-blown imaginary environments which are lovely to behold; director Marc Forster does a wonderful job with these sequences, and also with giving us a very child-like viewpoint in many scenes, literally. For example: you see the boys looking upstairs to check how their mum is when taken ill, and all that can be seen is the 2 pairs of shoes of the people talking on the landing. The movie speaks to adults and kids alike, having such a young-hearted central character and an actually young supporting cast, and gives a wonderful picture of what family can be.

There is much more to be said than I’m going to here, but just a word about the ending, which was a slight disappointment (so please don’t read the rest if you haven’t seen the film). Barrie’s fixation with not growing up (a la Peter Pan himself) is odd and worrying to some of the people around him, but he says lots of good things to the boys about the need for them to reach the point where they become men rather than boys. However, when he tells Peter at the end that he’ll always be able to see his mum even though she’s no longer there, through his imagination, it feels like a lie told to aid his grieving, which is what Peter was so upset about earlier in the film. Not only that, but it reinforces the notion of not letting go and growing up past that point, but of holding onto the past - and when that past involves a dead loved one, we all know how unhealthy that can be. As well as this, it goes against my beliefs about life & death, which was a shame as the rest of the film had been great.

My next three reviews are all going to be fairly short, because we’ve watched 4 films in the past week and are a bit behind (one was The Aviator, so please check our comments on Simon’s review of that). Tremors doesn’t really deserve a long review anyway, as it’s plot is so simple (3 giant underground worms terrorise a town of 14 people in Desertville, US) and it’s value so basic. I suppose they were trying to make something like ‘Jaws on Land’, but they ended up with a (very well-loved) B-movie. The script is bog-standard but funny in places, the acting mediocre (but enlivened by an OK Kevin Bacon early in his career and country singer Reba McIntyre as a gun-toting paranoiac wife convinced she & her husband will be fine should the nuclear holocaust occur), the special effects far from special in most places (e.g. things being pulled to the left or right to indicate the presence of the ‘graboids’ underground) and the creatures not particularly scary (certainly not as scary as what you see on the DVD cover!). And yet, it has a sense of humour about itself that makes it very endearing. I am convinced that the film-makers never intended this picture to be high art, and instead set out to have some fun and see what they could come up with along the way. And they came up with a fun and silly picture where most of the characters spend most of their time on roofs or rocks. They are not unpleasant to watch, but none of them really have characters to speak of. Why this film holds a certain position in the hearts of many film-lovers is unclear really, but if you want an easy night in with a comedy monster movie (with the proviso that there is a LOT of swearing and blasphemy in it) you could do worse.

Someone once asked if I could name my favourite film of all time. I found this next to impossible as it depends what mood I’m in. The same person then asked if I could name 10 films and I was still stumped. I had to be begged to stop once I’d reached about 100.

Anyway, I decided to put this list together one day when I was bored. It’s purely personal, so you’re bound to disagree with some or even much of it. Hopefully it’ll provoke lots of comments.

Several key directors, such as De-Mille, Griffith, Renoir, Gilliam and others have not had a look in simply because competition is far too strong. In the specific case of Ingmar Bergman, I admire rather than enjoy his films, so no Seventh Seal here.

I also deliberately decided not to include any films younger than 10 years old, to ensure the selection has stood the test of time. Otherwise the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Iron Giant, The Sixth Sense and The Truman Show would definitely be on the list.

Each and every one of the following comes with the ultimate Simon Dillon recommendation: “stupidly good”. However, please note I have added a little asterisk next to any with major potential to offend (sex, violence, bad language etc).

Here they are alphabetically, in no particular order of merit. Where there is more than one version or title I have specified year and/or director to differentiate.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
The African Queen
Alien*
All about Eve
All Quiet on the Western Front
Apocalypse Now*
Back to the Future
Bad Day at Black Rock
Bambi
Battleship Potemkin
Bicycle Thieves
The Big Sleep (Howard Hawkes, 1946)
Black Narcissus
Blade Runner*
Bonnie and Clyde*
Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1959)
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Bringing up Baby
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Casablanca
Chinatown*
Citizen Kane
Die Hard*
Dirty Harry*
Dead Poets Society
Doctor Zhivago
Double Indemnity
Dr Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb
Duck Soup
The Empire Strikes Back
E.T. The Extra Terrestrial
A Fish called Wanda*
The General (1927)
Genevieve
The Godfather*
The Godfather Part II*
Gone with the Wind
Goodfellas*
The Grapes of Wrath
The Great Escape
Great Expectations (David Lean, 1946)
High Noon
His Girl Friday
It happened one night
It’s a wonderful Life
Jaws
The Jungle Book (Walt Disney)
Kind Hearts and Coronets
King Kong (1933)
The Lady Vanishes
The Lavender Hill Mob
Lawrence of Arabia
The Maltese Falcon
The Magic Box
Manhatten*
The Man with Two Brains*
MASH*
A Matter of Life and Death
Modern Times
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Mrs Miniver
Ninotchka
North by Northwest
One flew over the cuckoo’s nest*
Once upon a time in the West
On the Waterfront
Paths of Glory
Psycho
Raging Bull*
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Ran
Rear Window
The Remains of the Day
Return of the Jedi
Schindler’s List*
The Searchers
Shane
Singin’ in the Rain
Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (Walt Disney, 1937)
Some like it hot
The Sound of Music
Spartacus
Stagecoach
Star Wars
La Strada
Superman
Sunset Boulevard
Taxi Driver*
The Terminator*
The Third Man
The Thirty-Nine steps (Alfred Hitchcock)
To Be or Not to Be (1942)
Top Hat
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
12 Angry Men
2001: A Space Odyssey
Unforgiven*
The Untouchables
The Wild Bunch*
The Wizard of Oz
Witness*

Right, I have to write this now as it’s a week late as it is and I’ll never get around to it otherwise. The long and short of this movie is that I don’t believe your experience of Christmas is complete unless you’ve seen it at least once.

I’m sure most people have done so already, but for those who haven’t, these are the basics: George Bailey (James Stewart), noble brother, son and father who has lived his whole life in a small town helping people out despite himself, goes through a long, dark night of the soul and gets a chance to see what things would be like if he had never been born. What we see in most of the film is all back story for the benefit of the angel being sent to help him out, Clarence; by the time he actually gets to earth to help George out, we are thoroughly convinced of the need for George to be saved - he is an absolutely good man, who acts selflessly throughout his life, and though he gets to a very dark place at a certain point, we know that redemption is possible.

While looking for pictures for this review, I stumbled across this website, and an article written by Jimmy Stewart himself. I didn’t know of the actor’s personal faith, but it simply makes the film resound even more for me. The film begins with the townsfolk uniting (separately) in prayer for George Bailey because his wife has spread the word that he’s in trouble, without really knowing what the trouble is. When we watched it last week, this had both Heidi and I in tears; the thing is, the first time you see it you can’t possibly appreciate the importance of these simple, unwordy prayers. But watch it twice, three times, and you can’t begin the movie without blubbing. And the story on the site linked to above about the scene where George prays had me in tears again!

Many critics have dismissed the movie as overly sentimental (and judging by the tone of this review, you might think the same thing); frankly, if you can’t be sentimental at Christmas, when can you be? But as well as this, the film goes to a very dark place before lightening up. Watch George and Mary’s wooing of each other, and their wedding day and night, and the things they do to help those around them, and enjoy the romance of it. Then see how George behaves when he comes home on Christmas Eve and you know you’re not in saccharine territory here. The man is suicidal, for goodness’ sake. In the same way as Scrooge has to witness his own death before being redeemed, so George has to be shown the worst implications of him not existing before coming up out of his darkness.

And what does the film say? That you are important. That the things you do in life have ripple effects for more than just those close to you, so make the right choices. That people are more important than money. That God answers prayer. Believe it.